Kingdom System Proposal

[Griegor Mcvennor]

Integrated Kingdom systems would add a large layer of roleplay and ownship to players belonging to such organizations so here is what I propose.

1. Theocratic (Religious), Technocratic(Military, think Chieften or General), or Feudal kingdom systems with apropriate ranks.

Player gets the option to form a "kingdom" of a certain type with other players of the same race ONLY (this part is very important).

Requirements

1. Certain amount of fame or victories

2. Pay an associated gold/resource cost

3. Have at least 2 subordinates will to form a kingdom with you.

Benefits

1. Free travel through kingdom territory?

2. Gold/resource income bonus through trade?

3. Ability to join/assist in any battle involving a kingdom mate. (limit of one allied army?)


Rank Structures

1. Theocratic- Grand Hierophant- Cardianal- Bishop- Deacon
2. Technocratic- Khan- Warlord- Chieften- General
3. Feudal- King- Duke- Baron- Knight



Rank abilities

King
a. May increase personal resources through wise or unwise taxation policies
b. May allocate kingdom resources to a member
c. May purchase and donate troops to a kingdom member
d. May declare war on other kingdoms
e. May indict a kingdom member for treason and banish from kingdom membership
f. May Promote or demote a a kingdom member/ grant to retract granted lands?
g. May create and designate kingdom banners for use in battle

Duke

(suggestions appreciated)


Baron

(suggestions appreciated)


Knight (suggestions appreciated


All ranks can create and use personal hearaldry for battles but the higher ranks could get more opulant banners and surcoats for their units. Perhaps better options for those units looks?





I'd suggest more but I'm running out of time before work. However I think the general idea of it is pretty clear. Give people somthing to identify themselves with and they will fought for that ideal forever.

It also gives them a chance for roleplay and inter player politics on a grander scale than province to province.

Personally I'd like to see a Holy Roman Empire style system with Elector counts and provinces but thats just me.

[NobleIre]

I think the idea in theory.. but I get the feeling that it might be a bit too unwieldy. Also, it would seem to me that the first two 'benefits' of membership: traveling through other person's territory and trade bonuses could totally be obtained either in-game or through player agreement anyway.

[swedishviking]

doesn't this go against the backstory and ultimately remove it from relevence? Also this would force inter-faction pvp as viable alternative to fighting the other races, unless i missed that feature in the FAQ.

[NobleIre]

Well, I imagine there will be 'inter-faction' combat regardless. I don't think we're all forming up along lines of faction. It doesn't, to me, seem completely contrary to the given lore (so long as the titles and such were changed), but it is perhaps borderline.

[ImmoralAtheist]

Politics is something I'd like to see. Stronghold kingdoms tries to do this, just that it's to flawed. You could have 3 layers. area consisting of pherhaps 40 towns. A region consisting of several of these, and a country consists of several regions. For each there's a capital, and players can take control or maybe get special positions within these. It gives very good advantages, especially being the king. A clan would often aim to get control over regions, also giving them a chance to throne one of their own as king.

[Griegor Mcvennor]

Thats my point. Try to liken MMO development as akin to being the dungeon master in the old DnD style games. The developer is the story teller. His team is creating the world, it's rules, creatures, events, and creating the conditions for the story. He is enabling the systems that you the player have to operate within. If the developer focus's on guided missions too much you end up with a system where players simply grind to the top and quit after the content is exhausted. If you create a system where players can create their own content, they tend to stick around.

Ultima Online had this correct back in the day. The game was far from perfect but it did one thing that most games these days fail miserably at. It created a game with such a robust framework that roleplaying in an MMORPG was actually possible and didn't consist of a bunch of teenagers having fake relations in a dark corner of a pub.

All that being said, if Reverie enables a system of politics that allows for the player creation and management of townships, fiefdoms, kingdoms, alliances whatever. It will allow for the players to create the content and drive their own destinies. Games such as Darkfall, Mortal Online, or Shadowbane had these systems perfectly. Unfortunately their other features were not implemented well enough to appreciate what they did good.

Basically what I am saying is that if the developers allow for player freedom to the extent that player ego's can drive event's in the game world, the players will create their own content and drama that will endure long after one side concedes defeat and the cycle begins again. As long as the penalties for defeat are not too steep and the ability to start again on the path to victory are not tough enough to drive away the semi casual players.

This is my dream. Player created kingdoms, Banners, Flags, lore, and politics. Image a clan map of the game world which shows each nation, dukedom, fief, town, settlement and their individual flags and hearaldries.

Imagine players from one kingdom invading another player created kingdom when they see two rival players in kingdom number 2 engage in a war over a territorial dispute.

Allow the players to act like real generals and kings and the possiblities are endless.

[Yami-Yagari]

Sounds nice. It at least gives people more to do besides sending their armies to their deasths.