Rank Build Requirements Proposal

  • Baron

    Rank Build Requirements Proposal
    Rank Build Requirements Proposal
    Rank Build Requirements Proposal
    Rank Build Requirements Proposal

    All rank build requirements are based on what you yourself have built.
    Ranks are non-lore, call yourself whatever you want in-lore.
    I believe the system proposed allows for great flexibility in build style and density, while still requiring the same work from everyone.

    EDIT: As noted below, in this proposed system lieges promote until noble ranks, all noble ascensions are up to public vote. I'll be sure to write this into the final proposal for voting.

    As you can see in the comparison below, 'Baron' is equivalent to the previous 'Count', whereas 'Count' is now more in line with what used to be 'Duke'
    The numbers were designed so that ranks through Viscount would be fairly quick, while ranks Count and above would take a while in comparison.

    Comparison to old system

    Resolved with Charter: https://forums.candarion.com/topic/64/charter-for-candarion/9 -Alric

  • Count

    I prefer 20/30/40/60/90/150 for capital minimums, as I had discussed in the previous thread.


    You still need the same max, I just don't want to force too much time to be spent developing one urban area. If you don't build the capital higher, you can assume the other settlements will be much larger

  • Baron

    Can lieges still promote vassals at their leisure and have separate promotional guidelines or does it all conform to this system?

  • Baron

    in this proposed system lieges promote until noble ranks, all noble ascensions are up to public vote

  • Count

    @Guy said in Rank Build Requirements Proposal:

    Can lieges still promote vassals at their leisure and have separate promotional guidelines or does it all conform to this system?

    For the noble ranks, it goes through community. But esquire and knight, those are more of suggested values.

  • Baron

    @Annisar I see, that's fair enough.

  • Baron

    This system makes a lot of sense, and I support it, but considering this, will there still be realm ranks, or no?

  • Baron

    @Meriksing The committee decided to table realm ranks discussion for another time, because we couldn't get consensus on what to use it for specifically. I plan to re-open discussion on it later

  • Baron

    I still think that ranks should include what vassals have built; to compensate for this we could increase the build requirements or something but I really think lieges should be rewarded for mentoring their vassals.

    That said I do think the proposed system is well balanced and if we adopt it I will have no complaints as to the execution of the system.

  • Baron

    @beijimon I agree with the premise that lieges should get something tangible out of mentoring vassals. I hope to address this in future with realm ranks, when we get to it again.

  • Count

    @beijimon We basically decided the requirements should not go up, because that is unfair to people that don't get vassals, and it shouldn't be tied to ftp, because that will have other requirements similar to the last server (harbor worth so many points, etc)

    We all agree or accept that people want something for raising a vassal, we have just not figured out what that is yet.

  • Baron

    As someone who has had a lot of vassals, I can state that it can be difficult to manage said vassals. While I sympathise with those that historically had issues getting vassals, being salty because someone with vassals is somehow getting an easier time ranking up seems really petty.

    If I take time out of my play time to forge a relationship with my vassal, mentor them and work with them on realm lore and stories, why shouldn't the stuff they contribute count towards the realm as a whole?

    Rather than dick everyone over, why don't we change the way vassal are allocated? Maybe if someone recently took on a vassal they can't make more offers until x amount of time passes? That will give those missing out more chance to get vassals.

    Or maybe we have set pools of lieges, and once you've gotten a vassal, you don't make another offer until everyone else in your pool also has a vassal?

    Maybe the realm rank should be shared amongst the liege and all noble vassals. The realm gets one vote, which needs to be decided internally amongst all concerned. That would stop realms with lots of noble vassals having a massive voting bloc

    Im just spitballing ideas here mainly, but I think the solution to whatever the perceived problem is won't be solved by having vassal work not be counted by the realm leader. If that's the case, realm leader won't take people on. Its that simple

  • Non-Participating Baron

    It is an interesting idea. Indeed we could have a set list of realms advertising every pushes, perhaps 50/50 of any other division. Of course does not means all realms needs to push for vassals if he don't want to.

    What I'm wondering, will we let the candidate choose within the pool, without those realms offering vassalage, or is the system we had on Aldemeria was good enough?

  • Baron

    @Annisar sure, I can agree with all that too. I was mainly responding to the first line of the post about rank ascensions not being based on vassal work.

  • Baron

    We're getting off topic here I think. This is about Rank Build Requirements, not who gets what vassal when.

  • Duke

    I am inclined to agree with @TheValeyard. While I do understand the woes that were brought up to me by realms that did struggle with vassalage, it is not easy to maintain a number of vassals.

    The way the current system is, there is no incentive for me to take vassals, their work doesn't count towards my own progression and any help they do provide towards large settlements or hamlets really only serves to slow me down. Now the counter point is that to make things internally compliant I would utterly dictate what they are building and where but that doesn't seem like a very friendly environment to build in.

    It has been said a few times that this is purely a baseline for us to further modify over time and i hope that it is the case in the future. If this is the system that does end up passing through I think it is a decent framework to build on and I know that we can't continue to spin our wheels othewise the server would end up being a lot of work on spawn and not one getting to actually play.

  • Baron

    What I think everyone is having trouble doing is separating the old system old from their thought process.
    These are not realm ranks, these are individual ranks, with individual powers. I'd argued for dropping the feudal naming entirely for this reason, but many people are fond of the rank names.

    I can see no good reason why someone else's efforts should give you personal power.
    I'm fully in the 'lieges should get something tangible from taking on vassals' because I know that it is a good amount of time and effort. But, and it's been discussed to death, and I agree, personal power isn't the correct reward.

    As I've stated above, we'd like to revisit a 'realm ranks' concept or similar that will reward realms as a whole for reaching milestones.
    Additionally, since these ranks are completely non-lore, if you and your vassals have built, well anything really, call yourself a 'duchy', be an 'empire'. The idea is that these are no longer 'protected' words.
    Your vassals builds also help in-lore. More builds = more people = more in-lore power.

    You can literally be a king of a kingdom, and in-game it can actually be 'kingdom-sized', but you can still be at 'voting rank 4' which is called 'baron' if you haven't actually done any of the work, and I don't see a problem with that myself.

  • Baron

    I agree with aron here

  • Baron

    Fully agree with Aron here. Theres confusion on the old vs new system.

    As a side note, if anyone has any ideas for Realmwide Benefits, please direct them here - https://forums.candarion.com/topic/20/realmwide-benefits

  • Baron

    So under this system, why would I want to take on a vassal? Like Teysa said, if there’s no personal reward for being a liege then the sole benefit is having more in-lore power. And in my opinion, that’s not enough. There is very little point in being the ruler of a realm if you don’t “own” the builds inside it. Weighing the balance between having more in-lore power vs. having complete control over the development of your realm, not having to worry about leaving room for vassal to expand, and not needing to think about vassal wrangling and coordination? There’s no question as to which I’d prefer. This will only make the vassal divide worse as many people will stop taking vassals when only some people are willing to do so.

    Since we’ve already decided that all noble ascensions will be voted on by the community, there can only be one rank of bottlenecking in the worst case scenario if lieges benefit from vassal builds: the realm will always be the rank of its liege, and the liege’s rank will incorporate the vassal’s. And if you’re worried about that...well I think that’s the commitment you have to make when sticking with a realm, along with not having total creative freedom.

    Now, I know you said there will be tangible rewards for lieges who take on vassals. But absent ideas for these rewards, I can’t in good conscience support this ranking system while relying on the promise that we’ll come up with something at some point in the future. I have to take the system at face value which, at this point, is only detriments for lieges who take on vassals.

Log in to reply