Rule Changes/ Proposals

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
  1. ♞Rogue General♞
    ♞Rogue General♞
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior Cat
    Since there doesn’t seem to be a Rules Changes/Proposals Thread in this social group (which is stupid not to have) I will post this here.
    Thank you for your helpful suggestion.

    Since you proposed a Rule Changes/Proposal thread, it is fitting that the first proposal on this thread deals with your actions.





    Current rule:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This is the current rule: Anyone may join any GM-controlled faction, at any time.


    The original intend of this rule was to provide new players a spot to join in the game, and they wouldn't be left too far behind.
    But it has its drawbacks... and people can exploit this system quite easily.


    Example:
    The goal of the game is to get 100 regions.


    If a GM-controlled faction happens to be in the lead (lets say, it has 98 regions) it is theoretically possible for another player with only 50 regions to immediately switch to the bigger faction. So a person can go from last place, to the top of the chart. Not very sportsmanlike, and not very fair.


    Of course, that is only my opinion.

    This game is about YOU, the player. So I would like YOU to vote on the following proposals... (see below)


    Exploitation of the rule:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by theworldstage View Post
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group...e=4&do=discuss

    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior Cat View Post
    Despite being pissed at Rogue General for calling me a hypocrite when I had valid arguments, I will still play the game because I am not a cold-cut turkey quitter. The Aorsoi faction is to be destroyed along with all they built; Samandar and Byzantium are destroyed and all light green regions go to white. The Aorsoi have migrated north beyond the known world. Their position in their current wars was an unwinnable one due to being betrayed by a powerful ex-ally: Pontos. Which I will now take over playing as.

    My Faction info:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Kingdom of Pontus (Warrior Cat)
    *Drillmaster edict can be used after turn 56 is posted
    Prestige: 65 (+1 from City)
    Regions Owned: 21
    Fortifications Built: 0 | Fortifications Owned: 0
    Magnificent Cities Constructed: 1/3 | Magnificent Cities Owned: 1
    --City of Amasia
    [Drillmaster Edict]
    Fleets:
    --1 Small Fleet [Ships 5/5], 2 Medium Fleets [Ships 8/8], 1 Large Fleet [Ships 12/12], 1 Colossal Fleet [Ships 17/17]:
    Patrolling the Euxeinos Pontos.
    --
    2 Small Fleet [Ships 5/5], 3 Medium Fleet [Ships 8/8], 3 Large Fleet [Ships 12/12]: Patrolling the Orientalis Mare Medierraneus.
    --1 Medium Fleet [Ships 8/8], 1 Colossal Fleet [Ships 17/17]: Patrolling the Mare Hyrcanium.


    King Mithridates III of Pontos has gathered a mighty army of loyal followers and storms the capitol city of Pityus, and kills the traitorous hippy king. A new age is about to dawn for Pontos. An age of honesty, commitments, and reason. An age where the people of Pontos will finally have what they’ve always wanted: complete dominion over Anatolia.

    The faulty alliance made with the Pergamese is quickly revoked by the new wise king of Pontos, Mithridates. Relations between the two are properly restored to very poor.

    The King and his loyal army march north from Colchis to secure their northern border. May Ahura Mazda grant our warriors strength!

    Map:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Diplomacy: Pontos breaks its alliance with Pergamon. The bastards control our rightful lands! Pontos declares war on Athens. They are allies of Pergamon who must die! Pontos offers a peace treaty to the Getae. So much misunderstanding has harmed both our peoples; it is time to end that. A border treaty for Thrace will be made shortly if peace is agreed to.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Pontos is allies with: Baktria and Carthage.
    Pontos is at war with: Getae (offer peace treaty) and Athens.
    Pontos is friendly with: Scythia.
    Pontos is angry with: Pergamon and Epirus.


    Since the Aorsoi was my faction I have the right to destroy them. They weren't even one of the pre-set factions. So please don't give me any about how they can't go rebel. Cheers! Warrior


    Having been as friendly as possible with Pontus and allied with the Aorsoi, I would really appreciate it if this action were not possible. Much the same as NobleWoman's attempt to gift her new faction territory and then switch to them, WarriorCat is demonstrating here a complete disregard for the other players in the game.

    I would understand wanting to switch factions in his position. The Aorsoi have alienated former allies, run their war on Pergamon into the ground, tipped their hand on their disdain for and desire to make war on Pontus... what new player is going to want to inherit that record?

    Then again, should WC leave the Aorsoi, it Would Not Be His Choice whether the Aorsoi disband as a faction. In truth, I imagine that a newly-GM-enfranchised Aorsoi would not look kindly on Pontus either. How could they after being led into a ditch?

    But that is likely the true motivation behind such a move. Nowhere is there an option for disbanding a faction, leaving its provinces and armies action-less and leader-less. (This has only happened after a faction was Defeated, not simply throwing a tantrum) Nowhere do the rules list restrictions on players dropping one faction in favor of another, but the motivation for such a move in NobleWaoman's case made sense. Her faction was nearing defeat, and she made her way to an open slot. WC's move is similarly transparent, but without any saving grace. This is not vindication; this is not a logical, sequential way for WC to prove his baseless arguments and senseless actions have any merit; this action is a power-grab; this action is morally bankrupt; this action is not good sportsmanship; this action takes WC's kool-aid philosophy and tries to shove it down all other players' throats.

    This action by WC is ego run rampant. It is an attempt to stick the rest of us with the slop and filth WarriorCat has created for himself. It comes from him taking this game entirely too seriously while accusing others of doing the same. It comes from bullying. It comes from a once highly-thought-of player losing his grip and losing his touch.

    Don't fall for it. Don't any of you fall for it.

    I say this as an ally of the Aorsoi and a friend of Pontus. I say this as someone who has tried repeatedly to reason politely with WarriorCat about his unacceptable behavior. I say this as a faction with a lot to gain if he gets his way, but I don't care. His antics have gone much, much too far.

    Since WarriorCat insists on making this move, I formally propose he be booted from the game. His faction should continue on until another player can take over, and he should be asked to leave - to cool off in a corner before he ruins the experience for the rest of us who are sick and tired of his behavior.

    If he wants to act like a child, then he jolly well deserves his time-out.
    Emphasis are mine.





    NEW RULE PROPOSALS:

    There are 3 Rule Proposals. All players must vote on the proposals. You can vote "Yes" or "No", and give your reasoning if you wish.


    Rule Proposal #1:
    A player can only switch factions if their faction owns less than 5 regions.

    Rule Proposal #2:
    If a particular faction-exchange is controversial, Rise of the Republic players can vote whether or not to allow the faction-exchange to occur.


    Rule Proposal #3:
    A GM-controlled faction faction with 75 or more regions cannot be taken over by a player because it is too close to the 100 region victory condition.

    Hint:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Remember, any player may start as a new faction at any time, provided he/she PM me, and provided that there is enough space on the map for a new faction.




    As an aside, I would like to congratulate General Maximus once more. He fought till the very end as Rome, and for that he's earned my respect.
    Theotian, also, fought until he had just 1 region left as Sparta. He finally made the switch to Pontus, when everything looked hopeless.
    But he switched back to Sparta again... cause he's just boss like that.

    Thank you, both of you, for showing us true sportsmanship.
    Have a rep. You guys deserve it.
  2. Lord of Cats
    Lord of Cats
    I propose that a GM-controlled faction with 75 or more regions cannot be taken over by a player because it is too close to the 100 region victory condition. Other than, any player can take over a GM-controlled faction and be able to gift up to 3 regions to it from their previous faction.

    Wow Rogue... bribing people with rep to turn against me? That's pretty low. I believe I have excellent sportsmanship. Who are you to judge? Are you God, Rogue General? I don't think so. Game Masters should not play favorites with the players. That is a violation of ethics in my book. If you keep this up, I might end my friendship with you too, as sad as that is.
  3. ♞Rogue General♞
    ♞Rogue General♞
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior Cat
    I propose that a GM-controlled faction with 75 or more regions cannot be taken over by a player because it is too close to the 100 region victory condition. Other than, any player can take over a GM-controlled faction and be able to gift up to 3 regions to it from their previous faction.

    Wow Rogue... bribing people with rep to turn against me? That's pretty low. I believe I have excellent sportsmanship. Who are you to judge? Are you God, Rogue General? I don't think so. Game Masters should not play favorites with the players. That is a violation of ethics in my book. If you keep this up, I might end my friendship with you too, as sad as that is.

    That was not a bribe.
    It was a heart-felt gesture from me, to the players who have shown good sportsmanship and integrity, even when times were difficult.

    Where did I write that you don't have excellent sportsmanship?
    And I am not playing favorites. I am working hard, and doing everything in my power to keep this game fair and fun, and I will continue to do so until the game ends.

    If you (or any player) objects to how I'm managing this game, please let me know, so that I can better myself.
  4. High Fist
    High Fist
    He ain't bribing, stop griefing.

    Rule 1: Can
    the criteria be like "5 regions left" or a specific number?

    Rule
    2: Ok.

    I propose that a GM-controlled faction with 75 or more regions cannot be taken over by a player because it is too close to the 100 region victory condition.
    I agree. But then, what'll we do with the factions then? Are they just a big friendly neighbour or should we just... Disband them?

    Maybe they could declare war on their neighbours? Then the neighbouring factions must unite to defend against them, and scavenge a bit of land from them. That'd be fun.
  5. ♞Rogue General♞
    ♞Rogue General♞
    @High Fist
    Good idea for Rule 1.
    I have added a "less than 5 regions owned" condition, instead of a "faction destroyed" condition.

    As for the GM-controlled factions... my hope is that players will band together to destroy them. Kind of like a "boss battle" near the end of the game.
    It should be quite fun.

    @WC
    Added your proposal.
  6. Lord of Cats
    Lord of Cats
    I wrote a beautiful long post in response to you, Rogue, that addresses a key problem in this game, but now I think Total War Center deleted it... I'm tired and angry. I think I'll go to bed... goodnight everyone!
  7. fredtrotter
    fredtrotter
    Yes, no, yes
  8. fredtrotter
    fredtrotter
    Also, I have a proposed change for any future RoTR.
    I propose that there amount of regions in north eastern France and Belgium to be reduced for better game-play balance.
  9. Rhinelander
    Rhinelander
    Yes, no,no

    Edit : @Fred If there would be a RotR2, I could talk to RG and I could adjust the regions exactly fitting for the the game / timeframe.
  10. ✠Ikaroqx✠
    ✠Ikaroqx✠
    1- yes
    2 - yes
    3 - yes

    I propose that you can always switch factions, but it must be to one that has less regions to the faction you had before. That means you have the freedom to hop around if you don't like your faction, but each time you do, you are put at a greater and greater disadvantage.
  11. ♞Rogue General♞
    ♞Rogue General♞
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan Braginski
    I propose that you can always switch factions, but it must be to one that has less regions to the faction you had before. That means you have the freedom to hop around if you don't like your faction, but each time you do, you are put at a greater and greater disadvantage.
    This idea, while it does sound good on paper, may not be the best approach.

    Region count is not always the best indicator of "faction strength". Case in point: The Aorsoi-Pontus relationshiop.

    Pontus, while technically having a lower region count, might be described as having a slight advantage in the game overall (as compared to Aorsoi).

    Reasons?
    -Aorsoi is at war with 3 factions. Pontus is at war with only 1 faction.
    -Faction map position, and War Fleet count/position also must be included when considering "faction strength".
    -In addition, the diplomatic relationships of the factions can play a big role in determining the success of a faction down the road.
    It can be successfully argued, therefore, that Pontus is in a stronger position than the Aorsoi. Why else do you think Warrior Cat is ditching his faction to play as Pontus?


    I am not as eloquent as our friend theworldstage, so I will just quote him here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior Cat
    The Aorsoi have alienated former allies, run their war on Pergamon into the ground, tipped their hand on their disdain for and desire to make war on Pontus... what new player is going to want to inherit that record?
    Imho, receiving a GM-controlled faction is a reward that should be given to players who fight to the very end.
    It was intended as a placeholder for new players, so that newbies wouldn't have to start from scratch.
    It allowed a new player a chance at actually winning the game.

    That was the original intent of the rule. But this shameless faction-hopping... is just not cool.
    And its not fair to the other players who have worked hard on their own respective factions.
  12. Theotian
    Theotian
    yes no no
  13. Cyrus Kabir
    Cyrus Kabir
    yes no no
  14. Lord of Shadows
    Lord of Shadows
    I support these rule proposals.
  15. temetem
    temetem
    #1. yes
    #2. question about controversy is kinda controversial in itself. I say yes
    #3. yes
  16. General Maximus
    General Maximus
    For the first proposal, I vote no. For second and third, I vote yes.
  17. Lord of Cats
    Lord of Cats
    I will propose (in case this isn’t in the rules) that players be allowed to self-destruct their factions. This frees up map space for other players and it will get rid of GM-controlled factions which are such a hassle (believe me, I know ) to deal with. If a player wants to play as the faction that was destroyed, they can resurrect it and start with 1 region like all the rest of us did. Then it will be like European Wars (which no one seems to have an issue with amazingly).

    The root problem of this game has been the GM-controlled factions. They are allowed to expand and build up. But it is difficult to do diplomacy with them and work with them in war time, and when players want to take them over, people complain how it isn’t fair that someone gets a super-powerful faction all of a sudden. The solution should be that non-player controlled factions should not do anything; they stay at 1 region and do nothing until a player wants to play as them.

    Your counter-argument to this glorious solution is probably, “But new players won’t have a chance against the older players and won’t be on an equal footing with the others.” That’s fine in my opinion. RTD games are a “snooze you lose” game; if you don’t join in the beginning you won’t have a good chance to win. That’s just the way it is. Like life. And there is no way that new players will be on “equal footing” ever due to the nature of the dice system, which is random. All factions will be at different power levels thanks to the randomness and when a player tries to take control of the most powerful faction, people complain about it and say it’s unfair. My solution will eliminate that and make the game better for everyone. People are so obsessed with winning and fairness that they forget to have fun. RTD games are about the journey, not the destination, and when the journey is terrible the game will be terrible.

    Therefore I propose that all GM-controlled factions be reduced to 1 region (current capitol) and all that they built be deleted. This will apply to… Athens. What are your thoughts, people?

    Cheers! Warrior

    PS @Rogue General: By not giving me a rep, you are saying in so many words that I don’t have good sportsmanship. The message is as clear as day. So everyone should get a rep or no one gets a rep (I would prefer the latter, but it might be too late). No one should be singled out to be praised or be put-down in the game by the Game Master. The ones deemed bad will probably get fed up and leave. And a sign of a poor Game Master is one where players are leaving his/her game. That is why Game Masters should not give rep to players for their actions in and during the game.
  18. temetem
    temetem
    @WC:
    Ummm...
    "No one should be singled out to be praised or be put-down in the game... So everyone should get a rep or no one gets a rep."

    Wait a minute, isn't that the point of rep? to be praised for something you did or for something that someone found insightful? and about not being repped, i didn't get repped. and i got no complaints about being unsportmanlike. in fact, i dont think i have done anything unsportsmanlike in this game except for making war and going all out. and for that argument i had with NobleWoman when she switched Athens-->Scythia

    You all tell me whether ive been sportsmanlike or not (generally). The problem i have with your statement WC, is the fact that you aren't supposed to get repped for something you're supposed to do. it is only that Gen. Maximus and Theotian went beyond anyone else's perseverance in the struggle to survive, and perhaps perish, by their own creation. most everyone else bailed when their nation started to sink. totally understandable. the rep was for people who went beyond that and played, to sum it up, honorably.

    Speaking of theworldstage's earlier post, doesn't switching factions for power defeat the purpose of winning the game through self-creation? not much satisfaction in winning by reaping the rewards from a GM-controlled faction. i agree with theworldstage on his statement that WC is taking bad performance on his part in-game way too seriously. Losing isn't the worst thing in the world. I mean, Gen. Maximus, as far as i know him, loves history and is obsessed with playing as Rome. Once Rome was lost, he shouldered his pride and moved on without too much fuss.

    WC, ROTR is unlike the EW series. the EW series is a race to the finish. ROTR is on a smaller map, more factions, more turns, and a complexity that is solved by one simple motive...war. in a fast-paced rtd, there will be losers, for there to be any winners. look at how many factions are destroyed... not abandoned, destroyed. this game takes diplomacy and its counterpart, treachery (which is totally welcome, as you've seen) to a higher level. in EW, diplomacy is background status. You've been playing the big, bad, iranian bully thus far, don't you think that the Aegeans, dispersed as they are, felt defeat to a worse degree than you have? the idea is to play, and to either win or lose. sure you'll have 3rd-party factions that neither die out or win, but i as a contender must say that an easy win or sure loss without bumps (interesting stuff like war) on the way is no fun at all. losing, to some extent, requires you to think about what you may be doing wrong instead of screaming at how unfair the system is. when you fix your mistake, and your enemy makes a different or similar one, it becomes less map-based and more of a mind-game of 'who will do what and how will i respond?'

    People blame you for taking this game too seriously. However, i will encourage you to taking the game, as a game, seriously. the difference is i don't want you taking winning/losing too seriously.
  19. ✠Ikaroqx✠
    ✠Ikaroqx✠
    I agree on some points with you WC, but the original purpose of the GM controlled factions was to allow new players to have a chance, and hopefully enjoy the game more as they wouldn't be massively handicapped from the start compared to everyone else. In EW the rule is fine when new players begin a new faction with one region, but this is ROTR, a game with slightly different rules, one of those which is this one.

    My proposal is that GM factions can grow, but they can always only do one attack a turn, no matter how large they may become
    OR
    They can only take regions every 5/10 turns, though if they become larger they can still eventually take 2-3 regions a turn

    Basic rule proposal
    If this already hasn't been mentioned, I suggest that GM controlled factions cannot be taken over by current players. They whole purpose of GM controlled factions is so new players have a decent faction to begin playing, not for current players who want to hop around the map.
  20. High Fist
    High Fist
    I'd disagree with you proposal Ivan. If one of us die, chances are there won't be many new people joining up, so the GM faction will just sit there.

    They can only take regions every 5/10 turns, though if they become larger they can still eventually take 2-3 regions a turn
    This and just one magnificent city (so they don't fall too far behind prestige) sounds like a plan.
Results 1 to 20 of 44
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast