|
Post by CPotter on Feb 19, 2014 1:15:25 GMT -5
My opinion is this. The beta faction system was fun I enjoyed seeing what actions a group I was in did large scale and not just at the once a month events. The way factions get XP was in my opinion a bit unbalanced because some people come to every event and get tons of XP for their faction but then the people who would love to make it but can't are a little screwed like the players from areas further from Baraboo/ Madison they might not be able to make it to as many events and thusly their faction gets a little screwed on XP so they can't spend as much so I feel that should be tweaked a bit. The way the actions are figured out in my opinion is fine the mechanics describe the cause and effect of what factions are doing very well. The perks in my opinion are good, we could add a few. We definitely need to explain what the perks can do. For example messenger hawks it seems like no one knows that they are meant to be used to talk to NPC factions primarily I could out of game RP message another player about some things and we could say the information reached them some other way but it seemed like the perks had a large amount of confusion surrounding them. Other than that I felt the beta factions went quite well and are very enjoyable adding a new aspect to the games that allows pwople to get really involved with the game.
|
|
|
Post by ungrim123 on Feb 19, 2014 13:21:20 GMT -5
Evakos, I'd just like to point something out quick. As for the order, the order was set up as it was almost two years before there were faction rules, hence the issue there. It was also deeply in the red for xp, meaning that any losses were basically unreplaceable.
The Watchwolves were also set up long before the faction rules became a thing, and they also have many members.
|
|
|
Post by ungrim123 on Feb 19, 2014 13:34:47 GMT -5
7. Gist. As I said earlier, I'd love nitty gritty rules, but more general is easier for the heralds to keep up with, two or three resources tops plus $$.
8. Factions would have to be self sufficient right out of the gate, otherwise they'd be to busy trying feed themselves to affect a larger stage.
|
|
blueruby
Order of Starkhaven
Plot Staff
Captain Anne Cash
Posts: 924
|
Post by blueruby on Feb 19, 2014 16:55:13 GMT -5
I suppose I should weigh in on this one eventually. This is going to be long and maybe sound a bit rant-y, but that tends to just be how I write.
1) Factions, how they earn and spend EXP, how their influence grows. For the most part, I like this mechanic as it is. It encourages players to attend events and put their PCs in the middle of the action to spread their influence in the world, which logically makes sense: the more exposure your key figures have in the world, the more people are going to see them as a force to be reckoned/interacted with. That being said, I think there are a few factions at least that would benefit from having a mechanic in place to grant them an extra 1-2 XP every month assuming they remain active on the forums. I am well aware that many of our players cannot attend every event due to life's terrible habit of getting in the way of important crap like playing dress up and swinging foam. These extra points could help keep a faction afloat if the players are unable to attend events, but would require a certain degree of activity on the forums, which would show that the members of the faction are still active, but maybe in a less direct role, or in a position away from where the event is occurring.
As far as the buying of skills, again, I am generally a fan of our current system. The factions earn and spend XP much like characters do, helping to make them feel alive and seem like they are evolving in a natural sense. The skills themselves still need some tweaking, and having descriptions of what the perks would do, cost, and yield would be immensely helpful to a lot of players, and help clear up a lot of the confusion and frustration regarding the mechanics.
2) Scale of factions (big or small) and what that means. I fully support the smaller factions, and also agree that the disparity in sizes caused a lot of problems. The Pirates are a small village with a ship and crew, whereas the Watchwolves were a sizable clan with a few settlements, established resources, and alliances. The MTC is a group of traders, while the Order is an ancient organization with a keep, warriors, and until recently, several boats to their name. Sure, these new factions would logically be smaller anyway, but the amount of time and effort that would need to go into maintaining a clan or the Order is significantly larger than organizing a small band of cutthroats and a ship, and I feel like that's sort of unfair to players. Being in charge of say, a unit of warriors, a few specialists, and perhaps a village or two would be fine, but asking one player, who I can guarantee already has enough to worry about, to keep track of and take care of a massive organization is a little too much.
3) Complex actions available for factions or brief summaries? (this would be the normal "stuff" that a faction can do) In this sense, I vote for simplicity, with the potential to add details at the faction leader's discretion. I know I enjoy having a contingency plan or two in place, and being able to give very specific orders to my units, but that's not everyone's cup of tea. I think a basic overview of what you would like to do ("I want to ship these goods to these people" or "I would like to send a hawk to Branthur") should suffice, but if you would like to get more elaborate, you should be able to do so ("I would like to ship a load of food up to Clan Watchwolf's Western Settlement, avoiding main roads whenever possible, and passing through the territory of Clan Ironmound on the way to see if they would like to aid us at all" as an example).
4) Complex military attacks and outcomes or brief summaries? (this is where it focuses on different units fighting each other). Again, as with number 3, I would like to see this only require the very basics of the plan, but if the leader would like to add more details, they may translate into bonuses in combat against the opponent.
5) Keep "types" (martial, political, economical) or remove... or pick a type and provide exp discount for those perks. I like this part of the mechanic, although I might recommend reducing the cross-class penalty, or granting different classes a different set of "starter perks" (political would get hawks for free, economic would get a free trade route, military would get a free unit of soldiers or something).
6) Monthly actions, bi-monthly, or quarterly actions for the factions? More frequent = more chance to react and more work. Less frequent = more descriptive and easier to handle, much less likely to react to things in the world. Personally, I am a fan of the monthly actions. Being able to decide what I want to do in as close to real-time as possible is a lot of fun for me, and makes the most sense to me if we are going to be switching to the smaller factions. Massive groups like Nightriver or Vandregon and the like might take a little while to mobilize, or send orders to their troops or whatnot, simply because of their size. The smaller the factions, the easier it will be for them to mobilize, to spread the word of the orders, and to deal with insubordination.
7) Should factions be brief and summarized (overall gist of faction, things they can do, no crunching numbers) or detailed like they are (perks, exp, their money amount, alliances, exports and military actions, etc.) This is a fine line to be walking. Too detailed and it turns into a numbers game that people pay more attention to than the LARP itself. Not detailed enough and a lot of players might feel alienated because they don't really understand what their faction has, is capable of doing, etc. I would like us to keep the perks, rework the system to have the factions lean towards breaking even (barring outside influences, such as benefactors, trade routes, food shortages, war, etc.), and change the combat mechanics. More detailed descriptions of what perks can do, how long they would take to do it, and the materials required to accomplish the task would be beneficial for everyone.
8) Should money & supplies be detailed out heavily with factions or should the operating costs and supplies needed to function be more self sufficient and summarized? (Assume factions are self sufficient with money flow/supplies, only have profit or debt influence from major things happening or supplies running out if something big happens). I sort of addressed this in the last item, but I feel like the factions should be more self-sufficient than they are now. Not so much so that a player who never attends an event can have a flourishing faction, but so that players can work to have some extra coin/supplies lying around to encourage trade and the like, without having to worry about how they're going to afford to feed their villages this month. That's not to say that a faction can't lose money or go into debt: Poor planning, lack of activity, or other circumstances would certainly incur a certain amount of debt, and that should be reflected in the faction's funds, but as a whole, the factions have probably learned enough since coming to Mardrun to be able to feed and pay themselves enough to keep people happy.
9) Open feedback for things you LIKE regarding the faction mechanics. Please be descriptive. I like the freedom the mechanics give me. If I didn't have my faction to back me up and provide services to several other groups, there is little doubt in my mind that my crew would be tolerated to the level it is. We have influence, a way to make money, and a sense of unity that we couldn't really have without the factions as they are.
10) Open feedback for things you DO NOT LIKE regarding the faction mechanics. Please be descriptive. I don't like how much I have to worry about my faction. We picked up a huge tab when we were given the ship we have, which is fine. Our military is somewhat lacking due to being a rather new faction and not having the XP to spend on beefing it up, which I understand. But having to deal with trying to reduce our massive debt while every month we need to spend more than our PCs tend to bring in just on maintenance and upkeep, meaning our PCs have less to spend in game is frustrating. Feeling the need to be extremely, almost uncharacteristically cautious because all we have to defend our village on the border of Grimward Territory is a base-level militia is frustrating. Having to use the perk that really sets our faction apart (the Blue Ruby ship) to carry cargo for other factions, rather than whatever we might want to use it for is frustrating. I understand, but I would like to be able to focus more on what I would like to do, rather than trying to scrape together enough coin to survive.
|
|
evakos
Mardrun Trading Consortium
Posts: 53
|
Post by evakos on Feb 19, 2014 23:17:36 GMT -5
@jim(I'm assuming that's you) I'm well aware that they were established long before the mechanic, and it wasn't meant to be any sort of negative commentary on them. We've discussed, pretty much at length, the shortcomings of the mechanic when it came to larger groups like those two and I was simply trying to call back to that.
|
|
|
Post by ungrim123 on Feb 20, 2014 12:29:13 GMT -5
I've now lost four posts because of my phone. ><
Ideas:
Mechanic Scope: I've beaten this horse dead.
Map: Needs to be larger, more unexplored/Mordok infested area.
Mechanics: Have a percentile (d100) based system. It allows for a lot more freedom and different variables over d10's.
Frequency: Bi-monthly, I've thought it over and like it. Makes things easier for everyone.
More to come...
|
|
|
Post by ungrim123 on Feb 20, 2014 15:33:28 GMT -5
Faction Detail: That depends in how frequent actions are. If they stay monthly I'd say very basic, like as they are now basic. If we switch to bi-monthly, that opens some doors. Influence and resources could become specific stats, hawks could be used more often...detail. $$: I may have covered this is a previous post, but if I did it should be restated...cash needs to be more important, and more transparently taken. If you wanna build something, there should be an option to use cash to get it. There could also be some perks that use cash exclusively, like short term "buffs"...mercs for example. Needing xp to get mercs confused the hell outa me. Action Detail: If you wanna be general quick, that should work. If you get really specific with battle plans, write letters and such that should be taken into consideration. Buffs to combat rolls, npcs being nicer that kinda thing.
|
|
|
Post by Amicus on Feb 25, 2014 14:48:43 GMT -5
1) Factions, how they earn and spend EXP, how their influence grows
EXP for physically showing up and EXP for showing up active on the forums? Of course the digital would be worth less because often its most effective to be seen, than hide through letters but seeing how people can't always make it, they would get a chance to interact and voice thier opinion but not fall behind. Probably be best at Heralds discression on what's considered "active and worth the XP."
2) Scale of factions (big or small) and what that means
I honestly think small is the best way to go. From what I've heard and read, there's a lot of little details the Heralds take into consideration. A person might have a really neat idea for their background which works for thier characters than, but as the game evolves, the factions might not fit well and it begins to hurt them.
The Watch Wolves and Starkhaven come to mind. Each of them really great for atmosphere and details, but circumstances have come up, such as cost and security that didn't really get thought about. I think if the Heralds handle some of the long-term "paper work," for some factions and let the players augment the short term day-to day stuff, it'll be more enjoyable. Let the players invest the time to grow thier troops and work to secure the supplies. The Heralds will be kind of like "bosses" of a company, while the players will be the "workers." They can be all-stars, or slackers. They will try to get objectives met while the bosses handle the day to day expenses and confirming with federal rules governed by the system.
Lengthy/Wordy, but basically, I like the idea of small scope.
3) Complex actions available for factions or brief summaries? (this would be the normal "stuff" that a faction can do)
Perhaps a bit of both? Factions start out with basic abilities, but as they grow they can get a bit more complex due to the history of interaction?
4) Complex military attacks and outcomes or brief summaries? (this is where it focuses on different units fighting each other)
See #3
5) Keep "types" (martial, political, economical) or remove... or pick a type and provide exp discount for those perks
I think these were ok, but having a few specific actions that could be cross classed would be kind of nice. Its rare an ability is one or the other other. I mean mercenaries could have political alliance (Look at the outgrowth of using Merc's to fight over in the Middle East) or a lot of ex-military friends with connections and by its very definition, they try to make money, so I could see that being a cross class
6) Monthly actions, bi-monthly, or quarterly actions for the factions? More frequent = more chance to react and more work. Less frequent = more descriptive and easier to handle, much less likely to react to things in the world.
Bi-monthly or Monthly would probably work best. Bi-monthly might be kind of fun. Try running some skirmishes, hit and run tactics, etc in the beginning than towards the end of the month have a larger battle and see if you taxing the resources made the battle more successful. However that would probably be a lot if the world for the Heralds and since the actions seem to go pretty well now, monthly makes sense
7) Should factions be brief and summarized (overall gist of faction, things they can do, no crunching numbers) or detailed like they are (perks, exp, their money amount, alliances, exports and military actions, etc.
I think some of the number crunching, cost/money should be stripped down a bit more. Considering these are established factions, it seems like it makes sense they are self-sustaining. Or they take some losses here and there, but in the end they continue on. Something like that investing idea you told me a little while ago made sense. Perhaps during winter months food or war supplies will be taxed and not as plentiful so the players can play around with cutting a few corners here and there, but to put a penalty on them after the factions have been established seems a bit awkward. Having a faction start up and a player wants to grow it through challenges makes sense, but the ones that have history, not so much.
8) Should money & supplies be detailed out heavily with factions or should the operating costs and supplies needed to function be more self sufficient and summarized? (Assume factions are self sufficient with money flow/supplies, only have profit or debt influence from major things happening or supplies running out if something big happens)
Self sufficient and summarized unless a player want to try and create a new faction this "year." Ones that are like 5-10 years or older, should be self sufficient enough to manage the costs.
9) Open feedback for things you LIKE regarding the faction mechanics. Please be descriptive.
The variety and combination of offers for faction abilities.
10) Open feedback for things you DO NOT LIKE regarding the faction mechanics. Please be descriptive.
NOT SURE
|
|
|
Post by stanrick on Feb 25, 2014 22:20:22 GMT -5
as for more open map? Im against that, just because humans and syndar just showed up dose not mean that the ulven just sat in a hole and did nothing in their over 200 years of existance
|
|
|
Post by ungrim123 on Feb 26, 2014 8:22:04 GMT -5
I have reasons the Ulven haven't expanded farther...Mordok. Religious reasons, its not "their" lands, and it's my understanding Ulven religion is tied to the land. A giant swamp. Lack of interest.
The map is to small for PC faction growth without npc approval.
The map doesn't have any mystery, other then the outlands. Imagine how cool it would be to have the occasional event where mapping new areas is the whole point? After the event the map could grow! I think that would be awesome. The map could easily be expanded beyond the outlands.
As for another reason, there's not enough room for three different populations. If things remain as they are either all three races combine in some way or there would be an apocalyptic race war. Granted, this would be beyond the scope of the game...but it would still suck.
|
|
|
Post by Jopper13 on Feb 26, 2014 11:56:19 GMT -5
I would like to try to try to stay on topic with the faction mechanics as a whole instead of more story/plot points, but I'll chime in quick.
As for the map, the Outlands is a pretty massive area that has yet to be explored. It is known that a great swamp isolates it from the rest of Mardrun and that the northern end of Mardrun is ringed by a great mountain so the Ulven that have sailed around it had little need or want to land, hike over a mountain, and see what was inside it. There are also a number of islands in the north east that no clans hold claim over. There is some room for exploration and definitely something the players could coordinate.
As for the room for races, that is completely true. There is NOT room for three unique races on Mardrun, at least not their large populations, so that is definitely something that will become an issue in the future (more like decades or centuries for now, as populations would need to naturally grow) or in the near future if more refugees are brought over from Faedrun.
|
|