BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Velax on July 24, 2012, 03:14:27 PM
-
I want power to rest with the landed nobles.
That's a nice idea, but doesn't seem to work in practice. In my experience, most region lords don't see this as having power, they see it as an extra chore they have put up with.
And you end up with situations like in Kindara, where a Duchess is apparently logging in enough to not auto-pause, but refuses to answer messages or appoint a lord to one of her rurals for more than a month. There's 1000 bushels of food stuck in that rural with no way to get it out while her city starves, and the duchess can't even be banned because she's a royal.
-
That's a nice idea, but doesn't seem to work in practice. In my experience, most region lords don't see this as having power, they see it as an extra chore they have put up with.
In a game like this the developers can only create the framework, what the players do with that frame work is largely out of developer control.
And you end up with situations like in Kindara, where a Duchess is apparently logging in enough to not auto-pause, but refuses to answer messages or appoint a lord to one of her rurals for more than a month. There's 1000 bushels of food stuck in that rural with no way to get it out while her city starves, and the duchess can't even be banned because she's a royal.
Been in similar situations and they sure are frustrating. However they are completely valid situations to be confronted with. It is supposed to be difficult to cut the rug out from under royals, especially royals with powerful positions.
-
How about the fact that the rural has no lord, so, realistically, we could just go to the granaries and take the damn food. But apparently only the non-existent lord has the magical key to the unbreakable lock.
-
And you end up with situations like in Kindara, where a Duchess is apparently logging in enough to not auto-pause, but refuses to answer messages or appoint a lord to one of her rurals for more than a month. There's 1000 bushels of food stuck in that rural with no way to get it out while her city starves, and the duchess can't even be banned because she's a royal.
First: Sounds like a pretty sucky situation.
Second: Sounds like a self-correcting problem. If the city is starving, it will eventually revolt and kick out the duchess. Then, if the ruler is smart, they will give it to someone else.
Third: If you can't ban, then start using other methods to get her out. Get the other lords to stop selling food to the city. Place heavy fines on the duchess. Send in the assassins. Send the banker to cook the books.
-
First: Sounds like a pretty sucky situation.
Second: Sounds like a self-correcting problem. If the city is starving, it will eventually revolt and kick out the duchess. Then, if the ruler is smart, they will give it to someone else.
Third: If you can't ban, then start using other methods to get her out. Get the other lords to stop selling food to the city. Place heavy fines on the duchess. Send in the assassins. Send the banker to cook the books.
Third is possible but unless I am wrong you are thinking in terms of the old system for #2 because why would the city revolting kick out the duchess, sure it gets them out of Margrave but not Duchess IIRC.
-
Grrf.... One of these days I'll remember that... Well, then convince all the lords to swap duchies. Isolate and ostracize the incompetent duke/duchess. If the city goes rogue and it is retaken, it will join the duchy closes to it. If that is a different duchy, then the new duchy will gain a city, and the old duchy lose one. Sounds like a great way for one of the other dukes in Kindara to add some regions to their duchy.
-
Grrf.... One of these days I'll remember that... Well, then convince all the lords to swap duchies. Isolate and ostracize the incompetent duke/duchess. If the city goes rogue and it is retaken, it will join the duchy closes to it. If that is a different duchy, then the new duchy will gain a city, and the old duchy lose one. Sounds like a great way for one of the other dukes in Kindara to add some regions to their duchy.
Still the issue of the lordless rural though. Technically speaking there is one way to do it but its super gamey and would never happen in medieval times or any time for that matter so I wouldn't want to.
-
You could drive it rogue via diplomats/ambassadors/priests. But, yeah, that's pretty metagamish.
But hopefully, long before you got far enough to think about that, your absentee duchess would wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe the second or third time she woke up with a dagger in the back. And, really, you may be able to knock her out of office with one well-time knifing.
-
Still the issue of the lordless rural though. Technically speaking there is one way to do it but its super gamey and would never happen in medieval times or any time for that matter so I wouldn't want to.
A priest could do an RTO of the rural...if that option is working now.
-
You could drive it rogue via diplomats/ambassadors/priests. But, yeah, that's pretty metagamish.
Yeah thats what I was thinking which IC makes no sense.A priest could do an RTO of the rural...if that option is working now.
Yeah that or I like Indiriks infiltrator option.
-
That's a nice idea, but doesn't seem to work in practice. In my experience, most region lords don't see this as having power, they see it as an extra chore they have put up with.
the elusive autosell..
And you end up with situations like in Kindara, where a Duchess is apparently logging in enough to not auto-pause, but refuses to answer messages or appoint a lord to one of her rurals for more than a month. There's 1000 bushels of food stuck in that rural with no way to get it out while her city starves, and the duchess can't even be banned because she's a royal.
assassination. auto-de-fey? (though.. i guess that doesn't work against dukes, does it... hey.. maybe it should? though not sure how that works either, seeing as there's no "no duchy" setting for a region... make the priest a duke? of the region only? too powerful? replacing the duke wholesale would certainly be too powerful. boot the duke from the duchy? thus... duchy intact, just position vacant? rather powerful too) ruler change lordship rules to elections...
-
A bad duke/duchess of an important duchy is supposed to be devastating, even more so if they are a royal. These ideas are good, but the difficulty of their execution is valid and not a problem that this feature is trying to solve (and it shouldn't!).
-
just offering solutions to the dodgy dukeship.
You are trying to think of a solution - I don't even see the problem. It only exists from a strategy/winning perspective.
-
You are trying to think of a solution - I don't even see the problem. It only exists from a strategy/winning perspective.
Or, you know, from a "the city is starving and losing thousands of people and there's !@#$ all we can do about it" perspective.
-
Or, you know, from a "the city is starving and losing thousands of people and there's !@#$ all we can do about it" perspective.
You could plan ahead better and appoint lords that will move their food around.
Though I wish we could loot our own regions for food. If a lord won't sell his food, just send in the army and take it.
-
You could plan ahead better and appoint lords that will move their food around.
That's really a very stupid and not even vaguely helpful thing to suggest. Aside from the fact that appointing dukes has nothing to do with me, obviously this person wouldn't have been appointed if we'd known they'd just disappear. They were a respected and previously active former ruler with no history of this type of thing. But hey. If you feel like lending me that crystal ball you apparently have, feel free.
-
If you're not the one responsible for appointing the duke, then it is not your responsibility to make sure they are doing their job. There are various IG tools that people have to deal with it. And yes, a royal duke *can* make things a royal bitch through either negligence or purposeful design. And that is 100% intentional.
-
That's really a very stupid and not even vaguely helpful thing to suggest. Aside from the fact that appointing dukes has nothing to do with me, obviously this person wouldn't have been appointed if we'd known they'd just disappear. They were a respected and previously active former ruler with no history of this type of thing. But hey. If you feel like lending me that crystal ball you apparently have, feel free.
Theres also a thing called a steward for this very occasion.
-
Theres also a thing called a steward for this very occasion.
Helps with the city starving though if the duke won't do anything then that means they won't promote someone to steward, and that doesn't help with the lordless rural.
-
It could have helped if the rural had a steward to begin with.
-
It could have helped if the rural had a steward to begin with.
Which was the responsibility of the Lord-Duke. I too agree there should be a way to enforce a lighter ban on royal lords or dukes. Perhaps one that gives them a week to realign their region/duchy to another realm, to avoid losing it (only losing the region or duchy, not being banned from the realm). But I suppose this is severely off-topic.
-
Isn't this why we have an Exile option?
Also, we're getting further and further from the original topic, which in no way should be the solution to the power struggle in Velax's case.
What we've established so far:
- If the realm wants a royal granary, they can already use the banker's regional granary.
- If the banker wants trader powers, he or she can become a trader.
- Lordless regions can be difficult to deal with, thus stewards can be more important than previously accepted.
-
And if they're just sitting there, logging in enough to not be autopaused but refusing to do anything to help the realm, what does exiling accomplish? A constant loss of prestige for the Ruler as the Royal Duke sits there doing !@#$ all?
-
That is why you should choose your duke carefully.
I think Exile should be changed so both the ruler and the target should lose honour and prestige. Whoever hits the bottom first should lose.
-
... the point is.. i already mentioned existing tools for dealing with such an issue.
One requires a skilled Infil and the other a skilled Priest. Besides a temple in the region, faithful and the religion's approval. Still doesn't solve the fact he's still a Duke, though I suppose that is not so important..
-
Or, you know, from a "the city is starving and losing thousands of people and there's !@#$ all we can do about it" perspective.
I still fail to see what's bad about it. From a gameplay perspective. Does this cause people to have less fun playing the game? Why?
-
I still fail to see what's bad about it. From a gameplay perspective. Does this cause people to have less fun playing the game? Why?
Well if it didn't make me have less fun, would I be here complaining about it? This situation means we have the gold of two regions, including one large city, going into a black hole during a time of war. We've got a city starving, and more than 1000 bushels of food that could be feeding other regions aside from the city, sitting doing nothing. With production drops, we've got three knights getting less gold. If the city goes rogue, we have to divert troops to retake it during a time of war, or leave it rogue and watch it spiral further downward and get no gold at all from it.
It significantly affects our ability to wage war - the first war we've had in about eight months - when we're already outnumbered, and yes, that does affect our fun in the game.
-
It significantly affects our ability to wage war - the first war we've had in about eight months - when we're already outnumbered, and yes, that does affect our fun in the game.
How much of that is because you see it as a gamey problem that needs fixing?
There are plenty of ways of dealing with this situation entirely in-game, having fun with the troubles of your realm and enjoying the challenge of a bad situation. I understand that sometimes the game is frustrating - every good game is, because overcoming obstacles is part of the reward cycle.
-
But what are the solutions? Setting an assassin on a respected and once beloved former ruler (who my character considers a friend), or finding a high level priest (which we don't have) to Auto Da Fe her? You say we shouldn't be playing this in a gamey way, but surely setting an assassin on a friend because their inactivity is affecting the war effort is about the most gamey thing I could do?
-
Propose a solution that's not gamey?
I have a couple in my mind, but they're not for this game, would require way too many changes.
-
But what are the solutions? Setting an assassin on a respected and once beloved former ruler (who my character considers a friend), or finding a high level priest (which we don't have) to Auto Da Fe her? You say we shouldn't be playing this in a gamey way, but surely setting an assassin on a friend because their inactivity is affecting the war effort is about the most gamey thing I could do?
Is it the inactivity of the player that affects the war effort, or the refusal of the character to appoint a Lord?
If it's something your character would do, then do it. If it's something your character wouldn't do, then it's gamey.
-
I still fail to see what's bad about it. From a gameplay perspective. Does this cause people to have less fun playing the game? Why?
In the situation that Velax is describing I think that is does. One person has entirely shut down a duchy, and there is almost no recourse available. That person logs in only to, as far as anyone can tell, prevent autopausing(completely inactive for more than a month). A number of previous posts have brought up the fact that the suspect Margravine could be assassinated, but that doesn't solve the problem as she is also Duchess. RTO could be used, but primary religion of those two particular regions just died. As he said, all we can do is wait for the city to go rogue, and there is essentially nothing we can do for the rural.
I think this makes a good case for intrarealm wars. If Dukes could fight each other for ducal control, then this wouldn't even a problem. It would be a free ticket to expand the duchy. That would be a big source of conflict. Though, I feel like I remember ducal wars being rejected outright, but I couldn't find it with a quick forum search.
-
The problem is you have a royal duke who does not appoint lords in his duchy. These regions have no steward. You want access to the region's food. Correct?
Why is the problem with the last part rather than solving the cause? Can you think of any other more common circumstances that would demand a similar change?
Adding power to solve unique corner cases of intra-realm struggles is not the way to go.
-
...seriously? You're seriously suggesting anyone would actually do this? And that this imaginary idiot would be allowed to do so by the rest of the realm? Come on now...
Which rest of the realm? He could have banned them all. Which is the whole point of your proposal: you want a way to be able to move food without the collaboration of the rest of the realm, so you don't need them anymore.
But, no, I don't think it would happen often. Note that I described it as abuse! There are probably plenty of ways to avoid it, I just wanted to point it out. It's the first thing I thought of.
-
Appointing lords is one of the duke's primary powers.
Food is a lord's primary resource.
You see the imbalance if we arbitrarily add power to solve a single side of the problem?
If a region remains without a Lord for more than a week, allow for a ruler to appoint a candidate. This would cost the Duke prestige as it appears he does not even have power over his duchy. Also give the Duke the power to dispute any such appointment, along with prestige loss for the Ruler. The Duke will lose prestige over time if the disputed lord remains in power, and the ruler will lose a significant amount of prestige if the appoint lord loses the region for some reason. The Duke can withdraw the dispute if compromise is reached, or the dispute ends if the Duke or the Lord lose their positions.
-
really gone off topic with all this about some duke in some land.... if you want to complain go complain in ur local forum not in feature requests.
-
surely setting an assassin on a friend because their inactivity is affecting the war effort is about the most gamey thing I could do?
Is that friend's incompetence going to cost you the war? If so, would you kill a friend to win a war?
Sounds to me like an awesome opportunity for your character to do some soul-searching, and find out exactly what is most important to them: The friend or the war. Because, let's face it, your friend is hampering the war effort. Their inattention, incompetence, and negligence are seriously damaging the realm. Maybe they aren't the loyal, staunch friend you thought they were. Well, obviously they aren't, as they are neglecting their duty, and basically giving you the finger. So instead of steadfastly refusing to see what's happening, perhaps you should have your character re-evaluate the situation, and come to the realization that this "friend" isn't really what you thought they were.
-
This is true, but there's also the fact that we don't have any infiltrators.
-
I think this makes a good case for intrarealm wars.
Intra-realm wars are, IMNSHO opinion, one of the worst ideas ever proposed, and totally inappropriate for this game.
The idea that would work for this is the forced secession we used to have that, so far as I know, was only ever used once, when Alanna forced the city of Giask to secede, then went to war with it and wiped it out. :)
-
This is true, but there's also the fact that we don't have any infiltrators.
And you don't have any friends that have a way of finding some?
-
Are there even many infiltrators on FEI at all?
-
Are there even many infiltrators on FEI at all?
Trust me. There's at least one. 8)
-
Oh, there is definitely more than one. And quite good, too.
-
I did say many, not any. And if they're in Sorraine, I don't think they'll be willing to help out Kindara, somehow.
-
Intra-realm wars are, IMNSHO opinion, one of the worst ideas ever proposed, and totally inappropriate for this game.
The idea that would work for this is the forced secession we used to have that, so far as I know, was only ever used once, when Alanna forced the city of Giask to secede, then went to war with it and wiped it out. :)
I think it could be a good idea, or a terrible idea depending on how it was implemented. If a duke was to declare war on another, then the ruler would decide whether to ignore the action, or to support one of the sides. Perhaps there would be some sort of honor/prestige penalty for siding with the aggressor. So it would only be feasible if one duke was liked more by the ruler than the other. I know that the combat system is rather complex, so it may not even be possible. It may not have a place in BM, but I think it's an interesting concept.
-
One requires a skilled Infil and the other a skilled Priest. Besides a temple in the region, faithful and the religion's approval. Still doesn't solve the fact he's still a Duke, though I suppose that is not so important..
forget the priest. don't think it works.
get ruler to change the rules. that should work, shouldn't it? if the dukes can't be arsed to appoint anyone, elect someone in
-
forget the priest. don't think it works.
get ruler to change the rules. that should work, shouldn't it? if the dukes can't be arsed to appoint anyone, elect someone in
That sounds like a good idea, and can be changed back if they don't want to continue with electing.
-
I think it could be a good idea, or a terrible idea depending on how it was implemented.
The problem with intra-realm warfare is that it destroys the team concept of the game. BattleMaster is a team-based game. You're part of a team from your first log in. The game defines the team as your realm. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Not only are our duchies are simply not big enough (in the majority of realms) to function individually as a team, but the entire game is structured around "realm as team". Intra-realm warfare would destroy that concept. And we have precious little of that concept still alive and kicking in the game as is.
It's a concept that may be fun and may work, but in a different game.
-
Just two points:
1) Tom's question about 'how does this impact fun' can be reduced to 'why is the game fun?' It's fun because a bunch of people pretend to be medieval lords and play together to either help or hinder other bunches of people pretending to be medieval lords. Fun comes from your role in either helping or hindering. If you're doing neither of those things and just occupying a hot seat, you are impeding both the help and the hinder role in the equation to a pretty significant degree, and that causes other players to resent the realm for permitting it to happen (because they don't read threads like these to know that there's very little you can do) and the game for enabling a non-entity. Where BM works is where it gives nobles on different levels of the ladder tools to push and pull on the giant power tug-of-rope that is always there -- but when somebody just really likes being called 'Duke of place' and can get away with contributing zero to the game, that has a negative-fun impact. If on the balance between that and the whole 'it's okay to not be very active' right that's acceptable, that's cool, but you are trading one for the other.
2) Pretty sure Kindara HAD an infiltrator...!
-
Just two points:
1) Tom's question about 'how does this impact fun' can be reduced to 'why is the game fun?' It's fun because a bunch of people pretend to be medieval lords and play together to either help or hinder other bunches of people pretending to be medieval lords. Fun comes from your role in either helping or hindering. If you're doing neither of those things and just occupying a hot seat, you are impeding both the help and the hinder role in the equation to a pretty significant degree, and that causes other players to resent the realm for permitting it to happen (because they don't read threads like these to know that there's very little you can do) and the game for enabling a non-entity. Where BM works is where it gives nobles on different levels of the ladder tools to push and pull on the giant power tug-of-rope that is always there -- but when somebody just really likes being called 'Duke of place' and can get away with contributing zero to the game, that has a negative-fun impact. If on the balance between that and the whole 'it's okay to not be very active' right that's acceptable, that's cool, but you are trading one for the other.
2) Pretty sure Kindara HAD an infiltrator...!
I agree with this. People who do not do their roles properly should be removed. If you are an inactive duke, you should be removed to make a room for someone more active.
-
If you are an inactive duke, you should be removed to make a room for someone more active.
Yeah, that would be true, if it weren't for that whole Inalienable Rights thing...
-
Yeah, that would be true, if it weren't for that whole Inalienable Rights thing...
But if from what I am understanding its like the person isn't playing, just logging in once a week. If they did something, sent some people messages or something to show it was on purpose for spite against the realm or anything RP to show they are playing people wouldn't be complaining, but they are just logging in, not really playing.
-
Fun comes from your role in either helping or hindering. If you're doing neither of those things and just occupying a hot seat, you are impeding both the help and the hinder role in the equation to a pretty significant degree
If they are negative impacting the realm in a severe manner, then that puts them pretty squarely in the "hinder" camp. The problem doesn't come in that people don't actively contribute, and hang onto positions, it's that people are afraid of taking direct action against them. They don't want to hurt their buddy, or they don't want to be confrontational in addressing the problem.
Like in this case: Velax didn't come here looking for ways to get rid of his non-contributing duchess and put in someone willing to help. He came here looking for ways to *work around* the inactive character. He didn't want to hurt the character/player by kicking them out of a position they no longer deserved, but to help the realm keep-on-keeping-on despite the fact that the duchess was a non-contributor.
IMO, you need to stay in-character and look at it from your character's point of view: Yes, Duke Kepler used to be a cool guy. We were drinking buddies, and he saved my ass in that one campaign against Evilstani. I owe him my life. But now Evilstani is attacking us, and Duke Kepler is on permanent vacation. He won't come out of his palace, and his duchy is falling apart. I've tried all the normal, friendly ways to deal with the situation. But Duke Kepler is still neglecting his duties. Personal crisis time! Do I stay loyal to Duke Kepler and stick by his right to drink mead in his palace all day while ignoring business as the realm crumbles? Or do I start plotting to get him removed and replaced by someone who hasn't had their brains turned to mush from too much drink? Perhaps if enough people start working against the duke in many different ways, then the duke will wake up and smell the coffee.
-
don't know why people are afraid to get rid of inactive dukes... it is 100 times better to have an active duke even if he is not the most friendly guy. At least he will keep things interesting.
The duke Velax has to deal with sounds pretty close to quitting the game. shouldn't be afraid of a secession IMO.
-
The problem with intra-realm warfare is that it destroys the team concept of the game. BattleMaster is a team-based game. You're part of a team from your first log in. The game defines the team as your realm. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Not only are our duchies are simply not big enough (in the majority of realms) to function individually as a team, but the entire game is structured around "realm as team". Intra-realm warfare would destroy that concept. And we have precious little of that concept still alive and kicking in the game as is.
It's a concept that may be fun and may work, but in a different game.
I didn't consider that. So yea, I agree 100%.
2) Pretty sure Kindara HAD an infiltrator...!
Maybe. I think he was attacked by a Cathayan in our capital. After that he disappeared. Then some war broke out, so we haven't really had time to look for him.
-
But if from what I am understanding its like the person isn't playing, just logging in once a week. If they did something, sent some people messages or something to show it was on purpose for spite against the realm or anything RP but they are just logging in, not really playing.
The IR protects their right to play at whatever pace they want. You can't act against Duke Kepler because he logs in once every four days. That's his business, you just have to deal with it.
HOWEVER...
The Inalienable Rights do NOT protect you from the IC consequences of your IC actions or inactions. If you are a rural lord and you're not selling your food, or an army sponsor not appointing marshals/filling the war chest, a judge not banning prisoners, etc., then you *can* and *should* be held accountable for the fact that *your character* is not doing their job. But this is completely unrelated to activity. The same standards should be held to *any* character, regardless of how often they log in,or not log in.
When you consider whether or not act against someone, then "activity" should never come into play. It's all about whether or not the character is doing their job. As a friendly player you do need to give a nod toward OOC considerations, and give them a chance to respond and react. But once a clear pattern of negligence is established, then nail 'em to the wall!
-
IMO, you need to stay in-character and look at it from your character's point of view
This is a non-choice. There is no mechanism to plot against a Duke who is also a Royal, and the only mechanism if they aren't a royal is banishment, which could run afoul of inalienable rights. Back in '05 and '06 the Titans didn't usually care too much when somebody high-up got the ax for never doing anything but perhaps that's changed. EDIT: just saw 'The Inalienable Rights do NOT protect you from the IC consequences of your IC actions or inactions' which is a more accurate description of how things were viewed back when I had any business viewing them. Not like 'you must login once every X hours/days' but 'is the job getting done.'
But if you were to look at it from an in-character point of view, a King whose vassal wasn't showing up or answering letters would arrive with an army to take back the land for himself. As you've already pointed out, intra-realm wars aren't a solution. So saying 'find an IC answer' is a little bit trite: if there were one that could amount to anything other than grumbling, it would've happened by now and Velax wouldn't be here complaining about it. It's like trying to play monopoly with your cat. Anybody in BM would prefer an active character who is actively opposing them rather than an inactive character whose player just won't admit 'you know, I don't have time to be Duke/King of blah.'
Ironically, Galiard used to get a lot of flak for having stepped down from being King on two occasions previously, like 'why don't you go back to your garden,' while it was very, very difficult to drum up support against a Duke in Toupellon who was a great character and who had (has) a great player but just didn't ever get involved in anything.
-
you don't have to get rid of the duke. what you are doing is making the duke a duke of 0 or 1 regions. (by removing his ability to be the only dude to appoint lords... in making lordships electable.)
Unless your realm has like only 1 town/city/stronghold and the duke is the lord of that... then you are stuck with him being duke of everything. (until you auto-de-fey or stick him... to vacate the lordship and ruler make new lord of that a duke)
-
Its a pity that my character is ready to pwn this Duke - everything takes so darned long in BM!
-
This is a non-choice. There is no mechanism to plot against a Duke who is also a Royal, and the only mechanism if they aren't a royal is banishment
That's simply not true at all. There are several options you have. Some of them may or may not be possible in any particular case. Some depend on him being a lord, others on not being a lord. Some ideas off the top of my head:
* Have him assassinated. Repeatedly. I bet that will gt their attention. If you're lucky, they may lose the office due to long absence.
* Get all his vassals to swap to other duchies. This is especially powerful if he's not a region lord. He could end up as duke of an empty duchy.
* If he's a city lord, stop selling him food. If he's a rural lord, stop buying his food.
* Exile him. Especially powerful now that you get all your taxes in bonds.
* Get religion involved, and have him auto da fe'd. Works great for region lords. If you get him out of the region, then get all his lords to leave him.
* Have diplomats and ambassadors badmouth him in his own region, and maybe drive the region rogue. Get priests involved in it, too.
* Switch regional appointments to voting instead of appointing, and work around him.
* If he has a steward, work with the steward to buy/sell food.
Each one of these is a way to plot against a duke, royal or not. And if he's not royal then just banish his ass and be done with it.
which could run afoul of inalienable rights. Back in '05 and '06 the Titans didn't usually care too much when somebody high-up got the ax for never doing anything but perhaps that's changed. EDIT: just saw 'The Inalienable Rights do NOT protect you from the IC consequences of your IC actions or inactions' which is a more accurate description of how things were viewed back when I had any business viewing them. Not like 'you must login once every X hours/days' but 'is the job getting done.'
This is, and always has been, the policy. It hasn't changed. People just get hung up thinking that the inactivity IR protects them as a 100% safe blanket from actions against them. That's simply not true.
So saying 'find an IC answer' is a little bit trite: if there were one that could amount to anything other than grumbling, it would've happened by now and Velax wouldn't be here complaining about it. It's like trying to play monopoly with your cat. Anybody in BM would prefer an active character who is actively opposing them rather than an inactive character whose player just won't admit 'you know, I don't have time to be Duke/King of blah.'
I agree that playing against an active player is more fun. But saying that you simply can't do anything about it is not correct. You can. It may not be clean or easy. In fact, it may leave a bit of a mess behind. But it can be done.
it was very, very difficult to drum up support against a Duke in Toupellon who was a great character and who had (has) a great player but just didn't ever get involved in anything.
Yes, people don't like acting against someone who doesn't do something blatantly wrong. Inactive people who don't make waves are likely to be difficult to target with any kind of IC campaign against them.
-
unfortunately.. exile just got a kick regarding bonds..
all your taxes come in gold if you are anywhere in your realm. (recent change)
-
Oh. I did not know that.
-
all your taxes come in gold if you are anywhere in your realm. (recent change)
Yeah, i noticed that we were receiving gold now, but wasn't sure how area-dependent it was.
-
* Have him assassinated. Repeatedly. I bet that will gt their attention. If you're lucky, they may lose the office due to long absence.
* Get all his vassals to swap to other duchies. This is especially powerful if he's not a region lord. He could end up as duke of an empty duchy.
* If he's a city lord, stop selling him food. If he's a rural lord, stop buying his food.
* Exile him. Especially powerful now that you get all your taxes in bonds.
* Get religion involved, and have him auto da fe'd. Works great for region lords. If you get him out of the region, then get all his lords to leave him.
* Have diplomats and ambassadors badmouth him in his own region, and maybe drive the region rogue. Get priests involved in it, too.
* Switch regional appointments to voting instead of appointing, and work around him.
* If he has a steward, work with the steward to buy/sell food.
These are all counter-moves to somebody who is actively working against you. They each have pretty serious repurcussions for someone who isn't guilty of anything but who just isn't playing the game at all. You're essentially asking some combination of the ruler or the other lords or the realm itself to undergo pretty significant strife as a workaround.
* Have him assassinated. Repeatedly. I bet that will gt their attention. If you're lucky, they may lose the office due to long absence.
And appear to be the bad guy for sending a murderer after a Duke who, just as you said, hasn't done something blatantly wrong and people don't like acting against folks who haven't done anything blatantly wrong. The 'offense' in this case warrants removal from some high office - not a knife in the back.
Get all his vassals to swap to other duchies. This is especially powerful if he's not a region lord. He could end up as duke of an empty duchy.
A huge amount of political jockeying that is dependent upon the geography supporting the solution. "Everybody switch to Duchy B! Now a month later when we have a new Duke, switch back to Duchy A!" If that's not gamey, I don't know what is.
* If he's a city lord, stop selling him food. If he's a rural lord, stop buying his food.
And give up a huge piece of your realm's wealth as well as the time and energy of its players to restore the region afterwards. "Stop buying his food" won't even hurt him: it'll hurt everybody who isn't him.
* Have diplomats and ambassadors badmouth him in his own region, and maybe drive the region rogue. Get priests involved in it, too.
The only option I ever had as a diplomat/ambassador was to badmouth a realm, not a person. This would impact all future Dukes as well and you're tied up undoing all of the work you laboriously did to remove the guy who doesn't play the game.
* Switch regional appointments to voting instead of appointing, and work around him.
Sure - destabilize the whole realm and change your entire government to accommodate Duke won't read his mail?
These are all perfectly valid plays against a Duke who is actively messing with the realm, and in that instance, the prices you pay are just the price of playing politics. The logic here doesn't work because you're asking for an IC solution to an OOC problem. When it's just a regular noble you can pass it off as 'oh the mail was late' or 'I was out drinking with my men' or any suggestion on the inactivity page. When it's a council member or a Duke you are just meta-gaming to achieve a solution that, "properly" in-character, would be achievable far more easily. It ought to be tough to un-Duke a Duke whose only offense is working against the administration in some quiet way - but pretending that one is who isn't just so you can stir up thousands of peasants against them doesn't and won't ever "feel" IC to everybody involved, even if the game provides buttons you can push to achieve the outcome you want.
This whole thread exists because the mechanisms that are there don't deal with this situation. Maybe the balance we have is as good as it gets -- royal Dukes who are inactive are pretty rare, after all, and as you pointed out if they're not royal then you just give them the boot (as we did with the Toupellonian Duke).
-
That's simply not true at all. There are several options you have. Some of them may or may not be possible in any particular case. Some depend on him being a lord, others on not being a lord. Some ideas off the top of my head:
* Have him assassinated. Repeatedly. I bet that will gt their attention. If you're lucky, they may lose the office due to long absence.
That's a choice for an evil, ruthless character. Okay.
* Get all his vassals to swap to other duchies. This is especially powerful if he's not a region lord. He could end up as duke of an empty duchy.
* If he's a city lord, stop selling him food. If he's a rural lord, stop buying his food.
* Exile him. Especially powerful now that you get all your taxes in bonds.
* Get religion involved, and have him auto da fe'd. Works great for region lords. If you get him out of the region, then get all
his lords to leave him.
* Have diplomats and ambassadors badmouth him in his own region, and maybe drive the region rogue. Get priests involved in it, too.
These don't help at all with the region full of food without lord.
* Switch regional appointments to voting instead of appointing, and work around him.
This seems to be the only real solution, but requires some pretty major political changes.
* If he has a steward, work with the steward to buy/sell food.
I'm pretty sure that if the region had a steward, they would be using him instead of talking here.
-
These are all counter-moves to somebody who is actively working against you. They each have pretty serious repurcussions for someone who isn't guilty of anything but who just isn't playing the game at all.
Of course he's guilty! He's guilty of negligence, dereliction of duty, possibly even outright sabotage of the war effort. Why, the scoundrel should be hung immediately, if not sooner!
You're essentially asking some combination of the ruler or the other lords or the realm itself to undergo pretty significant strife as a workaround.
You're addressing a pretty significant change. Removing a *duke* from their office? This isn't something that you want to be able to do on a whim. Of course it involves pretty significant strife. If it was simple, easy, and could be done without much of a mess, then the position of duke would be nothing more than a fancy title you wear at the sufferance of the ruler.
And appear to be the bad guy for sending a murderer after a Duke who, just as you said, hasn't done something blatantly wrong and people don't like acting against folks who haven't done anything blatantly wrong. The 'offense' in this case warrants removal from some high office - not a knife in the back.
See above. What he's doing, from an IC perspective *is* blatantly wrong. He's sabotaging the war effort, and endangering the very existence of the realm.
It's only from an OOC perspective that he hasn't done anything blatantly wrong. And that's where the hang-up is. OOC the player just doesn't have time to play very much, or to deal with the responsibilities of office. And we, as players, have sympathy for that.
A huge amount of political jockeying that is dependent upon the geography supporting the solution. "Everybody switch to Duchy B! Now a month later when we have a new Duke, switch back to Duchy A!" If that's not gamey, I don't know what is.
Who says they have to switch back? Convincing a lord to leave one duchy for another is a perfectly legitimate IC power play. IMO, this is perhaps your best bet in most situations. Work to turn the lords against the duke and get them to move out. Combine this with elected region lords, and you can, given time, empty the duchy relatively painlessly. Except for the Duke's region, if they are indeed a lord themselves.
And give up a huge piece of your realm's wealth as well as the time and energy of its players to restore the region afterwards. "Stop buying his food" won't even hurt him: it'll hurt everybody who isn't him.
Yep. I agree, it will be messy. Too bad. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
The only option I ever had as a diplomat/ambassador was to badmouth a realm, not a person. This would impact all future Dukes as well and you're tied up undoing all of the work you laboriously did to remove the guy who doesn't play the game.
Yes, badmouth the realm is the game mechanic involved. And yes, it is damaging. Nevertheless, it is possible, and can be done.
Sure - destabilize the whole realm and change your entire government to accommodate Duke won't read his mail?
Didn't I say some of these options were a bit messy? You are, after all, trying to unseat a very powerful character from their office. It shouldn't be painless.
This whole thread exists because the mechanisms that are there don't deal with this situation. Maybe the balance we have is as good as it gets -- royal Dukes who are inactive are pretty rare, after all, and as you pointed out if they're not royal then you just give them the boot (as we did with the Toupellonian Duke).
The entire purpose of royal rank is to provide someone in the realm who is intentionally difficult to deal with, and who provides a very powerful potential for anti-establishment. When that character becomes detrimental to the game, for whatever reason, then it will be messy to get rid of them. I have been lucky in that none of my realms have yet had the need to get rid of one. The few times where this has become an issue, the character has eventually lost the office due to inactivity. (And I nearly choked when the ruler re-appointed them the next day... Luckily the autopaused not long after.)
Alternatively, provide some other solution that you think would be acceptable, and that can't be used whenever the ruler think it would be convenient to get rid of a troublesome duke.
-
That's a choice for an evil, ruthless character. Okay.
Or for a character desperate to save the realm. If it's really as bad as it is being made out to be, then perhaps it's time for desperation to win out over morality. Perhaps it's time for the duke to take a dive for the greater good, eh? You don't have to be ruthless or evil to think that the world would be a better place with one less person in it, given the correct circumstances.
I'm pretty sure that if the region had a steward, they would be using him instead of talking here.
I was providing a laundry list of options to deal with the situation in general. As I said, not all options are useful in all cases.
-
He's sabotaging the war effort, and endangering the very existence of the realm.
I don't have a better option except possibly re-working the Royal mechanic, or perhaps the exile mechanic, now that taxes come in gold. Minor tweaks though. I agree that a royal Duke ought to be a PITA.
Where I don't agree is that anybody can get away with the recommended IC solutions in the specific case of a semi-active Duke. Every time I have tried to even badmouth a Duke who hadn't actually done anything wrong but whose inactivity only contributed to some bad thing, I end up looking like the bad guy for playing politics. The only time I've seen sentiment turn against a character whose player hadn't played them to do a bad thing but who hadn't done their job all the same was for a marshal or a general, and that's because there are very obvious consequences.
-
I don't care to quote your message since its so huge but the duke being hard to removed is easy if it was not a royal, just ban him the rest the options aren't nessacary. The issue is that the removing the royal duke is a royal b*tch, if thats intended it definently causes some frustration and in the opinion of me and a few others who have posted, less fun, but its working.
-
if a duke can't be bothered to appoint a lord, then there's no reason why a lord who gets the region later anyway despite that would want to pay that duke a cut of their taxes.
it's quite simple. there are a load of lands and titles, but no one can get at them. any and all ambitious nobles wanting an estate (that is.. if there are no vacant estates) or a title would wish to do something that'll land themselves a title.
no lord still equal low tax rate, doesn't it?
-
It's already been suggested, but creating a new duchy out of the city and leaving the duke/duchess high and dry, politically speaking, is your best option. It's also pretty logical, IC. If you're the ruler, and one of your dukes goes rogue but you lack an army or other coercive method to bring them to task, you do the only thing a ruler can do: refuse to recognize them and strip them of their current titles. It will create a little chaos. It should. The guy is a duke and royal. On the plus side, he's pretty much tarnished his standing for as long as your realm has a collective memory.
-
To make a new duchy in that particular city, the lord would need to not be a duke already, and I THINK you would need another region capable of creating a duchy, eg. a townsland, a stronghold, or a second city.
Though, if the lord of the city and the duke weren't the same you wouldn't have this problem.
-
It's already been suggested, but creating a new duchy out of the city and leaving the duke/duchess high and dry, politically speaking, is your best option.
That still does not solve the problem of the lordless rural, attached to the duchy.
-
Elect one. Or wait til the duke autopauses or wakes up.
-
Elect one. Or wait til the duke autopauses or wakes up.
We've waited more than a month so far. Haven't even gotten the inactivity warning yet. So I doubt an autopause. An election, maybe.
-
Once you start actively working against your duke, you may get their attention and wake them up. But start doing *something*, even if it's not the perfect thing.
-
I did say many, not any. And if they're in Sorraine, I don't think they'll be willing to help out Kindara, somehow.
You know how Zonasa likes to project this image of being all pure and honorable, and that none of their nobles would ever do anything of that nature?
You know how Zonasa lies?
Yeah.
-
You know how Zonasa likes to project this image of being all pure and honorable
Hah, don't worry. Nobody believes that. :P
And I still don't believe we're at the "put a knife in her" stage yet.
-
Hah, don't worry. Nobody believes that. :P
And I still don't believe we're at the "put a knife in her" stage yet.
Well, Alpha would. Since the trinity died Osaliel is an OotE city, and she's damaging the war effort. Doesn't have any infils though.
-
Hah, don't worry. Nobody believes that. :P
Some Zonasans do.
-
Hah, don't worry. Nobody believes that. :P
And I still don't believe we're at the "put a knife in her" stage yet.
...forget knife for now.
read about the election bit that's been said quite a few times already?
and get the king to whack up tax to max... if it's a single duchy realm. how many city/towns have you got?
-
The problem is simple: it's harder to remove a Royal than a Ruler. The moment a Royal Duke has his position much safer than the King you know something is wrong.
-
that's not true.
a king/duke can only be booted from the ruler position. he is just as hard to boot from duke position. (and he gets to remain royal after the boot from king)
-
that's not true.
a king/duke can only be booted from the ruler position. he is just as hard to boot from duke position. (and he gets to remain royal after the boot from king)
Thats his point its easier to keep your position of duke, especially a royal duke then it is to keep your rulership.
-
The problem is simple: it's harder to remove a Royal than a Ruler. The moment a Royal Duke has his position much safer than the King you know something is wrong.
Before the times of Absolute Rulers this was often the case. There were times were individual Dukes controlled more land and more troops then the Rulers to whom they were pledged.
-
well.. the only thing one can say is that the position of dukes is currently an anomaly in that the only way to get the position is via appointment.
as opposed to having auto-referendum like lords too.
otherwise.. it's not all that different from comparing ruler and royal lords, in that you have to go through the hoops to get at him.
-
I have a feeling I'm going to have to utilise Malos' status as a Diplomat to deal with this Duchess. ICly he holds no ties to her unlike Velax does as an example, and also he can't use his status as a Priest to do it - the CoH doesn't use religion as a weapon. At least not yet.
Besides, he needs to oversee the expansion of the faith down South anyway. Pity that I'm going away on vacation for a week as of tomorrow..
-
I have a feeling I'm going to have to utilise Malos' status as a Diplomat to deal with this Duchess. ICly he holds no ties to her unlike Velax does as an example, and also he can't use his status as a Priest to do it - the CoH doesn't use religion as a weapon. At least not yet.
Besides, he needs to oversee the expansion of the faith down South anyway. Pity that I'm going away on vacation for a week as of tomorrow..
She's out now. We just need a way to appoint lords.
-
She's out now. We just need a way to appoint lords.
So she is. Hmm. Plus during wartime it may be more prudent to stay put in Azros when it's practically a front-line city in case battles break out.
-
She's still Duchess. We'll have to change it so lords are elected, and then the Sozon lord can change duchies.