I'm semi having trouble taking the name seriously. But seems interesting!

Saran:

I'm trying to work out why six orgs = a seven day cycle...

Nothing happens on day 5, evidently.

diamondais:

I'm semi having trouble taking the name seriously. But seems interesting!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

It's as legit as say, Kundalini or Chakras.

Yeah, I know it's a legit concept. It's also used in popular culture.

Saran:

I'm trying to work out why six orgs = a seven day cycle...

Er.. so that your org isn't always on a certain day. It would suck to have the 'friday night' slot forever while your enemy org has 'tuesday night'.

An interesting concept, especially if limited to the elemental/ethereal planes to prevent meld camping. I echo the concerns with making each initiative take too long, but since it was mentioned that there would be enough entities to make claiming several centres possible, then the grind for the buffs shouldn't (theoretically) be too bad.

Will these centres pop up in the same places on the planes, or will they continuously move each initiative? No discretionaries will encourage raiders to fight, while the ethereal/elemental limitations will keep meld-keeping a sole benefit for the defenders, so that's an interesting exchange.

Not sure if this is something that would be 'reasonable', but I think it would be interesting to see a third-party combat area, off-prime, without shrines, where high-level players fought over something that would only benefit lower-level players (or that had diminishing returns as players got stronger?). Someplace with true 'neutrality' (since both forests claim Faethorn; there's nothing to win there; shrines are often raised there; and Faethorn enemies), but with a bonus for the 'winning' team.

This would avoid the complaints about:
A) Enemy Territory raiding (Since it would be neutral)
B: Lack of PvP due to 'hard to raid'/Defense bonuses (which are essential when it comes to keeping a losing org afloat)
C) Conflict mechanics all being tied to a 'winner keeps winning' cycle

Could stick with the same bonuses as before, but scale 'em down based on level? Could make it so an org could only hold one or two at a time, too (Winning a new one means you lose the old one), to prevent One-Team-Winning. Could even be an aetherbubble with permanent aetherBeacons (TELEPORT BEACON) for each org, in a peaced room so they can form up?

If the bonuses scaled at something like (15% - (level/10)%), then they wouldn't be super-overpowered for the highest-tier fighters (who would, presumably, be the folks actually fighting over the benefits), but would be noticable for many of the younger players in their organization.

(Level 1 players get 15% XP bonus, level 50 players get a 10% XP bonus, level 100s get 5%, for example.)

Yes please.

I think this is an interesting idea, however, how will this stop regular raids which I thought was the focus? Will enemies not be able to raid outside a weakening?

AFICT, the idea seems to be that by giving people something to do during raids, they'll A] focus on the org of the day rather than hitting whoever has the least defenders at the moment and B] have something to do during the raid that is satisfying enough that once they've done it they'll feel like accomplished something worthwhile and then go home happy instead of lingering around being annoying until they get bored.

Sojiro:

How is it completely inaccessible when other orgs can raid too?

And how are villages, flares and domoths considered inaccessible most of the time to half of the game? Don't try to act like you don't know what will happen if something like this gets made.

Eh. Good point. They will only have a goal (and one that revolves around lingering forever, it seems) one day of the week. The rest of the time has all of the usual problems.

It's a goal 3/7ths of the time. On two of the remaining days, they'll be busy raiding some non-Serenwilde enemy org for dharma.

Centres in Faethorn as well. That would be awesome. ++++

Enyalida:


Er.. so that your org isn't always on a certain day. It would suck to have the 'friday night' slot forever while your enemy org has 'tuesday night'.

Er.. but by skipping a day you have seven days... like the number of days in a week. So you would skip say friday and then every org would always fall on the same day. Where having a shorter or longer cycle results in shifting.

So make the skip-day random, perhaps a chance to have multiple skip-days in one cycle, problem solved?

eritheyl:

So make the skip-day random, perhaps a chance to have multiple skip-days in one cycle, problem solved?

Or just have zero skipped days, or two skipped days per cycle. Any number except one works fine. I personally suggest two skipped days, so there's room to slot in Ackleberry/Jojobo when and if those get released.

I like this idea!

Greleag:

Or just have zero skipped days, or two skipped days per cycle. Any number except one works fine. I personally suggest two skipped days, so there's room to slot in Ackleberry/Jojobo when and if those get released.

This. Though monthly should mean that it will cycle slowly. (With a 1 hour shift of month starting time with serenwilde starting on a sunday, the skipped day is still thursday after two months, might be working out wrong though)

Personally, I would rather the Dharma Initiatives be something that the raiding org launches on another org. Either completely reversing the scenario presented, or running two sides at the same time with a cool down and restriction designed to force the raiders to think about when they will get the most out of their raid.
Cyclical stuff that is divorced from something ic is just another thing that could be a part of the world that is separated from it. There also seems a likelihood of burn out if this is going to literally be a daily occurrence and there will be times that it launches when there are five people around. It feels like it is going to be like really long village revolts every day.

Initiating it, increasing the reward if there is an actual competition = good in my mind.