Settlement Progression Requirements

  • Baron

    Hello, we discussed this some on the discord..

    The current progression system has settlement size requirements, which at early-levels of progression especially feels... bad. Not only does it unevenly distribute the value of player-contribution, based on how that contribution is positioned but feels intimately tied to lore (which it is not).

    A player that builds 35 buildings, with them positioned kind of in small clusters throughout one or multiple realms, does not satisfy the requirements. But a player that builds 35 buildings in one local area, does. Aren't these contributions to the server equal? Assuming the quality of those builds and surrounding lore are of equal substance.

    This is more obvious to those below the noble rank, as they are often trying to find their place on the server and contributing to multiple projects before starting their own. Although if a player decides to never build a larger settlement, they should still be recognized for their contributions around the server, even if that does reach the higher-levels of build count.

    Good Luck.

  • Viscount

    I don't agree with changing how it is currently.

    The system in place promotes worldbuilding. A certain requirement of settlement count, and then a large settlement. This system helps to demonstrate the ability to create different settlements, different lore, and to be able to branch out rather than remain in one place. The large settlement also demonstrates that you can work on something and devote a lot of time and effort toward growing it, typically a capital, which serves as a perseverance factor that I think is necessary in order to obtain noble status. If you work all over the place with no large settlement, I feel like that shows a lack of dedication to one project, causing me to wonder how a newly founded realm might look if we get rid of the idea of a large settlement.

    By all means, if you want to create multiple smaller settlements in multiple realms, and then a large settlement in another realm too... go for it! But I believe you need the build count for the large settlement. I don't find it acceptable to only have 35 builds that are spread out all over the entire server. I really feel like that defeats the point of worldbuilding. Sure, you might have lore to go along with it, but without a large settlement to base yourself from and other feeder settlements or whatnot around it, I don't think you can properly WORLD build. You will "2 houses and a garden-build" with "oh look a piece of lore explaining the families living in these homes and how they tend to the garden".

    I think it is important to keep the large settlement at its currently required 20 builds. It really isn't that much, anyway. That's a very small and easy to accomplish number. Aside from that, your other 15 builds can be anywhere, so long as you have adequate lore to go alongside them. At that point noble status can be considered.

    Tldr; I think a large settlement and a neighboring settlement or two are critical to the worldbuilding experience, show dedication to the server, and must be done as written in order to obtain noble status. I do not agree with the idea of amending the current system.

  • Viscount

    @Sebastian said in Settlement Progression Requirements:

    This is more obvious to those below the noble rank, as they are often trying to find their place on the server and contributing to multiple projects before starting their own. Although if a player decides to never build a larger settlement, they should still be recognized for their contributions around the server, even if that does reach the higher-levels of build count.

    Also, if they never plan to build a large settlement, then I imagine they will never be starting their own realm. In which case, why worry about the build counts for noble status? Perhaps they want to vote? In which case, I think a singular settlement of at least 20 builds is something a player can handle in order to earn their voting privileges.

  • Baron

    It's been quite a while since I've been a non-noble, but as a noble who chose to remain in their liege's realm, I believe I have something to contribute. A big focus for me was becoming a lord (baron) to have the possibility of starting my own realm if I wanted to. I wasn't very inclined to, but being able to vote and /afkall was quite the bonus. I was privileged enough to be given a project right away by my liege that I could start on that would end up being a settlement of more than 20 buildings. I additionally had to construct two hamlets (a requirement of a large settlement and two hamlets back then). So I'm not exactly too sympathetic in that respect, as we had to meet even more requirements back then.

    However, if the theoretical non-noble is being denied the time to build the 20 build settlement by their liege who has assigned them to other projects, I believe a case can be made. But that's the only leeway I'd be willing to give.

    While it's all well and good that someone would be contributing to everyone else on the server, I think they should also spend some time dedicated to themselves. All the nobles here have had to climb the ranks, no matter how much some of them detest building and prefer lore. I would be against changing the system.

  • Baron

    @Elias While I agree that having at least a large settlement is par for the course for anyone who starts a realm, I cannot see why having small settlements would restrict lore at all. On the contrary, I would think setting an arbritrary number for a settlement size would be even more restrictive to worldbuilding. Although it makes sense for many realms on the server to have large settlements, and that the current requirements are fitting for that - what about realms who are in-lore sparsely populated? What about realms who have no cities and are completely tribal? What about a massive building project that only counts as one building like an isolated castle or monastery?

    The fact is the current system doesn't entirely support worldbuilding of all types, but that's a non-issue for me, even if I have to play by the rules more than my headcanon. That said, I don't oppose the current system since roaming nobles and esquires just arent that common to overhaul an entire system.

  • Baron

    I think I mentioned this when this was brought up in the Discord but the current system is a re-purposed version of the old system with all of the, largely, disliked things stripped away. One of the things carried over was the requirement for a single large settlement that scaled up for higher ranks. I assume that the reason this existed in the old system was to promote the idea of a realm capital and because no one found anything wrong with this req it stayed.

    While we attempted to remove lore from rank there were some ideas that stayed around but weren't perfectly decoupled from that preexisting relationship, this issue being one of them. I would argue that having a settlement of 20 buildings isn't actually all that gatekeepy and is a fairly simple thing to do to get the noble rank, but there is a point that forcing someone to, essentially, build a capital for their realm (as this is kind of the assumed use of this req) is keeping a bit of a bond between lore and rank. I wouldn't want to see this req stripped away completely, as that would just further starve our req/progression system, but I am open to the idea of alternative requirements to take its place.

    We've now had two different posts talk about changes to the progression system (and/or a new one) due to what we have not cutting it for some people. I am on board with the idea of possibly going back over our current systems and having votes for potential changes and additions as while our current system is functional it is rather thin.

  • Baron

    I basically agree with what lawn wrote here, one note is that there were definitely at least a couple of us that were making arguments against the 'one large settlement' method initially. But we were overwhelmingly the minority, at the time.

    I'd also be in favor of revisiting the system to see if changes should be made.

    Additionally I think the 'everyone else had to do it' and 'requirements used to be worse' arguments are quite invalid.

  • Count

    I tend to agree with elias on most of his points, but the one that matters the most here, is showing the ability to stick with a project long enough to get to 20 buildings.

    IMO 20 buildings is not a tall order, or would even be considered a city. It would easily fit in to a tribal lore system.

    What it does do, is force you to build more than just houses. With that many buildings, there should then be merchants, skilled trades, cultural and government buildings.

    I could agree with lightening the requirements for the higher levels, so there doesn't have to be massive sprawling cities, but I don't think the early stages are restricting lore, and have a place in showing that a member can compete a project before being given the ability to start their own realm.

  • Viscount

    Exactly my thoughts. Emperor for example standing at 300 builds for a large settlement--- okay, that might be a problem for some. For me, I'm okay with it, but I do see how that can be restrictive for many people who would rather make the 800 builds throughout dozens of smaller settlements. So perhaps lowering the count for higher ranks would be acceptable. I think 100 is a good cap, even for emperor. If someone wishes to make a settlement with over a thousand builds, I mean go for it! But most of us don't want to make something like that. So, lowering the cap would be okay. As far as obtaining nobility though... come on, 20 builds is an easily obtainable number, and frankly, I think that should be RAISED to 30 or 40. It really does have that dedication factor, showing the ability to work on something to completion, with more factors than just homes.

Log in to reply