Guybrush Threepwood Posted May 3, 2009 Report Posted May 3, 2009 What is loyalty good for? Taking over alliances, and buying a few random things in the shop. The first is really what I'd like to focus on. What effects a persons ability to take over something? Generally the amount of trust that the leader puts in them, and their knowledge of the thing the person is attempting to take over. In general, the amount of loyalty a leader perceives their followers to have. Now, what does the loyalty system actually in place have to do with any of that? Frankly it's a little strange, at least I think so, and it rather strains the role playing environment. What does one actually need to overthrow a leader? Their trust, and the support of others in the organization. I propose that a new system be created that better reflects this and lends more toward role playing than throwing 250 heat in some MP6's direction or training with someone of another alliance. True, not being an alliance member I do not understand the loyalty system myself, especially not all the devious little details that seem to have been involved in some recent coupes, so feel free to correct me where I am most assuredly wrong. The system I would propose is that a leader has to delegate a certain amount of power, as leaders actually do in real situations. It is difficult to manage an organization where everyone has the same amount of power, but you are less likely to have a coupe. Of course, if you leave all your minions at minion level, never giving them any more power, they may all get upset and chose to rise against you. If people with enough total delegated power chose to work together, they overthrow the current leader. To this end you are best off giving more power to the people you trust more. This way it more resembles something that actually has to do with the situation. (maybe I should be saving some of these ideas for my own game, or maybe I'm juts blabbering and incredibly sleep deprived)
Burns Posted May 3, 2009 Report Posted May 3, 2009 that would be too RP-based and stable in my opinion... no leader would give any powers to anybody if he's fearing an overthrow, and at some point they leave the game and their ally for demise... i wonder why i mention simply and savel so many times today, but they fit most of the time LOL maybe they focus on other accs or other games, but at some point an overthrow would be necessary, but impossible if the old leader didn't open up that option... plus, i like the current system, it gives rebels a chance of doing 'their thing'
Watcher Posted May 3, 2009 Report Posted May 3, 2009 If you would reread what Guybrush Threepwood [i]actually[/i] said, Burns, you would see that your objections have already been addressed, even if it wasn't explicit. What Guybrush Threepwood is proposing is not exclusively role-play based, but is a simple (though maybe not "simple" in a coding sense) mechanic. When a character joins an alliance, they are automatically given a small amount of power just by virtue of being a part of it. The leader has no choice in giving out that power. As more people join, they all are given this base level power. However, should the current leader behave like a tyrant, holding onto as much power as possible and not distributing it as a good leader should, or should that leader disappear with no clear intention of returning, the others in the alliance have the option to rally and remove the current leader and replace him or her with another of their choosing. This is more than just role-play, but it has the capability to enhance it quite a bit. It also allows for the formation of rebellions or treachery. One thing I would suggest in addition to the system proposed is to make it far more difficult for a leader to expel the members of the alliance. This would require the leader and the members to actually think on who is joining their alliance. It would lead to stronger, more cohesive alliances while still allowing for rebellion as the leader would not be able to eject members without notice. Finally, as a side note, from the way King Manu speaks, this game [i]is[/i] moving away from just being a "stat grinding" game to a true role-playing game. For those who do not, or [u]who cannot[/u], change with it, you will simply be left behind as the world and environment change.
Nex Posted May 3, 2009 Report Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) loyalty is not necessarily loyalty to your leader, but dedication to your alliance. [*] being able to overthrow a leader based on how much s/he trusts you.... thats generally refered to as treachery i think there should be another system in place for those military alliances that value strengh in a leader rather than the individual person that happens to be leader. [*] the problem with this is that most loyalty is gained via sacrificing heat to your protector, not via winning battles for your alliance. your suggestion does make sense for those alliances that are based on a certain personality. MRD for example is not just founder and leader of the MRs, he embodies the MRfrat. same is/was true for savel and the savelites, etc. i guess thats one reason why mur implemented a system where a leader can reclaim the alliance even if overtaken loyalty-wise. my suggestion would be a 3 fold system: 1. guybrushs suggestion (leader able to delegate power) for alliances based on certain individuals (with an option to overthrow the leader if the vast majority of the ally doesnt support him/her anymore. it should be very difficult though) 2. general influence based on military power, counting only loyalty that was gained when fighting for the alliance. leader can be challenged to a battle by those with enough loyalty and is overtaken if s/he loses the fight. the strongest wolf leads the pack. 3. social influence. ally lead by a counsil, counsil members elected by majority of the ally. strongly rp based, less (if any) 'loyalty'- stat influence on the ally structur. [edit: @ watcher: i agree on large parts of what you said, thats what suggestion 3 could look like for example. BUT: those who happen to enjoy the battle system have been constantly bashed on for a quite some time now. i strongly agree with whoever it was that said that stats and the fightsystem should be stronger integrated into rp, instead of seperating rp and battle. those who want to play a mighty warrior should have the stats to back it up, master-tacticans should be able to compete in battle by knowing how to properly set rituals, etc. mages, necromancers and the like should emphazise their choice by selecting fitting principles, and should actually base their 'power' on those principles and principle values, and not on wishfull thinking and the munchkins' guide to godmoding i tried to show that there is/can be a place for those who like fighting most (suggestion 2) and for those who'd rather rp (1 and 3). leaving one of those groups behind is neither necessary nor desirable. those who hate integrated battle systems might want to think about playing a MUSH instead.] Edited May 3, 2009 by Nex
Burns Posted May 3, 2009 Report Posted May 3, 2009 from what i read in guy's post he said minions had a option to rise against their leader, not how... i was thinking about leaving him, not overthrowing him, minions have no powers =P and, if that was the case, i would totally not agree with that system becasue then you'd overthrow a leader by creating ten alts and inviting them... would take less than 5 minutes, while heavy loyalty-grinding still takes about 2-3 hours and some dedication to what you are doing... apart from that, i like V's suggestion, specially #2, that sounds like the kind of thing you'd do in a game like this one, with medieval influences wherever you look
Guybrush Threepwood Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Posted May 3, 2009 Burns, my suggestion is that the leader be REQUIRED to hand out power, call it a percent of power if you will. If they chose to give one person 40% of the power, and don't specify toward everyone else than each person would get 60%/number of alliance members. So yes, by inviting alts you could gain the power to overthrow an alliance, if the alliance leader has not chosen to delegate any power. And yes Burns, minions have power. You get enough minions and it's simple to overthrow a single man. Specifics of how much power would be needed to overthrow I won't go into, it's just the concept I want to throw out there. However, since you've mentioned it, I would also like to propose that only a person with a certain amount of delegated power could invite someone into an alliance.
stormrunner Posted May 3, 2009 Report Posted May 3, 2009 then you people need lessons in training minions a true minion shouldn't be able to think of rebeling against you
Burns Posted May 3, 2009 Report Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) ok... still a pointless system, cause a leader that wants to keep his position will then a) get a good RL friend into his ally and give 100% power to him or B ) create an alt and give 100% to him [i thought the sunglasses guy had been removed... guess i was wrong there LOL] that could be solved if each playerwas limited to 20% or less, but then you face the same trouble... 1 friend and 4 alts also make an overthrow-proof leader ;-) anyways, you can't have that system to get rid of useless leaders... or get rid of useful leaders, for that matter... it's just a protective measure for the leaders, and hell yes, i say that people who want to be a leader should take the time and effort to BE a leader. oh, if you are going to ask me for a better system, i'd point towards the current one, i like that^^ Edited May 3, 2009 by Burns
lightsage Posted May 3, 2009 Report Posted May 3, 2009 actually, if I get this system you only need to give 51% away to people you know an THEIR alts (you can't use your own alts to help your main if you interpret the rule in a very strict manner) 1. Also with the current system ACTIVE leaders can just kick people who they don't trust enough to come close (and then reinvite them) yes, you do need a bit of loyalty for this but max a day is 5k (that's playing roughly 10 hours, with VERY high briskness) The leader needs to put some effort into farming loyalty first, yes. But that is also showing dedication to the alliance, be prepared to do something for it. (of course this is not the only thing leaders should do but gaining ~7k of loyalty (and then telling the entire ally to stay below 2k) is not a mayor challenge, it only takes time and dedication. 2. Leaders should trust everyone in their alliance, no need to fear anyone overtaking in any way technically possible if you do that right?
Guybrush Threepwood Posted May 4, 2009 Author Report Posted May 4, 2009 I would have to say that if you interpreted the rules about alts in a very LENIENT way you would not be allowed to do what Burns suggested. If you were to take the rule more strictly you would also include anyone's alt in this case. As far as delegating a great deal of power to a trusted friend, isn't it reasonable that you wouldn't be able to, and that doing so would make your position safer. This is also how it works in reality. As for Leaders putting in the time and effort to BE a leader, I agree. They should come up with a gap that needs to be filled and gain the trust of others in the alliance. Walking around, attacking people with Martyr rits and sending heat to a random MP6 does not show any loyalty to an alliance, or dedication as a leader. It's just plain a little strange.
Nex Posted May 4, 2009 Report Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) seperating loyalty to protector and loyalty to alliance could be an idea. also, i think the relation between worshipper and protector could be more emphasized, it looks a little like a generic requirement instead of an important personal choice. anybody some good ideas how to improve/deepen the worshie-protector bond? (maybe in an own topic, as not to derail this thread) Edited May 4, 2009 by Nex
Guybrush Threepwood Posted May 4, 2009 Author Report Posted May 4, 2009 [quote name='stormrunner' post='30148' date='May 3 2009, 10:20 PM']it shows loyalty to your protector[/quote] But in no way shape or form influences any interaction with your protector. It does, however, affect alliances.
stormrunner Posted May 4, 2009 Report Posted May 4, 2009 remind me to explain the complex interaction between alliances and protectors another time, when I'm not already tired of you and over all and thats offtopic, but heres a question, would a faithful worshiper be the kind of person you want to follow or fight beside. this is one of those cases where faith is rewarded oh and when I explain protector/alliance interaction remind me to explaim what the diffenct between the MPs is it not just the number goes up
Burns Posted May 4, 2009 Report Posted May 4, 2009 show me a person that takes the alt-rules seriously... once you can gain something from it, you will always use alts to do the job, as that whole 'helping your main' is nothing but helping another player when you disguise yourself properly... dst could be an alt from lightsage for all i know, in fact everybody in this game could be an alt of Mur and you'd never know, try to prove who is and who isn't an alt, and then start talking about the alt-rule...
Intrigue Posted May 4, 2009 Report Posted May 4, 2009 Loyalty.. now there's a word for you... a word that to one such as myself... who is in NO alliance, it means little or nothing to. But... since the protectors and the loyalty you gain from worshipping has been introduced into the topic, lets start there. For X amount of heat, you get X amount of loyalty. Loyalty to a protector in my understanding, since you are giving your heat to the protector, not towards the alliance. In theory, one could rake in all kinds of amounts of loyalty and never actually have to fight for it, running around for a while in certain places will build up heat, as will "accidentally" winning enough fights. To me, it seems that there needs to be some kind of seperation between Alliance loyalty and Protector loyalty. Have the loyalty gathered by giving heat labled differently, perhaps something like Worship strength ( just the first thing that popped in my head). Then... just as the Alliance loyalty as the potential reward/side effect of a possible take over, have the higher your worship loyalty equal out to a more effective heal based upon a percentage, and reflecting the amount of loyalty you have shown your protector.
Guybrush Threepwood Posted May 4, 2009 Author Report Posted May 4, 2009 I take the rules seriously. My alt doesn't have any crits it can't currently get, and I am not transferring creatures from one account to the other to give my main a place to gain age. It would be simple to use free credits on a bunch of alts to rake in a great deal of silver coins for my main, but I don't do that either. It would be just as easy to collect special crits with alts, I'm not doing that either. Can things be gained from using alts? Of course, but it is disrespectful to do so knowing it is against the wishes of the creator of the game. It's a free game, Mur puts a lot of effort into it. As long as it's free I'm not going to exploit anything that Mur sets a rule against. As far as figuring out who is whos alt, I can't necessarily do it. Sure, their country is a good indicator, as well as mannerisms, but IP would be a better indicator. Of course now that I have said that it's easy enough for people to avoid that, but it doesn't seem that it would be hard for Mur to figure who is whos alt. Does he really need to put the time into that? No, he's got better things to do. Much of this game depends on people abiding by some rules.
Recommended Posts