Cordor Should Behave Like Other Settlements.

[Nintendo Entertainment System]

I mentioned coal before as seeming to have a cap that settlements would buy, is that only for certain resources and the bad actors attempting resource bombs are using resources which aren't capped?

Yes. So, the 'expanded warehouse' system was a later innovation - that is, the part of the settlement resource system that lets players buy and sell specific resources within the communal stock, like coal chunks, silk, etc.

Resource bombing generally entailed stuff that translated directly to the 'basic' resource numbers - Food, Cloth, Metal, Stone. Your settlement won't go into anarchy if you have 0/100 coal in the expanded warehouse, but it will go into anarchy if, say, Metal hits 0.

And people that resource bombed generally didn't harvest all the resources themselves. They'd buy a big trading chunk from another settlement to bomb the target settlement with. It was basically throwing gold around to 'win' a faction conflict without needing to directly RP with the enemy faction.

[MRFTW]

My next question would be:

How disruptive would it be to a new player (not a new character), if Cordor were in anarchy?

If it would overly disrupt new players, I can see why Cordor is protected. I'm not mechanically aware enough to say if that would or wouldn't be the case.

Cordor is very overwhelming compared to Skal already, as far as "starting zones" go. If the anarchy protections stops that from being worse, I'm all for it. If not, I don't really have a strong view.

[Nintendo Entertainment System]

That part is up for debate. Government flux doesn't actually affect the lives of newbies running around the city and doing writs, at least not in a direct or immediate way.

You can make the argument that having stable player institutions in Cordor is important in a city where so much player property is subject to the RP of the trade minister, and that things like the local guard serve as a common point of entry for new players into the realm of player-run factions and organizations. But that's definitely a subjective take.

[DM Janitor]

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=22721#p180613

Based on my review this thread seems more like a suggestion than feedback. I am not going to immediately lock the thread but am posting as a PSA that the suggestion box is closed and feedback - unless invited by Developers - needs to tight like a blue water ship.

[Watchful Glare]

My next question would be:

How disruptive would it be to a new player (not a new character), if Cordor were in anarchy?

If it would overly disrupt new players, I can see why Cordor is protected. I'm not mechanically aware enough to say if that would or wouldn't be the case.

Cordor is very overwhelming compared to Skal already, as far as "starting zones" go. If the anarchy protections stops that from being worse, I'm all for it. If not, I don't really have a strong view.

To my knowledge nothing would change except the current elected leader would stop making money off of taxes

[Arienette]

My next question would be:

How disruptive would it be to a new player (not a new character), if Cordor were in anarchy?

If it would overly disrupt new players, I can see why Cordor is protected. I'm not mechanically aware enough to say if that would or wouldn't be the case.

Cordor is very overwhelming compared to Skal already, as far as "starting zones" go. If the anarchy protections stops that from being worse, I'm all for it. If not, I don't really have a strong view.

That’s the thing: Cordor IS in anarchy a large portion of the time, especially in comparison to some of the other settlements. A city-state that rotates through leaders, who often re-invent the law books every 6-12 months is a pretty good candidate to be labeled a “failed state”.

I think the idea here is that this situations exists because Cordor has plot armor. Characters, and the people who play them, feel free to act irrationally in regards to Cordor politics because they know the settlement is mechanically protected.

[Zavandar]

My next question would be:

How disruptive would it be to a new player (not a new character), if Cordor were in anarchy?

If it would overly disrupt new players, I can see why Cordor is protected. I'm not mechanically aware enough to say if that would or wouldn't be the case.

Cordor is very overwhelming compared to Skal already, as far as "starting zones" go. If the anarchy protections stops that from being worse, I'm all for it. If not, I don't really have a strong view.

That’s the thing: Cordor IS in anarchy a large portion of the time, especially in comparison to some of the other settlements. A city-state that rotates through leaders, who often re-invent the law books every 6-12 months is a pretty good candidate to be labeled a “failed state”.

I think the idea here is that this situations exists because Cordor has plot armor. Characters, and the people who play them, feel free to act irrationally in regards to Cordor politics because they know the settlement is mechanically protected.

i don't think calling cordor politics "irrational" is very nice and I don't think leadership rotation is a bad thing, either.

in fact I think the opposite is worse.

I wish someone could answer the question I asked earlier.

[Arienette]

My next question would be:

How disruptive would it be to a new player (not a new character), if Cordor were in anarchy?

If it would overly disrupt new players, I can see why Cordor is protected. I'm not mechanically aware enough to say if that would or wouldn't be the case.

Cordor is very overwhelming compared to Skal already, as far as "starting zones" go. If the anarchy protections stops that from being worse, I'm all for it. If not, I don't really have a strong view.

That’s the thing: Cordor IS in anarchy a large portion of the time, especially in comparison to some of the other settlements. A city-state that rotates through leaders, who often re-invent the law books every 6-12 months is a pretty good candidate to be labeled a “failed state”.

I think the idea here is that this situations exists because Cordor has plot armor. Characters, and the people who play them, feel free to act irrationally in regards to Cordor politics because they know the settlement is mechanically protected.

i don't think calling cordor politics "irrational" is very nice and I don't think leadership rotation is a bad thing, either.

in fact I think the opposite is worse.

I wish someone could answer the question I asked earlier.

Maybe irrational is the wrong word. I knew this kid back in the day whose dad bought him top of the line muscle car in high school. He immediately wrecked it, driving recklessly and fast. His dad replaced it. Repeat. Replaced again, wrecked again. Not sure how many time this repeated, but at least 3 or 4?

Was this kid acting irrationally or just responding rationally to the incentive created by free luxury cars and free replacement with no consequences?

Leaders who stick around for too long CAN be a bad thing too, no doubt about it.

[Zavandar]

Maybe irrational is the wrong word. I knew this kid back in the day whose dad bought him top of the line muscle car in high school. He immediately wrecked it, driving recklessly and fast. His dad replaced it. Repeat. Replaced again, wrecked again. Not sure how many time this repeated, but at least 3 or 4?

Was this kid acting irrationally or just responding rationally to the incentive created by free luxury cars and free replacement with no consequences?

Leaders who stick around for too long CAN be a bad thing too, no doubt about it.

i don't see what cordor is crashing or what it is getting for free with no consequences

[Marsi]

I'd take a wild, dynamic stage of player agency over discord managed Potemkin villages any day.

[DM Janitor]

This thread has definitely deviated from anything useful to the community and is definitely no longer feedback.

If you'd like to dispute it being locked please appeal to head DM Titania.