Author Topic: STABILITY  (Read 2216 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
STABILITY
« on: September 17, 2013, 01:50:05 am »


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
1-Type
Domain
2-Type
Domain
3-Type
Domain
4-Type
Domain
LG
+2
+1
+0
–1
LN/NG
+1
+0
–1
–2
LE/TN/CG
+0
–1
–2
—
NE/CN
–1
–2
—
—
CE
–2
—
—
—



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?



OoC:

Suggestion:

Base Stability

Base stability can never fall below –5 or rise above +5.

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
—
—
—

« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 09:58:35 am by X-Points East »

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: STABILITY — Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2013, 02:46:57 am »
No.
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan)

  • Former players
  • Scion
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Regency: 10
  • Gender: Male
Re: STABILITY — Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2013, 02:50:10 am »
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.

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).
Most Sacred Broker Ruormad Coumain, Patriach of the Celestial Jewel of Sarimie.
The wise man invests in times of plenty to ensure plenty in times of hardship.

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: STABILITY
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2013, 03:43:19 am »
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 09:59:18 am by X-Points East »

Offline Ruideside/OM (RP)

  • Otmar Messer, Lord-Commander, etc., etc., etc.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
  • Regency: 7
  • Gender: Male
  • Come let us discuss this...
    • Bob's Worlds
Re: STABILITY — Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2013, 04:27:54 am »
Quote
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.
By the Grace of My Own Right Hand, Lord Commander of the Federated Free Companies, Governor-General of the Ruideside, Marshal of the Realm, and Captain-General of the Brethren of  the Black Flag.

My Tollanar blog: https://bobsworlds.wordpress.com/

"If reason won't work - try violence"

Offline Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)

  • **-Thuriene Donalls-** Bearer of the Rose Scepter.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Regency: 2
Re: STABILITY — Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2013, 10:21:26 am »
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.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 10:36:01 am by Talinie & NIT/TD(Linde) »
Thuriene Donalls.
Thane of Talinie.
Supreme Hierarch of the Northern Imperial Temple of Haelyn.

"Those who hear the word of Haelyn and obey are like plants rooted in rich, fertile soil.
They will thrive, grow and be the most beautiful flowers in the garden of man."

Offline Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)

  • **-Thuriene Donalls-** Bearer of the Rose Scepter.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Regency: 2
Re: STABILITY — Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2013, 01:22:17 pm »
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.

Just a note:
This quote was written back when Brandon's second post penalized lawful domains for being a multiple type domain by reducing maximum annual stability increase(ASI) by -2, and didn't reduce ASI for chaotic domains for their 2nd domain type. He might change it again so this rant seems out of place. But trust me, it is not!

Brandon was nice enough to send me a PM informing me of his change. And I appreciate that very much!
But it doesn't change the fact that I have to constantly edit my posts to keep them up to date unless I want to seem stupid. Any new reader would read my post and wonder what I was talking about, and where I got my crazy numbers from.

I feel it is unfair to the discussion, and to me, that I have to update my posts in order to keep the discussion on track.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I will now try to address this proposal without using any posted numbers as a reference. That will hopefully ensure that my post will make some sort of sense regardless of other players edits to their own posts.

I feel Bjψrn's proposal in 2.25 for linking BS to domain size is the way to do it if we at any point want to link BS to domain size. It will give a bonus to medium, large and huge domain sizes of regents with high BS while keeping the smaller domain sizes static.
That being said I like the completely static version that Bjψrn proposed better!

BS is strong enough and there is no need to give double bonus to regents with high BS.

Granting a higher maximum ASI to small domains and lowering it for larger domains in effect give higher income to small domains and lower income to large domains. This is already achieved by domain maintenance not being linear.

In addition to changing the income of domains, the change to ASI will in effect grant a bonus to small domains actions while imposing a penalty on large domains actions. That might be something that we want to do? I think it could be a good idea, but not while we keep the current domain maintenance rules.

I am against linking domain types to ASI!
Firstly because we have different amount of holding types linked to each domain type. That inherently makes the domain types that may hold 3 types of holdings even more powerful than they are today. In effect the rule will penalize! But it will penalize Wizards and Temples before it penalizes Guilds, and it will penalize Guilds before it penalizes Nobles. That is IMO not desirable.

Secondly. I don't agree with the reasoning for linking a negative stability modifier to number of domain types. Stability as defined in RGv2.21 is the loyalty and effectiveness of your government. And I don't see the link that make your government in general disloyal to their king because he is the conduit to their God as well. Neither do I see the link that make the government ineffective because their king is a mage, or a guilder. I can't make a link between any two domain types and say: "Yes! That would always make the government disloyal or ineffective."

I can see that it might be appropriate from a game masters point of view to dissuade multiple type domains. But that can be achieved via granting each ruler a small specific bonus to domain actions in regard to a specific holding type.
It will work just as well, and it won't seem as a rule imposed to dissuade a behavior, rather a rule to encourage another behavior. That is IMO more desirable.


To sum it all up:

If we want to grant a bonus to small domains actions a way to do it could be to implement base 2.25 rules for ASI and domain size while changing the domain upkeep to being linear.

If we want to encourage people to stay within a single holding type that could be done with a holding specific bonus representing the skills of the regent. And should be addressed in character creation rules.
Thuriene Donalls.
Thane of Talinie.
Supreme Hierarch of the Northern Imperial Temple of Haelyn.

"Those who hear the word of Haelyn and obey are like plants rooted in rich, fertile soil.
They will thrive, grow and be the most beautiful flowers in the garden of man."

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: STABILITY
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2013, 07:16:35 pm »

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 X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of –5; and ASI threshold of 0.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 10:06:30 am by X-Points East »

Offline Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)

  • **-Thuriene Donalls-** Bearer of the Rose Scepter.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Regency: 2
Re: STABILITY — Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2013, 07:37:59 pm »

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, 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.
Thuriene Donalls.
Thane of Talinie.
Supreme Hierarch of the Northern Imperial Temple of Haelyn.

"Those who hear the word of Haelyn and obey are like plants rooted in rich, fertile soil.
They will thrive, grow and be the most beautiful flowers in the garden of man."

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: STABILITY
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2013, 08:12:28 pm »


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 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.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 10:07:31 am by X-Points East »

Offline Yggdrasil (DM Andy)

  • Demigod
  • Sovereign
  • *
  • Posts: 1.029
  • Regency: 2
  • Gender: Male
Re: STABILITY — Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2013, 10:24:54 pm »
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).

The generic KISS rule should also be borne in mind, and the ability for other mechanics to deal with an issue to avoid a single mechanic being overloaded.  The progression in your table gets quite nasty when considering the impact on the extremes - while I can see the arguments - often both for and against - the various mods, Bjorn's original of -3 to +3 already puts a wide potential variation in.

I'm wondering if it might be better to give realms a "free action" in winter to try to improve stability with the stuff above being modifiers to the DC, rather than a mechanic that automatically increases stability subject to caps.  Over time you might expect a similar outcome as the smaller, more cohesive realms were more likely to gain stability, but in play a good role-player is going to find it much more easy to recover or enhance their realm as they can work the roll if it's crucial to them.
Sometimes the gods are neither subtle nor slow to anger

Offline Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)

  • **-Thuriene Donalls-** Bearer of the Rose Scepter.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Regency: 2
Re: STABILITY — Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2013, 01:04:58 am »


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, 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.
Thuriene Donalls.
Thane of Talinie.
Supreme Hierarch of the Northern Imperial Temple of Haelyn.

"Those who hear the word of Haelyn and obey are like plants rooted in rich, fertile soil.
They will thrive, grow and be the most beautiful flowers in the garden of man."

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: STABILITY
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2013, 08:26:21 am »


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 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.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 10:08:20 am by X-Points East »

Offline Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)

  • **-Thuriene Donalls-** Bearer of the Rose Scepter.
  • RoE3 (Rjurik)
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Regency: 2
Re: STABILITY — Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase
« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2013, 09:27:33 am »


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, 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.
Thuriene Donalls.
Thane of Talinie.
Supreme Hierarch of the Northern Imperial Temple of Haelyn.

"Those who hear the word of Haelyn and obey are like plants rooted in rich, fertile soil.
They will thrive, grow and be the most beautiful flowers in the garden of man."

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: STABILITY
« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2013, 10:26:56 am »



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 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.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 10:09:34 am by X-Points East »