15 Nobles! 15!!!!

[Zakky]

Although I hate the idea of having a hard limit on 15 chars required to create a realm, I think this is going toward the right direction.

To be honest, realms just don't function under 15. Heck even that isn't enough to have an 'active' realm. You probably want at least 20.

What I do not like is while the game now is encouraging people to merge realms, the old mechanics that punish large realms(basic tax rate) is still in place. Can we at least have that removed now that we have all these limits like 1.7 density limit and so on?

I think people should just try to form realms of 20+ nobles. 30 would be even better than 20. But from seeing what happened on 4th War Island, going over 40 seems to be too hard on people. People aren't used to hyperactivity. So I'd say the sweet spot is 20~39 area.

I must confess while all these changes are implemented to improve the density, there haven't really been that many changes to make the game more fun. There has been too much focus on how to increase retention rate by increasing density and so on but with more limits being added, you probably want to think about making the game more interesting and fun. You can add more limits but with each limit being added, the game does become less flexible.

[pcw27]

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."

I don't know how to code but if you could supply the data I'd be happy to draw up some cor-plots for you. If the concern is new player retention then you would want to calculate the number of new characters that autopause in each realm in each game world and see if there's any recognizable pattern based on realm size, player density or message traffic.

It's a bit unfair to demand an objective assessment when it's already been admitted there is no objective information in favor of this change, however I can offer one even based on the limited information I have access to. Consider the fact that the majority of realms on Dwilight could never have been founded under these rules. I suggested 8-10 because in my experience that's the most you can reasonably expect to get together for something like this. Niselur was founded by over ten nobles, but definitely fewer than 15, which was considered an almost absurd number at the time. Remember this was back when the continent was new and we had a lot more players. Moving forward to today Tol Goldora, the newest realm in Dwilight had seven nobles at it's founding, it now has the third highest number of noble characters on the continent. The only realm in all of Dwilight I can think of that might have started with 15 nobles is Luria Ferratta. The only realm right now that could realistically found another under these rules is Westguard and as with Luria this would require splitting their population in two.

Nearly every realm in the history of Dwilight came into being because it was possible for a group of characters to get together for the sake of creating something new and exciting. You didn't have to be a king or a duke to do this. Anyone could put together a colony effort if they had the leadership skills necessary to gather enough ambitious nobles and it would succeed or fail based on the inherent challenges involved (and many failed, even now founding a realm is far from easy). Under these rules founding new realms, one of the most exciting and rewarding undertakings a player can be a part of, will be impossible for all but the single largest realm on the continent, and in that case would be of such a scale that it could only happen in a top-down manner involving the realm's highest elites deciding to partition themselves for some reason. The pioneering expeditions composed of enterprising characters looking to make their mark on the world and carve out a place for themselves from a hostile wilderness will be impossible. We might never see such an undertaking ever again. Words cannot express what a loss that will be.

You might say "well if we get more players..." or "well if character density improves..." well that's a hell of a thing to gamble on seeing as it hasn't happened in a good ten years. I honestly don't think our retention problem can be fixed by tinkering around with the mechanics, so any change made on the off chance that it might get newbies to stick around longer is little more than wishful thinking.

Although I hate the idea of having a hard limit on 15 chars required to create a realm, I think this is going toward the right direction.

To be honest, realms just don't function under 15. Heck even that isn't enough to have an 'active' realm. You probably want at least 20.

What I do not like is while the game now is encouraging people to merge realms, the old mechanics that punish large realms(basic tax rate) is still in place. Can we at least have that removed now that we have all these limits like 1.7 density limit and so on?

I think people should just try to form realms of 20+ nobles. 30 would be even better than 20. But from seeing what happened on 4th War Island, going over 40 seems to be too hard on people. People aren't used to hyperactivity. So I'd say the sweet spot is 20~39 area.

I must confess while all these changes are implemented to improve the density, there haven't really been that many changes to make the game more fun. There has been too much focus on how to increase retention rate by increasing density and so on but with more limits being added, you probably want to think about making the game more interesting and fun. You can add more limits but with each limit being added, the game does become less flexible.

The thing is, on Dwilight at least, new realms don't just stay small, they either grow or they die. Point in case, Tol Goldora.

Also I've been in underpopulated realms that were plenty active. Morek was far from silent when I was there and they still have just five nobles.

[JeVondair]

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

This is not an add-on like the character page pictures or signature banners. This changes the way every player will have to interpret the game and it blindsided a lot of people, myself included. If the devs need someone to volunteer to post upcoming changes to the community, then I'll volunteer.
If a new realm fails for any reason, that's on the players of that realm and no one else. My experience with this game over the years that I have played, only 2 realms had more than 15 knights when I had a character join up.

From what I understand about what was kicked around on the discord, not that I knew I had to check there as well, was that this rule and the 15 number came as a result of discussions about what Dukes on EC were doing? I don't know the full story and im not sure it would change my opinion. i was personally IG victimized by an EC duke whose actions would have been blocked by this rule. But IMO a Duke being able to exercise their power to break off whenever they please was a MAJOR game component.

I figured out how you guys came to 15. it's just (exactly) the average of the number of nobles by the number of realms, minus the SI. However, I cant be sure (for reasons mentioned above) whether or not the matter of just how limiting this change would be was brought up and discussed. I don't think setting the average as the standard is reasonable. For example, there are only THREE realms at this time that CAN have a ducal secession under this new rule and still have a minimum of 15 nobles remaining and NONE of them are even on the same island. In fact, one island doesn't have a single realm that COULD and still have enough left over to maintain the mother realm. I realize that minimum remaining is not part of the rule, but it can certainly be inferred as part of the intent in the context of supporting the proliferation of "viable" realms. I think 15 is a reasonable goal for realms to shoot for, but not realistic in that it would require extraordinary effort to hit that right out of the gate rather than building to it on their own.

That said, now that it's been imlemented, I don't actually believe it should be removed entirely. Adjusted perhaps. Even 10 would have meant a world of difference.  Or even having an adjust scale so that a duke must carry at least a third of the realm or something. I worry that locking dukes in at 15 like this will only cause stagnation for little gain.

[Abstract]

Also I've been in underpopulated realms that were plenty active. Morek was far from silent when I was there and they still have just five nobles.

Morek was not plenty active. It had a short lived span of activity that died out rather quickly. I left the realm a little while back so I can't comment on it now but I'm betting it isn't really any better. If it was more active then I would have stayed longer. Main point being though, don't take a couple weeks as evidence that the small realm wasn't quiet. You joined at the peak of the tension with Arnor and instigated a decent amount of conversation through protests. It didn't take long for the Arnor situation to cool and then for the realm to return to very few messages. Should also note that the realm had 9 nobles when you were there and not 5.

[pcw27]

Morek was not plenty active. It had a short lived span of activity that died out rather quickly. I left the realm a little while back so I can't comment on it now but I'm betting it isn't really any better. If it was more active then I would have stayed longer. Main point being though, don't take a couple weeks as evidence that the small realm wasn't quiet. You joined at the peak of the tension with Arnor and instigated a decent amount of conversation through protests. It didn't take long for the Arnor situation to cool and then for the realm to return to very few messages. Should also note that the realm had 9 nobles when you were there and not 5.

Well as another example, every knight in Obsidian Islands has just turned out to help Perdan fight the entire North. Seems to me their getting to see plenty of action. I'm not saying there aren't major drawbacks I'm just saying the game isn't completely ruined, and there's always a chance for a realm to become rejuvenated through a new influx of players. Alternatively, the realm will tend to die out on it's own as happened with HD.

[Zakky]

If they are going to implement something like this, they should really make realms easier to modify but harder to create.

Allow players to more easily change their government types and their realm names in return for this limitation.

[dustole]

There should be an exemption.  If a Duke is banned they should have the opportunity to secede no matter what.


As for the 15 nobles I think 10 might have been a fairer number.  Astrum was founded by 5 or 6 nobles trecking through winter and fighting the hordes to make it to Libidized. 

[Ocean Yong Kiran]

Maybe the answer is let dukes and lords do more things? Where I play everything seems like 2-3 people saying to all the other people "Do this now"

Maybe if you can make own realm, also you can stand up for self and make inside realm fight? Go make war or take more lands?

And still everybody plays in same big group for talking.

[Medron Pryde]

I remember the "Grand Old Days" back when we could have two characters on a continent when Tara had 30 to 40 people and were rolling from one war to another.  Things were active.  Lots of talking.  It was fun.

Now I'm a member of three different realms hovering around the 20 character number and it really does feel like we have the minimum number to maintain just basic operations.  I honestly don't know how realms with 5 or 10 people even operate.

On the one hand, I'm against taking away player options through arbitrary rules.

On the other hand, I understand the idea behind this rule and what it is trying to achieve.

It may not be the RIGHT way to do it in my opinion, but I don't know WHAT the right way to do it IS.  It sucks for people who were planning to create new realms.  It really does.  But does it suck for the GAME as a whole?

[De-Legro]

Like I said if 15 does prove to be too high, no doubt the devs will revisit it. I have no idea about the background, I don't particularly care. The constant knee jerk reactions from any change the devs make has seen me pause all but one of my characters, and all he does is sit around and count gold. To me there is a distinct lack of constructive feedback to the devs and an abundance of emotive criticism. It is why I quit the game and being a dev several years ago, and why I did not put my hand up to return to the dev team when I rejoined.

Many of these arguments are disingenuous. Colonies rarely rely on players only from 1 realm, or even 1 continent. ToL is a great example of this. People came to Dwilight to see the colony realised. I am not so sold on having a limit or such a high limit on Duchy succession, depending on circumstance they are self limiting anyway, particularly with recent militia changes.

I remember the "Grand Old Days" back when we could have two characters on a continent when Tara had 30 to 40 people and were rolling from one war to another.  Things were active.  Lots of talking.  It was fun.

Now I'm a member of three different realms hovering around the 20 character number and it really does feel like we have the minimum number to maintain just basic operations.  I honestly don't know how realms with 5 or 10 people even operate.

On the one hand, I'm against taking away player options through arbitrary rules.

On the other hand, I understand the idea behind this rule and what it is trying to achieve.

It may not be the RIGHT way to do it in my opinion, but I don't know WHAT the right way to do it IS.  It sucks for people who were planning to create new realms.  It really does.  But does it suck for the GAME as a whole?

The grand old days had realms of 120 characters and a socialist tax system :)

[pcw27]

I remember the "Grand Old Days" back when we could have two characters on a continent when Tara had 30 to 40 people and were rolling from one war to another.  Things were active.  Lots of talking.  It was fun.

Now I'm a member of three different realms hovering around the 20 character number and it really does feel like we have the minimum number to maintain just basic operations.  I honestly don't know how realms with 5 or 10 people even operate.

The answer is not to raise the bar for founding a realm but to make it harder to sustain one with too few nobles. The thing is that's already taken care of. HD just folded and Morek only survived because SA called a crusade.

On the one hand, I'm against taking away player options through arbitrary rules.

On the other hand, I understand the idea behind this rule and what it is trying to achieve.

It may not be the RIGHT way to do it in my opinion, but I don't know WHAT the right way to do it IS.  It sucks for people who were planning to create new realms.  It really does.  But does it suck for the GAME as a whole?

I would say it does it creates more stagnation and limits opportunities for advancement. A new realm opens up new high ranking positions. Theres no other way to allow as many players to advance at once.

Many of these arguments are disingenuous. Colonies rarely rely on players only from 1 realm, or even 1 continent. ToL is a great example of this. People came to Dwilight to see the colony realised. I am not so sold on having a limit or such a high limit on Duchy succession, depending on circumstance they are self limiting anyway, particularly with recent militia changes.

Based on their wiki histories it sounds like most of these colonies had one primary realm backing them:

Everguard (Springdale)
Astrum (Morek)
Shadovar, the precursor to D'hara (Pian en Luries)
Terran (Caerwyn)
Thulsoma (Virovene)
Iashalur (Astrum)
Tol Goldora

The only pre-blight colony effort I can remember that was truly an inter-realm effort was Niselur. Post blight Westguard was specifically crafted for refugees from the sunken continents, it was not a player effort it was a dev made realm.

Even in the case of Tol Goldora three out of the seven founding members were well established in Sol.

Regardless none of these efforts, to my knowledge, were spearheaded by fifteen or more nobles. So the number is still unrealistic whether it's coming from one realm or several.

[De-Legro]

The answer is not to raise the bar for founding a realm but to make it harder to sustain one with too few nobles. The thing is that's already taken care of. HD just folded and Morek only survived because SA called a crusade.

I would say it does it creates more stagnation and limits opportunities for advancement. A new realm opens up new high ranking positions. Theres no other way to allow as many players to advance at once.


Based on their wiki histories it sounds like most of these colonies had one primary realm backing them:

Everguard (Springdale)
Astrum (Morek)
Shadovar, the precursor to D'hara (Pian en Luries)
Terran (Caerwyn)
Thulsoma (Virovene)
Iashalur (Astrum)
Tol Goldora

The only pre-blight colony effort I can remember that was truly an inter-realm effort was Niselur. Post blight Westguard was specifically crafted for refugees from the sunken continents, it was not a player effort it was a dev made realm.

Even in the case of Tol Goldora three out of the seven founding members were well established in Sol.

Regardless none of these efforts, to my knowledge, were spearheaded by fifteen or more nobles. So the number is still unrealistic whether it's coming from one realm or several.

Tol Goldora had people from other continents lined up to make characters as soon as the realms was founded. There is a difference between how many characters set out, and how many characters/players are committed to a project.

[pcw27]

Tol Goldora had people from other continents lined up to make characters as soon as the realms was founded. There is a difference between how many characters set out, and how many characters/players are committed to a project.

But the new rules don't accommodate such an arrangement.

[Medron Pryde]

Yes.

Under the new rules, the players would need to start up their new characters in the sponsoring realm.  Sol in the case of Tol Goldura.

They would make themselves knights of the duchy in question.  Which means at least 15 estates would need to be established in that duchy for those nobles.  That would constitute 15 estates at 6% share with a single estate of 10% for the duke or city lord.  It would have to be a rich city to give them much income.

I would note that if we are now pushing to have larger realms rather than pushing people to create new realms, we may wish to revisit the penalties visited upon larger realms.  Loss of control and the like.

We are otherwise going to be stuck in the situation of realms being too large to be efficient but too small to break up.  It may end up an unhappy medium for all involved.

[Ocean Yong Kiran]

what makes it not possible to have 15 nobles start  new realm, then many of them return home?