A new set of thoughts on how to bring Midgard back

[Davin]

Sure maybe a couple of players to band together to kill a single clan, but being that Midgard is so huge I think all the factions are safe.

If a single clan makes themselves insufferable enough to need being killed outright, then I wouldn't think it would be difficult to get a few clans together to do the job.  Just make sure it isn't YOU causing enough problems to require that level of response.

[Davin]

My guess is you are going to scatter players all over the maps, unless they request a specific location (Map area),...

I was planning on starting them mostly together so they won't get so lonely.  They don't need to be playing a game all by themselves, right?

...and even then most players will find a city and stay in place for quite a long time.

You think so?  Even if it's just wandering around the nearby countryside, I'd think they'll still want to do more than sit in one place.

Most folks will become builders and work on cities.

Perhaps, or maybe they're more interested in small combats or exploration.

Combat will be rare if it happens at all for a while. Those that do fight, will loose their shirts unless they really know what they are doing.

I think we can give them small combats that they'll enjoy.  Even bigger combats can be one-sided with the proper preparation (ambushes, deployment, etc.).

So get a big bag of popcorn and sit back and watch what happens.

Sounds like fun!

[Davin]

Your asking us to do the recruitment for the game for you, and there is no way to do that.

Not at all - I'm just asking for some evidence to support your claim that lots of players will be signing up right away.

[FutureSojourner]

Fair enough about the number of factions.  I'm building on the romanticism of the game, for me, when I started playing as a teenager in the 80s.  I was a MercVerk player back then and loved it, but when I was playing over 10 years later in the late 90s I was Roder and then played around with Banner and Gift and finally right before the death of the game with Blood and Fire.  Now, as I approach 50 I think the Ring would suit me better since it builds on my skills as a scholar which would give me some interesting ideas to build up the guild.

If the game has an abundance of players then sure, the more the merrier; however, if one player gets 10 friends to play in a faction they could essentially all "pay to win," and that would be problematic.  This is where the Senior #0 comes into play.  Even though factions may not have players does not mean the faction isn't doing anything -- but this puts more work on the GM/Owner in making sure they as the #0 are ensuring less populated factions are doing things to improve the faction.  And those factions that have many players the GM would do less for that faction to ensure balance.

Some thoughts on the game since going through every thread is overwhelming to me...

Healing -- all religions should have some degree of healing capacity.  Especially if there is not a hospital option in the game.  In addition to some degree of healing some religions could be better at it or worse but should have a secondary characteristic that focuses on their evolution as a Religion -- Gift are good building because they focus on "creation," the Banner are good fighters because they focus on "evangelization by the sword," whereas the Ring are superior with knowledge/divination because they focus on reflection and contemplation and evangelism of presence.  

Imperials... I had always wanted to play an Imperial but I HATED that their preserves were closed off to other factional offices.  Give Imperial cities and preserves the option of building other factional offices and just relegate those offices to a "district" in the city and have another district in the city that is ONLY Imperial -- like the forbidden city in Beijing, China.  The Imperials then would function similarly to another faction trying to survive.  The meteor or disaster could have wiped out Manchura (please!) and the Imperial homeland forcing the Imperial faction to "get along with others" better than they have done in the past.

I liked the Serkeanar and the Blood and Fire was a good religious nemesis for most of us, BUT you could have it that the two merged back into one creating a Blood and Fire that is more friendly to others which might make it so the Blood and Fire could have a larger presence in the game and not be "kill on sight," which could work in all but Banner cities.  Likewise, the Orthodox Banner and Banner could have merged back into one as well... and as the game progresses who knows maybe they would be forced to split again due to ideological differences.

I used to spend a lot of money each month on Midgard and I would certainly do it again if they game captured the greatness that it once was.  You build a good game with an energized player base and the word will spread -- we have social media now.  BUT you have to have a good product.

[FutureSojourner]

Regarding cities and staying stationary...

I am a "power gamer."  I prefer to stay in one place, in a city and just build.  Build, and explore the nuances of the city.  Train and focus on building up the city.  I remember my Banner clan that was the Banner #4, the clan leader was the City Leader of a Banner city that was under some conflict with another religion (I cannot remember which one).  The clan leader/city leader had herself killed as a martyr in a ploy to blame the other faction.  One of the followers stepped up as clan leader/city leader and the Banner factional influence exploded and we were working to make the city a pilgrimage site.  That sort of gameplay is fun for me.

Wandering around with 200 retainers was always boring for me.  Being in a city and building and watching the city grow was where I got my fun in the game.  This was especially true when my clan was large enough to build a factional office each turn -- because turns ran slow back then.

[Davin]

Next we also feel that the GM should open it up to all players to run up to (6) clans per player.

I don't have any philosophical or technical problem with running many clans.  My biggest worry is keeping flagrant abuse under control.  How do you suppose we might limit that if not by limiting the number of clans?

So who has ideas about how we can keep cousin clans from abusing their positions (especially clans in different factions)?  If we can come up with a workable solution to this then we should be able to get you the kind of choices you want.

[DreamWeaver]

Well first off make every player spell clearly what their Main faction will be. It can change but I feel that a player should declare in system what their main faction is. Maybe make it part of the code...

PLAYER - DECLARE - MAIN - <Faction Name>

This way it is set in the code and don't allow any player to start up or declare for a enemy Faction of that Declared faction.  Thus once a person declares a Main Faction, when ever their account adds another clan or an existing clan declares for a new faction, simply block them from doing that type of thing.  Have a reference table that checks the table and see what is capable, and cross reference the Main Faction with the other clans in that account against the table.

Now as to other abuses, well for Dispensation Bugets watch that. Make a player explain why they are giving something to another player, have them explain this gift. Now as for Tasks, that is simple...a player's clan requests a Task, and then completes it, then they gain the reward. If someone pulls something, then let Big Brother #0 send the Goon Squad to take care of the player's clan that pulls the stunt. Then have the #0 call the player on the carpet if they tried something wrong. Roleplay it out.

[Davin]

That's reasonable for a start, though we might come up with a way to do a deferred declaration (once he decides which he likes better).  But one of my issues here is the concept of an "enemy faction".  How strictly do we define those?  What happens when factions fall out of favor with one another, or decide to be more cooperative?  It seems like things can change and it's difficult to define a hard and fast rule about "enemies" that will last throughout the game.

Thoughts?

[FutureSojourner]

Imperials. I would like to see the Imperials more willing to work with others and allow factional offices within the Preserves, especially the Religions.

That would certainly help with the "ganging up" problem I mentioned, but how do you resolve that within the existing history?

That's easy... people change.  They adapt to different circumstances.  The Romans did it when they went from the Regal Period to the Republic, from the Republic to the Principate and the Principate to full Empire.  Civilizations adapt.

[FutureSojourner]

Next we also feel that the GM should open it up to all players to run up to (6) clans per player.

I don't have any philosophical or technical problem with running many clans.  My biggest worry is keeping flagrant abuse under control.  How do you suppose we might limit that if not by limiting the number of clans?

So who has ideas about how we can keep cousin clans from abusing their positions (especially clans in different factions)?  If we can come up with a workable solution to this then we should be able to get you the kind of choices you want.

When I played last time I had some cousins in conflicting factions; but Zan knew me and trusted I wouldn't abuse that situation -- which I did not.  I had my main clans and cities but wanted to do some things on my own with some minor cousin clans just for "fun."  But perhaps you could institute an in-game incentive to players who ONLY play in one faction.  My goal is to seek a senior position in the Ring or Gift (religion is kinda my thing), if you offered a decent enough incentive (not sure what that would be -- maybe construction regiments if you have them) for players to ONLY play in one faction that could be incentive enough.