OoC:
For a composite domain, perhaps the threshold for annual stability increase could be reduced by the number of domain types beyond the first?
Hypothetically, in the following manner (with the four relevant domain types being landed, temple, guild, and sorcerous):
Annual Stability Increase
STABILITY
THRESHOLDS
Domain
Domain
Domain
DomainLG LN/NG LE/TN/CG NE/CN CE
OoC:
Suggestion:
Stability: Domain Size
TINY relevant levels less than or equal to 25% of regent's bloodline score
SMALL relevant levels greater than 25% and less than or equal to 75% of regent's bloodline score
MEDIUM relevant levels greater than 75% and less than or equal to 150% of regent's bloodline score
LARGE relevant levels greater than 150% and less than or equal to 250% of regent's bloodline score
HUGE relevant levels greater than 250% of regent's bloodline score
[[[Note: In this context, province, law, manor, temple, guild, and source levels are relevant, whilst trade levels are irrelevant.]]]
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20, is tiny with 0-5 relevant levels; small with 6-15 relevant levels; medium with 16-30 relevant levels; large with 31-50 relevant levels; and huge with 51+ relevant levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 40, is tiny with 0-10 relevant levels; small with 11-30 relevant levels; medium with 31-60 relevant levels; large with 61-100 relevant levels; and huge with 101+ relevant levels.
Example: A domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 60, is tiny with 0-15 relevant levels; small with 16-45 relevant levels; medium with 46-90 relevant levels; large with 91-150 relevant levels; and huge with 151+ relevant levels.
OoC:
And perhaps domain size (in a bloodline-score-of-regent context) could modify, not base stability, but the threshold for annual stability increase?
| STABILITY THRESHOLDS | 1-Type Domain | 2-Type Domain | 3-Type Domain | 4-Type Domain |
| Tiny LG | +4 | +3 | +2 | +1 |
| Small LG | +3 | +2 | +1 | +0 |
| Tiny LN/NG | +3 | +2 | +1 | +0 |
| Medium LG | +2 | +1 | +0 | 1 |
| Small LN/NG | +2 | +1 | +0 | 1 |
| Tiny LE/TN/CG | +2 | +1 | +0 | 1 |
| Large LG | +1 | +0 | 1 | 2 |
| Medium LN/NG | +1 | +0 | 1 | 2 |
| Small LE/TN/CG | +1 | +0 | 1 | 2 |
| Tiny NE/CN | +1 | +0 | 1 | 2 |
| Huge LG | +0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Large LN/NG | +0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Medium LE/TN/CG | +0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Small NE/CN | +0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Tiny CE | +0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Huge LN/NG | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Large LE/TN/CG | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Medium NE/CN | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Small CE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Huge LE/TN/CG | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Large NE/CN | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Medium CE | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Huge NE/CN | 3 | 4 | | |
| Large CE | 3 | 4 | | |
| Huge CE | 4 | | | |
It would be appreciated if people (including the original post) could post their reasoning behind a proposal, or opposition to a proposal so that it can be discussed rather than devolving to childish yes/no arguement.The discussion has already taken place.
This would change max natural stability for Talinie from +2 to -1
That is a serious nerf.
I think it is wrong to mess with domain size. Linking it to bs is to make bs even more powerful. It is already your regency cap and now you want to make it stability cap as well. It could work with Bjψrns version, if domain maintenance was linear. But if added as is sugested here I would seriously contemplate using my first action turn 1 splitting talinie from NIT.
And I am completely unable to follow why chaotic domains who are prone to lower stability than lawful domains should be able to nullify that disadvantage by being able to diversify their domain at no cost.
OoC:
Example:
Domain X
Alignment: Lawful Good
Size: Large
Type: Composite (Landed & Temple)
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20, Domain X has maximum stability of 3; minimum stability of 3; and ASI threshold of 2.
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25, Domain X (effectively) has maximum stability of 2; minimum stability of 4; and ASI threshold of 1.
Under the rules in STABILITY Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase (http://www.twilightpeaks.net/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg20697#msg20697), Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of 5; and ASI threshold of 0.
OoC:
Example:
Domain X
Alignment: Lawful Good
Size: Large
Type: Composite (Landed & Temple)
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20, Domain X has maximum stability of 3; minimum stability of 3; and ASI threshold of 2.
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25, Domain X (effectively) has maximum stability of 2; minimum stability of 4; and ASI threshold of 1.
Under the rules in STABILITY (http://www.twilightpeaks.net/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg20697#msg20697), Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of 5; and ASI threshold of 0.
This example is only true for a limited BS and holding level. The premise to compare the proposal here and 2.25 should be that the domains you look at are the same domain. What is the domain had 31 holdings and the regent had a bs of 20?
Large by your definition but small by Bjψrns.
With that out of the way if I understand the reasoning behind the suggestion.
- a bloodline score has a relationship to the underlying stability of a realm.
- larger realms have a lower underlying stability than smaller realms.
- diverse realms (multiple holding types) have a lower underlying stability.
- lawful realms have a higher underlying stability than chaotic realms.
- good realms have a higher underlying stability than evil realms.
If you accept these statements as true then your proposal has merit.
I'm not entirely sure that I like the intersection of the diversity and lawful/chaotic alignment. In my opinion a chaotic realm should not be penalised to the same level as a lawful holding for being diverse (my personal interpretation is that a chaotic realm makes for easier co-operation accross holdings because there are less restrictions while a lawful realm has layers of rules and protocal that make co-operation between holdings more difficult).
OoC:
Example:
Domain X
Alignment: Lawful Good
Size: Large
Type: Composite (Landed & Temple)
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20, Domain X has maximum stability of 3; minimum stability of 3; and ASI threshold of 2.
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25, Domain X (effectively) has maximum stability of 2; minimum stability of 4; and ASI threshold of 1.
Under the rules in STABILITY Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase (http://www.twilightpeaks.net/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg20697#msg20697), Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of 5; and ASI threshold of 0.
This example is only true for a limited BS and holding level. The premise to compare the proposal here and 2.25 should be that the domains you look at are the same domain. What is the domain had 31 holdings and the regent had a bs of 20?
Large by your definition but small by Bjψrns.
OoC:
In a stability-relevant context, Domain X is a large domain, howsoever defined.
That doesn't validate the example.
In this example there is no guarantee that domain X is the same domain in all 3 systems. And as such it is like comparing apples and bananas.
OoC:
Example:
Domain X
Alignment: Lawful Good
Size: Large
Type: Composite (Landed & Temple)
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20, Domain X has maximum stability of 3; minimum stability of 3; and ASI threshold of 2.
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25, Domain X (effectively) has maximum stability of 2; minimum stability of 4; and ASI threshold of 1.
Under the rules in STABILITY (http://www.twilightpeaks.net/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg20697#msg20697), Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of 5; and ASI threshold of 0.
This example is only true for a limited BS and holding level. The premise to compare the proposal here and 2.25 should be that the domains you look at are the same domain. What is the domain had 31 holdings and the regent had a bs of 20?
Large by your definition but small by Bjψrns.
OoC:
Example:
Domain X
Alignment: Lawful Good
Size: Large
Type: Composite (Landed & Temple)
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20, Domain X has maximum stability of 3; minimum stability of 3; and ASI threshold of 2.
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25, Domain X (effectively) has maximum stability of 2; minimum stability of 4; and ASI threshold of 1.
Under the rules in STABILITY Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase (http://www.twilightpeaks.net/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg20697#msg20697), Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of 5; and ASI threshold of 0.
This example is only true for a limited BS and holding level. The premise to compare the proposal here and 2.25 should be that the domains you look at are the same domain. What is the domain had 31 holdings and the regent had a bs of 20?
Large by your definition but small by Bjψrns.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), a domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20, is apparently large (stability-wise) at 21,and also at 31,province/holding levels.
OoC:
Example:
Domain X
Alignment: Lawful Good
Size: Large
Type: Composite (Landed & Temple)
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20, Domain X has maximum stability of 3; minimum stability of 3; and ASI threshold of 2.
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25, Domain X (effectively) has maximum stability of 2; minimum stability of 4; and ASI threshold of 1.
Under the rules in STABILITY (http://www.twilightpeaks.net/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg20697#msg20697), Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of 5; and ASI threshold of 0.
This example is only true for a limited BS and holding level. The premise to compare the proposal here and 2.25 should be that the domains you look at are the same domain. What is the domain had 31 holdings and the regent had a bs of 20?
Large by your definition but small by Bjψrns.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), a domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20, is apparently large (stability-wise) at 21,and also at 31,province/holding levels.
If you took a moment to read the final paragraph, you would note that: "Small and tiny are unchanged; the only effect of a strong bloodline is increasing the penalty threshold."
Small and tiny are unchanged! So tiny would always be 0-20, small would always be 21-40.
To further underline that fact Bjψrn even wrote that it is only the penalty threshold that is increased. So the smallest possible large domain would be 41 holdings.
That said, you gain enough benefit from a large BS already and as such I don't see the point in linking yet another bonus to BS.
OoC:
Example:
Domain X
Alignment: Lawful Good
Size: Large
Type: Composite (Landed & Temple)
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20, Domain X has maximum stability of 3; minimum stability of 3; and ASI threshold of 2.
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25, Domain X (effectively) has maximum stability of 2; minimum stability of 4; and ASI threshold of 1.
Under the rules in STABILITY Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase (http://www.twilightpeaks.net/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg20697#msg20697), Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of 5; and ASI threshold of 0.
This example is only true for a limited BS and holding level. The premise to compare the proposal here and 2.25 should be that the domains you look at are the same domain. What is the domain had 31 holdings and the regent had a bs of 20?
Large by your definition but small by Bjψrns.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), a domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20, is apparently large (stability-wise) at 21,and also at 31,province/holding levels.
If you took a moment to read the final paragraph, you would note that: "Small and tiny are unchanged; the only effect of a strong bloodline is increasing the penalty threshold."
Small and tiny are unchanged! So tiny would always be 0-20, small would always be 21-40.
To further underline that fact Bjψrn even wrote that it is only the penalty threshold that is increased. So the smallest possible large domain would be 41 holdings.
That said, you gain enough benefit from a large BS already and as such I don't see the point in linking yet another bonus to BS.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), the tiny and small ranges are apparently unchanged. However, a domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20,even though tiny (stability-wise) at 20 province/holding levels,is apparently large (stability-wise) at 21 province/holding levels.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), a domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20, is apparently large (stability-wise) at 21,and also at 31,province/holding levels.
OoC:
According to the alternative method in Draft 2.25 (in which the bloodline score of a regent is relevant), the tiny and small ranges are apparently unchanged. However, a domain, whose regent has a bloodline score of 20,even though tiny (stability-wise) at 20 province/holding levels,is apparently large (stability-wise) at 21 province/holding levels.
| A.S.I. THRESHOLDS | LG Alignment | LN/NG Alignment | LE/TN/CG Alignment | NE/CN Alignment | CE Alignment |
| Tiny Domain | +4 | +3 | +2 | +1 | +0 |
| Small Domain | +3 | +2 | +1 | +0 | 1 |
| Medium Domain | +2 | +1 | +0 | 1 | 2 |
| Large Domain | +1 | +0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Huge Domain | +0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
OoC:
STABILITY Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase (http://www.twilightpeaks.net/forum/index.php?topic=2632.0)
Optional Suggestion:
Base Stability
Base stability can never fall below 5 or rise above +5.
Stability: Domain Size
TINY relevant levels less than or equal to 25% of regent's bloodline score
SMALL relevant levels greater than 25% and less than or equal to 75% of regent's bloodline score
MEDIUM relevant levels greater than 75% and less than or equal to 150% of regent's bloodline score
LARGE relevant levels greater than 150% and less than or equal to 250% of regent's bloodline score
HUGE relevant levels greater than 250% of regent's bloodline score
[[[Note: In this context, province, law, manor, temple, guild, and source levels are relevant, whilst trade levels are irrelevant.]]]
Annual Stability Increase
A.S.I.
THRESHOLDS
Alignment
Alignment
Alignment
Alignment
AlignmentTiny Domain Small Domain Medium Domain Large Domain Huge Domain