Proposal to make villages more interactive.

Bairloch

I dropped a short version of this as the idea hit me on Discord, so thought I'd flesh it out here.

One of the things I see lacking in Lusternia is that the world is too scripted, and our actions have very little action on it. First thing that popped into my mind is the villages. Yes, when they pop we can go out and claim them for our city. That is a direct influence, but not one everyone can contribute to. Then, a little while later, completely independently of player activity, they pop again for "reasons".
So I was thinking, why not give the players some agency over the process? Maybe a mini quest, one that is more n00b/lowbie friendly, that can prolong your ownership of a village. It is repeatable, but with diminishing returns. That way the village will eventually pop, there's no way to stop it, but you can prolong it.
Each village would have a different style of quest. Like one possibly economic, one exploratory, one riddle, one combat, etc. etc. etc. Hopefully based on the theme of the city.
The rewards wouldn't be great enough that it would be farmed by the high and mighty. It isn't about the rewards. Its about contributing something tangible to your city. Making the new players feel invested in their city. Like their city needs them, in some small way. And they'd get some small reward.

Yes, I know we just had a village adjustment, but it just didn't do it for me. It still didn't seem like I'm doing much for my City. Haven't even bothered to try it. Just not motivated to do so.

I know I have different ideas of "fun" than most, so this might just be applicable to me. But I still thought I'd put it out there, just in case.

Luce

Villages did used to be like this. They were changed around the return of one of the Viravains to revolt in pairs to prevent any single org from being able to easily monopolise the whole lot of them and to make revolts more predictable (as in, allow orgs to be able to plan for upcoming revolts and know who they're aiming for), but before that each village would revolt on its own, based on the ruling style and the types of activities the owning org's members were doing in there.

Bairloch

So they made it less interactive? On purpose? I mean, I get the happening in pairs thing, that's nice. But having it so mechanical and not player driven is just... ugh.

Enadonella

I love the idea of having more conflict quests, but I don't think changing villages to do it is exactly needed. A lot of what I am hearing from people who return is that there are too many changes. If we keep changing the game people won't even know what they are coming back to!

As annoying as villages are right now, especially when you are having to influence solo, even without opposition, I think they work well enough and if the population increases they are perfect oppertunities for newbies or non-coms to try their hand at debating or combat -without- xp loss on a massive level. I used to look forward to them when I was lvling to titan/demi because my billion deaths per minute wouldn't make the people who were trying to get me to demi collectively groan. 

More conflict quests though! Yes pleeeease.  

Bairloch

I have not found them to be newbie/lowbie/noncom friendly events at all. I get run out of there in seconds with a broken ego.

Alright, it was just an idea. I'll let it go.

Steingrim

A broken ego shouldn't run you out of a village. Unless they kill you and assuming you aren't alone, you can still help. 

Things a bit similar to what you suggested but might work in the current system could be something like:

Doing quests in a village gives you personal village feelings.

Personal village feelings allows you to do more influence damage (sliding scale) in a village, both in and out of revolts (until the village changes orgs and then resets). Helping opposing villages directly impacts your personal village feelings. 

Having strong village feelings allows you to remind a villager of your efforts once per game day. Doing so is the same as influencing that villager. The best use of this would be to flip a villager back to siding with your organization.

Additionally, doing quests including commodity quests might have some effect on a village (allowing for things to do while waiting for villagers to shuffle) though this could be unbalancing if the effect it too large, so maybe cap that effect for the whole village to that of an effect equal to 5 - 10 villagers.

Bairloch

Yes, I did say that the current setup doesn't interest me. Too much conflict. Too much head to head. I just want to do nice things for the villagers and have them like our city more because of it. But now, doing nice things just helps me in the next conflict. But I won't be taking part in the next conflict. And what does flipping them to siding with my organization outside of a revolt do? If they're going to revolt at a set time anyway?

Deichtine

Village revolts as it stands right now are too quick and too infrequent.

It isn't newbie friendly because most newbies can be playing for months on end without ever seeing a village revolt. Then when it does happen the village revolt gets rushed down without much need for any newbie to help.

Newbies can help a bit when revolts happen but not a whole lot.

It's been raised as an issue before that most conflict events people can jump into at short notice are so infrequent they may as well not exist for most of the populace of the game.

Enadonella

Steingrim said:

A broken ego shouldn't run you out of a village. Unless they kill you and assuming you aren't alone, you can still help. 


Doing quests in a village gives you personal village feelings.

Personal village feelings allows you to do more influence damage (sliding scale) in a village, both in and out of revolts (until the village changes orgs and then resets). Helping opposing villages directly impacts your personal village feelings. 

All of that. It would be awesome to see quests actually impact conflict. I just don't think there should be different conflict standards for lowbies/newbies because they won't have the need to develop or further engage.

Steingrim

Bairloch said:

Yes, I did say that the current setup doesn't interest me. Too much conflict. Too much head to head. I just want to do nice things for the villagers and have them like our city more because of it. But now, doing nice things just helps me in the next conflict. But I won't be taking part in the next conflict. And what does flipping them to siding with my organization outside of a revolt do? If they're going to revolt at a set time anyway?

You may be projecting a bit more conflict then is there...in some cases.

Unpeaced villages are high conflict. Peaced villages seem like a lot more conflict then it turns out they are. Sure there is some conflict there, but that's going to be the case in any shared resource. In a peaced revolt they can debate you out and smack talk you, but that's about it. Now, because there is pressure to compete and those around you are moving around furiously you can get caught up in the energy of the event.

It is possible to help during a revolt simply by asking who to watch and watching them for the influence shuffle. This can be done even if one is shattered.

In an odd way, your ass just being in a village can be of help in the early parts, since someone may opt to look for a village that is empty over one that has a few people in it.

As to your proposal, that's up to the admin.

Perhaps, doing village quests should result in gold being tithed to the orgs (assuming that increased comms isn't desirable).