Dark Spires Castle.

[Ninjimmy]

-snip-

Think I second this, if just because I find it Snuggybear-backwards RP-wise that the Cordor Guard/Thane's Kuldarn/Hawk'in are one server glitch away from some rando temporarily owning their headquarters.

I get why the renting/quarters mechanic extends to these areas but it's still kind of a mindblow for me and the Castles are an extension of that - unless there's a defined "Lord" who rents them out but we seem to have the RP be that whoever wins the bid and heads the faction is the lord. This might be FOIG but I've never really understood who the castles are being rented FROM?

[Irongron]

The way the Outpost upgrades are being handled is, I think, an amazing depiction of this. Though it does require more ongoing work, it also allows the players to be a bit more involved, or at least feel like they are...

Sure, the outpost approach is amazing. I took the same when making Andunor, but the Outpost was already a brokerage area, and in no way compares to a modest update as with this.

Furthermore I'm just never going to have all my updates decided by the players in that way, and given the amount of back and forth involved my work rate on areas would slow to a near standstill.

I also did massive build up with the other castles, and with guld. And even this, which is really only the addition of some outer walls as far as structural changes is being given 3RL months notice before the final updates and transfer.

There is nothing more I am willing to do here, if you wish advance warning and RP around every single update I make, please keep in mind the sheer scale of them; the outpost is once single area update, over the last 15 years I've done hundreds, (including the original oupost), then you are also asking for area development to effectively cease.

[Irongron]

-snip-

Think I second this, if just because I find it Snuggybear-backwards RP-wise that the Cordor Guard/Thane's Kuldarn/Hawk'in are one server glitch away from some rando temporarily owning their headquarters.

I get why the renting/quarters mechanic extends to these areas but it's still kind of a mindblow for me and the Castles are an extension of that - unless there's a defined "Lord" who rents them out but we seem to have the RP be that whoever wins the bid and heads the faction is the lord. This might be FOIG but I've never really understood who the castles are being rented FROM?

Rent is paid on literally every quarter; guildhouse and ship on Arelith.

[Dari]

Losing a castle via bid is the most anti-climatic way it can happen.

Wouldn't mind if there was another way to lose a castle that's not the auction.

[the grim yeeter]

Losing a castle via bid is the most anti-climatic way it can happen.

Wouldn't mind if there was another way to lose a castle that's not the auction.

Hold on. Excuse me for getting this wrong, maybe, but you can't really "lose" something that's up for auction, don't you think?

[Dari]

Losing a castle via bid is the most anti-climatic way it can happen.

Wouldn't mind if there was another way to lose a castle that's not the auction.

Hold on. Excuse me for getting this wrong, maybe, but you can't really "lose" something that's up for auction, don't you think?

Nay. I mean when a settlement: Ex: Cordor, Brogendenstein or any other settlement lose a bid in the Auction they lose the castle they used to own. Meaning it's not their property anymore.

The Auction doesn't leave a long lasting impression, whenever another settlement wins and gets the property.

[Ninjimmy]

-snip-

Think I second this, if just because I find it Snuggybear-backwards RP-wise that the Cordor Guard/Thane's Kuldarn/Hawk'in are one server glitch away from some rando temporarily owning their headquarters.

I get why the renting/quarters mechanic extends to these areas but it's still kind of a mindblow for me and the Castles are an extension of that - unless there's a defined "Lord" who rents them out but we seem to have the RP be that whoever wins the bid and heads the faction is the lord. This might be FOIG but I've never really understood who the castles are being rented FROM?

Rent is paid on literally every quarter; guildhouse and ship on Arelith.

Yeah, I dig it, I get how that's fairer too - I just usually have a clear idea who it's being rented from. Like all the property in Cordor is being rented from (I assume) King Edward. The boats are from the shipwrights, general quarters I assume it's rent paid to the settlement or NPC who owns it officially, it's just the Castles I always found weird because I don't have any idea who's arranging the rental and for quarters/guildhouses that feel like they're city owned property it's like they're being rented BY the city? If that makes sense?

Though this could be I'm missing something that's FOIG or I'm looking too close at a mechanic designed to ensure properties CAN change hands, but it's something that's been at the back of mind for a while.

[The GrumpyCat]

With a lot of properites, one can guess that the tax gold goes to either the pc forces (If an area is controled and evictable by the local government) or by npc forces in the background, or even perhaps just a representative of small 'wear and tear' fixes.

I admit I'm personaly a little fuzzier on castles and such as an ic reasoning - but I imagine ideas could be come up with. Perhaps the bank counts on buying the loyalty of the vaious npcs present. Or perhaps it counts payoff to the astronomical fees of building such constructions.

I like that they can change hands. It again provides a vareity of interactivity and pc power, and that is a good thing.

[Xerah]

Losing a castle via bid is the most anti-climatic way it can happen.

Wouldn't mind if there was another way to lose a castle that's not the auction.

Hold on. Excuse me for getting this wrong, maybe, but you can't really "lose" something that's up for auction, don't you think?

Nay. I mean when a settlement: Ex: Cordor, Brogendenstein or any other settlement lose a bid in the Auction they lose the castle they used to own. Meaning it's not their property anymore.

The Auction doesn't leave a long lasting impression, whenever another settlement wins and gets the property.

It’s actually pretty great since owning it for 5 years is a long time as is.

[ReverentBlade]

I've always thought that losers losing their bid was pretty nonsensical.

[Xerah]

I've always thought that losers losing their bid was pretty nonsensical.

It is, but unfortunately, people aren't great at allowing others to have a turn in the sandbox, so we have to work with this. The nice thing about it is that you can then plan for a 5 month arch and if you win again, you can start a new one.

[SongSinger]

I would certainly love to see some way of these castles and keeps changing hands through war roleplay with DM guidance and consent on both parts. Though i am aware that all it could result is turn arelith in a pvp conquest mode akin battlefield. So its probably way too risky. Still, there might some way to do it. With all these new siege weapons.... something to think about.

It would be neat if wars could be run maybe once every 10-20 year period, for a short duration, and auctions made less often (5 or 6 years?) which would encourage more conflict but also more time for RP to build around these new forts?

It would also be really cool to see more of these brokerage systems added for UD central places for the Sharps/Devils' Table/Greyport to also bid and compete on respectively. The recent Underzee stuff looks like it holds heaps of potential.

[Red_Wharf]

I've always thought that losers losing their bid was pretty nonsensical.

It is, but unfortunately, people aren't great at allowing others to have a turn in the sandbox, so we have to work with this. The nice thing about it is that you can then plan for a 5 month arch and if you win again, you can start a new one.

In theory, if the loser settlements received their gold back, wouldn't it perhaps be an incentive for them to be more active during the auctions?

[The GrumpyCat]

I believe loosing factions recieve half their gold back at present.

[ReverentBlade]

Making losers lose harder is the opposite of encouraging turnover. Its a huge advantage to the established.

[-XXX-]

There needs to be an incentive for NOT casually bidding on everything all the time just because players can.

[ReverentBlade]

Why?

[-XXX-]

Because once people could just place a bid without any risk, everyone would simply do it and only then it'd have became solely about who has the most money and nothing else.

Right now there's a certain degree of uncertainty and a sense of stakes. Also, allows for cat and mouse games like making competition spend more money by pretending you placed a bid when you didn't etc.

[Red_Wharf]

Because once people could just place a bid without any risk, everyone would simply do it and only then it'd have became solely about who has the most money and nothing else.

Right now there's a certain degree of uncertainty and a sense of stakes. Also, allows for cat and mouse games like making competition spend more money by pretending you placed a bid when you didn't etc.

In three years since the castle update release, both Darrowdeep and Gloom changed hands only twice, if memory serves. Mind you, Darrowdeep was given away to Brogendenstein by Guldorand before the second auction even started, so only once did Darrowdeep change hands through an auction. The degree of uncertainty is minimal. All the surface settlements have been holding hands together for a long time now, and it doesn't look like that will change too soon (hoping New Guldorand changes the status quo a bit). Giving all the gold back to the settlements who lose the auction is a step towards making the whole bid system a little more active, but in my opinion, that alone won't change on its own the fact that everyone is friends and trying to steal a castle from your friend will always be a dick move.

[-XXX-]

Yeah, that's mostly because players found a way to have their characters work together in order to "rig" the system in their favor.
Making making it so that all the losing bids get returned no matter what would only remove the part where characters are brought together to cooperate in order to get what they want.

I don't see the benefits of making the system less interactive TBH


Also, doesn't anyone get to bid on castles? Wouldn't removing the risk of gold loss upon placing a losing bid result in anyone casually bidding and subsequently all the castles falling under the control of the settlement with wealthiest citizens who have the most amount of gold to spare? This might potentially kill any room for political maneuvering and deals.

[The GrumpyCat]

Also, frankly, it's meant as gold sink. It's a way to get the gold out of the economy.

[Cybren]

Also, frankly, it's meant as gold sink. It's a way to get the gold out of the economy.

I'm sure this is the intention behind the mechanic but I'm not entirely sure it's effective at it. It's assuming that the relationship between the brokerage and the people bidding is backwards from where it is. I'd imagine that in practice the existence of the brokerage drives settlements and factions to try to amass more gold, rather than exist as an outlet for the gold they already have.

[DangerDolphin]

Sure, it makes sense for a city to claim a castle close to another, it gives them an advantage strategically, politically its a major powermove. But that sort of thing is a BIG flex. "Look, we are so much more powerful we can extend our reach well into your territory and there is nothing you can do about it." and the truth is, there will be nothing they can do, because limitations of the game mean that there are no supply chains to ambush, castles can't be besieged, the other city just has to sit there, wait for the castle to come up for bid again and hope they win. It ends up just drawing attention to the limitations of the game, leaving players feeling powerless.

Disagree, there's plenty you can do to make the life hell of people in that castle. Declare that if a faction not from your settlement bids and wins they will be banned from trading with you or entering your town, alliances will be broken with their owning settlement, ambush the castle faction members and declare them bandits illegally occupying the castle, etc. The faction that wants it may agree to even become citizens of your settlement to smooth things over and avoid all the bad consequences.

It's not up to the Devs/DMs to enforce your claimed territory for you - as you stated - if you have a rival state sitting on a castle in your backyard then that's a major political humiliation for the current settlement leader. But it seems in character to me and I think it's fine that the solution is a couple months of RP rather than a PvP siege battle.

[Nobs]

A siege would just be lag and crashes any way.

[Red_Wharf]

When is it going to be added to the auction system?