Things going on in post-invasion BT have made me think... would it be good to allow players to declare individual characters and/or families as either friends or enemies? Game-effects yet to-be-determined, but it seems that some more personal conflict would help spark more wars.
Yes. Absolutely.
I agree,
I'm eager to see what the in-game effects might be, and I think it's a good idea.
Sounds like it has potential, yes.
I'd love to be rid of my little text file of families mine hates.
I'd be happy for some input on two questions:
- interface - where to provide these options best? I think it should be limited to people you've interacted with, so somewhere in the message system?
- effects - brainstorm, please.
Quote from: Tom on July 28, 2012, 08:56:48 PM
I'd be happy for some input on two questions:
- interface - where to provide these options best? I think it should be limited to people you've interacted with, so somewhere in the message system?
- effects - brainstorm, please.
What is currently the contact list seems to be an excellent place to interface it. Even now it distinguishes between corespondents, realmmates, and people that have been met.
Not really sure about effects. I'll wait to see some other suggestions before adding something.
I definitely favor a personal, guild-wide, and even national blacklist and its less hateful cousin. ;-) Enemies of the state, enemies of the religion, enemies of your family, or just your character would be wondrous. This would absolutely help spark wars, conflict, and all sorts of fun issues.
Add it to the same place we have the ignore and vulgarity buttons, I'd say.
Quote from: Bedwyr on July 28, 2012, 10:29:07 PM
Add it to the same place we have the ignore and vulgarity buttons, I'd say.
That's probably the best place. And then afterwards your friend/enemy list can be seen and managed with the ignore list in, is it, paperwork?
Possible enemy effects:
No transfer of bonds between enemies.
An inability to vassalise or pledge allegiance to enemies.
An inability to end hatred diplomatic status with another realm if it is led by an enemy.
An inability to form an alliance with another realm if it is led by an enemy.
An inability to sign treaties if they are drafted/proposed by an enemy.
An automatic premium gets added to the price of trades if you have to purchase food from an enemy.
If you lead a secret society, other guild elders aren't able to bring your enemies into the fold.
Troops recruited from a region led by your enemy will have a lower base morale due to their bitterness at having to serve their lord's enemy.
Possible friend effects:
A slight bonus to estate efficiency if you hold an estate in the region of a friend.
An inability to protest silently or publicly against friend council members.
An inability to join the underground if your friend is in power.
...and that's all I've got for friends because it strikes me if you have a good friendship with a character/family, the effects tend/ought to come freely! >.<
Possible effect:
If no other reason for battle exists within a region, a player will attempt battle with any they have declared personal enemies or enemies of their family within the region. Those that have declared either player as a "friend" of the family or individual will join that individual on their side of the battle. If they are a friend or enemy of both they will sit out of the battle. All those neither friend or enemy of either will sit out of the battle.
If a character is "attacked" in this manner AND they are within their personal region (which they are lord of, or knight of) they would hold the walls.
"attacked" is defined, as one player naming another as an enemy, while the other person has not named them as an enemy themselves. If it is mutual, neither will receive defensive advantages.
Limitations:
1. It takes 3 days before declaring someone as a "friend" or "enemy" takes effect.
2. Friends cannot be changed to enemies, and vice-versa. They must first be made neutral.
3. There is a 7 day delay after changing someone's status before you may do it again.
4. Diplomatic Relations have no effect on this fight.
------
Perhaps there can also be something to gain from a personal feud if the battle is won. Although it isn't necessary.
I love that idea, sort of a forced duel of sorts - because you can bet your ass if the guy who ruined my father's reign is in the region I'm going to hunt his ass down and make him pay ;-)
Effects:
After brainstorming ideas outside of basic RP (Declaring wars and such simply because you hate the other guy,) effects would range from political to personal. An example of political would be: Duke is of House Bedwyr, Lord within duchy is of House Norrel. House Bedwyr has recently declared House Norrel to be in complete and utter disfavor. As such, and for some strange reason, extra taxes (not too much, or abuse would be a huge problem) would be collected.
Example of personal: House Octavius has slandered House Penardin. Both set standings to hatred. The specific incident was between Selene and Mathilda, and they decide to duel it out. If it is to the surrender, a larger chance of a critical wound or even death should be present. If it is a duel to the death, a significant increase to probability of death should be present. This could branch into say "Healers drag Mathilda away, as she is severely wounded, but Selene chases her and cuts her down. Selene is arrested by the authorities who were nearby, and is currently rotting in your cells."
Though I understand actually killing characters is something we should keep in low doses, it makes sense to me that hatred and blood feuds would incur that kind of irrational behavior.
Maybe have it drag into the army and its cohesion. Bedwyr is Marshal, Norrel is an archer unit. The enemy approaches, Bedwyr gives the order to fire (auto fire as it is in range.) Norrel's unit does not fire until the enemy is doubly closer. (Have the report say "Norrel Archers did not fire as a result of unforeseen circumstances.") Your army takes a few extra loses, but wins regardless. Bedwyr is pissed, Norrel is satisfied to have pissed him off, but faces the potential consequences.
The above gives the potential to drag more houses into the feud.
For positive traits, maybe flip the situation over (positive standings = tax breaks, Archers have increased morale, etc..)
Also: I think multiple separate fights should be able to take place within a region if they are both "personal feuds" but not related at all to each other
This sounds like an EPIC idea that will bring much intrigue and RP to the game.
Oh, more ideas! Considering every family has a "home region", you could incorporate that into Dante's idea. So Poryatu, for example, is my family's home. If Malus Solari hated my house, he could sack or loot the family's estate, stealing gold from my overall family's gold. To defend it, you could draft militia like you would for cities. This would lead me to request a "head" of the house, who controls the standings and functions. I'm thinking Tywin Lannister here, in terms of the respect the head of house would be given.
Restrictions:
- You can only change the head of your family once a season, or at the death of the character who holds the position.
- You can only loot an estate/draft militia once a week.
- There should be a limit to how much gold is taken.
- A limit to how many guards your family's estate can hold. Having thousands would defeat the purpose... and probably not fit in the estate.
Oh (these ideas are hitting me as I go,) you could also have the guards take a continuous wage from the family's overall wealth. This would give you an additional reason to send bonds to your family, instead of only using it for investments... occasionally. The richer the family, the more seemingly powerful they are.
Intrarealm fighting = bad.
Quote from: Indirik on July 29, 2012, 01:27:45 AM
Intrarealm fighting = bad.
Agreed, but this is not intended as a means for promoting intra-realm fighting. In fact, safe guards could be put in place to highly discourage this if need be.
What this is intended is to allow fighting between nobles of realms who may not normally fight or even if they do, to allow feuds to actually take place.
Sure, some small amount of intra-realm fighting may occur, but this will not be made such that large fights will occur. At most 2-3 nobles per side is what I'd expect.
I mean there is a possible exploit of a Duke demanding all of his vassals naming him their friend, but we can come up with a solution for that so it doesn't lead to intra-realm fighting.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on July 29, 2012, 01:46:49 AMI mean there is a possible exploit of a Duke demanding all of his vassals naming him their friend, but we can come up with a solution for that so it doesn't lead to intra-realm fighting.
Why would that be an exploit? Sounds perfectly legit to me. In fact, if I were Duke Kepler, and I didn't like Duke StrongBad, I'd tell everyone in my duchy how evil Duke StrongBad is, then have them all Friend me, and I'd declare hatred for Duke StrongBad and all his cronies. Or, everyone in my duchy would pick someone else and make them an enemy. And Viola, intra-realm duchy warfare.
Quote from: Slapsticks on July 29, 2012, 02:31:37 AM
Why?
See prior posts about Teams. Probably in other threads. In short, it destroys the concept of Realm as Team, makes things nasty and confusing, and basically screws the realm over.
Quote from: Indirik on July 29, 2012, 03:03:44 AM
See prior posts about Teams. Probably in other threads. In short, it destroys the concept of Realm as Team, makes things nasty and confusing, and basically screws the realm over.
Since when has realism been a bad thing?
When it conflicts with game balance and fun, which take precedence.
Quote from: Foundation on July 29, 2012, 03:10:13 AM
When it conflicts with game balance and fun, which take precedence.
Conflict = fun.
Intrarealm conflict, as a form of conflict = fun.
If realism wasn't fun, Dwilight wouldn't be so popular.
Perhaps a limit on the number of "friends" or "enemies" that a family can have, based on the only other metric that families have - fame.
You can spend up to X number of fame-based points declaring friends or enemies. These points are not refundable (unless the target family is removed from the game), so they would need to be chosen carefully. Over time, of course, you accumulate more fame, but you also accumulate more friends and/or enemies. Seems to me to get away from any gaming of the system as resources are relatively finite and slow growing.
Otherwise, my guess is that everyone would default to being friends with everyone else for whatever assigned effects that entails.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Indirik on July 29, 2012, 03:03:44 AM
Why would that be an exploit? Sounds perfectly legit to me. In fact, if I were Duke Kepler, and I didn't like Duke StrongBad, I'd tell everyone in my duchy how evil Duke StrongBad is, then have them all Friend me, and I'd declare hatred for Duke StrongBad and all his cronies. Or, everyone in my duchy would pick someone else and make them an enemy. And Viola, intra-realm duchy warfare.
Its an exploit only because it causes intra-realm warfare as Tom doesn't want. If it weren't for that, I'd be all for it.
However, I like my idea, (obviously) so I think finding a method to prevent that from happening while still allowing dueling feuds would be good. If we do not, I am sure it would be shot down.
Quote from: Darksun on July 29, 2012, 03:27:15 AM
Perhaps a limit on the number of "friends" or "enemies" that a family can have, based on the only other metric that families have - fame.
You can spend up to X number of fame-based points declaring friends or enemies. These points are not refundable (unless the target family is removed from the game), so they would need to be chosen carefully. Over time, of course, you accumulate more fame, but you also accumulate more friends and/or enemies. Seems to me to get away from any gaming of the system as resources are relatively finite and slow growing.
Otherwise, my guess is that everyone would default to being friends with everyone else for whatever assigned effects that entails.
Thoughts?
Hmm, you present a good concern. What about having two positive standings and two negatives? The extremities would present the in game bonuses, having a max of 3-5 families to chose from for each, while the other two are roleplayed. So "Good" and "Poor", "Honor Bound" and "Blood Feud." Perhaps a reason as to why the families are honor bound/feuding could be supplied when making the standing, in treaty format, so people can better identify the Rpers from the exploiters.
Aye, I don't see the problem with limited intra-realm combat. This isn't something that would happen constantly, nor rampantly, and could be tightly controlled with specific triggers and conditions. I also like the limited amount of permanent or semi-permanent friends/enemies. I'd say a maximum of 3-5 enemies and 3-5 friends is the most you'd need. I mean, !@#$, it'd make you think twice about declaring fealty or bloodfeud unless its seriously necessary and important both mechanically and RP-wise, rather than being a feature to be abused. I think 2-3 of each at semi-permanence to account for the fact that a declaration of friendship or bloodfeud would take a long time to 'remove from the system' due to the long-standing and widespread feelings involved in multiple members of the family both player and NPC, which would once again reinforce a more serious mechanic where being sloppy with your friends and enemies will only screw yourself over.
Intrarealm conflict => Why have more than 1 duchy?
In fact, why have more than 1 duchy with the ruler being duke and margrave? Creating a new duchy can only lead to a weaker realm.
What do duchies have anything to do with individual nobles wanting to shank each other? I see no relation. If two noble houses are out for blood then it doesn't matter what realm, duchy, or region they're from or in, they're going to try to kill each other if their settings are set to aggressive/murderous toward their enemies ;-) You can bet your ass that if I ran into the one guy who robbed 100,000 dollars from my mother 6 years back in Belo Horizonte, I'd break both of his legs and feed him his severed testicles.
Quote from: Foundation on July 29, 2012, 04:18:26 AM
Intrarealm conflict => Why have more than 1 duchy?
In fact, why have more than 1 duchy with the ruler being duke and margrave? Creating a new duchy can only lead to a weaker realm.
Well conflict does not necessarily entail combat. I'm a big fan of intrarealm competition. If I wanted to play a war game, I would play one that didn't have mediocre-at-best combat mechanics. What this game excels at is intrigue and politiking, the warfare itself is largely formulaic.
Anyways, dukes can already secede and stage a civil war. Why have more than 1 duchy indeed, now that cities and duchies are no longer linked?
Meh, same reason as history. Duchies/Etc aren't necessary, they simply give a less broad and more concise method of territorial control. There isn't really a need to De-centralize government though its always a possibility.
I think the effects should be limited to actions that actually involve your family. I want to retain the possibility to create a character who is the younger son who hates his father and is jealous of his older brother, or any of the like. If these were implemented:
Quote from: Revan on July 28, 2012, 11:20:24 PM
No transfer of bonds between enemies.
An inability to vassalise or pledge allegiance to enemies.
An inability to end hatred diplomatic status with another realm if it is led by an enemy.
An inability to form an alliance with another realm if it is led by an enemy.
An inability to sign treaties if they are drafted/proposed by an enemy.
An automatic premium gets added to the price of trades if you have to purchase food from an enemy.
If you lead a secret society, other guild elders aren't able to bring your enemies into the fold.
Troops recruited from a region led by your enemy will have a lower base morale due to their bitterness at having to serve their lord's enemy.
Then it would be impossible.
There are not many mechanics that involve your family, so here are a few ideas:
-Your family is unable to pledge ransom to a Judge that belongs to an enemy clan, but the ransom is lower/comes more quickly if the Judge is from a friendly family
-Investments work better in regions where the Lord is friendly/impossible if he is an enemy
-Certainly something with the family home, can't think of what at the moment.
What other mechanics uses the family?
From the things posted so far, an effect on the ransom depending on relations between the families is the one I like best.
Doesn't mean I don't like any of the others, but this is the one that yelled "this!" at me.
I would also like for my character to specifically seek out a hated enemy family in battle, rather than the current random pairings we have.
that's all rather exploitable though...
"enemy ruler in battle..."
"everyone declare him an enemy"
*splat*
Make choosing your own friends/enemies an inalienable right. Part of that problem solved.
no it won't. some people will do it whether it's ordered or not.
it's not so much the ordering, but the fact that it's a "win" thing. generals? judges? sponsors? marshals? *splash* ruler.. maybe slightly less so. heroes could have it bad too.
it needs tempering if it's added.. like you can't get targeted by more than 1 enemy or something, especially not ranged. (can still get hit by multiple enemy, but only on the normal rules)
I mean obviously we're not pulling a Senate-shanks-Caesar situation, but I do think it should definitely be done.
Of COURSE if multiple Lords hate the ruler of an enemy nation they'll try to wade through the melee to get the one they hate. They'll incur more losses in the meantime but there's also a slight chance of them targeting the hated individual which might incur injuries or death. It was done in real life it can be done in BM ;-)
What this game needs is more danger and intrigue. Everything has become too controlled, too adamant, too set in stone... A bit of chaos will do us a world of good.
Quote from: Ehndras on July 29, 2012, 09:56:01 PM
I mean obviously we're not pulling a Senate-shanks-Caesar situation, but I do think it should definitely be done.
Of COURSE if multiple Lords hate the ruler of an enemy nation they'll try to wade through the melee to get the one they hate. They'll incur more losses in the meantime but there's also a slight chance of them targeting the hated individual which might incur injuries or death. It was done in real life it can be done in BM ;-)
What this game needs is more danger and intrigue. Everything has become too controlled, too adamant, too set in stone... A bit of chaos will do us a world of good.
I agree here. I also really hate the realm as a team mentality that a lot of people feel should be set in stone, rather than come about as hard work. There are other teams besides the realm. There's your duchy, your religion. But that's all for another thread, I think. I'm just saying that certain places (Atamara, for one) would be a lot more interesting if the realms weren't so predictably stable.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on July 29, 2012, 11:45:18 PM
I also really hate the realm as a team mentality that a lot of people feel should be set in stone, rather than come about as hard work. I'm just saying that certain places (Atamara, for one) would be a lot more interesting if the realms weren't so predictably stable.
This. The "realm as a team" mentality is what leads to extremely stable continents and realms with little change in power structures. Why are so many rulers/dukes in their positions for years and years? Because the realm is a team and why would you want to get rid of your teammate.
If you deliberately set out to sabotage the "realm as team" mentality systematically, gamewide, you will destroy the game. Period.
You and I and most of the regulars on the forum are happy to make our own teams and push aggressively for whatever goals and groups we wish to advance.
But we're no more than about 10% of the players. Probably less.
The game thrives because there are people who want the realm to be their team, and enjoy that team play.
A lot of people are turned off by the highly acrimonious intra-realm conflict that goes on in, say, the Lurias (especially Pian en Luries of old). A lot of people. Way more than enjoy politicking and backstabbing. They just want to have fun as part of a team, and that's a very important part of BattleMaster.
Then they should find a realm that values teamwork ,but why should those who'd like to stage rebellion or have their own political intrigue get stuck having the same thing day in and out for all eternity in nations that are purposely less-stable?
Terran for example. There's no one in Terran that would call bloodfeud on each other nor attempt civil war, despite our differences, because we seek to understand and respect each other. Other nations I've played in though, they really milk the intra-realm conflict RP even though the mechanics aren't there, and it makes things AWESOME. I LOVE Terran's unity but I also LOVE the chaos certain other realms have at heart. I made new characters on other continents specifically because the one-sided nature of Dwilight politics is boring as absolute f*ck and would honestly kill the game for me. About a month back I was going to quit because I was so annoyed at how much everyone is accustomed to landlocking each other. Blockades are boring and don't bring anything to the game. Massive power-blocs that never actually fight is boring. Religions controlling entire swathes of the world without any resistance is boring. So on and so forth.
Its a strategy-war roleplaying game! We need more reason for war and most of all, more reason for strategy! The roleplay will come to pass as a result of better mechanics and broader decisions and possible scenarios
The war with Aurvandil is pretty much the saving grace because otherwise it would have been a slow and painful spiral into starvation and misery with everyone too damn weak to go to war.
Don't misunderstand me: all the things we have right now that enable intra-realm conflict are fine. I'm not even trying to say that allowing, essentially, one-on-one battles between enemies in a realm would be a bad thing. I don't know whether it would or not.
I'm trying to let Perth and Gustav Kuriga know that it's not productive to be saying things like, "I also really hate the realm as a team mentality." (And yes, I know I quoted it out of context. I'm exaggerating for effect ;D )
Ah. I'm pretty damn sure they both don't mean they want the entire realm structure to die off, only to allow for more dynamics within the current system by reshaping what it means to be a realm - which is of course more realistically reflective of real-world politics from the Dark Ages to the post-Feudal era.
Quote from: Ehndras on July 30, 2012, 12:53:12 AM
Terran for example. There's no one in Terran that would call bloodfeud on each other nor attempt civil war, despite our differences, because we seek to understand and respect each other. Other nations I've played in though, they really milk the intra-realm conflict RP even though the mechanics aren't there, and it makes things AWESOME. I LOVE Terran's unity but I also LOVE the chaos certain other realms have at heart. I made new characters on other continents specifically because the one-sided nature of Dwilight politics is boring as absolute f*ck and would honestly kill the game for me. About a month back I was going to quit because I was so annoyed at how much everyone is accustomed to landlocking each other. Blockades are boring and don't bring anything to the game. Massive power-blocs that never actually fight is boring. Religions controlling entire swathes of the world without any resistance is boring. So on and so forth.
That's interesting. I see Dwilight as the shining star among the other lesser continents; Atamara being the worst, of course.
Terran, to me, usually has a good amount of intra-realm conflict. The unity of late I think is consequence of having some enemies who have been extremely easy to unify against, Allison Kabrinski and Aurvandil. But, of course, the conflict has never been on the level of the Lurias or anything.
Quote from: Ehndras on July 30, 2012, 12:53:12 AM
Then they should find a realm that values teamwork ,but why should those who'd like to stage rebellion or have their own political intrigue get stuck having the same thing day in and out for all eternity in nations that are purposely less-stable?
Why should those who like "Realm as team" (Which, whether you like it or not, is the core gaming experience of BattleMaster) get stuck having to deal with all the realm infighting garbage that some small minority of the game-players think might be cool
QuoteOther nations I've played in though, they really milk the intra-realm conflict RP even though the mechanics aren't there, and it makes things AWESOME.
So, the game experience you already have is awesome. And the people who don't want intrarealm fighting like it, too. So, why change it? It will only screw things up for one side, if not both.
QuoteI made new characters on other continents specifically because the one-sided nature of Dwilight politics is boring as absolute f*ck and would honestly kill the game for me.
Boring for you, because you didn't pick a realm that suited your play style. That's why we have 6 islands, and literally scores of realms to choose from. Didn't join the right one to start with? Try another one!
QuoteThe war with Aurvandil is pretty much the saving grace because otherwise it would have been a slow and painful spiral into starvation and misery with everyone too damn weak to go to war.
What? If it weren't for Aurvandil, the entire 'Moot and Asylon would probably be at full-scale war with Astrum/Kabrinskia right now. Instead you've got a war that you are essentially guaranteed that you will lose. And you'll probably be ROFLSTOMPED, too.
Quote from: Ehndras on July 30, 2012, 01:31:17 AM... allow for more dynamics within the current system by reshaping what it means to be a realm
Why would we want to redefine what it means to be a realm? That would require some extreme changes all the way to the core of the entire game system. That is, literally, rebuilding the concept of the game from the ground up.
Quote- which is of course more realistically reflective of real-world politics from the Dark Ages to the post-Feudal era.
"It's the way it really was, so adding it would bring more realism" is not a good argument. We're here to play a game for enjoyment. We don't add things because it makes things more "realistic". We add things because it makes the game more fun.
Quote from: Indirik on July 30, 2012, 02:57:59 AM
Why should those who like "Realm as team" (Which, whether you like it or not, is the core gaming experience of BattleMaster) get stuck having to deal with all the realm infighting garbage that some small minority of the game-players think might be cool
So, the game experience you already have is awesome. And the people who don't want intrarealm fighting like it, too. So, why change it? It will only screw things up for one side, if not both.
Boring for you, because you didn't pick a realm that suited your play style. That's why we have 6 islands, and literally scores of realms to choose from. Didn't join the right one to start with? Try another one!
What? If it weren't for Aurvandil, the entire 'Moot and Asylon would probably be at full-scale war with Astrum/Kabrinskia right now. Instead you've got a war that you are essentially guaranteed that you will lose. And you'll probably be ROFLSTOMPED, too.
Why would we want to redefine what it means to be a realm? That would require some extreme changes all the way to the core of the entire game system. That is, literally, rebuilding the concept of the game from the ground up.
"It's the way it really was, so adding it would bring more realism" is not a good argument. We're here to play a game for enjoyment. We don't add things because it makes things more "realistic". We add things because it makes the game more fun.
Please note that I'm not saying that a realm can't be a team, and that it can't be fun to have a unified realm. That would be taking my words differently from what I meant them to be. What I mean is I'm tired of people saying that realms are THE team. As if you should put the realm first, always. That's how you get places like Atamara. I left Atamara, despite probably being in Darka, a realm concept I found interesting, because the whole place is too stable.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on July 30, 2012, 03:38:44 AMWhat I mean is I'm tired of people saying that realms are THE team.
That's the way the game is built and designed. The realm forms the underpinnings of almost everything in the game, from diplomacy, to trade, to battles, all the way down to the very messaging system itself. You cannot remove the realm-centric focus of the game without redesigning the scope and operation of nearly *everything* in the game. Just about the only things in the game that are not tied directly to realms are guilds and religion.
I can see some possibility for some system like this to be implemented. But I don't think that actual intra-realm combat is the way to go with it. (And from what I've heard of the combat code, I don't think it's something that would be very likely to be implemented, in any case.)
I'm actually not calling for intra-realm combat. I just don't think that realms should necessarily be the only thing that matters. I found that the realms I most enjoy are the ones with internal conflict.
Agreed. My forays into Atamara were major bore-fests.
Meh, my opinion has been stated. Nothing that has been said changes the fact that I think some destabilization of the current system would be constructive. Your strict adherence to the current ultimate-team system is fine and dandy but I personally think the game definitely needs some refinement in potential conflict if we are to pull in new players and maintain the ones we have. All the stability, or at least the lack of change, makes for a boring game.
Conflict is good ;-)
I can't help but agree! Conflicts generate actions and this make the game more alive.
One of my characters has arrived to a new realm, in less than 2 days He was threatened with Banishment, in 4 days the Kings had send him 3 death duels, and half the kingdom was waiting for duel him, while the others nobles were trying to stop the conflict... in the end the matter seems to be solved... but it was sooo funny!!! ;D
PD. The moral of the story is: Theocracies don't have humour sense!
Indirick, TONS of stuff that's already in the game only serves to divide realms up. Religions, guilds, secret societies, gov't systems that aren't democracies, the feudal hierarchy itself - all of these things encourage a conflict of interest within a realm, be it from religious hatred to jealousy over a person's strength or whatever. Should we do away with all of that since apparently anything that doesn't encourage team play leads to vitriol so awful that 90% of the playerbase considers quitting over it? Come on. If that were true, there wouldn't be prestige or honor or lordships or anything that distinguishes one character from another, since they should only be defined by the strength of their team.
If "realm = 100% unified team" was the overarching design principle of the game, why do we frown on the saxons and their ilk instead of seeing them as exactly what this game was intended to foster?
The realm as a team IS a basic design principle of the game.
And just as much, both intra- and inter-realm conflicts are designed into the game. The core idea is that you compete with and often against other members of your realm, but there are common enemies outside that you will usually ally against.
The strength of a realm does depend on how well it can come together in times of war, but also on how alive competition within the realm is, because competition breeds strength. The right balance between being boring and being hyper-competitive is what - or so I think - makes or breaks a realm. Too little internal conflict and you end up just as weak as if you're ripping yourself apart.
I didn't read all of the comments yet, but my first impression isn't really positive. This seems like an oversimplified dichotomy. My characters' relations with others are too complex for a simple "friend" or "enemy" category, and adding people as "friends" feels like facebook...
Quote from: Slapsticks on July 30, 2012, 10:09:10 AMIndirick, TONS of stuff that's already in the game only serves to divide realms up. Religions, guilds, secret societies, gov't systems that aren't democracies, the feudal hierarchy itself - all of these things encourage a conflict of interest within a realm, be it from religious hatred to jealousy over a person's strength or whatever.
These are all good things. They all add
political rivalry, and internal power struggles. That's good. Struggles for positions,
keep things active and lively.
What I don't want to see is open warfare between duchies within a realm. IMO, that would be very bad for the game. Your opinion may vary, and that's fine. The final choice will be made by Tom.
Quote from: Slapsticks on July 30, 2012, 10:09:10 AMIf that were true, there wouldn't be prestige or honor or lordships or anything that distinguishes one character from another, since they should only be defined by the strength of their team.
Reductio ad absurdum. You have taken what I said far beyond anything I ever even implied.
QuoteIf "realm = 100% unified team" was the overarching design principle of the game, why do we frown on the saxons and their ilk instead of seeing them as exactly what this game was intended to foster?
The game defines the realm as your team. Why do you think that realms control diplomacy? And that realm policies control your actions? And realm affiliation determines where you line up on the battlefield, and even *if* you lineup on the battlefield? It controls where you can go, what troops you can recruit, where you can sell/buy food. It even controls who you can talk to.
Internal struggles for who controls the realm/team, and who holds what positions of power, etc., all that is good. It creates a healthy atmosphere that fosters interest and keeps players coming back. Some players, not all. A sizable chunk of players *like* stable realms. All you have to do to recognize this fact is to take a look at Atamara. It has been, and remains, one of the most popular islands in the game, second only to Dwilight for total number of characters. And yet Dwilight and Atamara are often accused of being the most stable, sedentary, boring, etc. islands. If that were the case, then why are these two islands unquestionably the most popular islands, while the "exciting" islands like Beluaterra and FEI are hands down, predictably, and eternally the least popular, least populous, red-headed-stepchild islands? And why, when the game was focused more on realm-as-team, did we have twice as many players as we do now, if not more? Things were much more active and dynamic, with a LOT more messages, RPs, activity, etc.
I like the idea of adding some ability to denote other families as friends/enemies. Chénier may be right, in that the terminology may not be quite right. I would hate to see people in game asking for others to friend them.
Aww, so mean to poor FEI. :(
Quote from: Chénier on July 30, 2012, 03:09:11 PM
I didn't read all of the comments yet, but my first impression isn't really positive. This seems like an oversimplified dichotomy. My characters' relations with others are too complex for a simple "friend" or "enemy" category, and adding people as "friends" feels like facebook...
"allies", "trusted comrades", we can settle on a term later.
But what do we want the system to
do?
I am enjoying FEI, for a change, now that I'm out of OW.
But I'm not trying to cut down any particular island. I'm just saying that when you try to decide how you should change the game to make it better and appeal to more players, you cannot simply discard what has been proven to work. You have to look at what players are playing right now. Stats show that a LOT of people like to play on AT. So obviously AT is working for a lot of people. If it wasn't, they would leave. By the same token, FEI and BT have very low player counts. So, what is it about AT that people like, and about FEI/BT that people don't like? (True, BT may be a bit of an aberration right now, due to the recently ended invasion and blighting.)
Each island and realm provides a different playing experience. If you don't find a realm you like, keep looking. Chances are it's out there somewhere.
Sorry to keep the topic on a slightly divergent thread, but I agree that intra-realm conflict can be an highly enjoyable experience. I think anyone who has been in a rebellion will know that quite a bit of skulduggery goes on and there is much fun to be had triumphing over your comrades in service of your higher goals. In a sense we get the pile-on experience detailed earlier in this thread as people start joining their 'friends' or opposing their 'enemies' and getting into battles, but it comes with the context of being all about the future of the realm. It isn't just a grudge fight between two rival characters (well, not always anyway ;))
It's right that intra-realm conflict can't just happen on a whim, but it would be nice if we could improve the rebellion system. Make it a little more complex and consequential an event than at present. With the hierarchy system being as dynamic as it is now, it's a shame that rebellion simply remains a race to stack as much strength in the capital as possible. It could be so much more.
Quote from: Revan on July 30, 2012, 11:39:02 PM
it would be nice if we could improve the rebellion system.
That's been on the TODO list like forever.
I don't have time to read all the above, so in short: make Ruler's hatreds count for the whole realm