@Pandora Apparently Pax did think Pravus had a vassal or two on the mainland, so when she wrote the post (Part 1 and Part 2) it was meant to apply to any current mainland Pravus vassals as well. But that's actually moot, since all of Pravus's vassals are on their island chain already.
There has been at least one PC house that chose to stay with a grand-liege upon elevation (Stormbreak left Kennex's chain to stay with Grimhall when Kennex was elevated). I couldn't say if the reason for that was "extraordinarily good" or just cause they felt like it. I kind of just assume players will go where they want to play.
@Wizz said in Arx's Elevation Situation:
Their vassals can't hold lands in the mainland Lyceum and the Saffron Chain, it's one or the other, so those specific vassals on the mainland are going to be in a very tight spot when it comes reassessment time. Give up everything and start from scratch, or stay with Velenosa and their traditional holdings.
From Pax's first post:
Now, if some house wants to go with Pravus and Velenosa (or any other fealty) /chooses/ to
give up territory to this new fealty for whatever reason, fine, but staff is certainly not saying
they have to; in this case, all the power is with the existing fealty.
Just for future reference, because at some point I imagine there will be more exploring & more land discovered for the taking: Pax has said here that it actually is possible to hold land on the mainland and in the new islands, with the agreement of the existing fealty, no?
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras.
@Pandora In the sense that they'd keep their original land and any newly conquered land would be settled as a new vassal of theirs, yeah.
@Roz Got it, that makes much more sense.
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras.
@Pandora god knows I'm not up to date but the issue used to be, a house can't reliably keep a holding that's like, in the middle of/surrounded by other peoples' lands. Adding an island would be one thing, but moving to an island while keeping a patch surrounded by House Grimdark lands wouldn't be feasible.
@Kanye-Qwest said in Arx's Elevation Situation:
@Pandora god knows I'm not up to date but the issue used to be, a house can't reliably keep a holding that's like, in the middle of/surrounded by other peoples' lands. Adding an island would be one thing, but moving to an island while keeping a patch surrounded by House Grimdark lands wouldn't be feasible.
If House So-n-So is on the mainland and wants become a Great House and set up new vassal houses on an island somewhere, would that be possible if their old liege for whatever reason agreed to let them keep their original land?
I can imagine @Pax sobbing over a tear-stained digital map as I type this post & I apologize.
Stormbreaks land (Whitefrost?) is super duper far from Grihem's Point, like I am not even sure how that would work though I assume someone is!
Pretty sure I remember seeing land ratings in the alpha document, and I imagine the minister positions were made for future use, so it seems like this is just the userbase outpacing the planned systems. An immediate fix is just not going to happen, and I think people are overestimating the effect these elevations are really going to have on their play.
I have been operating under the possibility that growing too big too fast may come and bite me in the ass if my wee barony suddenly needs to support a gigantic influx of prodigal refugees and don't have the farming output for it. I feel like codified obstacles like that would be a natural fit, with some guard rails to prevent a player being overwhelmed or punishing a house for inactivity (though maybe that'll remedy the empty noble house problem that seems to crop up?)
I know micromanagement is not everyone's cup of tea, but I figured that's the appeal of apping in Princess Twinkles Grayson who is 144th in line for the throne.
There will be complaints about system imbalances, real and imagined, but it'd make the climb feel more rewarding than the grind fest it currently is. But this is also beta, and I can wait on unintentionally bankrupting myself.
@Crysta said in Arx's Elevation Situation:
Pretty sure I remember seeing land ratings in the alpha document
That particular island over there is rated X. The locals are very frisky.
I don't recall land ratings in the alpha document, but maybe it's the terminology used. Was it called 'land ratings'?
I know micromanagement is not everyone's cup of tea, but I figured that's the appeal of apping in Princess Twinkles Grayson who is 144th in line for the throne.
Right-o. If playing Crusader Kings II or Axis & Allies isn't your particular cup of tea, maybe hold off on apping for Duke/Duschess Fancytitle. At least, that's how I always looked at it. There's plenty of princes and princesses to go around for anyone who wants a fancy title without having to do anything.
It's 'House Land Profitability'.
I'm just calling it land ratings.
So it seems that in the end with the Elevation being postponed until after actions were running again, everything proceeded without all that much gnashing of teeth. I still think there's some open questions about what Arx fealty diagrams are supposed to look like long term however.
I'm not keeping very close track but it definitely feels like we're drifting towards PC houses only being Marches and above. It might be worthwhile to ask if PC Baronies and Counties were ever a good idea.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
@Groth said in Arx's Elevation Situation:
I'm not keeping very close track but it definitely feels like we're drifting towards PC houses only being Marches and above. It might be worthwhile to ask if PC Baronies and Counties were ever a good idea.
Why would they not have been a good idea? If they weren't allowed, we'd just see all the growth happening at the March level and above where there's a lot less room to go. The thing people are interested in is the process and story of growth and building something, not necessarily "Being a March instead of a County."
@Roz said in Arx's Elevation Situation:
Why would they not have been a good idea? If they weren't allowed, we'd just see all the growth happening at the March level and above where there's a lot less room to go. The thing people are interested in is the process and story of growth and building something, not necessarily "Being a March instead of a County."
The downside to having more organisations down the ladder is that it leads to more orgs in general which leads to less players per org which leads to having a harder time engaging in any org based RP. Now that's not always awful for the title holder since they have the avenue of fealty based RP but in my experience it can be pretty awful for anyone else in those orgs which helps explain why many of the remaining Baronies and Counties are almost completely dead orgs.
I will say that, when considering making a new character, I would much rather play something at the barony level rather than anything fancier. Sadly, the baronies tend to be pretty much devoid of players.
The problem is that if you eliminate baronies and the like, you avoid player dispersion, but at the cost of wiping out an entire sort of character background. Then again, no one actually stays poor, but for a few glorious weeks you could RP being concerned about pig herders and your one good horse looking a little under the weather.
@peasoupling said in Arx's Elevation Situation:
I will say that, when considering making a new character, I would much rather play something at the barony level rather than anything fancier. Sadly, the baronies tend to be pretty much devoid of players.
The problem is that if you eliminate baronies and the like, you avoid player dispersion, but at the cost of wiping out an entire sort of character background. Then again, no one actually stays poor, but for a few glorious weeks you could RP being concerned about pig herders and your one good horse looking a little under the weather.
That doesn't need to be the cost at all. Even if baronies no longer exist as organisations, you're still perfectly capable of playing a poor member of a noble family and you could still be appointed the Baron of three pig herders and a horse if you want to without that needing to be an org.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me and vice versa.
People can take my barony from my cold dead fingers. I have zero desire to advance Clement into a higher ranked house. If it ever does advance it will be under three next Baroness.
@Groth said in Arx's Elevation Situation:
That doesn't need to be the cost at all. Even if baronies no longer exist as organisations, you're still perfectly capable of playing a poor member of a noble family and you could still be appointed the Baron of three pig herders and a horse if you want to without that needing to be an org.
Wait, can you play a Baron without there being an actual baron-level org? Is that an actual thing? I don't know, I'm asking.
@peasoupling said in Arx's Elevation Situation:
@Groth said in Arx's Elevation Situation:
That doesn't need to be the cost at all. Even if baronies no longer exist as organisations, you're still perfectly capable of playing a poor member of a noble family and you could still be appointed the Baron of three pig herders and a horse if you want to without that needing to be an org.
Wait, can you play a Baron without there being an actual baron-level org? Is that an actual thing? I don't know, I'm asking.
It's not an actual thing in the current structure. Groth is suggesting the structure could be changed.
@Pandora god knows I'm not up to date but the issue used to be, a house can't reliably keep a holding that's like, in the middle of/surrounded by other peoples' lands. Adding an island would be one thing, but moving to an island while keeping a patch surrounded by House Grimdark lands wouldn't be feasible.
