This is far from finished, but I think most players agree we could use a little more war.
But we don't want to add more stupid game mechanics to force war, or the only thing we end up with is tons of fake wars.
The other problem I am trying to solve is that so many wars are until one realm is destroyed.
So here is a rough outline of an idea to promote more, limited wars: Challenges to honour and escalation of conflict.
The rough idea is that players can "challenge" each other in a subtle way, i.e. the challenged one doesn't know what the challenge is for. A challenge is accompanied by a message. The challenged then sets his own stake, hidden again.
The game mechanics would be a condition that needs to happen.
Basically, both parties have bet something. Now the conflict escalates as both parties try to push or trick each other into fulfilling the condition. Whoever succeeds first wins something (prestige, honour, whatever) while the loser loses some.
You can also back out of a challenge, at some cost, and they would have to have a time limit, depending on large the challenge.
Challenges can be lots of things - the other changes realm, disbands his unit, loses his region, etc. etc. - the important thing is that it's not something he profits from and that you can not do to him without overcoming resistance (e.g. If you are the judge, change of realms would not be a challenge because you can ban).
It's a very rough idea, so please don't get lost in the details at this point. He important elements are messages/role play, hidden stakes and escalation of conflict.
One idea - posted seperately because it is just one of many possibilities - would be to have it really be "versus bets", i.e. you put up what you think you can get the other to do, and what you bet on it - some points of honour, gold, your region, etc.
This sounds really, really good.
This sounds SERIOUSLY entertaining.
interesting. but did medieval nobles ever do this kind of stuff?
Hmm, I am not sure if this is relevant, but thinking in terms of poker and such, what if the "bets" were such that you would need to keep piling more and more of them if none of the conditions are fulfilled. Say you first put your region on line, and so does the other guy. Neither condition is met, so you both need to put something more on line. It could default to honor/prestige but you could put gold aside too, or some other stuff. So either you chicken out and lose your bets or push on and make it even more risky for you.
There are many opportunities here for sure.
- Who converts more nobles to his faith in Z time
- which of the two cities is the first one to starve
- which of the two realms has to elect a ruler sooner
- which of the two realms will have a rebellion next
- which realm shall fist conquer three new regions
- which noble shall be the first one to assault a city
Oh it would be lovely. "You, Sir, are but full of hot air! If you really believe you are the bravest one of us, let's see which one of us shall first defeat a monster horde with his own unit alone!"
Quote from: Duvaille on July 22, 2012, 10:46:18 PM
Hmm, I am not sure if this is relevant, but thinking in terms of poker and such, what if the "bets" were such that you would need to keep piling more and more of them if none of the conditions are fulfilled. Say you first put your region on line, and so does the other guy. Neither condition is met, so you both need to put something more on line. It could default to honor/prestige but you could put gold aside too, or some other stuff. So either you chicken out and lose your bets or push on and make it even more risky for you.
There are many opportunities here for sure.
- Who converts more nobles to his faith in Z time
- which of the two cities is the first one to starve
- which of the two realms has to elect a ruler sooner
- which of the two realms will have a rebellion next
- which realm shall fist conquer three new regions
- which noble shall be the first one to assault a city
Oh it would be lovely. "You, Sir, are but full of hot air! If you really believe you are the bravest one of us, let's see which one of us shall first defeat a monster horde with his own unit alone!"
Betting your region should be the last result. It is everything to you as a lord. A land your family will live off of for generations. Shouldn't be taken so lightly.
If you don't know what they are wagering, then how will the wagers be kept mostly fair? I mean, all you have to do to win is make your bet that they will not capture your capital. Granted capitals can be taken, but they are usually the last thing to go.
I like the idea, but I don't see how it will be made to be fair and workable.
I'm confused, is this supposed to be between characters or between realms?
Quote from: Perth on July 23, 2012, 02:31:52 AM
I'm confused, is this supposed to be between characters or between realms?
Pretty sure it is between characters.
Then how will it cause wars?
Quote from: Charles on July 23, 2012, 03:04:35 AM
Then how will it cause wars?
Realms are ruled by characters.
How about this?
- whichever realm lost the most CS(Combat Strength) or most battles within a certain timeperiod will lose the regions they bet on in Challenge
It sounds a lot like metabets, but brought IC not sure I care for it.
Edit: I guess it depends on exactly how it's implemented. But it just sounds... metagamey... wagering honor and prestige?
Quote from: LGMAlpha on July 23, 2012, 03:09:40 AM
Realms are ruled by characters.
Sure, but these kinds of things seem more likely to happen between players of the same realm. I mean, I know people from different realms do interact, but still 90% of a character's interaction is with people of their own realm I would say--and thats who you're going to get into the kind of arguments with where these "challenges" would be issued I would think. I don't know. This just seems kind of weirdly "gamey" to me or something.
A better option I think would simply to finish the old "new diplomacy" stuff. What was wrong with that and why did it get shut down? Seems like that would have achieved everything Tom stated he was wanting above and more. War Declarations for specifics regions, wars of trade and passage rights, etc. etc.
I see the discussion has completely derailed. :-)
It seems what I posted sounded like a betting system, which it isn't.
Here's an EXAMPLE - I should but that in bold and red - of what it COULD look like. All the details are subject to change, I'm just trying to illustrate the concept, so don't start digging away at the details.
John is a duke of some realm who would really like to see some more action. He does have his eye on a region bordering his duchy, but belonging to another realm. So he puts in a challenge, in this case to himself, that the region will become part of this realm within 3 months. He does it for honour, so if for whatever reason the region does become part of his duchy, he will gain some honour. If it doesn't, by the time limit, he will lose some. Since challenges have to be accompanied by a message, he makes a public posting basically saying whatever but it should at least hint at his goal.
Jack is had enough of John's ambitions, but as a lowly knight he can't really confront him directly. So he challenges him. In a message to Duke John, he details his (made up) claims towards the currently vacant lordship of one of the regions, demanding to be appointed as its lord. His secret challenge is easy to guess - become lord of that region. But John can, in accepting the challenge, put up his own stakes. His response message denies the claims and calls Jack a forger. The secret stakes - again easy to guess - are honour. If Jack somehow becomes lord of the region within some TBD time frame, his claims were obviously true and John will lose honour for doubting them. If he doesn't, then Jack will lose honour for apparently being indeed a forger, or at least employing one.
That's really a very rough sketch, alpha quality at best. Needs lots of work.
Umm.. it is probably just my thick head here getting on the way, but this example does not seem to be making the matter at hand much clearer to me. Am I getting it right when this looks like it is a feature for those times when there is not much drama going on, and you would now provide us with some buttons to push to facilitate the process of some sort of a verbal duel, or a "duel of influence"? Like in any duel, it can be a gamble, the odds usually favoring one party over the other.
For a weaker character to challenge a stronger one would seem to be pretty much shooting himself on the foot, even if he won. But perhaps people would still use it, for making the game more fun for the others. Maybe the more powerful characters would have more to lose and less to gain, and the weak ones more honor to gain and less to lose (they're on the bottom of the food chain already), to balance this out.
Perhaps include a small random chance for someone in a high position to lose it due to embarrassment caused by losing? Of course if it is an appointed position one may be reappointed, but that might not always happen. Or am I derailing again?
Am I correct in thinking that this would be a game mechanic to back up claims that people RP?
e.g.
- John claims to be the true Lord of Keplerville
- Jack claims to be the best duelist of Dwilight
- Bob claims that if John is elected as Lord of Keplerville, Keplerville will starve within the month
- Bill claims that the Zuma will never set foot on Eastern Dwilight
etc, etc, which are all claims that I have seen people make over and over in game, and if any one of these claims comes true or false, then the general opinion of the players towards them will change according to their secret stakes?
If I understood correctly, then I understand how this will allow the mechanics of the game to better reflect the general nature of the character. In particular, I think this will allow much better definition of the H/P stats (priests could use this mechanic to increase their H/P, for example). Positions could also be stakes, as they should be tied to honour; I'm not sure what else could be staked.
However, I am not certain I see how this would lead to more war.
As I said: It's very rough.
The basuc idea is to give some game-mechanics to what people desire and want, and be more specific in wars than just "we'll destroy you". A war might be the result of a challenge the king issued, and only he knows what it's all about (unless, of course, he tells people).
vonGenf is fairly close. Except that there wouldn't be a "never". I think you're still too close to the "metabets" concept. This is not about guessing correctly what in-game events will happen, but saying "I will make this happen" and then backing it up with action because you've put a price tag on failing.
So, to take your first example, true or not doesn't matter (that would be the RP part) - becoming Lord of Keplerville within the year would be a challenge. But that's the "challenge yourself" part, which is nice, but not the main thing.
The main thing would be to challenge the current lord of Keplerville. The interesting part there is that in this case, he would set the stakes. The idea is that both characters would pile on stuff, like a poker game in that part, until it's boom or bust.
It really is more of an idea than a real concept right now.
Sounds like ambitions from CK2...