Title:
Optimal number of nobles per region
Summary: A lord cannot effectively govern a region all by himself. Regions should have a preset
optimal number of nobles in order to maintain good order, and achieve maximum production. The specific requirement would depend on the size and type of region. Let's say min. 4 nobles per city, 5 for large cities, 3 for townslands, 3 for rurals, and 1 for badlands.
Details: A region cannot achieve maximum production if it doesn't have enough nobles to manage it properly. (Note that I'm talking about
implied management, it doesn't require the nobles to actually do anything differently) If a region drops below the minimum, law & order, production, & morale drop proportionally. For example, if the
optimal number of nobles is 3 but the region has only 1 (a lord) then the maximum achievable production, loyalty, morale would be, let's say 50 or 60%. With a lord and 1 knight, the maximum rises to 75-80%, and with a lord and 2 knights (the optimal number) you can finally achieve 100%.
Optional feature: If a region goes rogue due to neglect, the same nobles are not immediately allowed back in, which means the duke needs to appoint somebody new. (I got this idea while reading about Tostig Godwinson, Earl of Northumbria who mismanaged his region so badly that the population revolted and refused to let him back in.)
Benefits:
- Increased density;
- Increased RP;
- Fealty, bargaining, and rewarding loyalty become much more important. If I need another knight to stabilise my region, I need to woo him and make it worth his while; I might also have to negotiate his release from his current liege by offering compensation or promises that I may (or may not) intend to keep; dukes and rulers can induce nobles to manage undesirable (but strategically important) regions by promising them a promotion, and if they fail to keep their promises, cheated nobles will have a good RP pretext to abandon the region and laugh an evil laugh while it descends into roguedom;
- Higher-ups will need to engage more with their vassals, which makes it more interesting for the knights, especially newbies who might be shy at first about initiating interactions with other players; dukes and lords can no longer just be drones.
- It's consistent with Tom's credo that every decision has a consequence. Realms can still choose to take as many regions as they are capable of, but there is a cost that goes along with spreading themselves too thinly. So Realm A with 30 nobles and 30 regions may look impressive on the map, but Realm B with 30 nobles and 15 regions will likely have more wealth and a stronger army.
- It fixes the anomaly in the current game in which it's actually better for lords if they have no knights, because knights cut into their tax revenue. This shouldn't be the case. It should be in the lord's interest to attract knights to his region. (I know even Anaris agrees with me about that)
Possible Downsides/Exploits: Nothing we can't handle. Shifting loyalties, hard-bargaining, back-stabbing, managed abandonment of regions
Welcome to pre 2011 or 2012?
It used to be pretty hard to govern a region without knights.
Quote from: Lapallanch on April 11, 2014, 05:50:12 AM
Welcome to pre 2011 or 2012?
It used to be pretty hard to govern a region without knights.
That's a little before my time, but I think whatever the situation was then, in the present land owners are too comfortable. They can essentially sit on a region by themselves and collect all the gold while doing nothing.
This is a game... you don't want to make people feel like they are doing work. That is what the old system pretty much made you feel.
Oh man the switching between production and authority whatnot. That would just tank the game.
Yeah, under the old system, things became "Region maintenance master"
I doubt this would lead to a higher noble density, just more rogue regions.
It would also lead to less fun for lords who just need to sit in their region the whole time trying to stop it from revolting and less war and whatnot in general if there are whole realms that need to do that.
I imagine that improving the knights' estate mechanic (maybe coming at some point in the future when Delvin has timeTM)) will give extra benefits for having more knights rather than disadvantages for having less and that seems a fairer way to go.
Another disadvantage of the old system was that many realms had no possibility of expansion. If you already have the maximum number of regions your realm can handle there is no possible benefit of going to war, only risks. The new system made it so that all realms could always keep expanding; you can even have Lordless regions which are almost stable if they have enough stockpiled food.
The new region maintenance system really opened the floor for more wars.
Guys, I'm not advocating for the "old system".
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 03:54:02 PM
Guys, I'm not advocating for the "old system".
You say that, but I don't really see a great deal of difference.
If anyone has been around long enough to remember the "old system", how how could this feature be implemented while avoiding the undesirable consequences with the old system?
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 04:04:55 PM
If anyone has been around long enough to remember the "old system", how how could this feature be implemented while avoiding the undesirable consequences with the old system?
You can't make the region go rogue if it doesn't have enough knights. You must always make realms crave more regions - that's the basis for war. However you can give more incentive to being a knight than currently - more good, more food, more buildings for example. But it should always be desirable for a realm to gain more regions to make its knights Lords.
You want to increase density, and that's good, but you need a system where the realms are naturally drawn to decreasing their density. Otherwise unless you have a surplus of players eternal peace will become the equilibrium position.
Out of your request, I really like the optional feature though, although this adresses the turnaround problem more than the density problem.
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 04:04:55 PM
If anyone has been around long enough to remember the "old system", how how could this feature be implemented while avoiding the undesirable consequences with the old system?
You can't.
In any system, it should *always* be desirable for a realm to take more regions. There should never be a negative aspect to expansion, as far as game mechanics are concerned. We want to create reasons for people to declare war, rather than to not declare war.
Quote from: Anaris on April 11, 2014, 03:54:52 PM
You say that, but I don't really see a great deal of difference.
Well for starters Dwilight has about half as many regions now as it used to but still a relatively large player base, for now. So concerns about realms being too spread out and not enough nobles to allow realms to expand are unfounded.
It would seem like a good opportunity to re-try some ideas that didn't work out the first time given the change of circumstances. The hard reality is that, with half the regions, many former lords will be reduced to knights anyway. This would give those knights a more critical role in their realms, increased leverage. It may be enough to prevent a few quitters. I know you're expecting a spate of quitters, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce the number of quitters.
Quote from: vonGenf on April 11, 2014, 04:18:52 PM
You can't make the region go rogue if it doesn't have enough knights. You must always make realms crave more regions - that's the basis for war. However you can give more incentive to being a knight than currently - more good, more food, more buildings for example. But it should always be desirable for a realm to gain more regions to make its knights Lords.
You want to increase density, and that's good, but you need a system where the realms are naturally drawn to decreasing their density. Otherwise unless you have a surplus of players eternal peace will become the equilibrium position.
Out of your request, I really like the optional feature though, although this adresses the turnaround problem more than the density problem.
Excellent points. I think under this feature they
still can expand, but they will need to acquire the manpower to do so, which will incentivise players to recruit their friends, and to try to woo nobles away from other realms by offering them a lordship or a lower tax rate.
One perverse feature of the current game is that it's actually
better for lords if they have no knights, because knights cut into their tax revenue. This shouldn't be the case. It should be in the lord's interest to attract knights to his region.
Given the feedback on this FR, it can be changed so that low-density regions don't have to go rogue necessarily, but just suffer decreased morale, production. So one or two nobles can keep the region loyal, but it won't reach 100% stats.
Quote from: Eirikr on April 11, 2014, 06:36:00 PM
Just because I'm brainstorming here, I'm not going to create a separate FR yet, but...
Working off of another idea I think from the new combat package (I skimmed it, so it's probably just a couple random words I remember), what about making each region type have some sort of specialty, unlocking more as more knights take residence? It should be something necessary for typical well-functioning realms, but not something that cripples realms without it. The benefits will accumulate rather than being exclusive per level.
So, for example ("resident" is either a lord or knight):
Region A: Rural, 1 resident - Scouts, 2 residents - Banners, 3 residents - Marketplace
Region B: Large city, 1 resident - Banners, 2 residents - Healers, 3 residents - Forge, 4 residents - Siege Engines, 5 residents - Efficient Academies
For ease of implementation (it'd be a pretty big change anyway), we'd want to look at making the rewards standard across region types, but we also need to develop some level of balance. As such, I've thrown in a little bit of a mixture of ideas just to get the wheels spinning... The reward concepts I just thought of are as follows, with some labels that overlap at the moment:
- Existing Rewards: Providing normally gold-based purchases (already available to the region type) makes it so there's a failsafe for no increase in player density. You can either get another knight or pay X gold. Realms that want to expand can, but should expect it to be more costly if they want the full compliment of a region's benefits. (This also mirrors realistic increases in cost for expanding a nation.)
- Bonus Rewards: Similar to Existing Rewards, but these rewards would not normally be available for purchase in that region type. Think of it like a family brings their own servants that make something new at their estate. Maybe they took up a cotton farm and put their personal bannermakers to work?
- Improvements: Increase the capabilities of an existing building. In my example, Efficient Academies would apply to the region's existing Academy, making it more likely (not by a lot, but something noticeable) that you'll increase a skill. The intended advantage here being that it's clearly an incentive, but it doesn't give larger or smaller realms a real edge. Other improvements could be slightly larger granary capacity or make a forge repair slightly more per hour or gold.
Thinking about it a little more, I'd actually probably have the rewards start at 2+ residents. It's all just an idea right now.
I like this idea. I think it has potential.
Quote from: Stabbity on April 11, 2014, 06:08:44 PM
You can't.
Not with
your attitude.
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 07:31:20 PM
Excellent points. I think under this feature they still can expand, but they will need to acquire the manpower to do so, which will incentivise players to recruit their friends, and to try to woo nobles away from other realms by offering them a lordship or a lower tax rate.
It's a nice thought. We hoped that when we actually had a system like this in place.
Guess what? It didn't actually happen in real life.
Quote
One perverse feature of the current game is that it's actually better for lords if they have no knights, because knights cut into their tax revenue. This shouldn't be the case. It should be in the lord's interest to attract knights to his region.
I completely agree with this. It's been on my list for some time, but I need to have time to work out the details of how it should work.
In the past couple of years it hasn't been a problem in practice, because realms have desperately needed to attract more nobles in general, but yes, there's definitely a perverse incentive there that needs to be eliminated (or, ideally, reversed).
Quote from: Indirik on April 11, 2014, 07:18:49 PM
In any system, it should *always* be desirable for a realm to take more regions. There should never be a negative aspect to expansion, as far as game mechanics are concerned. We want to create reasons for people to declare war, rather than to not declare war.
I agree completely. I think this idea can be done in a way that wars and expansion will still be the ultimate goal.
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 07:31:20 PMExcellent points. I think under this feature they still can expand, but they will need to acquire the manpower to do so, which will incentivise players to recruit their friends, and to try to woo nobles away from other realms by offering them a lordship or a lower tax rate.
I don't think this way of thinking works. First because it breaks immersion. I'm all for recruiting friends, but it should'nt be to achieve IC goals. IC goals should be achieved by IC means, and you should recruit friends because the game is fun. Secondly, in practice it still ends up in a vicious circle: "We can't go to war because we don't have enough nobles to maintain our own regions. We should recruit some friends first" - "My friends won't come to play in this boring realm which hasn't been at war for ages!".
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 07:31:20 PM
Given the feedback on this FR, it can be changed so that low-density regions don't have to go rogue necessarily, but just suffer decreased morale, production. So one or two nobles can keep the region loyal, but it won't reach 100% stats.
Anaris has already announced changes that will make it possible to keep a region at middling stats without having spiral out of control. When that is applied, then something like this can work. This could mean, for example, that a region without knights would be less profitable and easier to take over, but wouldn't run a deficit or go rogue on its own.
Quote from: vonGenf on April 11, 2014, 07:42:31 PM
I don't think this way of thinking works. First because it breaks immersion. I'm all for recruiting friends, but it should'nt be to achieve IC goals. IC goals should be achieved by IC means, and you should recruit friends because the game is fun. Secondly, in practice it still ends up in a vicious circle: "We can't go to war because we don't have enough nobles to maintain our own regions. We should recruit some friends first" - "My friends won't come to play in this boring realm which hasn't been at war for ages!".
When new players join, it's good for everyone. I'm not interested in whether people recruit friends in response to a specific IC need or not. More players = more players. That said, my hypothesis is incidental to the feature request. I
think it might lead to increased peer recruitment, but that would be a bonus. It's not the crux of my argument.
Quote from: vonGenf on April 11, 2014, 07:42:31 PM
Anaris has already announced changes that will make it possible to keep a region at middling stats without having spiral out of control. When that is applied, then something like this can work. This could mean, for example, that a region without knights would be less profitable and easier to take over, but wouldn't run a deficit or go rogue on its own.
That's good, but shouldn't a region go rogue if it has no nobles? It's one thing to have
not enough nobles, which should result in decreased morale, production & loyalty, but you shouldn't be able to maintain a region with
zero nobles.
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 08:13:24 PM
When new players join, it's good for everyone. I'm not interested in whether people recruit friends in response to a specific IC need or not. More players = more players.
No one disputes the benefit of more players.
Quote
That said, my hypothesis is incidental to the feature request. I think it might lead to increased peer recruitment, but that would be a bonus. It's not the crux of my argument.
I disagree. We have demonstrated reasons why,
with the playerbase the size that it is, your proposal would make the game more stagnant and less fun. It therefore
requires your hypothesis to be true for it to be of measurable benefit to the game.
Quote
That's good, but shouldn't a region go rogue if it has no nobles? It's one thing to have not enough nobles, which should result in decreased morale, production & loyalty, but you shouldn't be able to maintain a region with zero nobles.
Why not?
Quote from: Anaris on April 11, 2014, 08:19:00 PM
I disagree. We have demonstrated reasons why, with the playerbase the size that it is, your proposal would make the game more stagnant and less fun. It therefore requires your hypothesis to be true for it to be of measurable benefit to the game.
Fair enough. Then let's give incentives for players who recruit friends, and allow existing players to have 2 nobles on Dwilight.
Quote from: Anaris on April 11, 2014, 08:19:00 PM
Why not?
Because without central authority the population would descend into lawlessness and anarchy. The lord's role is to manage the region. If it's not being managed then it's, by definition, rogue. Also, it's contrary to your overarching goal to increase noble density.
If all the lords had to "manage their region" there would be no wars.
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 08:41:35 PM
Fair enough. Then let's give incentives for players who recruit friends,
I believe we already do, but giving a strong incentive is just an incentive to multicheat.
Quote
and allow existing players to have 2 nobles on Dwilight.
Nope. Not gonna happen. This is something we discussed and decided on some time ago: a big part of Dwilight's uniqueness comes from the fact that you can't have two characters there, one propping up the other, or creating an inextricably tangled web of alliances like you see on AT and EC.
Quote
Because without central authority the population would descend into lawlessness and anarchy. The lord's role is to manage the region. If it's not being managed then it's, by definition, rogue. Also, it's contrary to your overarching goal to increase noble density.
Not having a lord isn't the same thing as rogue. Nor should it be. The region is still part of the realm, and as such, it
does have central authority. There's just not a Lord or knights overseeing that central authority. So, sure, some corruption's going to occur, but that's a long way from lawlessness and anarchy.
And in case you haven't noticed, I've been achieving the goal of increasing noble density by other means.
Quote from: trying on April 11, 2014, 08:43:08 PM
If all the lords had to "manage their region" there would be no wars.
Exactly.
I don't understand the reasoning behind this. It only limits players and realms. Removing the land mass increased the total density of players in one area which increases conflict and land grab. This would increase the density of players per a realm's regions, and decrease land grab and conflict. Why? What would the benefits be but frustrating a realm's growth? Do you think there is not enough room in the East? It would be counter intuitive to the whole idea of removing the Western half of Dwilight. I remember when we had this feature or a feature similar to it. It was awful. The game has been so much more enjoyable since then. All of the wars since Caerwyn's destruction (at least the ones Asylon has been involved in) wouldn't have happened if these restrictions had still been in place.
We should have more positive features (like the ones talked about here, e.g., receiving bonuses for knights) and not negative features (e.g., you can't maintain a region without a certain number of knights).
Quote from: trying on April 11, 2014, 08:43:08 PM
If all the lords had to "manage their region" there would be no wars.
They don't actively manage, it's an implied function of their position.
Quote from: Graeth on April 11, 2014, 08:52:50 PM
We should have more positive features (like the ones talked about here, e.g., receiving bonuses for knights) and not negative features (e.g., you can't maintain a region without a certain number of knights).
I don't necessarily disagree with this. Consider the FR a rough draft of an idea, not a finished blueprint.
Incentives work. Punishments don't. So try to always think along the line of encouraging people to do something instead of forcing them to do so.
Also, the current problem with estates is people are not interested in staying in the region where you get less gold. If you get more gold as a knight of a city, you are more likely to ditch your rural estate for a city one.
Estate buildings have been approved already and eventually it will get implemented. It should encourage knights to actually 'invest' in your estate and make you more inclined to stay where you are than move to another estate.
Quote from: Lapallanch on April 11, 2014, 10:47:43 PM
Incentives work.
Based on the feedback here, I would change this feature request so that instead of requiring minimum number of nobles to prevent roguitude, the
optimal number of nobles would only be required to achieve 100% in the region indicators (production, morale, loyalty, etc.) For example, a region with only 1 noble (a lord) might only be able to achieve 33% production, 33% gold, and so on. Add a knight and that goes up to 67%, add a second knight and voilà, 100%. I think this addresses most or all of the disadvantages raised by you guys, and still retains all the advantages. So realms could still take new regions if they don't have the
prescribed number of nobles.
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 12, 2014, 07:20:46 PM
Based on the feedback here, I would change this feature request so that instead of requiring minimum number of nobles to prevent roguitude, the optimal number of nobles would only be required to achieve 100% in the region indicators (production, morale, loyalty, etc.) For example, a region with only 1 noble (a lord) might only be able to achieve 33% production, 33% gold, and so on. Add a knight and that goes up to 67%, add a second knight and voilà, 100%. I think this addresses most or all of the disadvantages raised by you guys, and still retains all the advantages. So realms could still take new regions if they don't have the prescribed number of nobles.
Two major issues with that.
One: you make #of nobles you have way too important. they already have massive advantages but this makes it almost just a who has more nobles thing because of its huge impact
Two: We don't have enough nobles for that, and no we aren't going to say letting everyone have double the nobles is the solution. There are very real issues with people playing a lot of nobles.
That said, that idea can be tweaked perhaps to work, but i personally am against it. Regardless of the specifics of the method you are directly punishing for not having enough nobles, and if the realm is in !@#$ty condition because it does not have enough enough nobles it makes it a lot harder to fix. (It will probably already be crappy because of low amount of nobles but if your regions are doing poor and you don't have much gold it makes igniting war and making things fun a lot harder.)
I feel like at this time you should let things be for a bit because I can see the War Improvements Package directly affecting the proper way to handle this for various reasons.
Quote from: Penchant on April 12, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
Two major issues with that.
One: you make #of nobles you have way too important. they already have massive advantages but this makes it almost just a who has more nobles thing because of its huge impact
The exact numbers can be tweaked. I just put those in there to illustrate my point. However, it
should be the case that you can achieve more with more nobles. There's no logical reason that a realm of 10 nobles should be at equal footing with a realm of 30 nobles, and the same should be true at the regional level.
Quote from: Penchant on April 12, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
Two: We don't have enough nobles for that, and no we aren't going to say letting everyone have double the nobles is the solution. There are very real issues with people playing a lot of nobles.
I'm not proposing letting everyone have double nobles, but I also don't see the basis for the first part of your statement. I
think you're saying that we don't have enough nobles to achieve 100% in all regions, but I don't see a problem with that. We already don't have 100% across the board, nor would we ever want to. 100% across the board means we've maxed out on what can be achieved.
Quote from: Penchant on April 12, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
Regardless of the specifics of the method you are directly punishing for not having enough nobles, and if the realm is in !@#$ty condition because it does not have enough enough nobles it makes it a lot harder to fix. (It will probably already be crappy because of low amount of nobles but if your regions are doing poor and you don't have much gold it makes igniting war and making things fun a lot harder.)
I disagree. The disadvantage of having fewer nobles is inherent in
having fewer nobles. Naturally a dwindling population will have a compounding effect: If a realm is !@#$ty, nobles will leave it, causing it to become !@#$tier. That's already true, and it
should be true. The other side of that coin is, if you can attract more nobles, the realm gets
less !@#$ty. If you're trying to fix a crappy realm, I salute you. I've been in that situation myself and I think it makes for a fun challenge, like fixing a dilapidated old house. But there's no guarantee that you will succeed. In my case, we failed. But it was fun to try. If it hadn't been a challenge, then it wouldn't have been fun.
I've changed the original Feature Request taking into consideration the very helpful feedback from the forum. Thanks to everybody for providing constructive criticism and please keep it coming!