Messages

46

BM General Discussion / Re: 1 Ruler Per account

« on: March 13, 2019, 05:42:27 PM »

We have families that have rulers in all 4 continents for more than 10~20 years.

That is patently false. There are cases of longterm rulers in a realm, but not of a family ruling four continents for over ten years. The longest ruler character was about ten years, I think. And that was still broken up between three elections iirc. And did not rule any other realms as I recall.

If you disagree with one ruler per account you must be from the "power hungry rulers group" (to not say the "god" group), otherwise there is no way you will disagree with this statement.

That's some rather fallacious reasoning.

47

BM General Discussion / Re: 1 Ruler Per account

« on: March 13, 2019, 04:19:46 PM »

I'm inclined against this proposal.

But I do think there is something to be said for too many players spread out over too many realms resulting in great ease for any old family to collect rulerships by virtue of continuing to exist as a character. This requires community-wide participation to address.

48

BM General Discussion / Re: Where is the magic? (Why I think game is broken)

« on: March 13, 2019, 02:59:20 AM »

The deeper point is you can't win battlemaster in the way one can an rts. Attempting such harms the game. And is playing the wrong game.

49

BM General Discussion / Re: Where is the magic? (Why I think game is broken)

« on: March 13, 2019, 01:00:15 AM »

But can you really fault people for being risk averse?

Yes. It's a game. Not reality where you are *actually* putting your life at risk. Players used to take huge risks for the wider story and fun. I'd even say by being so risk-averse and creating a less fun environment over actually doing something as part of a wider story arc, they *are* losing the game.

50

Development / Re: 15 Nobles! 15!!!!

« on: March 08, 2019, 04:24:34 PM »

Well as another example, every knight in Obsidian Islands has just turned out to help Perdan fight the entire North. Seems to me their getting to see plenty of action.

But how many engaging messages do they receive in comparison ? The answer is Perdan's received 74 realm-channel messages in the last month while Obsidian Islands has received 6. Would it not be better for them to be part of Perdan's team without having to march through additional lands to participate in the war?

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

No. There is no inalienable right to secede. Internal situations as dukes being banned were considered and this is why there is not a requirement for the old realm to have any minimum, so there is flexibility for a realm's nobility to side with the duke and then wage war upon the old realm without keeping them stuck in one realm.

There's a big difference between letting people found arbitrary-sized realms when the overall playerbase is healthy, and letting people found arbitrary-sized realms when the average realm size is below 20 and there are issues with finding a decent, interesting, and interactive realm wherever you go.

When the playerbase was healthy, generally founding particularly tiny realms did not bode well for one's longevity - there was a natural minimum enforcement. The way I see it, this is replicating that in an environment that can no longer naturally pressure small realms.

That's a small price to pay to retain Ducal Power.  Dukes have always had that power.  Taking the power away to allow them to secede is a HUGE power shift.  I understand why you are making the changes, but this changes a very large dynamic to the game.   Being able to secede as Duke is what kept the balance.  If they banned you, good chance you were taking your Duchy with you.

I'm not sure if dukes have *always* had that power, but certainly as long as you've played, its been true. While the change wasn't about the following at all, dukes *have* been considered overpowered and needing balanced in relation to the rest of the hierarchy for some time. Again, there is no inalienable rights for dukes to do as they please and always get their way. The game is a *team* game, not about particular individuals' getting their way, everyone else can be banned and lose lands too, if they're not prepared or in a bad spot. The changes were made such that if the dukes have the popular support of the realm, they should be able to emerge victorious in any power struggles.

51

Development / Re: Rethinking the rules

« on: March 07, 2019, 04:13:44 PM »

What's wrong with leaving the government council mechanics to be explored by new players and leaving the mystique? Just because you, or many of your friends, have player government positions (because its been so easily available the last few years), doesn't mean everyone else has, or that in the future government positions may be competitive once more instead of shared amongst the same old families.

52

Dwilight / Re: Shameless Darfix Colony recruitment thread

« on: March 07, 2019, 12:53:28 AM »

Don't think this idea will attract 15 nobles

Please don't be negative in people's recruitment threads. You've been talked to before about this. Providing context to hype is fine, but there's no need to just negatively down an idea someone else may or may not be interested in.

53

Feature Requests / Re: Monikers / Nicknames / Callsigns

« on: March 03, 2019, 06:33:31 PM »

That being said, I'm still waiting on religion and guild titles being recognized in messages outside of said religion or guild, so maybe that one first...

Inside has been fixed. Outside I don't think is ever going to happen?

Here's the results of some discord brainstorming on nicknames/epithets:

Between 'character details' and 'give medals' on the links below messages, add a Support/Propose Nickname link. This takes you to a page to propose a nickname for the other character, or to support an existing proposal. There can be multiple nickname proposals for every character in existence. Each character only gets to make one support-vote or proposal per other character. That is, Keplerman can either propose a new nickname for Evilman or support on an existing proposal, not both. Keplerman's support can be changed. When proposing a new nickname, a reason for that nickname must be provided, viewable to other voters. Which proposal a character proposes or supports is not public. There would be an ordered ranking of those with most to least support.

A nickname will be displayed in the format GivenName 'Nickname' Surname. A nickname will not be displayed until a minimum threshold of support is achieved. When there are multiple proposals for character nicknames, the proposal with the most support will be displayed (presuming it has achieved the minimum display threshold). No multiple nicknames, only one nickname displayed at any given point in time. No identical nicknames, only one particular nickname at any given point per island. If Evilman and Naughtyman both have proposals to be 'the Ugly', then only the one who has more support will be allowed to use it. However, if Evilman has more support for 'the Ugly' than Naughtyman, but Evilman has even more support for being 'the Evil' for himself than 'the Ugly', then Naughtyman will be allowed to use 'the Ugly' because its not in active usage. If support for Evilman being 'the Ugly' surpassed support for 'the Evil', that would change. The current working idea for determining support is percentage of total prestige of active characters on the island, with a minimum threshold of 10%? 20%? to activate a nickname.

Characters will have a 'refuse all nicknames' option that will opt out of all nickname displays, if someone doesn't want their character to have any nickname. Either accept the popularly-supported nickname or have no nickname at all.

Nicknames will be subject to some rules to ensure appropriateness for BM (and SMA), as judged by the Titans.

Some potential concerns are dealing with griefers and similar-but-not-identical nicknames, say 'the Great' and 'the Greatest', there should only be one form of such varieties.

54

Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request Guidelines

« on: March 03, 2019, 08:19:39 AM »

The bugtracker has been the authoritative source for feature requests for years.

55

Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request Guidelines

« on: March 01, 2019, 05:55:35 AM »

The most authoritative source for that is the feature requests lists of the bugtracker, which is where all approved feature requests should go. But there are still TODO comments and other notes that dont always get added to bugtracker first.

56

Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request Guidelines

« on: March 01, 2019, 02:32:02 AM »

Rejected.

While the forum is absolutely the primary place for feature requests because it is a more static, slow-form channel, if something comes up elsewhere, I'm not going to ignore it. The response varies depending. Some things are simple enough to approve immediately. Others, I do send to the forum for further consideration and feedback. I've even posted on behalf of Discorders for this reason.

Also, I would suspect that there is more participation amongst the community within Discord than on the forum. And those I see on the forum tend to be on Discord anyway.

I'm not opposed to making more effort to bring major changes to forum for feedback, but thats not the same as overly bureaucratic policies like requiring every single item to be discussed on forum before approval.

57

Feature Requests / Re: Scout from map

« on: February 28, 2019, 01:49:33 AM »

I don't have an issue with clicking to scout neighbouring regions via the dynamic map(s).

58

Feature Requests / Re: Standing Order for other positions

« on: February 27, 2019, 06:59:57 PM »

Whats wrong with the Generals Bulletin?

59

Questions & Answers / Re: Against the rules?

« on: February 24, 2019, 04:13:49 PM »

On the one hand you have them saying 'BM is not a historical game, it is set in its own world' and on the other you have 'you can't do that, it's not historically medieval'. Do you not see the contradiction here?

Not touching the militia discussion, just this.
It is not a historical simulator, it is set in its own world, but it is based on a medieval setting/environment/atmosphere. So yes, we strive to not have elements outside of that setting if they are not historically medieval. Sometimes, because its a game not a simulator, elements of that setting have to be discarded for balance and enjoyment.

60

Questions & Answers / Re: Against the rules?

« on: February 19, 2019, 04:03:21 PM »

Fwiw, darka was never destroyed on atamara, so if we ever had the playerbase to bring back atamara, darka would be back too.