BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Vellos on May 11, 2011, 10:25:30 PM
-
Recent discussions here:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,519.0.html
Have led me to think the player count decline we've seen in the last year or two are probably in some way related to the declining role of team play in BM.
Personally, I don't like team play. I like intra-realm conflict, and find wars between realms extremely dull compared to religious feuds, political scheming, tax evasion, guilds, colonizing Dwilight, etc.
I thought we might use this thread to brainstorm how we could revitalize the sense of the realm as a team. However, for the purpose of this specific thread, I'd love to see us brainstorm ways of achieving that goal that are not simple reversions to previous systems. Rather than removing part of the game as it presently stands, what new thing could we do? Is there a new "button" we could give to a council member? A new addition to the travel code? A new function for religion? A systematic way we could inculcate team-playing even among players who like their independence and sovereignty, such as the powerful dukes?
I'll start the discussion with three proposals:
1. State religion- Make a game function to declare a "state religion." Regions with a majority of that religion get bonuses. However, any peasants present of another religion will become "evil" (even pagans!). Meaning that declaring a state religion will create riots, and an enemy priest could comparatively easily cause havoc simply by preaching. Maybe even allow some "tax share" for the religion? Not sure how that would work? This would make religious diversity more difficult, but also help inculcate a stronger sense of the realm as a cohesive unit (think "Christendom").
2. Royal levy- Ruler can exercise a special tax directly on a region while in that region. Meaning that a royal sitting in a rich city could take money directly. This would strengthen the ruler.
3. Simple color map- I know that "pretty" maps are being worked on. I would ask for something different: a simplified map. Each realm is represented on a gray background of the map, just coasts, rivers, but NOT region borders, with the realm colored in as its color (same as on the graphs). This would only slightly help, but could serve as a stronger (color-coded!) visual reminder of "teams." Better yet if you could click a "Color-code for diplomacy" feature that would recolor the map based on diplomatic settings.
I do not include this in the Feature Requests forum because these are generalized ideas I haven't given a great deal of thought to, and I'd much rather we came up with a few good proposals we've deliberated on for how the sense of being a team in a realm could be restored.
-
In regards to giving the ruler more power, I think that the most likely cause of intra-realm conflicts is envy at those who have positions by those who don't. There's no need to fan the flames that way.
But there should be some incentive for people to actually get their act together and try to win as a team, rather than try slitting each others' throats. Like, that "Too Much Peace"? It doesn't go away if you fight amongst yourselves...That has to do with actual battles, yes.
Ok, so how do other games do it? I haven't been active in many browser-based MMOs, nor really those team-based strategy games. I do have some experience with competitive guilds/clans in games like...WoW...yes...
I've also been a part of competitive SCBW, although that's not exactly the same. But the point of maintaining cohesion in such groups was strong leadership, clear objectives, and clear ways to get to that objective.
I remember faintly how in SC the clanleader would review our records and give us a win loss ratio goal, as well as a target total games played. In BM, the council has primary responsibility to set objectives to send out to the dukes, lords, marshals, and knights. What would these be?
For the ruler, it could be as simple as: I want to expand to X more regions"
Judge: I want to see more regions at Core control (Yeah, I guess that is part of his job description)
General: I want to see everyone in the armies with full cohesion units.
Banker: I want to see more efficient food spread.
It doesn't need to be something that big, but I think a lot of the time, it really helps to know just what you're supposed to do, even if it's not the big picture, end goal, ultimate plan. For my SC days, we never thought about how we had to win out TSL or get everyone up to at least A- rank. It was the small things, like improving mechanics, getting a build order imprinted, and playing against equal or higher ranked opponents to hopefully gain wins.
In much the same way, leaders of a realm should definitely be more involved with setting goals for the realm, such that everyone knows what they have to do. They should also be more attentive, because if you recognize someone who might not be that talkative, but might yet harbor a hidden darkness in his heart, you may yet dispel potential seditious thoughts and actions by being observant and saying "Good job" to someone you see doing the right thing. Send a personal message to some people who are doing well, saying how you appreciate their efforts. It shouldn't only be them seeking you out. As a leader, you are responsible for keeping your followers happy. Among the most effective ways to do so is to acknowledge their existence.
Next, what about the realm itself? It's good and all to have goals, but what good is a few more regions anyway? To many knights, there can only be one lord for each region, and if they're not chosen, what of it? That's where I think there should be something tangible, of some sort, for being a successful realm. I know, I know, realistically, there are no such "prizes" for winning wars, and BM isn't a game you can win. But you can certainly gain things in it, and I have a feeling that such intangible and distant things as "glory" and "victory", "pride", "honor", "influence", don't resonate strongly with the majority of characters in a realm, who are at most knights. Keep the dukes, lords, marshals, council happy too, of course. But the bigger challenge I think is to keep the knights in line, and to be careful selecting who to promote to positions. A rotten duke/lord/marshal/council member will be an even greater threat to the realm than any stray knight, usually. Make sure all who would pursue to become leaders of the realm, be it on the council, as a region lord, or a marshal, understand that, as cheesy as it sounds, with power does come responsibility. More specifically, the responsibility to make the rest of the realm feel that spirit of teamwork.
But now there's some difficulties. I would suggest a sort of tally of wins/losses in battles and such, but that hardly sounds good, not to mention it can be cluttered quickly. I don't have any ideas right now, but really, something at least, to make it feel actually real, that fighting in a war for my realm actually means something. Otherwise, to me it feels like a lot of words, which is exactly what they are, literally speaking. That shouldn't happen though. I should feel connected to my realm and teammates. Without that feeling, there is nothing but a bunch of cold unfeeling text, and that makes it all the more easier to be selfish and uncaring about what other characters I must hurt to satisfy my own desires.
-
I like the idea of a goals-focus.
I played the game eRepublik for a while, and it has "formal" goals that candidates select around election time: goals like "conquer (list of regions)" or "population increase to X." Always tangible, measurable things. The game gave tangible rewards if they were accomplished.
BM couldn't work like that. We don't want to give random tangible rewards, and such formal goals seem difficult.
However, maybe a more structured bulletin.
What if, in automated elections, a candidate would be asked to "Post a bulletin" that would serve as a replacement for the current banker bulletin if elected, and be viewable during the referendum. And, when elected, the bulletin would auto-update.
Moreover, what if the game subdivided the bulletin into "Goals" and then "Other." Goals could only be changed at elections. So they get set, and stay the same. The rest of the bulletin as is.
The goals field could be either free-form, or maybe tangible? For the banker, maybe, "Realm tax revenue exceeds X" or "No more than X regions starve before the next election." Simple goals that don't require lots of new code would be best, of course, but might not be meaningful. Goals for a general could be "War chests exceed X" or "CS exceeds X."
If freeform, it'd be simpler, but less powerful a motivator, I think. If formal, it'd be trickier to code, but might be a good team motivator. An info page could be made with "Realm Objectives."
-
If freeform, it'd be simpler, but less powerful a motivator, I think. If formal, it'd be trickier to code, but might be a good team motivator. An info page could be made with "Realm Objectives."
I like this, though it would only work for republics and democracies. A separation between electorate approved agenda (goals) and the bulletin can be easily made one editable and one not. As long as Tom approves and makes the db changes. 8)
-
I like this, though it would only work for republics and democracies. A separation between electorate approved agenda (goals) and the bulletin can be easily made one editable and one not. As long as Tom approves and makes the db changes. 8)
Maybe for other types of governments it would say like the King's goals for the realm.
-
Have led me to think the player count decline we've seen in the last year or two are probably in some way related to the declining role of team play in BM.
Personally, I don't like team play. I like intra-realm conflict, and find wars between realms extremely dull compared to religious feuds, political scheming, tax evasion, guilds, colonizing Dwilight, etc.
I thought we might use this thread to brainstorm how we could revitalize the sense of the realm as a team.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, I think intra-realm warfare and more scope-limited wars would help to bring more team play spirit.
Part of the problems is that through the years, it seems the concept of "team" has become more varied. While it used to be that the realm was the only meaningful team you could associate yourself with, there are now a large variety of choices: duchy, religion, guild, etc. I think this is a good change, it adds a lot of depth to the game.
However, warfare has remained at the level of the realms only because the diplomacy settings, looting options and army structure have remained bound to the realm.
This lead to the situation where people have adjusted their team-playing paradigm and do not want to be sent back to the old days, but keep being forced there if they want to enjoy the military strategy and tactics part of the game. So rather than help revitalize the realm as a team, I think we should consider adding more options to what effectively constitutes the team, when it is not the realm.
(NB Please do not take this as yet another feature request for intra-realm warfare, I am really just brainstorming here.)
-
The pressing problem with intra-realm conflict is that, in the end, you need to be part of some realm. If you have some group that acts for its own interests that are separate from the realm, then either your group ends up gaining control over the realm, or you fail. More often for many more groups than not, failure is the only result.
What then? That leads to migration to another realm, to attempt the same thing. It's happened more times than i can remember. We all know this to be true. When a group loses in their bid to become dominant, they either disband or try again in another realm, or, if their original realm doesn't banish them all for their insolence, try again in the same realm a while later.
All the while this weakens not only the realm as a whole, but in fact weakens the very structure that allows such groups to function in the first place. Unless the factions' goals are complete anarchy, which would overtly go against what BM is supposed to be, then the factions really do need a stable realm structure, or they would fall against some moderately powerful but much more united realm.
I think there are some leaders of these factions who are veterans to this game, but have grown myopic in their goals, failing to realize that having a more unified realm will allow them to actually have something to attempt to influence. Most times being a manipulative chessmaster results in you manipulating some smoldering ruins. If that's your cup of tea, then all the more power to you. But who ever really thinks about the effects on people who came into this game expecting to, you know...battle against other forces?
-
The pressing problem with intra-realm conflict is that, in the end, you need to be part of some realm. If you have some group that acts for its own interests that are separate from the realm, then either your group ends up gaining control over the realm, or you fail. More often for many more groups than not, failure is the only result.
What then? That leads to migration to another realm, to attempt the same thing. It's happened more times than i can remember. We all know this to be true. When a group loses in their bid to become dominant, they either disband or try again in another realm, or, if their original realm doesn't banish them all for their insolence, try again in the same realm a while later.
All the while this weakens not only the realm as a whole, but in fact weakens the very structure that allows such groups to function in the first place. Unless the factions' goals are complete anarchy, which would overtly go against what BM is supposed to be, then the factions really do need a stable realm structure, or they would fall against some moderately powerful but much more united realm.
I think there are some leaders of these factions who are veterans to this game, but have grown myopic in their goals, failing to realize that having a more unified realm will allow them to actually have something to attempt to influence. Most times being a manipulative chessmaster results in you manipulating some smoldering ruins. If that's your cup of tea, then all the more power to you. But who ever really thinks about the effects on people who came into this game expecting to, you know...battle against other forces?
Yes yes yes. Exactly. The number of times plots, backstabbing and generalized subversion brought to a new stable and better situation are really really few. This means that in the majority of cases the "plotters" and those risking to lose their position to the plotters may have fun in the political ballet involved, but everyone else in the realm will just be irritated, annoyed or bored. Those new to the game are highly likely to fall into the second category, as they are probably clueless of what's going on.
Just to bring up one example: Pian en Luries. For those who know it, that realm has been haunted by a never ending series of schemes and various attempts to overthrow the rule, including a full fledged secession followed by war. Asking around on the one hand some people would say "hell it's fun cause it's realistic and entertaining to try and find new ways to plot against the crown without being discovered", and the crown itself didn't really bend to be conciliating but keep ruling with an iron fist (or that's what I heard). On the other hand, some other people would just say "hell PeL is so boring. they can't achieve anything they just spend their time arguing", and in fact as far as I can remember PeL failed to become the empire many desired it to be for lack of cohesion.
The war that followed the secession has been very fun apparently, but again not so often a plot would end up in an open confrontation. So my opinion is that yes, a realm torn apart by intra-realm behind-the-curtain fights can be less interesting for new players, damaging player retention. Without mentioning that such a realm is going to be hopelessly defeated if attacked by a cohesive enemy.
Of course all this does not mean one should actually refrain from plotting if one wants to.
-
The pressing problem with intra-realm conflict is that, in the end, you need to be part of some realm. If you have some group that acts for its own interests that are separate from the realm, then either your group ends up gaining control over the realm, or you fail. More often for many more groups than not, failure is the only result.
That's not uniformly my experience, but yes, it often happens. That's normal, I think.
I think there are some leaders of these factions who are veterans to this game, but have grown myopic in their goals, failing to realize that having a more unified realm will allow them to actually have something to attempt to influence. Most times being a manipulative chessmaster results in you manipulating some smoldering ruins. If that's your cup of tea, then all the more power to you. But who ever really thinks about the effects on people who came into this game expecting to, you know...battle against other forces?
You can incarnate these forces that people battle against?
-
The point is, people come into BM expecting to play as a team with their realm as the "teamplay" on the front page would indicate. Their expectations may be very wrong depending on the level of intra-realm conflict, and then they are turned away as their expectations were not met.
Either we cultivate more realm-team spirit, or acknowledge to new players before they join that there is a lot of politics and whatnot that sometimes create teams apart from the realm-team.
-
Either we cultivate more realm-team spirit, or acknowledge to new players before they join that there is a lot of politics and whatnot that sometimes create teams apart from the realm-team.
Something could be done in that direction, yes.
-
Have led me to think the player count decline we've seen in the last year or two are probably in some way related to the declining role of team play in BM.
I agree. :)
Personally, I don't like team play. I like intra-realm conflict, and find wars between realms extremely dull compared to religious feuds, political scheming, tax evasion, guilds, colonizing Dwilight, etc.
It takes all kinds to keep things interesting. It's people like you that create those interesting wars that people like me get to fight.
Not to say that the *only* thing I like is realm-v-realm warfare. I enjoy delving into the religion game as well. And scheming for world domination with like minds in a secret society is quite interesting, too. But I think that the team-based aspect of the game is one of the prime attractions for me. If the game were completely "every man for himself" I don't think I would enjoy it as much, and probably wouldn't still be playing.
I thought we might use this thread to brainstorm how we could revitalize the sense of the realm as a team. However, for the purpose of this specific thread, I'd love to see us brainstorm ways of achieving that goal that are not simple reversions to previous systems. Rather than removing part of the game as it presently stands, what new thing could we do? Is there a new "button" we could give to a council member? A new addition to the travel code? A new function for religion? A systematic way we could inculcate team-playing even among players who like their independence and sovereignty, such as the powerful dukes?
I fully agree. I don't want to remove the ability for people to play for individual power, or plot treason and revolutions. But, IMHO, we need to have some way to strengthen the attraction to be maintaining the realm as the core team.
I'll start the discussion with three proposals:
1. State religion- Make a game function to declare a "state religion." Regions with a majority of that religion get bonuses. However, any peasants present of another religion will become "evil" (even pagans!). Meaning that declaring a state religion will create riots, and an enemy priest could comparatively easily cause havoc simply by preaching. Maybe even allow some "tax share" for the religion? Not sure how that would work? This would make religious diversity more difficult, but also help inculcate a stronger sense of the realm as a cohesive unit (think "Christendom").
I think a state religion should be *required* for theocracies, and unchangeable for them in any way short of revolution or anarchy. For other government types it should be optional, but difficult, and damaging, to change.
Tim and I played around with analyzing the various religion spreads, religious views, and realm political alliances at one time. (Well, I brought up the idea and commented, while Tim did the magical SQL invocations to make it happen.) Basically, we wanted to see what the peasants in a region would think of their realm's political alliances, based on the religious concentrations of the other realms. The idea would be that a realm would have more trouble with a region who had a lot of people that viewed their allies as Evil, or who viewed their enemies as fellow faithful.
For example, there was a time when Westmoor, who was heavily Church of Humanity, was federated with Ibladesh/Diocese, who were almost exclusively Church of Ibladesh. But both CoH and CoI had viewed each other as Evil for years. And the leaders of the realms were the leaders of the respective faiths. This situation is not one that should be sustainable, long-term. You have the leadership of the realm telling the peasantry on one hand that CoI is the embodiment of all that is Evil, but then telling them that they are our federated allies.
The basic idea would be that the greater the difference between the religious views and the diplomatic views, the greater the trouble the peasants cause. If a region is part of a realm that is federated with someone they consider the root of all evil, then they should be rioting in the streets. Perhaps a similar, but weaker, effect for being at war with the fellow faithful. Political differences, after all, can still exist with people who follow the same god as you.
Adding this type of an effect could help create a more "us vs them" attitude. It would definitely give more power to religion, as declaring faiths as Evil could have some real effects on a realm, even passively.
2. Royal levy- Ruler can exercise a special tax directly on a region while in that region. Meaning that a royal sitting in a rich city could take money directly. This would strengthen the ruler.
Yes, it could strengthen the ruler. But I don't see how this would promote a team aspect to the realm.
3. Simple color map- I know that "pretty" maps are being worked on. I would ask for something different: a simplified map. Each realm is represented on a gray background of the map, just coasts, rivers, but NOT region borders, with the realm colored in as its color (same as on the graphs). This would only slightly help, but could serve as a stronger (color-coded!) visual reminder of "teams." Better yet if you could click a "Color-code for diplomacy" feature that would recolor the map based on diplomatic settings.
I am a very big advocate of all kinds of map overlays to provide the players more information. If only we could work out the bugs required to get it to work. :( There's a lot of information that could be made available to the players this way. An "us vs them" alliance map should be possible. Tim might even be able to come up with something if he could get his hands on actual SVG maps of the islands. Even an SVG file of an island that has nothing more than each region as an individual closed path would be nice. I did one for EC, but it's a lot of work. I couldn't find any way to get an autotrace to work, so it's a lot of very time-consuming hand work. Maybe some graphics guru could get it to work easier?
-
Either we cultivate more realm-team spirit, or acknowledge to new players before they join that there is a lot of politics and whatnot that sometimes create teams apart from the realm-team.
My problem is that if I were a new player, nothing is meaningful to me, and I wouldn't have any interest in teams within realms. Killing other people with your team has a more of universal appeal.
From a slightly different direction, these politics are generally irritating asides to those not involved and with no stake, and new players by definition have no investment.
-
My problem is that if I were a new player, nothing is meaningful to me, and I wouldn't have any interest in teams within realms. Killing other people with your team has a more of universal appeal.
But that's because everything we tell new players is about the realms, and everything else is seen as a add-on. And that's normal because, historically, that is what has happened.
There was a discussion sometime ago about the possibility to add an option to choose a religion at character creation, instead of always starting pagan. This is the kind of thing that would allow a larger slice of the team play in the game to be seen as my team by new players.
-
I kind of feel that from the perspective of a new player that game does still have a fairly realm=team feel. I get sworn to a Lord and he assigns me to an army that, generally, serves the realm. At the least most new players are a part of the army team. As they grow they might realize that there factions within factions and many layers. This realization might not even make much of an impact. For a new player it is all really straight forward. Serve your army and liege well. They are your team.
I can defiantly frustration arising when nothing seems to be happening. At the same time I do not see how it is possible for every realm, especially on an established continent, being able to collect regions and build empires just because that is what the players want. The whole point of the game is that other also have goals that will conflict with yours.
I do like a few suggestions though:
Some kind of goal setting mechanism for realms, religions and maybe even duchies.
Enhancing the influence religion has on diplomatic relations.
-
Really, if you start in a Theocratic realm you should start as that religion, especially if a new family.
-
My point wasn't to say that you had to fight other realms all the time. Even mundane and simple goals would suffice to engender a stronger realm identity.
I think that if we were to take a poll among the active players on this forum, our spread might be interesting as we ask about just which identity we assert primarily. I really think that as we get more experience, we understand the different things going on in our part of BM, and learn how to manipulate them. But I also think with that comes a sort of blinder that makes us less aware that the vast majority of newer players have not the slightest clue about such complexities, and might even think we're just stringing them along like puppets. Then again, they might not be incorrect in that assessment either.
Perhaps we who have been around for a while should step back a moment and assess ourselves and what we've done in this game. What role do we really want to play in the future of this game? I don't mean stupid petty things like character goals. Sure, you probably think they're big deals, but guess what? Truth is, if BM itself disappears all your characters' goals are worthless and pointless because you'd have no BM in the first place. While this is an outcome far into the future, the question is how quickly do you want to bring it about?
You are allowed to play your characters the way you want, obviously. But at the same time, I cannot see how truly "right" it would be to allow such characters to have responsibility over the enjoyment of other players. Seriously, for those of you who are skeptical: If your character is a leader in your realm, you are responsible for the enjoyment of this game by the other players. We're not talking just characters here. You're supposed to make sure that the players are satisfied with the results they get. Of course if they play !@#$%^& characters then they get what they deserve, usually banishment, but I mean for the majority of players who aren't !@#$%^&s. I hope we all realize that it's true, most BM players aren't scheming lying jerks.
So it comes down to a question of just what we would like to do for this game. Sure, we can certainly go on with our selfish and smaller faction politics. That, I believe, will lead down a steady road to the point where BM ceases to be a viable online game. In that case, all your scheming would be a pathetic waste of time as you'd be better off writing a self-insert fanfic with you as the protagonist winning all the time. Apologies for the harsh hyperbole, but I thought the point should be fairly stressed, especially since there are likely some who are deadset in pursuing their own selfish goals. With regrets I admit that at one point I was among them, but I have since come to a certain different thought about just what role I wish to play in this game.
Basically, if you're going to lead people, don't be a jerk about it. If you're going to be a jerk, and the realm actually places you in power, then that's too bad for the realm I suppose. But still, try to accept the heavy responsibility that comes with positions. Such things make me wonder whether a lot of players view positions more as things to brag about or rewards, rather than actually relevant and involved obligations. Those positions shouldn't just be pretty titles, so I would imagine.
-
Let's repeat things we concur are good ideas:
1. Official realm goals- For regularly-elected realms, only changeable at elections. For less-regularly-elected realms, perhaps make them "periodically" changeable.
Unresolved issues- Should these goals be mechanical (preset list of 20 goals, you pick'em, and the game sends out a message if/when they are achieved... or, at election/goal review time, a message noting your failure) or should they be freeform? Pro for mechanical: creates a strong mechanics-backed sense of team objectives and whether they are met or not. Con for mechanical: pain to code, not flexible, might not reflect real game concerns. Pro for freeform: opposite of con for mechanical. Con for freeform: opposite of pro for mechanical.
2. Religious power- We are agreed a realm/religious connection needs to exist.
State religion- Do we agree a state religion "option" should be available (required for theocracies?)? That option could be a "text only" option. It's just "FYI." Or, it could be more significant, with "state religion" creating automatic religious tensions, or maybe restrictions on running for elections or getting lordships? Maybe grant auto-claims to regions for full members?
Unresolved issue- Exactly what effect should a state religion have?
Religious diplomacy- Connected to state religion but not necessarily identical: make realms suffer for alliances with religious opponents of dominant religions in domestic territories. Unresolved issue is mostly coding.
3. Layered map- We want a simple, color-coded diplomatic map of each continent. The issue here is just the coding/graphics.
And the "royal levy" was also proposed, but had little discussion.
So, let's refine those ideas, or else find new ideas aimed at promoting team play.
On another note, this thread is not for discussion of whether inter-realm or intra-realm conflict is better. It's about how we can promote team spirit. For the purposes of this thread, that objective is regarded as a "given" good. Let's work out what could promote team play, and do that.
-
3. Layered map- We want a simple, color-coded diplomatic map of each continent. The issue here is just the coding/graphics.
Actually, the issue here is primarily the lack of an SVG-based map, or other programmatic description of the shapes of regions, for each continent. If I had that, it would only take me a few hours to code up various useful overlays.
-
Let's repeat things we concur are good ideas:
1. Official realm goals- For regularly-elected realms, only changeable at elections. For less-regularly-elected realms, perhaps make them "periodically" changeable.
Unresolved issues- Should these goals be mechanical (preset list of 20 goals, you pick'em, and the game sends out a message if/when they are achieved... or, at election/goal review time, a message noting your failure) or should they be freeform? Pro for mechanical: creates a strong mechanics-backed sense of team objectives and whether they are met or not. Con for mechanical: pain to code, not flexible, might not reflect real game concerns. Pro for freeform: opposite of con for mechanical. Con for freeform: opposite of pro for mechanical.
I think a preset list would be way too restricted. There should be at least an additional freeform field added. Also, if there is a game mechanic reward for fulfilling goals, then there will be an incentive to pick easy goals.
But, yeah, I kind of like this.
On another note, this thread is not for discussion of whether inter-realm or intra-realm conflict is better. It's about how we can promote team spirit. For the purposes of this thread, that objective is regarded as a "given" good. Let's work out what could promote team play, and do that.
Honestly, I am trying to promote team play. I feel restricting "team play" to realm-only would remove team play from the game. I want to avoid that.
-
Let's repeat things we concur are good ideas:
1. Official realm goals- For regularly-elected realms, only changeable at elections. For less-regularly-elected realms, perhaps make them "periodically" changeable.
Unresolved issues- Should these goals be mechanical (preset list of 20 goals, you pick'em, and the game sends out a message if/when they are achieved... or, at election/goal review time, a message noting your failure) or should they be freeform? Pro for mechanical: creates a strong mechanics-backed sense of team objectives and whether they are met or not. Con for mechanical: pain to code, not flexible, might not reflect real game concerns. Pro for freeform: opposite of con for mechanical. Con for freeform: opposite of pro for mechanical.
I don't think I'm a big fan of these. Especially if it is some kind of checklist where candidates just click checkboxes from a set of pre-generated options. I think game mechanics criteria would lead to gaming the system, where people will do things that don't make sense for their character/realm/situation just to meet some mechanics-based trigger point. I really don't like things that promote that kind of play.
-
2. Religious power- We are agreed a realm/religious connection needs to exist.
State religion- Do we agree a state religion "option" should be available (required for theocracies?)? That option could be a "text only" option. It's just "FYI." Or, it could be more significant, with "state religion" creating automatic religious tensions, or maybe restrictions on running for elections or getting lordships? Maybe grant auto-claims to regions for full members?
Definitely should be required for a theocracy. That's kind of the point of a theocracy, isn't it? If you're theocracy and there is no specified state religion, then you should start getting increasingly worse region stat penalties and unrest as the peasants realize you're just jerking them around with all the theocracy stuff. And it should be *required* to be an actual, officially established in-game religion. And if that religion should happen to be lost while the realm still lives, then there should be some *major* penalties. (And come to think of it, this should apply to any realm that has an official state religion, too.)
-
1. Official realm goals- For regularly-elected realms, only changeable at elections. For less-regularly-elected realms, perhaps make them "periodically" changeable.
Unresolved issues- Should these goals be mechanical (preset list of 20 goals, you pick'em, and the game sends out a message if/when they are achieved... or, at election/goal review time, a message noting your failure) or should they be freeform? Pro for mechanical: creates a strong mechanics-backed sense of team objectives and whether they are met or not. Con for mechanical: pain to code, not flexible, might not reflect real game concerns. Pro for freeform: opposite of con for mechanical. Con for freeform: opposite of pro for mechanical.
I don't think I'm a big fan of these. Especially if it is some kind of checklist where candidates just click checkboxes from a set of pre-generated options. I think game mechanics criteria would lead to gaming the system, where people will do things that don't make sense for their character/realm/situation just to meet some mechanics-based trigger point. I really don't like things that promote that kind of play.
If I were to implement something like this, there would be a sliding scale of "reward" (which might just be a notification of how impressive an achievement is that you have, um, achieved) based on how far away from a given goal the game judges you to be when you set it. So if you set as a goal to control 15 regions, and you control 14, it wouldn't get you much. But if you only control 10, it would acknowledge that as being a far more ambitious goal.
Bearing in mind, of course, that this is all just vague top-of-my-head brainstorming about how such a feature might work, in theory.
-
2. Religious power- We are agreed a realm/religious connection needs to exist.
State religion- Do we agree a state religion "option" should be available (required for theocracies?)? That option could be a "text only" option. It's just "FYI." Or, it could be more significant, with "state religion" creating automatic religious tensions, or maybe restrictions on running for elections or getting lordships? Maybe grant auto-claims to regions for full members?
Unresolved issue- Exactly what effect should a state religion have?
Religious diplomacy- Connected to state religion but not necessarily identical: make realms suffer for alliances with religious opponents of dominant religions in domestic territories. Unresolved issue is mostly coding.
Apart from the restrictions on running for elections etc, I'm of the mind this would not only succeed in reinforcing the spirit of unity within a realm, but likewise add another twist when need work out your realms diplomatic strategies.
I also think the religious slant offers great scope for the creation of secular armies within the realm, ie although any noble can join it's bog standard army only followers of the state religion would be admitted to it's best, the holy orders.
-
2. Religious power- We are agreed a realm/religious connection needs to exist.
State religion- Do we agree a state religion "option" should be available (required for theocracies?)? That option could be a "text only" option. It's just "FYI." Or, it could be more significant, with "state religion" creating automatic religious tensions, or maybe restrictions on running for elections or getting lordships? Maybe grant auto-claims to regions for full members?
Unresolved issue- Exactly what effect should a state religion have?
Religious diplomacy- Connected to state religion but not necessarily identical: make realms suffer for alliances with religious opponents of dominant religions in domestic territories. Unresolved issue is mostly coding.
I absolutely think this is a grand idea.
If declared, a state religion would automatically align all nobles within the realm to a religion. They would be free to role play just lip service to the faith, but they would officially be counted on its rolls. You don't like it? Find a new realm - hopefully one without a state religion. Peasants would still need to be converted by the clergy though - they breed like rabbits and this faith stuff is hard for them to understand since they can't read or write.
If the Crown attempts to change the state religion the rebellion mechanism kicks in. I'm sure that the text can be tweaked appropriately. If the nobility loses faith and wishes to do away with the state religion, they can form a rebellion.
State religions increase the unity of the realm, and as such should require fewer nobles to control the population. This could be accomplished by applying a bonus to both Production and Authority through the Lord's estate (instead of just setting one), providing a bonus for each estate wherever it decided to focus, reducing the overall units required for Production and Authority, or allowing Temples to act as additional estates within the region. To balance this, there is already the power that the Clergy wield over the faithful and the diplomatic issues already discussed.
Would you be willing to throw away an alliance for a secure border in order to increase your internal control? I guess that depends on the realm, which in my mind, makes for more interesting and varied team play.
-
I'll start the discussion with three proposals:
1. State religion- Make a game function to declare a "state religion." Regions with a majority of that religion get bonuses. However, any peasants present of another religion will become "evil" (even pagans!). Meaning that declaring a state religion will create riots, and an enemy priest could comparatively easily cause havoc simply by preaching. Maybe even allow some "tax share" for the religion? Not sure how that would work? This would make religious diversity more difficult, but also help inculcate a stronger sense of the realm as a cohesive unit (think "Christendom").
2. Royal levy- Ruler can exercise a special tax directly on a region while in that region. Meaning that a royal sitting in a rich city could take money directly. This would strengthen the ruler.
I really like these. State religion should have been put in a while ago imho (or should be planned to be added already) and the royal levy is really cool. I've felt that rulers really lack balls in BM. While I think the power of the dukes should not be diminished, the ruler should have some sort of financial backing that doesn't rely on the banker.
-
In History almost all Rulers /were/ Dukes/Duchess'. In BM if you want to be a Ruler and /not/ a Duke you absolutely have to have loyal Dukes. I think the position of Ruler used to be more powerful. It was probably nerfed for a reason. Was anyone around way back in the day? Are the reasons for reducing the power of the Ruler still valid today?
-
Rulers were reduced not so much intentionally, but coincidentally.
We wanted more powers for dukes and lords, and that made rulers proportionately less powerful. The ruler's giant power-tool, "Question nobility" was removed due to misunderstanding and abuse.
-
If I were to implement something like this, there would be a sliding scale of "reward" (which might just be a notification of how impressive an achievement is that you have, um, achieved) based on how far away from a given goal the game judges you to be when you set it. So if you set as a goal to control 15 regions, and you control 14, it wouldn't get you much. But if you only control 10, it would acknowledge that as being a far more ambitious goal.
Bearing in mind, of course, that this is all just vague top-of-my-head brainstorming about how such a feature might work, in theory.
That is how I imagined it as well. Small goals get small rewards. Big goals get big rewards. So if your goal is to double your realm size, achieving it might, say, give a "small investment" (say, 50 gold) in every region. Or maybe give the ruler/general/banker/judge/whoever set the goal a fame point. Or maybe give H/P to everyone in the realm. Or maybe add a description to the realm's brief description for realm-selection for new characters" Glorious, poor, effective at accomplishing goals, etc..." Or maybe improve realm control/loyalty/morale.
Who knows?
But, again, mechanics based goals:
1. Are not essential to the idea. I think we are all agreed that even freeform goals would help.
2. Could be added later. Once a "goals" field exists, we could later brainstorm about what a set of mechanical goals could look like and what reasonable rewards could be, or if even such a thing is possible.
I'll let this proposal sit for a few more days, and then write a feature request.
-
I would rather have more free form goals and see success/failure rewarded by other characters and not some auto mechnic thing.
-
While that'd be great, laziness or whatever you'd like to call it, occurs sometimes. I'm not talking about people who can't log in that much, I mean those people who are active, and just don't because it's too much trouble, or because it's too much work for nothing that they can appreciate.
-
In History almost all Rulers /were/ Dukes/Duchess'. In BM if you want to be a Ruler and /not/ a Duke you absolutely have to have loyal Dukes. I think the position of Ruler used to be more powerful. It was probably nerfed for a reason. Was anyone around way back in the day? Are the reasons for reducing the power of the Ruler still valid today?
But that doesn't work in BM, because the mechanics work against ruler/dukes i.e. Being elected Ruler strips your titles and the ruler can't appoint himself as duke.
I don't think I'm a big fan of these. Especially if it is some kind of checklist where candidates just click checkboxes from a set of pre-generated options. I think game mechanics criteria would lead to gaming the system, where people will do things that don't make sense for their character/realm/situation just to meet some mechanics-based trigger point. I really don't like things that promote that kind of play.
I tend to agree.
1) It would constrain government somewhat
2) The BM playerbase is just not active enough, goals won't make them act necessarily, just piss people off and maybe make people leave the game :-\ Besides we shouldn't be forcing people in hyper-activity. BM is meant to be kind of slow paced.
-
Only in certain government types is a ruler barred from being duke. I believe, in fact, that it is only true for Monarchies.
-
Republics as well at least. You can get re-elected though. Theocracies have no restrictions.
-
Only in certain government types is a ruler barred from being duke. I believe, in fact, that it is only true for Monarchies.
And Democracies and Republics. The majority of all governments in other words.
-
Not sure how it works in democracies, but in republics if you are elected ruler you lose your region. However, once you are ruler, you can be appointed or elected to a region (you can't appoint yourself to a city though).
Problem is you keep losing the region every time you win an election, even only reconfirmed.
-
And Democracies and Republics. The majority of all governments in other words.
Ok, so the proper breakdown is this:
Loses dukeship when elected: Monarchy, Republic, (Democracy?)
Cannot reappoint self as duke: Monarchy, (Democracy? I doubt it though. Seems like being ruler isn't a condition to prevent one from running, but, I guess that covers "election" Hang on...)
Cannot be reelected as duke: Monarchy, (Democracy?)
So to recap, the government types in which you absolutely cannot become duke after becoming ruler are the following: Monarchy, and possibly Democracy
The following government types allow you to become dukes after becoming ruler, although in the case of Republics, people might get annoyed at you: Republic, Theocracy, Tyranny.
Note that Democracy is still a wild card. In Fontan 2007-08 I recall seeing the Chancellor as Duke before, so I have a hunch that the ruler can still run for duke.
So actually...If we want to be strict about it, I was correct in what I said. Only in monarchies is the ruler actually barred from becoming duke, unless democracies have the same rule. So no, not the majority of government types.
-
Cannot be reelected as duke: Monarchy, (Democracy?)
You can be reelected as Ruler in a Monarchy, just can't appoint yourself.
-
But that doesn't work in BM, because the mechanics work against ruler/dukes i.e. Being elected Ruler strips your titles and the ruler can't appoint himself as duke.
I tend to agree.
1) It would constrain government somewhat
2) The BM playerbase is just not active enough, goals won't make them act necessarily, just piss people off and maybe make people leave the game :-\ Besides we shouldn't be forcing people in hyper-activity. BM is meant to be kind of slow paced.
It's not impossible, though. I'm a ruler/duke, I just got myself re-elected back as duke after being elected as ruler. A bit of luck and playing your card rights can make it.
Granted, the system does work against this.
In some government systems, though, I think you can appoint yourself.
-
You can be reelected as Ruler in a Monarchy, just can't appoint yourself.
Precisly. Government systems are a lot more complex than when they first came out, due to their customability.
The way I understand it:
Any government system: get elected ruler, lose lordship. You can get re-elected as ruler aftwards.
Republic, Democracy and Monarchy: can't appoint yourself as duke.
Tyranny and Theocracy: have fun, you can appoint yourself to pretty much anything you want.
Monarchies usually don't have elections, but that's up to the ruler. In D'Hara, for example, we are a monarchy with elections. A kind of constitutional monarchy, except we didn't bother writing a constitution yet. As such, it was possible for me to be re-elected duke after gaining rulership, though I couldn't appoint myself (even though I could appoint another).
-
As a semi-new player (I haven't been here as long as some of you, but have been playing for about 2 years) I would have to say the player retention problem isn't anything to do with teamwork. Also, restricting teamwork to that with the realm will only reduce interest, not increase it.
I feel most new players leave of boredom, not lack of teamwork. My friend recently started account. A week later, he stopped playing. Reason? "Nothing really happened."
An intra-realm conflict has to have sides and therefore a "team" of sorts, right? Thus focusing on realm-wide teamwork would just reduce the possibilities of being a part of a faction within the realm.
-
If you were the mastermind of a big huge plan you've been plotting in your spare time for the past couple of years, would you really let a new player into your fold? Or would you rather use him as a pawn first to test whether he's safe to let in? The safe choice would be the former, and reasonably, why not? You spent so long planning it, it would be a horrible waste if the new player turned out to be an idiot who blabs about your sinister plot just because you have to include players.
I think people have already said clearly that intra-realm conflicts do make something happen, but unless you're really among the inner circle, or at least the buffer middle circle, you'll just see a bunch of stuff happening with no idea why, and that's among the most frustrating parts of this game. It's perfectly reasonable and in fact I'd recommend being very cautious with who you let into your mix. That doesn't help outsiders much though. So? I think intra-realm conflicts ought to be among exclusive groups, because they prove they're capable of being reliable and trustworthy. Inter-realm conflicts are a bit less complicated on the surface and breed less confusion among new players. That might work better as an inclusive type of conflict.
-
If you were the mastermind of a big huge plan you've been plotting in your spare time for the past couple of years, would you really let a new player into your fold? Or would you rather use him as a pawn first to test whether he's safe to let in? The safe choice would be the former, and reasonably, why not? You spent so long planning it, it would be a horrible waste if the new player turned out to be an idiot who blabs about your sinister plot just because you have to include players.
I think people have already said clearly that intra-realm conflicts do make something happen, but unless you're really among the inner circle, or at least the buffer middle circle, you'll just see a bunch of stuff happening with no idea why, and that's among the most frustrating parts of this game. It's perfectly reasonable and in fact I'd recommend being very cautious with who you let into your mix. That doesn't help outsiders much though. So? I think intra-realm conflicts ought to be among exclusive groups, because they prove they're capable of being reliable and trustworthy. Inter-realm conflicts are a bit less complicated on the surface and breed less confusion among new players. That might work better as an inclusive type of conflict.
Indeed, inter-realm conflicts involve a lot more people and are much more open to everyone than intra-realm conflicts, which are forced to be much more secretive by nature.
-
Woah, woah, woah. Who ever said intra-realm conflicts need to be conspiracies, which is what you seem to be suggesting. And while, yes, realm-wide conflicts involve more people, most of that is just moving to or from some position, refiting, or waiting for the army to rally at a certain point. Let's face it, unless you are besieging a city/stronghold, you may be part of a battle maybe once every week. If you are lucky and your realm is right next to the one you are fighting.
An intra-realm conflict can simply be two groups in the realm that each have their own goals. This can be secretive goals, as you are suggesting, or simply a matter of policy when it comes to foreign outlook. It can be as bad as civil war, or just an heated discussion between two groups of nobles over who can do what when.
-
Or, you know, like six groups of nobles.
I think the point being missed is that fun plans often don't need to be successful to be really interesting. Okay, rebellions tend to suck for the losers, but a scheme to completely shaft a rival marshal's army can go awry and still be interesting.
-
As for Gustav Kuriga's response, even if it's not really secretive, the alternative is generally something that resembles 4chan. That's even dumber as players either join in the collective stupidity or move away from the strange arguing about names and events that mean nothing to them. They can't realistically contribute anything worthwhile for at least a week, assuming someone actually talks to them within days, and knows what is actually going on.
As for Heq's response, that's kind of chaotic and has unpredictable results. Some people like bringing down the realm, but for new players, what exactly can they possibly have against a realm they have known all of a few days? That might be intriguing in the short term, but in the long run not nearly as sustainable. It's no secret that the most dangerous enemies are the ones within not the ones without. If the trend of this game is to resemble some fantasy setting of degenerate plotting or whimsical nobles then so be it. Incidentally that would make it a pretty interesting concept if we made everyone vampires. That would be like an Underworld fangame or something. lol, ingenious.
-
If you compare something to 4chan, do be prepared to backup said accusations. I find it offensive. And as for chaotic, so what? Are you possibly one of those Greater Good fanatics from 40k who abhors any kind of chaos? Two realms going to war creates chaos. So did the 4th invasion in Beluaterra.
Besides, most of the intrigues I have seen stop at the door to the realm. If a threat comes from the outside, most schemers would work to protect that realm, even if it is just so they can gain power within it.
-
Does everyone agree that intra-realm conflicts tend to be more secretive than inter-realm conflicts? If not it is meaningless to continue down this path of reasoning.
-
I'd like to see more secretive inter-realms conflicts.
-
I'd like to see more secretive inter-realms conflicts.
Like hiring some traders of a realm you are officially neutral with to siphon off the food surplus of their realm and transport it to your own starving realm? That sort of thing? It is quite easy to have secretive inter-realms conflicts, the main problem is that when they are eventually revealed or discovered you generally have to deal with the large amount of OOC or cheating accusations.
-
Does everyone agree that intra-realm conflicts tend to be more secretive than inter-realm conflicts? If not it is meaningless to continue down this path of reasoning.
You should try the Lurian approach, we use open intra-realm conflict to mask the secretive stuff ;)
-
You should try the Lurian approach, we use open intra-realm conflict to mask the secretive stuff ;)
I though we just assumed every other realm member was out to get us, and moved on from there?
-
Woah, woah, woah. Who ever said intra-realm conflicts need to be conspiracies, which is what you seem to be suggesting. And while, yes, realm-wide conflicts involve more people, most of that is just moving to or from some position, refiting, or waiting for the army to rally at a certain point. Let's face it, unless you are besieging a city/stronghold, you may be part of a battle maybe once every week. If you are lucky and your realm is right next to the one you are fighting.
An intra-realm conflict can simply be two groups in the realm that each have their own goals. This can be secretive goals, as you are suggesting, or simply a matter of policy when it comes to foreign outlook. It can be as bad as civil war, or just an heated discussion between two groups of nobles over who can do what when.
If there's a faction that strongly feels attached to ideals you strongly oppose, and they are too strong to simply push aside, then odds are you will start conspiring against them. I've gone down that path, multiple times. Since odds are parties on both sides have the capacity to substantially wreck the realm (otherwise, you'd just push them aside), you are likely going to have to think of a secretive plan to outwit them and deal with them for good, so that they stop "corrupting the honorable realm" as you envision it ought to be. You'll want newbies, sure, but not really as anything more than pawns. You give them a few tidbits, make them feel special and lecture them of the evils of the other guys, and you've secured their loyalty. It's what I did, at least, and what was basically done to myself before that. Then again, those were some of my best days in the game.
On the other hand, not everyone needs or bothers with lackeys. Some just need time for their plan to work out, they are waiting for an opportunity. If they don't need lackeys, they might not bother risking exposure by getting any. I've also had my share of silent intra-realm feuds, and they were so silent I think the targets never even realized it. These kinds of intra-realm conflicts hardly involve anyone and don't result in anything spectacular.
I disagree with your stance that inter-realm conflict is just following orders. They can just as much be secretive and public as intra-realm conflicts... So really, I'm not saying that intra-realm conflicts must be secretive and inter-realm conflicts involve a lot of people, I'm just saying that's your typical scenario. I've seen my share of young players really immerse themselves in crusades, all too eager to badmouth the heretics when we finally meet them in battle to call out their cowardice and heresy. I've also seen my share of decisions on what to do, with who, when, and how being fully discussed in public and involving a great many people in the decision-making. And while you might just feel like you are pushing a button to set travels when following orders, I do remember my early days and occasionally do see that flame in new players' (and sometimes old players') spirits: they aren't just clicking a few links, they are am active force in a lively struggle. They really do care whether or not a lot of their peers will move with them, how many of their troops will die in battle, and how well the war is going. When one is really attached to his character or his realm, this sort of immersion comes easily.
Furthermore, let me say why I believe that intra-realm conflicts create more secrecy. Simply put, in my experience, those realms that involve as many people as possible in public discussions were the more homogenous ones. In order to assure social cohesion and to maximize fun for everyone, it is very much in their own interests to do so. However, the divided realms are often forced into greater secrecy. I think of the monarchists and republicans of the old days in Fwuvoghor, notably. Each faction had its own ideologies, strong personalities, religion, friendly realms, etc. While the republicans were generally pro-Riombara, the monarchists were generally pro-Enweil. When the invasion hit, the republicans were more pro-monsters, the monarchists pro-undead. As such, you can imagine that if a faction went out to make deals with outside parties (whatever the ends), it was usually in their best interests to keep it to themselves, either by telling nothing of it or skipping the specifics. Especially since many of these actions could try to lock the realm on a certain faction's path, and the details of which were likely morally reprehensible to them.
Now while this conflict did end up generating a lot of excitement for many, as both factions were dead-intent on converting new blood to their cause, I've seen many more cases where this was not the case, where a clique of people, often but not always with OOC ties, decide to get together to get their way and therefore decided to only rely upon people they can trust OOC. People outside of these circles can often not hope to ascend to anything, whatever their aid to the clique.
I'd also like to point out that I've seen at least two, if not more people, leave a realm, delete their character, or the game because of how chaotic everything was. Obviously, even if people from both factions were having an OOC blast, this sentiment was not shared by everyone.
I honestly have no idea what my point is... Food for thought, I guess.