House Renaissance

Tecton

This thread is to discuss and bring up any questions regarding the House Renaissance, as detailed in http://www.achaea.com/game/news/Achaea/Announce/4134.

Naah

I feel like Serpent houses specifically are going to take a big blow, until they learn to really adapt with the changes. I personally think this would be great, but am also anxious in terms of when it comes to Mhaldor and how the Naga are going to shift.

Each clan grew into a House, with specific lore and purpose behind each one, are we going to remove that lore, or is new lore going to be made for each House? I'm thinking that clans are going to have to be made for each serpent House, but I'm derailing.

I personally think this is pretty cool, and am excited to see how it develops and the tweaks that will come with it. Awesome job, Achaea Crew!

Kyriella

So the history of houses like the Druids, houses that have based their identities on their single-class membership, is just... being thrown out, without consideration of the players who care deeply about those organizations? This is an utterly OOC move, one that will have no IC justification for such houses besides the justification we haphazardly put together to explain the decision we've been handed. The concept of all-class houses seems great and all, but poor form in throwing away organizations that have a long, strong history. I'm disappointed that there is no middle ground.

Jurixe

Is it definite that every city will have three Houses, even Mhaldor? It was discussed before that two Houses would be optimal and I think that is what the leadership has been basing their discussions around.

Edit: Not really the thread for it, but I wouldn't worry about how the Naga will adapt too much - we'll just evolve. It'll probably be easier for us, even, because we don't have an obvious (English) reference to 'serpent' in our House name. Being a Naga is a way of life, not a class, which is generally the whole purpose of this restructuring exercise.

Nim

What of city-less houses (CIJ/Merchants)?

Sultani

What happens to the progres made in your current house if you wish to stay in it or whatever the closest equivalent is? Is everyone just starting from scratch in one of the new three houses?

Tecton

Naah said:

I feel like Serpent houses specifically are going to take a big blow, until they learn to really adapt with the changes. I personally think this would be great, but am also anxious in terms of when it comes to Mhaldor and how the Naga are going to shift.

Each clan grew into a House, with specific lore and purpose behind each one, are we going to remove that lore, or is new lore going to be made for each House? I'm thinking that clans are going to have to be made for each serpent House, but I'm derailing.

I personally think this is pretty cool, and am excited to see how it develops and the tweaks that will come with it. Awesome job, Achaea Crew!

No lore will be disappearing. The organisations will still "exist" as a denizen faction within the city in most cases. Each city will be handled differently, we'll finalise it when we sit down with the city/house leaders to discuss the changes.

Jacen

I like it

GO FASTER

Triak

From Leaders forum in Nov.

Tecton said:

Cityless houses will probably be open to all non-factional classes, other than that, they'll remain mostly as-is. After we split tradeskills off from classes, the Alchemist/forestal hardcode restriction will probably disappear (but players are welcome to pursue this line of RP)

Did the Alchemist/Forestal hardcode get put back in place?  The post makes it seem like it still will be. (Or will the hardcode be removed after tradeskill split further down the line after house implementation)

Madelyne

So does this mean that this is still true, that "Ty Beirdd will still be around and kicking"? Or has that changed?

Tecton

Jurixe said:

Is it definite that every city will have three Houses, even Mhaldor? It was discussed before that two Houses would be optimal and I think that is what the leadership has been basing their discussions around.

Edit: Not really the thread for it, but I wouldn't worry about how the Naga will adapt too much - we'll just evolve. It'll probably be easier for us, even, because we don't have an obvious (English) reference to 'serpent' in our House name. Being a Naga is a way of life, not a class, which is generally the whole purpose of this restructuring exercise.

A maximum of three, yes. In a smaller city, there may be less than three.

Ruth

Sultani said:

What happens to the progres made in your current house if you wish to stay in it or whatever the closest equivalent is? Is everyone just starting from scratch in one of the new three houses?

I believe this one is really up to the leadership/citizens who will start off as leaders of the new houses.

Tecton

Kyriella said:

So the history of houses like the Druids, houses that have based their identities on their single-class membership, is just... being thrown out, without consideration of the players who care deeply about those organizations? This is an utterly OOC move, one that will have no IC justification for such houses besides the justification we haphazardly put together to explain the decision we've been handed. The concept of all-class houses seems great and all, but poor form in throwing away organizations that have a long, strong history. I'm disappointed that there is no middle ground.

You may find that some houses change very little in the renaissance!

Tecton

Triak said:

From Leaders forum in Nov.

Tecton said:

Cityless houses will probably be open to all non-factional classes, other than that, they'll remain mostly as-is. After we split tradeskills off from classes, the Alchemist/forestal hardcode restriction will probably disappear (but players are welcome to pursue this line of RP)

Did the Alchemist/Forestal hardcode get put back in place?  The post makes it seem like it still will be. (Or will the hardcode be removed after tradeskill split further down the line after house implementation)

Not finalised at this stage - at the moment we're going to leave the restrictions in place (at least while the transitions take place)

Tecton

Nim said:

What of city-less houses (CIJ/Merchants)?

See Triak's quote above!

Iocun

I really hope that the transition will be accompanied with a truly credible IC justification. I'd hate houses just silently changing their nature or vanishing without an actual outer power forcing such a change in a meaningful way.

Shallam's destruction was done great in that respect. We got an actual physical destruction, which none of its members could be faulted for, which is the best way to ensure the lore remains "untarnished" and the former members can go on to a new future without becoming IC "quitters".

The worst thing that could be done would be to make the change in such a way that it seems the houses voluntarily committed to it. Changes "from above" that are made to appear as if an organisation's IC leadership decided on them totally undermine the credibility of player-run politics.

So please no "gentle voluntary shifts in a new direction", but instead big natural disasters and divine powers. Please do not try to go for "middle grounds" with individual houses. That just means that houses change in their identity without coming to a graceful end, forcing members to either pretend to agree with the change or become "traitors". Please dare to be radical.

Kresslack

During the period of closed membership between the Houses while they undergo the renaissance period, what changes can we expect to the House estates that currently exist in the cities for many Houses? Will these be tailored over time to reflect the new House?

Daklore

Pointless cosmetic query, because... on the ooc level, I don't really care one way or the other about the change(ICly, who knows, we'll see)... but with regards to higher-ranking house members who have been long-time members of said house and earned a lot of housefavours over the centuries.... how will HR and the like factor into the change over to new houses and such? Will it stay relatively the same?(ie: an HR12 will still be an HR12 or whatever the effective rank is), or will everyone except the chosen/elected leaders of these new houses be set to a standard ranking?

Also, what does this mean for traditional knight structures that make sense? Mainly, at this point, the Wardens and the Maldaathi? Is that something we'll have to figure out and decide ICly, or is the Garden moving toward phasing out this ideal of knighthood as it has been for generations between the Templars, Maldaathi and Wardens(and our monopoly on the titling, as it were)?

... I may or may not be making sense, my brain started shut down procedures an hour ago.

Tecton

Sultani said:

What happens to the progres made in your current house if you wish to stay in it or whatever the closest equivalent is? Is everyone just starting from scratch in one of the new three houses?

Depends what happens to the City's houses, if you're in a house that is disappearing, you'll probably have to start fresh in a new house (might be for the best so you get a good grasp on what the house is about). If the house/city leadership want to promote people up faster for being former members, that's entirely up to them.

Kayeil

Will any of these Houses potentially accept cityless members, or members from other cities?

Tecton

Madelyne said:

So does this mean that this is still true, that "Ty Beirdd will still be around and kicking"? Or has that changed?

You'll have to wait and see!

Kresslack

Kayeil said:

Will any of these Houses potentially accept cityless members, or members from other cities?

I imagine that would be up to the leaders of that House/City. I know some Houses of Ashtan accepted rogues in the past, but a lot of that depends on the city as well.

Tecton

Iocun said:

I really hope that the transition will be accompanied with a truly credible IC justification. I'd hate houses just silently changing their nature or vanishing without an actual outer power forcing such a change in a meaningful way.

Shallam's destruction was done great in that respect. We got an actual physical destruction, which none of its members could be faulted for, which is the best way to ensure the lore remains "untarnished" and the former members can go on to a new future without becoming IC "quitters".

The worst thing that could be done would be to make the change in such a way that it seems the houses voluntarily committed to it. Changes "from above" that are made to appear as if an organisation's IC leadership decided on them totally undermine the credibility of player-run politics.

So please no "gentle voluntary shifts in a new direction", but instead big natural disasters and divine powers. Please do not try to go for "middle grounds" with individual houses. That just means that houses change in their identity without coming to a graceful end, forcing members to either pretend to agree with the change or become "traitors". Please dare to be radical.

The Renaissance is the IC justification, we're not planning on blowing up every city and starting from scratch. Yes, it's an admin-decreed decision, but how it's implemented in each city will be handled on a city-by-city basis that the leadership are heavily involved in.

Tecton

Kresslack said:

During the period of closed membership between the Houses while they undergo the renaissance period, what changes can we expect to the House estates that currently exist in the cities for many Houses? Will these be tailored over time to reflect the new House?

Depends what happens to the house - impossible to give a definitive answer here. Some may change, some may be repurposed, some may stay the same!

Datrius

Hey @Tecton , I know we have some people worried that this means people who have already gained H5 or higher will have to start completely over. Is there anything you can tell us about that?

Tecton

Daklore said:

Pointless cosmetic query, because... on the ooc level, I don't really care one way or the other about the change(ICly, who knows, we'll see)... but with regards to higher-ranking house members who have been long-time members of said house and earned a lot of housefavours over the centuries.... how will HR and the like factor into the change over to new houses and such? Will it stay relatively the same?(ie: an HR12 will still be an HR12 or whatever the effective rank is), or will everyone except the chosen/elected leaders of these new houses be set to a standard ranking?

Also, what does this mean for traditional knight structures that make sense? Mainly, at this point, the Wardens and the Maldaathi? Is that something we'll have to figure out and decide ICly, or is the Garden moving toward phasing out this ideal of knighthood as it has been for generations between the Templars, Maldaathi and Wardens(and our monopoly on the titling, as it were)?

... I may or may not be making sense, my brain started shut down procedures an hour ago.

Ranks: Again, no real cookie-cutter scenario here, depends what happens to the houses, and how the city/house leaders want to handle it.

Knighthood: Will still exist in some form, I envision it'll probably be something that would be more suited to being a city-wide program, rather than having houses devoted strictly to knighthood.

Tecton

Kayeil said:

Will any of these Houses potentially accept cityless members, or members from other cities?

It may be possible through manual induction by the house leader, but not something we'd really encourage. One of the main goals in this changeover is to forge new, stronger bonds between houses and their home city.

Tecton

Datrius said:

Hey @Tecton , I know we have some people worried that this means people who have already gained H5 or higher will have to start completely over. Is there anything you can tell us about that?

As there's no "cookie-cutter template" being applied to every city/house, there's no real clear answer there. If your house doesn't change, or two houses merge, you -may- retain your rank - we're also going to be working with the leaders of the new houses to make sure that their promotion criteria are actually -fun- to do (especially considering the fact that each house is more focussed in it's purpose. If you're in a more martial-focussed house by choice, the requirements will be more keenly related to combat.)

Iocun

Tecton said:

The Renaissance is the IC justification, we're not planning on blowing up every city and starting from scratch. Yes, it's an admin-decreed decision, but how it's implemented in each city will be handled on a city-by-city basis that the leadership are heavily involved in.

Well, blowing up all cities isn't the only possibility. All I'm saying is that I'd hate to see houses lose their identity and having no better way to explain it than "well, the Gods wanted it like that". Not all cities are theocracies, so "the Gods wanted it" isn't a sufficient IC explanation everywhere. I would only accept that reasoning if the city patron/Sarapis/whoever actually came down from the Garden and said "The status quo displeases Me. Do what I say or there will be lightning and locusts! Don't you dare to voice any disagreement.".

I really wouldn't want to be stuck in a house that changed in its identity out of the blue, but having to pretend that's all just fine and dandy. If things change in a way my character might potentially dislike, I want to know whom/what to blame IC.

Kresslack

Iocun said:

Tecton said:

The Renaissance is the IC justification, we're not planning on blowing up every city and starting from scratch. Yes, it's an admin-decreed decision, but how it's implemented in each city will be handled on a city-by-city basis that the leadership are heavily involved in.

Well, blowing up all cities isn't the only possibility. All I'm saying is that I'd hate to see houses lose their identity and having no better way to explain it than "well, the Gods wanted it like that". Not all cities are theocracies, so "the Gods wanted it" isn't a sufficient IC explanation everywhere. I would only accept that reasoning if the city patron/Sarapis/whoever actually came down from the Garden and said "The status quo displeases Me. Do what I say or there will be lightning and locusts! Don't you dare to voice any disagreement.".

I really wouldn't want to be stuck in a house that changed in its identity out of the blue, but having to pretend that's all just fine and dandy. If things change in a way my character might potentially dislike, I want to know whom/what to blame IC.

I think this is why they're calling it a renaissance though. It's a mutual realisation between the player-base and the Garden that the current system isn't going to work, so changes need to be made. Seems appropriate that a cultural rebirth of sorts would be fitting to explain that change, as we move from one age to the next. I wasn't around when guilds were converted, so I'm not sure how that was handled, but I think we'll largely have to wait to see how this plays out. As it will be on a city-by-city basis, I think they'll do everything they can to make it culturally relevant and plausible as possible.

Jurixe

I'm sure leadership will be more than happy to work with the Garden in planning some sort of event, if they're open to it.