The Realm as a Team

[Heq]

Really, if you start in a Theocratic realm you should start as that religion, especially if a new family.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

My point wasn't to say that you had to fight other realms all the time. Even mundane and simple goals would suffice to engender a stronger realm identity.

I think that if we were to take a poll among the active players on this forum, our spread might be interesting as we ask about just which identity we assert primarily. I really think that as we get more experience, we understand the different things going on in our part of BM, and learn how to manipulate them. But I also think with that comes a sort of blinder that makes us less aware that the vast majority of newer players have not the slightest clue about such complexities, and might even think we're just stringing them along like puppets. Then again, they might not be incorrect in that assessment either.

Perhaps we who have been around for a while should step back a moment and assess ourselves and what we've done in this game. What role do we really want to play in the future of this game? I don't mean stupid petty things like character goals. Sure, you probably think they're big deals, but guess what? Truth is, if BM itself disappears all your characters' goals are worthless and pointless because you'd have no BM in the first place. While this is an outcome far into the future, the question is how quickly do you want to bring it about?

You are allowed to play your characters the way you want, obviously. But at the same time, I cannot see how truly "right" it would be to allow such characters to have responsibility over the enjoyment of other players. Seriously, for those of you who are skeptical: If your character is a leader in your realm, you are responsible for the enjoyment of this game by the other players. We're not talking just characters here. You're supposed to make sure that the players are satisfied with the results they get. Of course if they play !@#$%^& characters then they get what they deserve, usually banishment, but I mean for the majority of players who aren't !@#$%^&s. I hope we all realize that it's true, most BM players aren't scheming lying jerks.

So it comes down to a question of just what we would like to do for this game. Sure, we can certainly go on with our selfish and smaller faction politics. That, I believe, will lead down a steady road to the point where BM ceases to be a viable online game. In that case, all your scheming would be a pathetic waste of time as you'd be better off writing a self-insert fanfic with you as the protagonist winning all the time. Apologies for the harsh hyperbole, but I thought the point should be fairly stressed, especially since there are likely some who are deadset in pursuing their own selfish goals. With regrets I admit that at one point I was among them, but I have since come to a certain different thought about just what role I wish to play in this game.

Basically, if you're going to lead people, don't be a jerk about it. If you're going to be a jerk, and the realm actually places you in power, then that's too bad for the realm I suppose. But still, try to accept the heavy responsibility that comes with positions. Such things make me wonder whether a lot of players view positions more as things to brag about or rewards, rather than actually relevant and involved obligations. Those positions shouldn't just be pretty titles, so I would imagine.

[Vellos]

Let's repeat things we concur are good ideas:
1. Official realm goals- For regularly-elected realms, only changeable at elections. For less-regularly-elected realms, perhaps make them "periodically" changeable.
Unresolved issues- Should these goals be mechanical (preset list of 20 goals, you pick'em, and the game sends out a message if/when they are achieved... or, at election/goal review time, a message noting your failure) or should they be freeform? Pro for mechanical: creates a strong mechanics-backed sense of team objectives and whether they are met or not. Con for mechanical: pain to code, not flexible, might not reflect real game concerns. Pro for freeform: opposite of con for mechanical. Con for freeform: opposite of pro for mechanical.

2. Religious power- We are agreed a realm/religious connection needs to exist.
State religion- Do we agree a state religion "option" should be available (required for theocracies?)? That option could be a "text only" option. It's just "FYI." Or, it could be more significant, with "state religion" creating automatic religious tensions, or maybe restrictions on running for elections or getting lordships? Maybe grant auto-claims to regions for full members?
Unresolved issue- Exactly what effect should a state religion have?
Religious diplomacy- Connected to state religion but not necessarily identical: make realms suffer for alliances with religious opponents of dominant religions in domestic territories. Unresolved issue is mostly coding.

3. Layered map- We want a simple, color-coded diplomatic map of each continent. The issue here is just the coding/graphics.

And the "royal levy" was also proposed, but had little discussion.

So, let's refine those ideas, or else find new ideas aimed at promoting team play.

On another note, this thread is not for discussion of whether inter-realm or intra-realm conflict is better. It's about how we can promote team spirit. For the purposes of this thread, that objective is regarded as a "given" good. Let's work out what could promote team play, and do that.

[Anaris]

3. Layered map- We want a simple, color-coded diplomatic map of each continent. The issue here is just the coding/graphics.

Actually, the issue here is primarily the lack of an SVG-based map, or other programmatic description of the shapes of regions, for each continent.  If I had that, it would only take me a few hours to code up various useful overlays.

[vonGenf]

Let's repeat things we concur are good ideas:
1. Official realm goals- For regularly-elected realms, only changeable at elections. For less-regularly-elected realms, perhaps make them "periodically" changeable.
Unresolved issues- Should these goals be mechanical (preset list of 20 goals, you pick'em, and the game sends out a message if/when they are achieved... or, at election/goal review time, a message noting your failure) or should they be freeform? Pro for mechanical: creates a strong mechanics-backed sense of team objectives and whether they are met or not. Con for mechanical: pain to code, not flexible, might not reflect real game concerns. Pro for freeform: opposite of con for mechanical. Con for freeform: opposite of pro for mechanical.

I think a preset list would be way too restricted. There should be at least an additional freeform field added. Also, if there is a game mechanic reward for fulfilling goals, then there will be an incentive to pick easy goals.

But, yeah, I kind of like this.

On another note, this thread is not for discussion of whether inter-realm or intra-realm conflict is better. It's about how we can promote team spirit. For the purposes of this thread, that objective is regarded as a "given" good. Let's work out what could promote team play, and do that.

Honestly, I am trying to promote team play. I feel restricting "team play" to realm-only would remove team play from the game. I want to avoid that.

[Indirik]

Let's repeat things we concur are good ideas:
1. Official realm goals- For regularly-elected realms, only changeable at elections. For less-regularly-elected realms, perhaps make them "periodically" changeable.
Unresolved issues- Should these goals be mechanical (preset list of 20 goals, you pick'em, and the game sends out a message if/when they are achieved... or, at election/goal review time, a message noting your failure) or should they be freeform? Pro for mechanical: creates a strong mechanics-backed sense of team objectives and whether they are met or not. Con for mechanical: pain to code, not flexible, might not reflect real game concerns. Pro for freeform: opposite of con for mechanical. Con for freeform: opposite of pro for mechanical.

I don't think I'm a big fan of these. Especially if it is some kind of checklist where candidates just click checkboxes from a set of pre-generated options. I think game mechanics criteria would lead to gaming the system, where people will do things that don't make sense for their character/realm/situation just to meet some mechanics-based trigger point. I really don't like things that promote that kind of play.

[Indirik]

2. Religious power- We are agreed a realm/religious connection needs to exist.
State religion- Do we agree a state religion "option" should be available (required for theocracies?)? That option could be a "text only" option. It's just "FYI." Or, it could be more significant, with "state religion" creating automatic religious tensions, or maybe restrictions on running for elections or getting lordships? Maybe grant auto-claims to regions for full members?

Definitely should be required for a theocracy. That's kind of the point of a theocracy, isn't it? If you're theocracy and there is no specified state religion, then you should start getting increasingly worse region stat penalties and unrest as the peasants realize you're just jerking them around with all the theocracy stuff. And it should be *required* to be an actual, officially established in-game religion. And if that religion should happen to be lost while the realm still lives, then there should be some *major* penalties. (And come to think of it, this should apply to any realm that has an official state religion, too.)

[Anaris]

1. Official realm goals- For regularly-elected realms, only changeable at elections. For less-regularly-elected realms, perhaps make them "periodically" changeable.
Unresolved issues- Should these goals be mechanical (preset list of 20 goals, you pick'em, and the game sends out a message if/when they are achieved... or, at election/goal review time, a message noting your failure) or should they be freeform? Pro for mechanical: creates a strong mechanics-backed sense of team objectives and whether they are met or not. Con for mechanical: pain to code, not flexible, might not reflect real game concerns. Pro for freeform: opposite of con for mechanical. Con for freeform: opposite of pro for mechanical.

I don't think I'm a big fan of these. Especially if it is some kind of checklist where candidates just click checkboxes from a set of pre-generated options. I think game mechanics criteria would lead to gaming the system, where people will do things that don't make sense for their character/realm/situation just to meet some mechanics-based trigger point. I really don't like things that promote that kind of play.

If I were to implement something like this, there would be a sliding scale of "reward" (which might just be a notification of how impressive an achievement is that you have, um, achieved) based on how far away from a given goal the game judges you to be when you set it.  So if you set as a goal to control 15 regions, and you control 14, it wouldn't get you much.  But if you only control 10, it would acknowledge that as being a far more ambitious goal.

Bearing in mind, of course, that this is all just vague top-of-my-head brainstorming about how such a feature might work, in theory.

[Longmane]

2. Religious power- We are agreed a realm/religious connection needs to exist.
State religion- Do we agree a state religion "option" should be available (required for theocracies?)? That option could be a "text only" option. It's just "FYI." Or, it could be more significant, with "state religion" creating automatic religious tensions, or maybe restrictions on running for elections or getting lordships? Maybe grant auto-claims to regions for full members?
Unresolved issue- Exactly what effect should a state religion have?
Religious diplomacy- Connected to state religion but not necessarily identical: make realms suffer for alliances with religious opponents of dominant religions in domestic territories. Unresolved issue is mostly coding.

Apart from the restrictions on running for elections etc, I'm of the mind this would not only succeed in reinforcing the spirit of unity within a realm, but likewise add another twist when need work out your realms diplomatic strategies.

I also think the religious slant offers great scope for the creation of secular armies within the realm, ie although any noble can join it's bog standard army only followers of the state religion would be admitted to it's best, the holy orders.

[Darksun]

2. Religious power- We are agreed a realm/religious connection needs to exist.
State religion- Do we agree a state religion "option" should be available (required for theocracies?)? That option could be a "text only" option. It's just "FYI." Or, it could be more significant, with "state religion" creating automatic religious tensions, or maybe restrictions on running for elections or getting lordships? Maybe grant auto-claims to regions for full members?
Unresolved issue- Exactly what effect should a state religion have?
Religious diplomacy- Connected to state religion but not necessarily identical: make realms suffer for alliances with religious opponents of dominant religions in domestic territories. Unresolved issue is mostly coding.

I absolutely think this is a grand idea.

If declared, a state religion would automatically align all nobles within the realm to a religion. They would be free to role play just lip service to the faith, but they would officially be counted on its rolls. You don't like it? Find a new realm - hopefully one without a state religion. Peasants would still need to be converted by the clergy though - they breed like rabbits and this faith stuff is hard for them to understand since they can't read or write.

If the Crown attempts to change the state religion the rebellion mechanism kicks in. I'm sure that the text can be tweaked appropriately. If the nobility loses faith and wishes to do away with the state religion, they can form a rebellion.

State religions increase the unity of the realm, and as such should require fewer nobles to control the population. This could be accomplished by applying a bonus to both Production and Authority through the Lord's estate (instead of just setting one), providing a bonus for each estate wherever it decided to focus, reducing the overall units required for Production and Authority, or allowing Temples to act as additional estates within the region. To balance this, there is already the power that the Clergy wield over the faithful and the diplomatic issues already discussed.

Would you be willing to throw away an alliance for a secure border in order to increase your internal control? I guess that depends on the realm, which in my mind, makes for more interesting and varied team play.

[Shenron]

I'll start the discussion with three proposals:
1. State religion- Make a game function to declare a "state religion." Regions with a majority of that religion get bonuses. However, any peasants present of another religion will become "evil" (even pagans!). Meaning that declaring a state religion will create riots, and an enemy priest could comparatively easily cause havoc simply by preaching. Maybe even allow some "tax share" for the religion? Not sure how that would work? This would make religious diversity more difficult, but also help inculcate a stronger sense of the realm as a cohesive unit (think "Christendom").

2. Royal levy- Ruler can exercise a special tax directly on a region while in that region. Meaning that a royal sitting in a rich city could take money directly. This would strengthen the ruler.

I really like these. State religion should have been put in a while ago imho (or should be planned to be added already) and the royal levy is really cool. I've felt that rulers really lack balls in BM. While I think the power of the dukes should not be diminished, the ruler should have some sort of financial backing that doesn't rely on the banker.

[dustole]

In History almost all Rulers /were/ Dukes/Duchess'.  In BM if you want to be a Ruler and /not/ a Duke you absolutely have to have loyal Dukes.  I think the position of Ruler used to be more powerful.   It was probably nerfed for a reason.   Was anyone around way back in the day?  Are the reasons for reducing the power of the Ruler still valid today?

[Vellos]

Rulers were reduced not so much intentionally, but coincidentally.

We wanted more powers for dukes and lords, and that made rulers proportionately less powerful. The ruler's giant power-tool, "Question nobility" was removed due to misunderstanding and abuse.

[Vellos]

If I were to implement something like this, there would be a sliding scale of "reward" (which might just be a notification of how impressive an achievement is that you have, um, achieved) based on how far away from a given goal the game judges you to be when you set it.  So if you set as a goal to control 15 regions, and you control 14, it wouldn't get you much.  But if you only control 10, it would acknowledge that as being a far more ambitious goal.

Bearing in mind, of course, that this is all just vague top-of-my-head brainstorming about how such a feature might work, in theory.

That is how I imagined it as well. Small goals get small rewards. Big goals get big rewards. So if your goal is to double your realm size, achieving it might, say, give a "small investment" (say, 50 gold) in every region. Or maybe give the ruler/general/banker/judge/whoever set the goal a fame point. Or maybe give H/P to everyone in the realm. Or maybe add a description to the realm's brief description for realm-selection for new characters" Glorious, poor, effective at accomplishing goals, etc..." Or maybe improve realm control/loyalty/morale.

Who knows?

But, again, mechanics based goals:
1. Are not essential to the idea. I think we are all agreed that even freeform goals would help.
2. Could be added later. Once a "goals" field exists, we could later brainstorm about what a set of mechanical goals could look like and what reasonable rewards could be, or if even such a thing is possible.

I'll let this proposal sit for a few more days, and then write a feature request.

[cjnodell]

I would rather have more free form goals and see success/failure rewarded by other characters and not some auto mechnic thing.