Summary: The more vassals a noble has, the more power he holds. There should be a way to recognize and measure that power.
Details: A char gets his first point of political power by becoming a lord. It increases cumulatively with each knight he has under him, so for each additional knight, the increase in power in greater.
- Lordship + 1 knight = 3 points of political power.
- Lordship + 2 knights = 6 points of political power.
- Lordship + 3 knights = 10 points of political power.
The duke's political power would be the sum total of all of his lords' political power, and a ruler's political power would be the sum total of all of his dukes' and all of his lords' political power. There would also be a bonus for holding government positions. The size of the bonus would depend on the size of the realm. A marshal bonus would depend on the size of his army. Those who sponsor armies and found religions/guilds should also receive an appropriate bonus.
Benefits: Easy to code and easy to understand. It recognizes the inherent strength of the team, thereby promoting teamwork. It gives value to vassals and encourages dukes and lords to attract knights to their regions. By making the increments cumulative, it recognizes that a team is more powerful than the sum of its parts, which in turn promotes increased density.
Possible Downside: Once you get a taste of power, it changes you.
Here is a diagram to illustrate the concept. If you can't see it, click this link: http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/File:Political_power_tree.png
(http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/File:Political_power_tree.png)
So what does this score supposed to do even? Will it do anything but display how many knights you have under your command? If that is the case, this is just meaningless.
Also what do you mean marshal bonus? If you are giving bonuses to marshals based on the size of his army, then no. It will strengthen big realms too much. Small realms already don't have a chance to deal with big realms. You don't want to crush them. Also, with the coming new war implementations, you want more smaller armies not one giant army so I doubt it would work well with the coming changes.
Quote from: Lapallanch on April 25, 2014, 09:11:03 AM
So what does this score supposed to do even? Will it do anything but display how many knights you have under your command? If that is the case, this is just meaningless.
Also what do you mean marshal bonus? If you are giving bonuses to marshals based on the size of his army, then no. It will strengthen big realms too much. Small realms already don't have a chance to deal with big realms. You don't want to crush them. Also, with the coming new war implementations, you want more smaller armies not one giant army so I doubt it would work well with the coming changes.
Thanks for your feedback. It's intended for information, similar to HP but more relevant. It would not give large armies any added advantage. The marshal bonus is an increase in his political power score corresponding to the increased political power that comes with commanding an army.
Oh so it is more like each title giving a certain number of points?
I think it would actually be nice to see the allegiance of each character beside their title whenever they send a message. Maybe that way whoever has a lot of knights will be recognized more - or someone with active nobles. That alone should give people an idea of how much influence one has in the realm since you will see more of that name.
I both like this, and don't.
I like it because it provides an incentive for Lords to have Knights, and Dukes to have vassals.
I don't like it...because it provides an incentive for Lords and Dukes to fight amongst themselves for vassals, thus potentially wrecking any team spirit the realm had.
So, I'm conflicted on this for now.
If I were to implement it, I think I'd go whole hog and make the political power score actually do something, though I'm not entirely sure what just yet.
A version of this could be easily implemented by displaying the number of votes each character has in a representative system.
Quote from: Anaris on April 25, 2014, 02:12:59 PM
If I were to implement it, I think I'd go whole hog and make the political power score actually do something, though I'm not entirely sure what just yet.
Let nobles be able to spend these points on things, similar to how Mentors could spend their points. Everyone else would just see whatever your current maximum "score" was, but for you you'd see how many points you actually have left to spend that day/week/whatever. And they'd regenerate over time.
Quote from: Velax on April 25, 2014, 03:48:11 PM
Let nobles be able to spend these points on things, similar to how Mentors could spend their points. Everyone else would just see whatever your current maximum "score" was, but for you you'd see how many points you actually have left to spend that day/week/whatever. And they'd regenerate over time.
I dunno. I think rather than having a regenerating supply of spendable points and things to spend them on that went away (like extra hours or whatever), I'd prefer to have the points be allocatable to a set of bonuses or benefits that stuck around. ...Not sure what yet.
Without it dong anything tangible to benefit the player, I think this is a worthless idea. It is an interesting number that everyone will look at for a day or two, then forget about and ignore. Kind of like the top family rankings we already have.
If it is somehow turned into some kind of system with a tangible bonus, then it will need to be tightly researched, designed, and controlled so as to prevent abuses. Some kind of continuous bonus like Anaris mentions is infinitely more balance-able and less prone to abuse than a point-spending idea.
However, you also need to evaluate the possible negative effects this could have, too. Off the top of my head, this provides big incentives to not create new duchies, and thus centralize power into the government to a greater extent. A single duchy realm with everyone together would provide the largest number of nobles for the duke, thus giving the duke the highest possible continuous bonus to spread across his duchy, and thus the biggest benefit to everyone in his duchy (i.e. the realm). So, why make more duchies? Reduced duchies leads to reduce intrigue, reduced opportunities for secession and allegiance changes, betrayals, etc.
If we want it to have a tangible benefit, the first thing that comes to mind is increased loyalty, since power & loyalty go hand-in-hand. Another idea, increased prestige for those under you, because when you align yourself to powerful people, you enhance your prestige. Another attribute of powerful people is the ability to influence elections, so the votes of high-power nobles have more weight.
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 26, 2014, 05:01:04 PM
Another attribute of powerful people is the ability to influence elections, so the votes of high-power nobles have more weight.
Isnt that basically already in place under some government system elections?
check here: http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Election
Things like number of knights aligned and prestige matter in elections for most or certain government positions.
Depending on your government type.
I'm sympathetic to the reality that the dev team aka Anaris has limited resources and time is precious. Coding the scoring index should be relatively quick and easy. The practical effects require more thought. Since Anaris has expressed some openness to this idea, I propose breaking this FR into small steps. Step 1: create the scoring index. In the meantime, we can have a constructive discussion about what the tangible effects should be and roll those out 1-by-1. Otherwise, if you try to do it all at once, I can see it getting bogged down with debate and it will never get done. I think this would be a good approach for any FR that shows some promise. Anaris has a tremendous task being the only developer, and it seems like all of his time gets consumed with big ambitious tasks like the war improvements package, and smaller things that might have a positive impact on the game get sidelined indefinitely.
You can decide what things you think would be good for this all you like, but my dev priorities are all set for at least the next couple of months.
I might be able to make a visible indication of this (simply stealing the representative votes code, as I think von Genf suggested), but there's basically no chance of me coding up tangible effects of this in the near future.
Quote from: Tom on April 27, 2014, 01:18:28 PM
This is bull!@#$. Political power is not measured by number of vassals or any other number, really. It's measured by your ability to make other people do what you want them to do, and since you can do that by force or by manipulation or by a dozen other means, it is intrinsically very hard to measure.
I don't think it's bull!@#$. In fact, it's easier to measure than fame, honour, prestige, loyalty, morale, etc. etc. I'm sure political power means many things to many people, but if it's measured by your ability to make other people do what you want them to do, then certainly getting people to follow you, swear loyalty to you, vote for you, and appoint you to powerful offices, are all
evidence of political power. No metric is perfect, maybe there are other IG hallmarks of power. If so, they should be factored in too.
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 27, 2014, 05:29:47 PM
I don't think it's bull!@#$. In fact, it's easier to measure than fame, honour, prestige, loyalty, morale, etc. etc. I'm sure political power means many things to many people, but if it's measured by your ability to make other people do what you want them to do, then certainly getting people to follow you, swear loyalty to you, vote for you, and appoint you to powerful offices, are all evidence of political power. No metric is perfect, maybe there are other IG hallmarks of power. If so, they should be factored in too.
Its evidence, but not actually meaning there is political power. Just like there is evidence in a case, but it doesn't mean the person is guilty. Political power is the power to influence politics, which means that high-level positions it is easier to do generally, but does not mean that ruler always actually has the most political power or that a knight can't be powerful politically either.
How many vassals they have doesn't give them political power. One of my characters is very often on opposite sides on issues so the fact that I am his vassal does not add to his political power. Another character of mine is only a knight albeit an ambassador as well, and has a pretty decent amount of political power. More vassals /= more political power. For some it will, because they have very good relationships with their vassal, but it doesn't apply to everyone.
Quote from: Penchant on April 27, 2014, 10:33:48 PM
Its evidence, but not actually meaning there is political power. Just like there is evidence in a case, but it doesn't mean the person is guilty. Political power is the power to influence politics, which means that high-level positions it is easier to do generally, but does not mean that ruler always actually has the most political power or that a knight can't be powerful politically either.
How many vassals they have doesn't give them political power. One of my characters is very often on opposite sides on issues so the fact that I am his vassal does not add to his political power. Another character of mine is only a knight albeit an ambassador as well, and has a pretty decent amount of political power. More vassals /= more political power. For some it will, because they have very good relationships with their vassal, but it doesn't apply to everyone.
I have to strongly disagree with you. The power to command armies, enforce laws, control trade, expend treasure and set tax rates are the prerogatives of those holding political offices. Individuals can be more influential than their official titles suggest. There's what's sometimes called the "power behind the throne," e.g. a trusted adviser who exercises power by virtue of his influence over the holders of political offices, formally or informally. If you can think of an effective formula to measure that, I'll add it to the feature request.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 01, 2014, 05:36:43 AM
Individuals can be more influential than their official titles suggest. There's what's sometimes called the "power behind the throne," e.g. a trusted adviser who exercises power by virtue of his influence over the holders of political offices, formally or informally. If you can think of an effective formula to measure that, I'll add it to the feature request.
That is our point. People can be much more powerful than titles suggest. They can also be less powerful than their title might suggest, although it is less common. There is no formula for this though, which is the reason I am against this. It is not a person's true political power. Authoritative power, sure, but political power, no.
Quote from: Penchant on May 01, 2014, 09:08:30 AM
That is our point. People can be much more powerful than titles suggest. They can also be less powerful than their title might suggest, although it is less common. There is no formula for this though, which is the reason I am against this. It is not a person's true political power. Authoritative power, sure, but political power, no.
Scores are shorthand for what is
objectively knowable, i.e. official powers. It tells you that the office of the ruler of Darka is objectively more powerful than the office of the ruler of Lyonesse, that the Margrave of Echiur is more powerful than the Earl of Tofino. Power that is based on subjective criteria remains (by definition) subjective. In mathematical terms, it's what's known as a variable.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 01, 2014, 05:17:04 PM
Scores are shorthand for what is objectively knowable, i.e. official powers. It tells you that the office of the ruler of Darka is objectively more powerful than the office of the ruler of Lyonesse, that the Margrave of Echiur is more powerful than the Earl of Tofino. Power that is based on subjective criteria remains (by definition) subjective. In mathematical terms, it's what's known as a variable.
But neither of those things are necessarily the case.
What if the ruler of Lyonesse happens to know that the duke of Darka's largest duchy is in his back pocket? Or has the most powerful realm on the continent as his ally, willing to back him up no matter what he says?
What if the Earl of Tofino is also the Regent of Sanguis Astroism (pre-schisms-and-collapses)? Or the margrave of Echiur is broke because his region's been starving for weeks, and he's alienated most of the lords of food-producing regions in his realm?
These are all things that any purely game-mechanical system can never measure—and they are not merely ancillary things that contribute to power; they are what is at the
heart of power. Relationships. Reputations. Interactions with real people.
There is no one way to
objectively measure power in BattleMaster—and certainly no way that can be programmed.
Quote from: Anaris on May 01, 2014, 05:22:11 PM
But neither of those things are necessarily the case.
What if the ruler of Lyonesse happens to know that the duke of Darka's largest duchy is in his back pocket? Or has the most powerful realm on the continent as his ally, willing to back him up no matter what he says?
What if the Earl of Tofino is also the Regent of Sanguis Astroism (pre-schisms-and-collapses)? Or the margrave of Echiur is broke because his region's been starving for weeks, and he's alienated most of the lords of food-producing regions in his realm?
These are all things that any purely game-mechanical system can never measure—and they are not merely ancillary things that contribute to power; they are what is at the heart of power. Relationships. Reputations. Interactions with real people.
There is no one way to objectively measure power in BattleMaster—and certainly no way that can be programmed.
Even if the power of the unknown can be programmed, it
shouldn't be. The fun of the game is in players figuring out these nuances that you're talking about for themselves. The power of the office, on the other hand, is simple background info. To give a RL example, if you go to work in Washington, you'd already know things like the constitutional powers of the president, the VP, the senate, etc. because that's all public information. But you'd need to spend time there, "roleplaying" so to speak, to learn the internal power dynamics.
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 25, 2014, 09:04:09 AM
Summary: The more vassals a noble has, the more power he holds. There should be a way to recognize and measure that power.
Details: A char gets his first point of political power by becoming a lord. It increases cumulatively with each knight he has under him, so for each additional knight, the increase in power in greater.
- Lordship + 1 knight = 3 points of political power.
- Lordship + 2 knights = 6 points of political power.
- Lordship + 3 knights = 10 points of political power.
The duke's political power would be the sum total of all of his lords' political power, and a ruler's political power would be the sum total of all of his dukes' and all of his lords' political power. There would also be a bonus for holding government positions. The size of the bonus would depend on the size of the realm. A marshal bonus would depend on the size of his army. Those who sponsor armies and found religions/guilds should also receive an appropriate bonus.
Benefits: Easy to code and easy to understand. It recognizes the inherent strength of the team, thereby promoting teamwork. It gives value to vassals and encourages dukes and lords to attract knights to their regions. By making the increments cumulative, it recognizes that a team is more powerful than the sum of its parts, which in turn promotes increased density.
Possible Downside: Once you get a taste of power, it changes you.
Here is a diagram to illustrate the concept. If you can't see it, click this link: http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/File:Political_power_tree.png
(http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/File:Political_power_tree.png)
What about a lord with no knights, or a lord with 5 knights? If this score is made to mean anything, and the scale is exponential, it'll just incite the realm to micro-manage knights to dump as many of them in as few regions as possible. On the other hand, if it's not exponential, then it'd be nothing more than a noble count meter.
Quote from: Chénier on May 03, 2014, 02:17:37 AM
What about a lord with no knights, or a lord with 5 knights? If this score is made to mean anything, and the scale is exponential, it'll just incite the realm to micro-manage knights to dump as many of them in as few regions as possible. On the other hand, if it's not exponential, then it'd be nothing more than a noble count meter.
Certainly nothing can be as micro-managerial as having the devs corral all the characters on one side of the continent. On the other hand, this promotes increased density in a way that is player-driven and is analogous to RL. A lord with 5 knights is inherently more powerful than a lord with none. The current landscape does nothing to incentivize lords to attract knights to their region, which is why most regions have none. So we can leave it to the devs to come up with what I respectfully consider misguided projects to increase density artificially, like the glacier experiment, or we can make it so that having knights is something lords actually want. I don't see that leading to micro-management because it would be the lords who have the most to gain.
Quote from: Chénier on May 03, 2014, 02:17:37 AM
What about a lord with no knights, or a lord with 5 knights? If this score is made to mean anything, and the scale is exponential, it'll just incite the realm to micro-manage knights to dump as many of them in as few regions as possible. On the other hand, if it's not exponential, then it'd be nothing more than a noble count meter.
P.S. I think it's cumulative, not exponential.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 03, 2014, 07:47:32 PM
P.S. I think it's cumulative, not exponential.
10 is more than three times 3.
I'd also say that if most (really?) regions have no knights, it's probably more to do with the fact that noble:region ratios everywhere are pretty low. Check out these regions without knights: most of them will have vacant estates anyone could pick up.
Quote from: Chénier on May 03, 2014, 10:13:31 PM
10 is more than three times 3.
I'd also say that if most (really?) regions have no knights, it's probably more to do with the fact that noble:region ratios everywhere are pretty low. Check out these regions without knights: most of them will have vacant estates anyone could pick up.
That's the problem. Anyone can pick them up, but they don't because there's no incentive, and the lords are quite content not having knights. Actually it's
better not having any because all they do is cut into your tax revenue until they get their own region. It's not a coincidence that the most stable realms typically average around 1 – 1.5 nobles per region.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 04, 2014, 12:31:05 AM
That's the problem. Anyone can pick them up, but they don't because there's no incentive, and the lords are quite content not having knights. Actually it's better not having any because all they do is cut into your tax revenue until they get their own region. It's not a coincidence that the most stable realms typically average around 1 – 1.5 nobles per region.
There's no incentive to have an income...? Knights who don't take estates have no income.
The problem is clearly not with the lords, either, because they are putting up a ton of estates that don't get filled, despite your claim that they have no incentive to do so.
More nobles already means more power. Why do we need a new feature to repeat what is already true?
More knights is better for a region. You get better efficiency and your region produces more gold. I make more in Idapur with full knights and estates at 100% than I do with no knights. In fact,I poached several from other Lords in Arcaea. My knights make way more than what an average knight makes. Because of that I actually make a lot more gold.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 01:05:00 AM
There's no incentive to have an income...? Knights who don't take estates have no income.
The problem is clearly not with the lords, either, because they are putting up a ton of estates that don't get filled, despite your claim that they have no incentive to do so.
Knights will take an estate, usually in city if they can, but there's no benefit to the lord. It just means he has to share his gold with somebody.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 01:05:00 AM
More nobles already means more power.
No it doesn't. One noble can rule a region just as easily as 4, and the more nobles there are, the less revenue. That's why the most powerful realm on Dwilight (Morek) has only 1.3 nobles per region, and the most powerful realm on Beluaterra (Riombara) has about 1.2 nobles per region.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 01:05:00 AM
Why do we need a new feature to repeat what is already true?
First of all it's not true. Secondly, the benefits include the following:
• It recognizes the inherent strength of the team, thereby promoting teamwork.
• It assigns value to knights and encourages dukes and lords to attract knights to their regions.
• By making the increments cumulative, it recognizes that a team is more powerful than the sum of its parts, which in turn promotes increased density.
• It provides you with some background information about the char you're interacting with and where you rank in comparison.
Look, there are already values assigned to honour, prestige, and about 20 different fame scores.
This IMO has a lot more practical use than those other ones, and frankly, there's no downside. Either players will find it useful, or they'll ignore it.
Quote from: dustole on May 04, 2014, 01:36:45 AM
More knights is better for a region. You get better efficiency and your region produces more gold. I make more in Idapur with full knights and estates at 100% than I do with no knights. In fact,I poached several from other Lords in Arcaea. My knights make way more than what an average knight makes. Because of that I actually make a lot more gold.
I'd be interested to see your bookkeeping because I find that hard to believe. As a lord you get 50% of the tax gold from vacant estates. Occupied estates only give you the "lord's share", usually around 10-15%.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 04, 2014, 02:20:15 AM
Knights will take an estate, usually in city if they can, but there's no benefit to the lord. It just means he has to share his gold with somebody.
You say lords have no incentives to set up estates as they only lose gold, and yet you recognize that knights have no trouble finding vacant estates. Why do you want to incite people to do things they clearly need no incentive to do and are already doing anyways?
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 04, 2014, 02:20:15 AM
No it doesn't. One noble can rule a region just as easily as 4, and the more nobles there are, the less revenue. That's why the most powerful realm on Dwilight (Morek) has only 1.3 nobles per region, and the most powerful realm on Beluaterra (Riombara) has about 1.2 nobles per region.
You oppose what I say without contradicting it. I said "more nobles means more power". I did not talk about density in that sentence. I don't have access to the stats, but Riombara has a lot of nobles, hence they have a lot of power. They also have a ton of wealthy regions, far superior to average. As for Morek, it has the second-highest noble count, and is pretty much tied with a bunch of other realms which, a few months ago, could easily have been said to be comparable in strength. But again, all of these top realms in strength are the top realms in noble count.
More nobles means more resources, be it by being able to manage a greater number of regions or by having a superior tax tolerance and tax efficiency. Density changes little to this, it's all about raw noble count.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 04, 2014, 02:20:15 AM
First of all it's not true. Secondly, the benefits include the following:
• It recognizes the inherent strength of the team, thereby promoting teamwork.
• It assigns value to knights and encourages dukes and lords to attract knights to their regions.
• By making the increments cumulative, it recognizes that a team is more powerful than the sum of its parts, which in turn promotes increased density.
• It provides you with some background information about the char you're interacting with and where you rank in comparison.
Look, there are already values assigned to honour, prestige, and about 20 different fame scores. This IMO has a lot more practical use than those other ones, and frankly, there's no downside. Either players will find it useful, or they'll ignore it.
It's true enough that the realms you've stated as super powers are the realms with high noble counts. The three realms with the most nobles on Dwilight are the three realms with the strongest militaries. I'm pretty sure similar statements can be said about the rest of the continents.
It also doesn't promote teamwork, it promotes internal competition.
It doesn't really assign any
additional value, because clearly knights are already valued given that vacant estates are abundant and many lords try to attract knights, and because I've not seen any suggestion as to what this new stat should do, and vanity stats don't create value.
The increments are flawed by design because, depending on how you calculate them, they either reward large realms that need no additional rewarding just for being big, or they incite large realms to micro-manage estate distribution which is most unlikely to generate any fun. Nor is simply adding a new stat likely to change anything about density, because density will only change if the number of nobles on a continent increases or the number of regions on it decreases, and this stat has no apparent power over either.
As for background, we can already look up H/P and the titles are all displayed. People don't really pay attention to the other game-given stats (H/P and fame, namely), why would they care for this one? There are downsides. I already mentioned them. Others expressed concerns as well. This feature would only have downsides, and no advantage.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 04, 2014, 02:38:55 AM
I'd be interested to see your bookkeeping because I find that hard to believe. As a lord you get 50% of the tax gold from vacant estates. Occupied estates only give you the "lord's share", usually around 10-15%.
You say he is wrong, yet you claim that because lord's share is usually around 10-15%. Why is it usually that low? Because lords aren't as greedy you make them out to be.
Knights are only a harm to lords if they choose, because they can take up to 50% if they want of their knight's income, meaning the lord would lose nothing, yet the region/realm gains gold. So in other words, lords aren't really that greedy after all and there really is no downside to knights, despite you claiming so. A lord who wants max gold and power can give himself the largest estate he can and have a lord's share of 50%. Simple as that.
As an add-on, you didn't read his post that well, because he said the region produces more gold, not his lord gains more gold, because he loses no gold, yet the region really does make more gold. (Assuming 50% lord's share which he probably doesn't do because his city is so rich he has no need to.)
To all your benefits you listed of this, its false, because a number that holds no power is simply a number, and thus isn't promoting any of things you claimed because people don't care about numbers, they care about power. To the recognizing a character's rank, that is already done via their title. If they are a duke and you are lord, they are more powerful, simple as that.
Holy !@#$ Chénier! I almost didn't respond to this because it's so damn long, but you caught me in a good mood so here I go. :)
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AMYou say lords have no incentives to set up estates as they only lose gold, and yet you recognize that knights have no trouble finding vacant estates.
No, I said that lords have no incentive to attract knights to their region and to keep them there. I'll say it again: As a lord, there is NO benefit to having knights residing in your region. As for the creation of estates, it might be that vacant estates yield more tax gold than wild lands, but most of the estates were probably set up when it was still the "new" estate system and players had higher expectations.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
Why do you want to incite people to do things they clearly need no incentive to do and are already doing anyways?
You've probably noticed that several regions are being surgically removed from play on account of noble density being too low. I haven't heard anyone disagreeing with the premise, although the remedy is certainly controversial and IMO wrong. Most people seem to agree that increasing density would be good for the overall community. Unfortunately the common good is at odds with self-interest, so if you want to increase noble density, the first step should be to calibrate the dynamics of the game to make increased density beneficial to more individuals.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
You oppose what I say without contradicting it. I said "more nobles means more power". I did not talk about density in that sentence. I don't have access to the stats, but Riombara has a lot of nobles, hence they have a lot of power. They also have a ton of wealthy regions, far superior to average. As for Morek, it has the second-highest noble count, and is pretty much tied with a bunch of other realms which, a few months ago, could easily have been said to be comparable in strength. But again, all of these top realms in strength are the top realms in noble count.
They have the most nobles and the fewest knights because knights, in the current reality, are parasitic. It's not a coincidence that the most powerful realms have the fewest knights.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
More nobles means more resources, be it by being able to manage a greater number of regions or by having a superior tax tolerance and tax efficiency. Density changes little to this, it's all about raw noble count.
What resources are there besides food and gold? Knights do nothing to produce either one. The only other resource is "human resources," i.e. nobles. You can theoretically have as many regions as you have nobles without any problems. Is that what we should be aspiring to, a 1:1 density rate?
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
It's true enough that the realms you've stated as super powers are the realms with high noble counts. The three realms with the most nobles on Dwilight are the three realms with the strongest militaries. I'm pretty sure similar statements can be said about the rest of the continents.
The problem with that is those "super power" realms are currently models of success. We're all trying to climb to the top of the heap, but the ones who get there are invariably the ones with the lowest density rates. That proves the point I've been trying to make, that there is no advantage to having knights.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
It also doesn't promote teamwork, it promotes internal competition.
It might promote competition between lords and between dukes, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but it places greater importance on the relationship between knight and lord. Currently it's a parasitic relationship.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
It doesn't really assign any additional value, because clearly knights are already valued given that vacant estates are abundant and many lords try to attract knights, and because I've not seen any suggestion as to what this new stat should do, and vanity stats don't create value.
If you scroll up you can see a few suggestions about what it should do, but the possibilities of what it could do are only limited by the imagination. You're a smart enough guy, I'm sure you could think of some additional ones if you shifted your energy away from criticizing toward being constructive.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
The increments are flawed by design because, depending on how you calculate them, they either reward large realms that need no additional rewarding just for being big, or they incite large realms to micro-manage estate distribution which is most unlikely to generate any fun.
I'm afraid you're wrong again. It wouldn't reward Morek or Riombara because they don't have enough knights. It would reward D'Hara, Barca and Luria Nova because they currently have the most knights.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
Nor is simply adding a new stat likely to change anything about density, because density will only change if the number of nobles on a continent increases or the number of regions on it decreases, and this stat has no apparent power over either.
Personally I'm in favour of increasing the number of nobles.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
As for background, we can already look up H/P and the titles are all displayed.
H/P is not a good metric for the reasons stated here: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5655.0.html
And titles give you limited incite. For example, the president of the US may be equal in rank to the president of the DRC, however one of them has more power than the other.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
People don't really pay attention to the other game-given stats (H/P and fame, namely), why would they care for this one? There are downsides. I already mentioned them. Others expressed concerns as well. This feature would only have downsides, and no advantage.
They don't pay attention to them because they're too arbitrary to have any practical use. A high honour score should indicate that someone is extremely honourable, but it doesn't, so people ignore it because it's not rooted in reality. In contrast, a high political power score indicates that many people are bound to you by a figurative oath of fealty.
Quote from: Penchant on May 04, 2014, 06:44:44 AM
You say he is wrong, yet you claim that because lord's share is usually around 10-15%. Why is it usually that low? Because lords aren't as greedy you make them out to be.
I'm not here to judge, I'm not calling anyone greedy, but people
often do what is in their own self-interest.
Quote from: Penchant on May 04, 2014, 06:44:44 AM
Knights are only a harm to lords if they choose, because they can take up to 50% if they want of their knight's income, meaning the lord would lose nothing, yet the region/realm gains gold. So in other words, lords aren't really that greedy after all and there really is no downside to knights, despite you claiming so. A lord who wants max gold and power can give himself the largest estate he can and have a lord's share of 50%. Simple as that.
The realm gains more gold by making the knight a lord.
Quote from: Penchant on May 04, 2014, 06:44:44 AM
As an add-on, you didn't read his post that well, because he said the region produces more gold, not his lord gains more gold, because he loses no gold, yet the region really does make more gold. (Assuming 50% lord's share which he probably doesn't do because his city is so rich he has no need to.)
Apparently I read it better than you because he said quote: "I make more in Idapur with full knights and estates at 100% than I do with no knights." ;)
Quote from: Penchant on May 04, 2014, 06:44:44 AM
To all your benefits you listed of this, its false, because a number that holds no power is simply a number, and thus isn't promoting any of things you claimed because people don't care about numbers, they care about power.
Then why do we have scores for honour, prestige and fame?
Quote from: Penchant on May 04, 2014, 06:44:44 AM
To the recognizing a character's rank, that is already done via their title. If they are a duke and you are lord, they are more powerful, simple as that.
I have to disagree. The Prime Minister of the UK has more political power than the Queen, even though she is superior in rank. The President of the US has more power than the President of the Congo, even though they are equal in rank. A title that holds no power is simply a title.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 04, 2014, 07:35:21 AM
(1)I'm not here to judge, I'm not calling anyone greedy, but people often do what is in their own self-interest.
(2)The realm gains more gold by making the knight a lord.
(3)Apparently I read it better than you because he said quote: "I make more in Idapur with full knights and estates at 100% than I do with no knights." ;)
(4)Then why do we have scores for honour, prestige and fame?
(5)I have to disagree. The Prime Minister of the UK has more political power than the Queen, even though she is superior in rank. The President of the US has more power than the President of the Congo, even though they are equal in rank. A title that holds no power is simply a title.
I don't feel like splitting up your message 5 times so for ease, I put in numbers to your different parts.
(1) That is simply wrong. People like to think they are, but they often aren't. Anyways, as you said, they are usually doing a 10-15% which is not in their best interest as you have been claiming it is, thus why are they doing it?
(2)That is just dumb. Obviously they make more by gaining regions, but you can't just get more regions, you have to take them and people go out of there way to stop you. More regions for realm A means less for realm B, so realm B tends to not just let that happen. On the other hand, realms cant forcefully stop the loss of nobles. In order to do that they must convince their nobles (or players) to stay. I say players because people will leave a realm because they are no longer having fun there, which I can't disagree with doing.
To respond to what you said to Chenier that is related, you are flat out wrong. Morek's current condition is not a model for success as their realm is not thriving. You do not seem to fully understand BM. Two things matter for a realm's power, realm size, and realm density. I feel you would agree on that, but you are completely wrong on how you are taking it from there.
High density realms are much more powerful than low density realms. Morek could probably get its ass kicked if Astrum attacked and maybe say Swordfell too. Its a big realm, its advantage, but it has low density which is bad. When Morek was really powerful, it was high density. Now it is much weaker. Luria Nova is a very high density realm, and is very powerful. Luria was equal in size to Morek but due to rogues causing starvation of which Morek was impacted little, they are smaller. Luria is being attacked by 3 realms and doing a decent job considering the circumstances. I will not elaborate on the topic any longer, but high density is better than low density. You are simply ignorant on the subject and I do not have all day to talk about why high density and more nobles is very important.
(3) I am going to say is a matter of interpretation. If you don't selectively quote you will see that he specified the region twice, before that and so I interpreted that way. My apologies for the remark though because after rereading I certainly see where you are getting your interpretation from.
(4) Honor, prestige, and fame all have IG effects. That is why.
(5) Ah, so you know the population of USA and the population of Congo off the top of your head? No, you don't. You don't need to know a country's population to know their power, nor is it the only factor that makes them more powerful. I would definitely say that USA is much more powerful politically than India despite India having a larger population. And to your Queen vs Prime Minister remark, that is false. The Queen is head of state, the Prime Minister head of government. They are not in the same hierarchy and thus claiming the queen to be of higher rank is wrong.
Quote from: Penchant on May 04, 2014, 08:53:54 AM
I don't feel like splitting up your message 5 times so for ease, I put in numbers to your different parts.
(1) That is simply wrong. People like to think they are, but they often aren't. Anyways, as you said, they are usually doing a 10-15% which is not in their best interest as you have been claiming it is, thus why are they doing it?
(2)That is just dumb. Obviously they make more by gaining regions, but you can't just get more regions, you have to take them and people go out of there way to stop you. More regions for realm A means less for realm B, so realm B tends to not just let that happen. On the other hand, realms cant forcefully stop the loss of nobles. In order to do that they must convince their nobles (or players) to stay. I say players because people will leave a realm because they are no longer having fun there, which I can't disagree with doing.
(2a) To respond to what you said to Chenier that is related, you are flat out wrong. Morek's current condition is not a model for success as their realm is not thriving. You do not seem to fully understand BM. Two things matter for a realm's power, realm size, and realm density. I feel you would agree on that, but you are completely wrong on how you are taking it from there.
High density realms are much more powerful than low density realms. Morek could probably get its ass kicked if Astrum attacked and maybe say Swordfell too. Its a big realm, its advantage, but it has low density which is bad. When Morek was really powerful, it was high density. Now it is much weaker. Luria Nova is a very high density realm, and is very powerful. Luria was equal in size to Morek but due to rogues causing starvation of which Morek was impacted little, they are smaller. Luria is being attacked by 3 realms and doing a decent job considering the circumstances. I will not elaborate on the topic any longer, but high density is better than low density. You are simply ignorant on the subject and I do not have all day to talk about why high density and more nobles is very important.
(3) I am going to say is a matter of interpretation. If you don't selectively quote you will see that he specified the region twice, before that and so I interpreted that way. My apologies for the remark though because after rereading I certainly see where you are getting your interpretation from.
(4) Honor, prestige, and fame all have IG effects. That is why.
(5) Ah, so you know the population of USA and the population of Congo off the top of your head? No, you don't. You don't need to know a country's population to know their power, nor is it the only factor that makes them more powerful. I would definitely say that USA is much more powerful politically than India despite India having a larger population. And to your Queen vs Prime Minister remark, that is false. The Queen is head of state, the Prime Minister head of government. They are not in the same hierarchy and thus claiming the queen to be of higher rank is wrong.
1. It doesn't matter if it's 15% or 40% or 50%,
there's no advantage to having a knight. They can maybe break even by setting the lord's rate to 50%, but they do not earn more gold by having more knights. That said, I think on the taxes screen there's a footnote recommending something like 10-15%. That
that said, this:
Quote from: Lapallanch on April 20, 2014, 10:22:06 PM
I always put 50% lord's share on my knights. If they don't like it, they can get the f out!
2. I agree, it
is dumb, but I didn't make the rules. The game is structured so that realms will aspire to achieve a 1:1 density. That doesn't mean they'll be successful, but they move towards that end to the best of their ability.
2a. Now
that is dumb. Asylon, the highest density realm on Dwilight AND (until recently) the highest noble count, got its
ass kicked by Morek and is on the verge of extinction. The second highest density realm on Dwilight is Barca. To be clear, Asylon and Barca are currently among the
weakest realms on Dwilight. The highest density realm on Beluaterra is Caelum. Caelum is also the
weakest realm on Beluaterra. As for your claim that Morek used to have higher density, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Currently they have 1.32 nobles per region. Before the invasion they had 1.16 nobles per region.
4. They have
some IG effect, not much. Political power score, if implemented, could have significant IG effect and it would have a solid logical basis, unlike H/P/F which are quite arbitrary.
5.
You said that a duke is always more powerful than a lord simply by virtue of their titles. You're wrong about that and you're wrong about the Queen. It doesn't matter what the population of the Congo is or the price of tea in China. You know without thinking which country is more powerful, and that's the point of the political power score, that you should know straight away who the power brokers are.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 04, 2014, 07:35:21 AM
I have to disagree. The Prime Minister of the UK has more political power than the Queen, even though she is superior in rank. The President of the US has more power than the President of the Congo, even though they are equal in rank. A title that holds no power is simply a title.
According to your scale though, the Queen would have a higher "political score" than the Prime Minister. That's the issue with simply counting knights. If it doesn't tell you that the Queen does not hold actual power, then it's not a useful ranking.
I won't bother replying to all of this anymore, because it's the same things that get repeated.
You start off on false premises (that there is no incentives for lords to set up estates for knights) and follow up with measures that wouldn't in any way help the problems you've identified (low noble density)
You fail to properly identify cause and effect in all of your arguments, and simply ignore arguments and painfully obvious evidence to the contrary.
Why do we need a score determining political power? If someone has political power, they do, and they can utilize it, they don't need a game mechanic determining a vague concept for them, which may or may not agree with that actual political situation in a realm. I've seen knights who have wielded more political power than Dukes, and Lords with more political power than Kings. Giving someone a political power score purely based on position is folly. This game has seen more than one puppet King and more than one character who was the real power behind the throne.
Quote from: vonGenf on May 04, 2014, 12:12:52 PM
According to your scale though, the Queen would have a higher "political score" than the Prime Minister. That's the issue with simply counting knights. If it doesn't tell you that the Queen does not hold actual power, then it's not a useful ranking.
BM is a lot simpler than the real world, e.g. there are no parliaments in BM, so it's easier to reduce political power to a single number value. Still you make a valid point. The type of government could be factored into the equation. I'd be interested if anybody has any thoughts about what impact government type has on political power. I've only played in a few realms, all monarchies, so I'm not totally familiar with the nuances of different types of government.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 04, 2014, 06:29:59 PM
BM is a lot simpler than the real world, e.g. there are no parliaments in BM, so it's easier to reduce political power to a single number value. Still you make a valid point. The type of government could be factored into the equation. I'd be interested if anybody has any thoughts about what impact government type has on political power. I've only played in a few realms, all monarchies, so I'm not totally familiar with the nuances of different types of government.
Realms vary widely as to their types of governance, and the label "monarchy" or "republic" means very little nowadays. The best (or worst, depending on the point of view)-case example if probably D'Hara. I don't think I have it in me to summarize D'Hara in a forum post right now, but in case you're interested you know where to look.
Suffice to say that your assertion that "there are no parliaments in BM" is demonstrably false.
Quote from: Chénier on May 04, 2014, 02:23:27 PM
I won't bother replying to all of this anymore, because it's the same things that get repeated.
You start off on false premises (that there is no incentives for lords to set up estates for knights) and follow up with measures that wouldn't in any way help the problems you've identified (low noble density)
You fail to properly identify cause and effect in all of your arguments, and simply ignore arguments and painfully obvious evidence to the contrary.
If you quoted my false premises correctly then I wouldn't need to repeat them.
You equated the existence of vacant estates to proof that lords benefit by having knights. I said there is no benefit for a lord to have knights residing in his region. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me what the benefits are.
As for the vacant estates, I don't know who set them up or what they
thought they would gain from them. They were already there when I arrived. I will say that it took me a while, after becoming a lord, to understand the dynamics of the game, so I probably
thought there was some benefit to having knights, and I made a point of inviting new arrivals to my region. Now, if they want to live in my region, fine (everybody has to live
somewhere, and I don't want be the cause for some newbie to stop playing) but I'm not under the illusion that it's a mutually beneficial relationship.
Quote from: vonGenf on May 04, 2014, 07:04:13 PM
Realms vary widely as to their types of governance, and the label "monarchy" or "republic" means very little nowadays. The best (or worst, depending on the point of view)-case example if probably D'Hara. I don't think I have it in me to summarize D'Hara in a forum post right now, but in case you're interested you know where to look.
Suffice to say that your assertion that "there are no parliaments in BM" is demonstrably false.
I stand corrected. King Chénier and Queen Elizabeth are kindred spirits. The type of government should definitely be factored into the equation.
Quote from: Stabbity on May 04, 2014, 05:27:40 PM
Why do we need a score determining political power? If someone has political power, they do, and they can utilize it, they don't need a game mechanic determining a vague concept for them, which may or may not agree with that actual political situation in a realm. I've seen knights who have wielded more political power than Dukes, and Lords with more political power than Kings. Giving someone a political power score purely based on position is folly. This game has seen more than one puppet King and more than one character who was the real power behind the throne.
Indeed. I recently watched the movie Gladiator, "Today I saw a slave become more powerful than the Emperor of Rome." 8) It's not a deterministic system. It takes objectively knowable information and boils it down to a number. It doesn't preclude someone from being the so-called power behind the throne, but such power is generally hidden.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 04, 2014, 08:24:10 PM
Indeed. I recently watched the movie Gladiator, "Today I saw a slave become more powerful than the Emperor of Rome." 8) It's not a deterministic system. It takes objectively knowable information and boils it down to a number. It doesn't preclude someone from being the so-called power behind the throne, but such power is generally hidden.
You aren't providing useful information. Who has more knights doesn't help me decide if they are more powerful politically. Who has more lords doesn't help me decide which dukes are more powerful politically. And I don't need to know that Arcaea has a lot of nobles to know they are a politically powerful realm.
You just keep saying this idea is so helpful and so useful and yet you have yet to explain how that is true. Listing benefits without explaining how this political power score somehow equates to those benefits is not explaining how this is helpful or useful.
Quote from: Penchant on May 04, 2014, 08:57:45 PM
You aren't providing useful information. Who has more knights doesn't help me decide if they are more powerful politically. Who has more lords doesn't help me decide which dukes are more powerful politically. And I don't need to know that Arcaea has a lot of nobles to know they are a politically powerful realm.
You just keep saying this idea is so helpful and so useful and yet you have yet to explain how that is true. Listing benefits without explaining how this political power score somehow equates to those benefits is not explaining how this is helpful or useful.
I originally thought of this feature as an addition to the honour/prestige indices. It's not that I think it would be a silver bullet for all of BM's problems, but I think it would be more relevant than H/P currently are. I also proposed changes to H/P: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5655.0.html
I also think that it could possibly motivate some lords and dukes to try harder to attract knights to their regions, since doing so would boost their score. Again, it's not a silver bullet, which is why I also proposed some other FR's to hopefully go along with it, and I have a few more ideas that I haven't written down yet.
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5599.0.html
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5655.0.html
A lot of people have been attacking the devs for coming up with the glacier experiment to address the low noble density and poor player retention problem, but I'm not seeing a lot of alternatives being put forward. Frankly I think it's easy to attack an idea (and I've criticized the glacier thing) but criticizing without proposing a better idea is just criticizing.
Quote from: Buffalkill on May 04, 2014, 09:53:45 PM
I originally thought of this feature as an addition to the honour/prestige indices. It's not that I think it would be a silver bullet for all of BM's problems, but I think it would be more relevant than H/P currently are. I also proposed changes to H/P: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5655.0.html
I also think that it could possibly motivate some lords and dukes to try harder to attract knights to their regions, since doing so would boost their score. Again, it's not a silver bullet, which is why I also proposed some other FR's to hopefully go along with it, and I have a few more ideas that I haven't written down yet.
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5599.0.html
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5655.0.html
A lot of people have been attacking the devs for coming up with the glacier experiment to address the low noble density and poor player retention problem, but I'm not seeing a lot of alternatives being put forward. Frankly I think it's easy to attack an idea (and I've criticized the glacier thing) but criticizing without proposing a better idea is just criticizing.
I like your H/P idea, I don't your island stuff. But that has no bearing on this feature request. I see no need for it, thus I see no need for an alternative. The alternative is play the game and figure out for yourself what their political power is.
Quote from: Penchant on May 04, 2014, 11:36:59 PM
I like your H/P idea, I don't your island stuff. But that has no bearing on this feature request. I see no need for it, thus I see no need for an alternative. The alternative is play the game and figure out for yourself what their political power is.
The island thing is what I think should have been tried
before the the nuclear option aka the glacier experiment. The problem they were addressing was that the nobles:realm rate was too low, it was too easy for every knight to become a lord, and the player base was dropping by about 20/month. The theory behind the glacier was oversimplistic: reduce the number of regions to force the density rate up on the surviving ones. I thought that was both heavy-handed and misguided, and I suggested several soft-hand approaches to try first before going nuclear. In the end they did take one of my suggestions, which was freezing specific regions
instead of the original plan of one who whole island.
The "no man is an island" FR was a way to encourage density, but not force it. If a realm is thinking of taking over a region, they need to weigh the pros and cons of taking nobles out of their current regions to go and manage the new one.