RoE Development > Regent Guide
Domain maintenance and court expenditure
DM B:
It would be b.
The idea is that having more than 100 lvls should be inefficient.
X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy):
--- Quote from: DM B on September 08, 2012, 08:04:55 PM ---It would be b.
The idea is that having more than 100 lvls should be inefficient.
--- End quote ---
Gaining that extra holding level costs you 5.15 GB in upkeep so the regent's income would probably reduce from gaining a holding level which seems extremely inefficient :o
100 holdings, 100*1/10=10 GB vs 101 holdings, 101*1.5/10 = 15.15 GB.
Method "a" makes additional holdings increasingly unproductive which reflects inefficiency but the cliff edge is avoided as you cross a boundary - you could ramp up the step cost to really push the "don't get cocky" message though.
As an alternative to increasing cost to deter large domains, have you considered stability?
A simple conversion:
0-5 +2 stability
6-10 +1 stability
10-100 no impact
101-200 -1 stability
201-300 -2 stability
301+ -3 stability
I'd consider reducing the top "step size" from 100 blocks to blocks of, say, 2*bloodline score. Or to be tough [bloodlinescore+court spend] although that would leave a lot of current domains on a base of -1 stability (modified by alignment, etc).
That would give the very small domains a good chance of pulling off actions despite minimal income, while encouraging larger domains to create vassals - the value of take 10 is quite significant in RP saving.
X-Osoerde (Alan):
The solution is to get a vassal -which is likely the point.
DM B:
--- Quote from: Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy) on September 08, 2012, 08:42:05 PM ---
--- Quote from: DM B on September 08, 2012, 08:04:55 PM ---It would be b.
The idea is that having more than 100 lvls should be inefficient.
--- End quote ---
Gaining that extra holding level costs you 5.15 GB in upkeep so the regent's income would probably reduce from gaining a holding level which seems extremely inefficient :o
100 holdings, 100*1/10=10 GB vs 101 holdings, 101*1.5/10 = 15.15 GB.
Method "a" makes additional holdings increasingly unproductive which reflects inefficiency but the cliff edge is avoided as you cross a boundary - you could ramp up the step cost to really push the "don't get cocky" message though.
As an alternative to increasing cost to deter large domains, have you considered stability?
A simple conversion:
0-5 +2 stability
6-10 +1 stability
10-100 no impact
101-200 -1 stability
201-300 -2 stability
301+ -3 stability
I'd consider reducing the top "step size" from 100 blocks to blocks of, say, 2*bloodline score. Or to be tough [bloodlinescore+court spend] although that would leave a lot of current domains on a base of -1 stability (modified by alignment, etc).
That would give the very small domains a good chance of pulling off actions despite minimal income, while encouraging larger domains to create vassals - the value of take 10 is quite significant in RP saving.
--- End quote ---
Very interesting feedback!
The stability idea was very intriguing - it's easier to keep control of a very small domain than a very large one. Conceptually very sound.
X-Mhoried/Constantine Mhor (Wiktor):
--- Quote from: Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy) on September 08, 2012, 08:42:05 PM ---
I'd consider reducing the top "step size" from 100 blocks to blocks of, say, 2*bloodline score. Or to be tough [bloodlinescore+court spend] although that would leave a lot of current domains on a base of -1 stability (modified by alignment, etc).
--- End quote ---
Connecting the bloodline power to the stability of the realm is also a nice idea!
Basically creating vassals should be the only way for huge domains, something similar to the demense score in CK I & II
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version