New Estate System

[LilWolf]

Pretty much.   I would never touch EC or Atamara.

At this point I play to play on dwilight and cause I have some character history on FEI.  otherwise. . yea.   Dwilight kept and keeps me playing.

I'd never play on Colonies or FEI. There are people who'd never play on Dwilight. There are people who think Dwilight is boring and Atamara and EC are awesome. Really, this is an argument that could go on forever and lead to nothing useful.

It is also a discussion that has nothing to do with the new estates so..split to different topic by a mod?

[Kain]

We did have a vote on favourite continent. While my favourite is still EC, Dwilight won that vote by about twice as much votes as the runner up.

Would be kind of strange to close the most popular continent.

[JPierreD]

Blaming Dwilight not how other continents suck makes no sense. I am currently playing in it, and also in Atamara and FEI, but I would not be playing in any of them if it were not for Dwilight.

[Nosferatus]

just give us a hell o an invasion we won't probably survive, meaning, delete beluaterra if we fail and by the time, also invade EC.
After the ibladesh war, Ec will probably deteriorate again.
We all loved EC and the long history it has, yet if there is going to be a continent deleted i'd say one of the two.
I never liked Atamara, so my opinion would be too biased.

[Draco Tanos]

I love East Continent.  I love Beluaterra.  I detested Dwilight and FEI.  Never really got into Atmara and I've never tried the Colonies.  If BT and EC were closed, I know a lot of players would leave the game.

[De-Legro]

I love East Continent.  I love Beluaterra.  I detested Dwilight and FEI.  Never really got into Atmara and I've never tried the Colonies.  If BT and EC were closed, I know a lot of players would leave the game.

Of course, the same is true of ALL the islands. If the islands didn't have fans, they would be empty. Simple logic really.

[vonGenf]

If you consider it a "problem" that 5 players can't rule 20 regions, you're playing the wrong game.

I don't consider it a problem; you do. When a realm wins wars, it takes regions. When it takes over regions, its noble base spread thin. Then it can't take regions anymore. It has won, and it can't expand anymore, yet TMP kicks in.

TMP would bother me a lot less if realms had reasonable expectations of expansion. Conversely, limitations on expansion would bother me a lot less if the game didn't insist that having won a war is somehow wrong unless you start another one within 10 days for no reason whatsoever.

And I know that I haven't yet tried the new estates and that they seem to work rather in the way I would like and will not kill realms with low noble count, and I know TMP is being worked upon, and I know these things take time and I understand. But when I see statements like these, I worry because I feel I don't even understand the direction in which you want to go.

[Nosferatus]

When a realm wins wars, it takes regions. When it takes over regions, its noble base spread thin. Then it can't take regions anymore. It has won, and it can't expand anymore.

But you CAN loot some regions ;)

Its one of the most important aspects of the game that you can't expand limitless, or else you'd turn bm into a game you could win (rule the entire continent with your friends and kick all other characters/players out.

also don't be afraid to have a decent war declaration for change.
Which states for example that you intent only to fight there armies and deplete there resources, not take there lands, no allies can join, etc and state what the goal of the war is.

The game more then allows constant war and fun even if you can't expand anymore.
There is no game mechanics that hold you back, (except bugs and tmp perhaps) so no excuse.
Besides looting is much more fun than maintaining regions... :P

[Tom]

The game has became a bit too complicated for people looking for a light text based game?

Which is one of the reasons why the new estate system is a ton simpler than the old one. The new tax system is a lot simpler. The new hierarchy is a lot simpler.

[Tom]

I don't consider it a problem; you do. When a realm wins wars, it takes regions. When it takes over regions, its noble base spread thin. Then it can't take regions anymore. It has won, and it can't expand anymore, yet TMP kicks in.

It has bugged me for a long time that people think expansion is the only reason for war. Several realms I ruled had plenty of war and very little expansion. We fought for loot, we fought because we liked fighting, and sometimes we fought simply to kick someone's ass and teach them who's boss.

[vonGenf]

We fought for loot, we fought because we liked fighting, and sometimes we fought simply to kick someone's ass and teach them who's boss.

Well, this has nothing to do with the estates, but to answer your comment:

Yes, there are plenty of reasons to fight, and I agree with all of them. If you want to have  SMA atmosphere, however, you need to at least envision the possibility of winning. As you say, winning does not only mean expanding; however unless you RP your realm as a bunch of barbarians (which is fine, but not everyone should do it), then fighting for the sake of fighting does not work either.

If I take the example of Morek, we've fought for expansion, we've fought for defense, we've fought to impose our views on other realms, we've fought to shape continental policies, and we've fought just to show who's the boss. And it worked. We don't need to fight to show who's the boss when our neighbors do everything we want them to do, don't we? Should we remove the ruler of a neighboring realm whom we like to have it replaced by one we don't like, only to start a war and put the old ruler back in place? No, of course, this goal is already achieved.

There are many reasons to fight wars, but expansion is the only one that is situation-independent. All the other reasons can exist, and do exist, and we act on them when they do, and we provoke them when they don't, but respecting SMA. But you shouldn't need to provoke a desire for expansion. It should be always there as a gnawing feeling in the back of your head: you are not strong enough, and if you were stronger you'd be better off. There should always be room to grow.

[Shenron]

It has bugged me for a long time that people think expansion is the only reason for war. Several realms I ruled had plenty of war and very little expansion. We fought for loot, we fought because we liked fighting, and sometimes we fought simply to kick someone's ass and teach them who's boss.

But expansion is still a very legitimate reason for war and TMP punishes it.

Nice forum theme btw.

[fodder]

why does tmp punish expansion?

[Tom]

There are many reasons to fight wars, but expansion is the only one that is situation-independent.

I disagree. Expansion is situation-dependent, too - the situation is a need or desire to expand. Historically, very few realms have expanded just because they could. There was always some kind of pressure - overpopulation, politics, need to secure access to resources, etc.

We've tried adding resources before. Maybe we should have another go at that. Without the whole trading thing. That's another aspect of the game I'm no longer sure about. Maybe adding trade was an overcomplication that doesn't really add to the game?

[vonGenf]

I disagree. Expansion is situation-dependent, too - the situation is a need or desire to expand. Historically, very few realms have expanded just because they could. There was always some kind of pressure - overpopulation, politics, need to secure access to resources, etc.

I was thinking more in terms of gameplay. Historically, many realms would have peace for long stretches of time until such pressure occurred; that's also the kind of thing that makes for poor gameplay.