Rebellion against a realm

[Ants]

Not sure why it should be hard to be able to not support a group you don’t like.

A big part of the game is to be able to project power over others in various ways, whether they like it or not. This particular way is still relatively harmless.

The current system prevents new factions from forming and becoming relevant, much less important.

You don't need to be relevant and important in order to have a local realm just to avoid giving authority to another one.

It's not relatively harmless when it's helping them build cairns against the faction you actually support.

Anyways, being able to say "down with the king!" and refusing to pay taxes would be larpy and make historical sense. We should be able to have proper revolutions.

You're insanely out of touch if you think that asking hermits to siege a faction capital is an acceptable compromise in lieu of just not supporting them with their exp.

Of course not, but at that point, as detailed several times already, I don't really think they should be able to easily escape said realm.

It's not escaping a realm as much as it is protesting against a realm. Maybe the king could get a notification when someone does this.

The problem is, they have no power. The only reason the realm that exist is over us is because they spammed cairns. It’s not like they have military power. They spam cairns as much as possible. They then wall them up because no one in this world is ever going to siege a palisade for 24 hours straight to break a cairn.

If this is your problem, then clearly your complaint is not with the realm system, but with the siege system.

The realm system involves cairns, no? Cairn spam is a realm related problem. They're so easy to make and protect that it kills a big chunk of the political aspect of the game. It also makes it possible for kingdoms to harass villages by planting many cairns right next to their walls.

Surely cairn harassment isn't an intended mechanic?

[Mario_Demorez]

And apparently the devs want the small villages and hermits not to quit because of big factions raiding them. This seems like a good way to do that.

[digzol]

I think you have to look at both sides of the medal before arguing on a change.
Opting out of giving authority would indeed hurt the realm, but how does not opting out hurt in any way the hermits?

If you don't see authority as a "tax" so to speak (you don't lose anything anyways) and more like a "presence" on the land, then a revolution doesn't really make much sense anymore.

Like it was mentioned before, I think the issue lies more in the siege system and less in the realm one. To not give presence on a land owned by a realm, you should remove ownership of said realm, no?

[Ants]

I think you have to look at both sides of the medal before arguing on a change.
Opting out of giving authority would indeed hurt the realm, but how does not opting out hurt in any way the hermits?

If you don't see authority as a "tax" so to speak (you don't lose anything anyways) and more like a "presence" on the land, then a revolution doesn't really make much sense anymore.

Like it was mentioned before, I think the issue lies more in the siege system and less in the realm one. To not give presence on a land owned by a realm, you should remove ownership of said realm, no?

If the realm leader is hostile against your village, giving the realm authority means hurting yourself. Realms can be oppressive to anyone, hermits included.

I agree, though, being able to remove a realm's presence would be the best solution. Right now it's nearly impossible even if the king is a sprucecap with no army. All he has to do is spam a few palisades around the coronation stone and voila, no one's gonna bother bashing them.

[Ardennesss]

I think you have to look at both sides of the medal before arguing on a change.
Opting out of giving authority would indeed hurt the realm, but how does not opting out hurt in any way the hermits?

If you don't see authority as a "tax" so to speak (you don't lose anything anyways) and more like a "presence" on the land, then a revolution doesn't really make much sense anymore.

Like it was mentioned before, I think the issue lies more in the siege system and less in the realm one. To not give presence on a land owned by a realm, you should remove ownership of said realm, no?

Because it's not an enjoyable feeling to know that you're feeding authority to a realm full of people who will kill you if they run into you, and there's nothing you can do about it besides abandoning your land and moving somewhere else. It would simply make that pill a little easier to swallow if you could opt out of supporting them because of the way they treat you/others.

[Mario_Demorez]

I think you have to look at both sides of the medal before arguing on a change.
Opting out of giving authority would indeed hurt the realm, but how does not opting out hurt in any way the hermits?

If you don't see authority as a "tax" so to speak (you don't lose anything anyways) and more like a "presence" on the land, then a revolution doesn't really make much sense anymore.

Like it was mentioned before, I think the issue lies more in the siege system and less in the realm one. To not give presence on a land owned by a realm, you should remove ownership of said realm, no?

If you suddenly get claimed by realm A who has murdered you and raided you over and over you are now supporting this realm. If you can’t opt out of helping this realm that has no interest in being nice or helpful to you then you’re just being leached off of. You can either move to another realm or get another realm to challenge realm A. However while the realms are fighting over the land you are currently giving authority to realm A, which helps them win.

IF you were asking how does opting out of the realm auth generation hurts the hermit then it’s because they’d lose the realm buffs.

[digzol]

if you could opt out of supporting them because of the way they treat you/others.

IF you were asking how does opting out of the realm auth generation hurts the hermit then it’s because they’d lose the realm buffs.

I don't disagree with the rest, and I understand the situation. It's just that I think an "opt out" option to tick just sounds like those "Click here to opt out of sending crash reports" type buttons you press and disregard.

It has to be a system a bit more complicated than that. I'd give an example but can't think of something that wouldn't be a complete revamp of the current system.

[Mario_Demorez]

if you could opt out of supporting them because of the way they treat you/others.

IF you were asking how does opting out of the realm auth generation hurts the hermit then it’s because they’d lose the realm buffs.

I don't disagree with the rest, and I understand the situation. It's just that I think an "opt out" option to tick just sounds like those "Click here to opt out of sending cash reports" type buttons you press and disregard.

It has to be a system a bit more complicated than that. I'd give an example but can't think of something that wouldn't be a complete revamp of the current system.

Except if you don’t opt out you get sweet sexy realm buffs. If people want to forfeit those sweet ass buffs to send a message then they won’t disregard it so easily.

[Kaios]

Changes intended to hurt or hinder the largest of factions tend to effect the smallest the most.

[Mario_Demorez]

Changes intended to hurt or hinder the largest of factions tend to effect the smallest the most.

The whole idea is to effect small players. Make them have more of a say on who they support. If you rebel against the realm you are in the realm can and probably will try to remove you. They have to have a military strength to do so though.