RoE Development > Regent Guide

STABILITY

(1/5) > >>

X-Points East:


--- Quote from: X-Points East on August 31, 2013, 06:54:13 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
THRESHOLDS1-Type
Domain2-Type
Domain3-Type
Domain4-Type
DomainLG+2+1+0–1LN/NG+1+0–1–2LE/TN/CG+0–1–2—NE/CN–1–2——CE–2———
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: X-Points East on September 17, 2013, 01:14:29 AM ---

--- Quote from: X-Points East on September 12, 2013, 03:29:16 AM ---
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.



--- End quote ---

OoC:

And perhaps domain size (in a bloodline-score-of-regent context) could modify, not base stability, but the threshold for annual stability increase?



--- End quote ---

OoC:

Suggestion:

Base Stability

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

Annual Stability Increase

STABILITY
THRESHOLDS1-Type
Domain2-Type
Domain3-Type
Domain4-Type
DomainTiny LG+4+3+2+1Small LG+3+2+1+0Tiny LN/NG+3+2+1+0Medium LG+2+1+0–1Small LN/NG+2+1+0–1Tiny LE/TN/CG+2+1+0–1Large LG+1+0–1–2Medium LN/NG+1+0–1–2Small LE/TN/CG+1+0–1–2Tiny NE/CN+1+0–1–2Huge LG+0–1–2–3Large LN/NG+0–1–2–3Medium LE/TN/CG+0–1–2–3Small NE/CN+0–1–2–3Tiny CE+0–1–2–3Huge LN/NG–1–2–3–4Large LE/TN/CG–1–2–3–4Medium NE/CN–1–2–3–4Small CE–1–2–3–4Huge 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———

Ruideside/OM (RP):
No.

X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan):
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).

X-Points East:
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

Ruideside/OM (RP):

--- 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.
--- End quote ---
The discussion has already taken place.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page