Author Topic: Rage Quit  (Read 10368 times)

feyeleanor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
  • Karma: +7/-3
    • View Profile
    • Clan Dubhaine
Re: Rage Quit
« Reply #30 on: June 14, 2014, 03:16:18 PM »
I'm thinking about this very much these days.

Here's my latest idea: Like I said elsewhere, two "ownerships": De-facto and de-jure. Make it easy to become de-facto owner, but very, very difficult to become de-jure owner without the current ones cooperation. It should be possible (to combat inactives and people just refusing out of spite), but it should be really slow. Like one real-world week slow at the least.

The idea is that you can take land under control fairly quickly, but to actually make it part of your realm, that takes a lot longer.


The idea I had was that core ownership changes very slowly - maybe on the order of months and certainly in proportion to duration of occupation. In the meantime it'd be necessary to station troops - or even better, characters - in the settlement to maintain de facto control. And whilst core ownership was more with the original realm then the moment the settlement was no longer occupied it would revert to its former allegiance.


And I'd make the rate of change in core ownership dependent on how the settlement is treated. So abandoning infrastructure or starving the population would reduce the rate of change.


This would make the TO and abandon tactic fundamentally useless and also provide a natural throttle on the advance of invading armies by requiring them to drop off garrisons if they want to hold territory.


For a little more sophistication there could also be a fear factor for each realm that's occupied a settlement, with higher levels of fear allowing it to be unoccupied a little longer without losing de facto control but at the same time further suppressing the rate of core allegiance change.

feyeleanor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
  • Karma: +7/-3
    • View Profile
    • Clan Dubhaine
Re: Rage Quit
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2014, 03:32:13 PM »
the fact that there is very little to do apart from raise settlements + armies means if people lose their armies / settlements, it's like "game over" for them.
unless there is good things for non landed players to do, they will leave.


Dungeons might help with that, but there's also another option: allow characters to establish estates and fortifications as features on the map which others can occupy and maintain both a garrison and a population, with a modest level of production that the occupier can trade or use for building improvements from a parallel tree to that used for settlements. I'm thinking things like monasteries, tithe barns, keeps, herbalists, forges, styes, milk sheds, stone walls, towers, etc.


Recruitment would still happen at the settlement but perhaps the caps could be raised a little for each estate, and trade could be constrained to neighbouring settlements with a market place.

feyeleanor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
  • Karma: +7/-3
    • View Profile
    • Clan Dubhaine
Re: Rage Quit
« Reply #32 on: June 15, 2014, 04:26:10 AM »
I've decided to give the game another go as a casual player until my account credit's exhausted to see if the culture changes.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3144
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Rage Quit
« Reply #33 on: June 15, 2014, 05:40:26 AM »

The idea I had was that core ownership changes very slowly - maybe on the order of months and certainly in proportion to duration of occupation. In the meantime it'd be necessary to station troops - or even better, characters - in the settlement to maintain de facto control. And whilst core ownership was more with the original realm then the moment the settlement was no longer occupied it would revert to its former allegiance.


And I'd make the rate of change in core ownership dependent on how the settlement is treated. So abandoning infrastructure or starving the population would reduce the rate of change.


This would make the TO and abandon tactic fundamentally useless and also provide a natural throttle on the advance of invading armies by requiring them to drop off garrisons if they want to hold territory.


For a little more sophistication there could also be a fear factor for each realm that's occupied a settlement, with higher levels of fear allowing it to be unoccupied a little longer without losing de facto control but at the same time further suppressing the rate of core allegiance change.

Something like a more advanced and longer lasting version of the unrest and control from BM?
He who was once known as Blackfyre

cenrae

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Rage Quit
« Reply #34 on: June 15, 2014, 08:54:25 AM »

Dungeons might help with that, but there's also another option: allow characters to establish estates and fortifications as features on the map which others can occupy and maintain both a garrison and a population, with a modest level of production that the occupier can trade or use for building improvements from a parallel tree to that used for settlements. I'm thinking things like monasteries, tithe barns, keeps, herbalists, forges, styes, milk sheds, stone walls, towers, etc.


Recruitment would still happen at the settlement but perhaps the caps could be raised a little for each estate, and trade could be constrained to neighbouring settlements with a market place.


This I think merits more thinking. Perhaps a character can recruit some "worker" entourage to build these features, use them to man the building or keep/return them. It would be great to see the map dotted with more locations that may or may not provide a feature to a character. This would also allow knights of a settlement to have something that is their own if they didnt have a settlement under their control.
Clan Skies | House Kye on BM

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Rage Quit
« Reply #35 on: June 15, 2014, 09:55:28 AM »
The game engine theoretically supports settlements at arbitrary locations, it could even theoretically recalculate region polygons.

But I won't do that. It adds tons of complications for too little in-game effect.