No man is an island, not even a noble man

[Anaris]

Excellent points. I think under this feature they still can expand, but they will need to acquire the manpower to do so, which will incentivise players to recruit their friends, and to try to woo nobles away from other realms by offering them a lordship or a lower tax rate.

It's a nice thought. We hoped that when we actually had a system like this in place.

Guess what? It didn't actually happen in real life.

One perverse feature of the current game is that it's actually better for lords if they have no knights, because knights cut into their tax revenue. This shouldn't be the case. It should be in the lord's interest to attract knights to his region.

I completely agree with this. It's been on my list for some time, but I need to have time to work out the details of how it should work.

In the past couple of years it hasn't been a problem in practice, because realms have desperately needed to attract more nobles in general, but yes, there's definitely a perverse incentive there that needs to be eliminated (or, ideally, reversed).

[Buffalkill]

In any system, it should *always* be desirable for a realm to take more regions. There should never be a negative aspect to expansion, as far as game mechanics are concerned. We want to create reasons for people to declare war, rather than to not declare war.

I agree completely. I think this idea can be done in a way that wars and expansion will still be the ultimate goal.

[vonGenf]

Excellent points. I think under this feature they still can expand, but they will need to acquire the manpower to do so, which will incentivise players to recruit their friends, and to try to woo nobles away from other realms by offering them a lordship or a lower tax rate.

I don't think this way of thinking works. First because it breaks immersion. I'm all for recruiting friends, but it should'nt be to achieve IC goals. IC goals should be achieved by IC means, and you should recruit friends because the game is fun. Secondly, in practice it still ends up in a vicious circle: "We can't go to war because we don't have enough nobles to maintain our own regions. We should recruit some friends first" - "My friends won't come to play in this boring realm which hasn't been at war for ages!".

Given the feedback on this FR, it can be changed so that low-density regions don't have to go rogue necessarily, but just suffer decreased morale, production. So one or two nobles can keep the region loyal, but it won't reach 100% stats.

Anaris has already announced changes that will make it possible to keep a region at middling stats without having spiral out of control. When that is applied, then something like this can work. This could mean, for example, that a region without knights would be less profitable and easier to take over, but wouldn't run a deficit or go rogue on its own.

[Buffalkill]

I don't think this way of thinking works. First because it breaks immersion. I'm all for recruiting friends, but it should'nt be to achieve IC goals. IC goals should be achieved by IC means, and you should recruit friends because the game is fun. Secondly, in practice it still ends up in a vicious circle: "We can't go to war because we don't have enough nobles to maintain our own regions. We should recruit some friends first" - "My friends won't come to play in this boring realm which hasn't been at war for ages!".

When new players join, it's good for everyone. I'm not interested in whether people recruit friends in response to a specific IC need or not. More players = more players. That said, my hypothesis is incidental to the feature request. I think it might lead to increased peer recruitment, but that would be a bonus. It's not the crux of my argument.

Anaris has already announced changes that will make it possible to keep a region at middling stats without having spiral out of control. When that is applied, then something like this can work. This could mean, for example, that a region without knights would be less profitable and easier to take over, but wouldn't run a deficit or go rogue on its own.

That's good, but shouldn't a region go rogue if it has no nobles? It's one thing to have not enough nobles, which should result in decreased morale, production & loyalty, but you shouldn't be able to maintain a region with zero nobles.

[Anaris]

When new players join, it's good for everyone. I'm not interested in whether people recruit friends in response to a specific IC need or not. More players = more players.

No one disputes the benefit of more players.

That said, my hypothesis is incidental to the feature request. I think it might lead to increased peer recruitment, but that would be a bonus. It's not the crux of my argument.

I disagree. We have demonstrated reasons why, with the playerbase the size that it is, your proposal would make the game more stagnant and less fun. It therefore requires your hypothesis to be true for it to be of measurable benefit to the game.

That's good, but shouldn't a region go rogue if it has no nobles? It's one thing to have not enough nobles, which should result in decreased morale, production & loyalty, but you shouldn't be able to maintain a region with zero nobles.

Why not?

[Buffalkill]

I disagree. We have demonstrated reasons why, with the playerbase the size that it is, your proposal would make the game more stagnant and less fun. It therefore requires your hypothesis to be true for it to be of measurable benefit to the game.

Fair enough. Then let's give incentives for players who recruit friends, and allow existing players to have 2 nobles on Dwilight.

Why not?

Because without central authority the population would descend into lawlessness and anarchy. The lord's role is to manage the region. If it's not being managed then it's, by definition, rogue. Also, it's contrary to your overarching goal to increase noble density.

[trying]

If all the lords had to "manage their region" there would be no wars.

[Anaris]

Fair enough. Then let's give incentives for players who recruit friends,

I believe we already do, but giving a strong incentive is just an incentive to multicheat.

and allow existing players to have 2 nobles on Dwilight.

Nope. Not gonna happen. This is something we discussed and decided on some time ago: a big part of Dwilight's uniqueness comes from the fact that you can't have two characters there, one propping up the other, or creating an inextricably tangled web of alliances like you see on AT and EC.

Because without central authority the population would descend into lawlessness and anarchy. The lord's role is to manage the region. If it's not being managed then it's, by definition, rogue. Also, it's contrary to your overarching goal to increase noble density.

Not having a lord isn't the same thing as rogue. Nor should it be. The region is still part of the realm, and as such, it does have central authority. There's just not a Lord or knights overseeing that central authority. So, sure, some corruption's going to occur, but that's a long way from lawlessness and anarchy.

And in case you haven't noticed, I've been achieving the goal of increasing noble density by other means.

[Anaris]

If all the lords had to "manage their region" there would be no wars.

Exactly.

[Graeth]

I don't understand the reasoning behind this.  It only limits players and realms.  Removing the land mass increased the total density of players in one area which increases conflict and land grab.  This would increase the density of players per a realm's regions, and decrease land grab and conflict.  Why?  What would the benefits be but frustrating a realm's growth?  Do you think there is not enough room in the East?  It would be counter intuitive to the whole idea of removing the Western half of Dwilight.  I remember when we had this feature or a feature similar to it.  It was awful.  The game has been so much more enjoyable since then.  All of the wars since Caerwyn's destruction (at least the ones Asylon has been involved in) wouldn't have happened if these restrictions had still been in place.

We should have more positive features (like the ones talked about here, e.g., receiving bonuses for knights) and not negative features (e.g., you can't maintain a region without a certain number of knights).

[Buffalkill]

If all the lords had to "manage their region" there would be no wars.

They don't actively manage, it's an implied function of their position.

[Buffalkill]

We should have more positive features (like the ones talked about here, e.g., receiving bonuses for knights) and not negative features (e.g., you can't maintain a region without a certain number of knights).

I don't necessarily disagree with this. Consider the FR a rough draft of an idea, not a finished blueprint.

[Zakilevo]

Incentives work. Punishments don't. So try to always think along the line of encouraging people to do something instead of forcing them to do so.

Also, the current problem with estates is people are not interested in staying in the region where you get less gold. If you get more gold as a knight of a city, you are more likely to ditch your rural estate for a city one.

Estate buildings have been approved already and eventually it will get implemented. It should encourage knights to actually 'invest' in your estate and make you more inclined to stay where you are than move to another estate.

[Buffalkill]

Incentives work.

Based on the feedback here, I would change this feature request so that instead of requiring minimum number of nobles to prevent roguitude, the optimal number of nobles would only be required to achieve 100% in the region indicators (production, morale, loyalty, etc.) For example, a region with only 1 noble (a lord) might only be able to achieve 33% production, 33% gold, and so on. Add a knight and that goes up to 67%, add a second knight and voilà, 100%. I think this addresses most or all of the disadvantages raised by you guys, and still retains all the advantages. So realms could still take new regions if they don't have the prescribed number of nobles.

[Penchant]

Based on the feedback here, I would change this feature request so that instead of requiring minimum number of nobles to prevent roguitude, the optimal number of nobles would only be required to achieve 100% in the region indicators (production, morale, loyalty, etc.) For example, a region with only 1 noble (a lord) might only be able to achieve 33% production, 33% gold, and so on. Add a knight and that goes up to 67%, add a second knight and voilà, 100%. I think this addresses most or all of the disadvantages raised by you guys, and still retains all the advantages. So realms could still take new regions if they don't have the prescribed number of nobles.

Two major issues with that.

One: you make #of nobles you have way too important. they already have massive advantages but this makes it almost just a who has more nobles thing because of its huge impact

Two: We don't have enough nobles for that, and no we aren't going to say letting everyone have double the nobles is the solution. There are very real issues with people playing a lot of nobles.

That said, that idea can be tweaked perhaps to work, but i personally am against it. Regardless of the specifics of the method you are directly punishing for not having enough nobles, and if the realm is in !@#$ty condition because it does not have enough enough nobles it makes it a lot harder to fix. (It will probably already be crappy because of low amount of nobles but if your regions are doing poor and you don't have much gold it makes igniting war and making things fun a lot harder.)

I feel like at this time you should let things be for a bit because I can see the War Improvements Package directly affecting the proper way to handle this for various reasons.