Character Count

[Buffalkill]

(I'm not against it, I just don't see a reason to support it, either.)

The most compelling reason I see to support it is people want it.

Popular support does not always mean that it's a good idea.

Would you care to elaborate on why you believe it's a good idea? I'm not adverse to changing my mind, I just haven't been convinced so far. (Not that my singular voice matters in the grand scheme.)

If people want to spend more time playing your game, it's silly to tell them they can't. You want better player retention, you want people more engaged, and here people are expressing a desire to play more and you're telling them no! If Facebook had told people they could only use the site for an hour a day, they'd have never gotten the traction they did. I understand not wanting players with 2 nobles on the same continent because of the conflict of interest. I see no reason not to allow up to 1 char per continent.


I've been playing for about 6 months and have chars on 2 continents. Both are lords and one also has a govt position (actually 'had' because he just died  :( ). My advy has developed mad skills, collected a plethora of items including a unique item, and he has a decent amount of gold. I've wanted to check out other continents, but I'd have to give up my existing roles that I've invested 6 months in to do that.

[Eirikr]

That's a better explanation, but I'm curious how many other newbies (<1 year) are in the same boat. Then again, I suppose raising the cap doesn't mean the newbies will feel particularly pressured to fill said slots.

Now, I also haven't played particularly with you, but the argument could also be made that the time you spend on the game can be completely independent of character count. (Just playing Devil's Advocate here...) You can send an infinite number of letters, including roleplays when people aren't responding to you. Another possibility is that having more characters available encourages playing all of them less. If I have two characters and spend 2 hours on the game each day, a third character either increases that play time or decreases the "love" put into the other characters.

Just something to think about. I do think you're getting me on the right track, though.

[Buffalkill]

Now, I also haven't played particularly with you, but the argument could also be made that the time you spend on the game can be completely independent of character count. (Just playing Devil's Advocate here...) You can send an infinite number of letters, including roleplays when people aren't responding to you. Another possibility is that having more characters available encourages playing all of them less. If I have two characters and spend 2 hours on the game each day, a third character either increases that play time or decreases the "love" put into the other characters.

I also think players understand that their level of engagement, or lack thereof, affects how much fun they are to play with. There will always be people who are less engaging, but that's just a fact of life and rules won't change it.


It's a myth that players have a fixed amount of time for BM, or will send a fixed number of messages each day. People will make time for things that engage their interest. Moreover, the char limit is lowest for newbies who, generally speaking, have very little to do. "Older" players with higher char limits are more likely to have lordships and govt positions that require more time to play.

[Tom]

If people want to spend more time playing your game, it's silly to tell them they can't.

It's not about that. It's about keeping the game at a level where the casual players don't feel left out and utterly dominated by those who have more time.

[Buffalkill]

It's not about that. It's about keeping the game at a level where the casual players don't feel left out and utterly dominated by those who have more time.

If I'm a casual player, somebody having another char on a different continent does't affect me. If anything, it allows the power players to spread their excessive playing time out across more characters, instead of concentrating their energy in a small number of realms. And again, the char limits only disadvantage the newbies. The players that have the highest char limits are already dominating the game because they've been playing longer and they hold all the powerful positions.

[Buffalkill]

It's not about that. It's about keeping the game at a level where the casual players don't feel left out and utterly dominated by those who have more time.

Char limits might make sense if you limited the old timers' char count instead of the newbies. Right now the system is top heavy. You have a small number of veteran players with several chars occupying all the fun positions and hardly any low-level knights. In the 2 realms that I play in, the vast majority of regions only have a lord with no knights.

[Eirikr]

I also think players understand that their level of engagement, or lack thereof, affects how much fun they are to play with.

I'd hesitate to say a level of engagement has a direct connection to "fun". I'd agree it's generally the easier way to create it, but I have known several unengaging characters that end up being quite fun when they simply do something out of nowhere. To say it another way, I don't necessarily agree a player has to be particularly active to be fun to play with. Sometimes, that week of silence is topped off with a shocking turn more interesting than the treaty you've been working out.

Just a proverbial stone in my shoe.

Char limits might make sense if you limited the old timers' char count instead of the newbies. Right now the system is top heavy. You have a small number of veteran players with several chars occupying all the fun positions and hardly any low-level knights. In the 2 realms that I play in, the vast majority of regions only have a lord with no knights.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean to say here. It would sound to me like the new players are getting lordships, which are generally gateways to higher ranks. I won't disagree that, in general, longer-term players hold most of those positions and tend to stay there, but I feel like I'm missing your real point. Having more knights doesn't change the system from being top heavy, and new players in lordships would indicate to me that the median point is actually higher now than it would be with more knights.

[Geronus]

It's not about that. It's about keeping the game at a level where the casual players don't feel left out and utterly dominated by those who have more time.

This would only be a problem if those character slots could be translated into multiple characters in the same realm. At present that is limited to 2 on most islands.

Someone else made a good point also - the game already gives more character slots to the long time players. Shouldn't that have the effect that you're worrying about more so than implementing one character slot per island?

[Kwanstein]

but the argument could also be made that the time you spend on the game can be completely independent of character count. (Just playing Devil's Advocate here...) You can send an infinite number of letters, including roleplays when people aren't responding to you.

Those who write roleplays generally relate their roleplays to in-game events. The number of in-game events one experiences is related to the number of characters one has, so the more characters, the more events, the more roleplays. It is said that there is the possibility that ones effort could be diluted this way, but that is a fool notion, because generally there is not a lot going on ever. Battles happen weekly, sometimes monthly, and other diversions -- tournaments, marriages -- are even rarer. While increasing the number of players would increase the number of events any given roleplayer could write about, it would not at all dilute their effort, except in cases where the effort to begin with is exceedingly small. It is all benefit, no loss.

But it must be said that most players do not even write roleplays. For them it is fair to presume that the chief draws of this game derive from the setting and gameplay. For them there is no risk of diluting their roleplay contributions at all, as they are non-existent. Likewise there is no risk of diluting their other messages, as they are very few and very sporadic. For them there is only benefit in providing additional characters, as additional characters might provide them fuller experiences, retaining them longer and more reliably.

To play devil's advocate myself, I will say that the one reason to be weary of providing too many characters is that it can over-indulge players and spoil their appetites. Having two characters means that it will take time to experience the various things the game has to offer, and so there is a tantalizing effect that maintains a player's interest. Give the player, say, ten characters and suddenly he can experience everything at once. It is like giving him an entire cheesecake. It makes him sick of cheesecake, he wants it no more, and he leaves.

So the thing to consider is how many characters should there be to adequately engage a player's interest without spoiling him. Where to begin when deciding that? Well, the game used to provide three characters at the start and it did not cause problems as far as I am aware. That is certifiable proof that three characters is not too many. I would also add that the number three is a great number for anything.

[Buffalkill]

I'd hesitate to say a level of engagement has a direct connection to "fun". I'd agree it's generally the easier way to create it, but I have known several unengaging characters that end up being quite fun when they simply do something out of nowhere. To say it another way, I don't necessarily agree a player has to be particularly active to be fun to play with. Sometimes, that week of silence is topped off with a shocking turn more interesting than the treaty you've been working out.

No disagreement here. My point was that fun players will be fun and boring players will be boring, regardless of how many chars they play.

I won't disagree that, in general, longer-term players hold most of those positions and tend to stay there, but I feel like I'm missing your real point.

Tom said that char limits keep the game at a level where casual players don't feel left out and dominated. Well, then it's a failed policy because the most dominant players also have the most chars.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean to say here. It would sound to me like the new players are getting lordships, which are generally gateways to higher ranks.

new players in lordships would indicate to me that the median point is actually higher now than it would be with more knights.

Don't get me wrong, I was happy when my guys became lords because you get more gold and it gives you a bit more to do. But at the same time, a lord without knights is just a glorified knight. It's like being a department manager when you're the only one in the department.

Having more knights doesn't change the system from being top heavy,

Why not? It's top heavy because there are too few underlings.

[Eirikr]

Stuff

While increasing the number of players would increase the number of events any given roleplayer could write about, it would not at all dilute their effort, except in cases where the effort to begin with is exceedingly small. It is all benefit, no loss.

More stuff

(Sorry for my shortening...) Very eloquently written. Good points in there. In the specifically quoted section, I assume you meant to say "characters", not "players"? In line with this, I do want to restate my point to highlight the fact that you can create your own in-game events. There's nothing to stop you from RPing pretty much anything under the sun, excepting where you have some impact that isn't backed up by game mechanics. For example, I could always RP that I went hunting for wild game, but not that I fought a nonexistent peasant militia. (Though, if that militia is a bunch of drunken commoners in a bar, that'd be fine.)

Ergo, a player could theoretically spend infinite time on a single character. I'm sure the constant RP messages would be annoying for some recipients, but that's why I say "theoretically".

More in line with your actual point, I would disagree that bare-bones (even no messages at all) players would see only benefit and no dilution, as you put it. Even performing the actions for basic maintenance of a character takes real-world time. If a player has some kind of time limit (say, a 30-minute lunch break), it's possible they may have to sacrifice various aspects of their character maintenance to accommodate a larger number of characters. Inevitably, some characters will get more "love" than others.

But... this is all moot if we can expect the player to make a rational decision about whether or not to create another character.

Tom said that char limits keep the game at a level where casual players don't feel left out and dominated. Well, then it's a failed policy because the most dominant players also have the most chars.

It sounds like you're equating number of characters directly with success in the game. Correlation does not imply causation. I know several players who have one character in a high position, but all of their others are at the very bottom. You're right that it's probably unlikely that a strong player has only one or two characters, but I think it's a bit far to say that they're dominant just because of their character limit. Using myself as another example, my second character has been my most successful, actually leading a realm for a few years... but he got there without help from my first character. In fact, I don't think a single player in Coria had heard of my other character. (My next characters were created MUCH later.)

If I may, I'd suggest a counter-statement: The most dominant players are generally the most outgoing. Casual players could be defined as those less outgoing, maybe, but other than handing out lordships at random, I don't see why you'd give a completely silent character a government position.

Why not? It's top heavy because there are too few underlings.

I'm not sure I follow the logic. Having more underlings doesn't create more avenues to the top unless they're all actively trying to topple things... Which has not been the case in BM. Then again, I am running under the assumption that you mean things are top heavy because there's little flux at the upper ranks. I'd thought you had identified the problem as being older players holding power, thereby stagnating the game for newbies?

Of course, if you're just referring to population, then yes, you'd be right. Adding more knights would create a proper pyramid of power and population, but it would do little to make it cycle.

[Buffalkill]

It sounds like you're equating number of characters directly with success in the game.

No.

I am running under the assumption that you mean things are top heavy because there's little flux at the upper ranks.

No. It's top heavy because there are too few chars in the bottom ranks.

If I may, I'd suggest a counter-statement: The most dominant players are generally the most outgoing. Casual players could be defined as those less outgoing, maybe, but other than handing out lordships at random, I don't see why you'd give a completely silent character a government position.

Your argument is with Tom, not with me, because Tom (not me) said that the purpose of the char limits is so that casual players will not feel dominated. I merely pointed out that the existing rules don't achieve that end. Full stop.

but I think it's a bit far to say that they're dominant just because of their character limit.

Again, you're talking to the wrong guy.

I'd thought you had identified the problem as being older players holding power, thereby stagnating the game for newbies?

No. The problem is too few people at the bottom. And who has the strictest char limits? The people at the bottom. Increase the number of chars at the bottom by relaxing the char limits on newbies.

[Jaden]

No. The problem is too few people at the bottom. And who has the strictest char limits? The people at the bottom. Increase the number of chars at the bottom by relaxing the char limits on newbies.

Yup exactly. This thread is asking for the 3 starting nobles for new players to be given back, and not asking for a general increase in active characters.

[egamma]

If people want to spend more time playing your game, it's silly to tell them they can't.

We want people to play the characters they have. Not in a button-pushing sort of way, but they could be writing letters, forming alliances, informing their liege as to what they are up to, etc. Playing 3 silent drones instead of 2 silent drones isn't much of an improvement.

[Jaden]

I disagree with that. Some people enjoy playing as a drone, I played as a drone for 6 years and only got into the game because one of my realms was falling apart. Drones are still players that BM sorely needs, and giving them more characters =  more chance for stuff to happen and for them to stay in the game.

And opening up an extra slot is not going to make people suddenly ignore their other 2 characters. If they have limited time, it is much more likely that they will spend much less time on the third character or not even bother to create the 3rd character. We are just giving the option to people who have the time.

Some people just find it hard to fit in particular realms, and then there's a difference in opportunity with different characters. there is just more chances for you to be more involved in the game when you play 3 nobles rather than 2 nobles.