derg38 wrote:

QUOTE:
Why we dotn have voting here?

Because no one started a vote here yet.

On RH the knights managed to do it at once all by themselves.

Since there was a call for a vote
- here it is.

http://knights-honor.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,181/func,view/catid,46/id,106204/#106204

derg38 wrote:

QUOTE:
Hoern assumed that will community against and skiped voting here.

Hoern did not initiate the vote on RH, the players managed to do it quite by themselves.

Hoern wrote:

QUOTE:
Fact is that on all servers 2 different players are allowed to play on the same PC. And it's a fact that no one can check if they are different persons....
... so - in fact it is allowed to play 2 knights. And we are aware that some "smart" players are using this opportunity.
And that's why we give the honest players the green card to do the same.... if they want.

I will not change something at the mechanics.
That's all. It's not an allowance to corrupt the game.

Hoern explained very well the situation: only not allowing 2 different players to play on the same computer will change something.
Suppose we will vote 100% against playing 2 knights. So what? Some players will still use the opportunity, like it happen before Hoern make the announcement.
Do you think in RH there aren't such cases as playing two knights on the same computer? But at least there nobody is hiding, some of them write down in the profile who's the other knight or post in My Nation board.
Notice they are used by those who wants to play different characters in RP and not to form an army of twins.
Players in different nations are generally rejected by the leaders.

Thats not the point James, in fact it would get harder for those having Multi-Accounts since now the "real" players getting stronger (having two Knights then).

The 1 Player - 1 Knight rule is a basic for the game, and as such very important for the credibility of the game in itself.

So first we should vote about the changing of the rule itself (using Bellas thread I suppose).

About the topic here I do have a serious problem. How shall it be controlled (e.g. the Quest matter can only be seen by those creating a Quest, and those receiving the Quest far I know) and who should do it?

About second player in a different nation I'd say -> Let the Kings/chancellors decide on their own (in each single case).

About dueling I'd say let them duel. The guys being really so horny in winning duels they may use it as a sandbag, I believe most will see it like Bella sooner or later becoming bored of that nonsens.

Quests -> I already pointed out, how shall it be controlled? I fear there is really no possibility to do so, and 5 silver coins a few days won't kick the balance of the game at all.

These are my minds so far...

Jessica vom Greifenstein wrote:

QUOTE:


The 1 Player - 1 Knight rule is a basic for the game, and as such very important for the credibility of the game in itself.

So first we should vote about the changing of the rule itself (using Bellas thread I suppose).

RH did not manage to change that, because it's the game policy. Especially in a free game the players could not impose rules when it comes of game policy.
How about the players who wants to play more than one character? They get a second one for free and if they want more, they could have with premium. How about players sharing the same computer? I suppose not all of them are one and the same person, there are still cases of playing from work / university on the same computer / network.
I'm grateful to Hoern for this game and I would not try to impose anything to him. For me he is the god of the game, he knows better when it comes of technical problems, he is open to developing ideas and he is not biased in taking the decisions.
We point out the map is not clear when it comes to armies crests and in the middle of the night he re-write the script that we could have a clear description of the armies on a field.
There aren't many owners of a game so dedicated as he is.

James wrote:

QUOTE:
RH did not manage to change that, because it's the game policy.

Yes, and stable, continouos game rules are important for a game, many "Ghost"-Games do prove that.

QUOTE:
How about the players who wants to play more than one character?

Well, maybe the RP-Mods will correct me, but you may have an unlimited number of NPC.

QUOTE:
How about players sharing the same computer?

Specially for them this changing is a great disadvantages since they are not allowed to have a second character.

QUOTE:
For me he is the god of the game.

On german server his signature says: "Herr über Leben und Tod" (Lord of Live and Death). -> Any Questions about? (except that one he has such a lame signature here^^).

To get back on the topic, I'd like to hear your ideas of limitations for second Knights

We already have:

- Knights have to be in same Nation.
- No Quests between both Knights
- Duels between both Knights

Just to give a resume what I do think about:

- Quests cannot be controlled since only first and second Knight are able to see their Quest-log, unnecessary since the effect of that pushing is quite small.

- Duels I do also see critical, what about two join together, one fights the second Knight of the other? On long hand also second Knights will become valuable for battle, and the first Knight will be immediatly dead
Maybe a restriction that first Knight and second Knight mustn't duel over 100 or more VP (Duel-Points, Showfights)... but who shall control it?

- Knights in different Nations are a serious problem, I really like to hear your minds about.

Some further ideas I had:

- Second Knight is disallowed to buy the Fief of the first Knight. This is necessary in my eyes since the "sandbag" will be hoarding silver instead of developing, buying the Fief of the first Knight (who dies without Prem) having a full income for sure.

- Another idea is that second Knights (as well as the first one) should mark in their profile to whom they are connected, this will also decrease the fear by having two Knights in different Nations (making the connection visible).

So, your turn

Knights in enemy nations, if they are permitted at all, are not approved to be spies (this is just the current rule). That is, the player cannot use information available only to one Knight in determining the moves or statements (including PMs, CF posts etc) of the other. It would take an incredible amount of discipline to achieve this, and there would be the possibility of overreach (Knight A might actually be able to be aware of something through normal means, but disregards it since it is also known to Knight .

Knights in allied nations, will cut down on the "fog of war" by providing leaders (in particular) with two separate viewpoints. This will significantly change the game, and remove a substantial challenge.

Playing the sandbag/punching-bag is not approved even if the players are separate, so nothing changes. Failing to develop a fief is simply a peculiar variant of this (a financial punching-bag)

The traditional convention in relation to quests is to regard more than one quest per month for a given Knight as pushing. If players adhere to to this then there would be no problem if the two Knights occasionally write quests between themselves. However, I suspect that this convention has not been widely observed for some time.

Marking in profiles is a good idea.

My 2 cents opinion: If we allow the knights to be in separate nation this option will have a very bad effect in diplomacy :
1) I could have my first knight as king in one nation, and second knight as king in another nation (in my opinion this should not be permitted)
2) Think about this - if England would have had all second knights of Saxony and Saxony would have had all second knights of England - would we have had such a nice war today ? or would have been only a long-term-very-boring alliance ?
I think we should make a statement that such behaviour is ... let`s say unrecommended by fair-play rules ?

Marking in profile is quite impossible in my opinion ... technically at least. Also if my warrior die and i`m not premium maybe i`m interested to start a totally new "life" and maybe i don`t want for all to know who I am .... Marking would not be so good in this situation

On the other side this idea of 2 knights could help our most talented and most active players to write more RP, maybe there will be a little more action and this way more fun for all of us

If there are any rules, they should preferably be enforcable controllable rules.

Currently the only thing leaders of a nation can control is whether to allow knights with crosses in their ranks in principle and whether to allow knights with red crosses in particular.

Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:
Knights in enemy nations, if they are permitted at all, are not approved to be spies (this is just the current rule). That is, the player cannot use information available only to one Knight in determining the moves or statements (including PMs, CF posts etc) of the other. It would take an incredible amount of discipline to achieve this, and there would be the possibility of overreach (Knight A might actually be able to be aware of something through normal means, but disregards it since it is also known to Knight B).

This is simply unrealistic. It can't be done.

Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:
Playing the sandbag/punching-bag is not approved even if the players are separate, so nothing changes. Failing to develop a fief is simply a peculiar variant of this (a financial punching-bag)

What nation will permit knights in their ranks who don't develop a fief? England would not. It's up to the nation's leaders to kick out knights who don't meet minimal requirements, like building the fiefdom and making some progress in the training of their knights.

Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:
The traditional convention in relation to quests is to regard more than one quest per month for a given Knight as pushing. If players adhere to to this then there would be no problem if the two Knights occasionally write quests between themselves. However, I suspect that this convention has not been widely observed for some time.

I knew nothing about this and would very much approve of giving new young knights, who just lost their fiefdom due to war, as many quests as can be managed to compensate them. We have always had a bit of a problem in finding enough rich old altruistic knights to provide enough quests for everyone.

Possible solutions: I never saw any particular point in assigning different numbers of questpoints for different quests. If the admins would simply give all quests the same number of questpoints, it could be checked how many quests one knight had. Then it could be said that 20 quests (or whatever) for one knight are enough - and it could be checked up on in the ranking list. Though this might then also prevent older knights from setting each other quests - I know a nation that organized a quest society as a means of social interaction between the older knights - for whom the money at that time was fairly irrelevant. I can't think of a perfect solution.

Deaglan Artavasdus wrote:

QUOTE:
Marking in profiles is a good idea.

Yes. Hoern was wondering about whether to make the connection list of knights public a while ago somewhere - I think it would be an excellent idea. That way everyone would know who is who and there could be no secret spies via this avenue. Zmeu, anyone who has reason to be ashamed of their second knights, better had not keep any.

If I'm going to create a second knight, the only reason for me to do so, would be to be part of a struggling little nation that has to survive by any means it can - or in order to use a wonderful RP opportunity. That is give my NPC a real knightly life of his own.

Bella wrote:

QUOTE:
Zmeu, anyone who has reason to be ashamed of their second knights, better had not keep any.

heheheheeee ... don`t hurry with conclusions, maybe there could be more reasons than shame for such a choice
And if you check again you shall se that i`m not talking about first 2 connected knights (i don`t have a problem for those 2 knights to be connected in profile or in a public list) - i`m talking about next generation , after one of those first knights die !