Misc Rule Changes Poll

[Privateerkev]

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.

[TinCow]

We've got 16 people just in the test game, and there are easily another 10 just sitting on the sidelines commenting in these threads without playing. That's 25+ without even doing much advertising. I think the probability of us starting with fewer than 30 people is essentially 0%. Sure, they may not all turn out to be very active, but that's just the starting number. More will join up later, and the game will be able to support an increasing number as it progresses anyway.

Activity will depend on how interested people are in the game. A lot of the late-game interest in KOTR was due to the general increase in traffic that the Throne Room started experiencing. Now, due in large part to the Hotseat games, it's a very active place. There are a lot of hotseat players who were not in KOTR, and all of them are 'active' because the Hotseat games require it in order to run properly. If we can drag a few of the Gameroom mafia fans in here as well, we could easily end up with 30 active people for a sustained period of time.

[AussieGiant]

Gentlemen,

Good discussions. Two general points about the rules and a third regarding participation.

It seems we've out done ourselves with rules 2 and 3.

* Taking a page from OK's book on practicality, lets not act as if these polls mean rules 2 and 3 are set in stone. We've found a few issues upon further investigation, so lets just have TC rebalance them by removing the branching structure altogether?

* I think we need to keep in mind that with these "time in rank" issues we have a "tracking" requirement.

Who is going to keep track of these in order to ensure the ranking structure works? Will it be one person in a centralised format (ie PK and his voting influence tracking system in KotR) or will it be a player requirement to keep track of your own situation...assuming of course no one makes a mistake and 20 years later a Duke should not have been a Duke because someone made a small error in the ranking rules? In the decentralised format you have to assume that all players understand the ranking rules entirely and make no errors.

* Total numbers I think will surprise us. As TC mentioned there is about 25 people in here already without doing any advertising.

God knows how many people actually "tuned in" to watch our little medieval version of "The Truman Show" but I get the impression there was a few...perhaps we can conduct a little poll here and ask the watching audience who would be interested in playing? Not advertising as such, but a questioning poll...we'd be looking to exclude all KotR player plus the new guy's that have already put their hands up.

Thoughts?

[Privateerkev]

* I think we need to keep in mind that with these "time in rank" issues we have a "tracking" requirement.

Who is going to keep track of these in order to ensure the ranking structure works? Will it be one person in a centralised format (ie PK and his voting influence tracking system in KotR) or will it be a player requirement to keep track of your own situation...assuming of course no one makes a mistake and 20 years later a Duke should not have been a Duke because someone made a small error in the ranking rules? In the decentralised format you have to assume that all players understand the ranking rules entirely and make no errors.

I recommend we require people to put the turn that they raise in rank in the SOT. That way, you can just glance at the SOT and see who has "served their time".

[TinCow]

It seems we've out done ourselves with rules 2 and 3.

* Taking a page from OK's book on practicality, lets not act as if these polls mean rules 2 and 3 are set in stone. We've found a few issues upon further investigation, so lets just have TC rebalance them by removing the branching structure altogether?

I would like to try and convince people to go back to the linear system, but I don't want to do it unless there's at least a 50% split on the issue. 8 of the 10 people who voted yes on #2 are KOTR veterans, and they know how these changes will effect the game as much as any of us do. I am taking the lead in organizing this game, but I absolutely do not want to be any kind of dictator. We are all playing this game, and we all need to reach a consensus on how it should work. If, after more discussion, the consensus is that the branching structure should remain, then I think we have to keep it.

* I think we need to keep in mind that with these "time in rank" issues we have a "tracking" requirement.

Who is going to keep track of these in order to ensure the ranking structure works?

I will. I am going to make a consolidated information thread. It will combine the Library, and the information in the first posts of the OOC thread and the Chancellor's Reports from KOTR. It will be a one-stop-shop for all general information about the game, including rules, mugshots, links, etc.

[AussieGiant]

I'm certainly then going to advocate strongly for the simplified linear system from now on then.

Have seen the discussion here I think all of us from KotR should make an effort to support that...given we had no system before and things worked well, this level of complexity will bring with it it's own set of follow on issues and characteristics.

And thanks for the admin work as usual TC.

[Privateerkev]

If people really want more stability, we can keep change 1 and 3. (I'm not forgetting about change 5 but it does not really have to do with stability so I won't mention it further.)

If we really insist on keeping change 2, could we at least consider dropping change 3. While not ideal, that would at least be better than keeping both.

Out don't know how to "tweak" change 2 in any meaningful way. Moving the split up will make the chain bigger. Moving the split down will make it harder to get that all important private army.

Or, if we keep 2 and 3, then maybe we can "tweak" 3. We can remove the "consecutive" turn requirement. While doing so would add a measure of stability (which I tend to be against), it would make achieving rank a little easier (which I am for).

[Cecil XIX]

Looking back, the issue to me isn't whether the system should be linear or branching. We should have the option of going either way in our feudal chains, where a linear chain is more powerful but a branching chain is more stable for the one on top. As long as it's merely an option, it can be done without weakening the current, mandatory structure. If one type of chain is better than the other, that's what we'll get regardless. If they're relatively balanced, then having options is the better choice.

From my experience so far with the test game I've found it extremely discouraging to know that if I want to increase my rank and power it is against my interest to have another noble swear fealty to me directly. I'd like to have the choice between a linear, more powerful house and a branched out house that's more stable for the person at the top. The way things are now, many people will end up swearing fealty to a person they have no loyalty to just to benefit the person to whom they are loyal. I'd like to see the structure of the feudal trees be motivated more by the actual relationships between characters and less by the need to push everybody up the ranks as much as possible.