Noble Houses and Revolutions Feedback thread

[rabican]

i think there is some % chance to incorporate house every time you build building/unit from their support list . Right wonder seems to be the surest way to get house incorprated.

 

[Verdian]

In general, I think the houses are too invasive; they do too much. All of the houses should be less powerful than religions. I also think they should have less units, although that may only be a problem with the house that lets you purchase animals. In all honesty, from a game design standpoint (and I say this as someone that is happy they were introduced into the game), what was the intended purpose of the houses?

I would like to see a lot more passive effects (like traits), so adopting a house changes the game experience, and a lot less units and buildings. Limit them to one normal building, one normal unit, and one special unit or building. I remember when Kael started eliminating and combining units, and it made for a much tighter, fun, and user friendly game.

And please remove the affinities from animals... As soon as I saw that, I thought "Oh great, another thing to micromanage and worry about".

 

[Sephi]

houses have 1 units that can spread them, most also have a lategame special unit. All have 1 Building, not more.

The houses have many purposes. First, like Corporations in BTS, they reward you if you have more than one of a given resource. Then they help at a specific playstyle. Ghallanda is trade economy, Vadalis is Recon, Phiarlan is Culture/HN, Tharashk is melee warfare, Kundarak is money, Cannith is magic.

There is still quite a bit to be done with the Noble Houses. I think next I will work on is the case if you choose to play as a Noble House when they revolt in a city.

 

[Pazyryk]

I have to second Verdian in his comments. I see adjustments in the changelog to discourage taking many Houses -- that's good. But the presence of even one House tends to dominate over other game elements like civ, race, or religion. If I have House Vadalis, for example, I will quickly build camps on every possible tile (replacing even towns). Although there is a synergy with elves/FOL, I will pursue this strategy regardless of civ/race/religion to the point that I forget what civ/race/religion I'm even playing.

Bug (8.32): If you play with Houses option disabled, you still get the house in your capital if you are first to discover founding tech. The only effect (I think) is that you have to pay corporation costs in that city (a pretty nasty reward for being the first to tech).

 

[Sephi]

the balance issue with the camps and House Ghallanda Plantations should be fixed next version, the founding of the Houses without the Gameoption is fixed as well.

Currently the Revolution chance is a bit low so that accepting the Support of a House has not enough penalties.

 

[Folket]

I remember loosing my altar of lounnart to a rebellion. But I guess that was just bad luck.

But houses are to strong, thier late game units are to strong and they give to many resources.

I like the support of house Ghallanda. That should be enough bonus. The plantations and resources from inns are to much. Perhaps every house should have a support trait that you get from them. That way one can keep track of who is supported by which house among your opponents.

 

[Tarquelne]

I second Pazyryk comment and/or third Verdian's. And Folket's

I'd rather see, for example, Houses discount some unit/building types, or just give much lower boni. I don't think the number of new units or buildings is a problem - that's fine - just the total benefits a House brings.

Maybe require more work from the player to get all the benefits? Consistently feed a House's desire for conquest, trade, or whatever. So maybe at lower support levels you get some benefits, but you need to be at a high level to get the full benefit. And a high support level decay's faster than a lower level.

 

[Valkrionn]

I second Pazyryk comment and/or third Verdian's. And Folket's

I'd rather see, for example, Houses discount some unit/building types, or just give much lower boni. I don't think the number of new units or buildings is a problem - that's fine - just the total benefits a House brings.

Maybe require more work from the player to get all the benefits? Consistently feed a House's desire for conquest, trade, or whatever. So maybe at lower support levels you get some benefits, but you need to be at a high level to get the full benefit. And a high support level decay's faster than a lower level.

My own plans for guilds in RifE include each guild bringing multiple UU's/UB's, as with Houses in WM. The way I see it, the main issue isn't the effects of a single guild, but the combined effects of multiple guilds... Which is why I'll be adding GuildClasses, and only allowing one active guild from each class to be used in your empire.

 

[Verdian]

Would it be possible to make everything to do with the houses (units, buildings, and spreading) be passive? You make the house happy through game play, get their approval rating up, and the chance to spread to your cities increases. Perhaps an event gets triggered where you can select a unit, or money, or an animal, or the spread of the House, or upgrade your plantations for city X to special plantations, ect. If the player is rewarded for keeping the House happy (instead of punished for not keeping them happy) and can only effect the House indirectly, I think that would make them less powerful and lessen the micromanaging. It could help new players as well, as from a player standpoint these rewards would be seemingly random.

I also think an empire should be limited to one House. I haven't even played around in a game with more than one...

 

[Tarquelne]

I haven't even played around in a game with more than one...

Me too, actually. IMO one's more than powerful enough.

I don't really like the only-passive idea, OTOH. Not so much in itself, but it just strikes me as too much of a wasted opportunity. Though I like the idea of a House's spread being passive, especially if it happens mainly as a reward. X% chance per support-point gained might be interesting. Or, well, just different from the usual counter.

 

[Micky Onimusha]

Sorry to interrupt the discussion about these, but can I ask (for the sake of clarity): do the Noble Houses only have an effect on the game if you select the "Houses of Erebus" option? Feel a bit silly asking but I wanted to be sure.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

they should, but currently the gameoption is bugged so they'll be in either way. will be fixed in 9.0

 

[Folket]

Well, if you have it deselected the nobles houses have very very small effect on the game.

 

[Tschuggi]

i'm actually playing with illians and have 4 (! hunters, traders, warriors, entertainers) noble houses founded in my capital... and expanded all of them to my other two cities. Don't know how this is possible, but I built nearly all wonders, fought a lot and know I am rocking the world and i manage to not have any revolutions (playing on immortal).

When will 9.0 be released?

Greez and thanks for the hard work,

Tschuggi


P.S.: Valk, I know you read this. Go back to code!!! And, just for an incentive: Wild Mana is much more stable than rife, no crash at all.

 

[Folket]

If you have less then five cities I do not think you can have revolutions.