Idea: fiefdoms on Syndesia


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    Occurred to me it might be cool if Syndesia house plots represented potential income to guilds. Each claimed plot could generate X fiefdom income per day, but the income wouldn't be taken from the occupant (it would just be an ingame fountain).

    Guilds could claim the fiefdom income from the plots (or the owners could declare for a guild), and guilds could fight over the claims on the fiefdom level, making Syndesia even more about wars for territory. (This would in no way affect the actual owner/builders of the claim; a war could rage over their plots, and not affect their plots in the least.)

    If the income for a plot rose as it was developed, it might even be in a guild's best interest to help the locals. 🙂


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    And what would the money-sink be to compensate?

    I'm wary of how this game handles its economy and I don't want a system where the strong and rich only get stronger and richer.


  • TF#1 - WHISPERER

    Seconded. Under suggested idea, the bigger guild will only get bigger and will, eventually, swallow the rest of the guilds.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @deusex2 said in Idea: fiefdoms on Syndesia:

    Seconded. Under suggested idea, the bigger guild will only get bigger and will, eventually, swallow the rest of the guilds.

    Not if you have decent member limit. Not too small to allow gaming communities to play together, but also not allowing thousands of people playing in one guild.

    MY personal opinion is that around 300 members would be a decent member limit for guilds.


  • TF#9 - FIRST AMBASSADOR

    I could see taxes being collected from the residents to go toward a fund that could be used solely for upgrades within the kingdom (not collectible by a player). That is actually in a couple of games I've seen. The leader could even select the tax rate with a cap limit. I do believe I remember polls could be started in SWG for players to vote on changes to the cities. That is also how mayors were elected. I really liked SWG city management.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @Gothix said in Idea: fiefdoms on Syndesia:

    Not if you have decent member limit. Not too small to allow gaming communities to play together, but also not allowing thousands of people playing in one guild.
    MY personal opinion is that around 300 members would be a decent member limit for guilds.

    Dynamight have said that there will be no member limit on guilds.

    I also don´t like the Idea of giving money which came from nothing to the guilds, especially if the system favours bigger guilds.


  • TF#1 - WHISPERER

    Even though I support imposing restrictions on large alliances to prevent them from outright controlling and chilling the game as has happened in other MMOs... I’m actually OK with this suggestion if executed properly.

    Suppose a larger, more powerful guild successfully sieges a smaller, weaker guild city (which we know will happen). It would be cool if the victorious guild can give the defeated guild an option: we can either forcibly remove your town from you... or you can keep it and serve as our vassals and pay us tribute.

    It allows defeated guilds and governors to retain their holdings to a degree rather than be automatically ousted.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @Alexian said in Idea: fiefdoms on Syndesia:

    Suppose a larger, more powerful guild successfully sieges a smaller, weaker guild city (which we know will happen). It would be cool if the victorious guild can give the defeated guild an option: we can either forcibly remove your town from you... or you can keep it and serve as our vassals and pay us tribute.
    It allows defeated guilds and governors to retain their holdings to a degree rather than be automatically ousted.

    It was already said that when you lose a siege battle you will only lose the governship if you are unable to pay some fine / tribute to the winning guild. Sadly not a lot is known about sieges yet, so let´s hope we can get a Feature Spotlight on it sometime soon 🙂

    And also... what does that have to do with the original topic ( since you said "Suppose" I would assume this is your example on how it could be handled correctly in your optionon, but I don´t see the need for plots giving free gold to the guild for such a system) ? 👀


  • TF#1 - WHISPERER

    @Eurav said in Idea: fiefdoms on Syndesia:

    @Alexian said in Idea: fiefdoms on Syndesia:

    Suppose a larger, more powerful guild successfully sieges a smaller, weaker guild city (which we know will happen). It would be cool if the victorious guild can give the defeated guild an option: we can either forcibly remove your town from you... or you can keep it and serve as our vassals and pay us tribute.
    It allows defeated guilds and governors to retain their holdings to a degree rather than be automatically ousted.

    It was already said that when you lose a siege battle you will only lose the governship if you are unable to pay some fine / tribute to the winning guild. Sadly not a lot is known about sieges yet, so let´s hope we can get a Feature Spotlight on it sometime soon 🙂

    And also... what does that have to do with the original topic ( since you said "Suppose" I would assume this is your example on how it could be handled correctly in your optionon, but I don´t see the need for plots giving free gold to the guild for such a system) ? 👀

    Correct, I was just saying it would be cool for conquering guilds to have the option of creating vassals and fiefs from their defeated foes instead of just taking the territory from them. 😄


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    Perhaps larger the guild, the larger are some taxes that will need to be payed, so growing the guild beyond certain number (where cost curve will start to exponentially rise) will serve as a soft cap on guild size.

    Costs.jpg

    As you can see in diagram I have drawn, rise of costs for guild maintenace up to 300 members would be linear, at which point soft cap 1 hits and costs start rise at a slight curve, up to member limit of 400 when cost line just explodes exponentially up to the sky.

    No hard limit on number of members, but upward from 300, costs will start to rise more tangible, and upwards from 400 they will become almost unberable, so it will simply be not worth having guild larger than that.

    logistic costs of alliance can be done in similar fashion, so size of alliance will also be "limited" in a same fashion.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @Roccandil

    i hate inflation.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    The benefit to claiming fiefs doesn't need to be money; it could also be prestige. Nearby claims would thus be a kind of suburbs of a town, contributing to its prestige gain. 🙂

    If money were indeed the object, I imagine an appropriate money sink would be guild/alliance upkeep. That would need to be balanced, of course, to prevent snowballing, but one way or another, the fundamental idea here is to make active claims worth fighting over on Syndesia (without directly affecting the actual claim owner/builder).

    That would make guild territorial ownership more than simply owning towns, and thus territorial warfare would have many soft points to contest, instead of the much harder (and rarer) fortifications of a town.

    I see an ever-shifting territorial map, for instance, in which you can see guild ownership of towns and house claims, and in which house claims on the borders change hands frequently. I think that would be really cool. 🙂


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @Gothix said in Idea: fiefdoms on Syndesia:

    Perhaps larger the guild, the larger are some taxes that will need to be payed, so growing the guild beyond certain number (where cost curve will start to exponentially rise) will serve as a soft cap on guild size.

    Costs.jpg

    As you can see in diagram I have drawn, rise of costs for guild maintenace up to 300 members would be linear, at which point soft cap 1 hits and costs start rise at a slight curve, up to member limit of 400 when cost line just explodes exponentially up to the sky.

    No hard limit on number of members, but upward from 300, costs will start to rise more tangible, and upwards from 400 they will become almost unberable, so it will simply be not worth having guild larger than that.

    logistic costs of alliance can be done in similar fashion, so size of alliance will also be "limited" in a same fashion.

    people will just get around this by making multiple guilds , trading between themselves for free
    having 10 of the same guild spelt in different ways


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @Xzoviac

    i've already seen it in games that offered a cap that could be expanded. or they split their 'elite' players into the main guild and their 'untested' players in the other guild. some guilds were separate by divisions, assault, defense, flank, gathering, production, etc (not obvious guild names of course).


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    Yes, but in between different guild members friendly fire would exist, and this would prevent brainless zergs, which would be the main point. 🙂 And without placing hard cap on guild member number.

    However for this to be viable, friendly fire would need to exist for good aligned characters as well, when they are travelling though Syndesia and Tartaros (Arboreus can be excluded from friendly fire, since no zergs there anyway, since no PvP).


 

Copyright © 2019 Dynamight Studios Srl | Fractured