I agree that we don't want to do anything which will penalize any RP. We want to encourage RP in whatever form that may come, and if that's noble RP, I'm certainly willing to take it. Any methods we put into place will be to encourage other RP, not hurt existing RP. Otherwise I do think that is counter to our goal.
However, simply raising the cost of nobility is problematic due to how we handle things. The cost isn't deducted when you buy the class, instead the class is noted on your account and used in calculating your total xp. So if the cost changes, it would change for all existing nobles too.
That said, we're still considering what we can do to encourage RP, especially RP on a level that new players can easily join in on.
Reign in the Nobility
I just want to add to Temi's post that not all player ideas are being considered. Jei's note struck me as pretty upset, but most of the ideas he mentioned never made it into the pile of likely to be implemented.
When it comes to nobility, my stickler is that I, OOCLY, want to see two things in that space:
1) Equal player opportunity to play a noble.
2) Churn in the nobles as to who is around, who ascends to power, etc to keep the game interesting and from stagnating.
Right now, whereas it isn't perfect, we certainly have better rates of churn than TI:A, anyone can create a noble, etc.
Negatives...? Well, everyone (for the large part) wants to play a noble, so we are noble heavy and lacking in filled out variation amongst the lower classes.
If we restrict nobles, what we actually reduce is overall churn. By reducing churn, we reduce equal opportunity. So, in my mind, the best solutions cannot reduce the accessibility of creating a noble, regardless of all else.
When it comes to nobility, my stickler is that I, OOCLY, want to see two things in that space:
1) Equal player opportunity to play a noble.
2) Churn in the nobles as to who is around, who ascends to power, etc to keep the game interesting and from stagnating.
Right now, whereas it isn't perfect, we certainly have better rates of churn than TI:A, anyone can create a noble, etc.
Negatives...? Well, everyone (for the large part) wants to play a noble, so we are noble heavy and lacking in filled out variation amongst the lower classes.
If we restrict nobles, what we actually reduce is overall churn. By reducing churn, we reduce equal opportunity. So, in my mind, the best solutions cannot reduce the accessibility of creating a noble, regardless of all else.
I've noticed a fair amount of people congregate in the palace, and by people I obviously mean nobles. Maybe we should extend the xblock in the palace all the way to the court malenta, and install xblocks elsewhere? The meeting room north of malenta, maybe at each stairway so the inner residents are blocked? This way the court is open, even if it's fairly inappropriate for a freeman to come in there.
Actually, on that note, is it -that- inappropriate? Since the law of.. (insert law name here) is now in effect (the one that says nobles should interact with lower classes), doesn't it make it so that freemen should be free to interact with nobles as well? And in doing so, are actually supporting Dav's laws? I know it's a little shocking to think that way, but I think thematically it's a minor change, compared to the introduction of the aforementioned law. It also helps promote people to congregate and makes it so farmer Dan can still have a good reason to visit court? Finally, if Cellan's idea of having households goes down, freemen/gentry will kind of need to make themselves available at court anyway, wouldn't they?
Anyway, just my two cents on the matter.
Actually, on that note, is it -that- inappropriate? Since the law of.. (insert law name here) is now in effect (the one that says nobles should interact with lower classes), doesn't it make it so that freemen should be free to interact with nobles as well? And in doing so, are actually supporting Dav's laws? I know it's a little shocking to think that way, but I think thematically it's a minor change, compared to the introduction of the aforementioned law. It also helps promote people to congregate and makes it so farmer Dan can still have a good reason to visit court? Finally, if Cellan's idea of having households goes down, freemen/gentry will kind of need to make themselves available at court anyway, wouldn't they?
Anyway, just my two cents on the matter.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests