[PvP] POLL: Altering the County System

[Poach]

It has become apparent, to me at least, that the current County system will cause great difficulty in the new PvP server, and as such propose an alteration to the rule.

Why?

On the old server, we had many Kingdoms of 1 or 2 people and, as such, allowing each person 4 Counties each meant no single Kingdom was overwhelmingly huge. That, coupled with free spawning, meant people would need a lot of room to build as they would be building much faster and grander.

On the new server, this is not the case: we have a smaller number of much larger Kingdoms. Take my own Kingdom, the Brotherhood, for example: under the current ruleset, we could lay claim to 6 Home Counties and 18 Border Counties. The Dwarves could claim a total of 40 Counties. Even the smaller Kingdoms of Aeseth and Ishk can claim 20 and 16 respectively. This is, in my opinion, far too many and will give rise to great confusion and complexity as we have to map out many, many small counties whose borders will end up unrealistically small and hard to follow ingame.

What I propose:

I propose a change in the rules. We centre the County system on Kingdoms and not players. For simplicity's sake, my idea states that each kingdom is given 1 Home County, this is the Kingdom Capital. Per player in the Kingdom, each Kingdom may also lay claim to 1 Border County (consider it that player's fief or whatever).

This drastically reduces the number of counties to 7 for the Brotherhood, 11 for the Dwarves, 6 for Aeseth and 5 for Ishk. This will allow us to create reasonably sized Counties whose borders aren't tiny: I'd rather have a small number of bigger, easier to operate with counties than a massive number allowing you to see 4 or 5 at once on max render distance!

It also means that, in war, ceding a county has meaning: you're giving up a fair portion of land rather than a tiny little parcel.

On the subject of Wilderness Counties: I am not proposing we limit Kingdoms to 1 Home and 1 Border/person for the duration of the server, merely as starting rules. Once these are healthily populated and Kingdoms look to expand, we can look at rulesets for Wilderness Counties.

Alternatives?

Numerous people have posted possible alternatives to my idea. All are listed here:


1. 1 Home and 3 Border Counties per person (current rule)
2. 1 Kingdom Home and 1 Border County per member of the Kingdom (my suggestion)
3. 1 Kingdom Home and 2 Border Counties per member of the Kingdom
4. 1 Kingdom Home, 1 Player Home and 1 Border County per person. (Seems to be pretty much the same as 3 except making 1 player county uncapturable)


Poll will close in 3 days.

[Makrell]

Also you need wilderness countries, one per contry i say

[Visorslash]

Voted No 2.

[Poach]

This is just to deal with the setting up of Kingdoms right now Makrell. We can deal with Wilderness Counties once Kingdoms are looking to expand past their starting borders.

[Danny_K_1]

Sounds reasonable enough to me, good idea Poach.

[Tuor]

I went with 1 Kingdom Home and 2 Border per person, just in case 1 county isn't enough for me later.

[Musthavename]

I suggested a far different version in the temporary ruleset.

Instead of sticking to home/border/wilderness counties, we simply designate one area your "Home" County. This can be looted, but never occupied. Every other county (of which a Kingdom can have as many as it likes) is designated a Non-Home County. These can be occupied, and they can also change hands in any peace-deal. At which point they become the property of the attackers. (Since the Home County can never change hands, it prevents a Kingdom from being destroyed, or having it's most important land taken). This can only happen in a peace-deal however, it remains property of the former-landowners unless they agree to give it up in a peace.

I actually request this poll be delayed so people can view this proposal.

[Poach]

That appears to be a 1 Home County and Unlimited Border County option? I did not notice that in the thread, and the poll is already ongoing, but wouldn't that make it much easier for people to simply landgrab?

[Musthavename]

You'd have to agree to it in a peacedeal. So if a Kingdom really wanted to not give away any land, it can opt not to. The attackers however might continue demanding it however, and if they were drowning them out of resources they might agree to it. I'm not even sure individual border counties need to be designed. It just gives another option for Kingdoms to say demand a Mine or an Outpost instead of simple resources.

There's also the other options for Kingdoms to demand that land be given back to their former owners. It just makes PvP more dynamic.

Edit: I worded it originally in the first page of the new PvP thread. Aanker copied it over there.

[Makrell]

I suggested a far different version in the temporary ruleset.

Instead of sticking to home/border/wilderness counties, we simply designate one area your "Home" County. This can be looted, but never occupied. Every other county (of which a Kingdom can have as many as it likes) is designated a Non-Home County. These can be occupied, and they can also change hands in any peace-deal. At which point they become the property of the attackers. (Since the Home County can never change hands, it prevents a Kingdom from being destroyed, or having it's most important land taken). This can only happen in a peace-deal however, it remains property of the former-landowners unless they agree to give it up in a peace.

I actually request this poll be delayed so people can view this proposal.

Thats what wilderness counties are isnt it And i like better the current as your will make pvp odd. Cause some of us aint NEVER gonna sign a peace deal, wilderness counties can however be captured and griefed

[Poach]

I meant the lack of limiting border counties/non-home. Kingdoms could just landgrab into empty land forever more.

makrell: On this PvP server, Border Counties can also be captured. No Counties can be griefed, but when ceded in a peace deal they become property of the winning Kingdom and they can do what they want with it: any buildings you had in the county become their property and as such they can do as they wish.

[Musthavename]

I see your point Poach. My only comment would be if they started a landgrab near other Kingdoms, those Kingdoms could start a war and claim such land. If the server as a whole viewed the land grabbing excessive, it could continue a war that would eventually force them into ceding back their claims.

We could ofcourse compromise by having a set number of Border Counties (that can change hands), and any other constructions are griefable outposts. If a Kingdom decides to take a Border County from another Kingdom, it ofcourse becomes an outpost of sorts and is griefable. Not quite sure how that would work, but it's a rough idea.

[Makrell]

I meant the lack of limiting border counties/non-home. Kingdoms could just landgrab into empty land forever more.

makrell: On this PvP server, Border Counties can also be captured. No Counties can be griefed, but when ceded in a peace deal they become property of the winning Kingdom and they can do what they want with it: any buildings you had in the county become their property and as such they can do as they wish.

No i was under the impression that Border counties cant be griefed when captured. When a wilderness country is captured the captor can make a fort or settlement in the country, or continue the old fort built by the maker. I think wilderness counties is the future of pvp
Edit: and musthavename, that is far to easy for big kingdoms to landgrab near the small counties

[Musthavename]

A small Kingdom may possibly only have a Home County, which can't be taken. It also wouldn't help the opinion of such aggressor Kingdom and invites them to other attack.

And yes, under my original idea, Border Countes cannot be griefed, and remain their former owner's property (so they can still alter them, but the aggressors cannot), unless they themselves agree to ceding it.

I would also like to say that I agree completely with Poach that we should focus any County-arrangement on Kingdoms, not players.

[Zipa]

1 Kingdom 1 border per person seems much more reasonable in light of the no spawning rules and the fact that kingdoms are now far larger than they were as a rule.

It also stops the little countries and kingdoms from getting overrun by sheer weight of numbers.

[Nyxos]

I like both the second and last option, the second because it reduces the amount of counties, and the last, because a bigger kingdom needs to be bigger in terms of home counties than a small kingdom. Either we set a limited size to counties, in which case, the last option is the best, or we agree to have a size based on the number of people, in which case, number two is best, I'm not voting for now, I'll wait till things clear up.

[Poach]

Players are free to size their own counties based on the layout of the land. Obviously, if people go overboard and make outlandishly huge counties the community would step in and tell them to downsize a bit. It's very, very difficult to actually set a rule on County size, as it is largely dictated by the area someone is claiming (eg, an island or island group, a peninsula, a mountain range...)

[Selukon]

I voted the second option

[Aanker]

I'm actually having a hard time deciding what to vote, here. I certainly do not want to have the current county rules with the massive kingdoms that sprawled up after the new map was initiated, but all of the other alternatives are good. I do especially like, however, the last alternative; this means that players from the same kingdom can create their own cities in time without having to worry about losing their constructions to anyone else (even so, it might be interesting if fortresses switch hands repeatedly, each side building their own improvements on it).

[Poach]

I don't know how the Dwarves are doing it Aanker, but we're making a communal Kingdom Capital (Mangerman is doing the walls right now then we'll populate the interior) so no one feels left out.