Author Topic: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership  (Read 9522 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Elmokki

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 192
  • Infamy: 18
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: United democratic national whatever
  • Game nicks: elmokki_Krokotiili
  • IRC nick: Elmokki
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #45 on: November 25, 2011, 03:10:06 pm »
0
Fief ownership needs to be very beneficial. If not in anything else, then in strategus gold. Seriously, taxing a few thousand people and traders should be worth considerably compared to what a single player can do to make money.

Offline Vibe

  • Vibrator
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2528
  • Infamy: 615
  • cRPG Player Madam White Queen A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #46 on: November 25, 2011, 03:19:06 pm »
0
Why not dividing this bonus by the number of people in the faction.
So small faction owning a lot of fief will get more rewarded than big faction owning one fief.

This gave me an idea. If you insist on making this bonus cRPG related.

Every fief you own gives you a certain amount of gold/xp that is then divided by the number of people in your faction and given to each member.

Offline Kalp

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 750
  • Infamy: 253
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Form ranks, you maggots!
    • View Profile
    • Kahhhaaargaar!!! Uuurrr!!!
  • Faction: Grey Order
  • Game nicks: Kalp_the_Grey
  • IRC nick: Kalp
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #47 on: November 25, 2011, 03:24:24 pm »
+1
Quote
Every fief you own gives you a certain amount of gold/xp that is then divided by the number of people in your faction and given to each member.
If any member is lazy on Strategus or cRPG or both then he should not deserve a bonus...
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The goal of Strategus battles shouldnt be to deprive your enemies of players, but to have full roster both sides and have the gear/tactics/strategy win the day rather than lack of merc support.

Offline Vibe

  • Vibrator
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2528
  • Infamy: 615
  • cRPG Player Madam White Queen A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #48 on: November 25, 2011, 03:27:10 pm »
0
Then give faction leaders the option to uncheck who gets paid/xp-ed.

Offline 22nd_King_Plazek

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 87
  • Infamy: 57
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #49 on: November 25, 2011, 03:34:58 pm »
0
I dont get why so many think this is such a big deal.

Communists.  :rolleyes:

Offline chadz

  • The lazy
  • Supreme Overlord
  • *******
  • Renown: 3188
  • Infamy: 724
  • Sir Black King A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: irc://
  • IRC nick: chadz
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #50 on: November 25, 2011, 03:52:51 pm »
+3
This gave me an idea. If you insist on making this bonus cRPG related.

Every fief you own gives you a certain amount of gold/xp that is then divided by the number of people in your faction and given to each member.

I still don't think you get why this is getting introduced. The point is that the bonus is awarded to one person. Just one. So people want it for themselves. Not a group. Just one person. The fun thing is that it's not shareable. So if you have a big faction with few fiefs, this might cause internal trouble. Probably not right away. But sooner or later, people will ask why they can't get a fief for themselves. Why the clan leader gets 100k xp for free every day, and the 2nd one doesn't. If you really need this big alliance with 8 factions. If you wouldn't gain a larger advantage if you just kill the weaker factions and have an alliance with 4. Because then you could give half of your members a fief, and more of your clan would profit. Or you could stack it on yourself and have a char that basically retires by itself.

Doing some communist thing here is exactly the wrong approach. I don't give cRPG bonus because I feel that's the correct way to do it. I want to give a cRPG bonus because people are more attached to their cRPG char than what they have with their strategus char. When was the last time you gave away strat-goods to a clan member without any kind of refunding. And when was the last time you gave away an heirloom without any kind of refunding. Now you know why I want to make the reward based on cRPG.

This is just one step, maybe it suffices, maybe not. It might just be the start.

Offline Dezilagel

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 722
  • Infamy: 209
  • cRPG Player
  • (X) probably goes well with Nutella
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Guards, Guards!
  • Game nicks: Dezi_the_Bagel
  • IRC nick: Dezilagel
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #51 on: November 25, 2011, 03:55:31 pm »
0
I like.

Make sure it's significant, and this will surely cause some sweet, sweet drama.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Quote from: Rumblood
You fuck, or you get fucked.
Valour Multghulis - All Krems Must Die

Offline Paul

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Renown: 1879
  • Infamy: 442
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • ball bounce boss
    • View Profile
  • IRC nick: Urist
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #52 on: November 25, 2011, 03:55:59 pm »
0
I have no problem with fighting for King Plazek and his absolutistic fief benefits as long as I get my cabbage soup.

Offline Overdriven

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 828
  • Infamy: 223
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Pawn
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Great Khans
  • Game nicks: GK_Overdriven
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #53 on: November 25, 2011, 03:57:59 pm »
0
Does anyone really care about crpg xp/gold that much to go to war over it? I know I don't  :| Kinda takes away from the fun of levelling through playing in my opinion.

Honestly I doubt this is going to change a damn thing. Most clans have pretty clear leadership structures, so it will be bloody obvious who get's the fiefs and who doesn't and people won't question it. This is more likely to hurt smaller clans who have much more open leadership and even then, only at a stretch. But regardless, carebare alliances are going to stay and people aren't going to start in fighting over this.

But I see chadz says this is possibly only the first of more changes, so we shall have to see...
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 04:00:38 pm by Overdriven »

Offline Dalhi

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 415
  • Infamy: 39
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Pawn A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Dalhi
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #54 on: November 25, 2011, 04:12:31 pm »
0
And when was the last time you gave away an heirloom without any kind of refunding.

Not so long time ago I gave to one of my clan mates 1,6 mln gold. Also I "donated" bank with one masterwork item (that one hurts  :cry:) and it was never reverted. Comparing it to this symbolic bonus it is really meaningless, and I strongly doubt that someone will care about it so much that it'll lead to conflicts between allies, or even within your own faction. There is to much to loose.
To be honest I'd let all our members to sell 20% goods produced by them to sell it for cRPG gold, that would insist on those bastards to pay more attention of their deeds in strategus. But I'm not a faction leader so it won't going to happen  :mrgreen:
I'm looking forward to see more of this kind of changes, I'm curious how it will work out.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 04:16:55 pm by Dalhi »

Offline Tristan

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 200
  • Infamy: 52
  • cRPG Player
  • Listen to wisdom!
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Caravan Guild (Guards)
  • Game nicks: Guard_Tristan
  • IRC nick: Guard_Tristan
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #55 on: November 25, 2011, 04:14:41 pm »
0
It'll only cause the complete destruction of the small clans and only larger meta alliances have a chance.
That will result in more blok war less small fights, not imo what we want.

Why?

Because of the massive discrepancy in power of the current strat between the factions.
Currently larger alliances have, if not a good reason, then some lesser ones for rpg purposes to keep friendly with smaller clans allowing them fiefs.
With this implemented those clans who have the ability to take land for themselves will do so. In effect, drz will now not stop in the desert but take all of EU because they can and they get a bonus.

Hre/Fallen might be able to stop some of it, but they again aren't interested in supporting smaller claims. Why? Because you can have it for yourselves.

But but but...

I am giving a lord a bonus so they will fight...

really? you think so? Nope...

You will only hand out a bonus to the largest clans, removing med/smaller clans, give the large clans a bonus doing so while they internally retain a way to figure out who should receive the bonus.

All in all

Bye bye small clans, nice playing strat with you.
Welcome to a game between powerblocks.

I must say... I don't like the idea at all.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 04:16:27 pm by Aemaelius »
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened his mouth.

Offline chadz

  • The lazy
  • Supreme Overlord
  • *******
  • Renown: 3188
  • Infamy: 724
  • Sir Black King A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: irc://
  • IRC nick: chadz
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #56 on: November 25, 2011, 04:17:20 pm »
0
If the only thing that keeps factions from conquering the entire country or large parts of it is the goodwill of those factions, then that's a problem with the game balance itself, and needs to be adressed seperately.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 04:18:30 pm by chadz »

Offline 22nd_King_Plazek

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 87
  • Infamy: 57
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #57 on: November 25, 2011, 04:18:04 pm »
+1
DRZ can take over the whole EU map half  :lol:

No disrespect to DRZ they are a great clan but seriously. You need to put your tin foil hat on quick Aemaelius!

Offline Teeth

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2550
  • Infamy: 1057
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #58 on: November 25, 2011, 04:49:59 pm »
0
I am convinced. Implement this! Would be epic if someone gets so pissed about not receiving a fief that he starts a rebellion, you know, singeplayer style.

Offline Turboflex

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 648
  • Infamy: 212
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Ravens of Valhalla
Re: Controverse suggestion: fief ownership
« Reply #59 on: November 25, 2011, 05:10:43 pm »
0
Small clans are still a factor...Even for a large clan, having small clan allies who are able to bring 5-10 more fighters to battle on your side, and being organized logistically to be able fund battles on their own still matters in a war. That is not insignificant contribution, and you have to treat them properly with gold, fiefs or whatever in exchange for this help.

Personally I don't see the problem with chadz' logic that this sort of thing will sew some chaos internally in clans. This will incite the human factors of greed and jealously and will undermine relationships in some cases. This sort of thing (greed for land titles) caused A LOT of conflict in European history, no reason it can't work in strategus.