Character Classes and One's Estate

[Chenier]

While I agree with your premise (the income disparity created by the estate-based tax system), I disagree with your conclusion (junk it and go back to communism).

I believe that the estate system is fundamentally a good one, and creates the right feel of medieval feudalism for the game.

However, I do believe that we need to provide more ways to allow players to balance the system out more. One of the big ones is part of the "duchy infrastructure" concept I came up with years ago, before we had gotten rid of the (disastrous) previous estate system: basically, create a pool of income for the duchy, which is then divided evenly between regions come tax time (or even just between regions that don't choose to contribute to the pool, instead—thus allowing rich regions to only give, and poor regions to only take), thus allowing a generous Margrave to subsidize the Counts in his duchy. That gold would go straight into the tax pot of the receiving region, and thus be distributed among its knights in proportion to their estate sizes.

It's not the same thing as the communistic system. But I don't think that's a bad thing.

Yes, it brings a good "feel". But gameplay-wise, I still think it did more harm than good, and that we made too many sacrifices in the name of realism that sapped the team spirit that made a lot of things fun.

[Anaris]

I don't have to screw around with estates if I want to persecute infils/priests. I could blanket ban all priests in my realm, simply because I despise organized religion. Or I can blanket ban all infiltrators because I think they're scum. Neither one of those is an IR violation.

Aren't they?

I think either of those should be reported to the Titans for IR violations, and the Titans should consider the specific facts of the case.

Doesn't work. IRs are not interchangeable like that. I am specifically forbidden from offering people incentives to not go to a tournament, because it is their IR to do so. But I *am* allowed to offer people incentives to recruit infantry, even though it is their IR to recruit whatever they want. I can also offer people incentives to change class, even though it is their IR to be whatever class they want. But I can't offer them incentives to move within the last 30 minutes before turn change.

No, they're not interchangeable. And the narrow exception, as I noted earlier, is specifically for recruiting a certain unit type.

I see the whole active/passive distribution of the gold as a red herring. It shouldn't matter whether the distribution is manual or automatic. I want to give a bonus/incentive for people who are warriors. Whether I choose to do that by manually handing out gold or making warrior's estates bigger should have absolutely no bearing at all.

I see it as being the crux of the issue.

Turn it around, Indirik. Say no one ever gave you a bigger estate just because you changed your class to Cavalier. But then, when your Lord notices that you've changed your subclass to Diplomat, they reduce your estate size, and tell you if you want your bigger estate back, you'd better change back to Cavalier as soon as the timeout expires.

[Anaris]

Yes, it brings a good "feel". But gameplay-wise, I still think it did more harm than good, and that we made too many sacrifices in the name of realism that sapped the team spirit that made a lot of things fun.

That happened back with the initial estate system implementation. The revised estate system fixed a lot of those problems.

And, frankly, it would take at least as much work on my part to scrap the estate system and reimplement communism as it would to fix the estate system so that it can mimic communism to a first approximation. So since I think the feel of it is good for the game, I'll be damned if I'm going to put in that much work just to go back to what we had 10 years ago...especially when I don't think it would be nearly enough to actually bring the interest and excitement level in the game back up to what it was 10 years ago.

[vonGenf]

Turn it around, Indirik. Say no one ever gave you a bigger estate just because you changed your class to Cavalier. But then, when your Lord notices that you've changed your subclass to Diplomat, they reduce your estate size, and tell you if you want your bigger estate back, you'd better change back to Cavalier as soon as the timeout expires.

You make it as if there always was an implied threat. It's not necessarily the case. It could very well be "I noticed you decided to become a diplomat, that's great! Since you can't recruit so many troops now, I'll redirect some of your revenues to your peers so they can recruit more."

[Anaris]

You make it as if there always was an implied threat. It's not necessarily the case. It could very well be "I noticed you decided to become a diplomat, that's great! Since you can't recruit so many troops now, I'll redirect some of your revenues to your peers so they can recruit more."

How it's phrased doesn't matter. It's still taking away part of his income.

[Chenier]

That happened back with the initial estate system implementation. The revised estate system fixed a lot of those problems.

And, frankly, it would take at least as much work on my part to scrap the estate system and reimplement communism as it would to fix the estate system so that it can mimic communism to a first approximation. So since I think the feel of it is good for the game, I'll be damned if I'm going to put in that much work just to go back to what we had 10 years ago...especially when I don't think it would be nearly enough to actually bring the interest and excitement level in the game back up to what it was 10 years ago.

Unless I'm forgetting one of the overhauls, the estate revision was mostly about removing the estate coverage for authority and productivity, no? Which was removed because it created a huge need for maintenance work and made over-successful realms no longer able to expand or even conduct reasonnable wars. I don't recall the revised system doing anything other than removing this control/production requirement regions had, and lords' ability to protect knights from bans.

I'm not arguing the workload, but that's another matter. Of course, coding resources are limited. I'm not really sure what you have in mind for the next overhaul, so it's hard to compare.

How it's phrased doesn't matter. It's still taking away part of his income.

Does that really matter, though? If we had a communistic system for years after the IRs were made, without anyone ever raising a fuss, maybe that's because they are compatible? If you cut a noble's estates by half when he switches from warrior to courtier/diplomat, so what? What's he going to do with that gold anyways? He doesn't need it. He can't even recruit a fourth of what he used to be able to recruit. Courtiers gain no new way to spend gold, and diplomats do not gain a need to spend it either. Reducing their income does not, in any way, prevent them from enjoying their new career path. All it does is help prevent too much of the realm's resources going to people who have no need or use for it, and who will either send it to their family coffers or make ridiculous uses of it like holding tournaments while their realm is at war.

[De-Legro]

Does that really matter, though? If we had a communistic system for years after the IRs were made, without anyone ever raising a fuss, maybe that's because they are compatible? If you cut a noble's estates by half when he switches from warrior to courtier/diplomat, so what? What's he going to do with that gold anyways? He doesn't need it. He can't even recruit a fourth of what he used to be able to recruit. Courtiers gain no new way to spend gold, and diplomats do not gain a need to spend it either. Reducing their income does not, in any way, prevent them from enjoying their new career path. All it does is help prevent too much of the realm's resources going to people who have no need or use for it, and who will either send it to their family coffers or make ridiculous uses of it like holding tournaments while their realm is at war.

Or perhaps because of the glacial pace with which the code is updated, it simply took that long for Tom to implement a new tax system that was more in line with the intend of the IR's? Frankly without input from Tom regarding his exact thinking when designing the first estate system speculation about weather the old system was or was not compliant with the IR's is rather pointless.

Similarly arguing about ones need for gold is often pointless. Very few Dukes and City lords really need all the gold the region gives them, as evidenced by family gold. If we are arguing that the game requires methods that provide income re-distribution in order to maximise efficiencies as that will provide fun, as opposed to feudal concepts that obviously support the concentration of wealth, then I believe that requires another thread and we can discuss the complete picture of methods to prevent waste of "realm" resources.

[Chenier]

Or perhaps because of the glacial pace with which the code is updated, it simply took that long for Tom to implement a new tax system that was more in line with the intend of the IR's? Frankly without input from Tom regarding his exact thinking when designing the first estate system speculation about weather the old system was or was not compliant with the IR's is rather pointless.

Similarly arguing about ones need for gold is often pointless. Very few Dukes and City lords really need all the gold the region gives them, as evidenced by family gold. If we are arguing that the game requires methods that provide income re-distribution in order to maximise efficiencies as that will provide fun, as opposed to feudal concepts that obviously support the concentration of wealth, then I believe that requires another thread and we can discuss the complete picture of methods to prevent waste of "realm" resources.

Back then? I don't buy it. There were multiple coders in 2006, and Tom was actively involved in BM back then. If wealth by class was viewed as a bad thing, then 1) it would have been mentioned by someone at some point during the process, and 2) it wouldn't have taken years to be done.

I'm not even sure why the family gold caps, after all of these years, was hiked. Family gold is not fun. Even those who hoard it often lament of not having much to do with it, all while depriving others of great resources. The concentration of wealth does not contribute to making this game fun, even if it may make it somewhat more realistic. City lords are too often egoists who hoard the gold, and yet have the audacity to bore themselves with their wealth.

[De-Legro]

Back then? I don't buy it. There were multiple coders in 2006, and Tom was actively involved in BM back then. If wealth by class was viewed as a bad thing, then 1) it would have been mentioned by someone at some point during the process, and 2) it wouldn't have taken years to be done.

I'm not even sure why the family gold caps, after all of these years, was hiked. Family gold is not fun. Even those who hoard it often lament of not having much to do with it, all while depriving others of great resources. The concentration of wealth does not contribute to making this game fun, even if it may make it somewhat more realistic. City lords are too often egoists who hoard the gold, and yet have the audacity to bore themselves with their wealth.

Then like I said start a thread to push for the system to return to a more controlled distribution system. I don't recall Tom saying much about the class distribution system, but then we all know that Tom often had many reasons for changes he made beyond those he publicly stated at the time, which would only be revealed much later when the old discussion mailing group started asking particular questions.

[Indirik]

Aren't they?

Probably not, as regards the situation I described. You may have the right to be whatever character class you want, but that does NOT mean that you don't have to bear the consequences of your choices. If you choose to be an infiltrator in a realm that despises infiltrators, you should NOT expect to be treated just like any other character. You *will* be reviled, you may be kicked out of estates, and you could quite possibly be banned. Too bad for you.

Inalienable rights are not blanket shields that are intended to protect you from the consequences of your own actions, or from any and all fall out relating to the choices you make. You have a right to be as active or inactive as you want, and no one can use that against you. But if your activity causes you to suck as a marshal/general/ruler/lord, then the players in your realm have every right to criticize your character based on their performance of their duties, or lack thereof.

What you're proposing here is that someone can be shielded and immune from all the consequences they could possibly face as a result of some of their choices,  by simply claiming that it is somehow vaguely related to the IRs.

I think either of those should be reported to the Titans for IR violations, and the Titans should consider the specific facts of the case.

Well, of course each case needs to be discussed and decided upon its own merits. But if a realm I was in decided to ban all infiltrators, I probably wouldn't even think of reporting it, unless there was something else going on. Like, maybe I thought there was some ulterior motive, and this was targeted at some particular character's class change.

Turn it around, Indirik. Say no one ever gave you a bigger estate just because you changed your class to Cavalier. But then, when your Lord notices that you've changed your subclass to Diplomat, they reduce your estate size, and tell you if you want your bigger estate back, you'd better change back to Cavalier as soon as the timeout expires.

That is NOT the situation the OP described. You are describing a clear and obvious penalty based on a class change. There was never any bonus in this that could be taken away. Just a flat out penalty. Even so, if the lord had simply said something like "I don't give such large estates to diplomats", he might have been OK.

[Vita`]

Well, this has all been enlightening and while I haven't changed my mind, its good to know my conclusion was false.

I do find it interesting people are talking about giving warriors larger estates/reducing diplomat estates when what I desired to do was have some larger estates specifically to encourage a few more courtiers in one of my realms.

[Indirik]

My personal opinion is that your initial proposal was acceptable. But as they say, the devil is in the details.

[De-Legro]

Yes, particularly if you run a city with "standard" estate sizes as is common, and then 1 or more estates that are obviously for the favoured. I really couldn't see a problem with then reducing people down to the standard size when the situation changes. In general though I err on the side of caution with anything that even approaches the IRs.

[Thehatter]

On a separate issue regarding Ic.

I remember reading it was OK to create an army that only allowed say SF or Cav units. Any other units would not be allowed or kicked out. Wouldn't that be same as say you only want heroes as your knights and others wouldn't be allowed.