Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Here you can make and discuss suggestions to improve the game. / Hier kannst du Vorschläge einreichen und diskutieren um das Spiel zu verbessern.

Moderator: Developers

Post Reply
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Post by Tyan Masines »

Prefarce:
Looking at a constantly declining number of players and general unhappyness with some design features (ingame wise, not technical, mind you), visible in this and this topic, I think a discussion should be had as Achae suggested when the topic was closed.


Also I am aware of the fact that this is a rather radical proposal, I'd like it as a base for discussion / brainstorming on what could be done.
I'd also like people to keep in mind that there's not much to lose, except perhaps personal security and achievement of some characters (who will still get a say, see below).
In any case, even if you disagree with everything that follows, don't just write "this is not good" or "this is too invasive" but share your thoughs. I do not claim this proposal is perfect in any way and don't need to get reminded of it in a more or less friendly way.

I am also building this around the following statement:
Vern Kron wrote:One of the things that /desperately/ frustrates me is how static Illarion is, and we do it in the name of balance. "Every town has their special thing!" Ok, great, but what you are effectively saying is that the towns cannot ever grow beyond what they already are. We can't explore or develop towns further than what already exists.

So then it gets pushed on to the GM team to liven things up. And the real thing that they can do, is only cause hamstrings to characters. Creating opportunities for town development can't occur, because it might disrupt the balance of the game.

An overly balanced game, in which there is no movement, only creates stagnation. Long term players have no incentive to build wide, so instead they build up, on a singular character.
A more dynamic system of succession, ascension and participation in towns

The current system favors people to build up and then stay where they are, forever.
I am aware that tiles can be lost, however the barrier to do so is very different from town to town (Galmair is most dynamic (not saying it is perfect, because it isn't), Runewick and Cadomyr are not).
This proposal will also entail the introduction of a more GM run town system.

The design would be quite simple: Bring back the three town leaders as heads and make them more active. It's not enough to see your town leader once a year. In turn, nuke the noble houses, the chancellors and similar institutions and replace them with a town aristocracy. These are player characters that are currently active. Each town GM decides to give them a special title (I'd suggest the equivalent of Knight etc, there's too many gems around anyway) and that is it. (Reserve all higher titles for GM characters or for a time when we have an AVG of 15-20 players again, should this time ever come.) These people make up a town council and have a voice each, with the town leader (GM) having a veto. Nobody else gets a veto. That's how the VBU started off, right?

Does this break town RP to a degree? (Also read below why the town system we have right now is the biggest immersion killer and ooc bias ever.) Not necessarily, as the town leaders (GM) decide who gets to be aristocracy. In Galmair this might mean putting down a lot of money (ALWAYS coupled with general activity as this is the point, which means being online regularly and not necessarily events, because hosting events for two or three people does not advance the game), in Cadomyr it might entail being a honorable and pious citizen, etc.


This way, even a new character (or, the rarest thing, a new player) could have a say whenever they are actually playing. There'd be no lengthy election periods, there'd be no begging for people to take a leading position (in relation to what Djironnyma wrote in one of the topics), there would be no inactivity of leadership or longing for it at all: Players who actually play a lot get rewarded, people who drop out for a bit lose nothing: If they come back, they will regain their former status. The game will be a game: Play when you want. Right now, you are either a leader and the game becomes a job or you're not and you'll never have a real say. We're handing out too many punishments and too few rewards. There is no playerbase for being serfs. Instead, put everyone on the same level, allow characters to bring forth ideas and then have the entire active population vote on them.


This would require three active GMs (Slighly can't do everything on his own, especially not all three towns).
Couple this with allowing towns to grow beyond what they are (not allowing e.g. Runewick an anvil is the greatest example of forced RP and ooc bias I have ever seen, saying "the gods don't want this" doesn't make it any different)
AND forget for a moment that we need three towns (if people like to all flock to one and the others get deserted -- fine. Most characters only visit other towns these days to sell their loot only, so nothing is lost) and we might have the sandbox approach back that, in eyes of many, made Illarion great once.


To sum up, Advantages:
- Play time gets rewarded above all else (artificial measures of appointment are dropped)
- There's no beef between players (but between CHARACTERS)
- Making new characters will be more rewarding
- A lot less bureaucracy ingame, at least on the player's side
- No "behind-closed-door" meetings trying to avoid other characters as best as possible, only collective town decisions
- More casual, sandbox like gameplay

Disadvantages:
Shoot



edit: I felt like I should add that I'm not aiming to attack any players or how they played their characters. That would be wrong: Their characters found a system in the world and played by its rules, which is not a crime, it's natural. The point is to change the underlying system, not the people.
Last edited by Tyan Masines on Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:02 pm, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
Charlotte-ate-wilbur
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Post by Charlotte-ate-wilbur »

I have an idea..

Why not be more fluid? Let characters pursue whatever it is they want. Have the town leaders but make them mortal, could they be caught and captured and maybe eventually beaten? Or let people amass resources and pay for a depot in a cottage somewhere and build and underground tunnel. These things can change ownership over time, could be fought over legally or by force. It's simple to just simply say "The only limit is your imagination and your actual interactive roleplay" than to place all of these unspoken things you can't do ingame. Aim for a more sandboxy approach and let the players shape the game?
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Post by Tyan Masines »

Leaders should be mortal, yes, but the GM run settlements serve a greater purpose. However, leader NPCs should be characters like everyone else, just played by a GM. Thus, they might change (and with that, also their ideas and goals), but not the underlying system. At least if following my initial proposal. By the way, even for RP reasons this question will have to be addressed some day: Dwarves live very long, but how old is the Don? And the Queen of Cadomyr is already, or almost, out of an age to have an heir (perhaps Baron Hastings should finally work on his claim, RP opportunity right there), etc.

As for players building separate settlements or abodes, I'd rather be opposed: We have a small playerbase and there is no use in separating it further. Three towns separate the playerbase already. Another point of my proposal is that currently within towns the separation continues, we separate further between leadership and "normal" citizens. Sometimes, you'll want to RP in your own group. But ultimately, the system has to incite people to play together. Currently, it separates.
User avatar
Dantagon Marescot
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Illarion Public Library

Re: Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Post by Dantagon Marescot »

I miss the sandbox approach. I realize it becomes harder when we have a limited player base. Even back when Illarion was at its strongest, settlements got abandoned. But you know what, that was what made it kind of great. You'd be exploring the wilderness and come across something abandoned. At the moment, it wouldn't be wise to create another settlement, but is something that should be possible to bring back in the future when it becomes applicable again.

The air of Runewick and Cadomyr is that either you play with those in charge, or you play against them. There is no in between. It may not be intentional. People have gotten to where they are through rp, but the positions have been held too long and have created stagnation. They need to have an easier ability to be changed out without punishing some people for real life popping up unexpectedly. I don't think anyone intended the noble council or the academic council to be set in stone. Only Galmair changes out its people on a regular basis. Those who have proved to be good leaders are elected again and again, but not without others being given a chance.

I would love to see the gm leaders be played more. Yes, it is our job to create rp, and it should not rest upon the shoulders of the gms, but meeting the Queen becomes a memorable interaction. Sitting and discussing magic with the Archmage is a memorable interaction. Having the Don walk into the workshop and inspecting the piece of armor you are working on becomes a memorable interaction. They aren't influencing politics or hindering our play, they are existing and breathing a bit more life into the game.

I also agree that it is time for a bit of a shake up of the gm leaders. How old is the queen now, really? Perhaps reports have made their way back to Albar of the heretical way she runs the town. Sirani is worshiped. Women wear armor and fight. Inhuman lizards are nobles. Slavery is all, but banned. Such liberal ideas can not be tolerated! She should be dethroned and cast aside! And surely the Don has fooled around. Legend has it he deposed of his father, perhaps his son or daughter might do the same. There are reason orphans live in the sewers of Galmair after all. Maybe the Archmage is visited by his own academic council from Lor Angor. He has not been keeping up with his work and has in fact gotten lax in his studies. He is being called back to the magic academy and someone else is placed in his stead while he is gone.

There are so many things that we can do with this that we are not. We should reward people who are active and not punish those who are not. Everyone in the town should help create the atmosphere, instead of just those who lead. Other people need a chance to play the hero. Yes it takes work, but you don't actually know what work it takes until you try. I honestly really like Tyans proposal and think it just needs some tweaks.
User avatar
Karrock
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Post by Karrock »

My opinion on previous locked topic is short: 3 of 4 characters who presented their candidatures for a noble rank were completely not prepared. One of those three held events, but to be honest that character is a new citizen. Only fourth was prepared.

Of course current leader system is poor (at least in Runewick and Cadomyr). Possibility to get higher rank is almost hopeless, just because if you want to get such a rank you must be leader of own guild. People don't want to join to guilds. All those who want to join already decided months, years ago. There are no new characters with lasting belief that they want be a part of any guild. They can join but soon after resign. Even those old guilds what are seem to be solid are losing members.

This proposed idea by Tyan of as I would call more democracy could bring more destruction than even current system. As I say current system is weak, but the problem is not only inside leadership. The problem is deeper. In each town if you are not a leader (chancellor, professor, noble) that nothing depends on you. Current policy force people to play together what create masses of average, lifeless characters with no own shape. Army of clones. Every player when was creating own char set him/her own special traits, beliefs etc. but currently surrounding of vbu syndrome prevents them to create any important role. Those traits are living only on storyline on page and are only a meaningless addition in game. This is effect of situation that only few char leaders can affect to the game. The idea that town-char-leaders will create a real atmosphere which attract other citizens to join was only a dream. To be honest every my proposals in game to work for one town shown that those characters are against to share with power even in smallest part. For them perfect situation is when the common citizen who works for town is tractable loser who also does his job for free. Advantages for working for any char-leader are a cosmic joke. Projects in towns are based on something like we seen in CCCP. All citizens bring their materials and get nothing in return. People can't have own guild/personal workshops.

Summary: I would rather improve status of a common citizen than first focusing on changing the higher-ranks system.
User avatar
Q-wert
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 10:13 am
Contact:

Re: Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Post by Q-wert »

I'm liking the idea. (Hah, bet you did not see that one coming!)

There are some points I am not quite sure on how I would approach them. I'll simply throw them out as somewhat unordered questions:
  • What among online time, other "hard" requirements (things one can put in deterministic numbers, such as gold paid) and "soft" requirements (things one can not, such as piousness or sociality) should weight how much for the GM deciding? How could an ideal balance be achieved?
  • What can be done to prevent ooc-beef/claims of GM-preference regarding "soft" requirements?
  • How frequent or in what circumstances should the town council be re-appointed?
  • What can be done to prevent re-appointment and town board-meetings to become a tedious chore for the GM?
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Post by Tyan Masines »

Q-wert wrote:What among online time, other "hard" requirements (things one can put in deterministic numbers, such as gold paid) and "soft" requirements (things one can not, such as piousness or sociality) should weight how much for the GM deciding? How could an ideal balance be achieved?
I'd weight online time 70% and 30% something else. I'm only myself playing one character (shame) and know little about what should be a requirement in e.g. Runewick, so the GM who would get appointed would have to decide. Like I said, town leaders should be chracters with different ideas and visions. Queen Edwards might prefer something else in her citizens than a King Hastings... within reason of course.

Q-wert wrote:What can be done to prevent ooc-beef/claims of GM-preference regarding "soft" requirements?
The three GMs should control each other and also the rest of the Staff should have an eye on things (without creating too much bureaucracy and therefore make decisions slow). I'm sure that already done, but I can't know because I'm not a part of it and I don't want to speculate. If anything seems utterly off, there's the possibility to file a GM complaint.
However in my idea the aristocracy will be rather broad and not too hard to achieve. Be active for perhaps an ingame year, don't commit any serious crime or act against your city: You're in. There won't be much room for bias.

Q-wert wrote:How frequent or in what circumstances should the town council be re-appointed?
Fluid and dynamic: Each town makes an aristocracy citizen list and keeps it updated. It would be up to the GM character to decide when to drop someone, I'd suggest three RL weeks (without notice -- if you say you're on holiday or a work assignment and can't play, don't punish too much). On the other hand, once you come back, the town leader should allow you to rejoin the ranks more quickly than for the first time. Thus, previous play and older players get a reward (but still just one voice each and no veto).

Q-wert wrote:What can be done to prevent re-appointment and town board-meetings to become a tedious chore for the GM?
The town leader could appoint a player to hold some meetings, and reward the chracter with gold or whatever. Gems, perhaps. Just not titles and more votes, influence or vetos. Helping out your town leader, in this system, would not give you any superiority over other citizens.

However, consider this: In Galmair and soon Cadomyr, we'll have an administration of 3+1 (three players, one GM). I think in Runewick it is 2+1? That's 17 people in total creating bureaucracy. Three towns with one GM would mean 3+Staff Control for the whole of three towns. More work for ONE person (finding the GMs might be the biggest issue here), but in total a more slim game government, a reduction of 14.
This applies mostly for communication between the three GMs.



Three further notes:

The actual process of doing something as a player
1.) If GM leader characters are lax, they don't have to address everything. Let's say a citizen (might even be a "normal" one) wants to bring something forth, let's say building a new gate. This is how it would work:
Player A drafts his idea and puts them on the board. But before the idea can even be addressed at a meeting, there would be a requirement of 1/3 of the aristocracy to sign it. (This is to prevent spamming of issues that would have to be addressed. Players will have to find support BEFORE others even need to consider their stuff.) So Player A has to get ig and find Players B, C, D to sell them his idea. Once they sign, it'll be put to a vote. (This can also be done via the board, if town meetings become too long and tedious. However, if everyone reads the draft first and knows what it is about, a voting process can be as short as 3 minutes.) Let's say it requires 2/3 of all aristocrats AND NO VETO from the town leader to pass. As you will have figured, it would work a bit like a petition in real life.

The idea is to have players form groups and thereby still have influence. If you lead your group well and they all vote what you want, you can still be a "Noble", sort of. But you'd have to constantly work on player characters and they could also challenge you from the in- or from the outside. Also this would crack down a bit on what I call "on demand play". Characters only coming ig and doing something when their group is in peril and else never play. Those characters would not be aritocrats, naturally, and would not have a vote. I see that we might have an issue with opinions here on how much constant online time the game should demand from you as a player. However, you'd not lose your group if you do "on demand play", you simply can not vote on town issues which in the current system, you also can't. Nothing is lost.

How to properly facilitate the voting process is an issue and could get messy and tedious, I agree. A good system would have to be found that also accounts for absences. I'd actually use the board for "smaller" things (like the new gate from my example above) and for big town or land wide decisions, call a great meeting in form of an event and vote personally.


2.) Want to add more spice and sandbox? Allow 100% of aristocrat votes to overturn a leader's veto. This way, even the leader character is not a statue but a person and has to have at least some support. If there is something technical or a broad Staff decision avoiding any town decision (like dig a Merinium mine next to the Depot in the Galmair workshop) it can be said so during the initial phase of Player A looking for support for the petition.


3.) The whole idea is about putting players on the same level, and to have a fluid system of succession and participation. Thus as an ending note referring to your questions 2 and 3, I hope they would never become an issue. It would be easy to become an aristocrat (once your char has the proper title through quests and has been around for the said time). The whole point is to include characters more in everything, thus town leaders should probably not be too strict. But it's up to them. Perhaps it would be a nice social experiment: Which works better, less consideration before giving someone a vote, or more consideration? I honestly could not say. ;)
User avatar
Jupiter
Developer
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 11:23 am

Re: Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Post by Jupiter »

I will think and comment on the whole idea later (as in after Christmas), but I want to put a question mark behind one part proposal: Online time. How do you want that to be measured? You can't use the online time in the sense the character is logged in. I would prefer a town leader who is online just ten hours a week but very active and engages constantly in roleplay over a character who is online 24/7, but you never know if they will respond when you talk to them, because they are idling 80% of the time (That really annoys me. I hate it when people don't react when you address them.).

I would say a certain amount of online time should be a necessary condition and nothing else. So if you spend ~X hours actively in the game per week, you are qualified (in this regard) to be in a high rank position. But someone with X+20 hours is not more qualified to be a leader than someone with X hours. That's a lot easier to judge than figuring out if one is really using their whole online time by playing the game or just annoying other players by being a dead body next to the depot.
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Post by Tyan Masines »

Jupiter wrote:How do you want that to be measured?
A good point. That's why the idea would require three active and observant GMs. They will be able to see who plays when & how, just like any player can determine who else is active in their city. And then they make a human decision, not a number decision, meaning there should be no strict rule saying "You have to play at least eight hours weekly" or something like that.
User avatar
Dantagon Marescot
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Illarion Public Library

Re: Town Reforms: A more dynamic system of participation

Post by Dantagon Marescot »

I think that time spent ig would be an easy measure, but lacks other details. It can also be used to gauge how active a person is. At the very least 8-10 hours a week is rather necessary to actively run something (how many of our current leaders have amounted 8-10 hrs ig this week?). There should be a certain amount of reasonable time that a leader character spends ig and is available. At the same time, I may get my 8-10 hrs in, but may seem inactive to a European player because all of those hours are at 3.00 for them, but is at a perfectly reasonable time for me. I also realize that you can't do 8-10 hours EVERY week, as this is just a game and people go on vacation or life happens. Consistency however is key.

I second Jupiter on quality over quantity. If that leader character spends 8 hours a day ig, but I can never find them because they are off powergaming somewhere, then they never actual interact and do their job. Thus they also hinder rp and any momentum that has been built up ig.

One of the huge things that I feel is currently lacking is communication between groups. That 10 hr a week American player may never be able to catch that 10 hr a week European player except for maybe weekends. As far as I know there isn't a forum dedicated to the different councils. I could be wrong, I am not on any of those boards. Not having an easy way to communicate between the leaders also hinders the momentum of the game. I know we have a PM system, but that whole back and forth feels clunky to me. A board would allow for multiple decisions to be ran in multiple topics.

I suppose the other question is how do we make this kind of switch without breaking too much IC-ness of the game.
Post Reply