BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Locals => Dwilight => Topic started by: dustole on April 15, 2013, 10:50:04 PM
-
What do you all think of it? Any significant changes that surprised you?
For me, I was surprised to see Golden Farrow get such a large income boost. Why did Giask get none? was that because it isn't finished yet or is it because of all the cities that are close by?
-
Darfix is now officially the wealthiest city in the entire game. I am surprised it got boosted so much. I wonder why is that so.
-
The values are based on intrinsic properties of the region itself, and not related to the other regions around it.
-
I saw my badlands take a moderate hit, mountains take severe hits, but rurals are going to be making food hand over fist. Flowrestown, somehow, almost doubled gold and food.
I'm ok with it, I suppose. City lords are going to be gilded and rural lords are going to be fat. Although I would have rather seen more gold (looks like a mild loss) in Swordfell than the influx of food (a moderate gain).
-
Gaston is going to take a pretty large hit to its gold income of 35%.... I thought cities weren't suppose to be losing so much money in the region update? Or is it because the Sconomy listed there is 'N/A'?
-
The dev team is still finalizing the numbers. I will be posting an announcement shortly.
Some things may be changed before the rebalance goes live. Others may be changed in the near future afterwards. At this point, it is the intention of the dev team to see that the game is fun for everyone, no matter what region they belong to. We don't like the idea of a region being useless.
Disclaimer: There are different ideas of what "useless" means, and mine may not be the same as yours.
-
Will max pop change?
I'm not done compiling for D'Hara, but Port Nebel got a nice hike in both values.
-
Was only Dwilight changed?
How do we know anything was changed? (As a lord I didn't automatically see anything)
-
Was only Dwilight changed?
How do we know anything was changed? (As a lord I didn't automatically see anything)
Look at region detail pages.
I finished my compilations. D'Hara will be better off overall, the only ones becoming poorer were the ones who were poorer to begin with. I suspect that being coastal (I think it was calculated for food production) helped compensate for the fact that we are mostly cities and townslands. All of our regions are coastal, save for Odona which is river-side.
-
Look at region detail pages.
I finished my compilations. D'Hara will be better off overall, the only ones becoming poorer were the ones who were poorer to begin with. I suspect that being coastal (I think it was calculated for food production) helped compensate for the fact that we are mostly cities and townslands. All of our regions are coastal, save for Odona which is river-side.
Feel like sending that to me?
-
Look at region detail pages.
I finished my compilations. D'Hara will be better off overall, the only ones becoming poorer were the ones who were poorer to begin with. I suspect that being coastal (I think it was calculated for food production) helped compensate for the fact that we are mostly cities and townslands. All of our regions are coastal, save for Odona which is river-side.
There are bugs with seeing it.
On Atamara, I can only see my own region, and only immediately after I log-in because I'm standing in it. Other regions in my realm I can't see. I also can't see my own by going to region detail pages.
-
Feel like sending that to me?
PM.
-
Darfix is now officially the wealthiest city in the entire game. I am surprised it got boosted so much. I wonder why is that so.
Barely. Which means it is not the current wealthiest city in the entire game, due to its current population.
-
Will max pop change?
In general, no.
However, there are a very few outlier values that we're looking at tweaking max pop to compensate for.
-
In general, no.
However, there are a very few outlier values that we're looking at tweaking max pop to compensate for.
Port Raviel and Port Nebel used to be almost identical, and now Port Nebel is clearly the better city. Any idea how this could be? They are both about the same size, same weather, both coastal, both only adjacent to one townsland by land and 3 cities by sea routes, both with about the same starting gold and food values.
-
Was only Dwilight changed?
How do we know anything was changed? (As a lord I didn't automatically see anything)
Nothing has changed yet.
As I just posted in the announcement (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4171.0.html), the display of what the values will be is on testing only for now.
-
Port Raviel and Port Nebel used to be almost identical, and now Port Nebel is clearly the better city. Any idea how this could be? They are both about the same size, same weather, both coastal, both only adjacent to one townsland by land and 3 cities by sea routes, both with about the same starting gold and food values.
The two most likely factors are population density, and the small amount of pseudorandom noise that was introduced.
I don't know offhand what contributed most; ^ban^ would be the most likely to be able to answer that question in more detail for you.
-
The two most likely factors are population density, and the small amount of pseudorandom noise that was introduced.
I don't know offhand what contributed most; ^ban^ would be the most likely to be able to answer that question in more detail for you.
Density should be about the same for both, but of course it could just be the random factor.
-
Both Barca's cities are taking a hit as well. They loose 21% and 23% of their gold income.
-
Both Barca's cities are taking a hit as well. They loose 21% and 23% of their gold income.
Ours get boosts, just not in any way equal. Port Nebel will actually make more food than Odona, too.
-
Not sure if this is intended, but I can see the rebalance preview on stable (FEI) as well for the region I'm in.
-
Density should be about the same for both, but of course it could just be the random factor.
I don't think it is either of those. Its a very large difference that neither of those should have an effect great enough to do.
-
Both Barca's cities are taking a hit as well. They loose 21% and 23% of their gold income.
...Making two of the sorriest cities in the game even more pathetic. Whose got it worse, Barca or Swordfell?
-
I don't think it is either of those. Its a very large difference that neither of those should have an effect great enough to do.
Original discussions had it such that pop density had a large influence. Of course this was weeks and weeks before the final version.
-
...Making two of the sorriest cities in the game even more pathetic. Whose got it worse, Barca or Swordfell?
I think that woodlands got crappier overall, but I also think that badlands got it even worse. I'd place my bet on Swordfell being hit hard.
-
I think that woodlands got crappier overall, but I also think that badlands got it even worse. I'd place my bet on Swordfell being hit hard.
Well the point of this was to balance upon overall game situation, and not for individual realms benefit or harm. So it makes sense that a realm made up primarily of the divides area would be kind of messed up and hard to support a realm.
-
Well the point of this was to balance upon overall game situation, and not for individual realms benefit or harm. So it makes sense that a realm made up primarily of the divides area would be kind of messed up and hard to support a realm.
A noble of Asylon who had analyzed the economies of the realms said this ' The rich realms got richer and the poor just got poorer.'
-
A noble of Asylon who had analyzed the economies of the realms said this ' The rich realms got richer and the poor just got poorer.'
From what I heard and understood, this seems to be the case.
Well the point of this was to balance upon overall game situation, and not for individual realms benefit or harm. So it makes sense that a realm made up primarily of the divides area would be kind of messed up and hard to support a realm.
I was just making an observation, not a judgement. I think that Swordfell will lose the most from this change, though I cannot really guess who will gain the most (be it in relative or absolute terms).
-
A noble of Asylon who had analyzed the economies of the realms said this ' The rich realms got richer and the poor just got poorer.'
+1 only city lord happy, townsland become worse and rural loss gold even they sold their food.. This not fun.
-
I just did some maths, and it looks like Swordfell actually gains from the change. If my calculations are correct +1308 gold and
+345 food.
I'm surprised, but most of that gain is from Flowrestown <Post-Rebalance Gold:3475 gold (+85%)Post-Rebalance Food:142 bushels (+163%)>. The Divides took a deep hit, but they are depopulated and we can't hold them anyhow....so I guess cool beans. The flow penninsula did pretty well and the rural/woodlands above the Divides seem to have only switched gold and food around some.
-
+1 only city lord happy, townsland become worse and rural loss gold even they sold their food.. This not fun.
Only Major City Lords really gain any significant benefit from this change I think, at the current numbers displayed. It seems like many of the small sized cities like Gaston, Via pretty much loss a good amount of gold and the ones that didn't lose some didn't really gain much either.
-
Not sure if this is intended, but I can see the rebalance preview on stable (FEI) as well for the region I'm in.
Not intended, but no harm done, really. Anaris says this is due to a minor bug that only happens if you get to region details by clicking the link at the bottom of the page, and you happen to be in the region of which you are a lord.
Port Raviel and Port Nebel used to be almost identical, and now Port Nebel is clearly the better city. Any idea how this could be? They are both about the same size, same weather, both coastal, both only adjacent to one townsland by land and 3 cities by sea routes, both with about the same starting gold and food values.
It's not just whether or not something has a coast line. Length of coastline and percentage of coastline are also factors. Presence of sea routes is irrelevant, as are the number and type of surrounding regions. Also, existing food/gold values are not used during the determination of the new values in any way. Those old values were essentially completely arbitrary, and are ignored.
Original discussions had it such that pop density had a large influence. Of course this was weeks and weeks before the final version.
Pop density counts. Especially once you start getting into the really high pop density cities.
-
Density should be about the same for both, but of course it could just be the random factor.
The variation from noise is not significant. Nebel's advantage comes from its coastline.
-
When will stable islands be re-balanced?
-
Oh, don't mind us Farronites. We'll support this re-balance all the way! ^_^
Seriously though, I think we came out smelling like roses after this. Golden Farrow makes a ton more gold, a ton more food, our regions make more food. Omnomnomnom.
-
Not intended, but no harm done, really. Anaris says this is due to a minor bug that only happens if you get to region details by clicking the link at the bottom of the page, and you happen to be in the region of which you are a lord.
It's not a region I'm a lord of - it's just the region I'm in.
Is stable being rebalanced at the same time (since the numbers seem to be there) or later?
-
Is stable being rebalanced at the same time (since the numbers seem to be there) or later?
The calculations have been run on all islands, so they could theoretically all be applied at any time. I'm not sure what the plans are as far as implementation goes.
This stuff will all be tested to death on the dev server prior to implementing, so that nothing gets screwed up. But even so... Murphy screws up in inventive ways.
-
Not intended, but no harm done, really. Anaris says this is due to a minor bug that only happens if you get to region details by clicking the link at the bottom of the page, and you happen to be in the region of which you are a lord.
You can actually see the changes for any region on stable by going to the region info page and changing "stable" to "testing" in the address bar.
-
stuff
Shhhh. You are not supposed to say that. (I am half serious.)
-
Beluaterra re-balance strangeness:
Rines - It makes 1,348 gold more than the next largest city? :o
Wudenkin - Population and region size are more than Agyr but it makes 177 less gold under the new system?
Gethsemene & Fronepu - almost the same in population & region size but Gethsemene would have 411 gold more ?
-
Rines was already the richest City on the Continent, now it also got the largest boost. It has become even bigger of a status now, though the food rebalance will not make things easier.
-
Having 5,500 more people & a smaller region size than either Wudenkin (2nd largest) or Agyr (3rd) shouldn't lead to that big of overwhelming dominance in gold production.
-
Keep in mind Rines is not yet at full production. Rines maximum population is IIRC at 90000. That's 30000 more peasants then Wudenkin.
-
From what everyone is saying, it seems the new re-balance is undoing what the last re-balance did.
Did this re-balance increase gold/food for other region types other than city?
-
Keep in mind Rines is not yet at full production. Rines maximum population is IIRC at 90000. That's 30000 more peasants then Wudenkin.
90,000? is the wiki page wrong?
-
From what everyone is saying, it seems the new re-balance is undoing what the last re-balance did.
Did this re-balance increase gold/food for other region types other than city?
Yes, some, but in Arcaea, at least, many regions lose gold and food.
-
Did this re-balance increase gold/food for other region types other than city?
In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. It's simply most obvious in cities.
-
90,000? is the wiki page wrong?
Maybe the 90000 was before a population rebalance else then.
-
The wiki region pages list the max possible population of a region, not the current population. They are always up-to-date, as the information displayed is pulled directly from the game database, via a publicly accessible API.
-
I can't say I like the numbers I'm seeing in any way. On Beluaterra the trend seems to be less gold and less food produced for rurals. On the other end Rines makes almost 5k gold. That means it can support 40 nobles easily, 30 with very good income. What are the rural regions around it going to do? Just go on without any hope for knights? The same really applies to almost all the major cities as there are a lot more of them in the 2-3k gold range.
Then there are regions like Kif, Pellan, Coness, Affkat, Desert of Silhouettes, Palm Sea and many more that turn completely useless space wasters.
The previous re-balance had it right. Cities did not need to make that much gold. Rurals and other regions making more made the regions worth it and getting a lords position in even a rural region somewhat desirable(why be a lord when you can make more gold from your city estate? Just so you get to deal with selling food? Hah.). This change pretty much wrecks that and I don't see that being good for the game.
-
Seriously, there should never be regions with single digit food production.
Bursa
Perdan, duchy of Castle Ubent
Type: Mountains
Location: midland
Local Lord: Jackson Stormclaw
Population: 857
Land Area: 2579 sq.miles
Economy: Mining, Stoneworks
Gold: 320 gold
Food: 18 bushels
Post-Rebalance Gold: 166 gold (-48%)
Post-Rebalance Food: 6 bushels (-67%)
-
I can't say I like the numbers I'm seeing in any way. On Beluaterra the trend seems to be less gold and less food produced for rurals. On the other end Rines makes almost 5k gold. That means it can support 40 nobles easily, 30 with very good income.
The max number of nobles any region can support is 20. You can't have more than that number of estates in a region.
Also, I believe one of the points is to make there be a larger diversity in regions. That way there are a few cities which are above and beyond better than others, but there are also other cities which are worse than a lot of cities. The same goes for every different type of region.
Another key point is that under this change, there is an actual formula which is determining the values of the regions, not just random arbitrary values chosen out of thin air.
-
I agree with LilWolf. One of the great advantage of the previous rebalance combined with the new estate system is that ruling a city is no longer the ultimate position to hold. Being a Margrave is still better than ruling a rural region but reasonably so.
This new rebalance gives once again all the power to cities. They not only get more gold, they also get more food, which means they will need less from the rurals and food prices will go down.
I think the previous rebalance was good for the game. This one seems to revert some of the gains.
Other changes are good to neutral. My characters are hurt by the reduction in profit from badlands for example, but to get back to Dante's point, diversity in region value is a good thing. Moving income from badlands towards coastal regions creates diversity without upsetting the power equilibrium in realms, but increasing the power of cities without any downside does.
-
I'm not sure that there is such a huge problem with the disproportionate amount of gold in cities. Cities SHOULD have much more gold than a rural region. A rural region lord shouldn't be making the same amount of gold after food sales as a city region lord after food purchases. (Which was very common before this change). There should be a distinct advantage of being a region lord of a city.
I think that you'll find that if you take a median range city and compare it to a median range townslands, there will be a slight advantage which there should be. There will likely be a slightly bigger advantage from townsland to rural. This should also be present.
You can't compare extremes. Cities like Darfix with 3.8k gold can't be used as the metric for comparison. They are intentionally an exception which represents the very best of the best that one can possibly find. The point of such regions is that they ARE to be cherished and valued. Realms should be so jealous of such a city that they will make war in order to take it for themselves because their city is just mediocre.
The idea is that this region diversity balances the continent as a whole, not individual realms by which some will be clear losers and winners, but realms weren't used as measures for success in this balance. The idea is that overall the continents reflect a reasonable level of both food output as well as a slight shift in resources.
-
Cities SHOULD have much more gold than a rural region.
I agree, but they already do. Even without the change the richest rural on Dwilight was Zhonguyan with 447 gold, and the poorest city was Chateau Saffalore with double the gold even though it has 30% less population.
However, looking at the stats to prove my point, I realized it doesn't. With the new change, the richest rural will be Shomrak with 724 gold, richer than the poorest city being Gaston with only 573 gold. I was looking at the extremes, but in the middle it actually mixes things up.
I have to think about it a little more. It may be that the move to powerful City Lords will only be true for the realms with very large cities. That wouldn't be a bad thing, this creates diversity in realms. I was afraid it was a blanket move.
A rural region lord shouldn't be making the same amount of gold after food sales as a city region lord after food purchases. (Which was very common before this change).
It is only common because it is common for city to have many estates and rural regions to have zero or one knight. I am certain that you cannot find a single example where that is true with the same tax rate and estate distribution.
-
However, looking at the stats to prove my point, I realized it doesn't. With the new change, the richest rural will be Shomrak with 724 gold, richer than the poorest city being Gaston with only 573 gold. I was looking at the extremes, but in the middle it actually mixes things up.
I have to think about it a little more. It may be that the move to powerful City Lords will only be true for the realms with very large cities. That wouldn't be a bad thing, this creates diversity in realms. I was afraid it was a blanket move.
I think this is what you'll find if you really look through it. When I looked at just a few regions in my realm on AT, I assumed that my realm was getting absolutely shafted in terms of food production. However, when I added up all the values for my realm, we actually turn out to break almost exactly even. Also, we have some cities which increased in gold by a lot, but we also have some cities that lost gold. We have some townslands that increased in both gold and food, and some townslands that lost both gold and food. We have the same sort of thing for rurals. Some rurals went UP in gold, while others went down.
The key is that this system is easily adjustable because it is no longer arbitrary. Which is very nice.
-
I just did some maths, and it looks like Swordfell actually gains from the change. If my calculations are correct +1308 gold and
+345 food.
I'm surprised, but most of that gain is from Flowrestown <Post-Rebalance Gold:3475 gold (+85%)Post-Rebalance Food:142 bushels (+163%)>. The Divides took a deep hit, but they are depopulated and we can't hold them anyhow....so I guess cool beans. The flow penninsula did pretty well and the rural/woodlands above the Divides seem to have only switched gold and food around some.
Huh, forgot about Flow.
-
What are the rural regions around it going to do? Just go on without any hope for knights?
Guess what: until the playerbase increases significantly, they have no hope for knights.
And if we balanced the game for the playerbase we want, instead of the playerbase we have, we would soon find that we're going even further in the wrong direction.
-
What bother me is that Margraves will be getting even more powerful and other lords less meaningful, and it seems a huge step back considering that so far the BM politics seemed to be oriented to lesser centralized realm, so why you are making everything more dependent on the handful of players who rules over cities? It could bring more fun in realm such Luria Nova, but the average BM realm isn't LN and basically this change is just an increase of the "eliteness" required to be able to fully play the intra-realm strife game.
Why a rebalance was needed in the first place?
-
more food needed to be added. If you add more food that adds power to the rurals. It was counterbalanced with more gold to the cities.
Without adding gold to cities then regions like Shomrak, a rural would be more desirable. It will have over 700 gold and over 500 food. That would be more desirable than several of the cities and many townslands. In fact it will still be more desirable than some of the cities and townslands.
Everything can't be vanilla. There has to be some chocolate chips in there.
-
more food needed to be added. If you add more food that adds power to the rurals. It was counterbalanced with more gold to the cities.
Without adding gold to cities then regions like Shomrak, a rural would be more desirable. It will have over 700 gold and over 500 food. That would be more desirable than several of the cities and many townslands. In fact it will still be more desirable than some of the cities and townslands.
Everything can't be vanilla. There has to be some chocolate chips in there.
And when it turned in "let's make townsland like rurals but without food"?
I'm obviously not a dev and I'm relatively a new player compared to most of you, but if the problem was adding more food and still having rurals in tone with the other regions, why cities got such huge gold boost, which honestly sounds pretty uneeded, considering that cities are already the biggest source of income available to a single character?
Is there really the need of making Margrave more influencial than what they already are?
EDIT: I have noticed that my post might sounds harsh, but I'm genuinely trying to understand the process behind those changes. They seem a step back into the feudal model introduced with estates to me.
-
If you add more food that adds power to the rurals.
That's not true. Less food means more power to the rurals, as their food is needed. More food gives more power to the cities who have an easier time not starving; and if the cities don't starve then having surplus food is useless on the continental level.
I think this is a good change, but it can't be painted as a plus for the rurals when it does the contrary.
-
EDIT: I have noticed that my post might sounds harsh, but I'm genuinely trying to understand the process behind those changes.
Actually, a dev statement of the original purpose of the changes and how the new system addresses them would be useful. I remember from other threads what the complaints about food were, especially with regards to overall sustainability, but I don't remember the reason for changing the gold values.
-
Guess what: until the playerbase increases significantly, they have no hope for knights.
So the solution is to put everyone in cities and make margraves the all powerful force in the realm? They'll have all the gold and all the knights. That is a step in the wrong direction no matter how you put it, no matter how many players we have.
And if we balanced the game for the playerbase we want, instead of the playerbase we have, we would soon find that we're going even further in the wrong direction.
The point is, the current region values are much better than what you're trying to push through. What problem exactly are these new numbers trying to solve? What, exactly, is broken? How is this going to make the game more fun compared to the current situation?
-
I like what I see so far. I would like to see the limit on gold per bushel increased or removed though. If cities really are gaining so much gold, I think we need to ensure that the rurals have some kind of power in the form of trade. I never really understood the cap anyways... Just my thought!
-
I must say, I am not pleased with how Balance's Retreat is lined up. A loss in food and coin? It's the second largest Stronghold on Dwilight, and has a river...
Why is it continually getting shafted? Holdover thinking from the original days of Dwi? Hatred of the area on the map? Seriously, this makes no sense to me.
-
They seem a step back into the feudal model introduced with estates to me.
Umm... did you really just kind of complain that the game is too feudal? Or am I just not understanding what you're saying here?
The game is not intended for everything to be equal, or equivalent, or whatever other word menas that every character has the same opportunity. Some characters will be richer than others. A very few will be filthy stinking rich, and have units of 150 cavalry that cost as much to maintain as another duchy's entire army. Don't like it? Kick his ass to the curb and take it for yourself.
Most of the people will end up somewhere in the middlex though.
-
I hope this gold/food rebalance will be edited.. I'm new player and just got lordship of rural region.. And my region loss more than 80 gold with small increases of food.. So how can i increase my family gold? With small income my family will always poor..
Can we send food to family? Its rare opportunity to get city (many gold) and i only hope to get townsland in the future but that rebalance let me think one more time.,
-
I must say, I am not pleased with how Balance's Retreat is lined up. A loss in food and coin? It's the second largest Stronghold on Dwilight, and has a river...
Why is it continually getting shafted? Holdover thinking from the original days of Dwi? Hatred of the area on the map? Seriously, this makes no sense to me.
As has been stated before, this rebalance is based purely on algorithms, and has no individual tweaking for specific regions or areas.
We're not entirely happy with what's happened to the mountainous regions on Dwilight either, though, and we've been authorized to boost their population to compensate. That is not reflected in the rebalance numbers, unfortunately, because it will require specific manual tweakage.
-
I hope this gold/food rebalance will be edited.. I'm new player and just got lordship of rural region.. And my region loss more than 80 gold with small increases of food.. So how can i increase my family gold? With small income my family will always poor..
Can we send food to family? Its rare opportunity to get city (many gold) and i only hope to get townsland in the future but that rebalance let me think one more time.,
I'm sorry to pick on you, Terises, but I'm afraid I'm going to use you as an example of the wrong kind of thinking.
There is not, and should not be, any guarantee that a given noble, or a given Lord, can enrich their family.
There is not, and should not be, any guarantee that having a region lordship will suddenly make you rich, and able to do whatever you want.
There should be different levels of the hierarchy that are meaningfully different.
There should be something for a knight, a rural lord, a townsland lord, a city lord, and even a duke or a ruler to aspire to. It should not be possible, in general, for someone to get a Lordship within their first few weeks in the game and get all the income they could ever want. That's bad game design—it front-loads the rewards, and leaves nothing to work for.
I think everyone needs to step back and realize that "fair" doesn't mean "everyone is equal", and "fun" doesn't mean "everyone gets handed everything they want without effort."
-
I hope this gold/food rebalance will be edited.. I'm new player and just got lordship of rural region.. And my region loss more than 80 gold with small increases of food.. So how can i increase my family gold? With small income my family will always poor..
Can we send food to family? Its rare opportunity to get city (many gold) and i only hope to get townsland in the future but that rebalance let me think one more time.,
What you really want is an estate in a city. Less responsibility, more gold.
Lordships have their perks though; in some realms, it means you get to vote in a Senate. You can also sell your food to other lords, though I'm not certain what this rebalance is going to do to food prices; logic suggests that it won't be good since all islands are moving into surplus. Simple market mechanics mean that will probably create downward pressure on prices.
In the end though, the real answer to your complaint is, strive harder. If your character's goal is to make gold and boost his family wealth, then start scheming your way toward a better lordship. Rise through the ranks and make yourself known so that you move toward the front of the line for the next city that does come up for grabs. Start lobbying for your realm to go to ward with those jerks across the river and take their cities.
And the next time you make a new character, consider where he goes. Lower population realms tend to have more opportunities. Islands like Dwilight and Beluaterra have very high region-to-noble ratios and faster turnover than, say, Atamara.
-
I just want gold to get the family wealth fame.. So i can play my third noble.. no need to collect more than 5000gold..
-
logic suggests that it won't be good since all islands are moving into surplus
This is misleading, and incorrect.
Available food was increased only on Dwilight.
Everywhere else, it was found to be in incredible excess, and decreased. All islands will now have approximately the same percentage net surplus available.
-
The notion that a region would be systematically dependent upon another for food is a gameplay construct. Any 'region' in medieval Europe could feed itself because the primary occupant of peasants was agriculture - up until you had inreased efficiency such that peasants could go to do something else.
Starvation was brought on by famine or war, not by the fundamental inability of most any piece of land to feed the people who lived there. If the region couldn't produce enough food, fewer people lived there. Mountain strongholds too: you wouldn't build a stronghold that didn't have a food supply.
Cities generally starved last unless they were blockaded or under siege. Rural lords always took their share of serfs' crops but city wealth meant that people would come in from all over to sell stuff there. Rural lords also had more control over their populations because they pretty much controlled the economy - nobles in urban areas had to contend with burghers and mayors.
This is of course just an observation and not a criticism, since you need some dependencies for the game to make sense.
-
I can't say I like the numbers I'm seeing in any way. On Beluaterra the trend seems to be less gold and less food produced for rurals.
This is absolutely correct and not something that will be changing. Beluaterra was operating at a SIXTY EIGHT PERCENT SUPLUS in food.
-
In the end though, the real answer to your complaint is, strive harder. If your character's goal is to make gold and boost his family wealth, then start scheming your way toward a better lordship.
Actually, the answer is not to strive harder, but to strive different. His character's goal was to make more gold, and he took the very sensible route of becoming a region Lord given the stats as they were. Now the rules are changing under his feet.
Rules change sometimes, especially on the testing islands, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. Still you can't tell people who get screwed through bad luck that they would have been better off if they just worked harder. They already work hard.
-
The notion that a region would be systematically dependent upon another for food is a gameplay construct. Any 'region' in medieval Europe could feed itself because the primary occupant of peasants was agriculture - up until you had inreased efficiency such that peasants could go to do something else.
And every region that can support agriculture to that level can, in fact, feed itself.
Cities can't. And we're not going to change the entire geographic structure of the game just to make sure that each "region" is defined as being a unit that can feed itself.
Deserts and other badlands-type regions can, in general, also not feed themselves, because there just isn't enough good arable land there.
It sounds to me, Scarlett, like you're simply trying to use a different definition for the word "region," one that makes sense in terms of an actual medieval society, rather than a game like BattleMaster. In fact, it sounds very much like your definition of "region" matches the BattleMaster definition of "realm."
-
I have now made a post on the Development board (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4173.0.html) giving an official explanation and rationale for the rebalance and some of the other stuff going on around it.
Please read it and understand it before posting any more objections.
-
In fact, it sounds very much like your definition of "region" matches the BattleMaster definition of "realm."
As I said, I'm merely pointing out a historical perspective, not demanding (or even suggesting) that BM be done that way. I have never made the claim that just because something 'was' a certain way in history that BM ought to be the same. BM is a game, not a historical simulator. I point this out whenever I make a historical comment because it seems that you need to be reminded that other humans besides yourself are capable of making this distinction.
But your assumption is false anyway: my definition of 'region' is the same because otherwise the analogy makes no sense. If you had an area in medieval Europe that you'd define as badlands - maybe the Scottish moors - it would still feed itself barring external factors like draught or war. The logic is pretty straightforward: if the arable land supports X people, then the max population is only very slightly above X. Sure you had tradesmen who didn't produce their own food, but not very many of them outside of cities.
In BM you have a lot of examples of regions with things like 'mining' where the miners come home every day and there is no food. This serves a useful gameplay purpose because these regions are also rich in gold. But it is a construct: you did not have, for instance, 4,178 square miles (the region of Pates) of medieval land where the primary activity was mining. The primary activity was pretty much always farming, whether or not you had mines or textile manufacturing going on as well. These secondary activities did have to eat the food made by the agriculture sector, but you just didn't have thousands of people moving to an area all depending on someone else for food - unless those thousands of people were in an army.
As a gameplay mechanism, what you're doing is not only necessary but very smart: you're moving from a largely arbitrary system to one that is logically consistent based on values under your control. This adds depth and consistency and forces everyone (players and the dev team) to be more aware of their medieval economy, aka 'all the stuff that goes into the calculations producing the gold and food count.' That certain regions are better or worse than they were before doesn't concern me at all. I haven't even run the numbers for my realm. They'll deal with it.
My angle here is specific to the food sector of the economy. Rural lords should have more food than gold: a quick glance at 13th century economics will show you only a handful of really rich cities, and they weren't even really London or Paris but centers of trade like Bruges, Ghent, or Constantinople. But you also shouldn't really have a region that can't feed itself, because a 'region' for the most part is 'a bunch of people living somewhere because that's where the food is.' A desert with little to no arable land might be a BM region but it would have an effective population of zero, or else a few hundred nomads ... but the nomads aren't paying taxes because they're nomads. Badlands would be better off but they'd just have low populations and income rather than higher populations that can't feed themselves (as in BM). Badlands could also be cleared or drained to add more arable land.
But if the way BM does it is a necessary construct, none of that really matters. It's just a choice you ought to make consciously rather than assuming that a very old gameplay mechanic is a solid basis just because it's what already exists any more than the historical basis is solid just because it's historical.
-
Umm... did you really just kind of complain that the game is too feudal? Or am I just not understanding what you're saying here?
The game is not intended for everything to be equal, or equivalent, or whatever other word menas that every character has the same opportunity. Some characters will be richer than others. A very few will be filthy stinking rich, and have units of 150 cavalry that cost as much to maintain as another duchy's entire army. Don't like it? Kick his ass to the curb and take it for yourself.
Most of the people will end up somewhere in the middlex though.
I was complaining that the game seems going to less feudal, my poor english made you misunderstood me.
Keep in mind that the whole compalaint is just theory since I can't say how in the end the game will change, but while I understand and can second the choice of making region stats more dependants on population and densitiy I'm concerned that those change might lead to more boring relationship between lords of the same realm.
I'm not asking for equality, it's quite the opposite in fact: I fear that with the rebalance we'll have very few wealthy and powerful Margraves while all other lords lose importance.
I think that in the end we'll just get 2 kind of Lords: who owns a city and usually gets load of gold and who doesn't, making the game more equal by removing something in between like are some big rural and townsland now.
-
The first time I saw what my regions would after rebalance, I literally went on like WTF the devs do? But after slowly going through the other regions and continents, I understood the purpose and I am really in love with it!
If you are one of those players whose region got pounded pretty hard, please don't get angry. Its part of the game and you have to deal with it. Why don't you assassinate/rebel against/kick out/duel to death the lucky region lord who got richer in both gold and food? You want to get better, then you gotta fight.
-
Oh and disclaimer, I am not one of those lucky dudes, this is what my regions would be like:
Gold: 361 gold
Food: 396 bushels
Post-Rebalance Gold: 249 gold (-31%)
Post-Rebalance Food: 256 bushels (-35%)
Gold: 460 gold
Food: 529 bushels
Post-Rebalance Gold: 429 gold (-7%)
Post-Rebalance Food: 499 bushels (-6%)
-
I think that in the end we'll just get 2 kind of Lords: who owns a city and usually gets load of gold and who doesn't, making the game more equal by removing something in between like are some big rural and townsland now.
That's a point I wanted to make but made poorly. I'm all for inequality, but this inequality does not need to always be in the direction of cities always being on the good end. Diversity in the way inequality is implemented is good.
As I said before, at least on Dwilight the rebalance actually achieves that. There will be rurals richer than cities, while there were none before.
-
This is misleading, and incorrect.
Available food was increased only on Dwilight.
Everywhere else, it was found to be in incredible excess, and decreased. All islands will now have approximately the same percentage net surplus available.
Ah, my mistake. I did not intend to mislead, that just happened to be what I thought I had read.
-
Something I forgot in my post
Gold: 1310 gold
Food: 33 bushels
Post-Rebalance Gold: 2039 gold (+56%)
Post-Rebalance Food: 188 bushels (+470%)
This is exceptional, right?
-
Well Cren, I assume that the region is still *far* from able to feed itself. Most likely it has a large number of peasants, so those peasants SHOULD be producing some measure of food to feed itself, even if it is a city.
-
Something I forgot in my post
This is exceptional, right?
Note the percanteg change: it's a percentage change from a fairly low base in a huge region, suggesting that the nominal AMOUNT of change was both absolutely small and small relative to the region's demand: just small in percentage terms.
-
I think it's a good change overall. It's nice for coastal regions to get a boost to food, it's much more realistic.
-
Well Cren, I assume that the region is still *far* from able to feed itself. Most likely it has a large number of peasants, so those peasants SHOULD be producing some measure of food to feed itself, even if it is a city.
Its everyone's favourite Madina! Seems to be natural in a RP as it gets a lot of seafood. I hope no other region have got such a large boost.
-
The exact numbers per realm on Dwilight:
Rogue
Gold 7202
New gold 6102
Gold change -1100 -15,3%
Food 2300
New food 2414
Food change 114 5,0%
Astrum
Gold 15480
New gold 17802
Gold change 2322 15,0%
Food 5313
New food 5869
Food change 556 10,5%
Asylon
Gold 9115
New gold 9187
Gold change 72 0,8%
Food 2192
New food 2348
Food change 156 7,1%
Aurvandil
Gold 6325
New gold 7190
Gold change 865 13,7%
Food 3253
New food 3366
Food change 113 3,5%
Barca
Gold 4949
New gold 5150
Gold change 201 4,1%
Food 1616
New food 1619
Food change 3 0,2%
Corsanctum
Gold 7956
New gold 9529
Gold change 1573 19,8%
Food 2388
New food 2533
Food change 145 6,1%
D'Hara
Gold 9322
New gold 10707
Gold change 1385 14,9%
Food 1891
New food 2291
Food change 400 21,2%
Farronite Republic
Gold 5820
New gold 7738
Gold change 1918 33,0%
Food 2390
New food 2765
Food change 375 15,7%
Grand Duchy of Fissoa
Gold 4211
New gold 4340
Gold change 129 3,1%
Food 1688
New food 1702
Food change 14 0,8%
Libero Empire
Gold 4504
New gold 5327
Gold change 823 18,3%
Food 1928
New food 2113
Food change 185 9,6%
Luria Nova
Gold 16614
New gold 17736
Gold change 1122 6,8%
Food 7451
New food 7897
Food change 446 6,0%
Morek Empire
Gold 15385
New gold 18256
Gold change 2871 18,7%
Food 6859
New food 7604
Food change 745 10,9%
Niselur
Gold 9087
New gold 10038
Gold change 951 10,5%
Food 3343
New food 3873
Food change 530 15,9%
Phantaria
Gold 2460
New gold 2252
Gold change -208 -8,5%
Food 780
New food 753
Food change -27 -3,5%
Saffalore
Gold 2060
New gold 1988
Gold change -72 -3,5%
Food 365
New food 363
Food change -2 -0,5%
Swordfell
Gold 5279
New gold 6594
Gold change 1315 24,9%
Food 2072
New food 2368
Food change 296 14,3%
Terran
Gold 819
New gold 745
Gold change -74 -9,0%
Food 13
New food 31
Food change 18 138,5%
The Falkirkian Freestate
Gold 1310
New gold 2039
Gold change 729 55,6%
Food 33
New food 188
Food change 155 469,7%
-
Maybe interesting to know as well:
Dwilight
Gold 127898
New gold 142720
Gold change +14822 (11,6%)
Food 45875
New food 50097
Food change +4222 (9,2%)
-
I gotta agree with Scarlett: no regions should be unable to feed themselves, save for cities. Badlands that can't feed themselves should have their pop count reduced.
If the old pop values are causing issues, I see no reason not to procedurally recalculate pop. Give a pop density value for every region type (woodland, rural, small city, medium city, large city, townsland, etc.), then multiply it by its size and by a random factor. Keep total max pop the same, in order to keep the food supply ratio the same.
-
I gotta agree with Scarlett: no regions should be unable to feed themselves, save for cities. Badlands that can't feed themselves should have their pop count reduced.
That won't help. The production values are heavily based on population, so if you reduce the population, they will be producing less food.
-
That won't help. The production values are heavily based on population, so if you reduce the population, they will be producing less food.
The food production values?
Them being interdependant complicates things, but doesn't make it impossible. 'cause really, if food depends on pop, and you make pop depend on region size and type, then really, food would then depend on region size and type more than region pop. They'd thus evolve in a linear and parallel fashion.
-
The food production values?
Them being interdependant complicates things, but doesn't make it impossible. 'cause really, if food depends on pop, and you make pop depend on region size and type, then really, food would then depend on region size and type more than region pop. They'd thus evolve in a linear and parallel fashion.
Population does not depend on anything. It is an arbitrarily assigned value.
-
Population does not depend on anything. It is an arbitrarily assigned value.
Today, yes. My post was a suggestion for doing it differently.
-
So, what exactly is the point of a badlands region? No food, no gold.
-
So, what exactly is the point of a badlands region? No food, no gold.
For filling otherwise empty space?
-
Badlands can be somewhat useful strategically, and you can always build buildings in them--buildings that someone else will have to pay for, probably.
-
I have a concern with one of the regions on BT... I can't find a separate thread for it, is this the right place?
-
I have a concern with one of the regions on BT... I can't find a separate thread for it, is this the right place?
Its a good enough spot, so post away.
-
So, what exactly is the point of a badlands region? No food, no gold.
Ask the desert what it's for. Post the answer. ;-)
-
So, what exactly is the point of a badlands region? No food, no gold.
Whats exactly the point of a rural region (read: Zamor) with two digit food and gold? Those are filler region for now in the map IMO.
-
Ask the desert what it's for. Post the answer. ;-)
Depends on the desert. Salt flats can yield you, you guessed it, salt, a very, very valuable substance. So that should be something included in a desert's gold making in some situations.
-
I have a concern with one of the regions on BT... I can't find a separate thread for it, is this the right place?
This is the thread Anaris spun off into the general Development forum; non-Dwilight specific questions should probably be addressed there.
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4173.0.html (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,4173.0.html)
-
To quote from that topic, but related to Dwilight:
Second of all, the dev team has been concerned that the rebalances in the past have moved the game much more toward homogeneity. There was becoming too little difference between being Lord of a city and being Lord of any other region—particularly with the separation of Dukeships from Lordships of cities. This may make people feel more equal, but it's not good design for a game of medieval nobles and knights. Inequality is an inherent part of the system, and should not be played down to the extent that it was.
The rebalance makes the problem worse for those smaller cities who had this problem to begin with.
-
To quote from that topic, but related to Dwilight:
The rebalance makes the problem worse for those smaller cities who had this problem to begin with.
The point of the rebalance was to make it formulaic. Something where all they had to do was insert a different variable to change an equation. It makes it a whole lot easier on the whole to change the region statistics that way, and with less bugs in the long run.
Honestly, this shouldn't have been called a rebalance, it should be called a reformat. The way region gold and food production max is being reformatted to a formulaic design from a completely arbitrary one.
-
It would be nice if Uscala: http://www.battlemaster.org/testing/RegionDetails.php?ID=177 on Beluaterra could get a boost from the current projected statistics. It would go from an excellent region to an average one with more than good food (and food is for the birds on Beluaterra). The gold gets halved.
-
It would be nice if Uscala: http://www.battlemaster.org/testing/RegionDetails.php?ID=177 on Beluaterra could get a boost from the current projected statistics. It would go from an excellent region to an average one with more than good food (and food is for the birds on Beluaterra). The gold gets halved.
And I don't see why that's bad for the game, so what's your point? Btw, food has changed drastically for Bel so I wouldn't be so sure of that.
-
If this rebalance or reformat only causes problems the dev team will work on it again. Until then, let it be implemented first so they can gather some data.
-
It would be nice if Uscala: http://www.battlemaster.org/testing/RegionDetails.php?ID=177 on Beluaterra could get a boost from the current projected statistics. It would go from an excellent region to an average one with more than good food (and food is for the birds on Beluaterra). The gold gets halved.
Food gets significantly reduced on BT, so that all continents have the same surplus size. As such, Dwi rurals will, on average, be much more productive than BT rurals.
-
Ah crap, Fissoa's income is tiny! Our whole realm barely produces twice as much as Madina City by itself. We've been making great progress, both on an IC and OOC level, I think, but this is just ... heartbreaking. !@#$, we're always going to be that midget realm down south :P
-
It would be nice if Uscala: http://www.battlemaster.org/testing/RegionDetails.php?ID=177 on Beluaterra could get a boost from the current projected statistics. It would go from an excellent region to an average one with more than good food (and food is for the birds on Beluaterra). The gold gets halved.
Food gets significantly reduced on BT, so that all continents have the same surplus size. As such, Dwi rurals will, on average, be much more productive than BT rurals.
Chenier is correct. Food production on BT is reduced by something like 30% total... or maybe more, can't recall off the top of my head.
You should be careful about comparing region stats between islands. Much better to compare between regions on the same island.
-
Ah crap, Fissoa's income is tiny! Our whole realm barely produces twice as much as Madina City by itself. We've been making great progress, both on an IC and OOC level, I think, but this is just ... heartbreaking. !@#$, we're always going to be that midget realm down south :P
That's why you must annex Madina and drop your silly colony plans. Place the colony in Tower Fatmilak and keep Madina for yourself.
-
Colony plans? Who has those?
-
I am sorry for necroing this thread, but I want to express my concerns for one region in South-Western Dwilight. After the Rebalance, Hawoq'y will go from a really !@#$ty province to unable to support anyone, unless at 100% production. I find this quite dramatic and would love to hear your opinion on it.
-
A lot of the mountain regions are worse.
Just ditch Haqoq'y and take one of Aurvandil's regions instead. Gallacia is, for some reason, extremely rich, even richer than most towns, and there's nothing stopping you -- as in just you, one character -- from going there and taking it over yourself. You don't even have to have anyone else backing you up. Just travel there and spend one week taking it over with some cheap infantry.
-
Oh I'm sure he would love doing that :P
-
I am sorry for necroing this thread, but I want to express my concerns for one region in South-Western Dwilight. After the Rebalance, Hawoq'y will go from a really !@#$ty province to unable to support anyone, unless at 100% production. I find this quite dramatic and would love to hear your opinion on it.
Right now the current concern is getting a formula for region wealth and food production coded into the game. Balancing issues will be handled later.
-
Perhaps if there are two poor regions next to each other they can be merged.
-
Perhaps if there are two poor regions next to each other they can be merged.
It is vastly more likely that one or both of them will simply be made less poor.