Users who are viewing this thread

StaceMcGate

Recruit
In this thread I'll talk about the following issues I see regarding Clan tiers and renown, and what I feel needs to be implemented
to flush out these mechanics.

1) The unbalanced rate at which the player accumulates renown

2) Introducing a new stat for measuring nobility/right to rule

3) Idealized Clan progression

1) Renown gained from battle needs to be scaled back

Currently, renown gained from battle is simply far too generous. Fighting a few bands of looters or bandits will reward more renown than any quest, and this feels frankly wrong.

The player can easily beeline to becoming a vassal by simply engaging bandit parties for a few days of in-game and then skyrocket upwards clan rank wise by the amount of renown gained from kingdom battles.

The road from commoner to being acknowledged as part of nobility is therefore far too short, and does feel like a ladder to climb up as much as an inevitable part of the gameplay experience.

What Renown needs is a cap on how much can be gained from a battle, as well more decreases in amount gained as the player progresses in clan rank.

2) Introduce Prestige rank

While renown works as a statistic for measuring the players fame among the common people and prowess as a warrior, I think we need a new metric for measuring their right to be granted the rank of noble and eventually declare themselves a ruler, Prestige.

Unlike renown, Prestige would be gained from completing actions befitting of a noble.

Examples:
1) Completing Quests for Nobles.
2) Managing fiefs.
3) Completing successful sieges.
4) Suggesting policy changes
5) Maintaining positive relations with nobles.

Prestige would be a requirement to advance the noble ladder, and highlight how you represent the noble class.

3) Suggested Clan tier progression and benefits

Rank 1:
50 Renown
- Allows the player to join an existing mercenary company
- The player cannot individually serve as a mercenary

Rank 2: 150 Renown
- Allows the player to individually give their services to Kingdoms/Lords
- Player cannot serve as a vassal.
- Player cannot yet request marriage from a noble.

Rank 3: 300 Renown, 10 Prestige
- Player can now serve as a vassal to a Kingdom
- The option to woe a potential spouse and barter for their marriage is now available.

Rank 4: 600 Renown, 50 Prestige
- Player is now treated as befits their status as a Baron/Archon/etc
- Cannot yet declare self as an independent Kingdom, would only be considered a rebellion/

Rank 5: 1000 Renown, 100 Prestige
- Player can now create their own independent Kingdom

Rank 6: 2000 Renown, 200 Prestige
- Player is recognized as a rightful ruler, vassals will appear in court offering services.


tldr; Overall I just want the amount of renown gained from battle to be drastically reduced and that the progression to noble is slowed down.
 

Emperor1997

Knight
No, Right to Rule should come from military power only and not from paper currency.

Why should anyone respect you, because you have this amount of a paper currency, but if you have more military power as anyone else, they should start to respect you.
 

Tryvenyal

Squire
I kinda dislike the clan-tiers overall and the limits it sets. A would like a far more open setup where the clan boosts it´s members rather than limits them.
 
I kinda dislike the clan-tiers overall and the limits it sets. A would like a far more open setup where the clan boosts it´s members rather than limits them.
The current hard limit is what I think the problem is, they really need to go higher than 6, even 10 or 12 seems low to me considering the things you need to do with companions... even if you dont have them in your party doing a function you need them to run towns / act as caravans / command parties...

While the ability to create a clan with one is a good fix for the party limits on the players kingdoms, the limit really needs to be raised, with the same exponential need for more renown each time as they currently have.
 
Top Bottom