Seems more like the new divinus, except the explanation, "This is the landscape of the game; these things can't be changed" doesn't hold up.
I think it's more the new Acknor quest.
As before, I don't really see a problem with quests being available to temporarily alter the nature of a village under your control to match RP circumstances. It's already been stated we'd consider doing them in other situations, and often times being able to have some perceived 'effect' on things is some of what players love most about Lusternia (conflict quests, more open-ended events, etc).
It's not something I'm going to get into though, beyond that. You're welcome to make a forum thread, if you think players having temporary effects on their environs is a Bad Thing. Doesn't belong in Tweets, though.
Well, I've got not problem with conflict quests. It's nice to hear it confirmed that it is one; no one was able to tell me yes or no. I'm just very surprised to see such a stalwart feature be altered. Free influence in Angkrag has been a long-term request from Celest and Seren and the absolute hardline has been 'No. This is just how it is. There are going to be things you can't have. That's how we roll in Lusternia.' To see that it's been altered in such a way as to favor (at least off the bat, long-term to be seen) Celest, is disconcerting. I am sure this confusion can be understood.
I understand if I'm late to the party, can someone point me to the thread where this has already been hashed out?
Well, I've got not problem with conflict quests. It's nice to hear it confirmed that it is one; no one was able to tell me yes or no. I'm just very surprised to see such a stalwart feature be altered. Free influence in Angkrag has been a long-term request from Celest and Seren and the absolute hardline has been 'No. This is just how it is. There are going to be things you can't have. That's how we roll in Lusternia.' To see that it's been altered in such a way as to favor (at least off the bat, long-term to be seen) Celest, is disconcerting. I am sure this confusion can be understood.
I understand if I'm late to the party, can someone point me to the thread where this has already been hashed out?
I'm not sure if there's a thread it's been hashed out in. I know players have been told A) the undead return when the village revolts and the quest is doable by anyone who owns the village.
So influencing the village will always be a difficult affair for those outside of Glom and Mag, however if they succeed this route will be open to them. I think it's neat myself, and like seeing those kinds of landscape-altering (albeit temporarily) quests open for players to engage in. I know Celest is thrilled to feel like a given stance (crusading against the undead) that they've had for a long time is something they have open to them, versus being locked out and snubbed based solely on RP.
Though of course, like Acknor, it comes with some downsides, like reduced commodity production capabilities, etc.
the absolute hardline has been 'No. This is just how it is. There are going to be things you can't have. That's how we roll in Lusternia.
Oh we LONG ago abandoned this line of reasoning. Virtually everything is available to everyone now in some way or another.
Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"
Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.
Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
Well, I've got not problem with conflict quests. It's nice to hear it confirmed that it is one; no one was able to tell me yes or no. I'm just very surprised to see such a stalwart feature be altered. Free influence in Angkrag has been a long-term request from Celest and Seren and the absolute hardline has been 'No. This is just how it is. There are going to be things you can't have. That's how we roll in Lusternia.' To see that it's been altered in such a way as to favor (at least off the bat, long-term to be seen) Celest, is disconcerting. I am sure this confusion can be understood.
I understand if I'm late to the party, can someone point me to the thread where this has already been hashed out?
It was never "hashed out." There was just an argument over the facebook group about it. Several issues, really. My main one was that Celest won the village by killing all the villagers they couldn't influence (aka most of them) over and over and over, and where that was once frowned on by the admin (Magnagora losing Stewartsville for killing the baby villager over and over), it was suddenly magically admin hand waved away, and *POOF* a sparkly new quest to solve all of Celest's moral conundrums appeared, which also conveniently swept the whole issue of village murder under the rug.
Basically, if you are Mag and kill villagers, you are screwed. If you are Celest and kill villagers, the admin will just create a quest to remove said villagers. OOOOH MAGIC.
*edit* The unofficial admin response was villagers only care if you kill them AFTER a revolt, but not before. So rape, pillage, and plunder only in the few minutes before you win the village. If you do it afterwards, the selective amnesia is going to bite you in the ass. Which, not coincidentally, sounded more like a really bad line of excuses to give Celest a sparkly not undead village, rather than a sound line of logic.
Question. If say, Glom or Mag hold Angkrag, are Celest theoretically able to do the quest and get rid of the undead? Leaving them only to return when the village revolts? (and this quest that can't be undone resets)
Wait what? I thought Celest got the village from overwhelming force. Being able to kill villagers freely suddenly makes getting both villages during revolts a whole lot easier. Just send of someone to kill off the opposite village before they shuffle. Not to mention you now suddenly only need one watcher keeping tabs on when the corpses in his inventory decay. You really shouldn't be able to get a village where you murder most all the villagers.
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
3
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Well, I've got not problem with conflict quests. It's nice to hear it confirmed that it is one; no one was able to tell me yes or no. I'm just very surprised to see such a stalwart feature be altered. Free influence in Angkrag has been a long-term request from Celest and Seren and the absolute hardline has been 'No. This is just how it is. There are going to be things you can't have. That's how we roll in Lusternia.' To see that it's been altered in such a way as to favor (at least off the bat, long-term to be seen) Celest, is disconcerting. I am sure this confusion can be understood.
I understand if I'm late to the party, can someone point me to the thread where this has already been hashed out?
It was never "hashed out." There was just an argument over the facebook group about it. Several issues, really. My main one was that Celest won the village by killing all the villagers they couldn't influence (aka most of them) over and over and over, and where that was once frowned on by the admin (Magnagora losing Stewartsville for killing the baby villager over and over), it was suddenly magically admin hand waved away, and *POOF* a sparkly new quest to solve all of Celest's moral conundrums appeared, which also conveniently swept the whole issue of village murder under the rug.
Basically, if you are Mag and kill villagers, you are screwed. If you are Celest and kill villagers, the admin will just create a quest to remove said villagers. OOOOH MAGIC.
*edit* The unofficial admin response was villagers only care if you kill them AFTER a revolt, but not before. So rape, pillage, and plunder only in the few minutes before you win the village. If you do it afterwards, the selective amnesia is going to bite you in the ass. Which, not coincidentally, sounded more like a really bad line of excuses to give Celest a sparkly not undead village, rather than a sound line of logic.
Sorry, what? I think there's a pretty distinct difference between 'Hey, mom, look, here's your baby. Instead of defending it against the gloms coming to take and sacrifice it, we're just going to keep killing it when it respawns' and 'FOR THE LYYYYT' murdering of undead. One of these is justifiable in an RP sense, in a big way. One of these can be justified but the villagers are very unlikely to tolerate.
You can boil it down to basic if/then statements if you want, but I really put zero value in broad, white-washed statements to prove some perceived point.
No, Lavinya, only the city leaders of the possessing org can perform village-type changes (Acknor/Angkrag).
We're done with the topic of Angkrag here though, so move along.
Well, I've got not problem with conflict quests. It's nice to hear it confirmed that it is one; no one was able to tell me yes or no. I'm just very surprised to see such a stalwart feature be altered. Free influence in Angkrag has been a long-term request from Celest and Seren and the absolute hardline has been 'No. This is just how it is. There are going to be things you can't have. That's how we roll in Lusternia.' To see that it's been altered in such a way as to favor (at least off the bat, long-term to be seen) Celest, is disconcerting. I am sure this confusion can be understood.
I understand if I'm late to the party, can someone point me to the thread where this has already been hashed out?
It was never "hashed out." There was just an argument over the facebook group about it. Several issues, really. My main one was that Celest won the village by killing all the villagers they couldn't influence (aka most of them) over and over and over, and where that was once frowned on by the admin (Magnagora losing Stewartsville for killing the baby villager over and over), it was suddenly magically admin hand waved away, and *POOF* a sparkly new quest to solve all of Celest's moral conundrums appeared, which also conveniently swept the whole issue of village murder under the rug.
Basically, if you are Mag and kill villagers, you are screwed. If you are Celest and kill villagers, the admin will just create a quest to remove said villagers. OOOOH MAGIC.
*edit* The unofficial admin response was villagers only care if you kill them AFTER a revolt, but not before. So rape, pillage, and plunder only in the few minutes before you win the village. If you do it afterwards, the selective amnesia is going to bite you in the ass. Which, not coincidentally, sounded more like a really bad line of excuses to give Celest a sparkly not undead village, rather than a sound line of logic.
Sorry, what? I think there's a pretty distinct difference between 'Hey, mom, look, here's your baby. Instead of defending it against the gloms coming to take and sacrifice it, we're just going to keep killing it when it respawns' and 'FOR THE LYYYYT' murdering of undead. One of these is justifiable in an RP sense, in a big way. One of these can be justified but the villagers are very unlikely to tolerate.
You can boil it down to basic if/then statements if you want, but I really put zero value in broad, white-washed statements to prove some perceived point.
No, Lavinya, only the city leaders of the possessing org can perform village-type changes (Acknor/Angkrag).
We're done with the topic of Angkrag here though, so move along.
It really was never about how justifiable it was. I have no idea why you want to hammer that Celest was justified. Sure, I'll agree with you. Celest murdering undead is justified for Celest. The point was that, no matter how justified the org thinks they are, the basic, undeniable, central point remains (or should remain) the same. Villagers probably shouldn't like being killed. A rule that applied to seren/mag/whoever was killing the baby (they probably felt justified, just as an aside), but did not apply to Celest.
I don't know about you, I really don't care why someone wants to kill me, or what they think their justification is. I am solely concerned with the fact that they are trying to kill me, and I won't be their biggest fan. Which the admin seem to understand, and can't really deny, because they just kicked out all the mobs that would have an issue.
I know you said move along, but if you are going to incorrectly accuse me of "white washing," I feel inclined to respond.
I think it really comes down to context: Stewartsville is full of happy humans who all get along with and like eachother. Killing the Wainwight baby makes the Wainwrights mad (you're killing their baby!) and makes the rest of the families there fearful (what if ours is next?) which makes the village want to revolt. Angkrag has two factions in it, the cruel viscanti overlords and the oppressed orc slaves. So while the viscanti are obviously horrified if you go on a viscanti-murdering spree, the orcs quietly resent their viscanti masters and are glad to see them go, especially when Celest promises the orcs more liberty and less beatings under the new government.
E: And you also have to keep in mind that Celest was 90% unopposed for that revolt. I think that if any org at all had been siding with the viscanti and managed to protect even a handful of them, they would have gotten the village instead of Celest. It's only the overwhelming force+orc slave uprising combo that made the switchover make any sense at all.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited January 2013
Well, sure. That's a lovely story. Not based much in reality, there was no orc slave revolt. You can create a story to justify just about anything IG. Whether that story actually exists is another argument.
But I digress, I don't expect the admin to ever admit it was a double standard between orgs, and they just made things overly easy for Celest both in mechanics and morals. So I'll just drop it at this point.
edit: The mechanical solution is actually pretty easy. Make murdering villagers during a revolt generate negative feelings. It makes sense, it's logical, and all this double standard nonsense can be easily avoided in the future! Taaa daaaaa
I just always assumed Celest can't influence Angkrag since they own Rockholm/Southgard, since if you own Angkrag you cant influence Rockholm/Southgard. From HELP VILLAGE INFLUENCE:
Enemies
-Southgard and Rockholm both refuse to be influenced by anyone who is a
a member of the city or commune that controls Angkrag.
For example, Stewartsville resists being influenced by a city that controls
Delport (and vice versa), Acknor resists being influenced by a city that
controls Estelbar (and vice versa), etc. Both dwarven villages are enemies
of Angkrag, i.e., Rockholm will refuse being influenced by a city that
controls Angkrag.
I guess it can be pointed out that it says if you own Angkrag you can't influence Rockholm/Southgard, and never anything about the reverse, but the reverse should be true as well, or at least the option to influence Rockholm/Southgard even if you own Angkrag should come into play. Why even bother with setting these parameters if its just ignored anyways and an event branded over it? Where was the option to have an event branded over a revolt for the 5 or so years Magnagora couldn't influence Rockholm/Southgard, but sure as hell would've won it in a similar way Celest did now?
2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Eventru is going to come back and give us all his angry face if we keep going.
Oh look, a topic change.....
I think, with Ascension looming and all the combat involved plus my general annoyance with dealing with the Shadow Court/Celest politics/blah blah...I shall be hanging up my crown pretty soon and switching back over to champ. I've completley enjoyed the role of Queen inside the SDs, the most fun I've had since being Fain's OH, but between the Xynthin thing, and the near Celest break up, and now the angtsy Court drama going on, it's wearing me out.
I'm actually excited to get Shuck back, especially since I got him buffed to a respectable level.
Comments
Signature!
Vive l'apostrophe!
As before, I don't really see a problem with quests being available to temporarily alter the nature of a village under your control to match RP circumstances. It's already been stated we'd consider doing them in other situations, and often times being able to have some perceived 'effect' on things is some of what players love most about Lusternia (conflict quests, more open-ended events, etc).
It's not something I'm going to get into though, beyond that. You're welcome to make a forum thread, if you think players having temporary effects on their environs is a Bad Thing. Doesn't belong in Tweets, though.
I understand if I'm late to the party, can someone point me to the thread where this has already been hashed out?
Vive l'apostrophe!
It's not a real conflict quest in that you can't undo it, it just makes owning the village more "palatable".
So influencing the village will always be a difficult affair for those outside of Glom and Mag, however if they succeed this route will be open to them. I think it's neat myself, and like seeing those kinds of landscape-altering (albeit temporarily) quests open for players to engage in. I know Celest is thrilled to feel like a given stance (crusading against the undead) that they've had for a long time is something they have open to them, versus being locked out and snubbed based solely on RP.
Though of course, like Acknor, it comes with some downsides, like reduced commodity production capabilities, etc.
Vive l'apostrophe!
You can boil it down to basic if/then statements if you want, but I really put zero value in broad, white-washed statements to prove some perceived point.
No, Lavinya, only the city leaders of the possessing org can perform village-type changes (Acknor/Angkrag).
We're done with the topic of Angkrag here though, so move along.
It really was never about how justifiable it was. I have no idea why you want to hammer that Celest was justified. Sure, I'll agree with you. Celest murdering undead is justified for Celest. The point was that, no matter how justified the org thinks they are, the basic, undeniable, central point remains (or should remain) the same. Villagers probably shouldn't like being killed. A rule that applied to seren/mag/whoever was killing the baby (they probably felt justified, just as an aside), but did not apply to Celest.
I don't know about you, I really don't care why someone wants to kill me, or what they think their justification is. I am solely concerned with the fact that they are trying to kill me, and I won't be their biggest fan. Which the admin seem to understand, and can't really deny, because they just kicked out all the mobs that would have an issue.
I know you said move along, but if you are going to incorrectly accuse me of "white washing," I feel inclined to respond.
E: And you also have to keep in mind that Celest was 90% unopposed for that revolt. I think that if any org at all had been siding with the viscanti and managed to protect even a handful of them, they would have gotten the village instead of Celest. It's only the overwhelming force+orc slave uprising combo that made the switchover make any sense at all.
Well, sure. That's a lovely story. Not based much in reality, there was no orc slave revolt. You can create a story to justify just about anything IG. Whether that story actually exists is another argument.
But I digress, I don't expect the admin to ever admit it was a double standard between orgs, and they just made things overly easy for Celest both in mechanics and morals. So I'll just drop it at this point.
edit: The mechanical solution is actually pretty easy. Make murdering villagers during a revolt generate negative feelings. It makes sense, it's logical, and all this double standard nonsense can be easily avoided in the future! Taaa daaaaa
Eventru is going to come back and give us all his angry face if we keep going.
Oh look, a topic change.....
I think, with Ascension looming and all the combat involved plus my general annoyance with dealing with the Shadow Court/Celest politics/blah blah...I shall be hanging up my crown pretty soon and switching back over to champ. I've completley enjoyed the role of Queen inside the SDs, the most fun I've had since being Fain's OH, but between the Xynthin thing, and the near Celest break up, and now the angtsy Court drama going on, it's wearing me out.
I'm actually excited to get Shuck back, especially since I got him buffed to a respectable level.