Large flaws in estate and tax system

[Eldargard]

I think it is important for vacant estates to be more productive that wild lands and occupied estates much more productive that vacant estates. Should wild lands and vacant estates continue to be of equal value there will be no incentive to have open estates and I think that having open estates is supper important. I believe having open estates helps new players get started in a fast and painless manner.

Also, while I love the idea of buildings and other estate improvements that will enhance the region and give special value to estates, I think it is more important for knights to have some kind of "protest" option with teeth. It does not have to be the same as the old coverage option but I feel it is important that some kind of "Fine, my estate will just not help you" option is in order.

[Jens Namtrah]

Should wild lands and vacant estates continue to be of equal value there will be no incentive to have open estates and I think that having open estates is supper important.

if they are worth 0 unfilled, but an efficient rate when filled, then yes they will.

Lords will do as they do now - make empty estates with the hope of filling them. The thing we are saying is, Lords are currently receiving the full reward wither they are filled or not

[Zakilevo]

this would take us back to a variation of the old system problem:

a Lord could just rotate through his estates, resetting them.

although, IMHO - if he's that lame let him have his extra gold.

There is an easy solution to this. Don't make the recovery instant. BUT make the recovery speed to increase exponentially so more knights are in the region, faster the region recovers from corruption.

[De-Legro]

There seems to be a flaw or bug in the way wildlands & empty estates are calculated, making that moot. I was confused about this too with an earlier conversation with Buffalkill - I thought "wildlands" and "empty estate" were synonymous. The aren't.

Wildlands is at 50% - but there's no reason to have wildlands. You can just make that area an empty estate and it has normal - up to 100% - efficiency.

So trying to penalize via wildlands is pointless. Lords can set up a good estate for themselves, chop the rest into 20-25% chunks and let them run at 100%, and collect as much as if they had knights.

EDIT: to add to that, there are no penalties if a region is left lordless, as long as estates were set up as above by the previous lord.

I would have to go back and look at things, but as I recall that is not how it was supposed to work. Vacant estates should have not been as productive as Wildlands. As I recall they show the regular efficiency rating, otherwise it would be a pain as a lord to work out how big to make the estates, but come tax time they should not provide the full potential.

I'm not a fan of the corruption mechanic. An estate is either properly managed or it is not.

The question I would ask is what purpose do wild lands fill? Should they simply be a container to house unused land while a Lord plays around with estate sizes and confer no real income? Should they provide some sort of other benefit, perhaps tied into things like the proposed hunting mechanic?

[Jens Namtrah]

I agree - I don't see any need for a special mech. I don't think it's running like it was intended, and a simple fix on unfilled estates to make them less efficient will do it.

(and I will NOT say "BDD" here...)

[De-Legro]

I agree - I don't see any need for a special mech. I don't think it's running like it was intended, and a simple fix on unfilled estates to make them less efficient will do it.

(and I will NOT say "BDD" here...)

That is possible, some of the estate stuff was purposely left out until Tom could see what the effects of those changes would be. It is possible that no one has remembered to go back and implement it.

[Jens Namtrah]

Well, if you're going to monitor the effect of something then you prolly ought to monitor it ;-) . But since the way it is set up makes part of your code moot (ie, no one has any reason to ever leave anything wild lands), not sure I believe that idea.

But we're only guessing & OT, so whatever.

[Chenier]

You guys do realize that your suggestions would worsen the problems you want to address? Realms with extra regions would refuse to appoint lords to them, because losing the city knights would result in much too great wealth loss. Realms with 15 regions, but 15 nobles spread over only 10, would be stronger than realms with 15 nobles spread over 15 regions.

Also, Indirik, I fail to see how it's legitimate to dismiss cases to the contrary when trying to prove a point. Even without the dramatic tax tolerance reduction, tax efficiency alone, in its current form, is enough to remove all monetary incentive to expand.

[De-Legro]

You guys do realize that your suggestions would worsen the problems you want to address? Realms with extra regions would refuse to appoint lords to them, because losing the city knights would result in much too great wealth loss. Realms with 15 regions, but 15 nobles spread over only 10, would be stronger than realms with 15 nobles spread over 15 regions.

Also, Indirik, I fail to see how it's legitimate to dismiss cases to the contrary when trying to prove a point. Even without the dramatic tax tolerance reduction, tax efficiency alone, in its current form, is enough to remove all monetary incentive to expand.

Which is why I suggested that the system needs more then wealth factored in. But even then it doesn't make the system worse, since it actually makes knights worth having, which apparently they aren't at all right now. I would prefer to see it so at least some regions had a reason to have knights then a current system that gives no incentive at all.

If things are balance such that a decent region with a Lord provided less net gain then a knight in a city, then we have failed in the balance to start with.

[Chenier]

Which is why I suggested that the system needs more then wealth factored in. But even then it doesn't make the system worse, since it actually makes knights worth having, which apparently they aren't at all right now. I would prefer to see it so at least some regions had a reason to have knights then a current system that gives no incentive at all.

If things are balance such that a decent region with a Lord provided less net gain then a knight in a city, then we have failed in the balance to start with.

More nobles always means greater wealth and power.

However, I do agree that it would be a good thing to provide more incentives to share.

[Indirik]

There seems to be a flaw or bug in the way wildlands & empty estates are calculated, making that moot. I was confused about this too with an earlier conversation with Buffalkill - I thought "wildlands" and "empty estate" were synonymous. The aren't.

Not quite, but close. The difference is that Wildlands can't be taken by a knight. Empty estates can.

Wildlands is at 50% - but there's no reason to have wildlands. You can just make that area an empty estate and it has normal - up to 100% - efficiency.

Vacant estates only pass 50% of the estate income up to the lord.

Vacant lordships only pass 50% of the region income up to the Duke. If there is also no duke, the banker gets it.

[Lorgan]

Why can't we just mimic the empty council position mechanic? For example:

"No Lord in Keplertown.
The region of Keplertown has been without a Lord for 5 days now.
Peasants and local nobility in the Duchy of Kepler are questioning the rule of Duke Keppie due to his failure in procuring vassals. Some are wondering why they should still follow him."

More important than having small effects on the stats, it makes the one responsible for this look weak in front of the rest of his realm, who should also get the message that this really isn't normal.

As for knights, if you can't see how knights are power and gold under the current system, then when will you? The problem here is a focus on personal enrichment for the lord in stead of the benefit for the realm or Duchy as a whole.
That said, more options for knights in relation to their estates and more options for lords in relation to their knights would be great additions to the game. I'd love to see a return of some form of the old mark system where lords could take the bullet for their knights by giving them 3 good marks, protecting them from judge action.

[Indirik]

Also, Indirik, I fail to see how it's legitimate to dismiss cases to the contrary when trying to prove a point. Even without the dramatic tax tolerance reduction, tax efficiency alone, in its current form, is enough to remove all monetary incentive to expand.

My point was two-fold:

First that the realm size tax code *cannot* produce the effect you're describing. If what you are describing happened, (I don't know, I wasn't there), then it was not produced by the realm size code. Therefore, pointing out IVF as the poster child for your point is invalid. It does not illustrate the point you're trying to make.

Second: Rare edge cases are not useful when describing the behavior of the system overall. BattleMaster is not a game of single-region city states. Nor are they especially common, nor often very long-lived. Using their behavior to set overall game policy is a poor choice. You don't optimize for edge cases. It may be desirable at some point to implement some code to handle them through various exceptions. Holding them up as examples for how the overall system may discourage desired behavior is not useful.


Also, you keep talking about both a "tax tolerance" and a "tax efficiency". The game calculates a "tax tolerance". The game does not calculate or use any kind of "tax efficiency". If you're assuming that this is a game mechanic, then you're mistaken and should stop using the term. If this is some definition you've created, then I have no idea what you're talking about. (Are you perhaps talking about estate efficiency or something?)

[Indirik]

Why can't we just mimic the empty council position mechanic? For example:

"No Lord in Keplertown.
The region of Keplertown has been without a Lord for 5 days now.
Peasants and local nobility in the Duchy of Kepler are questioning the rule of Duke Keppie due to his failure in procuring vassals. Some are wondering why they should still follow him."

More important than having small effects on the stats, it makes the one responsible for this look weak in front of the rest of his realm, who should also get the message that this really isn't normal.

This is somewhat similar to a proposal I shared with the dev team a couple weeks ago. Your idea of adding penalties to the entire duchy is an interesting addition to the proposal.

That said, more options for knights in relation to their estates and more options for lords in relation to their knights would be great additions to the game. I'd love to see a return of some form of the old mark system where lords could take the bullet for their knights by giving them 3 good marks, protecting them from judge action.

The good/bad mark system was interesting. I liked it. I think that if the system was implemented again, then it should be extended higher. Having one unimportant lord protect his knight is not very useful when the lord just gets banned instead. A way to extend this up to allow the dukes to protect their lords would be a good extension.

[Lorgan]

The good/bad mark system was interesting. I liked it. I think that if the system was implemented again, then it should be extended higher. Having one unimportant lord protect his knight is not very useful when the lord just gets banned instead. A way to extend this up to allow the dukes to protect their lords would be a good extension.

That would indeed be better. Also I think it was you who mentioned individual ducal/royal taxation a little while ago? Can't remember the details but that would truly be amazing.