Report 190

Report #190
Skillset: Tinkering Skill: Statues
 Org: Spiritsingers Status: Rejected May 2009
Furies' Decision:
We do not find this to be necessary.
Problem: With the recent, numerous lengths taken to not only balance the
disparity between the forests and the cities in terms of mechanics and even the
inclusion of ability specializations to make the necessities more wide-spread,
the fact that to protect a village more fully, a commune would still have to
approach a city to perform the task of raising statues within their obligated
territories remains fairly odd.
Solution #1: As Cubes has been moved within both the Tinkering and Spellcraft
 specializations of Enchantment, include Statues to Tinkering as
 well to get rid of this other step of commune/city dependency.
Solution #2: To remove the disparity between commune and city defenses, remove
 the capability of raising statues within -villages only- all
 throughout the Basin.
Player Comments:
---[Nydekion on 5/8 @ 17:45 writes]:
Given this argument, I could see a reason to exchange cubes in tinkering for
statues, but both would really just make it so tinkering has all of the useful
abilities in enchantments (as enchanted jewelry, etc. essentially stay enchanted
if recharged from a cube). Having both skills would likely be too much.
---[Viynain on 5/8 @ 21:43 writes]:
...what. Exchange Cubes for Statues? Uh, no. The point is to even out the
availability of the Enchantment skillset by making available the utility of both
skills for all types of organizations, not neuter one side since they would only
have Statues whereas the other would then have the option of both Cubes and
Statues. Of course, we can always just go with the second option of removing
Statues from villages altogether, considering that the disparity between village
defense is also being addressed by the report.
---[Xenthos on 5/9 @ 01:30 writes]:
It's simply putting a skill that everyone needs in both skillsets. A third
alternative would be to let us "grow" totems in villages (would have to grow and
act differently than totems in the Communes, such as not providing power,
growing faster, being destroyable with a certain amount of time spent and not
taking so long to grow). That seems relatively... complicated, so the easiest
solution would be to just put statues in tinkering.
---[Gavilian on 5/9 @ 13:56 writes]:
Sure why not! The enchantment market has already been destroyed, lets keep on
it!
---[Viynain on 5/9 @ 22:45 writes]:
As Xenthos put, indeed, that could be a third solution but it really does
require far too much coding than simply putting Statues into Tinkering as well.
As for the Enchantment market, couldn't quite blame equality for one's own
skills as a seller. I know I'm not having trouble, and I'm not one of the
classes who provides some of the more needed enchantments for defenses.
---[Gregori on 5/19 @ 18:13 writes]:
I agree village defense is an important issue and statues are an inportant part
of village defense. Tinkerers should get statues too.
---[Nienla on 5/20 @ 23:25 writes]:
I agree with Gregori's above comment. Statues are crucial to village defense,
and Communes should be entitled to the same benefit
---[Zynna on 5/28 @ 04:42 writes]:
I don't see a particular need to add statue enchanting to communes, as when
there is a commune/city alliance, communes can pay to have their statues
enchanted. But, if we go down the road of allowing communes and cities to
function independently of each other, then it should extend beyond just looking
at enchanting, but also at alchemy. Currently, communes can upkeep the city-only
enchantments indefinitely by repairing city-enchanted jewelry, whereas cities do
not have a similar way to maintain commune-potions once consumed (notably
vitae). To summarize, I don't think a change to enchanting based on a balancing
argument should be made in isolation.
---[Viynain on 5/28 @ 14:25 writes]:
If a lack is noted within the Alchemy distribution, then feel free to address it
within a report as I have done with this lack in this Enchantment solution.
Arguing that a change should not be made to even a balance out is just funky
since isn't that what we're supposed to be doing as envoys?
---[Zynna on 5/28 @ 14:56 writes]:
Yes, but my point is enchantment/alchemy are somewhat tied, as they were changed
at the same time from city-only/commune-only skills to allow greater freedom, so
to suggest making a change to one on the basis of a city/commune imbalance
should necessitate looking at the other, as to make communes free from the needs
of the city re: enchanting, but to not have it the same with alchemy creates its
own imbalance. If these changes go through, I'd bet an alchemy report will
follow close behind.
---[Viynain on 5/28 @ 20:55 writes]:
Which would be as it should be to facilitate a change to even the balance
between the two skillsets. Disagreeing with a necessary change because of the
subsequent changes thereafter which would result in a more evened pair of
skillsets would be counterproductive to our role for a more balanced game.
---[Ceren on 5/30 @ 23:43 writes]:
As Zynna points out, this is one of many imbalances, but it is a good place to
start.