Large flaws in estate and tax system

[Stue (DC)]

While at-that-time large reconstruction of the estate system did give some, in my opinion, improvements, I would note visible flaws which directly degrade gaming interaction:

- More than once I checked, and lord of the region earns more gold from wild lands than from having knight with estate. for those who want to grab money by all means this is likely great opportunity, while i think it makes no sense game-wise.
I can clearly say that I have never seen any use of having knight in a region. They just draw money which would otherwise come to you, and even ask for more funds while you are always short of funds. begone, knights! we don't want new knights, no new players as well  8)

- I cannot check it myself, but I see that so many regions have no lords, while dukes don't care though there are enough knights around. Again, no need even for lords: food is produced smoothly (that i can see as a banker), wild lands probably bring more (as for lords), so begone, lords  8)  I see that dukes don't appoint lords for many rl months.

- As estate coverage is no more, region almost never falls into trouble except when acquired by brutal force or heavily looted (both occasions being incredibly rare as there is so little speed difference between friendly and brutal takeover that almost noone ever attempts brutal takeover. So all these slow old guys who worked as courtiers and were sensibly useful for the realm are absolutely not needed any more. You can play game at slow pace as inalienable rights still (formally) exist, but noone needs you for anything other than quick moving troops, meaning if you don't log in often enough you are nobody. Begone slow guys, nobody wants you  8)

to not just make sarcastic complaints, but to try to be constructive, I will point that i really don't understand why estate coverage is removed.
- that was main motivation for interaction between lord and knight. now lords and knights almost never talk.
- gave much more importance to every single noble in the realm, making game more funny for everyone
- small-level politics could even be played by switching estate to control, production or even to nothing
- leaders had to care for all knights much more. now leaders still care, but only in strictly narrow sense - care for having troop-holding slots that would blindly follow control-freak leader

how game would be hurt if some realms would lose some regions for not having enough knights to support regions? in my opinion there are many, many possibilities for playing game and have fun for everyone other than controlling as many regions as possible

[Chenier]

I agree, in principle, with what you say. Knights only make lords poorer, lords only make dukes poorer, and none of the feudal titles can be held accountable for being greedy. There used to be incentives to having knights, now it's the opposite.

However, in practice, I don't think that's really an issue. At least, not a dramatic one. Knights are rarely unable to find an estate, and lordships are rarely left vacant unless the noble density is very low.

The previous system was also flawed, because it couldn't factor in the decrease in player base and that the noble density wasn't over 3:1 almost anywhere. However, it is true that it gave worth to knights. Personally, that's one reason why I tend to, OOC, strongly favor voting systems that have lords as representatives, as it gives them incentives to share with knights, and rewards those that reach out to them (active lords often having as many or more knights than average city lords that could afford much more but don't reach out). That kind of voting system seems rare, though, and I don't really think it enough on its own. Revisiting the estates system would be worthwhile.

[Buffalkill]

how game would be hurt if some realms would lose some regions for not having enough knights to support regions? in my opinion there are many, many possibilities for playing game and have fun for everyone other than controlling as many regions as possible

This is why the nobles-to-region ratio tends to move toward 1:1 over time. Extraneous factors can increase the ratio temporarily, but the most stable realms are typically close to 1:1. Fewer knights means more gold for the ruling class, and the ruling class tend to use their gold for things like recruitment centres, militia, workshops, etc. so it's no wonder the biggest most stable realms have the fewest knights.

[Stue (DC)]

This is why the nobles-to-region ratio tends to move toward 1:1 over time. Extraneous factors can increase the ratio temporarily, but the most stable realms are typically close to 1:1. Fewer knights means more gold for the ruling class, and the ruling class tend to use their gold for things like recruitment centres, militia, workshops, etc. so it's no wonder the biggest most stable realms have the fewest knights.

yep, your resume emphasizes even more that knights are not needed.

[Eldargard]

I do miss the coverage system and even the merit/marks system. I would love to see something similar brought back. Off the top of my head:

Potential Changes:
1. Make it so Wild lands produce 0 gold or food
2. Make empty estates produce 0 gold but normal food
3. Make is so every region needs at least 2 estates for full coverage
4. Allow knights to click some button that will in some way negatively impact the region lord
    a. The level of impact should relate to estate size
    b. Reduce gold and or food production??
    c. Cause region stats to slip??
    d. Something else??
5. Have knights automatically earn "marks" every X days (7?)
    a. These marks are not optional and are fully automatic
    b. If a knight has one or more marks, the lord can not take their estate away
    c. Once per day a Lord can take a mark away from a knight
        i. This requires a custom message from the Lord explaining the reason.
6. Use the same or a similar mark system between Lords and Dukes
8. Make it so Dukes will lose their position if injured like Region Lords do.

[Chenier]

Drastically cutting the income of most realms will not incite wars.

[Stue (DC)]

Drastically cutting the income of most realms will not incite wars.

certainly not drastically, but sensibly would be more appropriate. making things too easy degrades incentive and creates apathy. i am really not in favor of button-efforts like diplomatic ones, but if interaction efforts are not rewarded, than we have what we have now - bunch of overly powerful players who earn great benefits with little efforts and actually do not need many by themselves.

why should not realm with 10 regions and great estate coverage earn sensibly more than realm with 20 regions and bad coverage, with comparable region stats?

personally i don't see any problem with continent where all realms are separated from each other with three rows of rouge regions. if leaders want to make some stories, they will make it,;if they prefer only to sit tightly and avoid any action, than at least those who do not care for anyone but themselves should not be rewarded.

[Chenier]

certainly not drastically, but sensibly would be more appropriate. making things too easy degrades incentive and creates apathy. i am really not in favor of button-efforts like diplomatic ones, but if interaction efforts are not rewarded, than we have what we have now - bunch of overly powerful players who earn great benefits with little efforts and actually do not need many by themselves.

why should not realm with 10 regions and great estate coverage earn sensibly more than realm with 20 regions and bad coverage, with comparable region stats?

personally i don't see any problem with continent where all realms are separated from each other with three rows of rouge regions. if leaders want to make some stories, they will make it,;if they prefer only to sit tightly and avoid any action, than at least those who do not care for anyone but themselves should not be rewarded.

Growth is already penalized. A realm with 25 nobles over 10 regions will, in almost all cases, be more wealthy and powerful than a realm with 25 nobles over 25 regions. I wouldn't think it reasonable to tweak things so that a realm with as many nobles but twice the regions has half the wealth the other has.

[trying]

Just a random note but you made a typo in the thread title.

[Stue (DC)]

ups, i noticed that already, but just now noticed that threat title can be edited. ;D

[Indirik]

Growth is already penalized. A realm with 25 nobles over 10 regions will, in almost all cases, be more wealthy and powerful than a realm with 25 nobles over 25 regions. I wouldn't think it reasonable to tweak things so that a realm with as many nobles but twice the regions has half the wealth the other has.

This is not true, in any but the most extreme edge cases. Adding a region will lower the entire realm's overall income under extremely rare circumstances involving adding a very poor region to a realm that is far, far, larger than the norm for that island. The dev team has been looking at some of the effects of realm size, and they are much smaller than originally thought given the game's current trend toward larger and larger realms overall. In any case, any realm that adds 15 regions will be produce a much larger income than it did when it only had ten.

[Indirik]

While at-that-time large reconstruction of the estate system did give some, in my opinion, improvements, I would note visible flaws which directly degrade gaming interaction:

- More than once I checked, and lord of the region earns more gold from wild lands than from having knight with estate. for those who want to grab money by all means this is likely great opportunity, while i think it makes no sense game-wise.
I can clearly say that I have never seen any use of having knight in a region. They just draw money which would otherwise come to you, and even ask for more funds while you are always short of funds. begone, knights! we don't want new knights, no new players as well  8)

I think I agree that wild lands should produce a smaller income than they do. Lords should not be able to leave half their region wild, and still make as much from it as they would if they had a knight and a 50% lord share.

- I cannot check it myself, but I see that so many regions have no lords, while dukes don't care though there are enough knights around. Again, no need even for lords: food is produced smoothly (that i can see as a banker), wild lands probably bring more (as for lords), so begone, lords  8)  I see that dukes don't appoint lords for many rl months.

Personally, I have noticed a very few regions being lordless when there are nobles without lordships in the realm. I wonder if it might be because the city estates are so much more lucrative than a lordship of a poor region.

As with knights and estates, I don't think that a duke should be able to recover quite so much from a lordless region. It should be less than they could make if it had a lord and a 50% due share.

- As estate coverage is no more, region almost never falls into trouble

This is by design. We don't want region maintenance to be the focus of a player's game experience.

Also, the estate coverage system was one of the things the players disliked most. Almost no one ever liked it. And many of the players that claimed they did like it were basing their opinions on a complete misunderstanding of how the system actually worked.

except when acquired by brutal force or heavily looted (both occasions being incredibly rare as there is so little speed difference between friendly and brutal takeover that almost noone ever attempts brutal takeover. So all these slow old guys who worked as courtiers and were sensibly useful for the realm are absolutely not needed any more. You can play game at slow pace as inalienable rights still (formally) exist, but noone needs you for anything other than quick moving troops, meaning if you don't log in often enough you are nobody. Begone slow guys, nobody wants you  8)

Most of the time, I see realms using the method that is matched to the sympathy in the region. If the region likes you, you use friendly. If  the region hates you, you use brutal. I don't think I've ever seen anyone refrain from using brutal methods because they think it's mean or anything. If people are using friendly a lot, then it's because they have high sympathy in the region.

The end result of the takeover is the same, regardless of the method used. There were plans to change that, but it was never implemented.

to not just make sarcastic complaints, but to try to be constructive, I will point that i really don't understand why estate coverage is removed.
- that was main motivation for interaction between lord and knight. now lords and knights almost never talk.
- gave much more importance to every single noble in the realm, making game more funny for everyone
- small-level politics could even be played by switching estate to control, production or even to nothing
- leaders had to care for all knights much more. now leaders still care, but only in strictly narrow sense - care for having troop-holding slots that would blindly follow control-freak leader

It was removed because it stifled the game. It was extremely frustrating for the players involved.

We are currently discussing plans to make knights more important to a realm overall, without requiring people to jump through hoops and contortions to min/max the system. We want people to focus more on playing the game, and less on micromanaging game mechanics for max benefits. It's a tough balance. We don't want people to have to constantly babysit regions, but still allow those that want to do this to gain some benefit from their efforts.

how game would be hurt if some realms would lose some regions for not having enough knights to support regions?

I absolutely agree with this. If you don't have enough knights, then you shouldn't be able to control the regions. We have discussed some ways to implement this, without adding in the overhead and frustration caused by the old estate point system.

[Chenier]

This is not true, in any but the most extreme edge cases. Adding a region will lower the entire realm's overall income under extremely rare circumstances involving adding a very poor region to a realm that is far, far, larger than the norm for that island. The dev team has been looking at some of the effects of realm size, and they are much smaller than originally thought given the game's current trend toward larger and larger realms overall. In any case, any realm that adds 15 regions will be produce a much larger income than it did when it only had ten.

It is true if you combine decreased tax efficiency as well as tax tolerance, not to mention greater difficulty in maintaining perfect stats, longer delays in responding to rogues, and so on, as well as the transfer of city knights to rural lordships. Acquiring a city will make a realm richer in almost all cases, but anything else makes it poorer.

And you don't need to become unusually large, because your tax tolerance is compared to the other realms. So even if you are small, as you get closer to the big ones, your tax tolerance decreases, despite still being small. I've seen it flagrantly with Fheuv'n, and I've felt it somewhat more subtly everywhere else.

[Indirik]

And you don't need to become unusually large, because your tax tolerance is compared to the other realms. So even if you are small, as you get closer to the big ones, your tax tolerance decreases, despite still being small. I've seen it flagrantly with Fheuv'n, and I've felt it somewhat more subtly everywhere else.

This is not true. What you have is confirmation bias. You expected it to happen, so it appears that it did.

I have gone through the region tax code and checked. This does not work the way you think it does. The large realm penalties are nowhere near big enough, nor do they change fast enough, to cause the effect you are describing. In fact they don't work anywhere near the way you are describing. I don't know what you saw, or think you saw, but it had absolutely nothing to do with a large-realm tax penalty.

[Indirik]

personally i don't see any problem with continent where all realms are separated from each other with three rows of rouge regions.

The problem with this is that realms that cannot take land have little or no incentive to go to war. The number of realms that will go to war when they can't take more land is minuscule. We saw it happen on Dwilight for years. Small pockets of realms separated by swathes of rogue land, and almost everyone bored to death because they couldn't do anything. It wasn't until we got rid of estate points, allowing realms to take more land, that the realms came into conflict and the island starting heating up. Realms need contact with other realms, and pressure for territory, in order to create the conflict that keep the game exciting for everyone. The old estate point system is a heavy-handed mechanic for a crowded game. It is not a mechanic that works when player densities are so low as we have not.