Land Loyalty

[Kyphis the Bard]

I propose that land loyalty be changed in the following manner:

• For lands that you are a current citizen of, no change
• For lands that you are a non-current citizen of, reduce by one point every four days.

Discuss?

[Pipstickz]

I believe similar things have been suggested in the past, and I seem to remember Mur saying no. I'll do a bit of digging and try to find it.

 

Nope, can't find it through forum search or announcements. Disregard the previous statement :P

 

Similar things have been talked about in the past, though:

 

http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/11291-make-land-loyalty-decrease-ap-only-for-citizens

http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/11721-land-loyalty

Edited July 24, 2013 by Pipstickz

[DARK DEMON]

I agree, Kyphis, but apart from that those loyal to their land should be given a benefit as well.

 

Land hoppers (aka people less loyal to their land) are currently gaining more benefits...

[Chewett]

I also remember this coming up before an also remember the general consensus being no.

But I do like the idea of reducing the affects of landholdings being good.

[No one]

@Kyphis: WHY ?

You are proposing something, YOU should explain your reasoning.

 

I will tell you : NO. I don't agree with lowering the the loyalty for the other lands. It impacts most those that don't do it on purpose.

 

DD, even if they gain more benefits, some of them are not doing it on purpose. It is called LIFE.

Just like : after 4 years after staying 1 year in France, you would not remember a single thing of it.

 

 

Kyphis & DD: Please explain your reasoning.

Edited July 24, 2013 by No one

[Jubaris]

Good example No one. Not maybe after 4 years, but after some 10-15 years - yeah, you would lose a good amount of memories. I like the suggestion Kyphis, I think it's 'natural', the only problem I see is that the current system was active for quite some time and it will mess up activities of certain people.

[No one]

@Chewett: land loyalty was introduced to reduce viscosity and to "encourage" the "land hopping" for changing the groups . I can't imagine another reason for them at that time.

 

If ppl would stay all their life in just one land ... why should they be better then those that "change their minds" or cannot ? What would happen to those that are voted out ?

 

 

At first I was against for "encouraging" the land-hoppers, then I hated it because of the restrictions (loyalty restricted items), but lately I don't care.

If they can do it and ppl still allow them to join their lands then they have a good reason for switching lands.

 

Who are we to judge all cases ?

[Chewett]

@Chewett: land loyalty was introduced to reduce viscosity and to "encourage" the "land hopping" for changing the groups . I can't imagine another reason for them at that time.

 

If ppl would stay all their life in just one land ... why should they be better then those that "change their minds" or cannot ? What would happen to those that are voted out ?

 

 

At first I was against for "encouraging" the land-hoppers, then I hated it because of the restrictions (loyalty restricted items), but lately I don't care.

If they can do it and ppl still allow them to join their lands then they have a good reason for switching lands.

 

Who are we to judge all cases ?

 

Who says it was to encourage it? I dont remember Mur saying this in any case.

[Kyphis the Bard]

My reasoning: Its called "land loyalty", not familiarity or anything like that.

 

It's a bit hard to be loyal to a land you are not in. However, it is quite possible to have mixed loyalties. Hence, much slower loss rate than gain rate, still allowing people to be loyal to multiple lands.

 

So you don't forget life in france after four years, big whoop. Memory and loyalty are not the same thing.

And so you are loyal to france even if you don't live there, big whoop. Location and loyalty are not the same thing.

 

Real world analogies don't exactly work here.

 

You want to be show loyalty for more than one land? Fine! Go for it! Totally possible to have a constantly increasing loyalty value to upto four separate lands with this suggestion.

 

No One, yes it impact most those that don't do it on purpose. Ironically, that's exactly who it is supposed to ;)

 

This gives a clearer distinction between loyal subjects and alliance hoppers. It is still totally possible for people to gain loyalty in multiple lands if they want, but it discourages people from joining a land under false pretenses just so they can exploit it in the future.

 

If people want to maintain a loyalty score with a land, they should actually need to show some loyalty to it. Even if that just means being a citizen one day in four.

 

This doesn't place any judgement on alliance hoppers either. If a land, or multiple lands, want to allow someone to maintain a loyalty score with them when they spend most of their time in another land, they total can. But it takes the lands continued consent, not just someone lying once and reaping the benefits forever.

 

DD, I don't think anything more needs to be done to reward loyal citizens, I just think a proper distinction needs to be made between proper loyal citizens (even if they are loyal to multiple lands, I am myself even if I only have land loyalty to MDA), and those who are just exploiting the system.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Kyphis the Bard

[DARK DEMON]

Precisely what Kyphis said.

 

"Loyalty" to a land is gone when you leave it (otherwise you'd not leave).

[No one]

Ann. 1625 - [2010-09-28 01:36:41 - Stage 10]
Land score will be from now on tracked on a daily basis. Each day you log-in you gain one active day and also one point for the land you belong to. When you will switch lands the old score will remain tracked and the new points will increment for the new land you belong to, in that way your overall loyalty history towards one or the other land will be remembered. This land score can be seen on your profile page for now, but will become public info. The land score will be counted from zero for old players, regardless of their previous known history. For new players the sum of land points should be equal to their active days. This score will matter for voting power, elections, role and other things where your loyalty history towards a land should matter.

 

It seems that at one point, the "land score" got translated to "land loyalty" . Why don't we just keep it like that : "score".

 

 

"Loyalty" to a land is gone when you leave it (otherwise you'd not leave).

DD, think before write. What happens when one is KICKED out of an alliance / land ? Is it their fault ?

 

If this new system will get implemented, then one day I will take over your alliance and kick you all out. What will you say then ? Oh, what stupid I was to ask for this.

And do remember how many did received this exact treatment or were kicked by kings / voting.

 

Leave it as it is : a score. At least in this matter the kind of abuse is limited.

[Kyphis the Bard]

I call it land loyalty because that is what it is called on our profiles.

By the Game.

In the place where it is most often seen.

In the most easily accessible reference to it a player can get.

 

You know the second most commonly accessed reference to it? Shared item collection.

Where it is also called Land Loyalty.

In the interface.

By the Game.

 

And DD, I have to disagree there. I do not think leaving a land shows that you are not loyal to it. Not returning, on the other hand, certainly begins to show that.

 

And you do not need to be in an alliance to be a citizen.

 

If your king kicks you out of the land, then that is their right. As the leader of your land, who you voted for, they have the right to decide what it means to be loyal to the land. And if you didn't vote for them, then you can always rebel. It is why we have these systems; so you can be loyal to the land even if you are not to its leader.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Kyphis the Bard

[DARK DEMON]

Kicking out is a completely different thing. I simply want to suggest a bit more reward for being loyal to a land aka staying in it, and less benefits if you leave on your own will.

Edited July 24, 2013 by DARK DEMON

[Chewett]

I call it land loyalty because that is what it is called on our profiles.

By the Game.

In the place where it is most often seen.

In the most easily accessible reference to it a player can get.

 

You know the second most commonly accessed reference to it? Shared item collection.

Where it is also called Land Loyalty.

In the interface.

By the Game.

 

And DD, I have to disagree there. I do not think leaving a land shows that you are not loyal to it. Not returning, on the other hand, certainly begins to show that.

 

And you do not need to be in an alliance to be a citizen.

 

If your king kicks you out of the land, then that is their right. As the leader of your land, who you voted for, they have the right to decide what it means to be loyal to the land. And if you didn't vote for them, then you can always rebel. It is why we have these systems; so you can be loyal to the land even if you are not to its leader.

 

I shall go around changing it to land score if you wish. If you want it offical. Because from me officially, its actually meant to be called land score.

 

No one is right, it was called land score. Mur and i discussed this when i came out, i was very much in the mind of if you defect to a land, you do not have loyalty to your old land. And he pointed out its more accurately called land score.

 

We also discussed ways to reduce the influence of old lands, meaning that land hoppers dont necessarily have a massive bonus. But we didnt get around to implementing it.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Chewett

[Kyphis the Bard]

Just as a quick off topic post... While it may seem I am aggressively rebutting No One's argument, I just want to say that I am very glad he is joining in this discussion. I don't talk to him any where often enough that I would call him a friend, but I like him a lot and value his opinion.

[No one]

My mailbox is opened and I respond to most of my PMs (based on many reasons but not because you are not "friend" / "friendly" to me).

I participate in debates mostly when it is needed to offer a different perspective or some clarifications.

 

So, if you think I can help. Feel free to PM me.

 

NOTE: I don't have declared friends. Because they could suffer because of my actions ;)

 

__________________________________________________

Mur gave me the tag I have before I realized what I was doing.

[Change]

I don't know, I kind of like the idea of a 'land loyalty' vs. a 'land score'. Maybe that's just because I'm tired of games where all that matters is increasing stats, increasing scores, and not other stuff. If the current system is kept, it should be called 'land score' but the system can be changed.

 

What are everyone's thoughts on dual-citizenship? Each land could have a list of lands that they permit their citizens to be citizens of. So, let's say Marind Bell has Loreroot on that list and Loreroot has Marind Bell on their list. A citizen of Marind Bell would be able to apply for Lorerootian citizenship. If accepted, they'd be citizens of both lands. If Marind Bell later removes Loreroot from the list, then the dual citizen has to renounce either their Marind Bell citizenship or their Loreroot citizenship.

 

With this system, I think that the land score from lands that someone isn't a citizen of shouldn't count at all, or should count less. However, it shouldn't be reduced. If I have 500 Loreroot land score, renounce my citizenship, and then become a citizen of Necrovion for 300 days, I should be able to apply to be a citizen of Loreroot and regain the benefits of my 500 days there.

 

How would land loyalty be gained for dual-citizens? The same as for regular citizens. They'd just be able to gain loyalty for multiple lands at once. Now before you cry foul and say that this is unfair to people who are only loyal to one land and one land only, it's not, or it shouldn't be. If a land like Golemus likes citizens who are only citizens of one land, then they can not allow dual citizenship or they can favor citizens who are only loyal to Golemus. However, if a land is in favor of dual-citizens, then of course dual citizens should be rewarded. Yes, some people might get bitter because of this system. What if Loreroot, Golemus, and Marind Bell allowed people to be citizens of all three lands but didn't allow their citizens to be citizens of other lands like Necrovion? A citizen of Necrovion might get frustrated that other citizens get access to lots of land tools and they only get access to a couple at best. That's why before this is implemented, there should be many more ways for land leaders to reward loyal citizens than their are now. That is, there should be more citizenship based (and non-citizenship based) features. Now yes, if there are four lands of equal wealth, and three of them unite in an alliance, of course citizens of the three lands will benefit more than the citizen of the fourth land.

 

On a separate note, I'd like to see another kind of loyalty implemented. There'd be a state/country loyalty score, and a land loyalty score. The state loyalty would count the number of days that you're a citizen in the land. Meanwhile, the land loyalty would be based off of citizenship independent factors. This somewhat ties into the rebel system, where someone can be loyal to a land, but not the government of the land.

[No one]

@Change: there are more then 4 lands you can get loyalty on. What about them ?

 

If you want score from more lands, just join them.

Edited July 25, 2013 by No one

[Change]

I know, it was just an arbitrary number. If they allow you to join them, then great. However, I highly doubt that someone will be a citizen of 4+ lands that allow citizenship with each land. Meanwhile, people have 5+ different loyalty scores as it is now.

[Kyphis the Bard]

Eh. I figure if you wanted to give Land Leaders the ability to favor those who are truly loyal to their land you could just make Land Score public (and I don't mean public like "look up their profile", because that can be hidden/doctored. I mean public like "click on a page below their avatar", like we have for inventory and logs, that lists their land scores in the sidebar)

 

But I don't really think that's a good idea. It would probably have unfair repercussions, even if it would work to let land leaders, well, discriminate.

[Chewett]

Eh. I figure if you wanted to give Land Leaders the ability to favor those who are truly loyal to their land you could just make Land Score public (and I don't mean public like "look up their profile", because that can be hidden/doctored. I mean public like "click on a page below their avatar", like we have for inventory and logs, that lists their land scores in the sidebar)

 

But I don't really think that's a good idea. It would probably have unfair repercussions, even if it would work to let land leaders, well, discriminate.

Land score is public? You hoover over the [?] next to loyalty? Or am i missing something?

[Zyrxae]

Eh. I figure if you wanted to give Land Leaders the ability to favor those who are truly loyal to their land you could just make Land Score public (and I don't mean public like "look up their profile", because that can be hidden/doctored. I mean public like "click on a page below their avatar", like we have for inventory and logs, that lists their land scores in the sidebar)
 
But I don't really think that's a good idea. It would probably have unfair repercussions, even if it would work to let land leaders, well, discriminate.

Land score is public? You hoover over the [?] next to loyalty? Or am i missing something?

Just wondering: what's the reasoning behind (land and regular) loyalty not being on our public profiles along with our other stats?

 

As for Change's proposition, it might make things interesting in that lands' historic/current tensions could be seen in the net of who's allowed to be a double citizen in whose land. The main people I see as benefiting from this would be emissaries like certain Legend Speakers were to the main lands, but maybe if political tensions heat up more this could make things interesting. I'd favor a system wherein you get a loyalty point for each land you're a member of every [# of lands you're a citizen of] days over the proposed system, though.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Zyrxae

[Chewett]

Just wondering: what's the reasoning behind (land and regular) loyalty not being on our public profiles along with our other stats?

As for Change's proposition, it might make things interesting in that lands' historic/current tensions could be seen in the net of who's allowed to be a double citizen in whose land. The main people I see as benefiting from this would be emissaries like certain Legend Speakers were to the main lands, but maybe if political tensions heat up more this could make things interesting. I'd favor a system wherein you get a loyalty point for each land you're a member of every [# of lands you're a citizen of] days over the proposed system, though.

It's not on the profile page because it wasn't added by Mur, and I haven't got around to adding it.

As for the second point. I agree, and the idea was that for new players the amount of land score would equal your active days.

[awiiya]

Idea:

 

Instead of reducing every few days, disregard all loyalties but the currently active one when calculating bonuses.  So you can have a high score in a lot of lands, but only one is active at a time.

 

As was suggested by Passant 2 years ago (Pip linked it):

http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/11291-make-land-loyalty-decrease-ap-only-for-citizens/

 

 

Awi

Edited July 26, 2013 by awiiya

[Kyphis the Bard]

Land score is public? You hoover over the [?] next to loyalty? Or am i missing something?

So it is o_O

I had not noticed, thanks Chewbuckett!