Noble ranks

[Alric]

Forum post dor discussion discord channel.

Change ranks to commoner, Esquire, knight, baron, count, duke, prince, king, emperor.
(Or something similar)

Knight and up are considered nobles

knight (vassal noble)
Get vote.
Build hold, including a manor or small castle or some medium sized administrative building?

Baron (first rank where you can be a realm leader)
Barony is slightly larger, the main hold and one hamlet.

(Sidebar: do you start a realm at knight, but only get baron once you hit the baron build reqs?)

Count
County is bigger yet and 2 hamlets

Duke,
Reduce duchy to 2 counties? Or a combo of counties/baronies with min build numbers? Do anything to lessen the exponential rate?

Prince
2 duchies instead of 3?

Do we maintain the capital building reqs? Or go with overall build reqs, so people can build less urban realms?

Additional knight/ baron rank instead of lord makes vote take longer (maybe) but slightly streamline higher ranks so people still get progression. You should still be able to reach higher ranks as a vassal, knight shouldn't be considered a stopping point for people who enjoy being vassals.

Im in the one vote no matter rank camp, so that influences my take. If high ranks retain more votes, don't reduce duke+ reqs

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

[Kyrin]

I prefer this order Commoner, Esquire, Knight, Lord(vassal vote), Baron(can start own realm), Count, Duke, King, Emperor. I would be in favour of ditching the capital building reqs.

[Aevirath]

My suggestion is thus

Commoner (Start on server)

Esquire (Can't be relinquished)

Knight (1 Vote)

Baron (Realm Start)

Viscount (1 Vote (FTP) )

Count ( 2 Vote (NPC) )

Duke ( 2 Vote (2 FTP) )

Prince (3 Vote)

King (3 Vote (3 FTP)

Emperor (4 Vote)

[Aron]

Commoner -> Base Rank
Esquire -> Here to stay
Knight -> 1 Vote (approx old Lord)
Baron -> Can found a realm
Viscount -> Can start a co-build NPC realm with other Viscount+, first FTP (approx old Count)
Count -> Can found solo NPC realms
Duke -> 2 Votes, 2nd FTP
Prince -> 3rd FTP
King -> 3 Votes
Emperor -> 3 Votes and also you're an emperor (basically a prestige rank?)

[Alric]

I like Aevirath's system.
We should probably figure out rank requirements, and put it all together before finalizing anything though. A lot of this is on the assumption that these extra ranks will not follow the same exponential requirements pattern, but instead result in getting ranks a little more frequently, and give a better feeling of progression.

[BoiteMan]

now should we use more colors for ranks ?

[ThunderPony]

@Aevirath said in Noble ranks:

My suggestion is thus

Commoner (Start on server)

Esquire (Can't be relinquished)

Knight (1 Vote)

Baron (Realm Start)

Viscount (1 Vote (FTP) )

Count ( 2 Vote (NPC) )

Duke ( 2 Vote (2 FTP) )

Prince (3 Vote)

King (3 Vote (3 FTP)

Emperor (4 Vote)

I am fine with this system. It seems to offer a fair amount of voting power for those who have put in the time but not excessively and clear in game benefits such as NPC realms and FTP. ALthough @Aevirath When you say NPC do you mean they get 1 NPC realm or are just able to make NPC realms?

[beijimon]

@Aron said in Noble ranks:

Commoner -> Base Rank
Esquire -> Here to stay
Knight -> 1 Vote (approx old Lord)
Baron -> Can found a realm
Viscount -> Can start a co-build NPC realm with other Viscount+, first FTP (approx old Count)
Count -> Can found solo NPC realms
Duke -> 2 Votes, 2nd FTP
Prince -> 3rd FTP
King -> 3 Votes
Emperor -> 3 Votes and also you're an emperor (basically a prestige rank?)

I like this system. I would also be fine with reducing the requirements for ranking up but not to a large extent — I.e. no 2-county duchies.

Finally, I’d support changing the build requirements to a capital of a certain size plus a set number of buildings distributed in any way to allow more flexibility in realm creation and style.

[Alric]

@beijimon
The voice discussion was a capital size, a total number of buildings, and a total number of settlements.