RGO's


Archived topics from the different rule forums.

Moderator: Admin

User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1004

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 am

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:25 am

I spent most of last night thinking on this issue. Here are 3 points I want to make.

1. Chris, you said "Well let me make it clear that it is VERY important to make suer orgs cannot be self sufficient. Co dependancy is one of the stops put in to cull PvP "
There is a problem with this logic because you create PvP by having different types of trade routes (level 1,2,3). This makes people compete for the better routes so they can get more resources which allows them to have better stuff. This creates PvP. There are rules for people taking over others trade routes, which is PvP. Yes, there is Co dependency to a point, but it does not stop PvP. So you have a philospy of trying to limit PvP with Co dependancy, than turn around and create PvP with in the rules when dealing with trade routes. It is 2 counter dicting philospies.
And why is it so important that there is no group that is self suffiecent? Won't the other groups try to take the self suffiecent groups trade routes and become self suffiecent themselves? Even if a group does become self suffiecent to a point, they still need to rely on the other groups in town when there trade routes get a negative result. So there is always some co dependency happening in town.

2. After some thought, I agree with Phil. I believe there should be no cap on RGO for bring in trade routes. I can see the chart growing following the established support point, people requirements, vrs the number of routes an RGo can bring in. Basicly, by the time an RGo reachs level 16, they would require 11-12 people and can bring in 6 trade routes. Just like 2 level 8 RGO's

Benifits: As Taki stated, people have a tendency to have the mechanics drive how an orginization is built and controled in game. Instead of the other way around. There are 2 RGO for the Phoniex, but every one is a phoniex member, but they have to remeber which sub group they belong. It brings in confusion and complexity for little benifit.
1. By having no imits, it reduces PC confusion and stream lines the check out process for PC's. They can say, I belong to Order of the elder, or the Phoniex, and not worry which sub group they belong to. Also, there would be less tracking of where people belong at and check against for NPC's
2. The same amount of trade routes can be controled with one large RGO as 2 smaller RGO's. So there would be no difference there.
3. It would help people create there orginizations as they wish without the limitations the mechaincs create. It is very hard to create an orginzation which out some mechanic iterference cropping up.

The only negative I can come up with is a group would only require 1 becurarte instead of 2 as in todays system when a group is comprised of 2 RGO's. It is a small advantage that the prosposed system would allow.

The 3rd issue is the amount of people required to support a group. When doing the math, it breaks down to 1 trade route for every 2 people in an ideal stituation. But in reality because not everyone makes it to an event, the ratio is more 3.5 people for every trade route. The issue comes when dealing with the teir 2&3 trade routes coming into game. They do not bring in enough resources to trade other org's for the baisc requirements to live.
Example. I have 3 people who need to trade there 6 metal they get from their trade route for 9 food, 3 cloth, 6 supplies, and a minium of 1 metal for weapon upkeep (not to menition if they have any armor which can be an additional 3 metal) I don't see anyone trade that much stuff for that few metal. It's a bad deal.
But you say there are better trade routes out there, you just need to take them away from the people who control them. This creates PvP. And some one still gets the bad trade route which can not support the people.
I would like to see the 2&3 rd trade routes bring in more resources, or the required amount of people to support an RGO drops. It fixes the issue either way.
Not to mention, how are we as players suppose to make work shops, create armies, get the cool equipment, when the resources coming into game are so limited? I know there needs to be balance, but are we there? I can't answer that question because I do not know all the resources that are coming in. I just can go on what I have observed and know. You can tell me that I full of it and I would understand
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:33 am

why waste a large number of Support points by remaining in one organization when you can get more bang for your buck by splitting into two?


So that you don't have to swap people around after every event. Or keep your level at a point where you can survive a few people not showing up to the game. If you have 6 total people and are an 8th level org you're going to run into problems EVERY event. If you're a 4th or 6th level org you won't run into the problem as much.

If you just don't want to give up that extra 2 or 4% then you have to worry about making the people requirement. It's the nature of management or leadership in an organization to have to make choices. It may seem stupid to have more people than you need in an org to some people but to me it seems stu...err... counter-intuitive to have your org stretched to the point that 1 or 2 people not showing up to an event makes you have to scramble switching people around.

And under the current rules there IS NO CAP TO THE # OF PEOPLE IN A RGO in fact if you have double the # of people you get a 5% bonus.
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1004

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 am

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:19 am

It's about the people ratio to the number of trade routes an RGO bring in. Thats the issue at point. If your RGO gets to big with out bringing in more trade routes, than you can not feed and cloth your people. So the trick is to have enough people in a RGO that the trade routes can support. Unforutunely because all trade routes are different, some can support the minium amount of people, and others can't. It that simple. And if you grow your RGO to large to protect against peole not showing up and when they all do, you don't have enough resources to support your people. Mind this assuming the town will trade with the RGo for what they need.
User avatar

GM

Posts: 4122

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:49 pm

Location: Wouldn't you like to know

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:22 am

!!Warning, Extreme Number Crunching Content!!

The issue comes when dealing with the teir 2&3 trade routes coming into game. They do not bring in enough resources to trade other org's for the baisc requirements to live.


When looking at resources I assign them a value based on the number required to survive and their availability. Cloth is the most valuable down to food which is the least. This is because of the scarcity of the resource in the trade model. I refer to this as the RVP, Resource value points. Food is worth 1 RVP, Supplies is equal to 2, and cloth is equal to 3 RVP. It requires 10 RVP for a person to survive. Level 3 routes in the current model bring in 27 RVP. This is only 3 RVP away from supporting 3 people. Assuming 1 person in an RGO is either a rogue, savage, or is able to find 3 RVP worth of treasure (Which is the baseline per person at an average event) you can support a level 1 RGO. You will need to do some in game trading to do so though. Scaling this up, If an RGO only has 3rd tier routes and the minimum number of people to survive, then they can support themselves all the way up to 8th level.

Where the problem comes in is improving the route or maintaining equipment. A guild with all tier three routes will be po (So poor they cant afford the "or"). This is what having all tier 3s is supposed to represent. Also, you cannot support yourself with tier threes if the production sources are for secondary resources.


I would like to see the 2&3 rd trade routes bring in more resources, or the required amount of people to support an RGO drops. It fixes the issue either way. Not to mention, how are we as players suppose to make work shops, create armies, get the cool equipment, when the resources coming into game are so limited?


This is a good point. Right now, the economy is a little tight but I think it is ok. We finanly have a better hand on treasure as well which increass the economy by about 15%. The biggest problem I see is the fact that there are several unclaimed routes for primary resources but all the mystic routes are taken. You can't eat mystic. You cant build workshops with mystic.

There are currently 3 routes and 93 Resource points being spent on Mystic. With those same points, you can bring in 3 tier 2-3 primary resource routes totaling 126 RVP. If you keep just the primary mystic, you would still have alot of mystic and two route slots open in the current structure. If those route slots were used on the Remaining tier 2 food and cloth you would bring in an additional 72 RVP which is enough to build a level 1 workshop on every one of the tier 1 primary resource routes and 1 of the tier one secondary resource routes. Then, the next event you have just increased the overall primary resource economy by approximently 5% permanently.

If you save that 5% for three events, you can build level 2 workshops on every primary and raise the total primary resource economy by about 12%. If you save that 12% and the leftovers from your Level 2 workshop building, in 3 events you can build a level 3 workshop on all the primary resource routes and increase the overall primary resource production by 25%. Now, you have increased the RVP being brought in from 208 to 274 with only dipping slightly into the current economy.

All that being said, I think lowering the people requirement might not be a bad idea if we decide to go with a more open RGO level model.
Wayne O
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1004

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 am

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:24 am

I would like to bring up the point that support points has very little role in RGO's. It more about minum people requirement that is the main problem I always run into. There are so many ways to get around the support issue, that it becomes a mute issue. Wealth levels, humans, becurates, specilized RGO's, etc...

Having a bunch of people in a RGO to get the 5% extra trade points is a waste becuase you want to bring in trade routes, not have a big pool if trade points. The more trade routes, the more resources, the better stituated the RGO/orginization is.
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:47 am

If it is about people then again tell me why we are not seeing more level 4 beurocrats?

Also, as Reid pointed out EVERY government model has to put people in charge of resources. A dictator does not go around managing his country heputs people in charge of different elements. The dictator is basically giving up power so as to manage the bulk of his country. The fear is the person he gives power to might turn on the dictator. This is especially true for the people who control the military.

It takes people to bring in resources. As it is true that we create compition with resources I disagree that it causes PvP. lets say the town gets mad at Elder's order and kills them. Now there are less resources comming in, but their are also less people. Does it work out? Can every group be able to pick up the slack to properly support everyone? The answer would be no unless you gave up magic items. The people requierment that force so many people to manage an org would stop you.


As I like to do lets say we allowed super groups. Could someone here please explain HOW we would represent division of power within these super orgs?
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

GM

Posts: 4122

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:49 pm

Location: Wouldn't you like to know

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:09 am

As I like to do lets say we allowed super groups. Could someone here please explain HOW we would represent division of power within these super orgs?

First off, define super group. I think I know what you mean but it would be nice for others who have not developed a proficiency in GM lingo :)

Right now, we still have super groups. One person tells everyone else who to support to bring in the most resources. The individual RGO heads are just support point recepticles. This doesn't force in character division within large collectives, what it does is break the political and economic system even further out of the In-Game environment. It would be easier and more asthetically pleasing to be able to just give all the support to the guy who is running the economic portion of the collective anyways. Then what you get is the organization then breaking up into sub groups to deal with in-character, at-the-game situations. You would have the defensive group that attends to the protection of the group. You would have the sages who research things for the group. You would have the crafters that make poitions and equipment. The list just goes on and on. Then, as the collective grows, the mechanical divisions show up when the first RRO is created within the collective.
Wayne O
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:49 am

Uhm so stop trying to bring in 3 trade routes with 6 people organizations it's that simple really, if you're always operating at the max the rules will allow you'll always have problems maintaining your routes and orgs, how else can I say it to make more sense to you. Yes I know it's hard for some people to give up any small thing they can squeeze out of everything but this is simply a case where that's not feasible.

The RGO's don't need to be able to bring in more than 3 trade routes and the # of people at the higher levels certainly doesn't need to be lowered, if anything the 1st, 2nd and 3rd levels may need to be lowered so that it's a little easier to start an organization to closer match the model that most people here seem to understand. You need more and more people to manage more and more resources plain and simple. Look at the growth rates of any nondotcom business and even the dotcoms. As they grow their work force grows exponentially not linearly.

We'll look at a very small assembly line, lets say it takes 3 people to make, package and distribute 100 customizable widgets a day. One to make the widgets one to collect them and move them to shipping and one to distribute the widgets. Linearly it would only take 6 to double the output but that isn't really the case. You build another line now you have 2 people making widgets, 2 collecting and 2 distributing, now you need someone to coordinate both lines to make sure that the widgets go to the right places, you probably need someone to organize widget orders so that both lines aren't duplicating customization of widgets.

It really does make sense that at a certain point you need to branch out and that you would need exponentially more people. So the linear model we have now is better than it should be so that complaint is moot.

Honestly what I hear in this thread is "We can't upkeep all our magic items and feed all our people unless the rules change to allow us to do that"... well tough, you have a choice to make then... back to that management\ leadership thing and choices. What is basically being asked is why isn't the system set up to allow for everything to be min\maxed and everyone to have the best of the best stuff in a post apocoplyptic world. :?: Wayne makes an excellent point, Mystic isn't going to feed your people but because Mystic is worth the most and can do the most IG in potions and spells and magic item upkeep everyone wants that. Feed your people then worry about potions and spells and magic item upkeep.
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~

GM

Posts: 4491

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:14 pm

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:18 pm

I would not say that support points is never a problem actually. It's true that 3 guilds were short a person this last event and are thus in that danger area, but 4 guilds (with only one overlapping with the people requirement problems) do not have enough support points to maintain their trade routes. To me, that would make it seem like you are stretching yourselves pretty thin. That said, this last event was a lower turnout so it may be a one time thing.

Incidentally, we will announce rules for not having sufficient points to maintain trade routes at the game on meeting if not before.
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:26 pm

See I am hearing what Erik is saying.

Wayne,

What I am talking about is division of economic power.

Right now a guild can have like 3 trade routes. if we allowed 1 giant guild with no cap then a guild could have say 6 or 12 trade rotues.

My problem is I do not think from a GM perspective all thsoe trade routes should be talking to 1 dude. Each trade route needs to be speaking In character with the guild or org or what ever they do business with.

We do not have instantaneous communication as we do now. To properly manage a group you have to be actively working with it. it is not possible for 1 guy to do all the work if it were we would not have beurocracies. ALL types of governments have beurocracies. All organizations have to divide their pwoer to other people.

In the current system a large group of people HAS to give power to others.

Now technically we only are talking 6-12 people and a bunch of invisible people out in the world somewhere. Technically, it is not needed OOG. In game though it makes ZERO sense to have 1 giant group. Their has to be deligation.

My question is HOW do we In-game challenge the players to divide up their super group. Shoudl we as GM's say. between 10am and 12 pm will be economic time and EVERY trade route is going to have a meeting at different areas of the park and if you do not show up you do not get your resources?

if we did it that way then I would be all in favor of changing guild structure to allow one giant group and let the guild figure out who will meet with each production source.
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

GM

Posts: 4122

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:49 pm

Location: Wouldn't you like to know

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:28 pm

The basic core of my argument is that sometimes realism needs to take a backseat to playability. As it stands right now, people are being told where to put their support out of game so there can be enough resources to support everyone. This lessens immersion and forces people to discuss things in an out of game way. By allowing people just to give all of their support to one person makes things easier and less intrussive to the game.

I understand the point of Codependency and not allowing one huge group to control everything but the fact of the matter is, it is going to happen in game even if the mechanics make it difficult. So, why dont we make it easier for the players to work the economic system and get on with the story?

I guess one thing we could do is keep the production source limits as they are (or lower) and allow RGO's to combine "Like" production sources into a single "Route". So, if you had two food production sources, they would count as a single production source. Each individual source may suffer in some way (Stability?) but then RGO's would become specialized.
Wayne O
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:03 pm

But wayne the core of my argument is what Erik is saying. They are having playability issues because they are pushing themselves too thin so they can get all the nice mystic and iron, hide.

if they loosed the reigns a bit and did not try to optimize every guild on a mechnic level then we wouldnt have this issue.


I can only see changing the rules if we impliment the things we are doing OOC to an in character thing where we set a time every even wehre every trade route will meet at teh same time forcing the guilds to divide power up.

People are loyal usually to those they have the most contact with over those they have the least contact with.

A production source will have the most loyalty themselves, then their guild, then their house, then the kingdom.
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:38 pm

And this game is FAR FAR from 1 person running everything. Yes it works like that on a smaller scale but that's what the RPO is for, to represent the fact that a bunch of people who all happen to support 1 person in any fashion are grouped together. The Phoenix even divide themselves IG Azure Shields, Black Talons, etc. So the notion that the rules need to change to accomodate 1 large group of people that don't want to have an RPO is sorta silly to me. The game DOES NOT limit the size of a RGO so you can have as large an RGO as you want but at some point you start to lose out on efficiency, well NO DUH!!
Let's go back to the widget factory you only need to distribute 200 widgets cause thats what the market will bare, now you have 24 employees to do what 8 could do. So what do you do? Logic would say that you move 12 of the employees to a new facility somewhere else where the market can bare another 200 widgets and set up a second biz where you have 12 people at each location, so that when Employees 1+2 can't make it to work you can still get your 200 widgets all the way through distribution without delays and you can pay all your workers with your earnings.

I don't really ever see 1 person controlling everything in Haven. There will always be dissenters to whoever is in charge. So I don't ever see the need for super RGO's. And I really don't think the mechanics get in the way of RP as much as some people tend to think, it's just that people choose to use mechanics when they speak about some things so it seems that way. And the system is not really set up so that you HAVE to be co-dependant. Like you said any RGO can have 3 routes, if you really want to be self suficient then you make those routes the primary resources and trade for secondary with what you have left over after everyone is fed.
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:50 pm

You know Erik I think at one time you said you didn't get it and honestly I think you are more up on it than any of us.

Chris
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:53 pm

That's because I spent hours going over it when I had to deal with it all IG.
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~
PreviousNext

Return to Rule Forum Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Designed by ST Software for PTF.