Knight/Region Density/Efficiency

[Sacha]

Well, I haven't played very intensely lately so I could have just missed the getting better phase. Though I distinctly remember leaving for a while after nearly every realm I was in was either dead quiet, or afraid to do anything remotely risky/interesting because it would supposedly ruin their own lands somehow.

I suppose most of the complaining happens here though, in concentrated doses. But when I see a thread go on for 15 pages about optimal taxation or some such nonsense... Eugh.

[Chenier]

I'm with Indirik on this one. People used to be obsessed with having 100%. Now that most people don't have a clue what the real percentage is, they can obsess only for the best descriptor, without bothering for the final few %s.

Letting productivity drop, when taxes were realm-wide, was basically a crime against the realm.

If some realms are afraid to act, I wouldn't blame it on the culture of players becoming more obsessed, but rather with the general decrease in density and thus increase in realms with ridiculously low densities. Overstretched empires become extremely fragile.

[Indirik]

Overstretched empires become extremely fragile.

Unfortunately, this is true. A realm with low density is very fragile. Realms with higher density have more resilience, and thus can do more without as much risk. These realms are generally successful, which leads to their density going down, and thus circling back to fragile... bummer.

Anyway, I'm having a lot more fun in Eponllyn, with higher density and more conflict, than I was in many other, more secure realms.

[Vita`]

So give your knights something to do: Start a war.

BattleMaster simply cannot provide enough "excitement" to being a plain old knight to keep players interested in being a knight. Oh sure, we can provide a few buildings on their estate that they can build, or maybe implement the "hunt" thing that seems to have gathered so much interest. But estates are a short-term thing. Once you build your three or four buildings, then that three days of fun is over and done with, and it's time to move on. Hunts may provide an alternate means of gaining some h/p to people who don't have a war available.

But none of that will provide long term excitement and engagement for  the players. The only way that players can have engagement in the game is through interaction with other players. The best and most important way for that to happen is through player-drive conflict. If the leaders in realms are content to sit at peace and do nothing, secure in their alliances and friendships, then there is nothing that the game can do to keep those players engaged.

The players must provide the engagement and entertainment for other players.

And this is what I credit to the success of Thalmarkin and Luria Nova - they actively go out and seek wars rather than sit around.

[Jens Namtrah]

And this is what I credit to the success of Thalmarkin and Luria Nova - they actively go out and seek wars rather than sit around.

No one will ever go for this, but I seriously think it is time for Tom to send letters out to the players of rulers/council members who have held their positions for more than 5 years and say, "I think it's time for you to step down now". Obviously I'm thinking more about Atamara, but the same probably goes for other places. Perhaps he just wants to review and be selective about "problem areas"

You simply aren't going to get the level of dynamics needed if you have a small group of people running things who are all life-long buddies & have no personal interest in changing the status quo, with "knights & lords" who find it easier to just stop logging in than try to buck the system.

[Indirik]

Out of curiosity, do you know how long the current rulers on AT have been in office?

[Jens Namtrah]

Interestingly, except for one realm, not so long anymore. The problem seems to have finally cleaned itself out a bit with the disappearance of Ottar, Sordnaz, etc.

The Talerium / Darkan corner is still the same. I don't have time to try to look at all the Councils & Dukes, which is where the real problem lies, I suspect. If the mindset of the controlling group is all the same, it doesn't matter as much if they change figureheads from time to time.

What I DO know is I'm watching a lot of new players join, be very active for a while, then become vocally bored, then go inactive. There's a lot of talk of new estate system, war packages, etc but I think everyone is ignoring the effect on retention when a clear message is sent out that for new players who are unlucky enough to join a old realm, after the first month they've done everything they are going to be able to do in the game.

Yes, some will get lucky and discover better places to go, but many others will simply quit. If you put hours and hours of time into coding and then simply ignore that idea of sending a letter saying "your realm isn't dynamic enough and it is hurting all our efforts to make this game fun for everyone - make some changes to be more inclusive", you're doing your efforts an injustice

[Chenier]

Length of time in power is not a good indicator of (lack of) effort in spreading the fun.

[Jens Namtrah]

No, probably not. The problem is like Art - you know it when you see it.

In a different thread I will suggest some other ways of dealing with it, but one thing is for sure - there is little point in all the other code fixes if we are allowing realms to be run in a way that discourages players from sticking around.

[Shulee]

I've been part of this game for slightly over a year now. I hardly participate on these forums as so often it appears to an internal conversation between old vets who have selected sides long ago and still hang on to them.

I can't agree enough with the view that those in leadership roles have a responsibility to ensure that the game is fun for more than just themselves. Recently, I had just such a person inform me, after I pointed out how terrible some (all) of his decisions were in game, that he was more interested in the setting for his extended RP messages than getting his decisions and orders right for the rest of us (I'm not quoting but relating the spirit of his comments). Balderdash.

If this game wants to retain people and attract more new people it needs to recognize that stagnant or selfish leadership isn't leadership just solipsism. You won't get a multi-player team-based game that way.

[Chenier]

It used to be that all realms everywhere had massive amounts of nobles... and yet upwards mobility was almost always practically impossible, those in leadership stayed there for a very long time, and often seemed to make little effort to spread the fun or take into consideration new players.

The equation of "horizontal power distribution = more fun = more players" does not seem to hold up with the game's history. If anything, we have seen that as the average ruler time in office and time for a new player to get a title decreased, the player base shrank and complaints about the knight game not being fun enough increased.

I used to be extremely critical of the old leadership, when I was newer in this game. But why is it that these days were the game's most active and populous?

I'm not saying no other factors come into consideration, nor am I saying that we'd fix the game's problems by having more forever-ruling inactive leaders, but to blame the game's woes on these people when they have never been fewer seems misplaced.

[Anaris]

It used to be that all realms everywhere had massive amounts of nobles... and yet upwards mobility was almost always practically impossible, those in leadership stayed there for a very long time, and often seemed to make little effort to spread the fun or take into consideration new players.

The equation of "horizontal power distribution = more fun = more players" does not seem to hold up with the game's history. If anything, we have seen that as the average ruler time in office and time for a new player to get a title decreased, the player base shrank and complaints about the knight game not being fun enough increased.

I think you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In fact, I think the player base shrinking was itself the cause for the ruler time in office and time for new players to get a title decreasing. I think that the decrease in fun in general was partly to blame for the shrinkage, but I don't think there's much you can really lay at the feet of more council-level turnover on that front.

[Jens Namtrah]

I think you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In fact, I think the player base shrinking was itself the cause for the ruler time in office and time for new players to get a title decreasing. I think that the decrease in fun in general was partly to blame for the shrinkage, but I don't think there's much you can really lay at the feet of more council-level turnover on that front.

First part - yes, exactly.

Second part - we still have groups of players who only share the game among themselves. We need to split this thread and discuss ways of dealing with that.

[Chenier]

I think you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In fact, I think the player base shrinking was itself the cause for the ruler time in office and time for new players to get a title decreasing. I think that the decrease in fun in general was partly to blame for the shrinkage, but I don't think there's much you can really lay at the feet of more council-level turnover on that front.

My point was that if player fun and numbers could be linked to rulership activity and turnover, either it was the opposite of what people claimed (and what seemed logical), or the causation was too weak to compensate for other game changes.

I think it'd be preposterous to claim that the old system with auto-votes and the age-long rulers who never did anything fun and stayed in place thanks to people never bothering to change their votes was more fun than what we have now, and that an increase in turnover made the game less fun. But if you look at the history of fun/player numbers and stagnant leadership/turnover, the claim that we must crack down on current realm leaders is largely unfounded. OOC persecution of players, solely off their IG success, is not going to fix the game.

[Jens Namtrah]

yes, but we've already moved on from that, and if you read carefully, that was never actually what was being proposed.