Yeah, to be honest I don't think it's just the gold - it's the idea that gets wrapped up in that, and that the HL has to think about putting a new one up "politically", both with his house and with the city as a whole, with his fellow leaders, all of it... EDIT: i.e. it's the implied sense of commitment to defend the icon with pretty much everything the city has, with lots and lots of player deaths if you're on the losing end.
These are all good things that the game could use more of. High pressure decisions keep politics interesting.
To be honest, though, I'm curious how they're going to rework shrines. I imagine they'll be a much more viable conflict starter once they're done, and will offer out of city avenues for skirmishes that have a definite goal and thus an end-point.
I think the problem right now is that it isn't a high-pressure decision. The decision doesn't even come up - it's not the expense, it's the hassle associated with the icon. It's not about a costly decision, it's about whether players are going to be whiny about introducing something they're expected to maintain and defend.
I really don't think the icons are fine as is, nor that they are not "iconic" enough, clever as that is linguistically. I think something like the icons would be fine for the purposes you describe of acting as a glorified scoreboard, but the current incarnation is an intricate system for conflict that doesn't generate conflict. That's what bugs me about it.
In fairness, a lot of these problems fall on a timid playerbase rather than a lack of creativity from the admins. People are way too quick to just stick to the status quo and never try anything new for fear they might fail.
I remember when *shallam re-raised their Icons. For years before, everybody had adopted the attitude of just not bothering, but we managed to get them up and maintain them for a good while before I dun got Lorielan'd and the Qashar fell apart.
Idk, I mean, I understand what you're saying, and I do like some of the ideas you've proposed, but I think Icons as you propose would promote the sense of entitlement that is slowly overtaking the playerbase. People think they're entitled to shrines, Icons, bashing in UW/Annwyn unmolested and all sorts of other crazy things. That's why I'd rather Icons were left alone, and another brand new conflict system added to give people more reliable avenues to use the skills they've (generally) paid hundreds of credits for away from the tedium of cities/guards/totems.
I agree with you about timidity (though saying that's the source of the problem doesn't really solve the problem since we haven't had much luck making people less timid).
But doing icons the last way I last described, with destruction on top of a kill/deactivation system, would, if anything, make the stakes higher. In such a system, you're not entitled to the bonus of the icon without earning it (unlike the present system) and you're not entitled to the icon without defending it (just like the current system). It adds something for people to do and makes the icon system more relevant while preserving the same big-deal decisions and battles as the current system. And it pushes people to be less timid about raising destroyed icons because there's actually access to gameplay tied to them rather than just a passive bonus and an obnoxious responsibility to maintain and defend.
To reiterate the present state of my thinking (with the reasoning already above): (1) While the icon is up, every kill in Nish drops an item with value
equal to the normal XP worth of the kill that can be put in an icon to
increase the bonus for that cycle (the bonuses should not have a cap,
but diminishing returns). (2) The bonuses persist while the icon is deactivated, but new bonuses do not accrue. (3)
Icons are always vulnerable to deactivation, but may be repaired at any time (they
reactivate when brought up to a fairly low threshhold level of health). (4) Icons may be destroyed/rebuilt using the current system.
I think the new Gods cities are getting (and I assume Sartan is up next) will rapidly diminish if not outright eradicate timidity from the org leaders. I'm very confident that when we do get the new city, Deucora will be pushing us to round up heretics to stoke the olympic flame we will hopefully keep burning at all times in the centre of their settlement.
To be honest, though, I'm curious how they're going to rework shrines. I imagine they'll be a much more viable conflict starter once they're done, and will offer out of city avenues for skirmishes that have a definite goal and thus an end-point.
Considering the artefact overhaul, the ship trade system, and the city destruction/war system rework, I think you should manage your expectations regarding the design of any new game systems.
I'm very confident that when we do get the new city, Deucora will be pushing us to round up heretics to stoke the olympic flame we will hopefully keep burning at all times in the centre of their settlement.
Shards aren't hard to get. Just take a stroll through Manara and pick up after the little ones.
There's a few houses with icons up still. I go through Nish every month or so out of boredom and fix totems. I could fix so many people if people would just relent and appoint me totemer. *flutter*
But really, about the shards. In less than two hours of half-arsed hunting, I have enough shards to top up three icons and almost a fourth. If I'm not mistaken, Cyrene gets quite a massive collection inside the clocktower that gets donated to the forestals as well. Not that I actually recall seeing forestal icons but I only have eyes for the totems.
(D.M.A.): Cooper says, "Kyrra is either the most innocent person in the world, or the girl who uses the most innuendo seemingly unintentionally but really on purpose."
Comments
But doing icons the last way I last described, with destruction on top of a kill/deactivation system, would, if anything, make the stakes higher. In such a system, you're not entitled to the bonus of the icon without earning it (unlike the present system) and you're not entitled to the icon without defending it (just like the current system). It adds something for people to do and makes the icon system more relevant while preserving the same big-deal decisions and battles as the current system. And it pushes people to be less timid about raising destroyed icons because there's actually access to gameplay tied to them rather than just a passive bonus and an obnoxious responsibility to maintain and defend.
To reiterate the present state of my thinking (with the reasoning already above):
(1) While the icon is up, every kill in Nish drops an item with value equal to the normal XP worth of the kill that can be put in an icon to increase the bonus for that cycle (the bonuses should not have a cap, but diminishing returns).
(2) The bonuses persist while the icon is deactivated, but new bonuses do not accrue.
(3) Icons are always vulnerable to deactivation, but may be repaired at any time (they reactivate when brought up to a fairly low threshhold level of health).
(4) Icons may be destroyed/rebuilt using the current system.
There's a few houses with icons up still. I go through Nish every month or so out of boredom and fix totems. I could fix so many people if people would just relent and appoint me totemer. *flutter*
But really, about the shards. In less than two hours of half-arsed hunting, I have enough shards to top up three icons and almost a fourth. If I'm not mistaken, Cyrene gets quite a massive collection inside the clocktower that gets donated to the forestals as well. Not that I actually recall seeing forestal icons but I only have eyes for the totems.