Rebellion against a realm

[Kaios]

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.

And what will the rest of the players do sitting under realms with no buffs whether they like them or not? How many players should be sufficient to wipe a village or realm off the map, 20? 50? 100?

The players with the capability to enact such force don’t care if such an option is available either way so how would it effect them should they find themselves with displeased subjects? Someone gives exp, they kill them. Someone doesn’t give exp, they kill them. It makes little difference plus with seamark moving away may not be an effective option either.

[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.

And what will the rest of the players do sitting under realms with no buffs whether they like them or not? How many players should be sufficient to wipe a village or realm off the map, 20? 50? 100?

The players with the capability to enact such force don’t care if such an option is available either way so how would it effect them should they find themselves with displeased subjects? Someone gives exp, they kill them. Someone doesn’t give exp, they kill them. It makes little difference plus with seamark moving away may not be an effective option either.

I’m really confused. It would be based on that persons sole choice. If player A chose to rebel the rest of the realm wouldn’t be effected unless they rebel too. The rebeling isn’t to wipe the realm off the map either, it’s to hinder it from expanding and fighting other realms. If a realm doesn’t have the support of the people it already claims it shouldn’t be able to expand even further. If a realm can kill everyone in their realm and not suffer from it then they can do so, the people in the realm should consider this before they rebel though. Fear and power can keep people from choosing to rebel.

[dageir]

In real life there would be a tax man supported by a couple of soldiers that would demand taxes on behalf of the lord of the realm. While this is to be preffered to the current system, you could say that the current system is a simplification of the old tax system. If you refused to pay taxes, they would string you up in closest tree. Maybe make people refusing to contribute authority Outlaws killable by all (including no-rage characters) with bashable palisades?

[Kaios]

I’m pretty sure the intended purpose of realm buffs is to keep people from wanting to do that. Players already compare realms by buff so if you give them a way to click instant “deny authority” button then every player would obviously want to be under the realm with the best buffs. This is a problem of the current system and being able to monopolize and throw out the best buffs without much of a reasonable way to contest them.

[Mario_Demorez]

In real life there would be a tax man supported by a couple of soldiers that would demand taxes on behalf of the lord of the realm. While this is to be preffered to the current system, you could say that the current system is a simplification of the old tax system. If you refused to pay taxes, they would string you up in closest tree. Maybe make people refusing to contribute authority Outlaws killable by all (including no-rage characters) with bashable palisades?

The problem is that the realm that covers us doesn’t have the power to actually fight us. They have no army. So they have no one but the shitty game mechanics to enforce our authority generations.

Making the rebel marked to realm members would be tight. I’m assuming you are joking about the last part about outlaw and killable by all chars and palibashing.

[digzol]

If authority is like a tax, and opting out of authority is refusing to pay taxes, then it seems fair that those would be marked as outlaws and marked for death, no?
If the realm covering you can't fight, then there is nothing to fear in being marked for death.

[dageir]

If authority is like a tax, and opting out of authority is refusing to pay taxes, then it seems fair that those would be marked as outlaws and marked for death, no?
If the realm covering you can't fight, then there is nothing to fear in being marked for death.

Yes, but were you to move out of the realm, you would no longer be marked for Death. You could only be killed on sight in the realm which the felon is outlawed.

[pppp]

Perhaps border cairns should dry a little bit longer, and be a bit more expensive. They are quite OP compared to village banner cost, drying time and area coverage. Saying more expensive, means not only more cloth but also more auth drain and upfront one-time auth cost so a kingdom with no auth has it difficult to rapidly expand. Perhaps placing a cairn should also come with long perspective auth cost vs gain consideration, at this point it is a nobrainer.

[stya]

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.

I very much doubt you should pay attention to complaints filled with emotions and hyperbolic nonsense.

[Granger]

IMHO they should need upkeep, applied at the cairns.

Then the realm would have the option to either send the tax man (with some soldiers to have him come back) and do the job, or win the hearts of the subjects and have them do it.

Would still allow realms to be anti-social but the cost to misbehave would scale with size, while a realm with a kind leader would have the support of the subjects who'll see a point in spring the realm... Which in both cases boils down to a realm needing to attract enough similar minded characters to be able to expand into and maintain an area.