Re: Faction trees a wash?

C.M. Yearsley (
Tue, 30 Nov 1993 10:57:57 +0000 (GMT)

> So do the tree-of-lords add enough to the game to make them worth keeping,
> or should units simply be owned by the faction (all lords would be the
> player #; HEIR command goes away).

Leave it as it, I think; I really like the idea. My 'tree' is mostly
flat, I admit; but not completely. My faction has now split into
two halves, half building and half trading/exploring. Any more nobles
I form are unlikely to be hirectly loyal to my main character,
so my 'tree' will get more treelike.

Even if only slightly used, I strongly support keeping it. It adds
colour to the game - it certainly does no harm, so why change it?

I have no strong feelings about the 'show lord of noble' idea. I think
there should be a way of hiding loyalty, certainly. Whether hidden
should be the default state or not I don't know. I _think_ I support
the idea - would it diminish player interaction though?

I suppose it shouldn't; you can send messages to nobles without knowing
who 'owns' them, and if nobles want to announce their allegiance they
can have a suitable description. It might add to interaction, with more
possibilities for stealth and sneakiness...yes, why not!

If a noble belongs to a sociaty, however, I think that should be hidden.
Let them announce it or not as they choose; otherwise we limit the
possible societies.

If a faction 'Lords of Doom' want all their nobles to join
the Assassins Guild, they should have a way to hide what they're doing...
as long as some way exists to try to track them down, of course....
and if something is specifically hidden, it should be a little harder
to find than it was to hide (or the act of hiding has achieved nothing).


Chris Yearsley

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links