Trading work and promotion requirements


  • Count

    So something that started as a joke turned into an actual conversation on the server yesterday. How does the community feel about trading in work that would be used towards a promotion?

    The original joke was me asking for someone to ghost write some lore for me, since I have so little motivation for that side, but the reverse would also apply: building some structures for somebody in trade for something else.
    For example, on aldemeria, I traded a beacon for a hamlet in my country that, under the old system, would have counted towards my promotion.

    Under the current system, would people object to having builds counted (by only one) player that didn't physically build them, but instead still invested time farming materials or a beacon, or writing lore for the player who did build them, (who wouldn't be claiming them on their side?)

    If in favor, I would still say limit it to agreements made before the structures built or lore written, and not allow anything after the fact (no trading a hamlet you have had for ages, to someone who just needs builds to rank up.

    On one hand, this could create some cooperation between people who enjoy building and those who enjoy writing, while maintaining their separate realms.
    On the other hand, this is kind of a way to get around hard (structures) and soft (lore posts) requirements for ranking up, and while promotions still come down to a legal vote, it might be abused in some unforeseen way.


  • Duke

    I am against this on the foundation that the new system was meant to be completely personal contributions, with no outside contributions. I feel like allowing traded work or gifted work that could be used towards a promotion defeats that purpose.


  • Esquire

    I like the idea of trading work. As you already mentioned, there are some people who prefer to build and some who prefer to write lore.

    I think we should try it out for a while and test it. If we find out about ways to abuse it, we can change the rules later on or remove it again if there is no way to balance it out.

    Edit: I also don't think gifts should be allowed. Would be unfair to have new players ranking up 3 titles at once because they got a friend on the server giving them some settlements.


  • Baron

    I don't see anything immediately wrong if a proposal for this was made. My only concern would be unfair trades. Perhaps we have somebody unbiased review the trade and ensure that it's legit. Rotate out like jurors or whoever's online or something. Essentially go, makes sense, that's fair.
    Like a hamlet for a beacon could be a good base. I traded a beacon for 4 rows of oak logs. If we get other ideas for prices, list them so we have a good base for what is a fair trade.
    I would be completely against gift work. If it isn't earned, it shouldn't count towards the total.


  • Baron

    @Iokastos This is my biggest concern, if we were to allow it, there would have to be a standard "price sheet" of sorts.


  • Baron

    I wouldn't be in favor of this especially because of the points that Ioka and Memeo brought up. It's just simply too hard to regulate something like this, having a price sheet seems redundant and an extreme anchor to the worth of certain trades. Some people need things less than others.


  • Baron

    @Mimo Absolutely.


  • Esquire

    I mean we could also limit the number of trades allowed/ the "size" of the trade (so let's say not more than X houses or something like this)


  • Baron

    I don't think the price sheet would be redundant, and the point of trading is that some people need things from others who need them less. I needed a beacon less than Darius. Meant I got a lot of stuff I really needed out of it. The point of trading would be the division of labor, people who need fewer lore/buildings can trade to those who need more buildings/lore, and vice versa. Just supply and demand.


  • Baron

    To respond to Tywens post; the current system was not built to exclude outside help. The current system was made so that lieges didn't reap all of the reward of vassals contributions while they reaped none once they left the realm. Our current system has no conflict with this proposal.

    That all being said - I am also worried about unfair trades. The first implementation we would absolutely need is for these trades to be posted on the forums, formally, before the transaction even begins. And it might also be worth adding another ministry, the ministry of trade, to help regulate and oversee these trades as a standardized sheet might be too hard to make and keep.


  • Count

    Lawn has a good idea with requiring an official post of the trade on the forum. It could work similar to land claims, with nobles having the ability to call a vote against it if they think it's an unfair trade.


  • Viscount

    I agree with everything lawn said. There is a part of me that feels like it shouldn't be legal, as it isn't your work, and paying someone for it feels off. Although the rest of me says I suppose it is okay if everyone else is on board and we have a proper system for it.


  • Baron

    I am in agreement with the idea that we have the official post, like the land claims.


  • Duke

    I'm still of the option this is not in the spirit of progression. If all you have to do is farm and trade for builds and lore it didn't really feel like much of an achievement.

    But it's fairly obvious that progression is meaningless by design so why not.

    I'll be voting no on this if it comes to a vote.


  • Viscount

    I see it from both sides, and I do agree very much with tywen. I'll likely abstain. It could be a nice thing for some people, but paying others for work to count as your own toward progression... basically defeats the point of personal progression. It feels wrong. I would by all means be happy to build in someone else's realm, and have them build in mine... but those builds are still respectfully our own.

    Lore writing I feel can be a little more loose. If someone isn't fantastic on the actual writing part, but has the ideas... maybe they could pay someone, give them the info they need... and have them write it for them. I find that acceptable. As far as builds go... I'm indifferent and moreso leaning towards no.


  • Baron

    That'll be a no from me dog.

    Given the way our ranking system is so heavily tied to your own contributions, rather than a physical location, I just don't see this working. It goes heavily against the way we have progression configured. You rank up based on stuff you, and only you have built and written, except where you haven't?

    I wasn't, and still am not a fan of our ranking system, but we have it and I think opening this can of worms would require a complete overhaul of it from the ground up


Log in to reply
 

19
Online

228
Users

1.1k
Topics

5.1k
Posts