Feedback and Suggestions

[Jao Tiang]

I say the less posts here the better, and this really has been going great, everything was fine-tuned very well before the start, to stop any massive rule changes halfway through the game, and so on.

Just one thing I'd like to touch upon is the KT Crafting formula, for 500 gold, you can craft a lot of armaments, and it is a lot cheaper than buying them. Even NPC's with horrible stats and the Smith skill can craft for easier than buying them. Realistically, people who make these things for a living wouldn't make the prices so much higher if one person can craft them for such a lower price.

I think tinkering is needed in the formula, so when crafting armaments, you need really large stats to be able to get a cheaper price for armaments (90-100).

[Xiang Zhuang]

I think, for me, the weakness with the current crafting formula is that too many items are being made, not exactly the price. The formula is based so that the higher stat you have, the more product you get out.

I'm actually pleased that crafting via KT's is cheaper than buying them. The formula might make it too easy, though. Originally, I believe the formula would have given you half of what you get now. That was doubled right before the sim started. I think that the balance point for the formula (i.e., the stat at where crafting items costs you the same as buying them) could be a bit higher.

The options for crafting in opposition to buying were supposed to be as such: In buying, you can get more of an armament in one month, and don't need anyone with a skill. In crafting, you get the armament more cheaply. Since the crafting rate right now seems awfully high, though, for the cheaper armaments you are able to make more than the limit on buying them. If anything, that's what I'd want to change, the rate of crafting and how dependent it is upon the stat involved.

[Bonaparte]

Minor thing.
Can we have some kind of memorable thread thing, so we shall always remember what happens in the game?

[Pan Xulong]

I think there should be a fame increase when a crafter makes a legendary item. I also think that there should be a fame increase when a crafter has one of their normal items purchased and used by a famous officer. Perhaps even a fame increase when you get someone of higher fame to serve under you.

On another note the character creation in this sim is amazing. You guys definatly hit it out of the park on this one. Plus I like the flexibility that is allowed after the characters are created.

[Naurek]

I know A) I am going to sound like a jerk, and B) people will hate me, but I have a suggestion.

My suggestion is that you not allow "already made" alliances to give out the 100 fame instantly like it has been said in an announcement. People should be making alliances in order to ally, not to take advantage of a quick way to gain fame. By allowing people who were already making alliances/made alliances to get that benefit, not only do you cheat the people who are now riteously making alliances, but you validate that misunderstandings in the rules can be abused freely.

Now, with that said, I have seen people acting as envoys asking if they will get the 100 fame right now, and how much their ruler gets. I think the best way to do it is like this...

The two responsible figures gain 20 fame instantly for an agreed upon treaty. Then for each month the treaty is continued, the rulers gain 10 fame. Rulers can keep track of treaties in a treaty thread in their PH, and that can be used as the record of the treaty and all that fun stuff. What this does is two things... It rewards the people who create the treaty. It then rewards the rulers for actually following through on the treaty.

If you don't want to go that route, I would still suggest you give the two responsible figures in the treaty agreement 20 fame instantly, not 100 fame. I just think 100 fame for the treaty maker, then 100 fame for the ruler at 6 months is way too much. And as I said before, all this fame already given out is simply unfair for all who didn't take advantage of the mistake.

[RMNZ]

If all rulers started equal then I'd be with Naurek, but no, that's a bad idea. Rulers need to gain fame quickly (and relatively cheaply) for the start of the game so that they can get a rank and survive. Once the game settles down a bit, enemies will be made and certain friendships will also take place, so there wont be any crazy +500 fame turns any more.

[Shi Zhi Mi]

If all rulers started equal then I'd be with Naurek, but no, that's a bad idea. Rulers need to gain fame quickly (and relatively cheaply) for the start of the game so that they can get a rank and survive. Once the game settles down a bit, enemies will be made and certain friendships will also take place, so there wont be any crazy +500 fame turns any more.

I disagree. If you want fame then buy the fame option. Don't go make alliances and pimp out the fame system to boost yourself up. If you want fame then earn it. Do not abuse the system. I like Naurek's idea and think it should be implemented immediately to prevent such abusal.

[Naurek]

Taking advantage of a "vagueness" in a rule isn't really a proper way to do it though, RMNZ.

But I don't quite think you understand my initial problem. Here is the rule..

Diplomacy:
Served as envoy who formed an alliance: 100
Served as envoy formally breaking an alliance: 50

Note: The alliance must be of at least 6 months to count for fame.

The note says you don't get the fame for 6 months after the beginning of the alliance. Therefore it would not be a "quick" gain. My issue is with the announcement which said any pending and/or finished alliances before this 6 month clarification was noted would be counted with full fame. Personally, I can probably be counted in the Pending alliance category, but I don't think it's right to take advantage of it, and then be able to get away with it. I'm not saying everyone knowingly took advantage of it, but I am sure it did happen, and it's just not the way it should be. The game just started. If people are making alliances simply to get the fame, the fame confirmation thread should be used to weed such things out. The other alliances that were legitimate should be counted under the 6 month rule. That is a rule, and the game just started, so I don't see how anyone has a case to say, "It's not fair, I want my fame!" Where it's unfair is that some will get the fame and some will not, simply because it was caught in enough time.

With my other thought, I realize that 6 months at 10 fame a month is 60 fame. That can be altered to go with the rule, like 17 fame a month, which will give you 102 fame.

The thing is, we already get 100 fame a month just for ruling a city, so in 2 months we can gain the rank. We don't need to utilize issues with the rules in order to get ahead. That sort of thing makes the game less fun for the people who try to abide by the rules, and who point out issues with them.

[RMNZ]

Because this rule is late in being made, all alliances that have been made already or are in the process of being made will still receive the same fame, regardless of the time involved.

I thought the six month thing was a late rule and didn't exist before that announcement? If so, then the fame for alliances of less than 6 months should be given (Though maybe people should have to alter them to 6 months so that it is fair on the later ones). If that rule was written down for us in the first place and we all just missed it, then I agree with you that rulers who signed an alliance of less than 6 months should not get any fame for it - my understanding is that it wasn't a vagueness in the rules however, just that they were alterred after the turn opened so that meaningless alliances couldn't be signed.

EDIT:Oh, and doesn't that note say that it just has to be 6 months long (ie - in the terms), so you get the fame instantly, provided the alliance lasts 6 months.

[Naurek]

That may be, but I just don't see how it's right to let some people have fame and others not because of the lack of that in the rules. If it was added, and this is the first turn, then to me it's no harm no foul. We just treat it like it's always been there. But as I and Shi Zhi Mi said, alliances aren't supposed to be about globbing on the fame and taking advantage of the system. It's about protecting eachother's interest, and to a lesser extent, being paid for it in fame for actually following through.