Attack your own realm for power and position

[Anaris]

Just because you personally don't like it, isn't proof that what you say can be generalized across the player population. The fact that this issue keeps cropping up is proof of that.

When Chénier and I agree on something, you can be pretty sure there's more than smoke behind it.

In this case, it seems pretty clear to us that one of the mistakes we made was in trying to subvert the realm-as-team ethos and promote intra-realm conflict through various game mechanics.

That's not to say it's absolutely wrong for the game: there are still lots of good things that can be done with it. But we took it too far, and damaged the trust and fun that people got out of having a realm that they could, 90% of the time, really consider to be on their side against the rest of the world.

[Gustav Kuriga]

When you and Chenier agree on something, all it means is just that. It isn't some magical fact checking device. Besides which, you haven't really refuted anything I said with any evidence, just restated your position on it. Restating your position isn't making it any more or less true.

[Anaris]

When you and Chenier agree on something, all it means is just that. It isn't some magical fact checking device. Besides which, you haven't really refuted anything I said with any evidence, just restated your position on it. Restating your position isn't making it any more or less true.

All right, then:

The fact that a few vocal people on the forum like intra-realm conflict isn't proof that it would be good for the game. We've seen trends in the game that point pretty convincingly to the idea that intra-realm conflict is bad for the game (and you'll just have to take my word for that). I've already given solid, logical reasons why intra-realm conflict should be bad for the game.

All you're bringing to the table is "I like intra-realm conflict, and I've seen a couple of other people say the same thing on the forum, therefore it should be added."

So please, tell me the evidence you have that makes your position so much stronger than mine.

[Chenier]

Just because you personally don't like it, isn't proof that what you say can be generalized across the player population. The fact that this issue keeps cropping up is proof of that.

Have I quit the game? Not yet. I'm not talking about myself.

However, when did we have periods where players quit en masse? Two main scenarios: GM interventions and massive betrayals.

Why? Probably partly because both result in a few (one) people having a huge say in what affects a ton of people. When GMs decide to do something, like blighting half of a continent, players really can't do much about it. Intra-realm conflicts usually end up in a similar way. If a duke decides to secede with most of the realm, what's there to do? It's basically a push-to-win button. There can be no counter-secession. The realm is broken, and it would take a very long time to recupurate the land (if possible), and the face of the nobility will be dramatically altered. When Jonsu was given reigns to SA, what could the players do about it? Nothing.

This sensation of being powerless and being at another's mercy is not people typically enjoy. And the people who undertake actions who create these scenarios are rarely praised by anyone being affected. Every time that conflicts prop up, and nothing can be done, players grow extremely frustrated, and many often leave.

The dominating philosophies in the game have changed, and it's been detrimental to overall fun. Intra-realm conflicts were promoted, because many of them were fun, but in the end, it just fostered frustration because people were out to win, not to create fun anymore. Any means were considered legitimate by some of these people looking to "shake things up". And while in inter-realm fighting, there's no single button that can instantly and irrevocably change the war, intra-realm fighting does. Dukes can secede, for example, as I've already said. Royals can't be touched, so one who wins by a fluke can do whatever the hell he wants, after, including protesting government members until they don't have the h/p to rule anymore, regardless of what anyone else in the realm thinks. Rulers can make it so that only their supporters can vote, for example the dukes. Though hardly as bad as most of the other options, rebellions can be planned to occur when the loyalists have no chance of winning (and often are). None of those are fun. All of those revolve around other people not being able to act. About power over a ton of people resting in the hands of a single person, or a very few.

Intra-realm fighting was fun while there was still a sense of unity between the parties in conflict and while the parties in question weren't ready to use all means at their disposal to "win".

But these days, it looks like winning is all people care for. The fun of others be damned. We used to have discussions and debates about what kind of IG behavior was more likely to generate the most fun. What kind of politics. The ideal political system. How to involve as many players as possible and make sure everyone was having fun. Those days are all gone. The few who care enough to actually do things rarely factor in others in their equations.

The fact that these kinds of suggestions keep coming back isn't proof of anything, other than the fact that we truly lost the team-spirit BM once had.

[Indirik]

... we truly lost the team-spirit BM once had.

+1 on this.

Too much focus on giving everyone their own shiny buttons to click. Too many attempts to give everyone power. Hell, we even forced power on people that didn't even want it! (Forcing lords to deal with food, anyone?)

People need to have a sense of "us vs. them". Introducing internal realm warfare destroys the "us". Everyone becomes a potential enemy. Any realm that tries to embrace the idea of internal conflict will find themselves shredded by the neighbor that
ruthlessly stomps out any internal dissent. (And you thought being ganged up on by three realms was bad, try doing that after one of your own dukes decided to try and force the rest of the realm to join his duchy at sword point... What fun!)

Centralizing power and control into the government does not stifle the game, causing people to quit out of boredom. It livens up the game, when those people that want power struggle and maneuver to get it. Higher density causes realms to fracture, as there aren't enough positions of power to go around. Wars abound. All those people that are bored suddenly find themselves with craploads of stuff to do, since every realm on the island is fighting for its life. And not just a polarized two factions, either. You'll get enough realms, with enough disparate interests, that you develop true dynamic political landscape.

(Anyone here still remember the CCA on Belauterra? Perfect example, as all the realms with 4 or 5 regions banded together to use their combined political clout to stave off the militaries of the larger realms. And back then, a 4 or 5 region realm wasn't a marginalized, inconsequential scrap. There were a LOT of them!)

Team spirit is important in BattleMaster. Everyone needs that sense of identity. Too much nationalism may not be truly "medieval", but neither are our players.

And yes, you do still need the few players out there to cause trouble, plot betrayals, and deceive their realm mates. A sprinkling of spices makes the stew so much better. But when all you have is spice and no stew, the result is inedible.

[Gustav Kuriga]

That's your bias, and you're welcome to it. I however find it boring. So are you saying that fun can only be one thing? You're trying to stop people from playing their own way, rather than providing benefits to playing the way you want. The difference between the two ways of getting players to play the game in the way you want to is subtle, but makes the difference between a good game and a bad one. The former makes a player feel like they have no control over their own character, and leads to boredom and frustration. The latter allows the player the freedom to make his own choices, but gives them incentive to do so in the way you want them to.

[Anaris]

So are you saying that fun can only be one thing?

Of course not.

But for a significant majority of players in BattleMaster, it's more fun to be able to trust your realm, and play as us vs them, than it is to scheme and plot and make trouble within the realm.

You feel like you need to have control over your character, and make your fun that way. That's fine, and, as Indirik indicated, we still need people who feel that way. But it's not what we're going to be focusing on at the moment, and it's not what we want the majority of players to be. (Nor is it likely that they ever would be, regardless of the kinds of changes we made to the game. That would be similar to having everyone be a Ruler and no one to rule.) Right now, what we need to do is make the main focus of the game—that is, war between realms—more fun, more engaging, and easier to pursue for all concerned. It may be that in the future we will add some more options for those who feel the need to cause trouble within the realm, but if so, it will be when we feel that the game has recovered from the serious problems it's had in recent years.

In the meantime, you can be the spice, and make the stew more interesting.

[Indirik]

That's your bias, and you're welcome to it. I however find it boring.

That makes you one of those who stir the pot.

Did you not see the part of my post where I said "you do still need the few players out there to cause trouble, plot betrayals, and deceive their realm mates"? You have to have the few players out there that want to cause trouble. You need the Bowies and the Hireshmonts. These are the people that cause the unexpected-yet-inevitable betrayals that cause major shifts in power, and overturn the status quo. Things like the Irombro secession that formed Irombrozia, and the Eno secession that formed the original Kingdom of Alluran. Or the multiple surprise secessions of Fontan city that formed the Light of Fountain (that's NOT a typo, for those that don't remember) and Confederacy of Fontan.

The problem comes when the game is formed in such a way that forces everyone to play in that sort of role. You don't *need* to be able to attack your own realm mates in order to stir the pot and cause trouble. It just allows a lot of people to be jerks and griefers, and even rewards that play style. For the few people that like that play style, it's great. For the majority of the people that *don't* like that play style, it's confusing, annoying, and un-fun.

[Chenier]

It used to be that getting a government position, or even a lordship, was extremely difficult. Perhaps too much so. I remember being among those who complained about the lack of turnover. Sometimes, people sat in the top positions forever, and never did anything. I'm not going to claim that these were the golden days were everything was perfect. It wasn't.

However, the opposite is true now. You can't even find people that WANT the government positions, or the lordships. Let alone someone who will actually care to make something of it. Often, you end up giving it to people who mean you harm, because these are the only people active enough to bother applying. Is that any fun to those they will later betray? Not really. Can the people who aren't active enough to apply be blamed? Perhaps partly. But if someone knows he won't be active enough to do a good job and create fun for others, is he really wrong not to apply?

There used to be a certain problem, and so we focused so much on correcting it we created an opposite and even more serious problem. Most of the great betrayals of the days involved a LOT of people. Now, it's mostly a very limited number of people wielding enormous power at the click of a mouse, aimed directly (and only) at those who probably trusted them.

[Zakilevo]

Not allowing immortality would have been nice ;)

[Tom]

Funnily enough, this is the exact lacking with Battlemaster that many of the people playing Might & Fealty are trying to introduce into that game, and Tom is actively encouraging it. Sooo... yeah.

Might & Fealty is a very different game, even though they look similar at the surface. But global mortality, hierarchical realms and a very different region management concept seperate them.

And the uncertainty of who your friends and enemies are is built-in with Might & Fealty, much like the team-spirit of the realm is built-in with BattleMaster. It's two different approaches, and taking one and putting it into the other is like adding power suits to Oblivion - just because they are cool in Fallout 3.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Might & Fealty is a very different game, even though they look similar at the surface. But global mortality, hierarchical realms and a very different region management concept seperate them.

And the uncertainty of who your friends and enemies are is built-in with Might & Fealty, much like the team-spirit of the realm is built-in with BattleMaster. It's two different approaches, and taking one and putting it into the other is like adding power suits to Oblivion - just because they are cool in Fallout 3.

Ah, I see. That makes sense I guess.