"Silent" (auto) rebellions

[Jens Namtrah]

I've been ready a few of the threads about dwindling player numbers and engagement. This idea doesn't necessarily solve anything, but might be a small step in the right direction.

I'm quite surprised at the number of realms I see that I would consider to be quite active, and yet the monthly election shows the leader winning with "28% of the vote". My idea is this:

---
IF an election doesn't meet certain criteria (ex., less than x% of vote cast, top candidate receives less than x% of vote, etc.)

THEN a "pretender" army "crosses the border at y" (i.e., a rebel army is auto-generated)

---

THE REBEL ARMY:

MECHANICS: A few possibilities:

1) simplest - just a sizable rogue army, with an in-game roleplay message. I think this would be a little disappointing, as it wouldn't really mimic the effect we're after, but at least it gives a big role play event for the realm

2) a rebel militia (like the result of a current rebellion), but that can move. I think this might not be very successful as coding a realistic assault against the loyalists/capitol would be rather complicated. might be fun to try, though.

3) an actual NPC army lead by a player, in the way the daemons on BT were. this leader would be a hero character; his death or capture & execution would be one way to end the rebellion (see below)

4) any other ideas that are practicable

JOINING REBELLION:

I would really like to see it set up in a way that there is an actual rebellion occurring, just as if the players themselves started it, and that characters could join. I realize that adds a lot of complications, but if this idea is followed up on, please keep in mind this "wish" when thinking about how it might be coded.


REBEL ARMY SIZE & STARTPOINT:

1) should be big enough to cause a "real threat", not just something for Home Defense to wipe out in one or two battles

2) should be small enough that it is unlikely to actually win, unless no one pays attention to it or several characters join forces

3) can start about anywhere, I guess. if it only survives a certain number of turns, should have enough turns to be able to comfortably fight its way to the capitol (no "waiting it out") . (perhaps lowest morale or controlled region, for example)

END GAME:

a few possibilities

1) cs of rebel army is reduced below a certain point

2) if rebellion has leader character (NPC or otherwise), is killed or captured

3) captures the capitol - realm thrown into Anarchy, lots of bad stuff happens to them. not sure what to do with the rebels at this point :-)

BENEFITS TO GAME:

1) can't be forced on any realm that doesn't like it - it's not like "Too Much Peace". Only requirement here is that your ruler manages to convince x% of the players to check a  box on the voting page. If he can't do that, he really doesn't deserve to be your ruler, IMHO.

2) gives players who complain that rebellions are impossible because of the non-engagement of majority of players a new way to shake things up. simply ask others not to vote, instead of asking them to actively join a rebellion

3) a way to enact an internal, civil war for an otherwise "peaceful" realm. There seems to be a lot of desire among players for the ability to have civil strife, but don't want to be forced into fighting other realms. Here you go.

4) gets the ruler a little more engaged in his realm, where needed. that was actually what spawned this idea. Ruler channel is NOT the most important aspect of the game for ruler players; your realm is.

5) sounds like fun, and very medieval (IMHO). there were always pretenders to the throne lurking about foreign courts. 28% of the vote? sounds like a ruler most nobles couldn't be bothered to cross the street to say "hello" to. What better time to land on the shores and announce your claim?

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

I guess a simple large rogue army in your borders, with a roleplay announcement,  if certain conditions aren't met would be the easiest way to try this idea out. if it seemed to work, it could be expanded to make the rebel army more realistic, or any other ideas.

[Anaris]

I think you'd be surprised at how much support "28% of the vote" actually indicates.  Part of the problem is with how it calculates the number of valid votes; I believe it includes all the secondary and tertiary votes, whether or not they're actually set.  And I know that I rarely set my second and third votes, because there's only one person I particularly want to win.

[Jens Namtrah]

That's possible, and would make a lot more sense to me given the realms I tend to see this in.

Perhaps the idea might be recycled to be used under other circumstances? I'll leave it to the community to come up with ideas where they might like to see this event happen. Could just be a variation on "Monster are eating the peasants in region X", and not a full-scale rebellion like I originally posted.

[egamma]

I think Tom wants to get further away from unruly peasants in the game. Still, if the army is led by a minor noble, or perhaps a Hero could be given a "start rebellion" option...

[Indirik]

Personally, I don't like the idea of any auto-generated, NPC-controlled armies. BattleMaster is player-focused, with some special exemptions revolving around the BT invasions. Things that happen in-game should be because of player actions.

What could be interesting is to provide additional options that become available to various realm-members when the "winner" doesn't have enough support. For example:

• The realm could descend into anarchy if too many people all get the approximate same vote share. (i.e. the four leading candidates get 10%, 10%, 12%, and 13%, or something.)
• If there are two strong candidates far ahead of anyone else, say 30% and 33% vs the next closest at 10%, the "loser" gets the option to attempt an immediate military coup.
• If the results are very close, as in situation 1, then the duke of the capital gets the option to declare himself the ruler, in which case the realm gets shifted automatically to a tyranny.

I'm sure there are other situations that could occur, and corresponding options that can appear for them. The key is that they require an actual player to *do* something to take advantage of them. This leaves the course of the game firmly in the hands of the players. The game is just providing them opportunities that they can choose to take advantage of, or not.

[MaleMaldives]

I don't think a majority of 28% is that big a deal. When you compare it to America where there is only two major political parties, is seems small because the winner typically has a percentage of over 50%. If you added just 1 more more major political party then the amount of votes to win could be like 34%. There is also the factor of uncounted votes that people mentioned before.

I think you should be able to have your second or third votes go towards your first vote if you wish. Or better yet different governments could have different voting rules, some could have the original system, others could have where you can combine votes, and a third where there is only one vote to place.

[egamma]

I don't think a majority of 28% is that big a deal. When you compare it to America where there is only two major political parties, is seems small because the winner typically has a percentage of over 50%. If you added just 1 more more major political party then the amount of votes to win could be like 34%. There is also the factor of uncounted votes that people mentioned before.

I think you should be able to have your second or third votes go towards your first vote if you wish. Or better yet different governments could have different voting rules, some could have the original system, others could have where you can combine votes, and a third where there is only one vote to place.

Technically, 33% of eligible voters voted for Obama--69 million divided by 208 million eligible voters. 28% of eligible voters voted for McCain. 37% of eligible voters voted for nobody.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Mm, that 2% reminds me that there are in fact more parties than D and R

[vonGenf]

I don't think a majority of 28% is that big a deal. When you compare it to America where there is only two major political parties, is seems small because the winner typically has a percentage of over 50%. If you added just 1 more more major political party then the amount of votes to win could be like 34%. There is also the factor of uncounted votes that people mentioned before.

That's not how the BM system works. Everyone has 7 votes: 4 go towards your first choice, 2 to your second choice and 1 to your third choice.

If everyone in the realm puts the same person in first place, that person only gathers 4/7=57% of the vote. 28% means half the people put the person in first place, or some other combination of second and third place.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

That's not what happens though. I know I've seen a 70% before.

[vonGenf]

Oh... then it's been wrongly explained to me. Please ignore me!

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Maybe someone can give us a report to the contrary? The realms I'm in don't typically have elections, except Sirion, and that is...Hang on

Referendum Results   (9 days, 8 hours ago)
The referendum "Vote for the Ruler" has ended. Here is the final tally:
148 votes for Meristenzio
16 votes for Ecthelion
12 abstentions
204 votes were not cast

The winning choice therefore is Meristenzio, with 148 votes. A simple majority was required, i.e. 1 vote.
Therefore, Sir Meristenzio Peristaltico, Prime Minister of Sirion, Ambassador of Sirion has been confirmed in office.
As a reminder, the full text of the referendum was:
This is the monthly election for the position of Ruler (Prime Minister).

All nobles of the realm will vote, each vote having the same weight.

So that's 380 total votes, or 95 characters who can vote (enough time in realm). When we look at how there are currently 92 nobles in Sirion, that makes sense.

Also, the world news states: Ruler Re-elected   (2011-05-05 06:06:16)
The realm of Sirion has reconfirmed Meristenzio Peristaltico as its Prime Minister.He received 38% of the valid votes cast.

(148/380)*100 = 38.947368421 you get the point

But why didn't it say 39% then, since it was 38.947? Either we are using the old-style rules for rounding significant figures (doubtful) or we're using the integer division. In that case:

(148//380)*100 = 38, so 38%, and this makes sense in the context of valid votes being 4 * (number of eligible voters)

As the first vote counts as 4, in this case, everyone seems to have voted first choice. Now, we need an example where there are second choices. Preferably, ruler elections, because those have a % in the world news to use as comparison.

[Stue (DC)]

28%, thought it looks rather bad, is really not so small number, but recently i saw several 10% wins, and if i remember well, one ruler on at won elections by 5% last week.

in general, i would say elections, especially if too frequent, create lot of indolence and idea that low numbers should open some new options indeed looks as something to bring better quality.

at first glance, all revolves among several possiblities - loss of control, be it rouges, or something similar to "too much peace" or instantly created additional options for rebellion.

maybe some automatic referednum that would allow nobles to change government type?! few wants to vote - ok, here is opportunity tochange government type to tyranny/monarchy or so.
'?

[LilWolf]

Personally, I don't like the idea of any auto-generated, NPC-controlled armies. BattleMaster is player-focused, with some special exemptions revolving around the BT invasions. Things that happen in-game should be because of player actions.

What could be interesting is to provide additional options that become available to various realm-members when the "winner" doesn't have enough support. For example:

• The realm could descend into anarchy if too many people all get the approximate same vote share. (i.e. the four leading candidates get 10%, 10%, 12%, and 13%, or something.)
• If there are two strong candidates far ahead of anyone else, say 30% and 33% vs the next closest at 10%, the "loser" gets the option to attempt an immediate military coup.
• If the results are very close, as in situation 1, then the duke of the capital gets the option to declare himself the ruler, in which case the realm gets shifted automatically to a tyranny.

I'm sure there are other situations that could occur, and corresponding options that can appear for them. The key is that they require an actual player to *do* something to take advantage of them. This leaves the course of the game firmly in the hands of the players. The game is just providing them opportunities that they can choose to take advantage of, or not.

If such options are too powerful you will quickly find that elections are turned from monthly things to once for life sort of things. The idea runs a big risk of actually hindering position change.

[Jens Namtrah]

If such options are too powerful you will quickly find that elections are turned from monthly things to once for life sort of things. The idea runs a big risk of actually hindering position change.

Then we don't make it too powerful, I guess.  I know you're a big fan of change in Council positions; I'm sure we could work with you to find a tolerable level  ;)