Kheserthorpe's long ideas for if the pbase recovers 1: territorial control

Old idea of mine, the pbase can't support it today. But I add it here so that maybe ... one day. I honestly believe the coding required is NOT huge. Here it is:

Territorial Control Proposal


Overview

The basic idea is that certain areas in the MUD be controllable. There would be mild benefits, and untold glory to controlling areas. Obviously, control can be seized from others.

I will not spend long on the presumed benefits, but will mention a few here:


*Provides a dynamic element to the MUD (i.e. things are changeable) which presents spin off opportunities for rp (particularly politics and deal making), pk.
* Encourages people to not sit in clan halls
* Adds to geographic reality of MUD (i.e. where you are in the MUD matters, there may be safer/more dangerous areas, etc.
* Wars are encouraged but also localized. Rather then encouraging the mud-wide hunting and slaughter of weak characters, encourages strong and aspiring characters to fight and hold specific fields of battle. It is assumed this will be more fun for both active pkers (who have a goal) and the more peaceful minded, who will have better opportunities to avoid hostilities by avoiding war zones.
* It is my hope that this change would help with the long term alignment-imbalance problem so many MUD's have. There is a tendency among many evil clans to side with each other continually in wars vs the few good aligned individuals. The reason for this is that there is no _real_ conflict between the evil groups. With this change, suddenly evil expansionist empires would find themselves in competition with one another. Of course they could forge alliances, etc. ... but the temptation to be evil and betray their allies in sieges would always exist.

There are many people who have suggested this sort of thing, some variants of it in existence, and many possible features that _could_ be added. The main focus of this proposal is to suggest a simple, robust method for getting it off the ground, thus (presumeably) improving the chance it will happen, be tested, and work well.

Major requirements:

Controllable Territories (or provinces or regions or districts) must be defined.


It is suggested that for simplicity all territories be areas - though only a subset of them. The number of areas declared as controllable should exceed the number of clans.
Defined controller of each territory.


I would suggest on implementation this be arbitrarily set by the immortals, it will rapidly move to a totally player driven state. Now for the big question: who can control an area?

* Possibility 1: A clan. A given area might be ruled by Barbarian, or Avares for example. This method is _simple_, has few problems with treason (see below) and is perhaps better as the first implementation. Drawbacks : less obvious method of allowing loners to participate. I believe some of this can be mitigated by players however. As will be seen below, loners could still assist in sieges or defences (but only in conjuction with actual members of the clan). I'll refer to this as 'Clan-ruled territories'
* Possibility 2: An individual is the 'ruler'. This could _often_ be a clan leader, but could be anyone. The implications will be seen below under 'sieging'. I'll refer to this as 'Leader-pledge territories'

A 'Siege' command must be made available.

This command is used to declare that a challenger is attempting to seize control over a territory. The siege command would be used by rank 5's (and 4's?) of a clan under a 'clan ruled territory' system or by any individual under 'Leader pledge territories'.
Under 'Leader pledge territories' a 'pledge' command is required. This allows individuals to pledge their support to either the challenger or the controller of a territory. Under this system, rather then 2 clans contesting an area, the area contest would be between the ruler and those pledged to that ruler vs the challenger and those pledged to him/her/it. It does leave a 'traitor' problem, as will be discussed below.


A command should be available to list controllable areas, who (or what group) controls them, and if any are currently under siege, and if so, who by.

Siege functionality:

The outcome of a siege is a contest between the controller and the challenger to amass more 'command points'. These command points are _specific_ to the territory in question. The controller starts with a number of command points, the challenger must close and overcome that head start to take control of the territory. There would be a maximum length of time for a siege (perhaps 3 irl days).

Members of the opposing factions have three methods of generating command points:


1) Territorial presence.
Simply being in the territory builds command points. For the challenger, these points can be generated during the siege. For the controller, these points can be captured _before_ the siege, though they would fade after a period of time. Lets consider a 3 day fade window as well. In this case, at the start of the siege, the ruling groups's starting command points would include some base level for the area + command points generated by patrolling the area in the three days BEFORE the siege started. Obviously the points/tick are low, but frequent patrols or stationing build over a considerable time can generate substantial command points.
2) Killing opponents in the contested territory.
Let us consider Barbarian ruled New Ofcol being challenged by Avares. If a member of Avares kills a member of Barbarian in new ofcol during the siege, avares would receive a number of command points.

3) Driving opponents from territory.
We'd like to reward someone for driving their opponents out of the contested area. The simplest method is the following: Using the scenario above, if a Barbarian and an Avaran are in New Ofcol, and the Avaran leaves the area, Barbarian gains command points.

Issue 1: What happens if someone runs in and out of the area repeatedly? They'd be getting burned badly. Simplest solution: educate people not to do this!
Issue 2: What happens if someone does not realize that the opposing group is in the territory? They would not know how to modify their behaviour. Simplest solution: Add an 'auto' flag: autoretreat. If set in the appropriate direction, would prevent characters from voluntarily leaving an area if it would be considered a retreat. This could help people avoid issue 1 as well.

Other Considerations

What should happen if, again using the same example, a loner or member of a third clan, presumeably on 'Avares' side, kills Krul in New Ofcol? Does it matter if an Avares is present or not? Does it matter if they are grouped with the Avares or not? I welcome feedback on these issues.

I'll note at this point why I said there should be more territories then clans. The reason for this is that large clans should be able to have multiple areas, while smaller clans might hold one. However, the small clans will be able to focus all their resources on that one area, patrolling it regularly, etc. Large empires require more work to maintain. Eventually a clan might spread itself too thin, and lose everything. I would imagine that clans will naturally expand and contract the areas they control, but it evens some of the playing field between large and small clans by spreading the large clans so their strength is less concentrated.

The 'traitor' issue: I have concerns with the following scenario. Krul of Barbarian rules New Ofcol. Felan has declared siege. DouglasHowser the kender pledges support to Felan, then continually gets himself killed in New Ofcol or retreats or in other ways sabotages Avares hopes. This could also, of course, happen with someone inside Avares, but Felan has at least a reasonable hope of imposing discipline internally, ordering people not to enter the warzone unprepared, etc. Without a solid procedure to handle 'negative impact' pledges, I'd recommend we go with the 'clan ruled territories'.

Final outcome

The siege could be declared a victory if the challenger exceeds the rulers command points. By how much and when? I am thinking that perhaps the siege wins if A) The challenger has more command points after 3 days or B) at any point within the three days of the challenger's command points exceed the rulers command points by some margin. A victory over three days, or a crushing early victory would be possible.

The siege would fail if it had not amassed sufficient command points after three days. We could similarly say that if the rulers lead _widens_ by some amount, the siege could be declared a failure early.


Benefits to territorial rule:

Territories could provide income. Each territory might produce different things (cash, material, favour points) depending on its type. It is suggested that the income be declared, and simply be handed to the ruler on some schedule by immortals.


Second Phase Enhancements:

The first priority should be to get the basic system implemented, tested, balanced and fully operational. Once it's working, fun enhancements might include:

Different territories might have different parameters for command points (i.e require more/less effort to control). If we say starting command points for the ruler are (baseamt) + (pre-siege presense points), the 'baseamt' could be dependant on the area. The right way to do this would be to make large powerful areas - like new thalos, or brengaard - provide more substantial income, but have a lower baseamt. That means controllers need to put more effort into holding them - but reaps greater benefits.

Territories, some or all, might have guards that assist the rulers and attack the challengers.

To control the number of sieges, require the challenger to pay some amount of gold to declare the siege. They would receive benefit for this, however - siege engines would show up at some edges to the territory, and bombard the area with boulder fire. Even if this does nothing, its still damn cool. IF the territory has guards, the siege engines could try to take them out.

The duration of the siege could be increased by paying more.

Income from territories could be automated.

Hey Khes, an idea to help fix your traitor problem! When someone pledges for a leader, make the leader have to accept the pledge!

Any way...love the idea!

Adding to what Malkar said with the traitor problem: allow both sides to deny the offer to help. Also let the area-leader and siege-leader view a scorecard of sorts to see if someone is running them down. If DouglasHowser the kender is sabotaging Felan's siege, let him "outcast" him from his siege effort. This could also be a way for the leaders of each side to reward the more productive people who accumulate the most points.

Love the idea though, would give new life to the mud.

I've would love to see something like this done a long time ago. As for the traitor problem, If said person was in a clan, then the area would be clan owned, but the person rules it. Second, make it so you cannot take over your clans territory, so I don't see it as a problem.