We had a lot of complaining before, that influencing takes too long. Now it's obviously too short. My solution? Do it wildnodes-like.

Influencing lasts 60/90/something minutes. Every influenced villager gives you points, like they used to before. When the time runs out, city/commune with most points gets the village.

As a side effect (advantage in my opinion), people have to choose which village they want with this system in play, or divide their numbers if they want more than 1. Forget about Serenwilde getting Shanthmark in 5 minutes and then moving on to get Paavik in 15.

So, opinions? Good? Horrible?

Makes sense to me, although it would be a kind of different IC explanation. It'd be going from "we'll let you know when you've convinced us," to "You have a day and a half before we figure out who to settle with, go!", which I'm not sure is as logical, but I like the general mechanic idea.

peronsally, I think thats an excellent idea.. sadly, I don't think it will be done.

Would be best if the current setup, affects how many points you get during that hour, but that the hour or better would be 90 minutes I think, is always constant.

Good idea; and there should be less weight with the alignments of villages. Kind of like their villagers go to a 'town hall' and vote who gets their village.

Not that the idea doesn't have merit, but I think it'd be too much ... especially if multiple villages would still go up at once. It feels like an idea along a line of progression in village influencing changes which would eventually lead to "VillageA, when it revolts, can only be influenced by CommuneA. VillageB, when it revolts, can only be influenced by CityA. VillageC, when it revolts, can only be influenced by ComuneB. VillageD, when it revolts, can only be influenced by CityB. Etc, etc."

Please note, before anyone gets the wrong idea, that I'm not saying the current effects of village feelings are perfect and shouldn't be changed, altered, toned down a bit. We have all seen how Conquest has been an exceptional aid in slanting things in favour to areas possessing greater amounts of the qualities and situations most beneficial to that style, while Religious hasn't granted as much assistance when reportedly devoted a significant amount of work (no one's tried Commercial yet, I don't think?). But I also appreciate the immersive, realistic quality that the situation over a longer period of time does have an effect on circumstances if the bearing of the situation comes into question.


If we would go with this idea, it would only be fair by eliminating multiple revolts (unless by accident, as happened now and then before the village feelings implementation) and by eliminating village feelings entirely. Remember that there was a lot of work put in to creating the village feelings and multiple revolts system. To discard that in favour of a new idea ... best be sure the new idea would be worth it.

Why would you have to get rid of multipe revolts with a time limit?

If your community is large enough it should be able to have one team go to one village and one team go to another.

The only change that needs to be made is to put a time limit, instead of a score limit, and check to see who has the highest score at the end of the time period.

How about this idea, based on what some people have said...

- Villages revolt in groups like they do currently
- Villages last a set amount of time, somewhere in the range of an hour to and hour and a half, and victory is determined by score at the end.
- Each villager is worth a given amount of points, the more important, the more points they are worth.
- The time in the revolt will be set up into rounds (an undisclosed amount of time, maybe even a random amount of time, so people can't think that after a given period of time, the village will automatically be theirs).
- The group that has the most villager points at the end of a round gets one point
- In the case of a tie (i.e. there are seven rounds, Serenwilde wins three, Magnagora wins three, Glomdoring wins one, or Serenwilde wins two, Glom wins two, Mag wins 2, and celest 1), the revolt will continue until the tie between the tied groups is broken, with the winner getting the village. (this means that in both cases, Celest cannot get the village, and the first case Glomdoring can't get the village, regardless if they win the extra rounds)
- Village feelings will still have an impact in influencing, because they will determine the amount of ego the villagers have. This means that if a commune has highest feelings of the village, there will be a percent reduction in the amount of ego the villager has, and if the village severely dislikes an organization, the amount of ego the villagers have will increase for members of that organization. An example of this would be that Serenwilde is well liked in Estlebar and Magnagora is highly disliked. Villagers Serenwilders are influencing will have a given percent (let's say 25 for now) of the ego of the villagers reduced, so if the villager had 100, they would now only have 75. Magnagora on the other hand has the exact opposite, so a villager that would normally have 100 now has 125.
- Note that I've left any mention of divert out of the thing above, I don't know exactly how it works, and I don't care to post something blatantly wrong. I'm guessing it would have some sort of impact (good or bad, I have no idea) on my idea.

And that's all of it. Please don't just say that won't work if you are going critisize it. Say something constructive, like how to fix one of it's flaws (if you see any), add on to it, or offer your own idea completly. If you have to point out a flaw that you can see no solution for, please don't phrase it in a way that sounds condescending or something like "OMG UR STOOPID !!!!1!1!" (or something like that...)

I see no reason why a group that spends 10 minutes should feel they have the village, when another group spends the full hour- hour.5 ..

a group won't win if they only spend ten minutes. THAT'S THE IDEA ABOUT ROUNDS. If you have the highest villager score when a round ends, you get a point. It's somewhat based off of the idea of blockades for puzzle pirates, except no round timer.
what happens is
1st round- group a has 10 people influenced, group b has 9. At the end of the round, group a gets a point
next round- group a has 5, group b 14 at rounds end and group b gets a point. Group a and group b both have a point
final round- group a has 15, group b 4. Group a gets a point, so group a has 2, and group b has 1
Village influence over- group a wins with a score of 2 (but there will be more rounds, hopefully)
also, people playing won't know when a round ends, and the time could be randomized so that you won't be able to think "ok, 35 minutes is up, and we've had all of the villagers the whole time so far, let's go help the other group."
This will also mean that in order to take a village, you can't just make a mad dash for all of the villagers towards the last 10-15 minutes of the revolt, if it were timed.

Although, I do like the extra points for better feelings thing (and I take it less for worse feelings...), but I didn't feel like puting that in the situation above.

I feel a simple cap on the times would solve the main problem then pretty much tone down all the villiage feelings so that they are pretty much useless because at the moment they are far far to powerful.

It is a good idea, and very clear (ignore Daganev, he's being Daganev). It simplifies things, and makes the influencing much easier to follow. Divert wouldn't have to change at all in functionality, it would work just fine with your idea as written. The only thing is, I don't see why, in the case of a tie, the orgs that didn't tie can't win.

Let's say at the end, the score is Seren: 2, Mag: 2, Celest: 2, Glom: 1. Now, the influencing would end, but there is a tie, so the influencing continues one more round. Glom wins the round. The score is now 2 for everyone. The influencing would end, but there is a tie, so the influencing continues one more round. Whomever wins this round, wins the influencing.

Or, the score is Seren: 3, Glom: 3, Celest: 1. The influencing would end, but there is a tie, so the influencing continues one more round. Mag wins the round. The score is now Seren: 3, Glom: 3, Celest: 1, Mag: 1. There is a tie, so the influencing continues one more round. Mag wins the round. The score is now Seren: 3, Glom: 3, Celest: 1, Mag: 2. There is a tie, so the influencing continues one more round... etc.

Worst case, the influencing would go for 13 rounds instead of 7, but that is so rare, the influencing would be essentially fixed to 7-8 rounds, with an absolute lower limit of 7, and upper limit of 13.

Going with this same idea, it could just be the first org to 4, since at that point, which could be just over halfway through the influencing, only the org with 4 can possibly win. So, that makes the influencing have an absolute lower limit of 4 rounds, and absolute upper limit of 13, with an average of 7-8.


Logistical issues with this change: Orgs need to dominate the village for a short time in order to win a round. Orgs that often ninja-influence, like Glomdoring, sneaking in and taking a few villagers here and there while other orgs are fighting over them, are even worse off then they already are. They can't slowly work up their influencing score over the course of the entire influence, as whomever has the most villagers at the end of the round wins the round.

I'm not sure if this is a bad thing or not, cutting the influencing into chunks, but I do overall like the idea. It makes debating better, as if someone is debated out, they are out for almost the entire round. Get people at the beginning of a round, and they are out of the picture for a while.

I'd say rounds should be 15 minutes long. So, going with the win four rounds to win the village idea, that means most influencings would last two hours, and the shortest would last one. 10 minutes works well too, since that coincides with the duration of a shattered ego from debating. The shortest would then be 40 minutes, which is still ample time, and the average would be about an hour and fifteen minutes long, which isn't bad either. I perfer four hour long influencings, personally, considering that the perfect duration, but I know many people don't agree.


Can a Glomdorian who is knowledgable about influencing, like Xenthos or Shayle, post if Mirk's idea was overly detrimental to small-org (Glomdorian) influencing tactics or not?

Ok, here is the problem you seem to be missing.

Round one takes 20 min
Round two takes 20 min
Round three takes 20 min.

There is a tie at the end of round 3(pretend thats possible).. so you go for another round. Now you have 60+mins untill the tie is resolved. This means that 60 min. is no longer a time limit, but a time suggestion. Thats how the system works now.. at the end of a round it sees if there is a clear winner, if there isn't, it keeps going. Thus you get either 10 min or 10 hour influence sessions.

Do you read people's posts before making your own?

Yes, you predicted that after 8 rounds there -must- be a winner, but what if there wasn't?

round 1, A wins
round 2, A wins
round 3 C wins
A leaves- inflences village B.
round 4 C wins
round 5 B wins
round 6 D wins
Round 7 B wins
Round 9 D wins
A won village B and comes back.
Round 10 A wins.

A won village B and now wins Village A.

And this lasted 2 1/2 hours... instead of the one hour proposed.

Thats what could happen in your set up, and what can happen now.

If your going to have a time limit, just stick to a time limit instead of making it all complicated.

10 mintute rounds * 4 rounds minimum = 40 minutes.
10 minute rounds * 13 rounds maximum = 130 minutes = 2 hours and 10 minutes.
10 minute rounds * 7 rounds average = 70 minutes = a bit over an hour.

What's wrong with the 40 minute to 2 hour range for village influencing, with the average close to one hour? How does that magically become 10 minutes to 10 hours?

You still have the main issue of Team A entering the village, then leaving for the majority of the village influencing, and comming back for the Win. Which is the situation which spawned the idea that it should be changed.

Also, why does the first group to enter the village need to win 4 times when uncontested, but any supsequent group only needs to win 2 or 3 times?

that would make it so that lets say Magnagora is the only group to go for ankgrak, they might as well not go in, wait till one person from another place tries to influence something, and then influence a few times... which makes no sense. (the reason it makes no sense, is not because the amount of time they have to stay, but that a village is harder to take when there is no competition, then when there is)

However, with a set time limit, everybody has to have the most points at the end of an hour, if there is no competition, you don't need to stay there, if there is lots of competition, your unlikey to have a group enter the village in the begining, and then leave for majority of hte time, and still win.


And orignially you said 15 mins.... in either case, if you keep shrinking the amount of the time for each round your going between 4*X and 13*x mins... thats quite a range.

I never proposed a strict 60 minute time limit. I supported an idea that proposed making influencing last a more discrete and sensible length of time. Your example is a worse case scenerio, and you can't do math. 10 rounds * 10 minutes = 100 minutes = well under two hours, not 2.5 hours. Mirk's proposal is also not at all complicated, and quite a simple and clean approach to the problem. If someone else posted in agreement with you, perhaps I'd condeed the point, but until then, I'm still convinced your troubles are rooted in your utter inability to read other people's posts.


Wait a minute, why the heck am I arguing about village influencing with Daganev? I can't stand either of them. Old habits die hard, I guess

Shorlen, Do you read your own posts? because you said 15 min, not 10 min. *boggle*

Also.....



Did you even read Mirk's post which I was commenting on?

What are you talking about?



What are you talking about? Please read the proposal again, this is nowhere in there.



Simple solution, make a threshold score. If noone reaches the threshold (meaning, noone really tried to influence the village), then noone wins the round. Angkrag would remain open until Magnagora took the time to actually influence the village, or until someone else decided to go in for it.



Umm, by 'divided into rounds' we clearly mean that the influencing scores reset when one side gets a point for the round. I think you are being confused by the fact that there are two scores, the temporary influence score, and the village score. So, if Seren has a temprorary influence score of 100, Celest has a score of 90, and Mag has a score of 110 when a round ends, Mag gets one point towards the village score, and the temporary influencing scores reset back to zero. Like, say, a game of tennis. It doesn't matter who had how many points during each match, all that matters is who won the most matches.



Well, I had said that 10 or 15 minutes would work. If you think 15 is too long, then what's wrong with 10?





Did you?

My point about one group needing to win 4 times but other only needing to win 2 or 3 times....

You said, 4 rounds MINIMUM this means:

1 team =A wins with 4 rounds minimum.
2 teams =A wins with 2 or 3 rounds minimum.
3 teams =A win with 2 rounds minimum.
4 teams =A wins with 2 rounds mimimum.

Now with point threasholds... the more of these things you add to compensate for specific situations you are A. being less simple, and B. getting closer and closer to how it currenlty works.





QUOTE(Mirk)

- In the case of a tie (i.e. there are seven rounds, Serenwilde wins three, Magnagora wins three, Glomdoring wins one, or Serenwilde wins two, Glom wins two, Mag wins 2, and celest 1), the revolt will continue until the tie between the tied groups is broken, with the winner getting the village. (this means that in both cases, Celest cannot get the village, and the first case Glomdoring can't get the village, regardless if they win the extra rounds)


What happens if neither the two tied teams win the "tie breaker" rounds? (since the players don't know who is winning, or how many rounds have gone by) That just makes the issue so much worse... I assumed it would reset once the two losing teams have more than the two winning teams. Otherwise you will have REALLY long influences when nobody wins. (hence my 10 hours remark)

I'll just restate my point because you appear to have missed it...


If you want a simple system, then just do a time limit. Otherwise, it is no longer "simple."