Estarra:

I think this is where we are having communication problems and talking past each other. It seems one side wants to completely stop smaller scale scuffles and the other side wants to curb them. (And I suppose there's another side that wants to increase them but I don't think that's the consensus). I lean towards the side that wants to try curbing them.

I'm not really trying to stop all scuffle raids, but I think they should have a definite cooldown. All the planar resistance thing does is make sure you aren't being indecisive, which already is a fixture for elemental and cosmic planes, as once you are on them it's very hard to leave, requiring a ship and hoping that they didn't cotton on and have ships waiting in the wings to jinsunjolt you as you try to ascend off. The only place that's not already a fixture are ethereal territories.

Heck, just a 10-room-area takes months to design and implement.

And I'm still only half-done. :(

Edit: That said, I'm really excited by the half I have done!

I knew I shouldn't've posted a demonstrative but imperfect example. I'd been avoiding that kind of participation this whole time for that very reason. Everything that's followed has focused on some detail of the example (like the using smobs part, or the closed-door part), and not the purpose of posting it. Can we just consider it withdrawn and go back to where we were before I gave it a try?

My concern is if the "outlet" for "curbing" raids ends up just increasing them due to the desired goals. There's a reason many domoths are uncontested, making a domoth-like system in people's home territories might be fun for some, it would be hell for others.

I'm not really sure where the balance is in how often this should happen. And if there's a way to claim all the dharma at minimal cost while denying your opponent the chance to claim any, what was the point of adding the system to begin with? The side that doesn't think they can fight back will just use it, and the other side will be denied the fight they wanted.


Edit: I do like the idea of needing to quest/do something before raiding and a cooldown on how frequently it can be done. I like it moreso than the hour limit after leaving an enemy plane. You can leave and come back, but you had better get all of your raiding out of your system before the "able to raid" timer expires.

Double Edit: The real question is, how often should raids be possible, especially if there's an incentive to do the raiding, and balance assuming that's the frequency where raids happen.

Lendren:

I knew I shouldn't've posted a demonstrative but imperfect example. I'd been avoiding that kind of participation this whole time for that very reason. Everything that's followed has focused on some detail of the example (like the using smobs part, or the closed-door part), and not the purpose of posting it. Can we just consider it withdrawn and go back to where we were before I gave it a try?

I tried to respond to your general big picture question rather than specifics! Ideas are always welcome!

Xenthos:

Heck, just a 10-room-area takes months to design and implement.

And I'm still only half-done. :(

Edit: That said, I'm really excited by the half I have done!

If it makes you feel better, I've been waiting since November for my 8 room area. Excited to see how it comes out though!

Turnus:

I'm not really sure where the balance is in how often this should happen. And if there's a way to claim all the dharma at minimal cost while denying your opponent the chance to claim any, what was the point of adding the system to begin with? The side that doesn't think they can fight back will just use it, and the other side will be denied the fight they wanted.


Edit: I do like the idea of needing to quest/do something before raiding and a cooldown on how frequently it can be done. I like it moreso than the hour limit after leaving an enemy plane. You can leave and come back, but you had better get all of your raiding out of your system before the "able to raid" timer expires.

If an org doesn't feel it can compete, then they can opt-out and claim their minimum without having to get beat on. That's the whole point, not having to participate rather than being drug into a conflict you don't want. I thought that would be the appeal.

I don't mind the idea of a trigger for the Dharma Initiative, just that I'm not sure how it would work fairly without giving one side a huge advantage.

Estarra:


If an org doesn't feel it can compete, then they can opt-out and claim their minimum without having to get beat on. That's the whole point, not having to participate rather than being drug into a conflict you don't want. I thought that would be the appeal.

I don't mind the idea of a trigger for the Dharma Initiative, just that I'm not sure how it would work fairly without giving one side a huge advantage.

Oh sorry, I might not have been clear. I was getting at that if one side doesn't feel they can compete they'll use it. And the result is effectively denying meaningful raids which the system is trying to encourage.


I'm not entirely against the idea or trying to be negative. Just think there will be a good deal of tweaking needed to get it just right and I'm not entirely sure if it'll have the desired result.

And yes, I'm an obsessive post editor to get the wording just right after I put it up :D

Turnus:

Oh sorry, I might not have been clear. I was getting at that if one side doesn't feel they can compete they'll use it. And the result is effectively denying meaningful raids which the system is trying to encourage.

I'm not sure that's a big negative. I think many orgs will want to compete regardless, if not for RP, then just for bragging rights or to test themselves. So, yes, some may choose not to participate and thus they're denied potential dharma even as the other orgs are denied a way to hurt them. Thus, they can't be drawn into a conflict they don't want--yet, I think there is enough encouragement to participate for the dharma, the experience, the morale boost, etc. that I wonder if that would be as common as you may fear.

Estarra:


I'm not sure that's a big negative. I think many orgs will want to compete regardless, if not for RP, then just for bragging rights or to test themselves. So, yes, some may choose not to participate and thus they're denied potential dharma even as the other orgs are denied a way to hurt them. Thus, they can't be drawn into a conflict they don't want--yet, I think there is enough encouragement to participate for the dharma, the experience, the morale boost, etc. that I wonder if that would be as common as you may fear.

Choosing to opt out should cede some dharma resources to the opposing forces as well, so there's actually some incentive to try for it even if outnumbered (and it's not complete denial of the resource when you do).

Estarra:

I'm trying to wrap my head around whether it would be possible to have the Dharma Initiative be triggered by some sort of method decided by players. I'm having trouble coming up with a way where one side wouldn't have a tremendous advantage. Maybe the org can decide when they want an initiative which would trigger randomly some time in the next 24 hours OR an opposing org could somehow trigger another org's initiative (again, which would trigger randomly in the next 24 hours).

I've slipped with my reading but I would like to comment.

What if the planes each have dharma pool of x each year. Where x is a constant.
An attacker can attempt to launch an Initiative attack on a plane. Orgs can also attempt to do so on their own plane.
More dharma is drawn from the pool if the defenders are fighting back and if raiders are attacking. (when the balance tips too far in favour of one, the event ends and bonus dharma is awarded)
Least dharma is gained by launching your own, then raiding with no defenders, then highest for winning in a contested battle.
Separate cooldowns for plane and org.

:shrug:

Xenthos:

Choosing to opt out should cede some dharma resources to the opposing forces as well, so there's actually some incentive to try for it even if outnumbered (and it's not complete denial of the resource when you do).

That's not an incentive to try for it, that's a punishment for not trying for it.

Lehki:

That's not an incentive to try for it, that's a punishment for not trying for it.

I think we can look at the opt-out option for Godwars to see that it doesn't work.

Turnus:


Oh sorry, I might not have been clear. I was getting at that if one side doesn't feel they can compete they'll use it. And the result is effectively denying meaningful raids which the system is trying to encourage.

yes and no. It will deny meaningful raids against weaker opponents, and leave meaningful raids against strong opponents. Isn't this exactly what we're trying to create: A system where it is less useful to attack those who don't fight back and more useful to attack those who will?

I think we can look at the opt-out option for Godwars to see that it doesn't work.

I can only imagine how hard people would be bitching if Godwars were implemented with opting not to accept an orderwar declaration resulted in an essence drain, even if it was a minuscule one, as an "incentive" for them to actually accept the challenge.

Lehki:

I can only imagine how hard people would be bitching if Godwars were implemented with opting not to accept an orderwar declaration resulted in an essence drain, even if it was a minuscule one, as an "incentive" for them to actually accept the challenge.

Because essence is really so hard to get. Have you seen Mysrai lately? Or Shikari, for that matter. Maybe even Zvoltz.

That's completely missing my point, but I don't feel like spelling it out.

I don't think the extra 'incentive' of losing resources to the enemy for choosing to opt out is a good idea, that is all.

So an org can just opt out indefinitely until it gets favorable circumstances?

They would do that with or without the extra 'incentive'. All it would really do is upset people.

Just something that came across my mind and thought could be a fix to the actual problem. How about have planar mobs such as Ladies, daughters, angels etc. become very, very strong when they first (re)spawn and gradually go down in strength as time goes on. Not sure how viable this would be to code, but this would curb the constant, pointless raiding (particularly of the kick and run type, because ideally they're going to be too strong for one or two people to take down if they only just spawned), but still allow raids to happen.

Re: any conflict mechanic you can opt out of whenever you want is going to fail. Just look at God Wars.