Hierarchical ownership & combat

[Chris]

Players are divided into 4 rank groups: lords, barons, counts, kings. Player can influence when he will move to the higher group, also it is not always benefitial to be in higher one. There might be a voluntary option to lower ones rank (for a price).

* Combat among same rank is like traditional combat (steal resources).
* You can never start a combat with higher rank player.
* When higher rank attacks lower rank the lower one automaticly surrenders without fighting, but the lower one lose nothing, it's just that the higher rank put his flag on the lower ones domain, or take him as a vassal/slave. If another higher rank wants to attack lower rank that was already "taken" then he has to fight with the "sovereign", not the actual owner of the land.

Example:
You are a lord, you fight with other lords and get stuff. Then it come a baron and claims your domain, now there is barony flag of other player on your land (the baron gets some benefits, you lose nothing or minimum). Then a count comes in, kicks out the baron and claims the land for himself (flag changes to county of another player). Now you want to progress from lord to baron title. Since your land "sovereign" is 2 tiers higher you can do it immediately (assuming you meet standard criteria like prestige, army, etc), if there was baron as a sovereign, you would need to deal with him first (baron can not "own" another baron), you get combat bonuses during "liberation" attempts if you want to claim higher title.

To make it balance there probably must be some domains control limit for barons+ (lords can not control anything). Like, each domian you control (have flag over it), decreases your "control combat power" (higher ranks get lower penalty per domain), the "standard combat power", the one used to fight among equals, is not affected.


The advantage of such system is a natural and non deadly way of sorting players into groups by power. Also better interaction, you can see kings fighting over your lowly domain (and you are not stressed over it since it does not bother you as a lowly lord what higher ups do). Maybe even reverse it and make it so you want to have some "sovereign" to control your domain since you get bonuses, or skills for barons to boost their controled province owners (also an option for a lord to "support" a certain baron, so he would get better odds for control attempts of supportive domain). There could be "evil" barons who use you for tax only and "good" barons that also provide some bonuses.

Could something like this work?

[Nox]

I like it, as long as it's fun for all tiers it looks great. As a player this system would really seem pleasant to me and the natural sorting of players sounds good.

'm not sure if I missed it, but I would incorporate moving down as well...then you can leave higher tier if you find it's too difficult for you

I believe it could work... no downside comes to mind currently

[Chris]

I like it, as long as it's fun for all tiers it looks great.

Lower tiers' fun is the most important. Highest one will be occupied by hardcore players anyway, and they play because they are "elite" and don't care about fun too much
I mean, almost everyone would want to be a king, even if it less fun and more boring than being a peasant

The most problematic could be barons. Because they just left lords rank and have to compete with higher ones. If they can not procedeed they could be very discouraged...
I made a quick game a long time ago, there were planets and you were moving fleet over a planet. If you have a majority of fleet over a planet you get 10% of its income. I though that most players would be happy, because with such system no one would be able to destroy them but... there were huge complains that they were being "farmed" or "stand no chance". It seems as if players (basicly all of them) saw controling other planets as obligatory activity and when they were unable to do so they decided they lost the game. The game was developed very quickly and was very unbalanced on its own and it was never launched officially so very few players tested it, so I don't know if it is that this whole concept sux and is impossible to make or only the implementation was flawed.

'm not sure if I missed it, but I would incorporate moving down as well...then you can leave higher tier if you find it's too difficult for you

Yes... it would be needed. Not sure how should it work through.


Another similar idea, there is a boardgame for 5-8 players called Honor Of The Samurai (example of play: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/4041/session-report ). All players are feudal lords and fight to get honour points. The first to collect 100 points wins. Everyone can claim Shogun title (there were some requirements I think, also there was only one shogun title available), everyone could build a castle. You could attack ONLY players that had castle or shogun title. If you defeated shogun you had to take the shogun title, also take over enemy castle or raze it. At the end of each turn the owner of shogun title was getting plenty of honur points (castle owners were getting less, also other smaller gains were available).
Also, there was a nice mechanic that allowed you to ally (nominate as your daimio) with other player (WITHOUT ASKING THAT PLAYER FOR PERMISSION) which resulted in the other player getting 50% of points you were getting and both of you were unable to attack each other (except for sending ninjas which could be done against anyone ).

[Barrikor]

I've been thinking of something similar:

Emperor > *King > Prince/Grand Duke/Elector/Viceroy > Prince/Archduke > *Duke > Margrave > Count Palatine > *Count/Earl > *Viscount > *Baron > Knight Baronet > Knight Commander > *Knight


(--Possibly a bit off topic, but maybe not --
It'd have the entire feudal system, A viscount can't become a count if he is currently under a count, A king might be worried about his dukes turning against him, maybe the king would plot with some of the counts to revolt against their dukes...

Combat could be based on food as well as units. Have each castle have a food supply, if the castle gets besieged and the castle's food runs out before anyone can break the siege then the castle owner must 'surrender' Have 1 game-year = 12 days, 1 game-month = 1 day; that way you could have players try to avoid laying siege to other players in winter, most wars would start in spring.

My thought is to slow down rank progression also by forcing them to fight with a certain purpose, ie. You can't become a Baron until you collect 3 of a certain gem, can't become a viscount until you collect 3 of some other gem. Players could start the game with a couple random gems and capture them from each other, when someone levels-up the gems they spend would get sent to random low level players.)

Feel free to take any ideas from this, ideas are cheap =)

[Chris]

My thought is to slow down rank progression also by forcing them to fight with a certain purpose, ie. You can't become a Baron until you collect 3 of a certain gem, can't become a viscount until you collect 3 of some other gem. Players could start the game with a couple random gems and capture them from each other, when someone levels-up the gems they spend would get sent to random low level players

It won't work, not when we use words like "level up" or "progression". This whole hierarchical structure is a pyramid. It means most players will never, ever have a chance to become kings. Gems and nothing else won't change it and does not matter, the key is beating the higher rank so the "slot" is available to you which in most cases will be plain impossible. Rank can not be considered "progression", otherwise the game will be unplayable to new players (rich gets richer, poor gets poorer).

To make it playable I can see 3 options:
1) Make the hierarchical system not crucial to victory (a lord can earn more score/benefits than a king).
2) Do not make it a pyramid (no clue how).
3) Make the hierarchy change frequently (you collect influence points when you are lord, you lose them when you are king, when you have more influence than king you can take over the crown)

[Harkins]

To make it playable I can see 3 options:
1) Make the hierarchical system not crucial to victory (a lord can earn more score/benefits than a king).
2) Do not make it a pyramid (no clue how).
3) Make the hierarchy change frequently (you collect influence points when you are lord, you lose them when you are king, when you have more influence than king you can take over the crown)

4) Allow the player to be in multiple hierarchies at once, eg. a game about secret groups betraying each other to one another, etc.

And I'll expand on Chris's great comment to generalize that it's at best a waste of time to spend time building features (eg. being King) that most players won't experience.

[Barrikor]

Off topic:
@Chris, Ok, I figured I'd best post my idea since you and I are thinking along similar lines. I'm glad you don't like it all that much though
I'll make a post about it in... a couple months from now... with luck.

Back on topic:

I take it that each player can only have only one overlord (right word?) in your game, since they 'kick out' the old one. What would you use to keep kings from squeezing out the middle counts and barons?

[Chris]

This topic is about hierarchical mechanic, not about any particular game. We aim to research this mechanic more and the ideal outcome would be if we could invent a general mechanic that could fit with many different games. Feel free to post about your game or other games or whatever that use hierarchical mechanic.

Theory:
Hierarchical structure in MMOGs is bad. It don't work and can not work and lead to problems and is unplayable and benefit only those at the top and new players can never go up. That's the theory. Can we invent a hierarchical system that don't have at least some of these drawbacks? Is there any case when  hierarchical structure could work good enough and add to the game instead of destroying it?

The ideal solution (most flexible one and usable with most gameplay designs) would be if one player was the whole game a king and another the whole game was a lord and everything was all right and everyone was happy about it. The key, absolute key issue with hierarchy is that plenty (or even majority) of people has to stay at the lowest rank forever.

If you have 2 people and both want to write an awesome book then it is a positive goal. Both can achieve it simultaneously. But if their goal was to get 1st place in swimming 100 yards distance in Olimpics in year 2010 then it is a negative goal. Only one of them can achieve it and amount of effort by the other one is irrelevant. There are infinite slots for awesome book, but only one slot for 1st place in something.

Off topic:
@Chris, Ok, I figured I'd best post my idea since you and I are thinking along similar lines. I'm glad you don't like it all that much though
I'll make a post about it in... a couple months from now... with luck.

It's not that I don't like it. It's that I believe it won't work under any circumstances. Progress being synonym to hierarchical rank = most players are barred from progressing = game is unplayable to majority.

I take it that each player can only have only one overlord (right word?) in your game, since they 'kick out' the old one. What would you use to keep kings from squeezing out the middle counts and barons?

I'm not sure I understood this sentence...

[dsheroh]

I take it that each player can only have only one overlord (right word?) in your game, since they 'kick out' the old one. What would you use to keep kings from squeezing out the middle counts and barons?

I'm not sure I understood this sentence...

Since I was having the same thought:

Going back to your initial post, you said

You are a lord, you fight with other lords and get stuff. Then it come a baron and claims your domain, now there is barony flag of other player on your land (the baron gets some benefits, you lose nothing or minimum). Then a count comes in, kicks out the baron and claims the land for himself (flag changes to county of another player).

(emphasis mine)  That count has just "squeezed out", as Barrikor put it, the baron.  Moreover, because barons can't contest a count's control, he has squeezed out all barons - only another count or a king can claim sovereignty over that lord's land.  And, inevitably, a king will eventually do so, squeezing out the counts as well and leaving only kings able to fight over it.  Equally inevitably, after some time in play, all land will be under kings' flags and neither barons nor counts will be able to claim any domains because they can't go against the kings that are in control.

My suggestion (and this is how I was expecting it to work until you gave that example) would be to make all but the highest ranks vassals, not solely the lords, and allow every rank to have a flag over each fief rather than just the owning lord and one sovereign - "This is the land of A, in the barony of B, in the county of C, in the kingdom of D".  The bolded section of your example would then become "Then a count comes in and claims the baron's domain, raising his flag over the lands of all lords under that baron."  This solves the "squeezing out" problem because barons could still attack other barons to claim their subject lords' lands regardless of what the counts or kings are doing.  Also, I know you like attack-focused games, and this solution serves that end as well, since it means that (effectively) every player will always be under someone one rank higher, so they will always have to fight to increase their rank instead of just saying "a king controls my lord's land, so I'm a count now".

[Chris]

You are a lord, you fight with other lords and get stuff. Then it come a baron and claims your domain, now there is barony flag of other player on your land (the baron gets some benefits, you lose nothing or minimum). Then a count comes in, kicks out the baron and claims the land for himself (flag changes to county of another player).

(emphasis mine)  That count has just "squeezed out", as Barrikor put it, the baron.  Moreover, because barons can't contest a count's control, he has squeezed out all barons - only another count or a king can claim sovereignty over that lord's land.  And, inevitably, a king will eventually do so, squeezing out the counts as well and leaving only kings able to fight over it.  Equally inevitably, after some time in play, all land will be under kings' flags and neither barons nor counts will be able to claim any domains because they can't go against the kings that are in control.

My vision was blurry and unspecified when I was writing this

Yes... multiple flags could be a solution... But somehow I don't like it. One direct sovereign sounds better.
Maybe make it so you can not attack higher rank (steal resources), but you still can initiate struggle for control against anyone? Or make it that counts can control only barons (not lords) and the benefit to the count will depend on number of lords controled by the baron? Still that one makes the structure even more pyramidical... Or some fixed limits "a king can control up to 2 lords, 3 barons and 4 counts".

I know you like attack-focused games

Not exactly, I just hate "you have to wait a month to build a huge army and then make one big battle" games. I want more frequent battles, and so players can enjoy battling early, without waiting because "they are too weak". Focus on attacks and quick skirmishers is just a mean, not the goal. I would love to hear about other methods that could lead to achieving the goal of frequent and early battles.

[Chris]

Another concept (feudal space empire)


This is about a space empire with feudal structure. There are planets (not owned by players), each planet has x1 duke slot, x2 count slot, x3 baron slot, x4 lord slot, x5 commoner slot. New players start at Lord rank, no one can ever go below Lord rank. You can own/conquer 5 slots of your rank and 5 slots of one level lower rank. So Lord can have max 5 commoner slots and 5 lord slots. Rank of the slot determine resources collected (commoner slot lowest, duke slot most).

Once per week player can change the rank (up or down), also some requirements has to be meet. When rank is changed the "invalid" slots are immediately lost. Players have also one per game "emergency rank down" action (in case he went too high and got into too much difficulties).

Each day a player gets prestige points depending on rank (1 for lords, 2 for barons, etc). These, with proper resources expediture, allow recruitment of elite units.

There is also a higher rank than duke, which is usurper/emperor. There is only 1 emperor slot through The usurper who gets it is called The Emperor. This slot provide NEGATIVE resources. Usurpers get 5 times more prestige than dukes (and dukes get a lot already), emperor gets 10 times more prestige than duke. Rank down from usurper/emperor is free and do not count toward a weekly quota of rank changes.

[pixlepix]

For the first idea, the owing player can give alliegence to an owner, giving then a 25% bonus in fighting for that terrrtory

[Chris]

Major powers and protectorates

There are 5 levels of player's country:
1) Primitive (protectorate)
2) Civilized (protectorate, can attempt liberation)
3) Independent  (no protectorate, no sphere of influence)
4) Major power (has sphere of influence)
5) Superpower (has sphere of influence)

You start as primitive, then via some upgrades go to civilized. There is not much difference between these two, mostly for mood and the feeling of achievement. All primitive and civilized countries are within a sphere of influence of one major power or superpower which are called protectors. If you are strong and can win vs your protector (liberation bonuses apply so even quite weaker can do it) you become an independent nation (no sphere of influence). Then if you win against other power on some protectorate you get a country under your protection and become major power. Superpowers are top 20 major powers, this is a negative trait and makes their combat weaker (to stop the top dogs from eating the whole cake). If at anytime you lose all protectorates you turn into independent country. If independent became acquired by a major power it is reverted to civilized.

As a major power you get an economy bonus for all countries within your sphere of influence. Protected countries get military bonus and research bonus based on their protector's standing.

What you think?

[pixlepix]

Sounds great