Character limit changes

[Indirik]

We've tried delayed scout reports before, and they were a disaster. True, they were delayed by a full turn, but a disaster. Delaying anything will be universally despised, and also be a huge disadvantage for everyone who can't play multiple times per turn. This would make it extremely important for people to log in at specific times. It simply won't happen.

[Gabanus family]

We've tried delayed scout reports before, and they were a disaster. True, they were delayed by a full turn, but a disaster. Delaying anything will be universally despised, and also be a huge disadvantage for everyone who can't play multiple times per turn. This would make it extremely important for people to log in at specific times. It simply won't happen.

Point taken. But scouting still takes a lot of time, which doesn't make sense. Perhaps making it cost 1 hour to scout as many regions as you want at one time or something?

[Sacha]

Is scouting really the issue here? Nothing wrong with it IMO.

[Zakilevo]

I don't see any problem with it either.

If your character is old as hell, then it will definitely be an issue. Then again if your character is really that old, you should probably retire the character.

[feyeleanor]

Now you could argue that maybe it's even the SMA rule that causes the dynamic environment, but it would be a hard case to make. Something about Dwilight works... the next best option is to try recreating it entirely and starting from there - which would mean implementing both the one noble policy and SMA on all other islands.

I'd be interested to know the proportion of players who were active prior to the western island being closed who still have active characters on Dwilight.

[feyeleanor]

Out of the 5 nobles I was playing until the overall limit change was applied I have one who could be argued is a drone - though that's certainly not how I see her. And to be able to log in it wasn't her I nerfed because she has a lot of history that matters to me and is heavily involved in the Colonies' main current war.

Instead I paused my noble on Dwilight (that shining beacon of awesome which people keep extolling) as the Blood Stars soap opera just isn't that interesting to me. At least when the western island was open it was possible to play in realms which weren't obsessed with the bickering of clerics! Not to mention the amusement of tangling with the Zuma...

The other continent I have two characters on is EC, and both are in Sirion. One's a priestess who's dedicated most of her life to holding the family's most treasured estate despite the vicissitudes of war, the other a young warrior keeping up the family martial tradition. If I axe the priestess that's probably the end of The Flow as there aren't that many players interested in the priest game. Meanwhile if I axe the warrior that closes a whole story arc I'm hoping to explore over the next year or two.

As for the three active adventurer slots I now have available, I tried the adventurer game a couple of times and it's just not that interesting. There's too much grind and - like the priest game - not enough variability in basic game mechanics. At least with a priest there's wide scope for political intrigue whereas that just doesn't seem to happen with adventurers.

Ultimately the changes on character limits and the rhetoric around them leave me feeling like I'm a problem, like my playing style is somehow "abusive" or "cheating", and that the time I've invested in the parts of the game I enjoy has somehow contributed to the decline in player numbers. For all I know these things may actually be true, in which case forcing me to make a Solomon's judgement over which stories to continue and which to terminate may be a good thing for the game as a whole.

But do I really want to continue playing a game where several years of hard work to achieve mostly modest IC goals can be swept away by a change of gaming policy? That's a question I'm still debating.

And I know from OOC discussions with other players that I'm not alone in questioning my future commitment to a game which has brought me much pleasure, and where I hope I've contributed to the enjoyment of other players.

[Sacha]

Again, why do people keep insisting this change forces them to kill off any of their characters? Just migrate and continue their stories on a different island. And if a bunch of nobles are leaving the same realm, why not team up?

I see many people here complaining about all their hard work being for nothing, which is patently untrue. As long as there are enough islands to play on, no character has to be retired, merely moved. Also, nobody is insinuating that you're cheating or abusing the game. Nobody is even saying that you, the one reading all of this, are to blame for the stagnation that plagues the game. We're saying that broadly speaking, too many characters are bare-bones automatons with no real history or future, and little purpose other than propping up the people in power in realms that have long since become stale. This will unavoidably and regrettably result in some people being swept up who don't contribute to the boredom, but that's always going to be the case. But again, this doesn't force you to retire anyone. Move them elsewhere, and start writing the next chapters in their tales.

And, perhaps, if this change does turn out to be a dud, who's to day that it won't be reverted, and then you can just go back to your old homes, assuming you still want to at that point.

[Anaris]

Indeed: One thing to remember is, if you're active and interested enough to even be posting on this forum, the chances of you being a part of this particular problem are very slim.

[Gabanus family]

In addition, you can always move the warrior to Dwilight again. The blood stars soap is pretty much over and things have changed a lot again.

[GundamMerc]

Out of the 5 nobles I was playing until the overall limit change was applied I have one who could be argued is a drone - though that's certainly not how I see her. And to be able to log in it wasn't her I nerfed because she has a lot of history that matters to me and is heavily involved in the Colonies' main current war.

Instead I paused my noble on Dwilight (that shining beacon of awesome which people keep extolling) as the Blood Stars soap opera just isn't that interesting to me. At least when the western island was open it was possible to play in realms which weren't obsessed with the bickering of clerics! Not to mention the amusement of tangling with the Zuma...

The other continent I have two characters on is EC, and both are in Sirion. One's a priestess who's dedicated most of her life to holding the family's most treasured estate despite the vicissitudes of war, the other a young warrior keeping up the family martial tradition. If I axe the priestess that's probably the end of The Flow as there aren't that many players interested in the priest game. Meanwhile if I axe the warrior that closes a whole story arc I'm hoping to explore over the next year or two.

As for the three active adventurer slots I now have available, I tried the adventurer game a couple of times and it's just not that interesting. There's too much grind and - like the priest game - not enough variability in basic game mechanics. At least with a priest there's wide scope for political intrigue whereas that just doesn't seem to happen with adventurers.

Ultimately the changes on character limits and the rhetoric around them leave me feeling like I'm a problem, like my playing style is somehow "abusive" or "cheating", and that the time I've invested in the parts of the game I enjoy has somehow contributed to the decline in player numbers. For all I know these things may actually be true, in which case forcing me to make a Solomon's judgement over which stories to continue and which to terminate may be a good thing for the game as a whole.

But do I really want to continue playing a game where several years of hard work to achieve mostly modest IC goals can be swept away by a change of gaming policy? That's a question I'm still debating.

And I know from OOC discussions with other players that I'm not alone in questioning my future commitment to a game which has brought me much pleasure, and where I hope I've contributed to the enjoyment of other players.

The only realm where the Bloodstars are even a major player anymore is Astrum, and maybe Morek on a good day. Both of them are on the backswing, while secular realms like Arnor and Luria Nova are on the upswing.

Honestly this whole "The world is ending because I can't play two characters on a continent anymore" attitude is naive and ridiculous, because being able to play two characters on a continent in the first place was an arbitrary ruling that was a reduction from an earlier amount in the first place.

[Kalkandelen]

Point I don't like about 1 char per continent rule to be placed it's that is forcing me to play in a continent I don't like to play if I want to use the entire char limit available to me. For example I don't like Dwilight at all and don't want to play there, and I don't remember that we have 20 continents to choose from choices are very limited, hence players are anticipating the rule change as losing a char.
We have lost a lot with arbitrary decisions in the past, one of them being closing of SEI when DWI was created for example.

What happened with testing islands, why not provide the option at least in one continent to have 2 chars, test the thing a bit for 5-6 months, see the results. There are people who want to have 2 chars in a realm and those are usually the ones that RP very good and I enjoy those that can do that right. In another continent allow 2 chars but 1 per realm compare the results there as well. There is a wide area to be used for testing and allowing people to play how they best enjoy and still contribute to the game while we do the testings or even enrich the game having continents with custom rules.

I will hate if we piss of some old players and we lose them, and Sacha arguments like if this changes don't work out that may be changed few months later will just not hold if the damage is already done and players gone.

[Zakilevo]

Point I don't like about 1 char per continent rule to be placed it's that is forcing me to play in a continent I don't like to play if I want to use the entire char limit available to me. For example I don't like Dwilight at all and don't want to play there, and I don't remember that we have 20 continents to choose from choices are very limited, hence players are anticipating the rule change as losing a char.
We have lost a lot with arbitrary decisions in the past, one of them being closing of SEI when DWI was created for example.

What happened with testing islands, why not provide the option at least in one continent to have 2 chars, test the thing a bit for 5-6 months, see the results. There are people who want to have 2 chars in a realm and those are usually the ones that RP very good and I enjoy those that can do that right. In another continent allow 2 chars but 1 per realm compare the results there as well. There is a wide area to be used for testing and allowing people to play how they best enjoy and still contribute to the game while we do the testings or even enrich the game having continents with custom rules.

I will hate if we piss of some old players and we lose them, and Sacha arguments like if this changes don't work out that may be changed few months later will just not hold if the damage is already done and players gone.

If you let one continent have 2 characters, then every continent will ask for 2. And how on earth are you supposed to pick which continent should have two? If this rule is going to be applied, it should be applied to every continent without an exception.

If you don't want to play on Dwilight, then don't play there. Sure you will lose a character but you still have 3 or 4 EC, BT, SI, and Colonies. You can choose to play on any of those islands instead. People who wish to have 2 chars in the same realm are people who usually need a filler to maintain their realm or maintain their power. Look at Sirion. Once this rule applies to EC, that realm is going to lose 10 characters. That is the problem it will solve. No more puppets or fillers holding positions. More opportunities for new players or characters of other families who didn't play before.

You are losing things to arbitrary decisions because those decisions which made you gain the things you have now were arbitrary as well. If old players leave because of this then we have to respect their choices and hope their shoes can be filled by others. Everyone will eventually leave. The game is dying. We can't have BM forever. But this decision will hopefully make the game more entertaining for those who are willing to endure the change and stay until the end of this game.

[Kalkandelen]

You didn't respond properly to my arguments, you assume that I hold positions and that I will lose them which is not right. If you have played long enough you would know that game it's not about that. If you would wish there is no realm in any of the continents that you can't achieve being in leading council positions in less then 3 months due to the fact that you will be more active/responsive ect, so I don't agree that it will be much difference for new players.

Limitations will not help but hinder a game by rule.

We surely differ in opinion, for example we can continue to argue will the game lose or win if Sirion is trimmed by 20% of their chars, in my opinion it will be a loss although I'm fighting them at the moment.

[feyeleanor]

You didn't respond properly to my arguments, you assume that I hold positions and that I will lose them which is not right. If you have played long enough you would know that game it's not about that. If you would wish there is no realm in any of the continents that you can't achieve being in leading council positions in less then 3 months due to the fact that you will be more active/responsive ect, so I don't agree that it will be much difference for new players.

In many realms power concentrates because there aren't enough players willing to take on the additional responsibilites that go with a government office, being a marshal, or just generally being involved in the realm's politics. The number of unoccupied Lordships is rising despite the work involved there being minimal and there being a clear IG reward, whilst finding vice-marshals and marshals is hard work even on SI.

These issues will not be solved by this change - if anything they'll be exacerbated as the more active players spread their efforts ever thinner. Even those of us who like to dabble in politics only have so much time and energy to put into this, so for example I currently play in four realms with six characters (including SI) and I have time to be engaged in the politics of two of these, and the military planning of two (with one overlapping).

If I move two of my characters to fresh realms I very much doubt that I'll have time to involve either of them deeply in either aspect of the game as I've already one where I can't find the time to do that, so really they'll just be drones for whoever is performing those roles. They'll be silent like a good 80% of the characters in the game unless they need gold to recruit.

To be honest this whole reform seems more like an exercise in rearranging the chairs on the Titanic whilst ignoring the iceberg ahead. Initial player retention requires a quick hit of fun (which for small realms can be very tough) whilst longer term engagement needs a good mix of realm culture and productive busy work.

Want to keep players? Put some more excitement and non-battle options in the core game mechanics, overhaul the priest and adventurer games so there's less grind, give knights a reason to value their estates and families reasons to acquire gold and prestige, introduce grand hunts and other dangerous peacetime pursuits, let realms pay the ransoms on their captured knights, allow knights to exchange gold and supplies in the field, give each realm a treasury the Banker and Ruler jointly control, expand infils and diplomats into their own subgames of espionage and counter-espionage, also let infils perform ambushes where they can select which enemies they fight, rework the food system so it actually makes sense, let traders purchase from enemies on a black market. Personally I'd also make TOs harder and introduce siege mechanics and engineers so borders shift slower but have a more meaningful effect when they do.

I'd also let every class - Adventurers and Priests included - command troops, use scouts, train in all skills and take part in tournaments. Give everyone a regenerating timepool but only move troops on the existing turn boundaries and nerf regeneration for the cost of command above say 5 soldiers (diminishing based on captain level and leadership), so for people with high activity there's always something to do when they log in but armies still move the way they currently do.

It also wouldn't hurt to increase support for the RP side of the game. Make storing RPs and messages in the wiki a one-click process, and integrate wiki data into region and character pages. BM has a deep IG history of which very little is easily accessed by new players.

I know Dev time is at a premium and even one of these changes would require a fair bit of work. But given the choice between telling players to change how they play existing characters or leave, and changing how people play by giving them new things to do, the latter strikes me as a much better option for the longterm future of BM.

[Anaris]

Want to keep players? Put some more excitement and non-battle options in the core game mechanics, overhaul the priest and adventurer games so there's less grind, give knights a reason to value their estates and families reasons to acquire gold and prestige, introduce grand hunts and other dangerous peacetime pursuits, let realms pay the ransoms on their captured knights, allow knights to exchange gold and supplies in the field, give each realm a treasury the Banker and Ruler jointly control, expand infils and diplomats into their own subgames of espionage and counter-espionage, also let infils perform ambushes where they can select which enemies they fight, rework the food system so it actually makes sense, let traders purchase from enemies on a black market. Personally I'd also make TOs harder and introduce siege mechanics and engineers so borders shift slower but have a more meaningful effect when they do.

I'd also let every class - Adventurers and Priests included - command troops, use scouts, train in all skills and take part in tournaments. Give everyone a regenerating timepool but only move troops on the existing turn boundaries and nerf regeneration for the cost of command above say 5 soldiers (diminishing based on captain level and leadership), so for people with high activity there's always something to do when they log in but armies still move the way they currently do.

It also wouldn't hurt to increase support for the RP side of the game. Make storing RPs and messages in the wiki a one-click process, and integrate wiki data into region and character pages. BM has a deep IG history of which very little is easily accessed by new players.

Oh, so that's all. Just put in 3-5 years' worth of work, and get it done within the next couple of months, oh, and don't change any of the things that you, personally, actually care about having around.

Yeah, sorry; nearly none of that is going to happen. Like, ever. Even when we had more devs, and our devs had more time, that kind of a program of changes would have been a lot more than just "a fair bit of work." Oh, and I flat guarantee you that even if we took every single suggestion in there and implemented it, at least a quarter of the things we did, you would complain about because they wouldn't be what you had imagined, or, worse, they would actually replace or prevent you from doing things that you care about right now.

Even with an unlimited amount of dev time, there is no way that we will ever satisfy everyone. Right now, we have a very, very small amount of dev time available, and we still need to do something to make sure that the people who are playing BattleMaster are having at least a halfway decent experience.