RoE Development > Regent Guide
STABILITY
Yggdrasil (DM Andy):
--- Quote from: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) on September 17, 2013, 02:50:10 AM ---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).
--- End quote ---
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.
Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde):
--- Quote from: X-Points East on September 17, 2013, 08:12:28 PM ---
--- Quote from: Talinie & NIT/TD(Linde) on September 17, 2013, 07:37:59 PM ---
--- Quote from: X-Points East 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 Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase, Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of –5; and ASI threshold of 0.
--- End quote ---
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 Bjørns.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
X-Points East:
--- Quote from: Talinie & NIT/TD(Linde) on September 17, 2013, 07:37:59 PM ---
--- Quote from: X-Points East 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.
--- End quote ---
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 Bjørns.
--- End quote ---
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.
Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde):
--- Quote from: X-Points East on September 18, 2013, 08:26:21 AM ---
--- Quote from: Talinie & NIT/TD(Linde) on September 17, 2013, 07:37:59 PM ---
--- Quote from: X-Points East 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 Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase, Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of –5; and ASI threshold of 0.
--- End quote ---
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 Bjørns.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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 Bjørn 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.
X-Points East:
--- Quote from: Talinie & NIT/TD(Linde) on September 18, 2013, 09:27:33 AM ---
--- Quote from: X-Points East on September 18, 2013, 08:26:21 AM ---
--- Quote from: Talinie & NIT/TD(Linde) on September 17, 2013, 07:37:59 PM ---
--- Quote from: X-Points East 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.
--- End quote ---
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 Bjørns.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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 Bjørn 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version