Poll - How many Clans should players be allowed to have?

[TheDarkSide]

Question for the Poll: How many Clans should players be allowed to play within the game? So far it has been stated that 3 seems to be the core value of clans. It has not been made clear how many clans the GM wants each person to play during the beta-test, but the 3 clan core value has been brought up as the value at game start. Now historically the range in the number of clans has raged from 3 up to 9 clans, and even then I hear that some had even more than 9+. So what is a fair number of clans to allow a player to actually play?  Some might argue allowing someone to play 9+ clan might allow someone to unfairly balance matters within the game. Those with deep pockets could certainly run a lot of clans and that could unfairly unbalance gameplay. The real question is what do each of you feel about this issue.  My advice is for each to take the poll and add a comment on what you think and why. I will start and do this myself after I set up this poll.

[TheDarkSide]

I chose 6 clans as the number to allow players to actually play.  I feel that everyone should choose a primary faction that they want to play within. Then at the game start, they can create 3 clans all within their chosen faction. Then after 6 months, they can add another 3 clans. Now with these additional 3 clans, the player can choose any faction that they might want to play within, as long as it is not a faction that is an enemy of their chosen primary clan. So they could eventually have and run 6 clans total. Now they could also eventually become a city leader of the number of cities equal to the number of clans. So that means 6 clans, could also run 6 cities. Also, EF's are based on 1 EF per clan.

[Dark Shadows]

(6) clans, the first 3 in your primary declared faction, then the next 3 can be in whatever you want as long as not in an enemy clan.

I would declare Seeker as my Primary faction, with (3) Seekers, (2) Cymru, and (1) Gift

[DreamWeaver]

I like (6) clans as the number of allowed played clans.

[FutureSojourner]

I like 9 clans and 9 cities. But I'm okay with 6 clans and 6 cities.

[Davin]

Question for the Poll: How many Clans should players be allowed to play within the game? So far it has been stated that 3 seems to be the core value of clans. It has not been made clear how many clans the GM wants each person to play during the beta-test, but the 3 clan core value has been brought up as the value at game start. Now historically the range in the number of clans has raged from 3 up to 9 clans, and even then I hear that some had even more than 9+. So what is a fair number of clans to allow a player to actually play?  Some might argue allowing someone to play 9+ clan might allow someone to unfairly balance matters within the game. Those with deep pockets could certainly run a lot of clans and that could unfairly unbalance gameplay. The real question is what do each of you feel about this issue.  My advice is for each to take the poll and add a comment on what you think and why. I will start and do this myself after I set up this poll.

During the beta test I expect people to start up, let's call it "numerous" clans.  Let's not go crazy with it but I'd like to test the code in as many ways as possible.  That may mean dropping some of the clans when we go live, but I expect you'll have ideas about how to do that by then.

I'm trying to get rid of the "deep pockets" syndrome altogether by having everyone pay the same amount regardless of how many they run.  I may end up needing to add extra charges for special things like combats or SAs, but we'll see how that works out.

My biggest problem with many clans is the clan-version of "deep pockets", such as how many cooperating clans can you bring to bear on an issue (either reasonably or "unfairly")?  For instance, let's think of an overly-inflated extreme example... if you started 100 clans with 2000 retainers in each one, what could you do against the guys playing only a few clans? Would they resent that sort of heavy-handedness?  Even if it were 6-to-1 (because someone only has time to play one clan), wouldn't the same concept apply?  Yes, you good players wouldn't want to group all your clans together and run around causing mischief, but that doesn't mean some other player wouldn't.  How much can I give away without causing headaches somewhere?

[FutureSojourner]

Question for the Poll: How many Clans should players be allowed to play within the game? So far it has been stated that 3 seems to be the core value of clans. It has not been made clear how many clans the GM wants each person to play during the beta-test, but the 3 clan core value has been brought up as the value at game start. Now historically the range in the number of clans has raged from 3 up to 9 clans, and even then I hear that some had even more than 9+. So what is a fair number of clans to allow a player to actually play?  Some might argue allowing someone to play 9+ clan might allow someone to unfairly balance matters within the game. Those with deep pockets could certainly run a lot of clans and that could unfairly unbalance gameplay. The real question is what do each of you feel about this issue.  My advice is for each to take the poll and add a comment on what you think and why. I will start and do this myself after I set up this poll.

During the beta test I expect people to start up, let's call it "numerous" clans.  Let's not go crazy with it but I'd like to test the code in as many ways as possible.  That may mean dropping some of the clans when we go live, but I expect you'll have ideas about how to do that by then.

I'm trying to get rid of the "deep pockets" syndrome altogether by having everyone pay the same amount regardless of how many they run.  I may end up needing to add extra charges for special things like combats or SAs, but we'll see how that works out.

My biggest problem with many clans is the clan-version of "deep pockets", such as how many cooperating clans can you bring to bear on an issue (either reasonably or "unfairly")?  For instance, let's think of an overly-inflated extreme example... if you started 100 clans with 2000 retainers in each one, what could you do against the guys playing only a few clans? Would they resent that sort of heavy-handedness?  Even if it were 6-to-1 (because someone only has time to play one clan), wouldn't the same concept apply?  Yes, you good players wouldn't want to group all your clans together and run around causing mischief, but that doesn't mean some other player wouldn't.  How much can I give away without causing headaches somewhere?

I have no idea what "deep pockets" is... in my world a clan is $5 with three special actions and a city is $5 with three special actions.  I'm used to most of the GM comments on special actions being "Noted and done," and I'm okay with that if I'm doing something like training or another action that doesn't require much of a response.  Paying $5 to input a build order and recruit command with three special actions sounds reasonable -- that is what my usual turns consisted of (building along with special actions).  I was paying close to $100 a month on Midgard.  I may not do that now, but if I have to donate plasma again I would consider it -- if the game was fun and like it was.

A simple disclaimer would seem sufficient -- new clan location is not guaranteed.  A player can request a clan in a specific area but due to game balance and other playability factors, a specific location is not a guarantee.  The seasoned players will understand and anyone trying to drop 100 clans in a location is likely a seasoned player or a friend of one.  Again, I think you are over thinking this.  Pick 3, 6, or 9 and be done with it.

Oliver

[DreamWeaver]

I agree with Oliver, you need to choose how many clans we players can have.

[Davin]

So you're saying that the physical separation of clans on the continent would keep them from working together?  I suppose that would help.

Before setting limits like that I was trying to look at extreme examples to see if I could pull apart loopholes that aren't immediately obvious.  For instance, what if I were to make no limits at all on the number of clans?  What would that do to game play and game balance?  If I could provide some sort of controls for such a situation then it wouldn't really matter how many I allowed.

FWIW, I'm currently thinking about at least 6 clans, but I may not let players start all of them at one time (after the beta test, that is).  Perhaps you'd have to play no more than 3 clans for a few months before you could sign up for more, for instance, or have some other limiting factor enforced (like how much you actually do with them, or somesuch).  I'd like players to actually have time and interest to keep up with whatever number of clans they play, so if someone signs up 3 clans (for instance) and then they sit there and don't do anything with them, I wouldn't prefer to be giving them even more to let sit idle.  Or if someone had 6 clans and were at their limit of playtime available, signing up for another 3 would mean that some would just have to sit around and I wouldn't want them to be able to get any more until they could make use of what they had.

FYI - I can make decisions on the number of clans allowed now, but that can be changed right up until game start (or even after) because the programming wouldn't care how many I end up with.  Would it make you happy (or unhappy) if I said 6 now and then changed my mind later?

[FutureSojourner]

FYI - I can make decisions on the number of clans allowed now, but that can be changed right up until game start (or even after) because the programming wouldn't care how many I end up with.  Would it make you happy (or unhappy) if I said 6 now and then changed my mind later?

I think it is reasonable to say 6 for now.  This gives the would-be beta testers an idea of how they want to start their initial game play.