15 Nobles! 15!!!!

[pcw27]

I've just been informed there is a new rule that requires 15 nobles to form a new realm. Is this for real? Part of the fun of this game is the ability to form new realms and make new in-game history. This bar is absurdly high. 8 would be reasonable, 10 maybe, but 15! Nearly half the realms on Dwilight have fewer than 15 nobles.

[Anaris]

It can seem like a lot of fun and freedom to be able to found a new realm with just enough nobles to provide for council positions, but 98% of the time it doesn't actually make for a good realm to play inâ€"especially for new players.

One thing we don't need in BattleMaster right now is more new tiny realms diluting the interaction available within the game and spreading our players thinner and thinner on the ground.

If we can get the player numbers up again, this is a restriction we can almost certainly lift.

Right now, though, we're far, far more likely to see fun destroyed and players lost because someone decided to secede with 5 or even 8 nobles in their realm than if they want to do that but can't.

[pcw27]

It can seem like a lot of fun and freedom to be able to found a new realm with just enough nobles to provide for council positions, but 98% of the time it doesn't actually make for a good realm to play inâ€"especially for new players.

One thing we don't need in BattleMaster right now is more new tiny realms diluting the interaction available within the game and spreading our players thinner and thinner on the ground.

If we can get the player numbers up again, this is a restriction we can almost certainly lift.

Right now, though, we're far, far more likely to see fun destroyed and players lost because someone decided to secede with 5 or even 8 nobles in their realm than if they want to do that but can't.

Yeah fine the underlying intention is reasonable enough but 15? How did you come to that figure? To me it seems it guarantees that there will not be a single new realm in the game for a very long time if at all.

[Anaris]

We wanted to make sure that new realms would be large enough to be truly viable and sustain good conversation amongst nobles.

The fact that many realms are currently that size or smaller is not an indication that the number should be lower. Rather, it's an indication that the game is still quite unhealthy.

[pcw27]

We wanted to make sure that new realms would be large enough to be truly viable and sustain good conversation amongst nobles.

The fact that many realms are currently that size or smaller is not an indication that the number should be lower. Rather, it's an indication that the game is still quite unhealthy.

Sustaining conversation cannot be achieved with total nobles alone, it has to do with how active those nobles are. A realm can have 20 nobles and be dead silent because most of them are the player's gold farmers.

It tends to be that new realms are actually more active regardless of size because they're composed of players who were active and engaged enough to try and build something new.

If you feel the existing smaller realms are "unhealthy" then you may as well have them all destroyed in one way or another.

[Anaris]

If you feel the existing smaller realms are "unhealthy" then you may as well have them all destroyed in one way or another.

There's no need to be snide. It's pretty obvious that just destroying realms under 15 nobles would do more harm than good for the game.

Instead, what we do is provide less emphatic pushes to be larger. Such as allowing small realms to merge (and thus become larger), and preventing small realms from splitting (and thus becoming even smaller).

[pcw27]

There's no need to be snide. It's pretty obvious that just destroying realms under 15 nobles would do more harm than good for the game.

Instead, what we do is provide less emphatic pushes to be larger. Such as allowing small realms to merge (and thus become larger), and preventing small realms from splitting (and thus becoming even smaller).

I did say "one way or another" which is basically what you're describing, whether you gently push or destroy in one fell swoop the point is there's a set goal of eliminating realms with fewer than 15 players.

Do you have actual hard evidence that large realms are by nature better for retention? I've only ever found large bloated realms to be alienating and uninteresting.

[Anaris]

There's a big difference between saying "we want realms to have more than 15 nobles" and saying "we want to destroy realms with 15 or fewer nobles."

There's also a big difference between "realms with 15-30 nobles" and "large bloated realms."

[pcw27]

There's a big difference between saying "we want realms to have more than 15 nobles" and saying "we want to destroy realms with 15 or fewer nobles."

There's also a big difference between "realms with 15-30 nobles" and "large bloated realms."

If 15 becomes the new minimum then it serves to reason average will be something more like 30 or 40, unless the goal is for realms to become homogeneous with all roughly having the same number of nobles and regions, which would also not be beneficial.

These specifics aren't the point anyway. The more pertinent question is what analytics if any support the idea that this will improve retention?

[Anaris]

These specifics aren't the point anyway. The more pertinent question is what analytics if any support the idea that this will improve retention?

15 years of experience with the game.

[pcw27]

15 years of experience with the game.

So pure conjecture then.

[Anaris]

So pure conjecture then.

Well, I mean, sure, it's not something I can point to specific data or evidence for. But if you're saying experience and familiarity count for nothing...would you rather be operated on by the doctor with 15 years of experience, or the one who started yesterday, but who can show a dozen charts and graphs explaining how he knows what to do?

[De-Legro]

So pure conjecture then.

What rigorous statistical and repeatable method did use to determine that 8 would be "reasonable".

There has long been a sweat spot for realms. Too many nobles and realm becomes somewhat impersonal l, individuals are lost and it feels hard to make a contribution. Too few and the realm relies far too much on two or three nobles to generate interest. M&F is great example of what low bars for realms creates. There you need only 3 players to create a realm and there are methods to have a realm of a single player - which is sadly all too common. With the exception of a few realms where created by BM players I would say the majority of M&F realms have 3-8 players, and they are dead. Dead of all communication, dead of anything happening other then logging in to ensure your characters remain active just dead.

Really in my opinion 15 is too low for a viable long term realm, somewhere more like 20-30 produces on average the volume of interaction required. However setting the bar there is too high, and we need to acknowledge that colonies generate interest and interaction, so starting lower makes sense as there is a far chance they will be attracting more nobles in the medium term.

[pcw27]

Well, I mean, sure, it's not something I can point to specific data or evidence for. But if you're saying experience and familiarity count for nothing...would you rather be operated on by the doctor with 15 years of experience, or the one who started yesterday, but who can show a dozen charts and graphs explaining how he knows what to do?

As a matter of fact if a doctor has been working for 15 years and thinks that somehow means he can forgo running any tests I would run as fast as I can to the first year resident who is willing to actually apply scientific and evidence based medicine to my treatment. I've actually had some treatments severely delayed because a lazy orthopedist, dismissed my persistent wrist pains off hand.

Of course the analogy isn't applicable anyway. I'm no newcomer. I've been playing for 12 years. I hope you wont try to argue that an extra three years makes a significant difference. As I've made clear I vehemently oppose this change and contest every argument you've offered in support of it. So if our own limited personal experiences can lead to wildly different conclusions some objectivity would be warranted.

The dev team has access to all information in the game don't they? So couldn't you, if you wanted to, see which realms have the best new player retention and see how that correlates with things like number of nobles, realm size and message traffic?

What rigorous statistical and repeatable method did use to determine that 8 would be "reasonable".

The difference is I'm not implementing sweeping changes. If I were and I had access to this information I most certainly would conduct at least a basic analysis to reenforce my assertions.

[De-Legro]

The difference is I'm not implementing sweeping changes. If I were and I had access to this information I most certainly would conduct at least a basic analysis to reenforce my assertions.

Then volunteer your time rather then putting more expectations and responsibility onto our volunteer devs.

Activity/Viability is subjective. There is no real objective metric by which you can run an analysis, pretending we even have the required data stored to make an attempt. As with many things in BM the new limit is no doubt not set in stone, and will be reviewed as we move on, just like recent changes to militia.

Otherwise make your own argument about the limit to convince the devs that is more objective then "I want to colonise Darfix and the new limit makes my goal harder."