Talan2011-08-02 20:29:36
In the old family system, no one reached the honour cap, and so the issue of competition at the top never really came up. Most players agree that in the new system, with the honour cap being reasonably attainable, there are some issues with how MHF is awarded and retained. There is very little shift in MHF unless the current holder is made to lose honour. There are few ways to lose family honour, and none can really be forced, thus the current MHF cannot be challenged. All the presiding MHF needs to do is not lose honour - they do not need to actively do anything to preserve the title.
Those families who are still working toward reaching the cap are disheartened by what they see as very little chance that they will ever get the MHF title. Those families who have reached the cap are frustrated by the fact that they can basically do nothing actively to attempt to usurp the title.
So here are ideas for improving this, separated from the New Family Honour thread -- I'll start with some that I can explain, others can fill in their ideas about diminishing returns or any other suggestions.
- Each 1 or 2 game years, track all honour gained or lost by all families who are at the cap when the cycle begins (and if any reach the cap during the cycle, compute their gains from the time they reach the cap), and award MHF to the highest net total among these families.
- For 1 or 2 game years, calculate the average gains each weave, and award MHF based on the highest average.
- Same as either of the above, however any losses will put you out of the running for the current cycle (you'll be able to compete in the next cycle once you reach the cap again).
----- Keep the bankaccount comparison as a tie breaker in either scenario.
----- Either of these should be 'blind' tallies... each family will do their best and just wait to see how they did at the end. Totals could be published to a family's log at the end of each month or at the end of the cycle. The winner's total may or may not be published in the politics post that makes them MHF.
- Raise the stakes on active gain required in a family who has reached the cap (or perhaps only apply this to MHF) to avoid the honour penalty. Currently it is only 100 active gain for any family -- people at the top could be held to a higher standard, or risk losing more.
Those families who are still working toward reaching the cap are disheartened by what they see as very little chance that they will ever get the MHF title. Those families who have reached the cap are frustrated by the fact that they can basically do nothing actively to attempt to usurp the title.
So here are ideas for improving this, separated from the New Family Honour thread -- I'll start with some that I can explain, others can fill in their ideas about diminishing returns or any other suggestions.
- Each 1 or 2 game years, track all honour gained or lost by all families who are at the cap when the cycle begins (and if any reach the cap during the cycle, compute their gains from the time they reach the cap), and award MHF to the highest net total among these families.
- For 1 or 2 game years, calculate the average gains each weave, and award MHF based on the highest average.
- Same as either of the above, however any losses will put you out of the running for the current cycle (you'll be able to compete in the next cycle once you reach the cap again).
----- Keep the bankaccount comparison as a tie breaker in either scenario.
----- Either of these should be 'blind' tallies... each family will do their best and just wait to see how they did at the end. Totals could be published to a family's log at the end of each month or at the end of the cycle. The winner's total may or may not be published in the politics post that makes them MHF.
- Raise the stakes on active gain required in a family who has reached the cap (or perhaps only apply this to MHF) to avoid the honour penalty. Currently it is only 100 active gain for any family -- people at the top could be held to a higher standard, or risk losing more.
Zilias2011-08-03 23:22:59
I am not educated enough to throw my ideas around about what I think should or shouldn't be implemented but...I do like what is said above and I think something definitely needs to change.
