Misc Rule Changes Poll

**TinCow** · 05-06-2008, 17:28

The branching structure is definitely less stable, not more. The added stability comes from the time-in-rank and cool-down rules, not the branching structure.

**Ramses II CP** · 05-06-2008, 17:36

Precisely, the poll resulted in a total of more stability and more complexity, which was my point. If we'd only adopted the branching it would've been a net negative in stability.

**_Tristan_** · 05-06-2008, 17:39

My main gripe with the branching system is that it requires much more players, thus probably concentrating the power into two or three "chains" at the max whre I would prefer smaller and more numerous "chains" to compete for prevalence...

**Privateerkev** · 05-06-2008, 17:47

Originally Posted by TinCow

The branching structure is definitely less stable, not more. The added stability comes from the time-in-rank and cool-down rules, not the branching structure.

Ah ok, I guess I assumed that those who voted for change 2 did it for the perceived stability of branches but upon further thought, they probably did it to make the higher ranks harder to get.

I'd argue that things are now less stable overall. The time-in-rank and cool-down don't do enough to balance out the fact that you now need more people to hit higher ranks and that one person can still drop you if your at the top.

My beef with change 2 is not the increased instability because I like a little instability. But like Tristan, I don't like that it requires more people. We'll probably average around 20 players at any given time and if you want to be a Grand Duke, you'd pretty much have to get half of them to join you.

**_Tristan_** · 05-06-2008, 17:55

Yes, the way I see it as it stands and unless we suddenly get a bigger player basis, is that we will either have one large house and one fighting to take its place or multiple small houses all competing together with no true hope of having access to higher ranks...

But if we can get 50+ players in, then no problemo...

**Privateerkev** · 05-06-2008, 18:02

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

Yes, the way I see it as it stands and unless we suddenly get a bigger player basis, is that we will either have one large house and one fighting to take its place or multiple small houses all competing together with no true hope of having access to higher ranks...

But if we can get 50+ players in, then no problemo...

Yeah I noticed in KotR that 20 seemed to be the "sweet" spot. If it's less, things drag a little and seem quiet. If it's more, then we run into logistical problems with lots of battles and lots of savegame traffic jams.

I'm not saying more people wouldn't be fun, but it does cause its own set of problems.

So I think the House structure will be as you predicted. One big one and then maybe one almost-as-big one or just a few little ones.

**TinCow** · 05-06-2008, 18:45

For the record, this game needs more than 20 people to run well. I hope to recruit around 30 to start off and I would hope that we could expand to upwards of 40. 20 people is too few for any serious interplayer competition under the current rule set. This is specifically designed to accomodate far more players than KOTR.

**Zim** · 05-06-2008, 19:12

I have to echo PK's concern that both rules 2 and 3 had passed. I think either of them alone would have solved the problem by themselves.

I think a lot hinges on how many players join. With no disrespect meant to Tincow's hopes to get a lot of people in, I see 20 or so "active" players as being a likely average, as in KOTR. In that case rule 2 might limit the number of viable Houses if anyone wants to make it to Grand Duke. If we can get 30-40 as Tincow hopes the new rules changes will probably work fine.

**Privateerkev** · 05-06-2008, 19:24

I seriously doubt we'll get 40 people. I doubt we'll even get 30 active people. I think we might hover around 20 active people at any one time. More than that and we'll be able to accomadate them up to a point by expanding the time limits.

But I fear we will reach "critical mass" at a certain point. If we get a lot of people, I think many of them will just be empty province holders for a period of time. Which is good that we have the inactivity limit for Baronets but we might want to consider expanding it in the future.

I'm not against a big game or anything. I just doubt that we could comfortably accomodate 40+ people without something giving.

**Ramses II CP** · 05-06-2008, 17:59

I'd argue just the opposite, given that higher ranks are going to be extremely rare what we've done is make 1% of the system slightly less stable, while the 99% below the double rank requirement is vastly more stable.

Plus the coordination required to get that double rank is going to incorporate it's own inherent stability and momentum. Technically people could, if they're willing to risk Civil War, X turns without being able to move up in rank, and X turns without being able to alter their oath again, knock a top rank off, but who below that rank is going to have the type of incentives to provide that would make it likely? We can rest assured there won't be two Grand Dukes in the game, so if you're trying to prevent someone from becoming a Grand Duke (Or etc.) you have to offer their vassals something more than the Grand Duke's new powers can, which is... what? More land I suppose, if it's someone greedy, but certainly not more power.