Feedback on Noble Projects

[Niamh]

Updated the helpfile some and added a list of things to address from this thread to the Staff board.

Edit: ...And so did Kinaed!

[Taunya]

Another thought- could only one project affect a single metric at a time?

I could see how the system as it is now could encourage many weak, easy to pass projects, each not really providing much, but stacking together, and providing each submitter prestige.
A-winner-takes-all system might encourage more competition- the first project to succeed for a a metric fails all others that would affect the same metric, and won't allow others affecting that metric to be submitted until it expires.

[Voxumo]

I'll be honest, I'm holding off on providing any feedback until we see a Noble Project that attempts to subvert a Metric.


Though I do believe if we continue with Noble Projects, the option to purchase IP, a max of 5 a week, for 200 silver should be removed, or the cost greatly increased to 500 silver or even 1000.

[Buzz K[ir]ill]

It's 200 silver per 1 point of IP, up to a max of 5. Which means 1000 silver to purchase 5 IP. That's a hefty cost even for a noble.

[Voxumo]

It's 200 silver per 1 point of IP, up to a max of 5. Which means 1000 silver to purchase 5 IP. That's a hefty cost even for a noble.

I know how much it is, and I agree 1000 silver is hefty, for a single person. but it's guilds that I'm worried about. It would not be difficult for a single guild to hand out enough silver to various members and have each of them convert such to ip, and then contribute it all to said noble project.

[Kuzco]

Well there's nothing wrong with a guild using it's assets to aggressively pursue it's agenda.
Else they usually don't have much to spend their wealth in save for embezzlement.

[Buzz K[ir]ill]

Another thought- could only one project affect a single metric at a time?

I could see how the system as it is now could encourage many weak, easy to pass projects, each not really providing much, but stacking together, and providing each submitter prestige.
A-winner-takes-all system might encourage more competition- the first project to succeed for a a metric fails all others that would affect the same metric, and won't allow others affecting that metric to be submitted until it expires.

I think a more effective approach would be to raise the minimum IP requirement, rather than place some arbitrary restriction on how many projects can affect a single metric. There's no good IC reason two nobles, competing for the same resources (influence), shouldn't be able to affect a metric at the same time if they both manage to succeed.

Rather than trying to explain how Noble B's project should somehow fail just because Noble A completed his first, it's arguably less arbitrary to say that in order for a project to really be worthy of earning prestige, it should be grand enough to require at least 15 or 20 influence. Then let those nobles try to vie for limited resources.

But hey, pros and cons to everything. If prestige is simply a matter of how much total IP you've pumped into the project system, I don't have a huge a problem with active nobles accruing smaller amounts over greater periods of time and with less risk. No one's going to be super impressed by the little contributions (which ultimately won't be all that effective toward city metrics anyway), but one could say that at least the noble visibly did his/her part -- and over time, perhaps they gain some prestige at Court. (Keeping in mind, most nobles don't stick around for longer than a few months.)

Right now, the system can flexibly accommodate low to high effort projects, and there's some definite advantages to that, as well as disadvantages. At the end of the day, though, I'd rather see more activity around the system than less.

[Taunya]

There's no good IC reason two nobles, competing for the same resources (influence), shouldn't be able to affect a metric at the same time if they both manage to succeed.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. If both are trying to do the same thing, without working together, they might end up working against each other.

[Buzz K[ir]ill]

There's no good IC reason two nobles, competing for the same resources (influence), shouldn't be able to affect a metric at the same time if they both manage to succeed.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. If both are trying to do the same thing, without working together, they might end up working against each other.

Or they might not.

[Voxumo]

Well there's nothing wrong with a guild using it's assets to aggressively pursue it's agenda.
Else they usually don't have much to spend their wealth in save for embezzlement.

I don't disagree... I just think the price of such should be higher than a pitiful 1000 silver, especially considering if your Metric is maxed, you are making close to 600 silver a week. But then again I forget many guilds pay their members, or many guildleaders pay themselves so perhaps ya'll have less funding than I'm imagining.