Messages

31

BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

« on: April 21, 2014, 12:15:11 AM »

Buffalkill:

Which is good; it should always be better to be bigger or else there would be very little incentive for realms to expand and try to get bigger (obviously being big will come with its own challenges like distance to capital, etc.).  The problem is that when you get so big that everyone is a lord, you miss out on a lot of what's dynamic about having knights and, unfortunately, that's where a lot of realms were at.

32

BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

« on: April 20, 2014, 11:54:01 PM »

Is this realistic though? I've never seen a region with 50% lord's share and knights who are willing to stay there. It's usually closer to 10-15%.
That's not realistic either. A region with 6 nobles is extremely rare, a region with 1-2 nobles is the norm.

A knight in a big city can make 150-200 gold per week, which is more than most rural lords, let alone rural knights.  Lords of large cities can (and, IMO, should) amass 4-5 knights without too much trouble if noble density allows it; this gets very hard when noble density is low because people frequently want titles more than they want more gold.  I'd rather be "Count of Badlandia" than "Knight of Richcity" and just request gold from the realm council constantly whenever they want me to march to war.

Rurals are very rarely going to have knights, it's going to be cities (primarily) and townslands that really attract knights, and that's just fine; it's part of what makes being a Margrave a more prestigious position than being a Count.

33

BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

« on: April 20, 2014, 09:02:42 PM »

Right now, a lord with no knights can collect more gold on tax day than a lord with knights. In other words, increased density is penalized, and decreased density is rewarded.

Not true, actually.  Because all portions of the region that are not part of the lord's estate operate at 50% efficiency (and the lord's estate operates at best at 100% efficiency but likely lower than that if he has no knights), a lord with knights who has 50% lord's share tax settings will receive the same gold in income as a lord without knights, and likely more because he can reduce the size of his own estate to increase its efficiency (and also harbor more knights).

That also ignores the other benefits of having knights, which is an increase in your own personal power; there's nothing quite like being the lord of a city and having five other people answer directly to you.  It gives you a lot of sway; if in a realm of thirty people you alone control 1/5th of it, the government is going to respect the heck out of your opinion (and that of your knights if you stick up for them, which will in turn make them like you more).

34

BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

« on: April 20, 2014, 06:08:40 PM »

I don't believe that's quite the case—I believe that it was still growing at the time Dwilight opened, though the growth rate may have slowed.

Additionally, I believe that we could make a big difference in registration and retention if we could get a serious graphical overhaul for the game. Unfortunately, that's not something I'm qualified to do.

What kind of a graphical overhaul are we talking, here?

35

Helpline / Re: Effects of Estate Size

« on: April 20, 2014, 12:51:58 AM »

Thanks!

36

Helpline / Effects of Estate Size

« on: April 20, 2014, 12:45:54 AM »

So estate size affects how much gold that estate makes, but does it have any other effects?  Does it affect what infrastructure has to close down due to neglect, for instance?

37

Other Games / Re: Dota 2 the International 4

« on: April 18, 2014, 10:44:11 PM »

Nope, tickets sold out in about 10 minutes.  It's going to be sick, though.

38

BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

« on: April 17, 2014, 11:26:52 PM »

If you really want to get rid of spying (or at least put big bright lights above the spies' heads), why not remove the ability to directly contact foreign nobles from people who are not diplomats or Council members?  Then the only way spying could happen is if someone changes class to diplomat, gets elected to a government position, is a member of a guild or religion, or actually enters a region that contains a member of the realm they are spying for (thus introducing that opportunity to catch them). (also leaves a great many ways to contact people from other realms, most of which are traceable)

And let's say you have some Evilists in your realm and you're at war with Evilstan; maybe the Evilstanis predict your army's movement one too many times and *bam*, suddenly all the Evilists in your realm are suspect.

39

Feature Requests / Re: Hosting Foreign Nobles

« on: April 17, 2014, 11:18:03 PM »

FWIW - Do you have any idea how difficult this is to pull off when you are in your own realm? Trying to force a battle with a noble from another realm is almost impossible.

Yeah, I spent about three days trying to catch Lunaria de Lancelot in one region and she was constantly traveling.  But being able to push a button to arrest an ostensibly friendly or neutral noble should also not be kosher, IMO.

That brings me to this question: if you are stationary in a region and set to murderous, shouldn't you attack any nobles not of your realm who enter or travel through it (stopping because they encounter "hostile troops")?  Likewise, if you and another noble from another realm enter another region simultaneously, shouldn't you attack them?  Or do you both have to be stationary in the same region while you are set to murderous because you don't count as hostile until you actually attack?  How does the murderous setting actually work?

40

Feature Requests / Re: Hosting Foreign Nobles

« on: April 17, 2014, 11:07:55 PM »

I disagree.  If you want to host a noble you can already roleplay it; no new mechanic is required to host a noble cordially.  And if you want to cause a diplomatic incident, you can set your unit to murderous and attack the noble in your region.  What you're proposing is the ability to arrest any noble regardless of diplomatic status; there's a reason you have to be at war with a realm to arrest that realm's priests: if you're going to arrest them you have to mean it.  Ditto for your average noble; if you are at war with their realm your troops have a chance to capture them (I believe this is accurate).  Otherwise, them being somewhere they should not be should be enough to cause an incident if you suspect they are scouting your realm for invasion.

41

BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

« on: April 17, 2014, 05:03:06 AM »

When you have one shot, you don't waste it on looting some regions. You go straight for your goal.

That's why I didn't understand why Asylon wandered around in Shilorak, Vorstadt and Mimiravair when they landed; they landed a spy a couple days before their main force who could have told them easily that all (not joking here) of our regions were starving (and that we had no military force to speak of whatsoever).  Knowing that, why risk Morek and Astrum assembling in time?  Why not go straight for Unterstrom?  If Astrum had been faster to respond they might not have even gotten into the city at all.

42

Newbie Board / Re: Can a lord be removed?

« on: April 17, 2014, 01:27:31 AM »

Banishment (at which point they'll likely transfer the region out of your realm), or being seriously wounded for (IIRC) five consecutive days (I believe that's the time without logging in before autopausing).  I believe being imprisoned would do it as well.

EDIT: A priest could also conduct an auto da fe and have them removed if they are not the religion of the majority of the peasantry.

43

Dwilight / Re: Sanguis Astroism

« on: April 14, 2014, 12:45:19 AM »

Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, how 'bout them Consul elections?  A fierce race between three great competitors, who knows what the outcome will be!  (cut to shot of snoozefest, no campaigning, no promises, no debates) Find out next time, on Sanguis Astroism Z!

44

BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

« on: April 13, 2014, 04:22:40 PM »

Oh believe me, there are plenty of new players on Dwilight who are asking many, many questions about the event. You just choose to ignore that as it doesn't fit your personal opinions.

Or perhaps he simply isn't seeing them.

45

Feature Requests / Re: lower honor/prestige requirements for classes

« on: April 13, 2014, 05:09:43 AM »

Personal disagreements aside, forcing people into the Courtier class is explicitly against the rules of the game.  As such, why not allow newbies to play as a courtiers if they want to?  Heck, I'd be in favor (I know, much more work, sorry) of a choice on character creation between warrior class or courtier class, depending upon what you want that noble to be.  I wanted to roll a noble who was just going to be a statesman and play a courtier but I had to fight battles and do civil and police work until my H/P were high enough; it would have been nice to just be able to jump into being a courtier.