Mayor/citizenship/faction system draft v0.9.2

[Demian]

Mayor system itself has nothing to do with religions. Religions are able to join as citizens just like anyone else but that's about it.

If it affects siege times and sieging is made possible if the loyalty of citizens is low enough, it does affect religions though? I'd rather see all that removed also.

[Monad]

Mayor system itself has nothing to do with religions. Religions are able to join as citizens just like anyone else but that's about it.

If it affects siege times and sieging is made possible if the loyalty of citizens is low enough, it does affect religions though? I'd rather see all that removed also.

Well I think it makes sense that if religion tries to siege a town and the citizens don't want it to happen, it does have difference on the difficulty of sieging. And also if majority of a town citizens are not happy the way their faction is treating them, they could democratically declare disloyalty to the ruling faction and make it easier to convert to another faction. Why is that a bad thing?

[Demian]

Mayor system itself has nothing to do with religions. Religions are able to join as citizens just like anyone else but that's about it.

If it affects siege times and sieging is made possible if the loyalty of citizens is low enough, it does affect religions though? I'd rather see all that removed also.

Well I think it makes sense that if religion tries to siege a town and the citizens don't want it to happen, it does have difference on the difficulty of sieging. And also if majority of a town citizens are not happy the way their faction is treating them, they could democratically declare disloyalty to the ruling faction and make it easier to siege? Why is that a bad thing?

Sure, it makes sence, but it shouldn't be made harder or easier from the scripts. If the citizens really are unhappy or happy with the situation and are against/for the siege they can show up to defend/attack? Now that's dynamic.

[Monad]

Well I think it makes sense that if religion tries to siege a town and the citizens don't want it to happen, it does have difference on the difficulty of sieging. And also if majority of a town citizens are not happy the way their faction is treating them, they could democratically declare disloyalty to the ruling faction and make it easier to siege? Why is that a bad thing?

Sure, it makes sence, but it shouldn't be made harder or easier from the scripts. If the citizens really are unhappy or happy with the situation and are against/for the siege they can show up to defend/attack? Now that's dynamic.

This system is not built to encourage PVP, but to bring more political aspect and power to the game instead.

[Demian]

Well I think it makes sense that if religion tries to siege a town and the citizens don't want it to happen, it does have difference on the difficulty of sieging. And also if majority of a town citizens are not happy the way their faction is treating them, they could democratically declare disloyalty to the ruling faction and make it easier to siege? Why is that a bad thing?

Sure, it makes sence, but it shouldn't be made harder or easier from the scripts. If the citizens really are unhappy or happy with the situation and are against/for the siege they can show up to defend/attack? Now that's dynamic.

This system is not built to encourage PVP, but to bring more political aspect and power to the game.

I see that. And I would love it if it would really work as intended. But what's stopping Law alts(Let's use law as an example so no one gets offended) from going disloyal on an Imperial town even though things really aren't that bad. Solely for metagaming reasons? That's what I'm afraid this system will encourage.

[Monad]

Sure, it makes sence, but it shouldn't be made harder or easier from the scripts. If the citizens really are unhappy or happy with the situation and are against/for the siege they can show up to defend/attack? Now that's dynamic.

This system is not built to encourage PVP, but to bring more political aspect and power to the game.

I see that. And I would love it if it would really work as intended. But what's stopping Law alts(Let's use law as an example so no one gets offended) from going disloyal on an Imperial town even though things really aren't that bad. Solely for metagaming reasons? That's what I'm afraid this system will encourage.

Nothing, but that would be metagaming and if you players start metagaming intentionally then we will find a ways to stop that and put more restrictions and have less funny system in place. But I'm optimist and want to see how the system works first before condemning it only because some sad players have the possibility to screw the system and make it worse by metagaming.

[Darian Darkmind]

Demian you can do that and so can we. It's something you must think yourself. Are you that lame or not? This is the kind of attitude that is wrong with the player base.

I don't believe metagaming will be a real issue. To me this sounds like you're afraid Imperial would take over the rest of your towns. However, the best cure for it is your own pro-active work, RP and readiness to HELP people. You can't expect to have what was once given to you and keep it for eternity without working and fighting for it.

I'm sure it will cause a little bit metagaming, but I doubt it's enough to make a real difference (As in to drop loyalty down to 0-30%). After all, to drop it so low it requires most of the houses in the said town. It's a sad thing our playerbase is so divided due to so much hate caused by the years of griefing by both sides that good ideas turn "bad" just because we dislike each other. There are ways to make an end to most of this, but I'm afraid this shard isn't ready for the necessary actions it requires to do so.

[Monad]

Also don't think them as Imperial or Law towns, they are Lord British or Lord Blackthorn towns.
Religions have basically nothing to do with them other than you can't join the opposite faction towns with your religious character.

[Aileth]

It's been mentioned before, I would like to see having only 1 mayor per account for the following reasons:
- Diversity in actions/evolution of towns (the more people involved the better)
- More player activity/interaction (can't interact in all 5 towns at the same time)

[Darian Darkmind]

Will all the towns have the free guards, or will all the guards require tax money?

It makes sense that if a mayor sets the tax at 0%, there won't be many guards around as there's not gold to pay for them.

I know the king sends the guards, but the king needs tax money to do so and surely he would not waste many of his guards to a place that doesn't profit him at all.