Game with real hierarchical feudal structure

[Chris]

First take a look at this diagram to get into the mood http://themiddleages.tripod.com/feudal_system.htm


There are kingdoms (predefined, players can not create new ones), players play as noble citizens of that kingdom, they play various roles (knight, baron, king).

* I'm aware that hierarchical structure is not recommended for MMO, still I accept *some* degradation of gameplay for the sake of realism (again, only to a degree).
* I'm aware that it will lead to older players dominating the game. I don't like it, but I'm willing to accept it as a price for immersion.
* The most important is the feeling and gameplay the lower rank players get, those at the top of structure already have an ego boost and that should be enough for them (I do not intend to make the game exciting for king players since there will be like 10 of such players total).
* I would prefer to not associate progress with the rank in the hierarchy (but that will be done via other mechanics, not realated to this topic).

There are, let's say, 10 kingdoms. Each player has citizenship of exactly 1 kingdom. Each player is also a citizen of exactly 1 city/region within selected kingdom. King has the right to perform certain kingdom to kingdom interactions, he/she might be also allowed to decide on a limited number of kingdom offices. King is elected by citizens of the kingdom.

Players start as Pages or RoyalCoutiers (whatever, it is just a rank that don't let you do almost anything). They are strongly encouraged by the game to select a Baron as their senior. Once they do it they will get a rank of Squire and some land. After a while they can upgrade to Knight (purely for the feeling of rank progress, they could as well start as Knights).

Any player can decide to be a Baron anytime (need to meet realatively easy requirements). Baron can have vassals (Squires and Knights) that provide him military power bonus. Then the Baron can upgrade to Viscount and Count if they meet strict requirements (there are also limits how many of Viscount+ can be in a kingdom, they can also lose the rank - but can never fall below baron! - if a more worthy player wants to claim the title).

Any Baron, Viscount, Count and Duke player can be elected to be a King.

So far there are basicly 3 categories of players:
* [vassals] Squires, Knights (bonus to combat & glory, easy money, easy life, immune to assassinations)
* [seniors] Barons, VisCounts, Counts, Dukes (bonus to politics, less money at least at the beginning, competitors can do nasty things like assasinations to them)
* Kings (like Baron but also is allowed to decide on some kingdom issues, competitors are allowed to do VERY nasty thing to them)
Note that the higher rank does not mean "better". There are several incentives to stay a knight forever.
Note also that barons can survive without knights, so if all players decide to play as barons there is no problem (althrough those few who decide to stick to knight rank can very quickly become the best in certain aspects like tournaments due to knight only combat bonuses, also everyone else will be trying to lure and bribe them as vassals so it is not a bad deal I guess).

That's the basic rank. But now things will go messy.


There are Bishops, which I guess are partially like Barons (can have land and vassals). But... should they be just a separate branch of feudal lords (baron>count>duke>king AND bishop>archbishop>cardinal>pope) OR just an additional office (you are a Duke and got a Bishop office).

Similar thing goes for City offices (like Mayor). I guess it should be an additional office, not replacing the basic rank.

Additional question:
- how city mayor is selected?
- what other city offices can there be?
- what other kingdom offices can there be?

[Mutant]

I've got elements of what you're talking about in Kingdoms (with other similar features planned). Players can become mayors of towns (by force or getting elected), and if they can control enough towns, they can declare a Kingdom. The King can give out quests to anyone who swears allegiance to them. There will eventually be positions which "cross-cut" the hierarchy, so you can accumulate power in other ways.

It's early days, but I'm not too worried about older players dominating. Smart new players can use the kings, etc. to their advantage, and can eventually become powerful enough to challenge the higher-ups themselves. So long as there are always new opportunities for them to build their own domain, it shouldn't be a problem.

Maybe not quite what you're talking about, but there are some similarities.

[Chris]

Smart new players can...

What about not so smart players? Everyone should feel the progress they make in a game, even total idiots (yes, idiots are players too, they deserve to have fun as much as the smart ones).

Besides, there is so many top rank kings that can be in the game (pyramid). Majority won't be there because there is no free slot and no amount of effort and skills can change it (they can merely switch places with other players).

That's why I don't want to rely on mechanics where everyone can reach a high rank in the hierarchy but on making the game fun (and feeling progress) even if you stay forever and ever in the initial lowest rank. That's the basic premise if we want to make the hierarchical system work.


I was thinking about making 1 basic rank (knight, baron, count, king) and up to 3 offices per player (mayor, captain of something, chancelor). So each player starts with the basic rank and as the game progress can grab 3 offices. So upgrading the basic rank is not the only way to feel unique, one could concentrate on offices related to a specific city of "career". The limit of 3 offices assures that top players won't take all offices.

[Mutant]

I'm not sure I agree that you have to try to optimise every game for all types of players. It's like a movie with a complex plot.. some people just won't get it, but people who do get it will really enjoy it.

That said, it's entirely possible in Kingdoms to be a "low-ranking" party for your whole life and still enjoy the game. That's mostly due to the fact that the hierarchy isn't the whole game. You can choose not to get involved in politics at all, and just focus on building the strongest party.

[Chris]

I never try to optimize for all players, if I did I would be making FarmVille But I do not differentiate by IQ. For two reasons. First, "smartness" is relative, at least half of your players will always be below average smartness level withing the player pool. Second, much more important, smart players need idiot players to show who is better If you are smart and everyone is smart you are just average, if you are smart and some are idiots you are above average, if you are smart and most are idiots you are avesome. Every game benefit from a wide pool of idiots So, even if you want to make a game targetted at smart players you should assure it has the basic aspects that can be comprehend by idiots, purely for the sake of the smart players
(plus, personally, I do kind of like those who are less brained, it is the smart ones that usually get on my nerves

Games (except singleplayer) are not like movies, during a movie you don't compete and interact with other watchers.

That said, it's entirely possible in Kingdoms to be a "low-ranking" party for your whole life and still enjoy the game. That's mostly due to the fact that the hierarchy isn't the whole game. You can choose not to get involved in politics at all, and just focus on building the strongest party.

Yes... But it's kind of negative thinking. Or the last resort, a desperate measure. Wouldn't it be better if a wide range of player ranks could enjoy the hierarchy? Maybe not everyone, that might be impossible, but, let's say, above 50%?

[Mutant]

That said, it's entirely possible in Kingdoms to be a "low-ranking" party for your whole life and still enjoy the game. That's mostly due to the fact that the hierarchy isn't the whole game. You can choose not to get involved in politics at all, and just focus on building the strongest party.

Yes... But it's kind of negative thinking. Or the last resort, a desperate measure. Wouldn't it be better if a wide range of player ranks could enjoy the hierarchy? Maybe not everyone, that might be impossible, but, let's say, above 50%?

I don't think it's a last resort... it's just that it's a multi-faceted game. There are many different ways you can play it, and even though not everyone can be successful in what they're trying to achieve (i.e. not everyone can be king), they can still have fun in other ways (and, in my opinion, just as much fun as those who are king). I think that's how a good MMO should be (kind of like "life" I guess There may be some people who only want to be king, and will be frustrated if they can't and quit, but I don't think other levels would help them.

Anyway, I'm not totally against adding other ranks (it might not even be a bad idea). I think this will happen naturally anyway, when the Kingdom functionality matures a bit more... Kings will have trusted players that they go to for particular missions.

[Chris]

There is a limited "time budget" you can spend on a game development, that's why if a heavy feature is enjoyed by 10% players or less I would not implement it. It's a waste of time and resources. So, I want to squeeze as much as I can from the hierarchical system I think I can live with it being enjoyed by 30% of players (would love to exceed 50% through). In short, I hate "multi-faceted games" where majority of your code is enjoyed by minority of players
But I guess more than half of game devs here would disagree with me on this

Anyway, I try kind of flatten the hierarchy. I want it to feel like hierarchy and to provide the fun & immersion of hierarchy but I want to reduce the bad aspects of it (like the person at the top having all the power). Actually, when I think about it, the hierarchy I had described in the first post is 2 tiers only. First knights then barons who have knights as vassals. King has some power but do not have the barons as vassals, he merely has additional power on kingdom level decisions, which is in addition countered by the election system. You can't really say that king is at the top of the chain.

Generally, those who don't care about politics will play as knights. Those who care as barons. The election system (and not too many players per kingdom) should assure that they can force the king to make the decisions they approve. So it won't be a system where "one king appoint trusted players to help him rule the domain" but "many barons elect a king and lend him their power so the kingdom is managed better". The source of power is in the baron's hands, not king's.

Now, I would like a second system, where the struggle for top position is done among less powerful players. So far the best I could think of is the office system, where each player can obtain max 3 offices and the offices quality differ. So the competition for offices will naturally self balance. Powerful players will compete for best offices with other powerful players, less powerful players will compete with other less powerful players over worse offices.

The question is, how the office system could work. Especially, how to make taking an office from another player.