The need for Feudalism

[Cajoes]

This sounds more like one of those creepy vampire larps than vassalage.

[Cranny]

Lets say Im a new player, or a peacefull crafter, that wants protection because Im tired of being griefed, so I decide to become someones vassal.

Then I find out that promisses are only words in the wind and that I keep on working for someone that is getting fat at my expense, not only with this 10%, but also keeping up "our" town (that ofc is hes/her town).
Will someone that wants to be the "motherfucker king" let me go so easy?, will I be an example for other vassals?, I must die to leave hes reign?.
I lost my work, my stuff and I´m dead. I dont see it like something appealing.

Someone that likes to play to be this "motherfucker king", as he/she loves power I assume he/she likes/knows how to fight, is gonna be logged 24/7 to protect me and my mates that log from all over the world on different time frames?. It is not possible, so he/she needs some fellow chiefs to go along with this protection work.
Im watching several levels of citizenships in the near future where I am the lowest class. Not appealing either to feel I´m the trash can.

Ofc, If you see it from the position of the "motherfucker king" it seems appealing to be all powerfull (and it can be nice to hes/her fellow chiefs too), but how many are they and how many are the ones like me?. How would the progression be if the world gets to be divided in 2 or 3 large groups?.
10/20/30??? players giving every day the 10% of their gains to 1 char would create what? a super hyper invincible hero?. A char that does not need weapons/armor because just with a punch can kill anyone?. The world would be redesigned for this 3, 4, 5? chars or for the regular players?.


I sure agree some protection ways need to be added to mantain the playerbase, but this one seems to me that not only goes against the best feature that H&H has (that is the freedom we have), imho also goes against devs wallets. Just make the numbers, how many players will p2p when the feeling is to be a trash can or exploited or facing a sure death against a superman/woman and how many are the ones that are to be the game´s elite?.

.

[jorb]

Why do you guys want to encode in rigid game mechanics things which should be emergent? To me that is the whole fun of Haven!

What there needs to be is plenty of ways for weaker players to be useful to stronger ones. Like making bricks, gathering blueberries, etc. There are already incentives for cooperation, people just sometimes find it more fun to kill each other.... Making someone a slave (/vassal/worker) using game mechanics is just non-fun. My group is essentially (anarcho-)communist, this and other societies should not be discouraged in artificial ways.

More in game options for organizing large groups is always good however, but they shouldn't be tied directly to the character progression, that should be down to social interaction.

This is a good point. It is not obvious to what degree, if any, things like these need to be formalized by the game. It is a question we ourselves debate a fair amount.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Why do you guys want to encode in rigid game mechanics things which should be emergent? To me that is the whole fun of Haven!

What there needs to be is plenty of ways for weaker players to be useful to stronger ones. Like making bricks, gathering blueberries, etc. There are already incentives for cooperation, people just sometimes find it more fun to kill each other.... Making someone a slave (/vassal/worker) using game mechanics is just non-fun. My group is essentially (anarcho-)communist, this and other societies should not be discouraged in artificial ways.

More in game options for organizing large groups is always good however, but they shouldn't be tied directly to the character progression, that should be down to social interaction.

This is a good point. It is not obvious to what degree, if any, things like these need to be formalized by the game. It is a question we ourselves debate a fair amount.

It would be nice that absent game mechanics allowing meaningful vassalage, it becomes possible in some way to retaliate against people that attack you or your vassals.

There's little you can do to maintain serfs when, if they are killed, you are unable to avenge their deaths. With little chance of meaningful retaliation for actions against your vassals, can you really call a relationship vassalage?

Some method of forcing conflict would be nice. It could even be favorable to the defender, such as on their timetable.

[Hervarth]

Why do you guys want to encode in rigid game mechanics things which should be emergent? To me that is the whole fun of Haven!

What there needs to be is plenty of ways for weaker players to be useful to stronger ones. Like making bricks, gathering blueberries, etc. There are already incentives for cooperation, people just sometimes find it more fun to kill each other.... Making someone a slave (/vassal/worker) using game mechanics is just non-fun. My group is essentially (anarcho-)communist, this and other societies should not be discouraged in artificial ways.

More in game options for organizing large groups is always good however, but they shouldn't be tied directly to the character progression, that should be down to social interaction.

This is a good point. It is not obvious to what degree, if any, things like these need to be formalized by the game. It is a question we ourselves debate a fair amount.

I beg you wholeheartedly to not formalize them, it would totally ruin the game for me at least
Not to mention its really un-fun being a formal vassal/slave. In haven as it is, if someone tries to boss you around you are technically free to just tell them where to stick it.

[Kaios]

You are going to have super elite NEET's who are going to excel at this game and murder new players who then rage quit and never come back.

some players are already doing this

[Original]

Make it where the feudalism is based off a claim instead of characters

[Gabula]

I really don't like the "10% LP from the vassal" idea, it is simply exploitable. And raiders would kill your sprucecap guy anyway.

[theoddfielding]

While I'm not terribly interested in the specifics of this idea - the king shouldn't be the strongest, most skilled person in his kingdom by default - I'm strongly in favor of formalizing some higher forms of government than just the village. Not 100% sure how to make it work, though.

Feudalism would of course be more interesting if we could marry, pass on claims to our children, and die of (probably not) old age, Crusader Kings style. The question of who exactly gets to play the child of two different players is a little tricky though. Maybe that should go to whoever got the more favorable end of the marriage deal.

If being a vassal actually literally restrains you from taking certain actions, it would make things like Trespassing, Theft, and Stealth more interesting. Especially if you didn't necessarily have a choice in being born in a certain kingdom.

You could also always just leave that kingdom and strike out into the wilderness. I believe Haven can support both the bands of wildmen we have now and civilized people living in civilized places...that we also have now. With some more structure I think each could benefit from the other.

[Shiala]

All I know is if some would-be "king" showed up at my gates and expected something from me, I damn well better be provided with a catapult that I can use to launch a cow over the wall at him.