On the Game: Villages, Cities, Kingdoms,Diplomacy and Guild

[Winterbrass]

As I've pointed out, in a triumvirate, which member would be the king or queen?

"The mayors all place in a bar of gold, and the king then writes the name of the Kingdom on it". But ill change that to:
To become king the capitol idol construction has to be finished (put gold bars inside and build it). The mayor or the capitol town becomes king (so you have to choose him before building the idol)

Yeah, see, that's the problem - in an organization like a triumvirate, there are three people with equal power, all holding the position equivalent to 'king'.

[Jackard]

Yes this is all very specific......

I would call this detailed which isnt bad at all, is it?

no, specific as in, hardcoded/artificial. instead of letting rules be developed by players naturally, it forces them down a certain path

[KJGJ]

Damn, this is one of the few suggestions I've seen that isn't down right retarded.

[theTrav]

Mostly I'd like them to work on the village model a lot more until they find one that works (IMO the current model doesn't really 'work' so much as it's slightly less crap than shared claims) before they worry about larger communities.

Also, I don't think 200 people is enough of a player base to start forming these larger factions, I'd think 1000 or so would be required. Otherwise we're either going to have 1 large city with 50% of all players in it, or (more likely) a large number of abandoned cities built by three guys and a shit ton of alts.

The other pre-requisite I can see being a factor is meaningful gameplay within a civilized area once the construction is complete... 80% of the fun in H&H currently is building from scratch. There's a tendency once villages are complete, for them to suffer massive attrition from people getting bored with the status quo.

No reason not to dream those big dreams now though I suppose.

[Morgant]

Well even if cities didn't have a population requirement, they would be pretty cool to implement. Make them require a ton of resources, time, and effort to make your village a city, give it a few new things, it doesn't have to be the next best thing since Pickaxes, it just has to be a progression, to keep people from playing for a month, making a town, reaching the limit getting bored and quitting. If I had a village, and it were possible, with enough effort, for that to become a city and gain maybe, one or two new buildings the Lawspeaker/Chieftain can start construction for, I'd be okay with that, simply because it gives something else to do, or look forward to.
Town centers sound nice, maybe some type of designated "Park" that allows people not in your village to get apples, branches, etc from the area, but not to cut down your trees. A Castle would keep me satisfied for a Lonnnnng time, even if it really didn't serve any greater purpose than being huge and looking completely badass. It's not so much that everything serves a greater purpose right now, so much as it is something to do.

[Bigfish]

Yeah, see, that's the problem - in an organization like a triumvirate, there are three people with equal power, all holding the position equivalent to 'king'.

You should propably roll a dice for who becomes king then. Most likely one city will be the strongest/biggest/richest/best position or whatever and is preferred to become the capitol.

Mostly I'd like them to work on the village model a lot more until they find one that works (IMO the current model doesn't really 'work' so much as it's slightly less crap than shared claims) before they worry about larger communities.

Apprently my village worked verey well. But maybe you mean larger villages like Brodgar. Thats why i thought of some kind of "Job system" to direct your people in some way.

Also, I don't think 200 people is enough of a player base to start forming these larger factions, I'd think 1000 or so would be required. Otherwise we're either going to have 1 large city with 50% of all players in it, or (more likely) a large number of abandoned cities built by three guys and a shit ton of alts. No reason not to dream those big dreams now though I suppose.

Well there are 150 players online at peak times now and at least 600-800 players per week (those may have increased too through several invasion). Lets assume 400 people would create villages each 5 players that would be 80 villages. Now 40 of this get 5 members each and can afford to upgrade into a city soon. There would then be the chance to have like ~10 kingdoms.

[Flame]

only a little point.
Every us are from a different country, and every us have a different politic (in real life). I think is better if the game don't oblige to use a "king" or a "parlament" or something else. I suggest to let players decide this, in theyr town.

The game should just have coded this:
- "When you build a village, choose a boss."
- "The boss choose the "man that hire people". How many he want" (the game need it)
- "The boss create eventually another boss, how many he want"(who know if someone wanna create 2 bosses? Let the boss decide this in an open menù. It create a parlament if they want, or a native village).

Whit this 3 codes, you can create all the type of rules...hemm..i mean politic..damn dunno the word.
Well you can create easily any kind of politic with 3 dots.
Hoping i've explained it well.

i've just suggest to don't rule how politic of the village work, with an oblige of the game.

Hanf.

[Bigfish]

€: added this to OP

The idea of elections described below is totaly replaceable but i thought it would be funny and make village management easier.

Now response to comments

only a little point. Every us are from a different country, and every us have a different politic (in real life). I think is better if the game don't oblige to use a "king" or a "parlament" or something else. I suggest to let players decide this, in theyr town.

Totaly missed that. Because i live in Germany i m kind of used to free, anonymous and equal elections (ie a republic/democracy system) where everyone has the same right, i assumed this to be superior to other which is discussable. You may also be given the option to rule the village with a "despotism system". I thought of elections to be an improvement over the system existing now because most babarian tribes or early middle aged cultres choose their leader by elections of the "free men" (women/slaves werent allowed to vote).

The game should just have coded this:
- "When you build a village, choose a boss."
- "The boss choose the "man that hire people". How many he want" (the game need it)
- "The boss create eventually another boss, how many he want"(who know if someone wanna create 2 bosses? Let the boss decide this in an open menù. It create a parlament if they want, or a native village).
Whit this 3 codes, you can create all the type of rules...hemm..i mean politic..damn dunno the word.
Well you can create easily any kind of politic with 3 dots.
Hoping i've explained it well.

If i get this point correct we already have this but the bosses are named differently ie chieftain and lawspeaker (+ several councilors in a city). Though i think there should be one in command (most likely the experianced and "wisest" one)

[Flame]

one should choos how many boss he want and rename them like he want. Maibe just the hire man should have even the same name.

[Bigfish]

one should choos how many boss he want and rename them like he want. Maibe just the hire man should have even the same name.

Yeah maybe the lawspeaker should be able to choose the number of bosses maybe, but i dont get why having several bosses is an advantage. In my opinion this would lead to authority struggles and wild kicking/griefing or so though i may be wrong.