|
Post by thedonald13 on Jan 15, 2018 13:32:05 GMT -8
So ... after exhaustive(jk) research I went through and looked an 11 point plan set forth starting 8/13/17 by the KC. It was/is a basic 1 year(ish) game plan for the main story line for LOR. Right now we are at step 6 1/2 of the 11.
And to be honest it's a little more set up until gong goes down in what should lead to a pretty significant confrontation. A major issue with the story line is that the KC doesn't sacrifice the story line to jump from conflict to conflict. As much as we would like to see war after war and fight after fight, we do try to build the story line so it all makes sense and that can be a pain for many people. Sacrificing participation for the sake of world building. -- On top of minimum participation, some of the more senior and ardent KC contributors have run into RL obstacles that slow what seems like already slow updates. Unfortunately it happens, and it happened and what seems like a very inopportune time. We do have an update 85% ready. (give or take 10%)
Resuming the current story line may not be what everyone wants. But, in order to make the payoff worth it, the backstory is necessary. This next major confrontation should provide a good chance to pivot in a more popular direction. I would personal like to see a warring system in place. Give people a chance to personally challenge and potentially change a landscape of the game. And this would be an excellent canvas for an update.
Don D
|
|
|
Post by crazycrownieguy on Jan 15, 2018 21:20:57 GMT -8
The problem I'm seeing with just waiting for the next piece of story and GC is, when, when are they actually going to be released? Is it going to be a couple days, weeks, months? I think this is why me and others are getting frustrated with the current system, there is little transparency of the KC, and I would know, I was part of it for a time. If the KC can be truly transparent, put out updates on a semi regular schedule, and listen to the two threads and several pages of people asking for change, then maybe, just maybe, LoR won't die. And if the KC can't or won't put out story updates/GCs, then please, spread the load, there are a number of people in these threads who really want to see LoR survive and evolve into something sustainable. My two cents. CCG
|
|
|
Post by Cuahchic on Jan 16, 2018 1:38:48 GMT -8
The problem I'm seeing with just waiting for the next piece of story and GC is, when, when are they actually going to be released? Is it going to be a couple days, weeks, months? I think this is why me and others are getting frustrated with the current system, there is little transparency of the KC, and I would know, I was part of it for a time. If the KC can be truly transparent, put out updates on a semi regular schedule, and listen to the two threads and several pages of people asking for change, then maybe, just maybe, LoR won't die. And if the KC can't or won't put out story updates/GCs, then please, spread the load, there are a number of people in these threads who really want to see LoR survive and evolve into something sustainable. My two cents. CCG Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
Post by Ayrlego on Jan 16, 2018 12:45:46 GMT -8
The problem I'm seeing with just waiting for the next piece of story and GC is, when, when are they actually going to be released? Is it going to be a couple days, weeks, months? I think this is why me and others are getting frustrated with the current system, there is little transparency of the KC, and I would know, I was part of it for a time. If the KC can be truly transparent, put out updates on a semi regular schedule, and listen to the two threads and several pages of people asking for change, then maybe, just maybe, LoR won't die. And if the KC can't or won't put out story updates/GCs, then please, spread the load, there are a number of people in these threads who really want to see LoR survive and evolve into something sustainable. My two cents. CCG It works both ways - for ordinary members and the KC. Imagine my frustration when I put hours of work into organising GCs, mini-challenges, etc, only to have minimal participation/feedback. Note the numerious times I have asked for feedback on how things are going to be met largely with crickets chirping in the background - or unconstructive critisim. I don't think it is fair to say "the game is failing and it is the fault of the KC" (I know that's not what you are saying, but I just want to make my position clear). Having said that I agree that the KC construct doesn't really work anymore, and we all need to be more active in revitalising the game. I really like the idea of the KC simply acting as moderators... Anyway I agree that change is required, so lets do it. Let us all put something together here in the open (you guys want transparency). I suggest we start small, do we want to prioritise an economic system? a warfare system? Do we want to run a trial GC with some components of both? We could devise a system for personnel fiefs.... anyway the point is, I think we need to act on this momentum, and that it is important to start of small and manageable. The alternative is that this post continues with some great ideas, but nothing is ever acted upon. I can help with the administration/setting up of any system, I'll participate in the discussion and offer suggestions and draft rules/posts. But I won't be be primary driver this time. I simply don't have the time right now and after driving numerous attempts here in the past with lacklustre results, to be totally honest I'm not sure I have the motivation.
|
|
Merc
Garheim
Posts: 143
|
Post by Merc on Jan 16, 2018 13:14:19 GMT -8
The problem I'm seeing with just waiting for the next piece of story and GC is, when, when are they actually going to be released? Is it going to be a couple days, weeks, months? I think this is why me and others are getting frustrated with the current system, there is little transparency of the KC, and I would know, I was part of it for a time. If the KC can be truly transparent, put out updates on a semi regular schedule, and listen to the two threads and several pages of people asking for change, then maybe, just maybe, LoR won't die. And if the KC can't or won't put out story updates/GCs, then please, spread the load, there are a number of people in these threads who really want to see LoR survive and evolve into something sustainable. My two cents. CCG It works both ways - for ordinary members and the KC. Imagine my frustration when I put hours of work into organising GCs, mini-challenges, etc, only to have minimal participation/feedback. Note the numerious times I have asked for feedback on how things are going to be met largely with crickets chirping in the background - or unconstructive critisim. I don't think it is fair to say "the game is failing and it is the fault of the KC" (I know that's not what you are saying, but I just want to make my position clear). Having said that I agree that the KC construct doesn't really work anymore, and we all need to be more active in revitalising the game. I really like the idea of the KC simply acting as moderators... Anyway I agree that change is required, so lets do it. Let us all put something together here in the open (you guys want transparency). I suggest we start small, do we want to prioritise an economic system? a warfare system? Do we want to run a trial GC with some components of both? We could devise a system for personnel fiefs.... anyway the point is, I think we need to act on this momentum, and that it is important to start of small and manageable. The alternative is that this post continues with some great ideas, but nothing is ever acted upon. I can help with the administration/setting up of any system, I'll participate in the discussion and offer suggestions and draft rules/posts. But I won't be be primary driver this time. I simply don't have the time right now and after driving numerous attempts here in the past with lacklustre results, to be totally honest I'm not sure I have the motivation. So I for one think that starting up an economy first would be a great first start. Warfare involves taking resources but if there are no resources to take then the system will not succeed as well as it should. I do want to say that I really liked your Mini GC for the colonies. My lack of participation there is that I wanted to build in the cold Garheim setting at opposed to the tropical jungles.
|
|
|
Post by Cuahchic on Jan 17, 2018 8:49:35 GMT -8
I've made a more radical suggestion in an earlier post, but it would seem that 11 out of 18 respondents would prefer to keep the lore of Roawia intact to some extent. Therefore, to help us set the scene, it would be helpful to share the 11 point plan thedonald13 mentioned to see if there's anything worth salvaging from this. I think before we go designing game systems we need to set the context for any future builds or gameplay elements. For me, there are two key actionable points: - Getting the attention away from the Western Isles and back to the mainland, as a number of people have said they would like. The easiest way to do this is to make the Western Isles suffer some sort of catastrophe: volcanic eruption, plague, earthquake, that means the factions have to focus their attentions on the mainland.
- Whilst I think some economic system would be helpful, we need to create a set of circumstances that allows for smaller more focused wars, where territory really can change hands. I would suggest that the upheaval in the Western Isles should result in a number of NPC and PC characters from being killed (primarily players who are no longer active, although active players could volunteer and this could be an opportunity to change faction). These deaths will result in a number of territories breaking away from the main factions, creating new NPC factions which can be subject to attacks etc. I would also recommend making the Outlaws NPC only as there's no longer any active players now that josdu has stated his desire to leave.
There's enough material in the above two points to create a number of challenges, and if we agree what these could be then I would suggest we discuss economic/warfare systems that would form the rewards of each challenge. Thoughts? ++++++++ I can help with the administration/setting up of any system, I'll participate in the discussion and offer suggestions and draft rules/posts. But I won't be be primary driver this time. I simply don't have the time right now and after driving numerous attempts here in the past with lacklustre results, to be totally honest I'm not sure I have the motivation. One question: will you participate in a revamped LoR (assuming this is possible)? If you're short of time are you sure you want to commit to the required tasks for this? If the players who try and redesign the game don't have the same permissions as you, and you take a break, I see that being a risk to the future of the project. Would you agree? ++++++++ Does any staff members object to me trying out some bots on here to see what's technically possible while we are ironing out the lore? As I mentioned previously it is against the ToS of the board but they won't be able to tell. I can storm ahead and do it but I don't want us getting chucked off the board (again, I don't think this will happen but it's not my name against the site).
|
|
|
Post by Sir Caedric Moore on Jan 17, 2018 9:26:20 GMT -8
Starting off small seems the best way to begin; put one foot in front of the other, then worry about running That said, we don't want to start too small or the change won't be drastic enough to invigorate the game. Finding the perfect balance of old and new is paramount to our success in revitalizing LoR. Same here. Broken record, but we should start with Global Colonization on the mainland; it's a great system, and even though my personal interest in the tropical isles wasn't piqued, I really enjoyed seeing all of the neat mocs members built for the different factions. I'm sure there are a good amount of players that feel the same about the lore of the Western Isles as I and others do about the lore of LoR and might not want to see them obliterated. While a catastrophe would be the easiest way to shift focus (and could be very interesting as described), finding a work-around so that players could still build out west if they desired would be a better alternative. The solution I propose would be to continue the Colonization Challenge out west, but incorporate the rest of Roawia - if, that is, people do still want to continue colonizing the isles. That's a good point. Each faction should have access to basic resources e.g. wood, stone, grain, livestock, water, etc. so as to be self-sustaining, but each should also have its own unique resource - only one, to keep it simple - to encourage cooperation between members and interaction between factions. It's always been in the lore for LCC/LoR that the factions are different and that trade between each region is what makes Roawia function as well as she does. With an economic system, players could highlight the unique features of each region and really make Roawia feel like a living moving world. Once things get going, in the future we can incorporate a War aspect to fight for land/resources. I mean, we could do both simultaneously, but that could get messy.
|
|
Sir Daren
Lenfald
Training men and looking for work
Posts: 260
|
Post by Sir Daren on Jan 17, 2018 13:04:35 GMT -8
First, I am eager to see or learn of the remaining story arc sections, though sooner would be great. As for a story to minimize the Western Isles, and to not destroy the great development therein, a story idea is a blockade by the Outlaws. As they have sea monsters and mages (see earlier stories and builds) and since their alliance with Lenfeld is not by any means a steadfast alliance, they could decide to turn on the other factions and block access west, as they had begun to do with Loreos. To make it into a game-play event, a global challenge-esque challenge is that any faction that builds up a large enough navy can break through the blockade and receive extra resources from the islands to use in game. That way those who want to continue in the islands do have that option.
|
|
|
Post by Cuahchic on Jan 17, 2018 13:59:01 GMT -8
Same here. Broken record, but we should start with Global Colonization on the mainland; it's a great system, and even though my personal interest in the tropical isles wasn't piqued, I really enjoyed seeing all of the neat mocs members built for the different factions. I'm sure there are a good amount of players that feel the same about the lore of the Western Isles as I and others do about the lore of LoR and might not want to see them obliterated. While a catastrophe would be the easiest way to shift focus (and could be very interesting as described), finding a work-around so that players could still build out west if they desired would be a better alternative. The solution I propose would be to continue the Colonization Challenge out west, but incorporate the rest of Roawia - if, that is, people do still want to continue colonizing the isles. There could be some mileage in this, but I have a couple of concerns. Firstly, the Western Isles colonisation challenge worked well because everyone was building in a small number of locations, i.e. shared colonial towns. Bringing this back to the mainland would likely result in everyone building up their own town and expansion being much slower. The only way round this would be to make the focus the capital city of each faction, or make it for the entire country as a whole. This all assumes it has a similar points system to the Western Isles colonisation challenge, which brings me on to my second point. Secondly, to what end is the challenge being created? We all want a bit more purpose to our builds - how would this affect the overall lore/story? If points are assigned, what can each faction/player do with these? That's not clear to me, and I don't have any workarounds for this, although I will give it more thought. That's a good point. Each faction should have access to basic resources e.g. wood, stone, grain, livestock, water, etc. so as to be self-sustaining, but each should also have its own unique resource - only one, to keep it simple - to encourage cooperation between members and interaction between factions. It's always been in the lore for LCC/LoR that the factions are different and that trade between each region is what makes Roawia function as well as she does. With an economic system, players could highlight the unique features of each region and really make Roawia feel like a living moving world. Once things get going, in the future we can incorporate a War aspect to fight for land/resources. I mean, we could do both simultaneously, but that could get messy. A bit like above...resources to what end? Are you proposing a full economic simulation? If so, I think we need to get down and dirty in the detail here. It's easy to suggest an economic system (and I would agree with you) but how do you propose it works in practice? Is the economy simulated at a faction or player level? How do you spend resources? Should we assign resource values to buildings, i.e. you need 100 stone to build a castle, etc? It'd be good to flesh this out more - again, I will give it some thought but keen to hear others point of view. First, I am eager to see or learn of the remaining story arc sections, though sooner would be great. As for a story to minimize the Western Isles, and to not destroy the great development therein, a story idea is a blockade by the Outlaws. As they have sea monsters and mages (see earlier stories and builds) and since their alliance with Lenfeld is not by any means a steadfast alliance, they could decide to turn on the other factions and block access west, as they had begun to do with Loreos. To make it into a game-play event, a global challenge-esque challenge is that any faction that builds up a large enough navy can break through the blockade and receive extra resources from the islands to use in game. That way those who want to continue in the islands do have that option. This is an interesting approach to solving this problem, but personally (and even for a fantasy RPG) it just feels a bit far-fetched. Again, you'd still need a large navy at the faction level to build in the Western Isles, so it's still preventing players building there if they want to. If I had to choose the best way to get the focus back to the mainland is via a plague. The plague could be common to the hot, humid conditions of the Western Isles and not make it back to the mainland due to the large travel distances (i.e. those contracting it either die or become resistant before they get back). The great thing about this is that some people would still be living in the Western Isles, and we are not catastrophically destroying them like a natural disaster would - after all if in 6 months the players want to return you can hand-wave that the plague has suddenly died down or something. This feels like a believable compromise to get the main focus back to the mainland.
|
|
|
Post by thedonald13 on Jan 17, 2018 14:34:52 GMT -8
Ok. I know my interaction has been limited in this thread, but I can tell you I have been keeping close tabs on all of the updates. Part of my reasons for limited responses are that the current story line does, in a big was, address many of these concerns. I haven't opening revealed any plot points, because I don't have sole authority to give these away. People much more creative and with much more more time have painstakingly crafted a story that addresses many of the points brought up, The Western Isle, defunct characters, shifting focus.
As far as the points/economic system. Keep it simple. I always think Settlers of Catan, assign the factions resources and at the end of week we have an admin or bot roll to see what resources they collect.
Loreos= lots of grain, little wood Garheim= tons of mining, little food Lenfald = tons of lumber, little mining Outlaws = oddly, the most balanced of them all
Collecting resources allow you to buy victory points. GC wins get you points. Winning a war gets you points.
First team to a 100 points wins. I think points should only be claimed by an accompanying build.
|
|
Merc
Garheim
Posts: 143
|
Post by Merc on Jan 17, 2018 16:00:07 GMT -8
Same here. Broken record, but we should start with Global Colonization on the mainland; it's a great system, and even though my personal interest in the tropical isles wasn't piqued, I really enjoyed seeing all of the neat mocs members built for the different factions. I'm sure there are a good amount of players that feel the same about the lore of the Western Isles as I and others do about the lore of LoR and might not want to see them obliterated. While a catastrophe would be the easiest way to shift focus (and could be very interesting as described), finding a work-around so that players could still build out west if they desired would be a better alternative. The solution I propose would be to continue the Colonization Challenge out west, but incorporate the rest of Roawia - if, that is, people do still want to continue colonizing the isles. There could be some mileage in this, but I have a couple of concerns. Firstly, the Western Isles colonisation challenge worked well because everyone was building in a small number of locations, i.e. shared colonial towns. Bringing this back to the mainland would likely result in everyone building up their own town and expansion being much slower. The only way round this would be to make the focus the capital city of each faction, or make it for the entire country as a whole. This all assumes it has a similar points system to the Western Isles colonisation challenge, which brings me on to my second point. Secondly, to what end is the challenge being created? We all want a bit more purpose to our builds - how would this affect the overall lore/story? If points are assigned, what can each faction/player do with these? That's not clear to me, and I don't have any workarounds for this, although I will give it more thought. That's a good point. Each faction should have access to basic resources e.g. wood, stone, grain, livestock, water, etc. so as to be self-sustaining, but each should also have its own unique resource - only one, to keep it simple - to encourage cooperation between members and interaction between factions. It's always been in the lore for LCC/LoR that the factions are different and that trade between each region is what makes Roawia function as well as she does. With an economic system, players could highlight the unique features of each region and really make Roawia feel like a living moving world. Once things get going, in the future we can incorporate a War aspect to fight for land/resources. I mean, we could do both simultaneously, but that could get messy. A bit like above...resources to what end? Are you proposing a full economic simulation? If so, I think we need to get down and dirty in the detail here. It's easy to suggest an economic system (and I would agree with you) but how do you propose it works in practice? Is the economy simulated at a faction or player level? How do you spend resources? Should we assign resource values to buildings, i.e. you need 100 stone to build a castle, etc? It'd be good to flesh this out more - again, I will give it some thought but keen to hear others point of view. Last time I looked at maps Each faction had about 6 official cities including their capitals. The outlaws may have had only 1 or two. If I remember correctly players were allowed to make-up cities but they were never canon. What if you tied the creation of new canon fiefs (cities) to personal points. In order for a player to make a new canon city they must earn X amount of personal points. Earning personal points is done by creating buildings in established cities, creating a personal story-line, finishing up guilds, beating someone in a rival challenge, etc. An idea? A bit more complicated then what you were saying thedonald13 . But it solves the overpopulated work scenario.
Maybe incorporate buildings where they provide a certain bonus. I.E. if you build a small farm that gives you (or faction) +1 food. If you build a small lumber mill that gives you +1 wood. Then make it so that in order to build a bigger farm you must be able to produce 3 wood per month? In order to maintain an army of 10 your faction or fief must be able to produce 10 food per month. Its kinda like what you said assigning biuldings points however a person (or faction) should be able to build one bignette (or Restricted if a bignette is too small) of each type to get started. In this way it give a little more control to the factions and not be chanced on a roll. (In Catan it can be frustrating not to be able to get the resource needed when you have built around it.)
|
|
|
Post by thedonald13 on Jan 17, 2018 17:56:05 GMT -8
Last time I looked at maps Each faction had about 6 official cities including their capitals. The outlaws may have had only 1 or two. If I remember correctly players were allowed to make-up cities but they were never canon. What if you tied the creation of new canon fiefs (cities) to personal points. In order for a player to make a new canon city they must earn X amount of personal points. Earning personal points is done by creating buildings in established cities, creating a personal story-line, finishing up guilds, beating someone in a rival challenge, etc. An idea? A bit more complicated then what you were saying thedonald13 . But it solves the overpopulated work scenario.
Maybe incorporate buildings where they provide a certain bonus. I.E. if you build a small farm that gives you (or faction) +1 food. If you build a small lumber mill that gives you +1 wood. Then make it so that in order to build a bigger farm you must be able to produce 3 wood per month? In order to maintain an army of 10 your faction or fief must be able to produce 10 food per month. Its kinda like what you said assigning biuldings points however a person (or faction) should be able to build one bignette (or Restricted if a bignette is too small) of each type to get started. In this way it give a little more control to the factions and not be chanced on a roll. (In Catan it can be frustrating not to be able to get the resource needed when you have built around it.) Yes, it is absolutely a pain waiting to roll a "lumber," but time isn't the issue. We want to make the game long enough to play, but not too short as to as it to be a race to to the finish line. Remember we are wanting quality builds. Also, this would promote trading resources between factions (3 ore for 1 grain!). I do think that we can borrow from the original game (back in the CC days) each person get a homestead and they can help their faction by building it into a city like we can in the Western Isle. In the case we have anyone not lucky enough to play Settlers, developing a village into city grants points and some small bonuses. This would allow for factions with higher active builders to have advantages too. Points for a new brawl leader (largest standing army), things of the like. If we are able to set up a warring system, we can either steal resources, occupy territory, grant points for win, or even take points for a loss? A change like this would allow us to keep on track with the current story line, but provide additional incentive between GC's and let players feel a sense of personal gain to keep people satiated during lulls.
|
|
|
Post by Kingdomviewbricks on Jan 17, 2018 20:48:12 GMT -8
I've made a more radical suggestion in an earlier post, but it would seem that 11 out of 18 respondents would prefer to keep the lore of Roawia intact to some extent. Therefore, to help us set the scene, it would be helpful to share the 11 point plan thedonald13 mentioned to see if there's anything worth salvaging from this. The KC is discussing this, but I think it would be best to keep the future storyline details under wraps for the moment. There is a big surprise coming that we've been building up to for a very long time, and I'd rather that it is revealed in a proper storyline update. However, I will say that the storyline in mind would be able to accomplish both objectives that you've suggested. It will move the focus back to the mainland, (really that's been one of its goals from the very beginning, the GWI prologue has just taken way too long), and it could also could provide the catalyst for the shattering of Roawia into a much larger array of warring factions, if that's what we want. Therefore, I would suggest that we focus our energy here on figuring out what type of rules we want, and then the KC will tailor the story to those needs. With that said: All: There are a lot of good thoughts here. However, before we get too carried away in the minutiae of possible rules, I think there is one major decision we need to make. It seems to me that there are two quite different general possibilities in view here.Here are what I think the two general options are: 1. We continue with our current basic structure of KC controlled global storyline and challenges, but with an improved rewards system and more story line choices given to the factions. The KC would return to putting out challenges and story updates at a regular rate. This would also mean trying to encourage player energy in personal storylines, which can occupy members between GCs. We would probably also need to focus on smaller builds with vignette and bignette challenges, in view most of our members' lack of time for building. This option would also need to include various improvements to the current structure, probably introduced incrementally. We would need to make sure that all GCs have direct story consequences or allow the winning faction to make a story choice, (actually we've been doing a better job of this lately, but implementation could be better). This option would allow some type of faction rewards/economy system, (most simply, the global scores would become a sort of currency which can be used for in game actions, such as claiming an island or attacking another faction). We would also want to incorporate the peripheral LoR fuctions to that system, so that personal point rank advancements, guild advancements, and brawl wins earn points for the faction. Option 1 pros-
- This would be closest to the original spirit of LoR, and thus would have the same benefits LoR has always enjoyed, e.g. relative simplicity of gameplay, freedom for personal storytelling, and relative ease of entry for new members. - Thus this would avoid alienating our members who like LoR as it is. - At the same time the improvements suggested would theoretically satisfy those who have asked for global points and global challenges to matter for the storyline. - This would allow us to carry out the current storyline as planned. Option 1 cons-
- This would require that KC members have sufficient time to generate challenges and story line updates at a reasonable rate, or that we have suitable candidates who can replace those who do not have time. - This would not get us to the more involved game system and completely player controlled storyline that some of you are advocating. - This may not be radical enough to revitalize LoR, in view of the fact that this is basically what we've been attempting to do for the past two years, to steadily declining membership. 2. We convert completely to a game system similar to that which Cuachic has proposed, but set in Roawia. The map would be divided into a large number of provinces which can be conquered. This would require restructuring the factions so that there are NPC factions and probably more than 4 player factions, in order to allow more choice of game actions and to mix up the borders. Option 2 pros-
- The actions of each faction would be completely decided by the members (within the game framework). - This would eliminate the need for the current KC construct, wherein the KC determines many global storyline actions and initiates all of them. The KC would continue to exist as moderators, but otherwise would be free to simply participate with everyone else. This would also eliminate the delays that come from a limited group of members needing to make decisions and write material privately. - It would allow the actual conquest of territory on the mainland, and thus raise the stakes for conflict. - Converting LoR to more of an actual game with global stakes may help to bring in new players and encourage those here to build. More player control of global events is something which the malcontents of LoR have advocated for throughout its illustrious history. - It would be possible to use the planned storyline to explain the necessary political fracturing. Option 2 cons-- As stated, this would require restructuring the factions to some extent. - It would allow faction territory which has been in the hands of one faction since the beginning to be actually conquered, (both a pro and a con depending on your point of view. - It would need a lot more active participation than we've had in a long time to function, which would be a good thing if it happens, but is not sure by any means. - It would require a lot more work to develop a rule set, to convert the existing map to something with provinces and faction boundaries which can be easily edited, and to create balanced factions. - It would mean shifting focus away from personal character storylines to the political actions of entire factions. This may not be much of a con, since AK and I are the only ones who have really mentioned it, but it's worth noting how significant a departure it is from the original premise of LoR/LCC. That said, I do have a few thoughts on how personal storylines can be incorporated. Anyway, I hope that distinction makes sense outside my brain. I really think we need to pick one or the other before we proceed. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Caedric Moore on Jan 17, 2018 22:02:21 GMT -8
Keeping with the theme of realism, farms/homesteads support towns; towns support cities; cities support countries. While the main focus with the proposed economy system should be to the benefit of each country as a whole, it's only logical that building up small towns would in turn benefit the larger cities (and then the country). The more resources gathered by the people of the land, the more wealth and bounty the land has; it shouldn't really matter exactly where in the country/faction they come from. I feel restricting the system to capital cities would limit creativity and possibly even activity as the existing capitals in general are centrally located and players are scattered/spread throughout their factions, building in the regions/climates they prefer. Allowing players to build up their own towns would grant a boon of appreciation; the system should just limit players on how much of the resources gathered can be used by the player (for their town) and how much is owed to the faction. This would allow active players to feel justified that their actions benefit their faction but also that they themselves (their characters) are benefited by participating. In short, player-controlled towns grow slowly; capitals and countries grow quickly.
Pretty much. We would establish what sort of "canon" buildings and fortifications can be created for the challenge and determine how many resources and what kind said buildings would require to create. A player has X points, he/she can build Y towards their town/settlement. A Faction has X points, players within the faction can use them to build towards the faction - this would have to be decided by an in-faction vote to prevent one player from gaining unfair control of their faction over their other faction members or using the faction's points wantonly.
Good proposal. We could have "seasons" that way, like professional sports do - maybe even end a season with "The Playoffs" of some sort like the C.R.A.S.H. games or a no-holds-barred mocathalon. There's a lot of opportunity, here.
I think a mix of the two would be best. Allow players that have already established their towns/cities thus far in their personal storylines and builds to keep what they've created, but have them start from scratch like everyone else where the points are concerned. Personal storylines should still be important - that is the original essence of LoR, as you said. Allow players to build the world both with bricks and with words, if that makes sense.
Maybe we could even incorporate the Guilds. A faction that has "Heroes" and a "Navy" could be granted a bonus towards Military. A number of "Masons" could be beneficial towards Structure. "Merchants" could provide additional Coin or Resources gathered from a trade. Guild membership could provide multipliers to the overall points earned; this would put some focus on the guilds and highlight a currently seldom-used system while simultaneously driving the Economy system forwards.
That's a great idea. As suggested earlier in the thread, a faction declaring a "War" challenge on another faction would state their desired goal i.e. what they want to gain from said conquest: Resources, Land, or Goal Points/Victory Points (towards the final goal of 100 points to win the season). This would allow the factions to keep tabs on each other; checks and balances. ex. Lenfald feels Garheim has gained too many Victory Points so they declare War; their booty is Victory Points. If Lenfald wins, they remove a pre-determined amount of Victory Points from Garheim's score, possibly even stealing them towards their own score; if Lenfald loses, Garheim gets their declared booty, instead e.g. Resources or Victory Points. It would be a gamble to challenge a rival faction in this way - your faction could win and benefit (or sabotage a rival faction), but you could also lose and inadvertently benefit a rival faction through said challenge. Resources and Victory Points would be easiest to incorporate into a system like this, while land would be more difficult; people don't want to lose their own player-controlled cities to War Challenges and/or a portion of land where they have built their settlement forever. Ideally, land that is conquered/changes hands is only land that directly affects the Season Challenge and at the end of the season, all land and borders are reset. This would prevent PC cities from being erased and players' accomplishments from being nullified.
|
|
|
Post by Kingdomviewbricks on Jan 17, 2018 22:17:36 GMT -8
I think a mix of the two would be best. Allow players that have already established their towns/cities thus far in their personal storylines and builds to keep what they've created, but have them start from scratch like everyone else where the points are concerned. Personal storylines should still be important - that is the original essence of LoR, as you said. Allow players to build the world both with bricks and with words, if that makes sense. Well, in either case all existing world-building would be kept, but economy points would start at zero. The question is, do you want a war-gaming system or not?
|
|