-
[quote]
Church Take overs - To take over a church, I believe you must be able to kill the founder to make it fair. If any one can just do that, it makes it too easy. I never realized, nor did others realize just how easy it is to do that. Granted, I trusted him, and I did think he had to be bigger than me to remove me from my own church... Possibly making the help files better on church take overs, and the trust commands would be useful.
[/quote]
What do you guys think? I'm not really sure what people think of the takeover command but I kind of like it the way it is. Perhaps it is too easy from a player's point of view. I don't want to do anything that drives players off.
-
Well, as much as I hate seeing people take over others' churches and dumping them, it's really the founder's own fault for promoting a person they don't really know/trust to leader. The only thing I would say is maybe just to -remind- people by way of a prompt on promotion or some sort of thing that unless they are at Church status, promoting anyone to leader runs the risk of a church takeover. I mean, if you're stupid enough to allow someone to do that, fully aware that the command exists, it's your own fault; however, if it's an issue of ignorance of the takeover command, we should probably do something about a prompt or prominent church helpfile or something.. If they don't read it, it's their own issue :P
Personally, I like the takeover command as is; if a founder is stupid enough to promote someone they don't know and have no reason to trust to leader, they generally deserve what's coming to them. Despite the hard work to create and upgrade a church, if you don't have the sense to think through your membership and ranks, then you're not doing your job as an effective church leader anyway. My vote is to just leave it, but make sure founders know about takeover and the risk they run by promoting members to leader status.
-
Oh gosh, and this brings up the subject of using church takeovers to SWITCH out with one of your alts… You know the routine: You promote someone to Leader, have them takeover and BOOT you from the church and then have them add an alt so they can be promoted to leader and takeover.
That just SCREAMS "MULTIPLAYING!" even if you log off yourself and switch to the alt. You're helping your alt indirectly. That should be so illegal.
I agree with Eith on the original rant. If you're DUMB enough to make ANYONE a Leader that you don't trust, it's your own damn fault. I was torn between slaying the hell out of ***CENSORED TO PROTECT THE STUPID*** or laughing. Ultimately, I just laughed my ass off.
-
And, if the founder has been missing for months upon months, then it will become impossible to attempt to kill that player. If they don't care enough to log on, then it is their own fault. The way it works now is just fine, except for church status. As they are, it is not possible to overthrow it. If a leader of a church is making people in the church unhappy, then something should be done to be able for someone else to take over.
It wouldn't be as simple as takeover. Perhaps add in a new command to churches church content/disgruntled. It wouldn't be seen by anyone but the player. If a church has 50% or more of its player content, they could gain a bonus, perhaps 5% more coin find for being so cheery. If 50% or more of a church is disgruntled, then it can be taken over if someone else is high enough in the church to do so.
-
Thats not a bad idea at all Qal. I like that idea.
-
It is pretty clever, how do you measure someone's satisfaction with the church though?
-
Ask them directly. They can lie or tell the truth. It will make founders be more careful and selective as to who becomes a leader. Takeovers should be highly rare, at any level, and there have been tons of them since the command was added. There should also be a removal of pneuma and dp from the churches balance at the point of a takeover. The gods do not like turmoil within their church. Nothing huge, just enough to make it sting a bit. 3% at church, 2% at order, 1% cult/band. If a church cannot meet the requirement of payment, then it should either have it's commands disabled, or disbanded. If disabled, then they can regain their commands once the balance reaches 0 all the way across or better.
Also, for a church quit, the base cost of it should be 50% instead of all, for a flat quit. If they wish to take the time, devise a quest to prove to the gods that they are still faithful to them, though they do not agree with the church in question. This will remove 10% of pneuma and dp that they have personally, rather than 50%, once completed.
-
A thought occurred and what is there were a command implemented for leaders "church moral". This can be accessed once a week, which will be easier to do with a token system. It won't tell who is what, but it will give the leader an impression of the contentedness, or lack thereof.
0% - 5% - Your church is in utter chaos.
6% - 25% - Rumours tell of great malcontent from your congregation.
26% - 45% - The clergy speak of mild discontent.
46% - 55% - The church is in a balance of contentment.
56% - 75% - Your church members speak fondly of you.
76% - 95% - Great praises are spoken in your name.
96% - 100% - The church is favoured by the gods.
If a church stays at 0-5% for too long, the church could be taken over by anyone in the church, if the status is below or equal to order.
6% - 25% the church can stay stable for a long while, but anyone in position to takeover, can do so, if the church status is below or equal to order.
-
__I agree that the takeover command is fine the way it is but there should be a prompt when promoting other church members to a leader position. Perhaps a prompt directing the leader to a helpfile if they are unsure what exactly will happen when another member is made of the same rank. A simple, "Are you sure you want to do this? yes/no" prompt would suffice, as long as the church helpfiles are detailed to what could potentially happen with a takeover.
As far as "church moral" goes, I would have to disagree with the system. I can see a few ways it could be abused. There is a lot of room for church corruption/schemeing, whatever you would like to call it. On the other hand, everyone could say they are happy with the church to get the bonus. Even then, since there is no number of players required to have a church it would be possible to have only four members in a church…Keeping them happy is easier than 10 or more. This encourages to keep your church numbers small (which is taking advantage of the system, in this case) and more selective, however, we simply do not have the player base for such things.
In my opinion, there are too many churches as is and the amount of them need to be cut down severely. I would say at this point in time we only need 5 maximum. But that is another subject altogether.__
-
I'd say six churches (two for each alignment), so anyone but neutral has at least 4 options, and neutral has more (as they do with classes as well).
-
And then there's the problem of churches that are SO inactive that they are on the verge of being shit canned, then all of a sudden the church leader shows up for a day or two, "saving the church", then disappears for a couple months. This keeps new churches from forming while the existing churches just STAGNATE because they are inactive.
I say, if the top two ranks (or even just the leader rank) of a church can't be active for a reasonable percentage of time, then the church should AUTOMATICALLY get purged. Unless there is a dire need to do so, no imp or church immortal should have to do it, as that incurs favoritism with really old churches (not naming any names). The lower ranks should NOT count as far as activity. I've seen churches where the lower ranked members were the only ones active. When auto-purged, church members should get the balance of their deposits back, minus an inactivity penalty. If an imm has to do the deletion, NONE of it is returned, as it would usually be the result of punishments, not mere inactivity.
As far as having a limit on alignments, what if a neutral church wanted to convert, yet there were already two churches of the desired alignment? Deny them? I say No. If we have 100% evil churches, that's the will of those that own the churches.
I frankly don't care if there's a cap, as long as it's reasonable. Not too small, not too big. And ONLY if a decent activity policy is created and ENFORCED without exception. Otherwise, it will be as it is now. ~12 churches where only half of them are active enough to be kept, if even that many.
-
Personally, I feel if you create a neutral church, you stay a neutral church. I don't agree with them being able to convert.
And as far as the active/inactive churches go;
Cult of Power, Minions of Immorality (aside from Mistral), Evolution, Silex Fracto, Church of the Holy Maiden, Endless Accusations, and Kaiihel are all inactive.
The only downside to actually removing any of these churches at the current time is that a lot of people have been inactive as of late, and are now coming back. I would say give it a month, and if there isn't a substantial amount of activity, axe the church.
