The Realm as a Team

[songqu88@gmail.com]

While that'd be great, laziness or whatever you'd like to call it, occurs sometimes. I'm not talking about people who can't log in that much, I mean those people who are active, and just don't because it's too much trouble, or because it's too much work for nothing that they can appreciate.

[Shenron]

In History almost all Rulers /were/ Dukes/Duchess'.  In BM if you want to be a Ruler and /not/ a Duke you absolutely have to have loyal Dukes.  I think the position of Ruler used to be more powerful.   It was probably nerfed for a reason.   Was anyone around way back in the day?  Are the reasons for reducing the power of the Ruler still valid today?

But that doesn't work in BM, because the mechanics work against ruler/dukes i.e. Being elected Ruler strips your titles and the ruler can't appoint himself as duke.

I don't think I'm a big fan of these. Especially if it is some kind of checklist where candidates just click checkboxes from a set of pre-generated options. I think game mechanics criteria would lead to gaming the system, where people will do things that don't make sense for their character/realm/situation just to meet some mechanics-based trigger point. I really don't like things that promote that kind of play.

I tend to agree.

1) It would constrain government somewhat
2) The BM playerbase is just not active enough, goals won't make them act necessarily, just piss people off and maybe make people leave the game :-\ Besides we shouldn't be forcing people in hyper-activity. BM is meant to be kind of slow paced.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Only in certain government types is a ruler barred from being duke. I believe, in fact, that it is only true for Monarchies.

[Telrunya]

Republics as well at least. You can get re-elected though. Theocracies have no restrictions.

[Shenron]

Only in certain government types is a ruler barred from being duke. I believe, in fact, that it is only true for Monarchies.

And Democracies and Republics. The majority of all governments in other words.

[Peri]

Not sure how it works in democracies, but in republics if you are elected ruler you lose your region. However, once you are ruler, you can be appointed or elected to a region (you can't appoint yourself to a city though).

Problem is you keep losing the region every time you win an election, even only reconfirmed.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

And Democracies and Republics. The majority of all governments in other words.

Ok, so the proper breakdown is this:

Loses dukeship when elected: Monarchy, Republic, (Democracy?)

Cannot reappoint self as duke: Monarchy, (Democracy? I doubt it though. Seems like being ruler isn't a condition to prevent one from running, but, I guess that covers "election" Hang on...)

Cannot be reelected as duke: Monarchy, (Democracy?)

So to recap, the government types in which you absolutely cannot become duke after becoming ruler are the following: Monarchy, and possibly Democracy

The following government types allow you to become dukes after becoming ruler, although in the case of Republics, people might get annoyed at you: Republic, Theocracy, Tyranny.

Note that Democracy is still a wild card. In Fontan 2007-08 I recall seeing the Chancellor as Duke before, so I have a hunch that the ruler can still run for duke.

So actually...If we want to be strict about it, I was correct in what I said. Only in monarchies is the ruler actually barred from becoming duke, unless democracies have the same rule. So no, not the majority of government types.

[Telrunya]

Cannot be reelected as duke: Monarchy, (Democracy?)

You can be reelected as Ruler in a Monarchy, just can't appoint yourself.

[Chenier]

But that doesn't work in BM, because the mechanics work against ruler/dukes i.e. Being elected Ruler strips your titles and the ruler can't appoint himself as duke.

I tend to agree.

1) It would constrain government somewhat
2) The BM playerbase is just not active enough, goals won't make them act necessarily, just piss people off and maybe make people leave the game :-\ Besides we shouldn't be forcing people in hyper-activity. BM is meant to be kind of slow paced.

It's not impossible, though. I'm a ruler/duke, I just got myself re-elected back as duke after being elected as ruler. A bit of luck and playing your card rights can make it.

Granted, the system does work against this.

In some government systems, though, I think you can appoint yourself.

[Chenier]

You can be reelected as Ruler in a Monarchy, just can't appoint yourself.

Precisly. Government systems are a lot more complex than when they first came out, due to their customability.

The way I understand it:

Any government system: get elected ruler, lose lordship. You can get re-elected as ruler aftwards.
Republic, Democracy and Monarchy: can't appoint yourself as duke.
Tyranny and Theocracy: have fun, you can appoint yourself to pretty much anything you want.

Monarchies usually don't have elections, but that's up to the ruler. In D'Hara, for example, we are a monarchy with elections. A kind of constitutional monarchy, except we didn't bother writing a constitution yet. As such, it was possible for me to be re-elected duke after gaining rulership, though I couldn't appoint myself (even though I could appoint another).

[Gustav Kuriga]

As a semi-new player (I haven't been here as long as some of you, but have been playing for about 2 years) I would have to say the player retention problem isn't anything to do with teamwork. Also, restricting teamwork to that with the realm will only reduce interest, not increase it.

I feel most new players leave of boredom, not lack of teamwork. My friend recently started account. A week later, he stopped playing. Reason? "Nothing really happened."

An intra-realm conflict has to have sides and therefore a "team" of sorts, right? Thus focusing on realm-wide teamwork would just reduce the possibilities of being a part of a faction within the realm.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

If you were the mastermind of a big huge plan you've been plotting in your spare time for the past couple of years, would you really let a new player into your fold? Or would you rather use him as a pawn first to test whether he's safe to let in? The safe choice would be the former, and reasonably, why not? You spent so long planning it, it would be a horrible waste if the new player turned out to be an idiot who blabs about your sinister plot just because you have to include players.

I think people have already said clearly that intra-realm conflicts do make something happen, but unless you're really among the inner circle, or at least the buffer middle circle, you'll just see a bunch of stuff happening with no idea why, and that's among the most frustrating parts of this game. It's perfectly reasonable and in fact I'd recommend being very cautious with who you let into your mix. That doesn't help outsiders much though. So? I think intra-realm conflicts ought to be among exclusive groups, because they prove they're capable of being reliable and trustworthy. Inter-realm conflicts are a bit less complicated on the surface and breed less confusion among new players. That might work better as an inclusive type of conflict.

[Chenier]

If you were the mastermind of a big huge plan you've been plotting in your spare time for the past couple of years, would you really let a new player into your fold? Or would you rather use him as a pawn first to test whether he's safe to let in? The safe choice would be the former, and reasonably, why not? You spent so long planning it, it would be a horrible waste if the new player turned out to be an idiot who blabs about your sinister plot just because you have to include players.

I think people have already said clearly that intra-realm conflicts do make something happen, but unless you're really among the inner circle, or at least the buffer middle circle, you'll just see a bunch of stuff happening with no idea why, and that's among the most frustrating parts of this game. It's perfectly reasonable and in fact I'd recommend being very cautious with who you let into your mix. That doesn't help outsiders much though. So? I think intra-realm conflicts ought to be among exclusive groups, because they prove they're capable of being reliable and trustworthy. Inter-realm conflicts are a bit less complicated on the surface and breed less confusion among new players. That might work better as an inclusive type of conflict.

Indeed, inter-realm conflicts involve a lot more people and are much more open to everyone than intra-realm conflicts, which are forced to be much more secretive by nature.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Woah, woah, woah. Who ever said intra-realm conflicts need to be conspiracies, which is what you seem to be suggesting. And while, yes, realm-wide conflicts involve more people, most of that is just moving to or from some position, refiting, or waiting for the army to rally at a certain point. Let's face it, unless you are besieging a city/stronghold, you may be part of a battle maybe once every week. If you are lucky and your realm is right next to the one you are fighting.

An intra-realm conflict can simply be two groups in the realm that each have their own goals. This can be secretive goals, as you are suggesting, or simply a matter of policy when it comes to foreign outlook. It can be as bad as civil war, or just an heated discussion between two groups of nobles over who can do what when.

[Heq]

Or, you know, like six groups of nobles.

I think the point being missed is that fun plans often don't need to be successful to be really interesting.  Okay, rebellions tend to suck for the losers, but a scheme to completely shaft a rival marshal's army can go awry and still be interesting.