Forums Home Forum Rules Achaea.com Lore Wiki Vote for Achaea! IronRealms.com
Home› Everything Achaea› North of Thera

Refugees of Shallam, how are you coping?

1…89111314…23

Comments

  • KakotasKakotas
    @silas so how do you want your sandwich? *Sarcasm

    No, RP players shouldn't be subservient to "hey lets pwn that city" players. This is an RP game not Wow. Yes combat is important but not at the cost of story. It is story that drives achaea so yes there is conflict and can even be regular conflicts but it has always been the story around the conflicts that drives things. In other words combat happens for a reason and should be played as such.

    We're getting the What question confused with the Why question again.. Shallam has a major tendency to do so.
    (Blades of Valour): He just has that Synbios Swagger enough said.
    (Blades of Valour): Draekar says: "Synbios if sunbeams sparkle off that I'll kill you where you stand."

    (Party) Halos says, "Disbar?"
    (Party) Draekar says, "You know here we have disbar."
    (Party) Draekar says, "And over there we have datbar."
  • AradorArador
    Fine, just don't screw up the story around the conflicts again.

  • ValeoValeo
    Silas said:

    Yeah, I don't mean subservient as such. It's just that they'd very much be, as you say, fervent supporters of the city's military.


    ETA: I think of it like Rome, in a sense, I guess. It's very much the army that will forge the empire, but it's the people following in the army's wake that make the empire truly Roman.
    An interesting analogy. Either way, I feel a lot better about the enterprise now.
  • TanaarTanaar
    I like Silas's analogy of Rome. @Kakotas he already agreed that 'subservient' was not the right word. As much as the fighter echelon denigrates those who want to be noncoms, those who are unenthusiastic about combat make themselves into bigger victims than they actually are. Been there, done that, decided to stop whining.
  • CooperCooper
    I will be king.

  • ValeoValeo
    Silas said:
    Of course, I only really want to follow the Roman model so I can name myself Dictator 4 Lyfe. With rezz/embracing, I won't be foiled by Brutus's backstab squad either.
    Forget Julius--I will be the Cato to your Augustus.
  • AwanAwan
    Lodi said:

    I'd create only two organisations to replace the houses. Why only two? Because there's two general groups that players fall into: combat and creative (chat-room users don't count as players).


    Since a few others have also suggested that the new Shallam should have only 2-3 Houses, I should note that, with Eleusis as data, I really don't think it's good for a city to have only two Houses. Having only two Houses isn't great for relations between the Houses. Having to divide all the classes up between only two Houses interferes with the Houses' ability to effectively train their members in their classes. And it is unhelpful for recruiting/retaining people in the city to have so few options available to them.

    Obviously, if you have too many Houses, that's also not good, because then some of them will end up too small and they won't flourish. Five Houses is too much for Shallam. But I think it's most beneficial for a city to have as many Houses as it can comfortably, reliably support with sufficient membership to flourish. In Eleusis, that number would probably be three, and Shallam is bigger than Eleusis.
  • AchillesAchilles Los Angeles
    I think we are aiming for 3.  Shallam previously was the only city with 5.  
    image
  • TanaarTanaar
    The two-house crowd is loud, but quite small. The consensus is three, with a small minority wanting four. I haven't heard anyone at all say going back to five is a good idea
  • SilasSilas
    Two Houses wouldn't be a bad idea. It's something I could definitely get behind, since it's infinitely easier to introduce new relevant Houses than it is to remove old irrelevant ones, but the consensus is for three.

  • TanaarTanaar
    The problem with two is a lack of the cultural diversity that Houses brings. Three gives you plenty to start with, with the possibility of addition later. I'm hoping that with the destruction of *shallam and its Houses, the admins won't be so shy about dismantling other Houses that are faltering. Remember back in the guild-House changeover days? We were told that Houses that dwindled to a certain point would face extinction, leaving room for new Houses. Never happened. Make it so, @Tecton?
  • SkyeSkye The Duchess Bellatere
    Coming from a two-House city, I'm not sure if two Houses is a good idea at all. I think three is the ideal. It is less a problem of 'cultural diversity' as it is a balance of power. Only two creates a teetering balance that can produce ugly results if played badly.


  • KakotasKakotas
    Two gives you a start and then you get those right before trying to do multiple houses that's my only reason for supporting it. With 2 you have enough of a base to get concepts hammered out and then have possibility to expand into 3 or 4. If we start with 3 and one of them busts cause it's a bad idea then we have problems that aren't easy to solve. Or if we have 3 and they are all setup badly we have problems that take a century or so to fix usually. Start smaller and grow bigger it's the better way to do things.
    (Blades of Valour): He just has that Synbios Swagger enough said.
    (Blades of Valour): Draekar says: "Synbios if sunbeams sparkle off that I'll kill you where you stand."

    (Party) Halos says, "Disbar?"
    (Party) Draekar says, "You know here we have disbar."
    (Party) Draekar says, "And over there we have datbar."
  • ArgysArgys
    Skye said:

    Coming from a two-House city, I'm not sure if two Houses is a good idea at all. I think three is the ideal. It is less a problem of 'cultural diversity' as it is a balance of power. Only two creates a teetering balance that can produce ugly results if played badly.

    I'm very curious what you mean by balance of power. In what context, and what kind of examples?

  • AerekAerek East Tennessee, USA
    Argys said:
    Coming from a two-House city, I'm not sure if two Houses is a good idea at all. I think three is the ideal. It is less a problem of 'cultural diversity' as it is a balance of power. Only two creates a teetering balance that can produce ugly results if played badly.
    I'm very curious what you mean by balance of power. In what context, and what kind of examples?
    Having only two main schools of thought in any institution tends to lead to a black/white, right/wrong, us/them mentality; just look at the US government. Having three parties runs the risk of some dilution or redundancy, perhaps, but it also  means that it can be a mediating factor on the other two.
    -- Grounded in but one perspective, what we perceive is an exaggeration of the truth.
  • AradorArador
    It would be nice if one House kept its Knight identity though. Then two other houses so it is not Knights and the Rest.

  • SilasSilas
    I don't think the balance of power will be an issue in New Shallam. Deucora seem very likely to keep power themselves, and police the nonsense politics that ultimately killed *shallam.

  • SkyeSkye The Duchess Bellatere
    edited January 2013

    Aerek said:
    Argys said:
    Coming from a two-House city, I'm not sure if two Houses is a good idea at all. I think three is the ideal. It is less a problem of 'cultural diversity' as it is a balance of power. Only two creates a teetering balance that can produce ugly results if played badly.
    I'm very curious what you mean by balance of power. In what context, and what kind of examples?
    Having only two main schools of thought in any institution tends to lead to a black/white, right/wrong, us/them mentality; just look at the US government. Having three parties runs the risk of some dilution or redundancy, perhaps, but it also  means that it can be a mediating factor on the other two.
    Aerek very much has the right of it. In addition to this, (hate to be a party pooper but..) I also council against the assumption that 'Deucora will keep power / maintain balance etc'.

    The honeymoon is certainly still ongoing, but I advise that any political system to be drafted should be drafted on the basis that it will run optimally with active Divine but will still function even if there are no Gods present.

    Unless New Shallam runs like Mhaldor (and even Mhaldor, tiny as it is, has 4 solid Houses), having only two Houses is still going to have a remarkably polarising effect on the playerbase / ground level.

    People keep count of the pettiest things. How many times a member of X house has held office, how many members make up the ruling council from each House, the list goes on. Individual capability can be very readily ignored when people are looking for an excuse to rabble rouse or feel slighted.


  • ErikarnErikarn
    There's so many opportunities for making this interesting, it hurts me to read this thread.

    The question is whether players see past the minutae of details and politics that currently make/made up the game, and see the longer term benefits to the realm as a whole.

    Cities are big. Really big. They take time to build. I hope that this is reflected in the evolution of the city. I hope a new city doesn't just "appear" from nowhere. I hope it takes time to build; that different parts of the city are built in different timescales. Eg starting with clearing an area, then building out the sewers, then roads, filling out buildings at different rates (wooden buildings are quick, stone buildings are not, palaces take years to build, etc.)

    You need stone, you need wood, you need metals. I hope that there's a whole lot of RP involved in negotiating with the forest for wood, with both the blackrock dwarves and moghedu mhuns for stone and metals.

    You need large amounts of labour to build a city. It's not going to happen overnight and I doubt your citizens are going to "do it" (unless of course someone or Someone decides to code up a "city building" grind that players can engage in.) You're going to need to negotiate with NPC groups or labour. This may lead to some interesting ideas - eg, your city building speed is a function of how many mhuns are alive or killed; your city mining speed is a function of how many dwarves and mhuns are alive. You may have to start negotiating treaties with Ashtan, Hashan, Eleusis and Mhaldor to get what you want.. this could open up both conflict and partnerships. It may change people, it may force some of you to stray from the blind Good and start having to compromise in order to get things done. When the city is rebuilt and you start to drift back to blind Good, there's now large amounts of fresh RP history to fall back on when .. well, doing anything, really.

    There's potential for .. unsavoury characters to start taking control of things. You build a sewer out; then you find that the bandits and thieves have moved in whilst you're busy having your resources taxed/stretched elsewhere. You start finding that building materials are being stolen and used elsewhere. You may have a shanty town spring up to house dwarves/mhuns whilst they're building your city.. and they may not wish to leave when it's done.

    I could come up with many more crazy RP ideas here. The point is, you're possibly building a new city. There's a lot more that can be done here besides "who gets to hold the orb of creation!" and "lol city player politics."
  • SilasSilas
    It's worth noting that none of the above is in the players' control.

  • ErikarnErikarn
    .. talking to Eleusis is in the players control.

    .. initiating RP with the blackrock dwarves and moghedu mhuns are both doable right now. Heck, it may already be on-going, I don't know.

    Also, how many houses isn't in the player control (strictly speaking) and yet it's being debated already.
This discussion has been closed.