9 out of 10 Helens agree that people prefer the glass half full rather than half empty.

Wouldn't it be far more palatable if it wasn't a negative but a positive? It could be a nexus discretionary power/defense.

Nexus Surge: At a tremendous cost of nexus power you unleash a massive wave of protective energy resulting in blab bla bla. Unfortunately this process feedbacks considerable energy into the attacking nexus.

Anyway, you right in that surrendering isn't very palatable, but the solution really doesn't have to be surrender. Blowing up a bridge to seal off a city isn't surrendering it is sacrificing.

Yes, you wouldn't have a mechanism for receiving gold, but you don't have such a mechanism now and gold is not as valuable to an org as power.

You don't think that trading a whole bunch of power to the attacking org in exchange for being invulnerable for a time is going to be seen as surrender? Even with a different name on it...

In the end, though, a desperate org who doesn't take advantage of it when they're getting slaughtered is only being needlessly prideful. If they have the tools available to defend themselves, they have no right to whine.

Before taking this any further, let's ask this:

Magnagora/Glomdoring's leadership councils only, if you could give Celest/Serenwilde a large amount of power in return for not being raided for a little while right now, would you do it?

It would depend on how badly we were screwed, tbh. If there was absolutely no restraint, just over and over hammering every time there was a chance... there really wouldn't be any other choice on an OOC level. Since we have to consider that the people we're governing are real people, too, and are the ones who are bearing the brunt of the work / deaths most of the time...

On the IC side, no. Never. But if things get bad enough, that kind of has to take a backseat.

The more I consider this idea, though, the more I see it as encouragement to attack all-out as long as you can. "You guys have the ability to stop us any time you want just by giving us power! It's your choice, so we need no restraint."

I agree. That excuse is already used in certain situations "If you only did this, it wouldn't be as bad".

This is probably true.

How about instead of tithing an amount of power to the org that is beating down on you, you could use a large amount of power and protect yourself for a decent amount of time IG?

Like, say, 100k power to protect Avatars/Supernals/Demon Lords for a year? And would only be able to be activated after they fall, to prevent constant immunity.

Think about the average power flow per day, then multiply that by twelve. It comes to three outcomes:

a.They break even, so they could do it.

b. They do not break even, and instead go in to a 'debt' - so they likely do not do it.

c. They do not break even, but instead can gain more power - so they do it constantly.

This is not considering spikes in power gains or drops in power gains. To be quite honest, that solution favours Serenwilde or Celest too much to the point where they could do it constantly due to their consistant control of the Domoths and their flow of power. I honestly think that solutions like that can't ever be perfectly or nearly balanced due to some population balance in terms of fighters, etc.

It costs less power to raise them after they are killed and they are immune for a few days after that anyways. Why would we blow 100k power?

I imagine a raid and then someone surging to make the supermobs invulnerable just to frustrate the attackers.

I'm sorry for not knowing the exact amounts, I'm still rather new to this whole thing, and I'm just throwing ideas out.

So my numbers aren't right, but I think my idea has merit. Instead of tithing power to the org beating down on you, which just encourages the org to beat down on you, use the power to raise a temporary shield to protect org loyals for a limited amount of time. The power being proportionate to the length of time the loyals are immune for. If a year isn't long enough, then maybe two years or so.
Just trying to be helpful.

Don't worry, Gregori's an old old old bitter man. He's inherently like that.

I think cause and effect in a world of magic and bytes can be pretty much anything programmers want. Everyone is just focused on it being an act of surrender because that is the way it was presented.

The point isn't to make some get out of jail free card, but to give people an option that tactically is better in some situations. If added it actually should be more of a penalty then just buckling down and doing the normal quests.

You could for instance have a discretionary power that channels power from the megalith into the Star to free a demon lord (assuming such a thing would be allowed). The math is that yes one org loses some power and the other org gains some power, which is exactly what happens if you do nothing.

It really isn't limited to just a different name. When the demon lords fall and are turned in they generate power. That isn't surrender, that's just the nature of that particular mechanic. Many power transfer skills lose power in the process. We all agree Estarra is correct, but that doesn't mean you can't wind up with the same result though a non-surrender process.


Orgs burn power for all manner of things. I think people are just looking at it wrong that it has to be a political capitulation, it could simply be just one more type of sacrifice.

You're phrasing the question in a very leading way. Why isn't the question more like, "In the worst of situations would you absolutely not do something to help yourselves simply because another org might also benefit?"

Well depending what exactly they want to prevent that may or may not be possible. For instance you could make it so it goes into effect on the next month, could only be used if recently fallen, etc.

Leading or not, it serves its purpose quite well. The question is like it is because I want to know if, given all the complaining about the hits Magnagora's been taking from Celest, if they still wouldn't give Celest a bunch of power to stop it, then what they would do in the "worst of situations" isn't really relevant. The argument is that RIGHT NOW is too much, and as such anything that they wouldn't actually use to alleviate the current situation misses the mark.

EDIT: original sentence kind of lost track of where it was going, but you get the point