Elections and the New Character Creation Process

[Eirikr]

Opportunity does not equal guaranteed positions... Merely the chance to secure one. Just throwing that out there. I'd argue that appointment systems and permanent positions, not competition, stifle opportunity.

[Anaris]

Opportunity does not equal guaranteed positions... Merely the chance to secure one. Just throwing that out there. I'd argue that appointment systems and permanent positions, not competition, stifle opportunity.

Didja ever have one of those moments where you're doing something, and someone in a completely unrelated context says something that makes you wonder if they've got listening devices in your brain? ;D

Not only do I agree with this assessment, but I am currently engaged in rewriting the new character creation process from scratch, and including in the new information being indicated about realms a measure of "opportunity." A significant component of opportunity is the number of positions that are elected.

(Of course, it will be balanced by "stability"...once I add some more data-collection to the game so I can actually measure that :-\ )

[Scarlett]

A significant component of opportunity is the number of positions that are elected.

This has got very little to do with opportunity unless you can meaningfully compare it to the turnover in non-elected roles. Otherwise you're just rewarding Republics. I've seen monarchies with good turnover and republics with terrible turnover.

Realms with elected lordships have also been the worst realms I've ever played in. Zero out of three were any fun at all because it was just popularity contests nobody gave a !@#$ about because a knight or a lord in a region on one end of the realm doesn't have any stake in what happens in a region on the other end of the realm. You end up with election fatigue.

[Anaris]

This has got very little to do with opportunity unless you can meaningfully compare it to the turnover in non-elected roles. Otherwise you're just rewarding Republics. I've seen monarchies with good turnover and republics with terrible turnover.

I plan to, but I need to add that kind of tracking to the game before I can actually use it to feed the opportunity score.

Realms with elected lordships have also been the worst realms I've ever played in. Zero out of three were any fun at all because it was just popularity contests nobody gave a !@#$ about because a knight or a lord in a region on one end of the realm doesn't have any stake in what happens in a region on the other end of the realm. You end up with election fatigue.

The election fatigue I can agree with. However, it doesn't change the fact that to a brand-new player, it can make a huge difference in his experience whether he is able to get a Lordship within a week or so of starting the game, or has to wait six months to a year—and a realm with elected Lordships can make that difference.

Also, you have to bear in mind that there's a big difference between, "I can get this position (whatever the position may be) by impressing the nobility" and "I can get this position by making friends with the leadership." It's still not that hard to lock up a realm's leadership with a bunch of people who aren't interested in supporting newbies and only appoint those you trust (read: those who have been playing for a long time) to any position.

[Dante Silverfire]

The election fatigue I can agree with. However, it doesn't change the fact that to a brand-new player, it can make a huge difference in his experience whether he is able to get a Lordship within a week or so of starting the game, or has to wait six months to a year—and a realm with elected Lordships can make that difference.

Also, you have to bear in mind that there's a big difference between, "I can get this position (whatever the position may be) by impressing the nobility" and "I can get this position by making friends with the leadership." It's still not that hard to lock up a realm's leadership with a bunch of people who aren't interested in supporting newbies and only appoint those you trust (read: those who have been playing for a long time) to any position.

I still don't think this is true across the board. It doesn't matter to me whether you've been in a realm for a week or a year, if you're the one contributing the most to the realm, or demonstrating interest in helping out, you're going to receive an appointment by me over anyone else. Such has nothing to do with "making friends with the leadership" but instead because they have "impressed the leadership."

I consider there to be very little difference between impressing the nobility and impressing the leadership. The only difference I can think of actually is in favor of Monarchial type governments. While nobility might elect like-minded nobles in order to gather more support for themselves later, a King or Tyrant has no such requirement. He can appoint the best person for the position, without regard for their personal loyalties, because they don't have to worry about daily support from the nobility. Therefore, a benevolent ruler in an appointment led government is much more likely to promote opportunity than a group of random realm nobles voting.

Thus, I'd have to agree that this system just unfairly favors republics.

[Anaris]

That's all very well, Dante, but you can't measure all those intangibles, and we gotta measure something. ;D (Also, I happen to disagree somewhat, especially on behalf of new, shy players. And just because "a benevolent ruler" can do that kind of thing doesn't mean that having an appointed system leads to it being more likely.)

That said, if Vellos and I can get the details worked out, I also intend to have there be some surveys which will feed into the ratings, as well. Those will be the trickiest of all, because it's hard to come up with questions that are hard to game, but eventually, they will be just another component of the information available about every realm.

[Dante Silverfire]

Okay, that's a fair point.

However, I think one of your statistics then should be something that measures realm activity and interaction if possible. Perhaps something related to # of letters sent within the realm in the past week?

I think that'd be a very interesting statistic to show. If a realm had 5 positions open up in the last month, but only 10 letters exchanged publicly and 15 privately, that realm isn't very good. But if the realm had 2 position open up in the last month, but 100 letters exchanged publicly and 500 privately, that sounds a lot better.

Just thoughts. Mainly I'm speaking from my own personal style in how I've tried to develop my own realm and what I've seen as important. But, of course many people have different views on that.

[Anaris]

Okay, that's a fair point.

However, I think one of your statistics then should be something that measures realm activity and interaction if possible. Perhaps something related to # of letters sent within the realm in the past week?

Of course I've got that one, but it feeds into the Activity metric, not Opportunity ;D

In the interests of not driving myself insane with fractal calculations, however (nor overburdening the server...), I'm not comparing it to private conversations, or dealing with guild/religion messages or anything more complex than realm and army.

[Penchant]

Also, I happen to disagree somewhat, especially on behalf of new, shy players. And just because "a benevolent ruler" can do that kind of thing doesn't mean that having an appointed system leads to it being more likely.

I agree. Its much easier to say something to the public in general where you aren't targetting anybody specifically to say your accomplishments and why you should be elected vs talking to the ruler regarding the shyness factor.

[Eduardo Almighty]

The election fatigue I can agree with. However, it doesn't change the fact that to a brand-new player, it can make a huge difference in his experience whether he is able to get a Lordship within a week or so of starting the game, or has to wait six months to a year—and a realm with elected Lordships can make that difference.

I had to play for years with Erik in Sirion to reach a position as Duke. Good times. Now we are suffering too much with this "election fatigue". So much that any silent noble can win a position in elections with 4 votes because we don't have good candidates to vote. Because of that I prefer to appoint Lords instead let anyone else win a region without even a speech of intentions. Also, we had some Dukes that reached the position in very little time just because of lack of people with enough experience to rule our lands. In time Sirion will suffer because of that much more than because of our enemies.

[Foxglove]

So much that any silent noble can win a position in elections with 4 votes because we don't have good candidates to vote. Because of that I prefer to appoint Lords instead let anyone else win a region without even a speech of intentions.

I agree with this. I don't think elected positions have anything to do with a greater chance of giving new players a chance at lordships/government positions. If the nobles of realm want to put a player of longstanding into a lordship they'll just vote for them rather than a new player (this is something I've seen time after time). In contrast, my duke character just appointed a regional lord who's hardly been in the realm for any length of time because he made the effort to write to him and ask for the position.

I don't think it should be elected positions>appointed positions. It's about the willingness of a realm to advance new nobles and the opportunties for that. I don't know how that can be put into a calculation.

[Scarlett]

I have found realms with lots of elected positions to be, ironically, more anti-social.

Appointed roles means you know right away who the power-brokers are: Dukes, the sovereign, and the council. That could be anywhere from 4-10 people. It gives you a reason to care about the feudal hierarchy.

In realms where you can get elected to lordships with 3 votes, nobody cares about those things because they don't have to. If you then try and insist on anything related to the feudal hierarchy (as even republics are still supposed to have them in BM) you get looked like you have a third eye.

If you tracked anything, I would just make it how often new lords or council roles change hands, regardless of how they change hands. '20% of characters in this realm are promoted every month.' That would be useful.

[Geronus]

I have found realms with lots of elected positions to be, ironically, more anti-social.

This is a realm to realm thing. I've been in republics, like Riombara, with a very lively political culture and competitive elections. I've also been in republics where things are pretty dead. It has more to do with the players in the realm than the government system.

[Dante Silverfire]

This is a realm to realm thing. I've been in republics, like Riombara, with a very lively political culture and competitive elections. I've also been in republics where things are pretty dead. It has more to do with the players in the realm than the government system.

Well, I think that is the exact point of not using "elections vs appointments" as a measure of opportunity. But, as Anaris pointed out earlier, it is very hard to quantify any of these other measures.

[Indirik]

In contrast, my duke character just appointed a regional lord who's hardly been in the realm for any length of time because he made the effort to write to him and ask for the position.

Asking for positions is definitely a key toward getting them. One of my characters was made Margrave of a prosperous city simply because he asked, and no one else did. I have gotten council positions, and handed out council positions, the same way.

I don't think it should be elected positions>appointed positions. It's about the willingness of a realm to advance new nobles and the opportunties for that. I don't know how that can be put into a calculation.

New metrics can be created to determine these. For example, when a lord is appointed/elected, track these things:

• Number of days that character has been in the realm.
• Number of days that character has been alive.
• Number of days that account has been active.

These three things, when the appropriate mathemagical equations have been applied, can provide some meaningful information. It would take some time for enough information to be accumulated for this to be useful, though. Also, there would have to be soime filtering to prevent pollution of the data due to rapid loss/appointment cycles that can happen during heavy looting/revolt situations.