Verithrax2006-06-16 04:18:39
Debating is glorified rock-paper-scissors. It needs to be ripped out of the game with extreme prejudice and replaced by something that makes sense and is interesting. Oh, and whomever came up with debating needs a smacking with the clue-by-four.
Ixion2006-06-16 04:22:23
Unknown2006-06-16 04:24:44
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Jun 15 2006, 09:18 PM) 298702
Debating is glorified rock-paper-scissors. It needs to be ripped out of the game with extreme prejudice and replaced by something that makes sense and is interesting. Oh, and whomever came up with debating needs a smacking with the clue-by-four.
That would be Rhysus.
Hazar2006-06-16 12:07:53
QUOTE(Athana @ Jun 15 2006, 10:37 PM) 298697
I actually like debating and influencing as it is now but only if it doesn't drag on for hours and hours because I lose attention very quickly
Seconded.
You can go sew your kilts and togas in a corner when we debate, Verithrax. Rock-paper-scissors is FUN.
Unknown2006-06-16 12:34:19
Since when is weighted rock-scissors-paper fun?
Hazar2006-06-16 15:53:41
Huh?
Archthron2006-06-16 23:45:27
Perhaps if the villagers found a way to better control the pacifying power of Eroee or whichever it is such that it only protected the villagers and let everyone else fight it out? I like that idea, personally.
Really, debating in peaced villages is silly. You can go and debate random people who are standing around, which has little effect on the outcome and will eventually result in you being shattered, or you can try to catch someone who actually matters when they're not already being debated and hope to do real damage, which is unlikely because most people who can use org influence skills either have impressive debating skills, huge charisma, or a horde of chanters to make sure they're always covered. Point being that, aside even from the random, unfair, somewhat dull nature of debating itself, most of the time individuals using it have little effect on villages anyway, and the village is won more by how many people are able to quickly influence denizens, with little means to stop them. That's my experience, at least.
Really, debating in peaced villages is silly. You can go and debate random people who are standing around, which has little effect on the outcome and will eventually result in you being shattered, or you can try to catch someone who actually matters when they're not already being debated and hope to do real damage, which is unlikely because most people who can use org influence skills either have impressive debating skills, huge charisma, or a horde of chanters to make sure they're always covered. Point being that, aside even from the random, unfair, somewhat dull nature of debating itself, most of the time individuals using it have little effect on villages anyway, and the village is won more by how many people are able to quickly influence denizens, with little means to stop them. That's my experience, at least.
Tsuki2006-06-16 23:56:58
QUOTE(Archthron @ Jun 16 2006, 07:45 PM) 299018
Perhaps if the villagers found a way to better control the pacifying power of Eroee or whichever it is such that it only protected the villagers and let everyone else fight it out? I like that idea, personally.
Killing villagers during an influence isn't worth anything unless it's the miners. In fact, it might even hurt you because you'll get enemied to the village and they won't listen to you trying to influence them.
QUOTE
... or you can try to catch someone who actually matters when they're not already being debated and hope to do real damage, which is unlikely because most people who can use org influence skills either have impressive debating skills, huge charisma, or a horde of chanters to make sure they're always covered.
Impressive debating skills? No. Huge charisma? Not really. Horde of chanters, definitely not. And in Estelbar, Tsuki was shattered ... three times, if I'm recalling correctly.
QUOTE
Point being that, aside even from the random, unfair, somewhat dull nature of debating itself, most of the time individuals using it have little effect on villages anyway, and the village is won more by how many people are able to quickly influence denizens, with little means to stop them. That's my experience, at least.
Aforementioned instances of getting shattered happened at bad times, just before more villagers started getting laidback again. Shatter enough of the opposition at the right time, and there's less or no active opposition to your influencing during the next round.
Of course having more people helps, for many reasons. More eyes to watch, even if they can't influence. People who can bring in supplies of food/bromides. Debaters to distract and/or shatter. And then, influencers.
Debating's randomness is what levels the playing field more, actually. Granted, Joe the Lowbie isn't going to debate out Bob the faeling demigod, but John the midbie might actually have a chance.
Unknown2006-06-16 23:57:33
QUOTE(diamondais @ Jun 15 2006, 08:25 PM) 298638
The violent ones are really fun, but I think itd be great if you couldnt kill denizens because they arent swayed to your City/Commune.
If you kill the denizen it doesn't lower the other nations score, it only makes you enemied during a time where you can't beg for amnesty.
Diamondais2006-06-17 03:04:44
QUOTE(Wesmin @ Jun 16 2006, 07:57 PM) 299021
Anyone who does that is an idiot.
If you kill the denizen it doesn't lower the other nations score, it only makes you enemied during a time where you can't beg for amnesty.
Thats to say I liked the old way and would like to go back to it, I just hate seeing idiots kill denizens when things arent going their way so that it -does- drag on for hours on end.
Vix2006-06-17 03:14:36
Plus the denizen takes longer to respawn than it does to be influencable again. (At least, it seems like it.)
