While at-that-time large reconstruction of the estate system did give some, in my opinion, improvements, I would note visible flaws which directly degrade gaming interaction:
- More than once I checked, and lord of the region earns more gold from wild lands than from having knight with estate. for those who want to grab money by all means this is likely great opportunity, while i think it makes no sense game-wise.
I can clearly say that I have never seen any use of having knight in a region. They just draw money which would otherwise come to you, and even ask for more funds while you are always short of funds. begone, knights! we don't want new knights, no new players as well 8)
- I cannot check it myself, but I see that so many regions have no lords, while dukes don't care though there are enough knights around. Again, no need even for lords: food is produced smoothly (that i can see as a banker), wild lands probably bring more (as for lords), so begone, lords 8) I see that dukes don't appoint lords for many rl months.
- As estate coverage is no more, region almost never falls into trouble except when acquired by brutal force or heavily looted (both occasions being incredibly rare as there is so little speed difference between friendly and brutal takeover that almost noone ever attempts brutal takeover. So all these slow old guys who worked as courtiers and were sensibly useful for the realm are absolutely not needed any more. You can play game at slow pace as inalienable rights still (formally) exist, but noone needs you for anything other than quick moving troops, meaning if you don't log in often enough you are nobody. Begone slow guys, nobody wants you 8)
to not just make sarcastic complaints, but to try to be constructive, I will point that i really don't understand why estate coverage is removed.
- that was main motivation for interaction between lord and knight. now lords and knights almost never talk.
- gave much more importance to every single noble in the realm, making game more funny for everyone
- small-level politics could even be played by switching estate to control, production or even to nothing
- leaders had to care for all knights much more. now leaders still care, but only in strictly narrow sense - care for having troop-holding slots that would blindly follow control-freak leader
how game would be hurt if some realms would lose some regions for not having enough knights to support regions? in my opinion there are many, many possibilities for playing game and have fun for everyone other than controlling as many regions as possible
I agree, in principle, with what you say. Knights only make lords poorer, lords only make dukes poorer, and none of the feudal titles can be held accountable for being greedy. There used to be incentives to having knights, now it's the opposite.
However, in practice, I don't think that's really an issue. At least, not a dramatic one. Knights are rarely unable to find an estate, and lordships are rarely left vacant unless the noble density is very low.
The previous system was also flawed, because it couldn't factor in the decrease in player base and that the noble density wasn't over 3:1 almost anywhere. However, it is true that it gave worth to knights. Personally, that's one reason why I tend to, OOC, strongly favor voting systems that have lords as representatives, as it gives them incentives to share with knights, and rewards those that reach out to them (active lords often having as many or more knights than average city lords that could afford much more but don't reach out). That kind of voting system seems rare, though, and I don't really think it enough on its own. Revisiting the estates system would be worthwhile.
Quote from: Stue (DC) on September 06, 2014, 05:49:01 PM
how game would be hurt if some realms would lose some regions for not having enough knights to support regions? in my opinion there are many, many possibilities for playing game and have fun for everyone other than controlling as many regions as possible
This is why the nobles-to-region ratio tends to move toward 1:1 over time. Extraneous factors can increase the ratio temporarily, but the most stable realms are typically close to 1:1. Fewer knights means more gold for the ruling class, and the ruling class tend to use their gold for things like recruitment centres, militia, workshops, etc. so it's no wonder the biggest most stable realms have the fewest knights.
Quote from: Buffalkill on September 06, 2014, 07:55:24 PM
This is why the nobles-to-region ratio tends to move toward 1:1 over time. Extraneous factors can increase the ratio temporarily, but the most stable realms are typically close to 1:1. Fewer knights means more gold for the ruling class, and the ruling class tend to use their gold for things like recruitment centres, militia, workshops, etc. so it's no wonder the biggest most stable realms have the fewest knights.
yep, your resume emphasizes even more that knights are not needed.
I do miss the coverage system and even the merit/marks system. I would love to see something similar brought back. Off the top of my head:
Potential Changes:
1. Make it so Wild lands produce 0 gold or food
2. Make empty estates produce 0 gold but normal food
3. Make is so every region needs at least 2 estates for full coverage
4. Allow knights to click some button that will in some way negatively impact the region lord
a. The level of impact should relate to estate size
b. Reduce gold and or food production??
c. Cause region stats to slip??
d. Something else??
5. Have knights automatically earn "marks" every X days (7?)
a. These marks are not optional and are fully automatic
b. If a knight has one or more marks, the lord can not take their estate away
c. Once per day a Lord can take a mark away from a knight
i. This requires a custom message from the Lord explaining the reason.
6. Use the same or a similar mark system between Lords and Dukes
8. Make it so Dukes will lose their position if injured like Region Lords do.
Drastically cutting the income of most realms will not incite wars.
Quote from: Chénier on September 06, 2014, 11:32:38 PM
Drastically cutting the income of most realms will not incite wars.
certainly not drastically, but sensibly would be more appropriate. making things too easy degrades incentive and creates apathy. i am really not in favor of button-efforts like diplomatic ones, but if interaction efforts are not rewarded, than we have what we have now - bunch of overly powerful players who earn great benefits with little efforts and actually do not need many by themselves.
why should not realm with 10 regions and great estate coverage earn sensibly more than realm with 20 regions and bad coverage, with comparable region stats?
personally i don't see any problem with continent where all realms are separated from each other with three rows of rouge regions. if leaders want to make some stories, they will make it,;if they prefer only to sit tightly and avoid any action, than at least those who do not care for anyone but themselves should not be rewarded.
Quote from: Stue (DC) on September 06, 2014, 11:45:09 PM
certainly not drastically, but sensibly would be more appropriate. making things too easy degrades incentive and creates apathy. i am really not in favor of button-efforts like diplomatic ones, but if interaction efforts are not rewarded, than we have what we have now - bunch of overly powerful players who earn great benefits with little efforts and actually do not need many by themselves.
why should not realm with 10 regions and great estate coverage earn sensibly more than realm with 20 regions and bad coverage, with comparable region stats?
personally i don't see any problem with continent where all realms are separated from each other with three rows of rouge regions. if leaders want to make some stories, they will make it,;if they prefer only to sit tightly and avoid any action, than at least those who do not care for anyone but themselves should not be rewarded.
Growth is already penalized. A realm with 25 nobles over 10 regions will, in almost all cases, be more wealthy and powerful than a realm with 25 nobles over 25 regions. I wouldn't think it reasonable to tweak things so that a realm with as many nobles but twice the regions has half the wealth the other has.
Just a random note but you made a typo in the thread title.
ups, i noticed that already, but just now noticed that threat title can be edited. ;D
Quote from: Chénier on September 06, 2014, 11:51:05 PM
Growth is already penalized. A realm with 25 nobles over 10 regions will, in almost all cases, be more wealthy and powerful than a realm with 25 nobles over 25 regions. I wouldn't think it reasonable to tweak things so that a realm with as many nobles but twice the regions has half the wealth the other has.
This is not true, in any but the most extreme edge cases. Adding a region will lower the entire realm's overall income under extremely rare circumstances involving adding a very poor region to a realm that is far, far, larger than the norm for that island. The dev team has been looking at some of the effects of realm size, and they are much smaller than originally thought given the game's current trend toward larger and larger realms overall. In any case, any realm that adds 15 regions will be produce a much larger income than it did when it only had ten.
Quote from: Stue (DC) on September 06, 2014, 05:49:01 PM
While at-that-time large reconstruction of the estate system did give some, in my opinion, improvements, I would note visible flaws which directly degrade gaming interaction:
- More than once I checked, and lord of the region earns more gold from wild lands than from having knight with estate. for those who want to grab money by all means this is likely great opportunity, while i think it makes no sense game-wise.
I can clearly say that I have never seen any use of having knight in a region. They just draw money which would otherwise come to you, and even ask for more funds while you are always short of funds. begone, knights! we don't want new knights, no new players as well 8)
I think I agree that wild lands should produce a smaller income than they do. Lords should not be able to leave half their region wild, and still make as much from it as they would if they had a knight and a 50% lord share.
Quote- I cannot check it myself, but I see that so many regions have no lords, while dukes don't care though there are enough knights around. Again, no need even for lords: food is produced smoothly (that i can see as a banker), wild lands probably bring more (as for lords), so begone, lords 8) I see that dukes don't appoint lords for many rl months.
Personally, I have noticed a very few regions being lordless when there are nobles without lordships in the realm. I wonder if it might be because the city estates are so much more lucrative than a lordship of a poor region.
As with knights and estates, I don't think that a duke should be able to recover quite so much from a lordless region. It should be less than they could make if it had a lord and a 50% due share.
Quote- As estate coverage is no more, region almost never falls into trouble
This is by design. We don't want region maintenance to be the focus of a player's game experience.
Also, the estate coverage system was one of the things the players disliked most. Almost no one ever liked it. And many of the players that claimed they did like it were basing their opinions on a complete misunderstanding of how the system actually worked.
Quoteexcept when acquired by brutal force or heavily looted (both occasions being incredibly rare as there is so little speed difference between friendly and brutal takeover that almost noone ever attempts brutal takeover. So all these slow old guys who worked as courtiers and were sensibly useful for the realm are absolutely not needed any more. You can play game at slow pace as inalienable rights still (formally) exist, but noone needs you for anything other than quick moving troops, meaning if you don't log in often enough you are nobody. Begone slow guys, nobody wants you 8)
Most of the time, I see realms using the method that is matched to the sympathy in the region. If the region likes you, you use friendly. If the region hates you, you use brutal. I don't think I've ever seen anyone refrain from using brutal methods because they think it's mean or anything. If people are using friendly a lot, then it's because they have high sympathy in the region.
The end result of the takeover is the same, regardless of the method used. There were plans to change that, but it was never implemented.
Quoteto not just make sarcastic complaints, but to try to be constructive, I will point that i really don't understand why estate coverage is removed.
- that was main motivation for interaction between lord and knight. now lords and knights almost never talk.
- gave much more importance to every single noble in the realm, making game more funny for everyone
- small-level politics could even be played by switching estate to control, production or even to nothing
- leaders had to care for all knights much more. now leaders still care, but only in strictly narrow sense - care for having troop-holding slots that would blindly follow control-freak leader
It was removed because it stifled the game. It was extremely frustrating for the players involved.
We are currently discussing plans to make knights more important to a realm overall, without requiring people to jump through hoops and contortions to min/max the system. We want people to focus more on playing the game, and less on micromanaging game mechanics for max benefits. It's a tough balance. We don't want people to have to constantly babysit regions, but still allow those that want to do this to gain some benefit from their efforts.
Quotehow game would be hurt if some realms would lose some regions for not having enough knights to support regions?
I absolutely agree with this. If you don't have enough knights, then you shouldn't be able to control the regions. We have discussed some ways to implement this, without adding in the overhead and frustration caused by the old estate point system.
Quote from: Indirik on September 07, 2014, 02:51:02 AM
This is not true, in any but the most extreme edge cases. Adding a region will lower the entire realm's overall income under extremely rare circumstances involving adding a very poor region to a realm that is far, far, larger than the norm for that island. The dev team has been looking at some of the effects of realm size, and they are much smaller than originally thought given the game's current trend toward larger and larger realms overall. In any case, any realm that adds 15 regions will be produce a much larger income than it did when it only had ten.
It is true if you combine decreased tax efficiency as well as tax tolerance, not to mention greater difficulty in maintaining perfect stats, longer delays in responding to rogues, and so on, as well as the transfer of city knights to rural lordships. Acquiring a city will make a realm richer in almost all cases, but anything else makes it poorer.
And you don't need to become unusually large, because your tax tolerance is compared to the other realms. So even if you are small, as you get closer to the big ones, your tax tolerance decreases, despite still being small. I've seen it flagrantly with Fheuv'n, and I've felt it somewhat more subtly everywhere else.
Quote from: Chénier on September 07, 2014, 03:41:43 AM
And you don't need to become unusually large, because your tax tolerance is compared to the other realms. So even if you are small, as you get closer to the big ones, your tax tolerance decreases, despite still being small. I've seen it flagrantly with Fheuv'n, and I've felt it somewhat more subtly everywhere else.
This is not true. What you have is confirmation bias. You expected it to happen, so it appears that it did.
I have gone through the region tax code and checked. This does not work the way you think it does. The large realm penalties are nowhere near big enough, nor do they change fast enough, to cause the effect you are describing. In fact they don't work anywhere near the way you are describing. I don't know what you saw, or think you saw, but it had absolutely
nothing to do with a large-realm tax penalty.
Quote from: Stue (DC) on September 06, 2014, 11:45:09 PM
personally i don't see any problem with continent where all realms are separated from each other with three rows of rouge regions.
The problem with this is that realms that cannot take land have little or no incentive to go to war. The number of realms that will go to war when they can't take more land is minuscule. We saw it happen on Dwilight for years. Small pockets of realms separated by swathes of rogue land, and almost everyone bored to death because they couldn't do anything. It wasn't until we got rid of estate points, allowing realms to take more land, that the realms came into conflict and the island starting heating up. Realms need contact with other realms, and pressure for territory, in order to create the conflict that keep the game exciting for everyone. The old estate point system is a heavy-handed mechanic for a crowded game. It is not a mechanic that works when player densities are so low as we have not.
Quote from: Indirik on September 07, 2014, 03:57:33 AM
This is not true. What you have is confirmation bias. You expected it to happen, so it appears that it did.
I have gone through the region tax code and checked. This does not work the way you think it does. The large realm penalties are nowhere near big enough, nor do they change fast enough, to cause the effect you are describing. In fact they don't work anywhere near the way you are describing. I don't know what you saw, or think you saw, but it had absolutely nothing to do with a large-realm tax penalty.
Enweil was reduced to Iato. I could run max tax, and we had a good tax efficiency. Then we took about four or five rural regions. Iato didn't have any knights anymore, tax efficiency was atrocious all-around, and Iato couldn't hold tax levels anywhere near what it used to have without maintenance issues. We became considerably poorer.
Quote from: Indirik on September 07, 2014, 03:04:55 AM
I absolutely agree with this. If you don't have enough knights, then you shouldn't be able to control the regions. We have discussed some ways to implement this, without adding in the overhead and frustration caused by the old estate point system.
I agree with reducing the gold/food production of wild lands and empty estates, it would make a lot of sense and would not lead to an overall loss for gaining an extra region (at worst the Lord gains nothing more than the Lord's estate, and that is still something).
Loss of control however is what makes regions go rogue and leads to realm refraining from war because they don't have the nobles to occupy the lands they may gain. That's the main issue.
We do have realms with a noble/land ratio below 1:1. They can be penalized, but we should never remove a good reason to go to war for these realms, otherwise they won't.
A one-region realm consisting of nothing more than a city is never something that i am going take as an example of almost anything. This is not normal for the game, and shouldn't be used to make policy of any kind.
Also, being able to run a 25% rate should never be considered normal.
Having said that, going from one region up to five wouldn't have affected tax rates by more than two or maybe three percent. (Unless every other realm on the island consisted of two underpopulated regions.) If you had more than that, there was something else involved.
Food and gold production should be depend on how many nobles live in the region. Make it so that regions need a full complement of nobles to reach their full potential. Let's say 1 lord and 2 knights for most regions, 3-4 knights for larger regions and cities, and for badlands 1 knight, or maybe none. If they have less than a full complement, they can still hold onto the region but it won't yield as much food and gold because there are fewer "managers" running the business. In the real world a one-man operation doesn't normally produce as much as a 3-man operation if all other things are equal. Realms will then have to make strategic decisions about whether it's better to hold as many regions as possible, or to consolidate their manpower into fewer regions in order to maximise productivity. Every time they consider taking a new region, they'll have to weigh the cost and benefits.
Quote from: Chénier on September 07, 2014, 03:16:50 PM
Enweil was reduced to Iato. I could run max tax, and we had a good tax efficiency. Then we took about four or five rural regions. Iato didn't have any knights anymore, tax efficiency was atrocious all-around, and Iato couldn't hold tax levels anywhere near what it used to have without maintenance issues. We became considerably poorer.
Tax rates in neighboring regions seem to have more effect than the other factors. Ideally you should have your capitol highest and then distance to the capitol gets 1% lower the further you go out.
Why not just reduce wildlands efficiency to 10% instead of current 50%? Or make estates produce food as well. That would cripple any realms not investing knights into rural regions since all their cities will starve in few weeks muwhahha
Quote from: Indirik on September 07, 2014, 03:04:55 AM
As estate coverage is no more, region almost never falls into trouble
This is by design. We don't want region maintenance to be the focus of a player's game experience.
Also, the estate coverage system was one of the things the players disliked most. Almost no one ever liked it. And many of the players that claimed they did like it were basing their opinions on a complete misunderstanding of how the system actually worked.
I am probably among the last ones who would like too much micromanagement, but I feel "focus of game experience" has become straightforward, mono-dimensional "recruit troop as large as possible, go to region A as quickly as possible, and be ready to strictly follow attack order"
courtiership game is removed, trade game is removed, religion game is completely castrated. things have become narrow and simple. did that improve gaming experience?
every realm had players who have just time to do courtier work, and as long as courtier work was needed, they were part of game, dimension of game. statistics means very little here, let's say 5% of the realm were courtiers, and that was completely sufficient to cover realm needs, while giving gaming diversity. the same applies for traders, even very few traders could bring lot of benefit to the realm, and there were always enough people to be traders as long as it was giving sensible outcome. that is were statistical polls will not give right answers.
how gaming experience is improved if nobles only recruit troops and travel while most of other things is resolved automatically or very easily? i personally feel it as a degradation of game, but i understand that i possibly don't fit into statistics...
Quote from: Indirik on September 07, 2014, 03:04:55 AM
Also, the estate coverage system was one of the things the players disliked most. Almost no one ever liked it. And many of the players that claimed they did like it were basing their opinions on a complete misunderstanding of how the system actually worked.
... than something is likely needed at the same moment when coverage system is removed to:
- give
some incentive to interaction between lords and knights
- give knights
something to play with, at least
some influence on the estate they run
something, anything... but not nothing. i retained habit to welcome any knight in my region, but i rarely if ever hear any response currently, and it's almost impossible that some knight will feel courteous obligation to say goodbye when leaving the estate. for new players estate is nothing but one simple click, and they cannot be blamed for that in current estate system, but it is some step in large degradation of game interaction. if oath itself means nothing, almost everything in medieval-based game world becomes tasteless.
Quote from: Stue (DC) on September 07, 2014, 10:53:22 PM
... than something is likely needed at the same moment when coverage system is removed to:
- give some incentive to interaction between lords and knights
- give knights something to play with, at least some influence on the estate they run
something, anything... but not nothing. i retained habit to welcome any knight in my region, but i rarely if ever hear any response currently, and it's almost impossible that some knight will feel courteous obligation to say goodbye when leaving the estate. for new players estate is nothing but one simple click, and they cannot be blamed for that in current estate system, but it is some step in large degradation of game interaction. if oath itself means nothing, almost everything in medieval-based game world becomes tasteless.
Yes, there was a plan to do this. Things like Estate buildings were meant to both give knights something to do, and give them a way to help their region. Unfortunately they have never been implemented.
Quote from: Lapallanch on September 07, 2014, 10:19:39 PM
Why not just reduce wildlands efficiency to 10% instead of current 50%? Or make estates produce food as well. That would cripple any realms not investing knights into rural regions since all their cities will starve in few weeks muwhahha
I like the general concept here. Can we agree that the goal would be to make it so that in "typical" cases taking on a knight should provide the Lord with a real boost to their own income to reflect the fact the estate is now well managed? I would personally like to see it balances as far as is possible so that any change doesn't cripple existing structures, but does provide a real incentive to make the most out of regions.
I also like the idea of tying food back into the system. You could have it work two way, in a rural or overall food producer have it increase the food production, in something like a city that is a net food consumer have it lower the overall food consumption perhaps, to reflect that good management reduces waste and spoilage. Or perhaps just have the warehouse rotting levels decreased.
In general I would say since the system already has a tax modifier built in, change that and then review what other changes might be necessary.
Perhaps having a knight in an estate should increase the efficiency stat of that estate? Wild lands and vacant estates would be relatively poorly run, with no one in charge to run things, but an estate with a knight has someone to run things properly.
This would increase the income of the estate and, in turn, the lord's.
Quote from: Chénier on September 06, 2014, 06:41:41 PM
I agree, in principle, with what you say. Knights only make lords poorer, lords only make dukes poorer, and none of the feudal titles can be held accountable for being greedy. There used to be incentives to having knights, now it's the opposite.
Actually, this explains a lot of what was happening in Swordfell. At one point some 25% of the regions had no Lords, even though there were plenty of Nobles who could be appointed. The Dukes hold all the power and have no reason to appoint Lords. This created an elitist, entitled attitude which completely ruined the vibe for me. New players aren't going to stick around if there is no incentive to give them and opportunity for advancement.
Players shouldn't be rewarded for antisocial behavior. I'm fairly new to this game, but it seems pretty clear that this is an inherent problem.
Quote from: Velax on September 08, 2014, 01:43:49 AM
Perhaps having a knight in an estate should increase the efficiency stat of that estate? Wild lands and vacant estates would be relatively poorly run, with no one in charge to run things, but an estate with a knight has someone to run things properly.
This would increase the income of the estate and, in turn, the lord's.
That is how it currently works. The problem in general is that a knight may increase the regions total gold income, but mostly also reduces the Lords income from that region, they don't generate enough extra income to offset the loss that the knights personal income represents. The argument is that to create an incentive to have knights, knights need to increase region income to the point where they also increase the Lords income.
Quote from: Lapallanch on September 07, 2014, 10:19:39 PM
Why not just reduce wildlands efficiency to 10% instead of current 50%? Or make estates produce food as well. That would cripple any realms not investing knights into rural regions since all their cities will starve in few weeks muwhahha
There seems to be a flaw or bug in the way wildlands & empty estates are calculated, making that moot. I was confused about this too with an earlier conversation with Buffalkill - I thought "wildlands" and "empty estate" were synonymous. The aren't.
Wildlands is at 50% - but there's no reason to have wildlands. You can just make that area an empty estate and it has normal - up to 100% - efficiency.
So trying to penalize via wildlands is pointless. Lords can set up a good estate for themselves, chop the rest into 20-25% chunks and let them run at 100%, and collect as much as if they had knights.
EDIT: to add to that, there are no penalties if a region is left lordless, as long as estates were set up as above by the previous lord.
Or we can just add one modifier called 'corruption'. Longer a lord stays without a knight, more corrupted the region becomes.
A simple example:
Lord without knights:
Region Income = 1000 gold
30% Lord Estate = which will get the lord 300 gold
70% WildLand/Empty estates = 50% efficiency and on top of that corruption will slowly kick in. Maybe 5% corruption per week and cap it out at 100%? So in 15 weeks, the lord will get nothing out of his wildland/empty estate. You can have different wordings for both I guess. For wildlands, something like without the constant care of the lord, the nature has reclaimed the land, overrunning fields. For empty estates, maybe without anyone to keep the order, outlaws have settled in to claim what rightfully belongs to you.
this would take us back to a variation of the old system problem:
a Lord could just rotate through his estates, resetting them.
although, IMHO - if he's that lame let him have his extra gold.
I think it is important for vacant estates to be more productive that wild lands and occupied estates much more productive that vacant estates. Should wild lands and vacant estates continue to be of equal value there will be no incentive to have open estates and I think that having open estates is supper important. I believe having open estates helps new players get started in a fast and painless manner.
Also, while I love the idea of buildings and other estate improvements that will enhance the region and give special value to estates, I think it is more important for knights to have some kind of "protest" option with teeth. It does not have to be the same as the old coverage option but I feel it is important that some kind of "Fine, my estate will just not help you" option is in order.
QuoteShould wild lands and vacant estates continue to be of equal value there will be no incentive to have open estates and I think that having open estates is supper important.
if they are worth 0 unfilled, but an efficient rate when filled, then yes they will.
Lords will do as they do now - make empty estates with the hope of filling them. The thing we are saying is, Lords are currently receiving the full reward wither they are filled or not
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on September 08, 2014, 08:08:57 AM
this would take us back to a variation of the old system problem:
a Lord could just rotate through his estates, resetting them.
although, IMHO - if he's that lame let him have his extra gold.
There is an easy solution to this. Don't make the recovery instant. BUT make the recovery speed to increase exponentially so more knights are in the region, faster the region recovers from corruption.
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on September 08, 2014, 07:45:23 AM
There seems to be a flaw or bug in the way wildlands & empty estates are calculated, making that moot. I was confused about this too with an earlier conversation with Buffalkill - I thought "wildlands" and "empty estate" were synonymous. The aren't.
Wildlands is at 50% - but there's no reason to have wildlands. You can just make that area an empty estate and it has normal - up to 100% - efficiency.
So trying to penalize via wildlands is pointless. Lords can set up a good estate for themselves, chop the rest into 20-25% chunks and let them run at 100%, and collect as much as if they had knights.
EDIT: to add to that, there are no penalties if a region is left lordless, as long as estates were set up as above by the previous lord.
I would have to go back and look at things, but as I recall that is not how it was supposed to work. Vacant estates should have not been as productive as Wildlands. As I recall they show the regular efficiency rating, otherwise it would be a pain as a lord to work out how big to make the estates, but come tax time they should not provide the full potential.
I'm not a fan of the corruption mechanic. An estate is either properly managed or it is not.
The question I would ask is what purpose do wild lands fill? Should they simply be a container to house unused land while a Lord plays around with estate sizes and confer no real income? Should they provide some sort of other benefit, perhaps tied into things like the proposed hunting mechanic?
I agree - I don't see any need for a special mech. I don't think it's running like it was intended, and a simple fix on unfilled estates to make them less efficient will do it.
(and I will NOT say "BDD" here...)
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on September 08, 2014, 11:53:48 AM
I agree - I don't see any need for a special mech. I don't think it's running like it was intended, and a simple fix on unfilled estates to make them less efficient will do it.
(and I will NOT say "BDD" here...)
That is possible, some of the estate stuff was purposely left out until Tom could see what the effects of those changes would be. It is possible that no one has remembered to go back and implement it.
Well, if you're going to monitor the effect of something then you prolly ought to monitor it ;-) . But since the way it is set up makes part of your code moot (ie, no one has any reason to ever leave anything wild lands), not sure I believe that idea.
But we're only guessing & OT, so whatever.
You guys do realize that your suggestions would worsen the problems you want to address? Realms with extra regions would refuse to appoint lords to them, because losing the city knights would result in much too great wealth loss. Realms with 15 regions, but 15 nobles spread over only 10, would be stronger than realms with 15 nobles spread over 15 regions.
Also, Indirik, I fail to see how it's legitimate to dismiss cases to the contrary when trying to prove a point. Even without the dramatic tax tolerance reduction, tax efficiency alone, in its current form, is enough to remove all monetary incentive to expand.
Quote from: Chénier on September 08, 2014, 01:49:25 PM
You guys do realize that your suggestions would worsen the problems you want to address? Realms with extra regions would refuse to appoint lords to them, because losing the city knights would result in much too great wealth loss. Realms with 15 regions, but 15 nobles spread over only 10, would be stronger than realms with 15 nobles spread over 15 regions.
Also, Indirik, I fail to see how it's legitimate to dismiss cases to the contrary when trying to prove a point. Even without the dramatic tax tolerance reduction, tax efficiency alone, in its current form, is enough to remove all monetary incentive to expand.
Which is why I suggested that the system needs more then wealth factored in. But even then it doesn't make the system worse, since it actually makes knights worth having, which apparently they aren't at all right now. I would prefer to see it so at least some regions had a reason to have knights then a current system that gives no incentive at all.
If things are balance such that a decent region with a Lord provided less net gain then a knight in a city, then we have failed in the balance to start with.
Quote from: De-Legro on September 08, 2014, 02:18:55 PM
Which is why I suggested that the system needs more then wealth factored in. But even then it doesn't make the system worse, since it actually makes knights worth having, which apparently they aren't at all right now. I would prefer to see it so at least some regions had a reason to have knights then a current system that gives no incentive at all.
If things are balance such that a decent region with a Lord provided less net gain then a knight in a city, then we have failed in the balance to start with.
More nobles always means greater wealth and power.
However, I do agree that it would be a good thing to provide more incentives to share.
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on September 08, 2014, 07:45:23 AM
There seems to be a flaw or bug in the way wildlands & empty estates are calculated, making that moot. I was confused about this too with an earlier conversation with Buffalkill - I thought "wildlands" and "empty estate" were synonymous. The aren't.
Not quite, but close. The difference is that Wildlands can't be taken by a knight. Empty estates can.
QuoteWildlands is at 50% - but there's no reason to have wildlands. You can just make that area an empty estate and it has normal - up to 100% - efficiency.
Vacant estates only pass 50% of the estate income up to the lord.
Vacant lordships only pass 50% of the region income up to the Duke. If there is also no duke, the banker gets it.
Why can't we just mimic the empty council position mechanic? For example:
"No Lord in Keplertown.
The region of Keplertown has been without a Lord for 5 days now.
Peasants and local nobility in the Duchy of Kepler are questioning the rule of Duke Keppie due to his failure in procuring vassals. Some are wondering why they should still follow him."
More important than having small effects on the stats, it makes the one responsible for this look weak in front of the rest of his realm, who should also get the message that this really isn't normal.
As for knights, if you can't see how knights are power and gold under the current system, then when will you? The problem here is a focus on personal enrichment for the lord in stead of the benefit for the realm or Duchy as a whole.
That said, more options for knights in relation to their estates and more options for lords in relation to their knights would be great additions to the game. I'd love to see a return of some form of the old mark system where lords could take the bullet for their knights by giving them 3 good marks, protecting them from judge action.
Quote from: Chénier on September 08, 2014, 01:49:25 PM
Also, Indirik, I fail to see how it's legitimate to dismiss cases to the contrary when trying to prove a point. Even without the dramatic tax tolerance reduction, tax efficiency alone, in its current form, is enough to remove all monetary incentive to expand.
My point was two-fold:
First that the realm size tax code *cannot* produce the effect you're describing. If what you are describing happened, (I don't know, I wasn't there), then it was not produced by the realm size code. Therefore, pointing out IVF as the poster child for your point is invalid. It does not illustrate the point you're trying to make.
Second: Rare edge cases are not useful when describing the behavior of the system overall. BattleMaster is not a game of single-region city states. Nor are they especially common, nor often very long-lived. Using their behavior to set overall game policy is a poor choice. You don't optimize for edge cases. It may be desirable at some point to implement some code to handle them through various exceptions. Holding them up as examples for how the overall system may discourage desired behavior is not useful.
Also, you keep talking about both a "tax tolerance" and a "tax efficiency". The game calculates a "tax tolerance". The game does not calculate or use any kind of "tax efficiency". If you're assuming that this is a game mechanic, then you're mistaken and should stop using the term. If this is some definition you've created, then I have no idea what you're talking about. (Are you perhaps talking about estate efficiency or something?)
Quote from: Lorgan on September 08, 2014, 04:01:44 PM
Why can't we just mimic the empty council position mechanic? For example:
"No Lord in Keplertown.
The region of Keplertown has been without a Lord for 5 days now.
Peasants and local nobility in the Duchy of Kepler are questioning the rule of Duke Keppie due to his failure in procuring vassals. Some are wondering why they should still follow him."
More important than having small effects on the stats, it makes the one responsible for this look weak in front of the rest of his realm, who should also get the message that this really isn't normal.
This is somewhat similar to a proposal I shared with the dev team a couple weeks ago. Your idea of adding penalties to the entire duchy is an interesting addition to the proposal.
QuoteThat said, more options for knights in relation to their estates and more options for lords in relation to their knights would be great additions to the game. I'd love to see a return of some form of the old mark system where lords could take the bullet for their knights by giving them 3 good marks, protecting them from judge action.
The good/bad mark system was interesting. I liked it. I think that if the system was implemented again, then it should be extended higher. Having one unimportant lord protect his knight is not very useful when the lord just gets banned instead. A way to extend this up to allow the dukes to protect their lords would be a good extension.
Quote from: Indirik on September 08, 2014, 04:21:10 PM
The good/bad mark system was interesting. I liked it. I think that if the system was implemented again, then it should be extended higher. Having one unimportant lord protect his knight is not very useful when the lord just gets banned instead. A way to extend this up to allow the dukes to protect their lords would be a good extension.
That would indeed be better. Also I think it was you who mentioned individual ducal/royal taxation a little while ago? Can't remember the details but that would truly be amazing.
Several people, myself among them, have asked for this.
The most important thing in a solution to this is to not punish realms for having a lack of knights, but to reward those who have them in abundance. If a change is implemented that starts penalizing realms that have been struggling to keep regions filled, but has an active player base (they exist) then you will see more players leave the game, the same as with the ice age event.
The rewards for having knights are already huge though, speaking as one who plays in realms that have an abundance. Giving even more benefits to having knights would make it even harder for realms like you describe to resist them.
Quote from: Stabbity on September 08, 2014, 05:14:11 PM
The most important thing in a solution to this is to not punish realms for having a lack of knights, but to reward those who have them in abundance.
What would you suggest?
Alos, keep in mind that withholding a benefit is usually seen as being a punishment.
Quote from: Chénier on September 08, 2014, 01:49:25 PM
You guys do realize that your suggestions would worsen the problems you want to address? Realms with extra regions would refuse to appoint lords to them, because losing the city knights would result in much too great wealth loss. Realms with 15 regions, but 15 nobles spread over only 10, would be stronger than realms with 15 nobles spread over 15 regions.
Also, Indirik, I fail to see how it's legitimate to dismiss cases to the contrary when trying to prove a point. Even without the dramatic tax tolerance reduction, tax efficiency alone, in its current form, is enough to remove all monetary incentive to expand.
If dukes cannot be punished some way for gluing their knights to city estates rather than appointing them as lords, than it's something wrong with game atmosphere in such realm, not in game mechanics.
What you describe would be great scenario to
motivate nobles to get rid of such duke. To me, this is exactly how game mechanics would work best: game mechanics would provide some "medieval common sense", those who go against it would go against what is deemed by most as reasonable.
in any case, penalties for not having lords should be larger than for not having knights.
i intentionally use term penalty out of my personal belief that there is nothing wrong if those who have too little nobles be small.
i think focusing on concept that best gaming experience is to offer easy expansion for the realms is wrong. this game has already shown to be deeper than that, and if most of current rulers tend to be oriented to the very same stereotype manner, that's another subject i would title "problems with diplomacy"
let me offer number of ways how it can be interesting in realm though possibilities for expansion are somewhat reduced:
- creating a feud with other realm and fighting for mere honor and glory rather than stereotype grabbing the lands
- focus on open plundering of other realms and sharing the plunder among realm mates
- act as mercenaries for other realms
- focus on tournaments, permanent competition, even having realms where nobles are overly proud and tend to duel to death for every minor justification (yet always with in-game justification, not just "for sport")
i proposed number of opportunities which are allowed by current mechanics, while its number could be tripled by minor tweaks. my point is that focusing on taking regions as ultimate fun in bm is
degradation of bm.
Quote from: Indirik on September 08, 2014, 04:13:29 PM
My point was two-fold:
First that the realm size tax code *cannot* produce the effect you're describing. If what you are describing happened, (I don't know, I wasn't there), then it was not produced by the realm size code. Therefore, pointing out IVF as the poster child for your point is invalid. It does not illustrate the point you're trying to make.
Second: Rare edge cases are not useful when describing the behavior of the system overall. BattleMaster is not a game of single-region city states. Nor are they especially common, nor often very long-lived. Using their behavior to set overall game policy is a poor choice. You don't optimize for edge cases. It may be desirable at some point to implement some code to handle them through various exceptions. Holding them up as examples for how the overall system may discourage desired behavior is not useful.
Also, you keep talking about both a "tax tolerance" and a "tax efficiency". The game calculates a "tax tolerance". The game does not calculate or use any kind of "tax efficiency". If you're assuming that this is a game mechanic, then you're mistaken and should stop using the term. If this is some definition you've created, then I have no idea what you're talking about. (Are you perhaps talking about estate efficiency or something?)
By tax efficiency, I refer to estate (tax) efficiency. The only thing estates do is collect taxes, as such, that is the only thing their efficiency applies to. Hence, "tax efficiency", a region or realm's capacity to collect maximal taxes.
Moving a city knight to become outland rural lord will decrease tax efficiency in the city and result in poor tax efficiency in the rural region. In another thread, I've illustrated how a realm can be poorer overall by expanding, because in many cases, having a 20% city estate vacated, thus resulting in a 10% efficiency loss for the city, is not compensated by the 60% efficiency of the new rural lord (Xolotl currently has a tax efficiency of 62.8% in Mokut, for example, which will only decrease as population returns to normal levels). This is amplified by the fact that most cities are in the realm's heartland (on average), and thus can afford higher tax rates, while new expansions are always on the borders, and thus can't afford the same tax rate. How would you reckon that moving a noble from a 100% efficiency estate in a 15% tax rate big city to instead be lord with rougly 60% efficiency in a mediocre border rural region that can only afford 8% tax rates?
With no lord, how do you get the food out of the region? Does the last Lords setting about banker access still work? If it does, I believe it should not. I see two ways of handling it, first would be to simply make the region provide no income or food to the realm at all until a Lord is in charge again. The second would be to allow some of it to be passed directly to the Duke, a very small amount but the idea here would be to maintain the Dukes "tithe" in some respects. Troops from the RC's should also not be available for recruitment, nor paraphernalia buildings open.
You could extend this it have the region slowly go rogue if for some reason a realm persists in having a region with no Lord.
Quote from: Chénier on September 09, 2014, 01:04:19 AM
By tax efficiency, I refer to estate (tax) efficiency. The only thing estates do is collect taxes, as such, that is the only thing their efficiency applies to. Hence, "tax efficiency", a region or realm's capacity to collect maximal taxes.
Moving a city knight to become outland rural lord will decrease tax efficiency in the city and result in poor tax efficiency in the rural region. In another thread, I've illustrated how a realm can be poorer overall by expanding, because in many cases, having a 20% city estate vacated, thus resulting in a 10% efficiency loss for the city, is not compensated by the 60% efficiency of the new rural lord (Xolotl currently has a tax efficiency of 62.8% in Mokut, for example, which will only decrease as population returns to normal levels). This is amplified by the fact that most cities are in the realm's heartland (on average), and thus can afford higher tax rates, while new expansions are always on the borders, and thus can't afford the same tax rate. How would you reckon that moving a noble from a 100% efficiency estate in a 15% tax rate big city to instead be lord with rougly 60% efficiency in a mediocre border rural region that can only afford 8% tax rates?
That is life. I have no problem with there being circumstances where expansion is bad. It will ultimately depend on what regions are available to expand into and the current structure of the realm. We also have to remember that money is not everything, sometimes you need those rural regions in order to produce food to feed the cities after all.
Quote from: De-Legro on September 09, 2014, 01:34:24 AM
With no lord, how do you get the food out of the region? Does the last Lords setting about banker access still work? If it does, I believe it should not.
With no Lord, Banker access is automatically set to "yes", and I will not be changing that. I'm not about to add extra frustration to feeding a region
you've just taken over purely for the sake of encouraging people to appoint Lords.
I'm quite sure we can come up with plenty of other incentives to put Lords over every region in a realm without that.
Quote from: Anaris on September 09, 2014, 01:42:16 AM
With no Lord, Banker access is automatically set to "yes", and I will not be changing that. I'm not about to add extra frustration to feeding a region you've just taken over purely for the sake of encouraging people to appoint Lords.
I'm quite sure we can come up with plenty of other incentives to put Lords over every region in a realm without that.
True, just that as it stands that allows people to run Rural without a Lord with no disadvantage in terms of food production. If the intent is to allow a region to be feed while a Lord is found, then perhaps the system can be modified such that the Banker can make buy orders and or accept sell orders for the region, while not allowing food to be imported out of the region.
You can't give an advantage to Realm A without giving a disadvantage to Realm B. Likewise, you can't make it advantageous to have knights without penalizing not having knights. Besides, if a realm has too few knights, that's just another way of saying they have too many regions. Make it so that regions with a full complement of lords and knights have an advantage over those that don't, and the issue will be self-correcting. As it stands, it's advantageous for realms to have a 1:1 nobles-to-regions ratio (or close to that) compared to a 3:1 ratio. The reverse should be true.
Maybe instead of trying to give disadvantages, why not focus more on giving advantages of having more knights. To be honest, having knights is already advantageous enough, being able to field more men, more interactions etc but why not give more \o/
Quote from: Buffalkill on September 09, 2014, 04:37:44 AM
You can't give an advantage to Realm A without giving a disadvantage to Realm B. Likewise, you can't make it advantageous to have knights without penalizing not having knights. Besides, if a realm has too few knights, that's just another way of saying they have too many regions. Make it so that regions with a full complement of lords and knights have an advantage over those that don't, and the issue will be self-correcting. As it stands, it's advantageous for realms to have a 1:1 nobles-to-regions ratio (or close to that) compared to a 3:1 ratio. The reverse should be true.
You missunderstand when people say reward don't punish. Obviously not getting the bonus is a disadvantage, players don't want the system for example to reduce gold generation below what it currently produces, or have negative effects on control/production and the like. I have said before that in competitive games the concept of punishment or bonus is relative and about perspective, still the fact remains that people will view changes that reduce their current outcomes as a penalty and have a negative response to it, where as something that achieves the same net result but boosts things from the current levels will be viewed better. When you are dealing with player retention this matters.
Making knights more valuable to their Lords and their realm is a good thing, but its not going to fix the issues with knight density on its own. For that we need to actually increase the number of players/characters relative to the land that is available
QuoteMaking knights more valuable to their Lords and their realm is a good thing, but its not going to fix the issues with knight density on its own. For that we need to actually increase the number of players/characters relative to the land that is available
This.
The problem lies ultimately in the "fact" (IMHO) that the Ice was a good idea, but it stopped way to early and so had little effect other than to piss a few folks off and make them quit.
You need to squeeze the sea in all around the islands and push until it is hard for knights to find a decent estate, and lordships have value, and the "common" nobles are clamoring for war so they can finally get some land & titles of their own.
Look to the SE corner of Dwilight for an example to study.
Quote from: De-Legro on September 09, 2014, 04:59:56 AM
Making knights more valuable to their Lords and their realm is a good thing, but its not going to fix the issues with knight density on its own. For that we need to actually increase the number of players/characters relative to the land that is available
Indeed, that's why I also think improvements should be made to make the knight game more interesting.
Quote from: De-Legro on September 09, 2014, 01:34:24 AM
The second would be to allow some of it to be passed directly to the Duke, a very small amount but the idea here would be to maintain the Dukes "tithe" in some respects.
In any case, the amount the Duke gets when the region is without Lord should be smaller than the amount he gets from taxation when a Lord is appointed.
Quote from: De-Legro on September 09, 2014, 01:34:24 AM
Troops from the RC's should also not be available for recruitment, nor paraphernalia buildings open.
That's a very good idea, but doesn't it already happen most of the time? RCs and paraphernalia buildings are not always open depending on, I guess, morale and control which is tied with the presence of a Lord.
You have a half-capitalist half-communist economy in a game which is about neither. There is no easy fix.