Retention Revisited

[vonGenf]

The problem I still find with the blades is that the price of blades is too elastic. If you have enough blades per region the benefit of further blades falls pretty quickly, and taking knights then becomes grudging charity ("is there anyone who can take in these new knights?), and I don't think new players getting money from charity is good.

Which realm is that? All the places I am currently playing in have a pressing need for nobles.

In addition the game treats oath offers as 'srs bsns', pledging your allegiance forevernever etc, and being shoehorned into one to even start getting money as you get in to the game is pretty annoying.

True; I think a better entrance guide is a better idea than to force general handouts. If the game tells you straight out "Your first oath should net you at least 40 gold/week", then you will know what to expect.

[LilWolf]

CTOs, imo, should absolutely be easier to do.

The problem with CTOs is that you essentially need an city for it. And we all know cities are pretty darn tough to get into an situation where you're free to even attempt a normal TO, let alone a colony. Even then, it demands a lot of military power.

Now, back when colony takeovers were introduced you could actually start one in any region you wanted. That made starting one quite a bit easier since you didn't actually have to break through level 5 walls and defeat a bunch of militia and your enemies whole army. I'm not saying that's where we should return necessarily, but perhaps it should be considered whether CTO in townslands/rich mountain regions should be allowed. Quite a few of them are as or close to as rich as the smaller cities we have and could thus easily provide a solid enough start for a new realm. Once the colony gets its first city/stronghold maybe have the peasants demand the capital be moved to the more secure location to discourage keeping the capital in the townsland forever to keep access to the extra bank.

Sure, the colony would probably need a bit more long term support if not started in an city, but the initial effort would be less. At least the choice would be the players to make. Besides, even failed colonies would add to the game.

[Kai]

Which realm is that? All the places I am currently playing in have a pressing need for nobles.

Sirion, Oritolon, Greater Aenilia. GA could use nobles, but to fight rather than region upkeep. Sirion, maybe but only because their war ended and have lost 1/5 nobles in the past few months and even then only a few.

[Peri]

Sirion, Oritolon, Greater Aenilia. GA could use nobles, but to fight rather than region upkeep. Sirion, maybe but only because their war ended and have lost 1/5 nobles in the past few months and even then only a few.

There has definitely been a period where every region in Sirion had more than enough knights, and it was almost difficult to find place for new ones. Such an overcrowding led to amazing military performances, though. Now I wouldn't say there are too few knights in Sirion but certainly it's a whole different story.

[Kai]

There has definitely been a period where every region in Sirion had more than enough knights, and it was almost difficult to find place for new ones. Such an overcrowding led to amazing military performances, though. Now I wouldn't say there are too few knights in Sirion but certainly it's a whole different story.

Yeah I came in just as they started to win decisively, and ended up having to beg for gold wihle knighting in a contested region (Montijo) for months.

Whats more the larger realms where this is common are often the most attractive for new players (unfortunate). At the same time these large realms also tend to have many battles (favourable). No matter what size realm a player joins there are problems (a difficult problem).

[egamma]

Which realm is that? All the places I am currently playing in have a pressing need for nobles.

Giblot has been "full" several times, especially when we lose a region. Losing a region means that you have to find 3-4 estates at the same time.

[Silverfire]

Giblot has been "full" several times, especially when we lose a region. Losing a region means that you have to find 3-4 estates at the same time.

This is just absolutely amazing to me, as I'm duke in a realm where I can gladly offer an oath share of 100 gold per week or more to any knight that joins my duchy even if no other lord in the realm wanted to take on another knight. Not to mention, that nearly every single region in my realm needs 1-2 more knights, just to reach estate support. (with the exception of the two cities).

[egamma]

This is just absolutely amazing to me, as I'm duke in a realm where I can gladly offer an oath share of 100 gold per week or more to any knight that joins my duchy even if no other lord in the realm wanted to take on another knight. Not to mention, that nearly every single region in my realm needs 1-2 more knights, just to reach estate support. (with the exception of the two cities).

Well, do the math on how many nobles we can sustain, assuming a 10% tax rate and 50 gold per noble if able:
Briarull weekly income: 137 (3)
Wirkfyr weekly income: 137 (3)
Dalverdy weekly income: 140 (3)
Ammersfield weekly income: 147 (3)
Dregna: 228 (4, but this income was rogue two days ago so production is terrible)
So that's 16 nobles, out of 25 currently in realm.
Giblot weekly income: 790, which in theory is 15...

So... we could support another 5 knights, but we certainly don't need any more knights.

[De-Legro]

Well, do the math on how many nobles we can sustain, assuming a 10% tax rate and 50 gold per noble if able:
Briarull weekly income: 137 (3)
Wirkfyr weekly income: 137 (3)
Dalverdy weekly income: 140 (3)
Ammersfield weekly income: 147 (3)
Dregna: 228 (4, but this income was rogue two days ago so production is terrible)
So that's 16 nobles, out of 25 currently in realm.
Giblot weekly income: 790, which in theory is 15...

So... we could support another 5 knights, but we certainly don't need any more knights.

You actually give 50 gold to each knight though? In my experience most realms only average 20-30 gold per knight. Also it is possible to run cities much higher then 10%, my townsland on Dwilight is running at 15% without any problems itself, the city runs higher again but requires some attention to maintain at that level.

[egamma]

You actually give 50 gold to each knight though? In my experience most realms only average 20-30 gold per knight. Also it is possible to run cities much higher then 10%, my townsland on Dwilight is running at 15% without any problems itself, the city runs higher again but requires some attention to maintain at that level.

I just gave you base numbers, 10% tax rate, 100% production, 7 day tax collection period. Some of those regions have only 2 knights, and could support a third; others have 3 knights and really should get rid of one. And our priestess certainly doesn't need much gold.

The point is, we don't "need" more knights. So there are indeed realms that don't "need" knights for full coverage.

On the other hand, the other 3 realms I'm playing in do have a need for knights to varying degrees.

[De-Legro]

I just gave you base numbers, 10% tax rate, 100% production, 7 day tax collection period. Some of those regions have only 2 knights, and could support a third; others have 3 knights and really should get rid of one. And our priestess certainly doesn't need much gold.

The point is, we don't "need" more knights. So there are indeed realms that don't "need" knights for full coverage.

On the other hand, the other 3 realms I'm playing in do have a need for knights to varying degrees.

You don't need more knights in terms of estate coverage, but more knights is always great for the military. Remember 2 knights with 20 troops are generally better then 1 knight with 40 troops.

[Kai]

Some people have easy enough knights some people not enough some people too much I think this is because the number of required knights is too narrowly fixed, at just over 100% estate for every region in the realm. Marginal benefit of another knight drops too fast. There is small range of perfect number and not much room to move.

Tweaking the exact number is not the solution instead it is to make number of knights more elastic.

[Anaris]

Some people have easy enough knights some people not enough some people too much I think this is because the number of required knights is too narrowly fixed, at just over 100% estate for every region in the realm. Marginal benefit of another knight drops too fast. There is small range of perfect number and not much room to move.

Tweaking the exact number is not the solution instead it is to make number of knights more elastic.

This is exactly correct, and is part of what the new estate system is intended to do.

[Miriam Ics]

Things that seem to have agreement as "good ideas" from this thread:
1. Easier CTOs
2. Newbie survey
3. Some kind of improved gameplay guide, maybe a YouTube video
4. Access to the previous 7 days letters in a realm a new character joins

I miss anything?

I still think that the first place a newbie arrive is crucial.
I would like to suggest that, newbies that arrive by friends invitation, could access the actual login page, choose a region, a realm, etc.
When a new player arrive by any other ways, I think they should be directed to a realm like that have gold, have action, and this can probably be evaluated by the newbie survey.

[Chenier]

You don't need more knights in terms of estate coverage, but more knights is always great for the military. Remember 2 knights with 20 troops are generally better then 1 knight with 40 troops.

Except that the gain in this case in realm-wide, while the cost is very much local. The realm has great incentives to accept new knights all the time, but the ones who can actually offer them oaths, the lords themselves, don't. The gain on estates is marginal, so they are just throwing their gold away out of charity.