Author Topic: Titan decision enforcement: what's acceptable?  (Read 5469 times)

trying

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Titan decision enforcement: what's acceptable?
« Reply #15: November 21, 2014, 06:47:01 AM »
When you're the only one running one vote is all you need to win. 

I forgot about one part of what I do that is not completely unnecessary, managing food distribution. If you want more food coming out of a region there's no way a banker can set 50% rations.

As for just letting unlorded regions go rogue, they won't do that on their own.

Eldargard

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 499
    • View Profile
Re: Titan decision enforcement: what's acceptable?
« Reply #16: November 21, 2014, 01:28:00 PM »
If a single character repeatedly leaving the lordship of one region for another over a short span of time is undesirable, then perhaps some kind of mechanic should be placed to support this. I can think of a number of potential options:

* A noble that voluntary abandons a lordship (even if it is to accept an election or appointments), loses some prestige.
* A noble that voluntary abandons a lordship (even if it is to accept an election or appointments), is unable to become lord of their old region for XX days (a long time).
* A noble that voluntary abandons a lordship (even if it is to accept an election or appointments), gains flaky points and a noble with lots of flaky points is more likely to have a region they control rebel against them.
* A noble that voluntary abandons a lordship (even if it is to accept an election or appointments), gains flaky points. Flaky points reduce the amount of food/gold produced by any region under that nobles control.
* When a noble voluntary abandons a lordship (even if it is to accept an election or appointments), their old region becomes less productive for a while.

Putting something like one of the above in place would surely deter nobles from region hopping and if region hopping really is such a bad thing, then it is probably worth the effort to  disincentivize such behavior!

vonGenf

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Titan decision enforcement: what's acceptable?
« Reply #17: November 21, 2014, 02:15:08 PM »
What we're talking about is: "I switch lordship everyday."

It's not every day, nor every other day.

But that's the whole point, right? How long should he have to wait before it's ok to run in another election? And if there's a time limit, then why is it not made explicit?


Honor loss does not apply when you lose the region due to being elected to a new region. It should. That would stop such blatant abuses.

I agree with that and/or Scarborn's suggestions. It's always better to align the game mechanics with your actual objective in running the game.
After all it's a roleplaying game.

Indirik

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 10849
  • No pressure, no diamonds.
    • View Profile
Re: Titan decision enforcement: what's acceptable?
« Reply #18: November 21, 2014, 02:42:25 PM »
How long should he have to wait before it's ok to run in another election? And if there's a time limit, then why is it not made explicit?
There is no specific time limit. It cannot be encoded into mechanics due to the complexity of the game, and the varying nature of why people do things.

Time is not the issue. It's the intent. If you are taking a lordship with the intent of holding it a few days and then moving on, and doing that repeatedly, then what you are doing is self-evidently wrong. There is no possible way to justify what you are doing in any IC/IG context.

The concern brought up here is not one of a lord who just got a region moving on to a better one. It is a case of one noble (Or perhaps a few? I don't play in Rio.) intentionally running round-robin through lordships, repeatedly, with absolutely no intention of holding any of them more than a day or two. Hell, even intentionally holding them for one week and then moving on, repeatedly is in no way acceptable. As I said earlier, there is no mechanic/rule implemented to handle this because at the time these rules/mechanics were written, such a situation would have been unimaginable. The only thing that makes it possible is realms having ridiculous amounts more regions than they could possibly support. It should not be possible, long-term, for a realm to maintain more regions than they have nobles. Having 20 nobles and 29 regions is simply ridiculous, and only possible due to the severely depopulated nature of BT.

Quote
I agree with that and/or Scarborn's suggestions. It's always better to align the game mechanics with your actual objective in running the game.
Anaris has already stated in another thread that this is something that needs fixed/implemented.
If at first you don't succeed, don't take up skydiving.

trying

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Titan decision enforcement: what's acceptable?
« Reply #19: November 21, 2014, 06:21:11 PM »
Then perhaps BT should be further shrunk.

Indirik

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 10849
  • No pressure, no diamonds.
    • View Profile
Re: Titan decision enforcement: what's acceptable?
« Reply #20: November 21, 2014, 06:44:03 PM »
BT is in a particularly bad situation. The geography that resulted at the end of the last invasion left the island pretty mangled. Rio's position and geography gave it a nearly insurmountable dominance in the region. The area it is in now used to encompass four realms, and part of a fifth. That dominance in the south leads to a particularly bad situation for Rio, in that they have no competition. They overshadow the south, leading to stagnation. The north, particularly the north-east, has a much higher density, and thus, that's where the action is.
If at first you don't succeed, don't take up skydiving.