In at least a couple cases, I have some disagreement with your summation. You even acknowledge that there were, in fact, code changes that "resulted in the undesired state of affairs":
Yeah; I thought about adding something along the lines of "and a few others." Not sure why I ended up not doing so
There are a few other changes that altered the philosophy of the game. The entire Orders experiment was a big one. That change, though rolled back, was a major shift on the way in which players approached the military command element of the game. It almost single-handedly placed the burden of command on Marshals alone, mostly cut generals out of the loop, and overloaded those few players who actively tried to get into the philosophy that was being pushed on them. Instead of cooperative committees, you placed the entire burden of command on one single person: The Marshal of the army. We then reinforced that with things such as taking away red paper, threatening lightening bolts on people that didn't follow the game-enforced command structure, and even completely removing the ability of the general to even see the status of any army of which he was not the marshal/vice-marshal.
Yep. That's been a big contributor to the burnout problem, no question. I guess I wasn't thinking along those lines because I was trying to look at actual feature changes that we stuck with, stuff that we could still remove now and (hypothetically) improve things by their absence. But yeah, that really caused some problems.
I'm not exactly sure how to fix it, but one idea that's come to me is a feature we've talked about a number of times, and Tom has even approved in principle: game-recognized Councils, such as a Military Council.
And what if we were to give the Military Council—and anyone on it—the ability to send orders to any army in the realm?
It seems to me that would help to give a strong signal to the players that not only is it OK for someone other than the Marshal to be giving orders, it is actively encouraged. Particularly with some of the changes we're already considering that would the Marshal's ability to order specialized formations more important, I think declaring that the Marshal's focus should be tactics, rather than always giving out the daily orders, might be the way to go forward with this.
We have also systematically diffused the concentration of power in the interest of trying to spread it out among more players. We even went so far as to cram it down the throats of people that didn't want it. Food, anyone? We've only recently turned that back around, at least a bit, to let the realms centralize food control again. We've taken away traditional powers, and either spread them out, or outright gotten rid of them. How about generals and rulers that can't sponsor armies? (Unless they happen to be region lords. Or are already an army sponsor, in which case they can sponsor as many more as they want.) Generals that can't see army status. Vice Marshals that couldn't set formations. Bankers that can't set tax rates. Judges that couldn't ban people because of "good marks". Judges that are afraid of punishing people because they think that they'll get bolted for damn near anything they do.
Oddly enough, this is going generally in exactly the opposite direction from the previous change.
The army sponsorship thing I have always seen as a bug. First of all, either Rulers and Generals should be able to sponsor armies or not, period, end of story. The fact that some are "grandfathered" in should mean that all should simply have the option available to them. I never really understood Tom's logic in trying to take that away from them.
I agree that it's best for Vice-Marshals to be able to set formations. (Though I don't recall offhand if they can at this point or not...)
Given the structure of the current system, I honestly can't see what taxes the Banker should be able to set. Unless you want to argue that, though the Ruler is the titular head of the feudal hierarchy, the Banker is his "hands" in matters of money, and thus should be able to set the crown's tax rate on Duchies.
Good and bad marks were an interesting system, but I think they went too far.
Judges being afraid to ban people for fear of bolts or violating IR is, frankly, largely an issue among player culture, not something that the devs or our policies are directly responsible for. There is a subset of our players who actively scaremonger about the big bad Titans/GMs, using them as a boogeyman to show how oppressed and persecuted they or their group is. I don't think there's been an actual lightning bolting—let alone a storm, which is when it actually kills the character—for at least five years now. (And that's a pretty arbitrary number, because the last one I can actually
remember was when the ruler of Luz de Bia was bolted—wounded for one turn, immediately re-elected due to the insta-elections bug—for moving the capital of their realm to Grehk during their war against Riombara back in...I want to say 2006? ...Yep, the Wiki says 2006.)
Honestly, I don't think there's a way to completely fix this particular problem, as long as there are people in the game who believe it is to their advantage to continue to use the idea of lightning bolts as a boogeyman, and people who have bought into the idea and continue to perpetuate it simply because they don't know any better. After all, this is the kind of thing that if we
say we're not going to bolt you for any arbitrary issue, that
clearly means we're just waiting, hoping for some infraction that crosses our invisible line just a hair so we can bolt them. (To the people who believe the "GMs" are all out to get them, that is.)
It's not always just one specific feature or change that causes things to radically alter the way that players perceive or play the game. Sometimes it's a whole series of changes that, in aggregate, add up to a significant change.
Certainly. But if we're thoughtful and careful, I believe we can use this effect to our—and the game's—advantage, rather than its detriment.
