Appointing a Duke

[Foundation]

The argument is not against user friendliness, but that doing it any other way does not increase user friendliness either.

[Anaris]

The argument is not against user friendliness, but that doing it any other way does not increase user friendliness either.

Something of a, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem.

[Penchant]

Something of a, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem.

+1

[Eldargard]

I can not say that I agree.

[Anaris]

I can not say that I agree.

If we don't change it, people like you complain.

If we do change it, people who didn't want their regions up and jumping to other duchies complain.

Just because you don't mind the drawbacks of one of the options doesn't mean we get to ignore them.

[Eldargard]

I never once suggested regions should jump duchies.

[Anaris]

I never once suggested regions should jump duchies.

All right, then: if we do change it, the people who didn't want to lose their lucrative city lord positions complain.

[vonGenf]

I never once suggested regions should jump duchies.

I suggested that (and accepted it won't happen, although I dispute the frame of mind that leads you to describe it as "jumping duchies").

Unwin only suggested that the list of possible appointments be extended to all nobles, but that the game then asks the appointee if he accepted the appointment before losing his region. This would mean you lose your region, but only on actual game-confirmed appointment, not on a mere promise.

[Eldargard]

Exactly. Aside from not requiring nobles to step down from current positions on the promise of promotion to better things, my suggestion would make situations like what the original poster experienced stop occurring. If they have the needed H/P, appoint them and the game sorts out the rest. On the elections side, my suggestion prevents people from unintentionally shooting themselves in the foot in ignorance by running for a position that would, in their opinion, undesirable remove them from current positions if they win that election.

The idea is to not require players to spend a bunch of time up front working through the somewhat complicated hierarchical system while preserving the chain of command. Sure, some people have a sold grasp of the system and this would not provide a lot of value to them. It would, however, be of great value to new players and casual players who do not want to spend an hour trying to figure out why noble X is not an option for appointment or why they just lost the lordship to their favorite region upon being made ruler.

This, I think, has value. Especially if we really do want to get new players to stick around a bit.

[Penchant]

Exactly. Aside from not requiring nobles to step down from current positions on the promise of promotion to better things, my suggestion would make situations like what the original poster experienced stop occurring. If they have the needed H/P, appoint them and the game sorts out the rest. On the elections side, my suggestion prevents people from unintentionally shooting themselves in the foot in ignorance by running for a position that would, in their opinion, undesirable remove them from current positions if they win that election.

The idea is to not require players to spend a bunch of time up front working through the somewhat complicated hierarchical system while preserving the chain of command. Sure, some people have a sold grasp of the system and this would not provide a lot of value to them. It would, however, be of great value to new players and casual players who do not want to spend an hour trying to figure out why noble X is not an option for appointment or why they just lost the lordship to their favorite region upon being made ruler.

This, I think, has value. Especially if we really do want to get new players to stick around a bit.

How does top level positions have anything to do with player retention? Rulers aren't meant to really be casual players, and your realm must be really !@#$ty if you are electing the guy who has been here two weeks. D'hara's ruler became ruler two months after joining but that is because of timing and a lot of work on his part.

[Eldargard]

The election to rulership example may not be the best. One could say the same of losing a favored estate by becoming a Duke. Or lordship of another region. Such heirachial changes may seem obvious to some but may not be so obvious to others. The fact that questions like this come up shows that clearly. My own characters appointment to a Lordship was also accompanied by a flurry of "drop your estate", "take one in the target region", "drop that estate", "send questioning messages to the realm", oh, that must be it... Good to know!

I can not really see a reason why such situations are a GOOD thing. I would be happy to hear why it is preferable to have players go through such pains during appointments or endure surprise losses after elections. It is certainty working and requires less effort to leave it as it is. It could be that such confusion is not as common as I believe and such situations are really quite rare. It could be the makers of the game would prefer to weed out players who are not willing to spend their time researching and completely grokking how the hierarchy works in context to their realm's circumstances. I do not claim to be right or know all the factors.

All that aside, I find this mentality that only crusty old timers or always on power gamers should really be entrusted with the vast power and responsibility of rulership/dukedom annoying. If a character can convince his fellow nobles to elect him into rulership, I really do not care if he is always on or has years of experience. It is a game. If he does a horrible job of it, he will soon be replaced. There are many ways to accomplish such a replacement and all of them, in my opinion, bring fun to the game.

People join a game like this to DO stuff. Having all these restriction on what a character can do is just plain annoying. It is enough, in my opinion, to put off many new players. Having the feeling that only years of real life commitment will get me to a position of power could also a put off to many players.  Of course, one could argue that we only want players who are willing to work months to overcome game mechanic limitations and years to overcome player instilled limitations. Not my preference but not my game either!

[Penchant]

The election to rulership example may not be the best. One could say the same of losing a favored estate by becoming a Duke. Or lordship of another region. Such heirachial changes may seem obvious to some but may not be so obvious to others. The fact that questions like this come up shows that clearly. My own characters appointment to a Lordship was also accompanied by a flurry of "drop your estate", "take one in the target region", "drop that estate", "send questioning messages to the realm", oh, that must be it... Good to know!

I can not really see a reason why such situations are a GOOD thing. I would be happy to hear why it is preferable to have players go through such pains during appointments or endure surprise losses after elections. It is certainty working and requires less effort to leave it as it is. It could be that such confusion is not as common as I believe and such situations are really quite rare. It could be the makers of the game would prefer to weed out players who are not willing to spend their time researching and completely grokking how the hierarchy works in context to their realm's circumstances. I do not claim to be right or know all the factors.

All that aside, I find this mentality that only crusty old timers or always on power gamers should really be entrusted with the vast power and responsibility of rulership/dukedom annoying. If a character can convince his fellow nobles to elect him into rulership, I really do not care if he is always on or has years of experience. It is a game. If he does a horrible job of it, he will soon be replaced. There are many ways to accomplish such a replacement and all of them, in my opinion, bring fun to the game.

People join a game like this to DO stuff. Having all these restriction on what a character can do is just plain annoying. It is enough, in my opinion, to put off many new players. Having the feeling that only years of real life commitment will get me to a position of power could also a put off to many players.  Of course, one could argue that we only want players who are willing to work months to overcome game mechanic limitations and years to overcome player instilled limitations. Not my preference but not my game either!

Most of what you said seems ridiculous IMO, which I can maybe answer later but your idea is bad for several reasons and even if accepted, would likely not happen for at least two years due to low priority/lots other important stuff need to get done. You fail to look at any downsides also.

[Eldargard]

I expressed that I am open to hearing the opposing views. I am perfectly aware that this is not something that will be implemented next week. or at all for that mater. There is a list of changes a mile long and most are much more important. I do not see why that fact should prevent me, or anyone else from voicing ideas that may, or may not, make the game better. Even bad idea can lead to great improvements. Are you suggestion that we all just shut up and stop making suggestions for improvement until the to-do list is gone?

It is the claim that everything is fine as is that I do not get. The implication that things really could not be better. I have yet to hear what is, in my opinion, a convincing reason. I have heard 'you can not please everyone and jumping duchies is not cool' and 'no confirmation pages'. Feel free to explain why what I said is so ridiculous. I am happy to hear it.

[Penchant]

The election to rulership example may not be the best. One could say the same of losing a favored estate by becoming a Duke. Or lordship of another region. Such heirachial changes may seem obvious to some but may not be so obvious to others. The fact that questions like this come up shows that clearly. My own characters appointment to a Lordship was also accompanied by a flurry of "drop your estate", "take one in the target region", "drop that estate", "send questioning messages to the realm", oh, that must be it... Good to know!

You don't lose anything by becoming duke. Thats the entire point of this thread, he couldn't appoint someone because it would cause a lost of that 'favorered estate'. Lordships need not be lost, simply switch to the duchy and you can be appointed. Why your own characters appointment was so messy, I couldn't tell you. All you needed to do was drop the estate, because like with the appointment of duke, we can't be taking away that 'favored estate'.

I can not really see a reason why such situations are a GOOD thing. I would be happy to hear why it is preferable to have players go through such pains during appointments or endure surprise losses after elections. It is certainty working and requires less effort to leave it as it is. It could be that such confusion is not as common as I believe and such situations are really quite rare. It could be the makers of the game would prefer to weed out players who are not willing to spend their time researching and completely grokking how the hierarchy works in context to their realm's circumstances. I do not claim to be right or know all the factors.

These losses from elections have been put on the announcements before. You complain if you don't have to deal with the mess, you complain if you don't. Elections have automatic loss, because you having your name in the ballot for 5 days is your confirmation. Didn't want to lose your positions? Don't stay in an election you don't want to win. Also, no research is needed for hierarchy. It is the same everywhere, and is straightforward. Either you are someone's equal, their subservient, or their boss, but you can't be their equal and their subservient, and you can't be somebody's subservient and their boss. What people don't understand about that, I don't know. Your thoughts that Tom wants to weed out people who aren't willing to spend time researching things when they constantly defend someone's right of inactivity, seems insulting towards Tom, IMO.

All that aside, I find this mentality that only crusty old timers or always on power gamers should really be entrusted with the vast power and responsibility of rulership/dukedom annoying. If a character can convince his fellow nobles to elect him into rulership, I really do not care if he is always on or has years of experience. It is a game. If he does a horrible job of it, he will soon be replaced. There are many ways to accomplish such a replacement and all of them, in my opinion, bring fun to the game.

No where has that been stated. First of all, being a power gamer and being always on are not the same. Second, there is a big difference between saying, why is the new guy who doesn't even understand basic things about the game made ruler, and saying that only the people who have been here for insanely long times should be allowed to positions of power.

People join a game like this to DO stuff. Having all these restriction on what a character can do is just plain annoying. It is enough, in my opinion, to put off many new players. Having the feeling that only years of real life commitment will get me to a position of power could also a put off to many players.  Of course, one could argue that we only want players who are willing to work months to overcome game mechanic limitations and years to overcome player instilled limitations. Not my preference but not my game either!

Its not restrictions on what characters can do, its restrictions on what other can characters can force your characters to do. You are complaining if you don't have to go through the hassle, and you are complaining if you don't. What do you want?

[Eldargard]

You don't lose anything by becoming duke. Thats the entire point of this thread, he couldn't appoint someone because it would cause a lost of that 'favorered estate'. Lordships need not be lost, simply switch to the duchy and you can be appointed. Why your own characters appointment was so messy, I couldn't tell you. All you needed to do was drop the estate, because like with the appointment of duke, we can't be taking away that 'favored estate'.

All I am suggestion is that the game already knows what conflicts exist so why make the players work through it.

For appointments, simply let the king/duke appoint who they want, regardless of hierarchy. The game knows if such an appointment would cause a conflict. If the appointment does not, then the guy is appointed. If it does, a message notifying the noble of their offered promotion, what they will lose and gain, and asking if they want to accept or reject the appointment.

For elections, just let the guy know that winning the election will result in the loss of position X. It is his choice to continue in the race or withdraw. Not confirmation, but information.

The game already knows all this and can resolve it. Why make players seeking to appoint someone do the work of figuring out why their favored candidate is not on the list of options or why they suddenly lost position X when elected.

Of course, this is but one of many possible solutions. One could also suggest that all realm members are listed and those who can not be appointed are accompanied with a CLEAR reason why. The point is the same, let the game figure this stuff out and inform us instead of making us waste the time digging through it all ourselves. I ask again, why is this a bad idea?

These losses from elections have been put on the announcements before. You complain if you don't have to deal with the mess, you complain if you don't. Elections have automatic loss, because you having your name in the ballot for 5 days is your confirmation. Didn't want to lose your positions? Don't stay in an election you don't want to win. Also, no research is needed for hierarchy. It is the same everywhere, and is straightforward. Either you are someone's equal, their subservient, or their boss, but you can't be their equal and their subservient, and you can't be somebody's subservient and their boss. What people don't understand about that, I don't know. Your thoughts that Tom wants to weed out people who aren't willing to spend time researching things when they constantly defend someone's right of inactivity, seems insulting towards Tom, IMO.

Making an announcement does great for those who logged in while that announcement was sitting on the login page. What about all those who joined since? What about those who did not notice it? Regarding the mess, I have only complained against it, though my complaint is minor and I dislike calling the issue a mess at all. The 'mess' is simply different when looking at appointments and elections. Furthermore, I am not against automatic loss and I am not suggestion a confirmation page. My suggestion was (with slight modification based upon reading Dev feedback) quite simple. When a noble runs for a position and victory in that election will result in the loss of a current position, let them know. If a duke/king appoints someone to a position that conflicts with the apointee's current position, the game asks the appointee what he wants to do. Then they can then make an informed decision to stay in the race of not, dukes/kings do not have to dig around to figure out why noble X is not an option for appointment and players do not have to abandon estates simply to be considered an option for appointment..

True, the rules of hierarchy are the same everywhere. The hierarchy can look different in each country though.  It may very well be that there is little confusion out there regarding hierarchy. I only have the impression that there MAY be confusion and think that looking for a way to reduce that would be a good thing.

I am not saying that the dev team wants to weed out some players or not. I am saying that such is a potential benefit of the way things currently work, if such weeding is desired.

No where has that been stated. First of all, being a power gamer and being always on are not the same. Second, there is a big difference between saying, why is the new guy who doesn't even understand basic things about the game made ruler, and saying that only the people who have been here for insanely long times should be allowed to positions of power.

You are right. I took an extreme polar stance there. I do however stand by my opinion here – minus the extremism.

Its not restrictions on what characters can do, its restrictions on what other can characters can force your characters to do. You are complaining if you don't have to go through the hassle, and you are complaining if you don't. What do you want?

I am not looking at this as an election system vs appointment system. I am looking at this as both systems could be made a bit more user friendly. I get the impression that I am not communication my suggestion/concern clearly.

What do I want? I want people to read and understand what we write to each other before coming down on them for proposing an idea. I want people to be free to express ideas on how the game could be improved, even if said ideas are bad or unlikely to be implemented without  being told that their suggestion is 'ridiculous'.