[FIXED] King/Queen Without Completing Nation Missions

[DezNutz]

A player, who has been appointed Governor by a rightful King/Queen, but has not completed nation missions (Marquess), should not be able to take the throne/crown even if their influence exceeds that of the current King/Queen.





The assumption I'm making is that the game isn't checking if the Marquess Nation Mission was completed and is just assuming since the player is ranked as a governor, that the mission was completed. This was likely overlooked as it was assumed that players would complete nation missions.

Suggestion: Players who are appointed governor who haven't completed the Marquess Nation Mission should have a different title such as "Acting Governor". Thus if they are removed as governor, they return to the rank they achieved via nation missions, if any at all, and prevents the circumvention of nation missions to become king/queen or a member of the council. If the appointed governor, completes or had already completed the Marquess Nation Mission, then their title would list as just Governor.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Nah. By appointing them as a Governor the then- monarch has effectively by-passed the need of nation missions to attain that rank.

That it can then lead to later complications is a warning to monarchs but not a restriction onthat power.

[DezNutz]

Nah. By appointing them as a Governor the then- monarch has effectively by-passed the need of nation missions to attain that rank.

That it can then lead to later complications is a warning to monarchs but not a restriction onthat power.

I disagree, as it directly contradicts with how the defined titles in game work.

Additionally, if a monarch removes a player who didn't complete nation missions from the appointed governor position, they aren't entitled to any rank they haven't earned, which by be removed from the appointed governor position, they couldn't be a duke as the title of duke requires one to have completed the marquess nation mission.

[The Lamb]

Public accusations of multi-accounting are not allowed in the open forums. If you believe a player is violating game rules, please submit a report via the "Contact Us" Link at the bottom of the game screen.

Warning Issued - Dez

[Most Lee Harmless]

Dez :

Monarchs are not bound by the rules that govern commoners. A monarch may elevate a person of the lowest rank to the highest simply because they will it so. Equally, they can cast down those of the noblest birth and rank to be the lowest of the low.

That is how the Divine Right of Kings works. Now, your argument is not about the Rights of Kings and such like. Your argument is that the current workings of the game do not suit your personal agenda. In this case. Boo hoo.

[DezNutz]

Dez :

Monarchs are not bound by the rules that govern commoners. A monarch may elevate a person of the lowest rank to the highest simply because they will it so. Equally, they can cast down those of the noblest birth and rank to be the lowest of the low.

That is how the Divine Right of Kings works. Now, your argument is not about the Rights of Kings and such like. Your argument is that the current workings of the game do not suit your personal agenda. In this case. Boo hoo.

You argument is moot, because the monarch, can't remove a player as a duke/marquess down to a citizen in game.

Additionally, your rediculous assumption that my "personal agenda" is hurt because he beat out my influence is just stupid. I don't care. He becoming king broke defined game mechanics. If he completed nation missions and beat out my influence, then so be it. That's how it is supposed to work.

So either how titles work needs to be updated, or this needs to be fixed. Either way is fine.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Public accusations of multi-accounting are not allowed in the open forums. If you believe a player is violating game rules, please submit a report via the "Contact Us" Link at the bottom of the game screen.

Warning Issued - Dez

No individual.was named. Thus who has been accused? Or are even comments on the subject now banned?

Multi-accounting exists in this game. It exists in all games, openly in some. It has certainly occurred in this game in recent years. CJ has acknowledged so himself. VPN's circumvent the use of IP tracking/comparison in combatting illegal use of multiple accounts. It also frustrates tracking of account-sharing. That is a fact. How is mentioning that 'public accusation', when agsin, no individual has been named as doing so?

[Most Lee Harmless]

Dez :

Monarchs are not bound by the rules that govern commoners. A monarch may elevate a person of the lowest rank to the highest simply because they will it so. Equally, they can cast down those of the noblest birth and rank to be the lowest of the low.

That is how the Divine Right of Kings works. Now, your argument is not about the Rights of Kings and such like. Your argument is that the current workings of the game do not suit your personal agenda. In this case. Boo hoo.

You argument is moot, because the monarch, can't remove a player as a duke/marquess down to a citizen in game.

Nope, it merely shows that the past arguments in favour of allowing the monarch to remove citizenship were wrongly denied.

[DezNutz]

Nope, it merely shows that the past arguments in favour of allowing the monarch to remove citizenship were wrongly denied.

What are you talking about?

[Most Lee Harmless]

The argument is not 'moot'. It has simply been nerfed due to decisions made in the past regarding monarchical powers. Decisions which ignored historical accuracy in favour of gameplay. This matter repeats that argument : to ignore historical accuracy in favour of gameplay. Thus you arguing that a King may, or may not, have historically accurate powers is moot, the game has already denied that.


Thus the current argument is one of gameplay and the wish of some to modify the current outcomes of existing gameplay to better suit their personal agenda.