Political Questions

[GM-Mike]

Chris, I still think what is unclear is the bureaucrat's/chieftain's 25% org bonus. Where does that fit in, how does it change? That's what Reid and Christine are asking. The number cruncher cannot see how it works because this system does not seem to address it.

So, does the org benefit from putting a bureaucrat in charge of a trade route? At that point, does the org get a 25% increase to it's total points? If the org has 6 trade routes, makes two commodities and has 8 bureaucrats filling those roles, do the org's total points increase 200%?

You say it works the same but this is the part being lost in translation.

[dier_cire]

My issue is that I'm still trying to figure out a way to make the interior of the organization allow for the current style but not end up supporting ~475% allegience for those that max out the system. I've been running numbers on a 15 person group with a max of 7 bureaucrats. (currently you only need 5).

Unfortunately, if you limit it to a maximum of a binary tree, you eliminate the current structure, but you do keep the maximum percent gained the same. But allowing for a single individual to support a single individual (ie guild head supporting a house head) ultimately allows me to break the system.

Like I said, I don't mind the concept, it's just the details get real tricky.

[GM_Chris]

I do not know if we are that far, but off the top of my head I would say YES there would be a 200% increase in points.

BUT please keep in mind if we did make the change, we can make the mach come out how ever we want to balance things so in essence it would look very similiar to how it is now.

Also, right now a guild that has 50 support points and 6 people spends those points on trade routes. The guild then passes the number with a % increase over to the house which in turn uses the 50 plus ipoints and turns them into MP's which is in turn used for other things.

So a 50 point org it turned into a 100plus org because they pass along.

Now lets sat we have 1 org 4 trade rotues well..they would have 100 points to use on trade routes and house stuff. There is one pool not 2 or 3 pools so the same amount of points have to be used farther.

Now please understand that there is a finite amount of trade rotues. Currently in our game there are 0 please not zero trade rotues left so if you want one you will ahve to steel some other person's route. How many people would allot a 50 point org to hang onto 4 trade routes? Probably no one, so the market forces works itself out.

[GM_Chris]

Eric, Currently if you have a king level org, then you are using the same support points 3 times in essence giving yourself a 300% bonus assuming no discipline bonuses. Now if you add in the discipline bonuses you can have a 375% increase.

This is also assuming a 15 person org with 6 bureaucrats

Not much of a difference especially when I can control numbers on my end.

[dier_cire]

Ah, so you're saying that in this new system, the double dipping we currently enjoy from stacked bureaucrats would go away? (ie, a royal gets ~200% allegience (1.25^3))

So basically, if someone has bureaucrat, their 25% would be multiplied in at the final level where the head divies out the jobs?

[GM_Chris]

Correct.

And eyah I did the math wrong becuase technically the current system is compounded interest

[dier_cire]

yes it is. And remember, you may control the numbers but I'm probably better at math.

Now with that bureaucrat change, I could see this as possible.

What would be the minimum organization size?

[GM_Chris]

Well depends on if a leader is considered a position, but technically 1 person could be an organization, but you could not do much. Orgs will not collapse like they do today they will just become largely ineffective.

Maybe I should relate this in terms of object programming.

Your only better because you use your math, but I do have a math degree

[Atrum Draconus]

See, I think you can still make it work with multiple org levels and max out the % increases. And the way to make that work IG is to have the leager of the guild\house be the contact on the card. They get their % bonus for the people giving them allegiance and then pass it on to the guy that gets his % bonus , then passes it on to the king level who vould then effect their % bonus. Right now making someone guild or house head means didly and squat because you still control the route. Make it where they control the route and all of a sudden you have to worry whether they are gonna jump ship to someone else with your route in tow. You give them the job of running the route.

You can keep thepeople to level bonuses and what not and drop the people to route requirements. If you have 6 people in your org and enough pts for a king level org 1 handles the military, that leaves 5 to run routes but you have no commodities or marketplaces. If you want to have 30 people in one guild you still only get the highest bonus on the chart for levels.

And in your example earlier Alan can't just transfer the route ownership if the old person hasn't been away for 2 events. King alan could get the route directly for the 2 events and then they'd be forced to put someone else in charge of it or you guys put all the resources in a holding envelope or they just lose them. Alan can only have 1 job in the org and he controls the military so he can't be on the route card too. He then has to find someone else to run the route.

[GM_Chris]

There is no reason to have multiple orgs or levels, because that is what we have now.

Oh and yeah you are correct Allen would have to find someone else to control the route.

Rp wise form an org and call it what you want. On a RP level we will introduce NPC's that will treat you differntly as you grow. If you are an org with 2000 points then you are a might guild. If you are a kingdom of 54 points I guess you are pretty small.

I do not want to bind RP with mechanics anymore.

[Atrum Draconus]

You almost have to bind rp with mechanics at some point or neither works well and is just as clunky. You said yourself, the beaurucrats should be the people in the spots of leadership or in charge of the routes and such, both because they can help the org out and because they are the politicians. getting their bonus for just having them in your org doesn't make as much sense as if they are in charge of routes. If you want to try and max out all the bonuses of the system then you run into the same problems as before, your orgs can't stay together and your routes are crap because you can't keep a consistant contact.

I guess you could total up all the % bonuses that are in the org and add it all at the end but then you guys have to rework everything involved in the system from the route multipliers to the detractors to get the types of #s you're looking for.

[Peace420]

Heres an example of what I mean using real characters.
Atrum trusts Woden and Lao implicitly so he puts them in charge of routes he trusts Wylen somewhat and he is in charge of a route. Woden gives his support points straight to Atrum no org under him. Lao gives his point to Atrum but and he has an org behind him. Wylen also has 2 orgs behind him. Wylen decides he doesn't think Atrum is a good leader because he made him take a punishment for something he feels he didn't do and decides he wants to support the Order. He talks to the people in the guilds under him and half decide to go with him half decide to stay. One of those that decides to leave is Sethreal who has control of the hide route He takes those routes with him, to get the routes back Atrum has to sink 25%(arbitrary #'s) more support points into the routes than Wylen and Seth do. The routes stay stable if Wylen and Seth win (after all the source has no idea or really even cares who the stuff goes to after he gets it). The route loses 10% efficiency if Atrum wins it and assigns it to a new person.

Or Wylen just gives all the points over to the Order without talking to anyone.

Lao misses 2 events consecutively, the route loses 10% and has to be reassigned to someone else.

You make a choice, give people routes that you trust will stay or go for number crunching and give routes to people that may move them elsewhere for a bonus to sp's.

I could definitley see where you could get rid of the guilds entirely and just have the 2 levels of orgs. Right now the clunkiness and moving people around to maximize comes from having to have a certain # of people in the guilds to maintain levels and a certain # of people to run more routes. You could do away with the levels and bonuses for having more levels and keep the # of orgs and I think your system would work just fine. That way the assigning of routes etc would be rp based and there are still mechanics to deal with but not the moving people around every event to maintain mechanics.

[dier_cire]

but I do have a math degree

hehe, so do I.


At any rate, I think the idea of 2nd level bureaucrats with a "job" add their percents to the net support of the org can work well (ie 3 bureaucrats in a group, only 2 in a "job" would yield 50% additional support for the group). Since we double dip now, as Chris pointed out, it'd even out in the end. Plus, it eliminates any percent stacking, thus making math and understanding easier.

How would someone supporting someone else within a guild that isn't in charge of anything be handled? Would those points just travel up as well?

It'd be kinda nice as then it really wouldn't matter who you supported within the guild (unless you made a circle, then you'd all lose your points) as it'd all travel up to the leader. The leader would then, instead of sending points up, send his points back down to the people with "jobs" to get their routes, commodities, etc. This person who sends points down would be designating an org then. Now if another group joins they basically are giving up their routes and points as they would be shifting points up, thus effectively dissolving their org. If they break off, the routes that were their "jobs" would either travel with them or stahy based on a bidding war. (ie, the Order would really be run by the king as Vince sends his points up and our org is really the kingdom)

Is that what you were thinking, Chris?

[GM_Chris]

Exactly

Could it be that Erik and Eric and Chris agree? Man if Todd only cared about politics the world may very well end.

[Shea Stonebrook]

Okay you guys have scaled this way way up but can we scale it down.... how would a little org survive just starting out...without being affiliated with any of the bigger orgs??

They will be out bid on trade routes easily....forcing them to choose a bigger org to support...you guys have been doing this for a while....I'm still trying to get a better grasp. In this scinario how would that work??

(Erik I really liked your example it made it much more clear...thank you )