-
Here to the point of roleplaying is the notion on most of the server that kingdoms have particular alignment. To a degree this flies in the face of why many of us play. ( just remember we are not about absolutes; some balance will levy ludicrous mobs of poor choice) Players playing their personality via personality/race:
~ I for one like playing the durable guy regularly. This transcends race for me as I'm just as likely to build a feary the way I build a dwarf. I'm not into unbreakable strategy as I see these more as levy builds: once broken the flood of damage is disabling. I like guys that can function under hostile conditions. I don't build crazy offense or defense. What I do is subtle and is meant for the dynamic players to key off.
~ aggressive attacker guys are easy to get along with provided the kingdom leaders get them in good situations to prime their love of challenge. We can't let these guys dictate strat to others as they have an imbalanced view.
~ motherly types are ideal for certain t/m roles. In my experience they tend not to be strat aware, but are very good at doing the right things. Aggressive in attack because they tend to think of others. Loyal and likely to stick through the toughest situations.
~ striker types are those cooler headed guys who are very game adept. These are the people that get Nightmare or effective sabotage. I've seen some great players in this guise. Generally speaking and in my experience I see the best halfling rogues played by women and the best faery played by men with various personalities. Some have a little hero disorder but I've never seen it as anything but good and a welcome quirk.
~ leader types that I've seen with the most success are mildly aloof, but of great humor. They get delegating and can see value in independent action. They tend to have fanatical stewards who require a short leash, but I've seen even better kingdoms with rational stewards. These guys stand out in their great decision making. Comparing kingdom to kingdom, these are the guys that have keen sense for stance and target value. They can communicate much with simple phrasing.
-
In reference to Tapouts suggestion of halfling war hero I would designate this to 25 slot or monarchy. We still want to maintain one halfling rogue per division for the simple reason they have the highest theft rating and can use the extra stealth most effectively. Faery is a close second for sterling spell support and sabotage damage.
This halfling war hero would put the kingdom in position to use war spoils in the most effective sectors. War hero using war spoils should have some semblance of op resistance to protect built acres from tornado and fireball barrage by enemies. War spoils used at times when either enemy wave is out over 8 days or near net worth threats are out. Accelerated build with aid to muster the numbers to defend the acreage is key and thus used in particular situations. Fast training makes the war hero/war spoils strategy a viable tactic that has forced me to rethink dwarf in this roll. Obviously dwarf covers much ground in war hero persona so one may be retained with the halfling monarch to fill the gap.
-
Fun read again.
With war hero, you may wish to consider their immunity to dragons slightly higher on your paradigm and war spoils slightly lower.
While war spoils is a nice thing as it speeds you up, it can bite. Chained with no incoming hurts.
On roles, I feel you may have gone into stereotyping people/kingdoms, and may wish to consider the extent to which we, when we naturally catergorise people, see them as conforming to our own biases.
Group theory tends to state that when a collective group views an individual a certain way, that their behavior will be both more likely to fit that perception, and we are more likely to view it as such.
-
Still, turn this into an actual some time!
-
Agreed on your comments regarding stereotyping. I apologize to those that don't read into my " no absolutes " with the definition in weight I hope it to carry. To clarify, the personality traits were aimed at self evaluation. If you don't fit the mold then you have the self determination to know your best application in a game environment.
Actually I do consider dragon immunity with a great deal of respect. Flogger himself commented on the viability of halfling war hero in his strategy thread( most conditions still in play from age59). My reference to war spoils is measured by use in line with net worth gap strategies. It is simply a play in the playbook, not a cornerstone of make or break tactics.
An actual kingdom template depends on the willingness of 3 broken kingdoms coming together. We had 3 such instances this age, but they chose to build from their core players rather than merge with the other 2 to achieve a complete triad. Templars was one, an Asian group of 8-10 was another and the 6 guys looking for a kingdom to lead was the last. So the numbers are favorable, but the egos may not be so. Last age AMA/BB/Jerks was an alliance version.
Thank you for your assessments and I'm open to variations; fun, role-played or strategic.
-
The purpose here is fun with success being a symptom of fun. So for those wondering how this would go, here are the rules:
1- no absolutes.
2- the virtual kingdom is a template based on game balance, not war or whore. Thus, it's a question of wanting to serve in this template.
3- each player from their division of 8 players would submit their preference for persona and race as template dictates: one of each personality, one of each race.
4- each division would have a player in council. Monarch chooses steward, polite debate welcome.
5- role-players welcome with an emphasis on defining roles. This is per division, not kingdom culture.
6- activity is why we're here. Inactivity isn't met with scorn just simple elimination. Nothing personal.
7- divisions are not required to work among themselves. This is simply an organizational theme. Help where help is needed.
-
My intuition tells me heated debate is sometimes unavoidable. With this understanding I think it wise to operate from the position of leading by example. If for instance one division is more successful than another under equal conditions, let the numbers speak for themselves. I'd prefer to see things worked out in healthy competition. Act with respect to both allies and enemies alike. If you are a gifted intellect be noble not elite. Black humor, dry humor, goofy humor are welcome. Mutual respect is default love.
-
Size Organization -
There are any number of ways to go about sizing the kingdom:
1-One could go with traditional large unbreakables across all divisions. This is the system most familiar to the Utopian community. The virtues and failing are understood universally, thus no deep explanations.
2-Another is to have size progression per division: that is, division 1 has access to a greater portion of the acreage pool, division 2 proportionately less and the 3rd division the least. Students of growth may deem division 1 their expertise, whereas honor/war kingdom disciples may desire division 2 and 3.
3-Still, one seldom seen is net worth clamp divisions more akin to some kingdom strategies. In this instance the divisions would seem smeared yet have integrated goals based on the 8 player setup presented here. The kingdom page would appear to be a fragmented growth to noob, but in actual play is a magnificent mid net worth gap devourer.
* in the 3 mentioned we have the option of choosing 1 or even hybridizing all 3. These are fluid strategies as random attacks, waves and war can realign these options. What we want to do is see the positive in redistribution ~ Octopus like in prismatic display, shape and reach. Tendrils that grip from imperceptible angles when threatened. Inky blackness to dissuade predators in a myriad of operations and sabotage. At the end of the day I would hope for a friendly kingdom that is simply a marvel in joy of gaming.
-
One thing I do notice is my province management is quite a bit different from Utopian norm. In reading through the build suggestions in Strategy Forum I've seen, there seems to be a basic detachment to individual effort in a team game.
What I mean is the successful kingdoms already have the organizational foundation to dictate builds, and they are deemed efficient. I'll contend this from 2 points, and this is not questioning success.
1- practically no province would intentionally run itself as chain worthy from a roleplaying standpoint. It goes against the inherent pillars of civilization. Obviously one could run say a barbaric province that by code wasn't into defense and thus the ' only the strong live ' mantel.
2- many more kingdom are incapable of exploiting the integrated strategy of top kingdoms. If I may, I've faced the super builds and their every bit as vulnerable as the next guy with tweaks and what not. Presumed effectiveness based on hit and miss activity is a little weird at a distance.
So all I'm saying is if you build yourself as a pain in the butt, it has benefit. Build to protect your people if that's as freeing to you as it is to me. The other tools are there. I believe that's what is ignored. I've been accused of greed, yet never for lack of generosity. I simply see this as people who buy into a nonexistent system that largely protects a click. Isn't this what this template would seem to avoid? It's not a main purpose but a symptom of pragmatic teamwork.
-
Success is the great driver isn't it? Yet the result is not satisfying unless we're integral to the formula. There is a fix related to winning, but the true satisfaction is in being a part.
Consider a top kingdom that finds it's creative and strategic leader inattentive. This kingdom begins to show weakness on a broader scale because the population has been under strict control too long to instinctively break ranks and pursue objectives they should know. The core is generic so a sense of manning the right controls gets muddied by unitary oblivion.
I'm not saying they don't have thinkers, but they obviously react too slow.
The importance of the game is often achieved through negative reinforcement. Let us get back to the fundamental idea that we're here for fun. The point is that by emphasis on fun we could avoid the problems plagueing the above mentioned kingdom while running the same generic core. BUT, because we are based in the fun of Utopia and the myriad of possible role occupations, we exercise what I'm calling a zero core. Zero core isn't just a strategy for versatility, and while it reflects the template of the game it's true strength is in giving the player specific in game tools to exercise her ability at it's highest leverage.
My mind is on allowing the core player to blossom in their field. There is an odd instinct I've noticed when driving to work with certain groups of people. It's as if for a brief period, everyone who gets that in a civilized society we work together, everyone starts driving at a natural pace. I've experienced this human unity in a couple of memorable instances and I'm convinced that that instinct is accessible to all of us. That is the apex, not the norm. Every once in awhile we show glimpses of the spirit that got us here; there is a semi-euphoric aura about experiencing civil unity. If I can spark a kingdom to adopt and embrace the differences, then the euphoria of unity may visit us once in a while.
-
This thread is still going, and i get confused an happy each time i read it :P
-
Thank you Spah :-) I'm impressed with your decision to go where you are now. Brilliant choice in my opinion with deep heritage in the game and history to build on. I've been waiting for Guy Ritchie to make the Utopia Movie, but I should start writing the script. In fact, your kingdom is the center of the plot for several reasons.
-
Haha, you have a super active imagination which I know the reason for ... I read your signature, "Weed bowls"... XD
-
Hey Jarata, I see your recruiting to your kingdom. It pleases me to see a kingdom sans gizmos in these forums.
I'm not selling myself as I wander wherever adventure takes me, but I find my greatest joy in Utopia playing in the most raw tech kingdoms. Partly because I'm an idiot, but mainly because it's the game straight from the bottle.
For myself I find less toys get me looking at situations and adapting rather than occupying my mind with information pages and mathematically sterile goo. But I'm a lefty with the intuitive right side brain thingy; that's probably why I seem high.
-
We can close this thread now. Thank you. :-)