Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

[Lubomirski]

I feel like if Barca/Asylon/Niselur plans dont work out in the East because of lack of income/resources and their armies get wiped out that many of their nobles will quit the game.

Me personally will try and stick to the game as long as i have will to play on. But this whole situation frustrated me a lot.

THIS.

Even if Barca reestablishes itself in the west it will be a shadow of its former self.  A shame as it was one of the most vibrant realms in the game.

[Zakilevo]

Ice will probably stop advancing anytime soon. It has just went over the estimated area slightly but I don't think it will advance any farther than that.

[Antonine]

I don't see how is different now. Big realms stomp small realms right now!

Small realms without active nobles don't survive and in small realms one noble can make the difference... Big realms where only the council decide and 50 noblemen follow orders, are no much fun either.

If this was the matter, all big realms would have a steady growing in noblemen, while small realms would had disappeared... is this the case?... and  honestly, if this was the matter, why begun the number of players begin to fall??? If the number of players is the reason, and some years ago, we have the "good proportion" of them... then why begun the fall in players?

The most fun I've ever had in BM was 9 years ago when I was in a realm with so many nobles it wasn't uncommon to see 100 messages every time you logged in and that was considered normal. And the game was much more centralised back then.

And small realms have disappeared, massively so. One duchy realms used to be both commonplace and able to survive. Now they can get wiped out easily because most realms have consolidated into much larger ones.

The number of players hasn't begun to fall either - it's been in a slow and steady decline for years and years. Yes, there's been a spike in the number of players leaving the game now, but that's true of every big event in the game. When people's realms get wiped out some people quit. It's as simple as that.

On the other hand, if you look at the character density on Dwilight you can see it's gone from being just over 2 nobles per non-rogue region to over 3 nobles per non-rogue region. That's quite a good improvement, IMO.

And if people don't like being in big realms then the answer is to secede - just like people used to. The only reason we don't see secession as much nowadays is because duchies haven't got the nobles to survive as an independent realm and, if anything, increasing the noble density is likely to improve that situation.

[Indirik]

Atanamir has it right. This is the exact reason behind the shrinking.

[Poliorketes]

...The number of players hasn't begun to fall either - it's been in a slow and steady decline for years and years...

This was my question. Why the slow and steady decline??? This is the matter I don't think the shrinking is going to solve.

This "steady decline" have a cause... or we solve it, or not matter how many regions we ice, the game will not survive.

[Antonine]

This was my question. Why the slow and steady decline??? This is the matter I don't think the shrinking is going to solve.

This "steady decline" have a cause... or we solve it, or not matter how many regions we ice, the game will not survive.

Because, put simply, text based browser games aren't as popular anymore and because the kind of people who play them are often significantly older now and have more RL things consuming their time. When you can play a game like Crusader Kings 2 in multiplayer with intricate politics, rebellions, wars, alliances, etc, etc. then a lot of people are going to plump for something with shiny new graphics and which can be played on demand instead of a slower, less graphical, turn based game.

We also have, as part of this general trend, a decline in the popularity of websites and forums talking about and reviewing browser based games which means there are fewer "gateways" for people to discover Battlemaster. It's like asking why MUDs are in decline - put simply because MMORPGS like World of Warcraft came out and so new players will go for the fancy new games and it's generally only old timers who'll go for a MUD because they have direct experience of how fun it can be.

On top of that, we then had the opening of an entirely new continent at a time when the player base was already shrinking - that spread the player base out even more thinly and then we had the first estates system rolled out which, in many ways, turned the game into "Region Maintenance Master" and these two things, between them, made the game less dynamic and less fun.

So reducing the number of regions in the game to increase character density won't magically stop the decline of the player base. However, what it will do is do a lot to make the game more dynamic and fun. And if that happens then it may be possible to reverse the decline of the player base by removing many of the reasons which make people lose interest in the game.

[Antonine]

And to put this into context, I first started playing the game in something like 2004 or 2005. The internet was a very different place back then. To put it another way, I first started playing Battlemaster before MySpace became popular. That's how different things were.

In many ways, Battlemaster is a relic of an entirely different era of gaming. That's what makes it so awesome because it has elements which no other game today has. But you can't expect it to be as popular now as it was back when it was a top of the range game.

[Anaris]

On top of that, we then had the opening of an entirely new continent at a time when the player base was already shrinking

I don't believe that's quite the case—I believe that it was still growing at the time Dwilight opened, though the growth rate may have slowed.

Additionally, I believe that we could make a big difference in registration and retention if we could get a serious graphical overhaul for the game. Unfortunately, that's not something I'm qualified to do.

[OFaolain]

I don't believe that's quite the case—I believe that it was still growing at the time Dwilight opened, though the growth rate may have slowed.

Additionally, I believe that we could make a big difference in registration and retention if we could get a serious graphical overhaul for the game. Unfortunately, that's not something I'm qualified to do.

What kind of a graphical overhaul are we talking, here?

[Anaris]

What kind of a graphical overhaul are we talking, here?

If I knew that more specifically, I'd be able to do at least some of it myself ;D

Update the site's look, give it a more modern feel, while still keeping the BattleMaster aesthetic. As far as I'm concerned, nothing's off the table in terms of making the game more interesting, more fun, and more attractive to players new and old. (I won't necessarily approve any given change—but I'll certainly listen to it.)

[Dishman]

"Region Maintenance Master"

There really is no point in every person being a lord, other than some shiny buttons to press. This means people end up spreading out resources to every badland and two turn mountain region, cause everyone wants those buttons. I know it is a game and you want to take all the pieces, but it doesn't seem sound strategy. Often a city estate will offer more than any two of the realms backwater gold/food sinks.

How often are awesome recruitment centers outside a cities walls? How often are paraphernalia spread all over the place? I think Region Maintenance Master is taking away from Battlemaster in a big way.

We could have policed this as players. WE failed to do so. We all got greedy, wanted every title and medal and trinket. The freeze will help reign in the seduction of Regionmaster, and War Islands will help cure people of the terrible affliction.

[Antonine]

There really is no point in every person being a lord, other than some shiny buttons to press. This means people end up spreading out resources to every badland and two turn mountain region, cause everyone wants those buttons. I know it is a game and you want to take all the pieces, but it doesn't seem sound strategy. Often a city estate will offer more than any two of the realms backwater gold/food sinks.

How often are awesome recruitment centers outside a cities walls? How often are paraphernalia spread all over the place? I think Region Maintenance Master is taking away from Battlemaster in a big way.

We could have policed this as players. WE failed to do so. We all got greedy, wanted every title and medal and trinket. The freeze will help reign in the seduction of Regionmaster, and War Islands will help cure people of the terrible affliction.

Well Region Maintenance Master referred more to the original estate system where every knight had an estate which had to be set to support either authority or production and if you didn't have enough estates supporting both then the region stats tanked and it went rogue.

In practice, that meant it was impossible for realms to expand and that lords had to spend all their time maintaining their regions. The new system is a big improvement on that.

[Vita`]

I've given some general thoughts to a graphical redesign of BM with a bent to increasing appeal, but I don't have the graphical skills for the images nor the time to implement it. Responsive webdesign (that means no more frames/accepting a new design in menu unless someone is still in contact with that hotmail-email graphic designer credited on battlemaster.org and he wants to help) that shrinks down to comfortable mobile/tablet viewing. Distinct, recognizable logos/buttons for the sections like Information, Politics, Actions, Orders, Tournament, Prison, Religion, Command etc. Include Status in this; status's button should try to retain the text '4hrs/9g/16men' even when other menu items convert to icon-only in mobile views. Get rid of fixed status footer. Shrink menu to smaller version when doing specific tasks (news, seceding, training, preaching, telling tales, joining estates, changing realms, viewing character list, realm and regions, army info etc.). Organize menu pages' (Actions/Orders/Command etc.) links into something with more background design and link grouping shape, some images instead of only text too, but more  detailed(say some visual image on page out of a medieval-looking book) than a recognizable logo. Perhaps Can't do items as footer and  separate out elipsis links from non-elipsis and location-based items (visit guild/temple, interact with priests, advies, loot etc.)? Kill remaining tables.

[Buffalkill]

There really is no point in every person being a lord, other than some shiny buttons to press. This means people end up spreading out resources to every badland and two turn mountain region, cause everyone wants those buttons. I know it is a game and you want to take all the pieces, but it doesn't seem sound strategy. Often a city estate will offer more than any two of the realms backwater gold/food sinks.

How often are awesome recruitment centers outside a cities walls? How often are paraphernalia spread all over the place? I think Region Maintenance Master is taking away from Battlemaster in a big way.

We could have policed this as players. WE failed to do so. We all got greedy, wanted every title and medal and trinket. The freeze will help reign in the seduction of Regionmaster, and War Islands will help cure people of the terrible affliction.

I agree with you a little bit. The reason it doesn't play out this way IMO is a problem with the cost-benefit analysis. The current mechanics favour low density. For example, 'Realm A' with 12 nobles and 12 regions can have more gold, more food, more recruitment centres, and control more of the map than 'Realm B' with 12 nobles and 4 or 5 regions, and at no additional cost to Realm A. Also, the players behind Realm A will be more engaged because, as you pointed out, players do want to be more than knights.


As long as the incentives favour a Realm A type structure, Realm A will continue to be the standard model. To change this behaviour, you need to change the underlying incentives, which means there needs to be a cost, or a downside to spreading your nobles too thin like Realm A, and conversely there has to be a benefit, or upside to following the Realm B model instead of the Realm A model. That's why I think regions with too few nobles should not be able to achieve 100% productivity, loyalty, efficiency and morale. Right now, a lord with no knights can collect more gold on tax day than a lord with knights. In other words, increased density is penalized, and decreased density is rewarded.

[Dishman]

I agree with you a little bit. The reason it doesn't play out this way IMO is a problem with the cost-benefit analysis. The current mechanics favour low density. For example, 'Realm A' with 12 nobles and 12 regions can have more gold, more food, more recruitment centres, and control more of the map than 'Realm B' with 12 nobles and 4 or 5 regions, and at no additional cost to Realm A. Also, the players behind Realm A will be more engaged because, as you pointed out, players do want to be more than knights.

I would disagree. There may be a slight return on gold, but if you spread too thin you cannot project power. If realm B is heavily invested in a profitable city and surrounding rurals, it has a defensive edge and can focus effort. Not to say there isn't an edge on gaining as many gold/food producing regions, but if you have to fight tooth and nail to keep an extra 30 gold per week...it isn't worth it. I'll avoid going into more detail, don't want to derail this into a BM military theory thread, but there is power in focused effort.