BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Vita` on October 06, 2016, 10:33:47 PM
-
What other lord actions could reasonably be extended to a steward?
I'll start it off with...repairing and building fortifications.
-
Not sure about building, but 100% agree with repairing.
Actually, I see stewards as managers who can maintain the region in lord's absence but should not be able to make big decisions. Like they should be able to buy food, draft and recruit troops, repair walls, fill the bounty pots and hold courts. But no bulding anything, no changing taxation settings, no estate actions, etc.
-
Drafting can have serious consequences and recruiting militia can put a heavy dent on the region's income, so I'd be less encouraged towards those. Definitely agree about no taxation, estate changes, or new buildings. Maybe guilds and temples though? Not sure.
Courts should probably stay lords-only too. Judges already have the ability to hold courts and if anyone else were to gain that court-holding ability, I think it should be dukes before stewards; I don't think we need to increase court-holders at all. Though if it were, maybe the risk of court failing from upset crowd might be increased for anyone besides the lord. Stewards because of 'not enough authority', judges and dukes because 'too removed from the region'. Sorry, I tangented...
-
Stewards should be able to steal tax gold like bankers XD
I agree with being able to build guilds but not temples.
-
If we add advantages to stewards I think we should add some potential risks as well.
-
Holding Courts would be nice
-
This is an old one but I have some thoughts. For a while I've had the idea that lords should be able to delegate more powers to knights with specific titles. The Steward currently controls food. Other powers could go to other roles, for example:
Region Judge: Can Hold Court
Captain of the Guard: Can recruit and disband militia
Master Mason: Can upgrade and repair fortifications possible all buildings
This would be a great way for newer players with knights to learn the ins and outs of some of the mechanics. It will drive interaction between knights and their lords, and create potential for intrigue and conflict.
-
I rather like this as a way to add to knight game but not give any one knight too much influence, especially as we put more emphasis on density and discouraging a lord per region/everyone-a-lord. I would note that each role should be unique to a knight, a knight can't have multiple roles.
-
Definitely one role per knight.
-
I'm afraid we currently do not have enough knights per region for such functionality to be very useful?
Unless y'all start recruiting your friends, family, people in the street,.. to BattleMaster, which we highly encourage you to do ;)
-
I'm afraid we currently do not have enough knights per region for such functionality to be very useful?
Unless y'all start recruiting your friends, family, people in the street,.. to BattleMaster, which we highly encourage you to do ;)
We do in Dwilight, although I still try to recruit players whenever I can.
-
Stewards should be able to steal tax gold like bankers XD
I agree with being able to build guilds but not temples.
This! That way bankers can get away with it :p
-
Changing armies for the knights!
It is a chore for the region lord and something to do for a steward. When region lord is semi-inactive for some period of time then a steward could very well prevent the knights from suffering from such inactivity.
And it makes perfect sense!
-
I'm resurrecting this thread since it was referenced in response to my call for new "knight game" updates. I've read over this thread again and I want to point out a couple things.
First, the fact that one of these mechanics if misused by an incompetent or malicious steward could harm a reason is not a downside. Yes it's a downside for the lord, but not for the game. The chance for tangible consequences means more meaningful conflict and more player to player interaction.
As it stands the steward already has more power to harm a region than any of these other proposals might give them. Since they are able to buy and sell food they can starve a region. This can be far more detrimental than hiring too many militia. As for building too many buildings I doubt that could even be achieved since a knight wont have the personal funds for it. As it stands I'm yet to hear of a single example of a steward griefing by destroying a region through starvation nor doing so through incompetence. If that hasn't happened why should we be concerned about anything along those lines with construction or militia?
If we're considering letting stewards construct guilds I don't see any reason they should be barred from constructing temples, or at least shrines as well. Again the name of the game is encouraging p2p. Two religions in a region means potential meaningful conflict with the possibility of meaningful consequences. This is what we want, players waring and dueling and politicking over tangible character motivations. Once again I don't buy for a second that this practice could lead to bankrupting a religion whether through griefing or just reckless spamming of temples. Shrines cost at most 2 gold on tax day, Sanguis Astroism has dozens of them. Church of Aaron had about ten before I died, a number equal to the total nobles. So a religion can easily sustain one or two shrines per knight. Shrine spamming is already prevented by the escalating cost of building more than one per region. I just built a second shrine in Golden Farrow, a third would cost me 250 gold. That's a good three weeks wages for your typical knight, and after that it gets even more expensive. I don't see the average steward even caring to build more than one maybe two shrines. Temples are already restricted to one per region, small temples also cost very little and expanding them requires an elder priest.
I'm in favor of a court ability as well. It has the advantage that it not only gives knights more to do but lets newbies learn the mechanics of lordship before they have one of their own. The idea that they might be less effective when conducted by a knight seems reasonable to me. I don't think Dukes are a better candidate for this for the simple reason that Dukes already have plenty to do. Holding court in any region is a minor ability for the realm judge compared to their more important duty of enforcing laws for nobles and dealing with prisoners. So it doesn't meaningfully take away from the judge for more nobles to have this same authority.
Here's another one, let stewards add to the monster and undead bounties.
-
I am actually against allowing stewards to build temples. It would be weird to have a steward that follows a different faith than that of his lord.
-
Stewards being able to harm the region just reduces the odds of people being made stewards.
And I disagree that this game needs more functions to !@#$ with one's own realm. We have enough of those, let's get back to the "realm as a team" spirit please.
-
I am actually against allowing stewards to build temples. It would be weird to have a steward that follows a different faith than that of his lord.
Well they can already follow a different faith. It doesn't seem weird to me that a lord might permit his vassal of another faith to build a shrine or temple to worship at, provided the lord's religion is a tolerant one, or at least that lord has a tolerant attitude towards his religion.
I think that sort of situation is exactly what we need more of, consequential decisions that concern relationships between players. There are so many ways this can create new intrigue and conflict.
-
Stewards being able to harm the region just reduces the odds of people being made stewards.
And I disagree that this game needs more functions to !@#$ with one's own realm. We have enough of those, let's get back to the "realm as a team" spirit please.
If that's the case we should get rid of the food trading ability and switch to the other ones because it's by far the one with the most potential to destroy a region. However I reiterate, we don't see that happening. I've never seen it happen even once. The closest is, and this is still just a suspicion, I'm pretty sure someone sold off a ton of Astrum's food during the war with Niselur, resulting in mass starvation. However that wasn't a steward and may have been the banker himself.
"Realm as a team" is one thing, "realm as a bunch of best friends" is another. You can have rivalries within a team. In fact you can have teams in which one team mate sabotages another to advance. They may even do this because they think it's in the best interest of the team, after all they're better than that other teammate. I always appreciate this sort of intrigue.
If people are reluctant to give out stewardships then it should be incentivized. This could be as simple as just making sure newbies know stewardships are a thing. I think most knights will want one and will ask their lords for one. If the lord doesn't deliver they might just leave for another lord who will.
Also if we make one that can refill the monster and undead bounties they should be called "Master of Hunt" - (yes I have been playing Crusader Kings II why do you ask?)
-
Also if we make one that can refill the monster and undead bounties they should be called "Master of Hunt" - (yes I have been playing Crusader Kings II why do you ask?)
Stewards can already refill the bounty pots on DWI.
-
I wish filling bounties was automatic. It is so annoying to do it manually.
-
There are a number of things I'd like to give Lords the option to fill automatically from taxes; this is one of them.
-
There are a number of things I'd like to give Lords the option to fill automatically from taxes; this is one of them.
<3
-
That would be nice. :)