Tirok said:But that's the problem Phoenix. What you know of us isn't all we do. I've probably never started a war more then three times int he entire time I've been playing this version. We focus on peaceful roleplay and economics if we can. I'd be perfectly happy having weaker fighting stats, if the fact wasn't that people always declare war on us.
The only perk from the merchants that's still in there is investing, because it's something that we do. (Seriously, go look at past bank accounts, I'm working on getting money transferred from Oprec to RCC right now.) That combined with the added restrictions to war, and the removal of aggressive perks balances it out in my opinion. If you don't believe that's balanced, do you have any other ideas of how we could balance it? Because the war faction would not fit Tidwell, it would give us nothing faction wise to do but war, and I dislike war. War is something to be avoided for House Tidwell, and so I can not picture us signing up as a war faction. The merchants sound like they'd be better except for the fact that we'd be unable to defend ourselves during the inevitable attacks on us.
Morgana_Grey said:I'm at a loss as to what my House should be, given that the secret type is so limited. My House is a heavily role-play oriented place wherein the subject matter is medical research. At the very least I suppose having a front for the true operation would be acceptable. IE: House Grey is a Merchant Guild to make money, but behind the scenes they experiment on cadavers and formulate medicines and drugs.
I think you'd be better off re-evaluating your system from micro managing each very specific type; Guards, War, Magic, Secret, etc etc. Consider how attributes are given in many games! If you think in terms of the operation of the guild you could do it this way. Combat, Economic, Social(this would include anything in selling non tangible services like assassins, information, slaves, etc, etc , etc. Now each of these groups has sub groups. Just a suggestion, in any case. Now categories include a specific perk and then again when a sub category is chosen.
Isn't it possible to just go without perks? The whole point of making a persistent faction is for fun, not perks.Tirok said:But that's the problem Phoenix. What you know of us isn't all we do. I've probably never started a war more then three times int he entire time I've been playing this version. We focus on peaceful roleplay and economics if we can. I'd be perfectly happy having weaker fighting stats, if the fact wasn't that people always declare war on us.
The only perk from the merchants that's still in there is investing, because it's something that we do. (Seriously, go look at past bank accounts, I'm working on getting money transferred from Oprec to RCC right now.) That combined with the added restrictions to war, and the removal of aggressive perks balances it out in my opinion. If you don't believe that's balanced, do you have any other ideas of how we could balance it? Because the war faction would not fit Tidwell, it would give us nothing faction wise to do but war, and I dislike war. War is something to be avoided for House Tidwell, and so I can not picture us signing up as a war faction. The merchants sound like they'd be better except for the fact that we'd be unable to defend ourselves during the inevitable attacks on us.
Tirok said:Oh believe me, I could ask for a lot more. Haha. That's far from everything Tidwell needs to run happily and in isolation. And besides, we'll still go to more combat focused factions for stronger soldiers (sergeant class and stuff) and we'll still want to ally with traders to get some of the spoils of their trade. If anything it would force us to put a foot in both worlds.
As for all the other factions, I'm not sure when we'd need them but we may at some times.
Is there anything that seems inherently unfair about my proposed addition?
This is a guild system, not a faction system. It's stated in the top of the thread. It's not meant for kingdoms, only guilds. Although I do agree that Secretive favours assassins too much. I also think that the guild system should be made so that it's made for guild and guilds only. That way you don't get underpowered/overpowered kingdoms and guilds will be used more often.Morgana_Grey said:I'm just not sold that "Secretive" is the best way to categorize what is there. "Secretive" as it stands now is defining majorly -assassins- and giving specific functions to them.
Also, I think that one reason you're meeting some opposition to this system is because of the way many that lead factions operate... A lot of people just assume the faction to be a kingdom (established or not) with a king and or queen. Well, why shouldn't King Jimmy be able to have his own assassins, merchants, army, and guards! Rabble rabble rabble. Now this is just an observation, nothing reflecting what you've brought here.
killer110 said:This is a guild system, not a faction system. It's stated in the top of the thread. It's not meant for kingdoms, only guilds. Although I do agree that Secretive favours assassins too much. I also think that the guild system should be made so that it's made for guild and guilds only. That way you don't get underpowered/overpowered kingdoms and guilds will be used more often.Morgana_Grey said:I'm just not sold that "Secretive" is the best way to categorize what is there. "Secretive" as it stands now is defining majorly -assassins- and giving specific functions to them.
Also, I think that one reason you're meeting some opposition to this system is because of the way many that lead factions operate... A lot of people just assume the faction to be a kingdom (established or not) with a king and or queen. Well, why shouldn't King Jimmy be able to have his own assassins, merchants, army, and guards! Rabble rabble rabble. Now this is just an observation, nothing reflecting what you've brought here.
Edit:+50 points for first post on page 6!
Morgana_Grey said:killer110 said:This is a guild system, not a faction system. It's stated in the top of the thread. It's not meant for kingdoms, only guilds. Although I do agree that Secretive favours assassins too much. I also think that the guild system should be made so that it's made for guild and guilds only. That way you don't get underpowered/overpowered kingdoms and guilds will be used more often.Morgana_Grey said:I'm just not sold that "Secretive" is the best way to categorize what is there. "Secretive" as it stands now is defining majorly -assassins- and giving specific functions to them.
Also, I think that one reason you're meeting some opposition to this system is because of the way many that lead factions operate... A lot of people just assume the faction to be a kingdom (established or not) with a king and or queen. Well, why shouldn't King Jimmy be able to have his own assassins, merchants, army, and guards! Rabble rabble rabble. Now this is just an observation, nothing reflecting what you've brought here.
Edit:+50 points for first post on page 6!
Thank you for pointing out something that is clearly obvious. When people form groups (the types that will participate in this system), they are called Persistent factions. Semantics or not, what I said is still relevant.
What you seem to be implying only raises more questions about the intended usage of this system, basing it even more on the semantic. If this system is strictly to be used by GUILDSand guilds only, then the leader of a persistent FACTION might only be encouraged to found several GUILDS to benefit his FACTION. You may of seen this before with some faction leaders creating "Divisions". Yes their grand faction has merchants and assassins, a spy network, an army, some farmers, its own personal guard, wizards AND a dragon. Do you catch my drift?
Legolan said:Morgana_Grey said:killer110 said:This is a guild system, not a faction system. It's stated in the top of the thread. It's not meant for kingdoms, only guilds. Although I do agree that Secretive favours assassins too much. I also think that the guild system should be made so that it's made for guild and guilds only. That way you don't get underpowered/overpowered kingdoms and guilds will be used more often.Morgana_Grey said:I'm just not sold that "Secretive" is the best way to categorize what is there. "Secretive" as it stands now is defining majorly -assassins- and giving specific functions to them.
Also, I think that one reason you're meeting some opposition to this system is because of the way many that lead factions operate... A lot of people just assume the faction to be a kingdom (established or not) with a king and or queen. Well, why shouldn't King Jimmy be able to have his own assassins, merchants, army, and guards! Rabble rabble rabble. Now this is just an observation, nothing reflecting what you've brought here.
Edit:+50 points for first post on page 6!
Thank you for pointing out something that is clearly obvious. When people form groups (the types that will participate in this system), they are called Persistent factions. Semantics or not, what I said is still relevant.
What you seem to be implying only raises more questions about the intended usage of this system, basing it even more on the semantic. If this system is strictly to be used by GUILDSand guilds only, then the leader of a persistent FACTION might only be encouraged to found several GUILDS to benefit his FACTION. You may of seen this before with some faction leaders creating "Divisions". Yes their grand faction has merchants and assassins, a spy network, an army, some farmers, its own personal guard, wizards AND a dragon. Do you catch my drift?
Let me ask this, how many people play this mod? lol