Hey guys. Today I ran into a problem appointing a Duke. Several people of my choice are not in the shortlist. Could someone explain what determines selection?
I can rule out:
H/P
Time in realm
Already holding an estate
Not present in the Duchy Capital
Not Present in the realm
Reappointing the previous Duke is not even an option...
Quick reply would be appreciated as to not undermine the war effort :)
A quick reply from a realm-mate (thanks Stefano) solved thing issue.
The solution was quite obvious, in retrospect. My person of choice (Kepler) held an estate in the city of Kepler. So if I would appoint him Duke of Keplerstan, it would allow him to appoint someone else Margrave of Keplerstan. This would lead to a bad chain of command, being:
Me - Kepler, Duke of Keplerstan - New Margrave - Kepler, Knight (and Duke) of Keplerstan.
Sorry for wasting screen ink, though maybe this thread can serve as a reference.
Quote from: Shizzle on March 05, 2013, 06:42:33 PM
A quick reply from a realm-mate (thanks Stefano) solved thing issue.
The solution was quite obvious, in retrospect. My person of choice (Kepler) held an estate in the city of Kepler. So if I would appoint him Duke of Keplerstan, it would allow him to appoint someone else Margrave of Keplerstan. This would lead to a bad chain of command, being:
Me - Kepler, Duke of Keplerstan - New Margrave - Kepler, Knight (and Duke) of Keplerstan.
Sorry for wasting screen ink, though maybe this thread can serve as a reference.
If you did that, he'd simply lose his estates and remain duke.
I believe Shizzle meant Kepler wasn't a choice for dukedom because it would disrupt the hierarchy chain. Thus Kepler would have to abandon his estate first.
Quote from: Chénier on March 05, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
If you did that, he'd simply lose his estates and remain duke.
That only happens for ruler, not other positions, AFAIK.
Yeah, things worked out after the estate was vacated.
Why not make appointments like the election of the ruler, any estate that does not fit is automatically abandoned?
I realize that this could be abused to remove people from certain positions. So send them a message to accept the appointment, that way there is less back and forth trying to make it work. Make it like a duel challenge.
Quote from: Charles on March 12, 2013, 05:37:33 PM
Why not make appointments like the election of the ruler, any estate that does not fit is automatically abandoned?
I realize that this could be abused to remove people from certain positions. So send them a message to accept the appointment, that way there is less back and forth trying to make it work. Make it like a duel challenge.
I like it. why don't you make it a feature request? This could entirely replace the current "check a box to decline position".
Quote from: Charles on March 12, 2013, 05:37:33 PM
Why not make appointments like the election of the ruler, any estate that does not fit is automatically abandoned?
I realize that this could be abused to remove people from certain positions. So send them a message to accept the appointment, that way there is less back and forth trying to make it work. Make it like a duel challenge.
If they accepted, its the same as having them abandon their estate, just without the loss of hours thus I am against it. Also, your why not makes no sense as elections are voluntary and thus they already do that, while appointments are not which is why they don't.
I would much rather see problematic promotions/elections dealt with in a way that does not involve the potentially promoted individual or candidate having to abandon their current positions before even being eligible. Having to abandon a position prior to appointment just feels wrong. Making players sift through the hierarchy and hierarchical rules because they can not seem to run for a position or make an appointment makes the game less accessible in my opinion.
Honestly, I am not fully informed on the restrictions in place or how the game handles them – especially regarding elections. From what I have experienced and heard, however, I think things could potentially be done in a more user friendly way. I may very well be misinformed here and would love to hear that these concerns are not valid.
Example:
For Appointments:
Just have list of characters eligible for the position with no concern to hierarchy,. Once the King or Duke makes an appointment, send a message informing the character of their new appointment with the option to accept or reject. If the King or Duke tries to assign someone to a position that causes a hierarchical conflict, have the game detail what existing positions they will lose by accepting the appointment.
For Elections:
Allow any eligible character chose to become a candidate for a particular position. If winning the election would cause a hierarchical conflict, have the game detail what existing positions they will lose if they win the election. If they chose to run anyways and win, they lose the existing conflicting positions and gain the newly won positions.
For elections, that already happens.
If I am knight of estate and run for ruler, the game tells me that winning the election will cause me to lose my estate and asks me to confirm my decision to run? Awesome!
No, it does not ask for confirmation. If you run and win, then you lose all anomalous positions immediately.
Experience has shown that people won't read the warnings, will automatically click the "Are you sure" box, and run anyway. Then when they win the election and lose the juicy lordship, they'll just bitch about losing it, and then try to game out all the contortions they would have to jump through to get it back. Then they'll bitch more. I'm not joking. It happens depressingly often.
Quote from: Indirik on March 13, 2013, 06:12:26 PM
No, it does not ask for confirmation. If you run and win, then you lose all anomalous positions immediately.
Experience has shown that people won't read the warnings, will automatically click the "Are you sure" box, and run anyway. Then when they win the election and lose the juicy lordship, they'll just bitch about losing it, and then try to game out all the contortions they would have to jump through to get it back. Then they'll bitch more. I'm not joking. It happens depressingly often.
Confirmation should not be expected anyways. Two reasons, one, they should know Tom is not a fan of confirmations and two, if they actually want a position they should at least read the election page, in its entirety which states it. Confirmation seems dumb even if Tom was a fan of confirmations, as it seems rather obvious due to things like the announcements stating such, the election page, and the fact that it doesn't make sense to have a break in the chain of command.
In general I am a big fan of the no confirmation design goal. Good stuff. At the same time having something like that happen can seriously hurt player retention. I consider it more of a warning that anything. Simply making it clear to the player that, should his character win, he will lose POSITION_X. If they do not like it, then they can withdraw from the race (assuming that is possible).
It would make sense to me to let a ruler appoint anyone to Duke of a vacant duchy and have the game take away anything that doesn't fit in the hierarchy like when a ruler wins election.
I suppose adding Duke to the positions you can refuse on the paperwork page could be a good simple feature request.
Quote from: Sypher on March 14, 2013, 10:10:19 AM
It would make sense to me to let a ruler appoint anyone to Duke of a vacant duchy and have the game take away anything that doesn't fit in the hierarchy like when a ruler wins election.
I suppose adding Duke to the positions you can refuse on the paperwork page could be a good simple feature request.
If you're a Lord, nothing gets removed because it fits in the hierarchy.
If you're a simple knight.... does it even make sense to refuse a duchy for the sake of an estate, even a big one?
The only place where I can imagine it being a problem is if the appointment is to an empty duchy.
Quote from: vonGenf on March 14, 2013, 10:14:33 AM
If you're a Lord, nothing gets removed because it fits in the hierarchy.
If you're a simple knight.... does it even make sense to refuse a duchy for the sake of an estate, even a big one?
The only place where I can imagine it being a problem is if the appointment is to an empty duchy.
Right and I agree, so it would make sense for the game to let you appoint a knight and then remove their estate like it would if you win election to be ruler.
re: refusing positions
I can't imagine many people refusing to be named duke, but if you can refuse to be appointed to a lordship shouldn't you be able to refuse to be appointed duke as well?
Appointments to empty duchies, or duchies with, say, a single mountain region, could easily be used to remove lords from critical positions, like Margrave of the capital, or the realm's critical food producing rural, etc.
if the guy really wants the new duchy/lordship, then just have him step down from his old one. What's so hard about that? Send him a message: "Hey, you want the duchy of Keplerstan? If so, step down from lord of Eviltown so I can appoint you."
Quote from: Indirik on March 14, 2013, 01:23:00 PM
Appointments to empty duchies, or duchies with, say, a single mountain region, could easily be used to remove lords from critical positions, like Margrave of the capital, or the realm's critical food producing rural, etc.
Isn't it that the region he is currently Lord of will become part of the Duchy he is appointed to? I can't remember now, but it should be.
No, and no.
Quote from: Indirik on March 14, 2013, 01:52:49 PM
No,
Ok.
Quote from: Indirik on March 14, 2013, 01:52:49 PM
and no.
Now, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't break the hierarchy that way, is entirely consistent and historically accurate.
And makes for bad game play. You'd end up pissing people off left and right when regions in one duchy were swapped to a different duchy, and the lords would have to step down, find a new candidate, and swap them back.
Quote from: Indirik on March 14, 2013, 02:15:22 PM
would have to step down,
They don't. If they want to, they can do so prior to the nomination.
Sure. And they can do that now, but don't, and complain that they can't be appointed duke. So if the region swapped automatically, you'd get complaints about how Perdan city is now in the duchy of Aix, and how retarded is that, and how much crap they had to do to get it back where it belongs, etc, etc...
It would just make for a bad game.
Quote from: Indirik on March 14, 2013, 03:16:55 PM
you'd get complaints about how Perdan city is now in the duchy of Aix,
I guess this is the occasion for me to reiterate that naming duchies after cities is a bad idea and that the hierarchy makes a lot more sense in these places where the duchy names are more interesting.
In Riombara, this rule forced me to travel for endless miles to be able to have my region switch duchies before being appointed. It just made for a bad game.....
The names are irrelevant. Have the second richest city on an island swap duchies when its lord is appointed duke of a different duchy, and then listen to the outrage.
It's not ideal either way, I suppose. But at least the way it is now, you don't get things moving around unexpectedly. It is also the existing, known behavior. Changing it doesn't make it any more predictable, easier to understand, or consistent. It also makes for the creation of situations that were not desired and very difficult and inconvenient to undo. You may have to travel a bit now to take your region to a new duchy and *then* get appointed duke. But you also had the benefit of making an informed choice about what you wanted to do, and could easily have chosen to leave your region behind. Forcing the region change unexpectedly and unwanted and then forcing people to deal with how to get it back is decidedly worse behavior.
The problem I have with this behaviour is that it 'forces' people to first resign, and then be appointed to a higher position. It's risky if you don't entirely trust the ruler; plus it's entirely unhistorical. Getting named Duke should be a straight promotion.
Quote from: vonGenf on March 14, 2013, 04:28:59 PM
The problem I have with this behaviour is that it 'forces' people to first resign, and then be appointed to a higher position.
So does the other way, if they don't want to take their region with them.
Quote
It's risky if you don't entirely trust the ruler;
Good. Opens up some options for intrigue and backstabbing.
It all is a matter of who you are targeting with the game. The existing system is manageable, with minor confusion, for experienced players who have the initiative to learn the intricacies of the system. It seems as if it would be a nightmare to new players or lightweight players. If a lightweight player gets appointed to duke and wants to give one of his regions to a formal vassal that has an estate in another region may have to dig for answers to figure out why their pick is not on the list of potential appointees - if I understand the system right. The voting system makes it easy to get that position but can come with nasty surprises. It is possible to make all this more user friendly and accessible to the new guy or lightweight player. I am not really sure if I have really heard a good argument as to why it is preferable to no make things more user friendly.
The argument is not against user friendliness, but that doing it any other way does not increase user friendliness either.
Quote from: Foundation on March 15, 2013, 03:06:01 PM
The argument is not against user friendliness, but that doing it any other way does not increase user friendliness either.
Something of a, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem.
Quote from: Anaris on March 15, 2013, 03:18:09 PM
Something of a, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem.
+1
I can not say that I agree.
Quote from: Unwin on March 16, 2013, 06:39:45 PM
I can not say that I agree.
If we don't change it, people like you complain.
If we do change it, people who didn't want their regions up and jumping to other duchies complain.
Just because
you don't mind the drawbacks of one of the options doesn't mean
we get to ignore them.
I never once suggested regions should jump duchies.
Quote from: Unwin on March 16, 2013, 06:53:18 PM
I never once suggested regions should jump duchies.
All right, then: if we do change it, the people who didn't want to lose their lucrative city lord positions complain.
Quote from: Unwin on March 16, 2013, 06:53:18 PM
I never once suggested regions should jump duchies.
I suggested that (and accepted it won't happen, although I dispute the frame of mind that leads you to describe it as "jumping duchies").
Unwin only suggested that the list of possible appointments be extended to all nobles, but that the game then asks the appointee if he accepted the appointment before losing his region. This would mean you lose your region, but only on actual game-confirmed appointment, not on a mere promise.
Exactly. Aside from not requiring nobles to step down from current positions on the promise of promotion to better things, my suggestion would make situations like what the original poster experienced stop occurring. If they have the needed H/P, appoint them and the game sorts out the rest. On the elections side, my suggestion prevents people from unintentionally shooting themselves in the foot in ignorance by running for a position that would, in their opinion, undesirable remove them from current positions if they win that election.
The idea is to not require players to spend a bunch of time up front working through the somewhat complicated hierarchical system while preserving the chain of command. Sure, some people have a sold grasp of the system and this would not provide a lot of value to them. It would, however, be of great value to new players and casual players who do not want to spend an hour trying to figure out why noble X is not an option for appointment or why they just lost the lordship to their favorite region upon being made ruler.
This, I think, has value. Especially if we really do want to get new players to stick around a bit.
Quote from: Unwin on March 18, 2013, 05:29:53 AM
Exactly. Aside from not requiring nobles to step down from current positions on the promise of promotion to better things, my suggestion would make situations like what the original poster experienced stop occurring. If they have the needed H/P, appoint them and the game sorts out the rest. On the elections side, my suggestion prevents people from unintentionally shooting themselves in the foot in ignorance by running for a position that would, in their opinion, undesirable remove them from current positions if they win that election.
The idea is to not require players to spend a bunch of time up front working through the somewhat complicated hierarchical system while preserving the chain of command. Sure, some people have a sold grasp of the system and this would not provide a lot of value to them. It would, however, be of great value to new players and casual players who do not want to spend an hour trying to figure out why noble X is not an option for appointment or why they just lost the lordship to their favorite region upon being made ruler.
This, I think, has value. Especially if we really do want to get new players to stick around a bit.
How does top level positions have anything to do with player retention? Rulers aren't meant to really be casual players, and your realm must be really !@#$ty if you are electing the guy who has been here two weeks. D'hara's ruler became ruler two months after joining but that is because of timing and a lot of work on his part.
The election to rulership example may not be the best. One could say the same of losing a favored estate by becoming a Duke. Or lordship of another region. Such heirachial changes may seem obvious to some but may not be so obvious to others. The fact that questions like this come up shows that clearly. My own characters appointment to a Lordship was also accompanied by a flurry of "drop your estate", "take one in the target region", "drop that estate", "send questioning messages to the realm", oh, that must be it... Good to know!
I can not really see a reason why such situations are a GOOD thing. I would be happy to hear why it is preferable to have players go through such pains during appointments or endure surprise losses after elections. It is certainty working and requires less effort to leave it as it is. It could be that such confusion is not as common as I believe and such situations are really quite rare. It could be the makers of the game would prefer to weed out players who are not willing to spend their time researching and completely grokking how the hierarchy works in context to their realm's circumstances. I do not claim to be right or know all the factors.
All that aside, I find this mentality that only crusty old timers or always on power gamers should really be entrusted with the vast power and responsibility of rulership/dukedom annoying. If a character can convince his fellow nobles to elect him into rulership, I really do not care if he is always on or has years of experience. It is a game. If he does a horrible job of it, he will soon be replaced. There are many ways to accomplish such a replacement and all of them, in my opinion, bring fun to the game.
People join a game like this to DO stuff. Having all these restriction on what a character can do is just plain annoying. It is enough, in my opinion, to put off many new players. Having the feeling that only years of real life commitment will get me to a position of power could also a put off to many players. Of course, one could argue that we only want players who are willing to work months to overcome game mechanic limitations and years to overcome player instilled limitations. Not my preference but not my game either!
Quote from: Unwin on March 18, 2013, 06:01:25 AM
The election to rulership example may not be the best. One could say the same of losing a favored estate by becoming a Duke. Or lordship of another region. Such heirachial changes may seem obvious to some but may not be so obvious to others. The fact that questions like this come up shows that clearly. My own characters appointment to a Lordship was also accompanied by a flurry of "drop your estate", "take one in the target region", "drop that estate", "send questioning messages to the realm", oh, that must be it... Good to know!
I can not really see a reason why such situations are a GOOD thing. I would be happy to hear why it is preferable to have players go through such pains during appointments or endure surprise losses after elections. It is certainty working and requires less effort to leave it as it is. It could be that such confusion is not as common as I believe and such situations are really quite rare. It could be the makers of the game would prefer to weed out players who are not willing to spend their time researching and completely grokking how the hierarchy works in context to their realm's circumstances. I do not claim to be right or know all the factors.
All that aside, I find this mentality that only crusty old timers or always on power gamers should really be entrusted with the vast power and responsibility of rulership/dukedom annoying. If a character can convince his fellow nobles to elect him into rulership, I really do not care if he is always on or has years of experience. It is a game. If he does a horrible job of it, he will soon be replaced. There are many ways to accomplish such a replacement and all of them, in my opinion, bring fun to the game.
People join a game like this to DO stuff. Having all these restriction on what a character can do is just plain annoying. It is enough, in my opinion, to put off many new players. Having the feeling that only years of real life commitment will get me to a position of power could also a put off to many players. Of course, one could argue that we only want players who are willing to work months to overcome game mechanic limitations and years to overcome player instilled limitations. Not my preference but not my game either!
Most of what you said seems ridiculous IMO, which I can maybe answer later but your idea is bad for several reasons and even if accepted, would likely not happen for at least two years due to low priority/lots other important stuff need to get done. You fail to look at any downsides also.
I expressed that I am open to hearing the opposing views. I am perfectly aware that this is not something that will be implemented next week. or at all for that mater. There is a list of changes a mile long and most are much more important. I do not see why that fact should prevent me, or anyone else from voicing ideas that may, or may not, make the game better. Even bad idea can lead to great improvements. Are you suggestion that we all just shut up and stop making suggestions for improvement until the to-do list is gone?
It is the claim that everything is fine as is that I do not get. The implication that things really could not be better. I have yet to hear what is, in my opinion, a convincing reason. I have heard 'you can not please everyone and jumping duchies is not cool' and 'no confirmation pages'. Feel free to explain why what I said is so ridiculous. I am happy to hear it.
Quote from: Unwin on March 18, 2013, 06:01:25 AM
The election to rulership example may not be the best. One could say the same of losing a favored estate by becoming a Duke. Or lordship of another region. Such heirachial changes may seem obvious to some but may not be so obvious to others. The fact that questions like this come up shows that clearly. My own characters appointment to a Lordship was also accompanied by a flurry of "drop your estate", "take one in the target region", "drop that estate", "send questioning messages to the realm", oh, that must be it... Good to know!
You don't lose anything by becoming duke. Thats the entire point of this thread, he couldn't appoint someone because it would cause a lost of that 'favorered estate'. Lordships need not be lost, simply switch to the duchy and you can be appointed. Why your own characters appointment was so messy, I couldn't tell you. All you needed to do was drop the estate, because like with the appointment of duke, we can't be taking away that 'favored estate'.
QuoteI can not really see a reason why such situations are a GOOD thing. I would be happy to hear why it is preferable to have players go through such pains during appointments or endure surprise losses after elections. It is certainty working and requires less effort to leave it as it is. It could be that such confusion is not as common as I believe and such situations are really quite rare. It could be the makers of the game would prefer to weed out players who are not willing to spend their time researching and completely grokking how the hierarchy works in context to their realm's circumstances. I do not claim to be right or know all the factors.
These losses from elections have been put on the announcements before. You complain if you don't have to deal with the mess, you complain if you don't. Elections have automatic loss, because you having your name in the ballot for 5 days is your confirmation. Didn't want to lose your positions? Don't stay in an election you don't want to win. Also, no research is needed for hierarchy. It is the same everywhere, and is straightforward. Either you are someone's equal, their subservient, or their boss, but you can't be their equal and their subservient, and you can't be somebody's subservient and their boss. What people don't understand about that, I don't know. Your thoughts that Tom wants to weed out people who aren't willing to spend time researching things when they constantly defend someone's right of inactivity, seems insulting towards Tom, IMO.
QuoteAll that aside, I find this mentality that only crusty old timers or always on power gamers should really be entrusted with the vast power and responsibility of rulership/dukedom annoying. If a character can convince his fellow nobles to elect him into rulership, I really do not care if he is always on or has years of experience. It is a game. If he does a horrible job of it, he will soon be replaced. There are many ways to accomplish such a replacement and all of them, in my opinion, bring fun to the game.
No where has that been stated. First of all, being a power gamer and being always on are not the same. Second, there is a big difference between saying, why is the new guy who doesn't even understand basic things about the game made ruler, and saying that only the people who have been here for insanely long times should be allowed to positions of power.
QuotePeople join a game like this to DO stuff. Having all these restriction on what a character can do is just plain annoying. It is enough, in my opinion, to put off many new players. Having the feeling that only years of real life commitment will get me to a position of power could also a put off to many players. Of course, one could argue that we only want players who are willing to work months to overcome game mechanic limitations and years to overcome player instilled limitations. Not my preference but not my game either!
Its not restrictions on what characters can do, its restrictions on what other can characters can force your characters to do. You are complaining if you don't have to go through the hassle, and you are complaining if you don't. What do you want?
Quote from: Penchant on March 18, 2013, 03:15:32 PM
You don't lose anything by becoming duke. Thats the entire point of this thread, he couldn't appoint someone because it would cause a lost of that 'favorered estate'. Lordships need not be lost, simply switch to the duchy and you can be appointed. Why your own characters appointment was so messy, I couldn't tell you. All you needed to do was drop the estate, because like with the appointment of duke, we can't be taking away that 'favored estate'.
All I am suggestion is that the game already knows what conflicts exist so why make the players work through it.
For appointments, simply let the king/duke appoint who they want, regardless of hierarchy. The game knows if such an appointment would cause a conflict. If the appointment does not, then the guy is appointed. If it does, a message notifying the noble of their offered promotion, what they will lose and gain, and asking if they want to accept or reject the appointment.
For elections, just let the guy know that winning the election will result in the loss of position X. It is his choice to continue in the race or withdraw. Not confirmation, but information.
The game already knows all this and can resolve it. Why make players seeking to appoint someone do the work of figuring out why their favored candidate is not on the list of options or why they suddenly lost position X when elected.
Of course, this is but one of many possible solutions. One could also suggest that all realm members are listed and those who can not be appointed are accompanied with a CLEAR reason why. The point is the same, let the game figure this stuff out and inform us instead of making us waste the time digging through it all ourselves. I ask again, why is this a bad idea?
Quote from: Penchant on March 18, 2013, 03:15:32 PM
These losses from elections have been put on the announcements before. You complain if you don't have to deal with the mess, you complain if you don't. Elections have automatic loss, because you having your name in the ballot for 5 days is your confirmation. Didn't want to lose your positions? Don't stay in an election you don't want to win. Also, no research is needed for hierarchy. It is the same everywhere, and is straightforward. Either you are someone's equal, their subservient, or their boss, but you can't be their equal and their subservient, and you can't be somebody's subservient and their boss. What people don't understand about that, I don't know. Your thoughts that Tom wants to weed out people who aren't willing to spend time researching things when they constantly defend someone's right of inactivity, seems insulting towards Tom, IMO.
Making an announcement does great for those who logged in while that announcement was sitting on the login page. What about all those who joined since? What about those who did not notice it? Regarding the mess, I have only complained against it, though my complaint is minor and I dislike calling the issue a mess at all. The 'mess' is simply different when looking at appointments and elections. Furthermore, I am not against automatic loss and I am not suggestion a confirmation page. My suggestion was (with slight modification based upon reading Dev feedback) quite simple. When a noble runs for a position and victory in that election will result in the loss of a current position, let them know. If a duke/king appoints someone to a position that conflicts with the apointee's current position, the game asks the appointee what he wants to do. Then they can then make an informed decision to stay in the race of not, dukes/kings do not have to dig around to figure out why noble X is not an option for appointment and players do not have to abandon estates simply to be considered an option for appointment..
True, the rules of hierarchy are the same everywhere. The hierarchy can look different in each country though. It may very well be that there is little confusion out there regarding hierarchy. I only have the impression that there MAY be confusion and think that looking for a way to reduce that would be a good thing.
I am not saying that the dev team wants to weed out some players or not. I am saying that such is a potential benefit of the way things currently work, if such weeding is desired.
Quote from: Penchant on March 18, 2013, 03:15:32 PM
No where has that been stated. First of all, being a power gamer and being always on are not the same. Second, there is a big difference between saying, why is the new guy who doesn't even understand basic things about the game made ruler, and saying that only the people who have been here for insanely long times should be allowed to positions of power.
You are right. I took an extreme polar stance there. I do however stand by my opinion here – minus the extremism.
Quote from: Penchant on March 18, 2013, 03:15:32 PMIts not restrictions on what characters can do, its restrictions on what other can characters can force your characters to do. You are complaining if you don't have to go through the hassle, and you are complaining if you don't. What do you want?
I am not looking at this as an election system vs appointment system. I am looking at this as both systems could be made a bit more user friendly. I get the impression that I am not communication my suggestion/concern clearly.
What do I want? I want people to read and understand what we write to each other before coming down on them for proposing an idea. I want people to be free to express ideas on how the game could be improved, even if said ideas are bad or unlikely to be implemented without being told that their suggestion is 'ridiculous'.
Listing the people you can't appoint, and why, is a good idea. It has been done in certain places before, and has been discussed for this system.
Quote from: Indirik on March 20, 2013, 12:06:30 PM
Listing the people you can't appoint, and why, is a good idea. It has been done in certain places before, and has been discussed for this system.
I like the idea also. As to the ridiculous I made comment, it was to all the things you were suggesting about the dev team, I didn't see a feature idea in there at all.
Quote from: Indirik on March 20, 2013, 12:06:30 PM
Listing the people you can't appoint, and why, is a good idea. It has been done in certain places before, and has been discussed for this system.
This, I think is definitely a good idea. It wouldn't be hard to tuck the list of people in the realm, but not in the duchy, who you can't appoint, away behind a disclosure button or something.
Could someone please write this up as a feature request so it's not forgotten?
Quote from: vonGenf on March 14, 2013, 01:36:04 PM
Isn't it that the region he is currently Lord of will become part of the Duchy he is appointed to? I can't remember now, but it should be.
Quote from: Indirik on March 14, 2013, 01:52:49 PM
No, and no.
It seems the game disagrees.
A New Duke (12 hours, 18 minutes ago)
message to all nobles of Arcaea
Velax de Vere, Emperor of Arcaea, Royal of Arcaea, Marshal of Imperial Arcaean Legion has appointed Maurus Barek to the vacant duke position of Central Arcaea. As a result, Irneas is now in the Duchy of Central Arcaea.
[protest options]
Well, hrmm... not the way I thought it was supposed to work.