BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Case Archives => Questions & Answers => Topic started by: Eldargard on November 12, 2012, 10:09:03 AM
-
BattleMaster is a game in which many mechanics are shrouded or hidden. Often some options are available to a player only under a very specific set of circumstances. Additionally, these circumstances are often not fully disclosed in order to help make the game fun and realistic. There is a downside to this as well.
In the last week or two, two different realms on Dwilight have had their last duchy switch over to another realm. When the first occasion occurred, it was determined that the player had Social Contract (Do not exploit bugs to gain in-game advantages. Bring them to the attention of the dev team so we can fix them. If you are not sure if something that seems odd is a bug or not, ask.). Correct me if I am wrong. Just now this has happened again. In both places the players never suspected that this might be a bug.
The point is that enforcing this rule of the Social Contract is difficult as tthe way BM works makes it challenging for a player to determine if an option being present is a bug or not. One could use the argument that common sense should prevail. I feel, however, that what is common sense to one might not seem as such to another. One could also say that players should know about these things as they have been posted to the forums and bug tracker. I feel that this is not enough. How many players actively read ALL bug reports and ALL forum posts. How many players only visit the game and wiki?
It seems to me that, in order to enforce this rule properly some kind of notification system should be in place. Once an exploitable bug is discovered and confirmed, a notice could be sent to all players in game alerting them of the bug and the consequences for exploiting it. Or some other measure to communicate the issue could be used.
Without such a mechanism two things will happen. One, multiple people will exploit the same but without even realizing it was a bug exploit and thus diminishing the fun of others. Two, people will be punished for exploiting a bug that they had no reasonable way of knowing about. Both are bad in my view.
-
Neither an in-game notice nor a forum posting do any good in these cases. That is why we have a permanent information storage at the wiki, where this page:
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies
that contains the realm merger rule, is linked from the front page.
-
Neither an in-game notice nor a forum posting do any good in these cases. That is why we have a permanent information storage at the wiki, where this page:
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies
that contains the realm merger rule, is linked from the front page.
The realm merger rule only applies if there is a friendly merger though. The last two haven't been friendly.
-
The realm merger rule only applies if there is a friendly merger though. The last two haven't been friendly.
I didn't see any war between the two. All lords and dukes appear to have kept their titles.
It may have been done by bypassing the ruler, but it certainly wasn't hostile.
-
I didn't see any war between the two. All lords and dukes appear to have kept their titles.
It may have been done by bypassing the ruler, but it certainly wasn't hostile.
Lack of war does not mean lack of conflict. By bypassing the ruler, you have by definition done something that wasn't friendly at all in regards to one of the realms.
-
Lack of war does not mean lack of conflict. By bypassing the ruler, you have by definition done something that wasn't friendly at all in regards to one of the realms.
I disagree. There was no violence. Not a drop of blood was spilled. The realm's entire hierarchy remained intact, replacing only the ruler (who could have been protested out or rebelled against, which would have been much more conflictual). In both cases, the annexing realm had done absolutely nothing to instigate the merger. They didn't demand it. They made no threats for it.
All of Kabrinskia remains intact as a duchy, save for its government positions that were abolished.
-
It is arguments like this that are exactly the reason it should never be down to whether or not the merger was "friendly:" it should simply be impossible in the first place.
-
It is arguments like this that are exactly the reason it should never be down to whether or not the merger was "friendly:" it should simply be impossible in the first place.
That I will agree with.
-
That I will agree with.
As do I.
As I've said many times already, I think it's a bad rule, a band-aid solution to flawed design.
-
It is not, and has never been, intended for destroying a realm to be something that one person can do with one mouse click when the realm is thriving with a dozen or more regions.
I'm sorry if you dislike that design decision, but that is the way it's supposed to be, and until a very short time ago, that's how it was. And soon, that's how it will be once again.
If you want the Duke of the capital duchy—or simply the Duke of the only duchy—to have more game-mechanic power, then start brainstorming for other buttons for them to be able to click, because this one is not going to stick around, no matter how much people whine about it.
-
It is not, and has never been, intended for destroying a realm to be something that one person can do with one mouse click when the realm is thriving with a dozen or more regions.
I'm sorry if you dislike that design decision, but that is the way it's supposed to be, and until a very short time ago, that's how it was. And soon, that's how it will be once again.
If you want the Duke of the capital duchy—or simply the Duke of the only duchy—to have more game-mechanic power, then start brainstorming for other buttons for them to be able to click, because this one is not going to stick around, no matter how much people whine about it.
Make him unbannable, like royals.
-
Make him unbannable, like royals.
You know where feature requests go.
-
I don't think the problem is educating the players on all existing bugs, an unreasonable and nigh impossible task. I think the problem is applying unreasonable standards to players. Players should not be expected to follow the forum nor to know without asking what the intended design of the game is. IMO, it should require a high standard to state that a particular bug was "obvious" enough to justify punishment under the Social Contract.
-
I don't think the problem is educating the players on all existing bugs, an unreasonable and nigh impossible task. I think the problem is applying unreasonable standards to players. Players should not be expected to follow the forum nor to know without asking what the intended design of the game is. IMO, it should require a high standard to state that a particular bug was "obvious" enough to justify punishment under the Social Contract.
Allison is guilty of violating the "no friendly realm mergers" rule, which all players are expected to read and understand.
-
Allison is guilty of violating the "no friendly realm mergers" rule, which all players are expected to read and understand.
Where does it officially state this? I am not saying its not true, I would merely like to know where that is officially stated.
-
Where does it officially state this? I am not saying its not true, I would merely like to know where that is officially stated.
In the Wiki page that has been posted about 173 times in the various threads on this subject (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies).
(Down at the bottom, under "Policies.")
-
In the Wiki page that has been posted about 173 times in the various threads on this subject (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies).
(Down at the bottom, under "Policies.")
Sorry, this happens to be another time when I should have clarified, I was referring to the, players are expected to read and know part of the quote.
-
I agree. It is most certainly on the wiki. Front page and all. Still, I never knew it existed until I asked here in the forums. Besides, it seems that the definition of a friendly realm merger is much debated.
I guess this is my parental side asserting itself. Before I feel okay with disciplining one of my kids I need to feel that the rules were clear and understood. That there was no reasonable chance that the infraction was due to a misunderstanding. If I find myself wondering if the kid knew better of not, then I simply can not bring myself to discipline. Instead I teach. I do not just teach the child who broke the rules though. I teach all three of the boys and do everything I can to ensure they understand. Next time I will enforce the rule with no qualms. I take this approach with me everywhere. Family, friends and work.
I am not trying to be all high and mighty. I really think all of you guys are doing an amazing job. It was just a point of concern. I may be way off. Thanks and thanks again!
-
I agree. It is most certainly on the wiki. Front page and all. Still, I never knew it existed until I asked here in the forums. Besides, it seems that the definition of a friendly realm merger is much debated.
I guess this is my parental side asserting itself. Before I feel okay with disciplining one of my kids I need to feel that the rules were clear and understood. That there was no reasonable chance that the infraction was due to a misunderstanding. If I find myself wondering if the kid knew better of not, then I simply can not bring myself to discipline. Instead I teach. I do not just teach the child who broke the rules though. I teach all three of the boys and do everything I can to ensure they understand. Next time I will enforce the rule with no qualms. I take this approach with me everywhere. Family, friends and work.
I am not trying to be all high and mighty. I really think all of you guys are doing an amazing job. It was just a point of concern. I may be way off. Thanks and thanks again!
When dealing with people you know, you can afford to be soft. Sometimes people didn't know, and you know they didn't know, and understand that it's reasonable they didn't know.
However, when you get lots of people, you need clear rules. Rules you expect everyone to know. Rules you publish for easy reference. In law, there's the principle of "Ignorantia juris non excusat": ignorance of the law does not excuse.
Because when you get this many people in a system together, and you try to teach, then some people with less honest intent will take advantage of this, because they know they'll be able to get away with breaking the rule. Because if you open up ignorance of the rule as an excuse, then you end up with people using that to justify themselves all of the time, and having the impossible task of proving they did indeed know. Because if we want to be just, we need to apply the same rules to everyone, and apply them in the same way.
-
I agree with all you say. I do not believe, however, that all of the rules are clear enough to be enforced in the way you describe...
-
I agree with all you say. I do not believe, however, that all of the rules are clear enough to be enforced in the way you describe...
Changes can be proposed to improve the situation. I don't think any of us, Tom included, wants to confuse people with obscure rules just to set up traps.