Tree Chopping Reports

Lerad

It took me a while to finish drafting my report during my free time - so long that another report apparently has been created before mine. Both are pasted here for discussion and suggestions from the wider playerbase other than envoys.

Report #1578

Skillset: Totems               Skill: Chopping

   Guild: Serenguard          Status: Pending

Problem: Elders have been called a "conflict mechanic" for as long as Lusternia has 

been open, and by definition this is true. However, mechanically speaking they are 

not promoting Conflict as players define it. Instead they promote a grief mentality,

 that many players view along the same lines as Fire, Space Rocks(Vines), Hit-Run 

on mobs. This is mostly due to the ease at which Elders can be cut down.

Solution #1: Have chopping of Elder Trees act as a channeled action that takes 2 

minutes to perform. To show Axelord's proficiency with axes have it take 90 seconds 

for them.

Solution #2: As well, as Solution 1 have Elders call out on CT the room location at 

the start of chopping, the mid point of the channeled action, and when the tree is 

actually felled.

Solution #3: As well as Sol 1 and Sol 2, Hinder mechanics (entangle, stun, paralyse,

 etc.) should stop the channeled action.

Player Comments:

---[Enyalida on 12/5 @ 21:28 writes]:

Solution 3. This will help to dissuade all but the most dedicated trolls of 

disruptors from chopping totems while people are logged on. It doesn't totally 

solve the issue of totems, I still fully support and urge the Furies to revisit 

report 1374 as mentioned in their original decision. The discretionary powers do 

not touch the fundamental issue inherent in the problem, but the solutions 

presented in that report and its comments will.

---[Aeldra on 12/6 @ 10:21 writes]:

I said I would support a report changing the mechanic and I stand by that. I 

however would like to see another solution that would include something that 

actively alert / record the person chopping. feel-like I'd rather have a denizen 

report trees being chopped then the tree itself. Or it could be an ambient 'You 

hear the loud sound of axes hitting wood coming from 'at the moonhart mother tree'. 

I think if forced movement like gust/beckon/rad/etc breaks the channel, Solution 2 

is enough, thus Support for Solution 1 & Solution 2.

---[Enyalida on 12/6 @ 13:54 writes]:

The issue with Solution 2 is the cement socks artifact and other ways to pump your 

summon resist. If you get caught right at the beginning of chopping that's one 

thing, but it's possible to get absurdly high summon resist and take quite a while 

to move.

---[Falmiis on 12/6 @ 19:00 writes]:

I don't think any of these solutions will really "solve" the frustrations communes 

have. All it will do is make it even more likely that people will wait for times 

with even less people around to go chopping. My preferred solution is to just 

remove chopping and power generation of elders/totems as a mechanic. A compromise 

if this is not desired would be that elders automatically get ironbark for 24 hours 

when they revert. This keeps chopping/power generation as mechanics but gives the 

communes a much larger window (that they will know the exact times for) to carve 

their totems. Duration can adjusted as needed.

---[Lerad on 12/7 @ 00:36 writes]:

Thanks for making this report to make it more difficult and nerf the act of 

chopping. I have created another report as well, 1580, that approaches the problem 

from the side of the act of replanting. I support any of the solutions in this 

report, with or without the inclusion of any of the solutions in 1580. I am 

obviously biased, yes, but I am also fully convinced that implementing solutions 

from both reports together is not unreasonable.

Report #1580

Skillset:                      Skill: None

   Guild: Nekotai             Status: Pending

Problem: This is a follow up report to #1374. Additionally, I also note the 

existence of #1578. This report aims to provde additional options that might 

addresses the same problem as #1578 with a different approach (addressing the 

effort of replanting rather than the ease of chopping). I personally feel that both 

reports can be implemented together, but I understand if only one is chosen. Tree-

chopping as a mechanic has a wildly disproportionate ratio of effort required on 

the part of an antagoniser compared to that of the defender/replanter. The solution 

from #1374 added a new tool for the defenders to use, but it did not have the 

effect of lessening the frustration created from an actual tree-chopping. This 

report aims to resolve the problem of the frustration created from this inequality, 

which is not sustainable, by drastically reducing the maintainence and effort 

required by the defending side of this mechanic, but doing so while also 

intentionally avoiding homogenization of cities/communes differentiations, as 

directed expressly by the admin. This will be done through reducing the passive 

power generation of the trees. Solution 1 eliminates it, but in return lifts the 

burden of growing sacred trees entirely (keeping only a flavour token active 

aspect) and buffs active power gathering instead. Solution 2 retains the active 

tending of the trees, but drastically reduces the effort needed to actively tend 

the trees in return for retaining a measure of passive power generation. Solution 3 

is an optional extra solution to make things even easier for the communes at 

significant cost, and must be paired with either one of the first two solutions. 

This is because the status quo is not sustainable or acceptable, and solution 3 

does not address current mechanics. The first solution is the preferred one.

Solution #1: Change the power provided by Commune sacred trees to 0. In return, 

remove the ability to cut sacred trees at all stages EXCEPT at the Elder Tree stage.

 Every new/full moon, the following happens: Every location without any sacred tree 

grows a sapling. Every location with an existing sapling will have it turn into a 

mature tree. Every location with an existing mature will turn into an Elder. 

Carving into a totem still requires an active action. Finally, make the 

shadowbeasts (and the Seren equivalent) in ethereal respawn automatically.

Solution #2: Change the power provided by Commune sacred trees to 10 for every 1% 

of eligible locations that has a Totem in it, rounded down. Meaning, a commune that 

has 88.8% of their eligible locations planted with a Totem will generate 880 (not 

888) power every in-game month. ONLY Totems (not elder trees, not saplings etc) 

will count toward this. In return, remove the ability to cut sacred trees at all 

stages EXCEPT at the Elder Tree stage. Increase the amount of nuts generated by 

shadows/pixies to be 1 nut every 2 shadow/pixie, and keep all other existing 

mechanics.

Solution #3: In addition to either solution 1 or 2, delete the Ironbark 

discretionary, and create a new discretionary for communes called "Glory of the 

Forest". This discretionary will cost 2000 power to cast, and can only be done on a 

day of a new/fullmoon. When cast, every eligible location in the forest that does 

not have either an Elder tree or a Totem will immediately grow an Elder tree. If 

one or more saplings/mature trees exist in that location, they will be removed.

Player Comments:

---[Lerad on 12/7 @ 00:34 writes]:

All of the solutions allow elder trees to continue to be cut down, but drastically 

reduces the effort needed to replant them. In all cases, vigilance is not needed at 

all (eliminating the tension and stress of guarding growing trees) until the elder 

is restored either passively (sol 1), or actively (sol 2) - with the latter no 

longer requiring ridiculous amounts of waiting for respawns. The rest of the 

solutions are tweaks to the passive power generation and active power generation 

capabilities of the communes to reflect a new balance with the reduced burden of 

the trees - no burden at all means no passive power - this is naturally the 

preferred solution. The second solution is to pre-empt concerns that solution 1 

dilutes the flavour of the communes to resemble cities too much - a sentiment I 

disagree with, but will not fruitlessly argue against if the admin mandate 

otherwise.

Crek

Removing power generation from totems would require communes to have more native power quests. Just giving respawning ethereal beasts, and not even as many as are respawning on elemental planes, would put communes at fewer native abilities to actively generate power when compared to cities. 

Communes currently have access to (as native only to their org): shadows/pixies, nexus world mobs, and whatever few ethereal beasts are left over from someone previously gathering fae (which again, do not respawn). Fae gathering/scholars/bards/essence/cone/WhateverTheCityEquivalentToConeIs can be done by any org.

This still does not touch the admittedly less important problem that only bonded totems are able to strike out against enemies. Communes already have more entrances than cities. We have far fewer choke points to put guards up. Having all totems able to hit enemies as statues do (which again, is still not THAT great a deterrent) would at least slow people down from doing whatever they were up to in this Post-Elder Utopia.

Falaeron

Crek said:

Removing power generation from totems would require communes to have more native power quests.

See, the communes would have you believe that they don't care about the power generation at all, but when removing it actually brought to the table there is suddenly a caveat to it. So which is it? Does the power generation matter or not?

Crek

Power generation from totems doesn't matter. But removing the power we get from these AND making us less able to produce power equal to cities does. A nerf and a nerf would not exactly be a fair thing, yes?

Saran

@Crek, Could maybe up the number of totems someone could bond?
Have the first one be their primary (but with an appropriate name) which is what any totems skills relates to, but the others still get to be active. If it works like demesnes, in that you have to have contiguous lines, could make it if the "grove" or whatever would break because of a reversion a random other totem reverts.

Still dependent on numbers, but might help us cover more area

Deichtine

Falmiis said:

Crek said:

Removing power generation from totems would require communes to have more native power quests.

See, the communes would have you believe that they don't care about the power generation at all, but when removing it actually brought to the table there is suddenly a caveat to it. So which is it? Does the power generation matter or not?

Parity.

That should answer all your questions Falmiis.

Dylara

Saran said:

@Crek, Could maybe up the number of totems someone could bond?
Have the first one be their primary (but with an appropriate name) which is what any totems skills relates to, but the others still get to be active. If it works like demesnes, in that you have to have contiguous lines, could make it if the "grove" or whatever would break because of a reversion a random other totem reverts.

Still dependent on numbers, but might help us cover more area

If we go this route, perhaps make the second, and so on bond at 10p but they only get 10 days from the start, 8, 6, etc. so you'd have to spend extra power to create the bonds. That would limit how many you could bond. Not ideal, but if we're going to have to fight for it *shrug*

Saran

Falmiis said:

Crek said:

Removing power generation from totems would require communes to have more native power quests.

See, the communes would have you believe that they don't care about the power generation at all, but when removing it actually brought to the table there is suddenly a caveat to it. So which is it? Does the power generation matter or not?

Why do you believe that forests deserve to be less than cities?
Our active power generation has been made specifically lesser to balance cities vs communes due to passive generation. Bringing them into line does not just mean that communes get nerfed, they should actually be brought into line with each other.

Lerad

Falmiis said:

Crek said:

Removing power generation from totems would require communes to have more native power quests.

See, the communes would have you believe that they don't care about the power generation at all, but when removing it actually brought to the table there is suddenly a caveat to it. So which is it? Does the power generation matter or not?

Lerad said:

...
2k-3k power is a big perk - but it doesn't matter. I say this repeatedly not because it's not an advantage. It doesn't matter because of that RP you just described. If there was no power, as part of game balance, we'd certainly expect some of the disadvantages communes face to be loosened - but even if we set it up exactly the same as cities mechanically, that RP you described isn't going to change. People aren't going to suddenly say, "Oh, there's no power, it's fine to not replant." They are still going to replant and defend them. That's the meaning of "the power doesn't matter".
...

---------------------------

On more constructive discussion:
 
1580 is made with the explicit intention to do nothing about the defense discrepancy of statues versus totems. An attempt to do so in 1374 was rejected - whether it was the primary reason for rejecting or not, I chose to refrain from providing the same solution. In return, I took the opportunity to ask for entirely passive replanting - without the need for statue upkeep, there's no need for statue defense.

I did toy with the idea of trying to achieve statue/totem defense parity when drafting, but ultimately decided to discard that aspect to focus on replanting.

Regarding active power generation, solution 1 certainly does put communes at a distinct disadvantage, and lacking parity, for active power generation as compared to cities (on top of the other differences I elected not to touch, of course), and I'm amenable to adding more essence creating creatures - within whatever limit people discuss and agree upon. Naturally, I will change the solutions as discussion and suggestions pop up. If there is no agreement within the timeframe until the report has to be finalised (23 days from now) then I'd rather push through the change and tackle it at a later date.

Karlach

I love how us going from "we don't care enough that totems generate a ton of passive power that it is more important to us than getting rid of this terrible mechanic" translates to "we don't care about power, period."

Can we stop with the pointless strawman arguments, if you're not trolling and petty point scoring with this, you're either being intellectually dishonest or failing at reading comprehension.

Either way it's about as productive as talking to a brick wall.

Saran

Dylara said:

Saran said:

@Crek, Could maybe up the number of totems someone could bond?
Have the first one be their primary (but with an appropriate name) which is what any totems skills relates to, but the others still get to be active. If it works like demesnes, in that you have to have contiguous lines, could make it if the "grove" or whatever would break because of a reversion a random other totem reverts.

Still dependent on numbers, but might help us cover more area

If we go this route, perhaps make the second, and so on bond at 10p but they only get 10 days from the start, 8, 6, etc. so you'd have to spend extra power to create the bonds. That would limit how many you could bond. Not ideal, but if we're going to have to fight for it *shrug*

Yeah, I mean potentially... ideal for defences could just be like... we carve totem poles out of wood and Stag/Crow types awaken them or something so they become a direct equivalent of statues (destroy could even be used to desecrate them). Then rather than carving elders, we could just bond with them for the relevant skills.

But a "grove" maintains some differences between the two, and maybe could have some neat rp about it I guess.

EDIT: oh and like, not expecting it as part of this change. Just like, a maybe this is something that can happen in the future thing.

Crek

I'm just going to assume Falmiis was being facetious. Because reading it that way gave me a smile.

Falaeron

Look I'm not against communes getting more avenues for active power. All I'm saying is that we just had a 200+ post back-and-forth about how unimportant the power generation was and how the communes just wanted it gone if it meant that they didn't have to deal with elders.  I've also already given my opinion about what I believe is the optimum solution in the report you have pasted here.

Falaeron

Serious question though: What are the differences in active power generation between cities and communes? Is it just the fact that ethereal essence mobs don't respawn on their own?

Deichtine

I wouldnt bother responding to the trolling. Learn parity. That'll answer your questions.

Karlach

I'm still unsure of the mental gymnastics required that you go from "We don't care enough about the power totems generate to want to keep the mechanic" to "we don't care about power."

Perhaps when people stop tilting at windmills, we might get somewhere?

Crek

Falmiis said:

Serious question though: What are the differences in active power generation between cities and communes? Is it just the fact that ethereal essence mobs don't respawn on their own?

Name your Hallifax only power quests. You can count Air as Halli only since you can defend that territory. I'll give you the Glom ones: shadows of crows, nexus world mobs, non-respawning ethereal essence mobs that require you to do another quest that is shared between all orgs.

Dylara

Falmiis said:

Serious question though: What are the differences in active power generation between cities and communes? Is it just the fact that ethereal essence mobs don't respawn on their own?

It's also based off a small pool of fae that is fought over by two orgs, and currently is unavailable due to Event Shenanagins and even when it is available they are now worth less power because they refuse to take baths all by themselves and apparently need to be shoved face first into water.

I may have a small gripe about that quest, as adorable as Margie is.

There's other parts, which I know came up in the tweetsfest.

Lerad

Falmiis said:

Serious question though: What are the differences in active power generation between cities and communes? Is it just the fact that ethereal essence mobs don't respawn on their own?

There are less essence generating mobs in ethereal than elemental. Not sure exact numbers, but around 10 or so compared to 25-27 on elementals. I think. My numbers might be inaccurate. Etheral ones also don't respawn.

There are more fae than there are cosmic creatures - again, I think, but competed between two forests. I'm not sure how many cosmic creatures there are, but there are 27 fae. I'm not sure if Hallifax/Gaudi cosmic creatures can be influenced for power like Celest/Mag creatures can.

The differences between the nexus quests should be negligible. Pretty sure they were tweaked to be comparatively and acceptably similar.

Essence generating mobs are the main difference, especially with the effect of sands.

Falaeron

Crek said:

Falmiis said:

Serious question though: What are the differences in active power generation between cities and communes? Is it just the fact that ethereal essence mobs don't respawn on their own?

Name your Hallifax only power quests. You can count Air as Halli only since you can defend that territory. I'll give you the Glom ones: shadows of crows, nexus world mobs, non-respawning ethereal essence mobs that require you to do another quest that is shared between all orgs.

Spheres, crystals, air essence? 

Are there others I have just never known about?

Karlach

Elemental is closer to 35-36.

Crek

I'm unfamiliar with the Hallifax power quests. Do you not have influence-able dodecawhatsits? 

Deichtine

Look stop feeding the troll its clear what hes doing.

Saran

@Falmiis you can also feed fae to the diamond sphere from memory, all orgs have some way to get power from the fae it's just that the communes get annoyed if they catch you.

Equivalence would just be making the ethereal critters respawn, upping their numbers slightly. And adding in the ability to influence the daughters/ladies for power though the numbers would be fiddly(I think cosmic tends to have five variations rather than three), probably also making them respawn in set numbers too.

Crek

Saran said:

@Falmiis you can also feed fae to the diamond sphere from memory, all orgs have some way to get power from the fae it's just that the communes get annoyed if they catch you.

Equivalence would just be making the ethereal critters respawn, upping their numbers slightly. And adding in the ability to influence the daughters/ladies for power though the numbers would be fiddly(I think cosmic tends to have five variations rather than three), probably also making them respawn in set numbers too.

That is the point I'm trying to make. I'm not asking for more power quests than cities. Just as Veyils keeps saying. Parity.

Falaeron

Crek said:

I'm unfamiliar with the Hallifax power quests. Do you not have influence-able dodecawhatsits? 

No, that's our crystal quest. We bash crystals in our nexus world and give them to the mobs on Continuum. The hedrons themselves cannot be influenced.

Veyils said:

Look stop feeding the troll its clear what hes doing.

Yeah ok. How about you go read report 1374? Or go back to the tweets thread for quotes like Karlach's "And we've constantly said (and envoyed) that we don't give a damn about the power generation."

Saran said:

@Falmiis you can also feed fae to the diamond sphere from memory, all orgs have some way to get power from the fae it's just that the communes get annoyed if they catch you.

Equivalence would just be making the ethereal critters respawn, upping their numbers slightly. And adding in the ability to influence the daughters/ladies for power though the numbers would be fiddly(I think cosmic tends to have five variations rather than three), probably also making them respawn in set numbers too.

I didn't list that because I just thought it'd be the same as gathering fae (and yes I know that got nerfed with the new skunk quest recently and I'm totally on board with reverting that). 

I mean if all you guys want is more essence mobs that respawn sure. I have never said I'm against it.

Silvanus

Elemental planes are 36 for Earth/Celest, 37 for Air/Fire.

There is 180 power for Nil in empowering I believe Fae is at 210 but unsure on that one.

I think parity is a good thing but I also believe in uniqueness, there is a way to find a balance I believe, the process required to upkeep trees has outweighed the cost, especially with a dwindling playerbase. And the only thing that has prevented it from collapsing is because of the no chopping agreement between forests.

There are temporary solutions I think that can play out like allowing Druids to put runes on all totems, or allowing a construct to have access to upkeeping totems, but these are simply bandaids that do not resolve the crux of the issue of the time invested into the upkeep and how easy it would be to disrupt that.

Lerad

I'm not going to pursue equivalence, because that will be doomed to failure. Verbatim from Estarra:

Communes and cities were never meant to have exactly the same mechanics (in fact we wanted the mechanics, downsides and upsides of each, to be unique and different). Yes, it's not fair but any argument will have greater weight if it isn't based on 'cities don't deal with X, so communes shouldn't either' or 'communes deal with Y, so cities should have something similar'.

A semblance of parity, with continued inequalities in hard numbers balanced by unquantifiable adavantages and differences (passive replanting, inability to cut saplings/mature trees) is the purpose of the report. I'm not going to count how much power is available to each org and make them equal.

Saran

Silvanus said:

Elemental planes are 36 for Earth/Celest, 37 for Air/Fire.

There is 180 power for Nil in empowering I believe Fae is at 210 but unsure on that one.

I think parity is a good thing but I also believe in uniqueness, there is a way to find a balance I believe, the process required to upkeep trees has outweighed the cost, especially with a dwindling playerbase. And the only thing that has prevented it from collapsing is because of the no chopping agreement between forests.

There are temporary solutions I think that can play out like allowing Druids to put runes on all totems, or allowing a construct to have access to upkeeping totems, but these are simply bandaids that do not resolve the crux of the issue of the time invested into the upkeep and how easy it would be to disrupt that.

Fae aren't the same as Nil though, if any other org gathers fae then Serenwilde/Glomdoring can't gather them, where Celest influencing Angels doesn't diminish Mags gain from Demons.

Yarith

Speaking of parity: Wanna compare how much power the forests have passively generated since the game started and how much cities have actively gathered in their 'unique' methods?

EDIT: You can flag this as spam but you can't make the argument for parity without addressing the disparity in the history of the mechanics.

Falaeron

Oh man if we're going to get into the nuances and specifics of each and every power quest available to each org we're all in for a bad time.

Look just give both communes 50 respawning essence mobs. I'll just bash them all for more power for myself.