what would it be? Only one thing per person please.
and before someone mentions it, Statues has already been approved
Can i remove a whole realm?
ooh..wait are we talking about features?
I would like to change how the battle system works. 8)
I want to see more ways in which to use family gold. I know something of this sort was being discussed earlier, but I don't know what actually became of it.
Remove the bugtracker.
Religions being made far more powerful
Enforce one character/island/player.
Roleplay the battle as it is fought ;)
Noble A unit charge toward Noble B unit with well discipline(Due to high Morale). Continue...
Add longevity to an army. After 1 battle your combat effectiveness in an army goes down DRASTICALLY and it just feels like armies are expendable and not near as long lived as they should be.
a close second would be making training much more important with low training making your troops like levies and high like say Agyraspides ( alexandrian elite phalanxes). You should also only be able to train them up to a certain point like say 60% and the rest has to be battle expierence.
Bring back RoF. :D
Quote from: Lanyon on October 18, 2012, 04:46:05 AM
a close second would be making training much more important with low training making your troops like levies and high like say Agyraspides ( alexandrian elite phalanxes). You should also only be able to train them up to a certain point like say 60% and the rest has to be battle expierence.
Hey hey! One per person, read my fingers!
Religions having something of value to produce, like some kind of bonus or incentive that can be used or distributed.
I read somewhere an idea about a marshals (or vice marshal - whoever is present for the battle) leadership skill giving a bonus to their army if the army fewer than X nobles in it with X being based on his leadership skill and Generals giving multiple armies a bonus based on his leadership skill if present during the battle. I think that this is one of my favorites!
I would remove/edit recruiting limits! "No my dear King, you have ONLY 320 honor, you can command only 81 men, come back after few battles you might be allowed to have 1 or 2 more men. Next!"
-Jaune
What about removing the login button for the game for a hr after turn change? wait nvm. How about changing...nvm we won't get archery skill.
Okay last try change the general layout or add things to the pages of BM. I'm talking about seasonal themes and such maybe even dare I say it Holidays. I particularly think Tom's birthday should be a day of celebration around the BM world where the commoners(including adventurers) have the chance to beat up nobles, and they refuse to do anything that whole day. Now that would be a fun and interesting day. Hopefully it would only be revealed after the fact to throw most of us into confusion.
@Foundation, you'd enjoy if Tom got rid of bugtracker wouldn't you ;D.
I would remove the new provision system. I hate that mother!
And have all your units starving immediately?
Quote from: Telrunya on October 18, 2012, 04:57:30 PM
And have all your units starving immediately?
Remove the
system, not just the
provisions.
Quote from: Uzamaki on October 18, 2012, 05:46:50 PM
Remove the system, not just the provisions.
The starving mechanics have been there for years, so I would just like to clarify the provision's system is a benefit though the starving mechanics might not be to your liking.
Quote from: Unwin on October 18, 2012, 06:07:33 AM
I read somewhere an idea about a marshals (or vice marshal - whoever is present for the battle) leadership skill giving a bonus to their army if the army fewer than X nobles in it with X being based on his leadership skill and Generals giving multiple armies a bonus based on his leadership skill if present during the battle. I think that this is one of my favorites!
I can only agree!!! ... as it was me the one to make this Feature Request! ;D
...although I never know what happened to it... It was accepted? rejected? forgotten? killed? :P
Quote from: Poliorketes on October 18, 2012, 07:23:23 PM
I can only agree!!! ... as it was me the one to make this Feature Request! ;D
...although I never know what happened to it... It was accepted? rejected? forgotten? killed? :P
If the thread isn't marked approved, it's not. Go through your posts (through profile) and find it.
found it: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2925.msg66788.html#msg66788
Quite a few things were added to give VMs more ways to assist the M.
Quote from: Azerax on October 20, 2012, 12:44:30 AM
found it: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2925.msg66788.html#msg66788
Yes, this is it.
So it was rejected?... a shame, It was sooo beautiful! ::)
I'd remove the CE-Tara Federation from Atamara.
Bam, 500 people more interested in BM again.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on October 22, 2012, 05:52:41 AM
I'd remove the CE-Tara Federation from Atamara.
Bam, 500 people more interested in BM again.
If 500 people really think that way, it should be the easiest thing in the world to accomplish this.
Death from wounds for all characters. That would be nice.
Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2012, 10:39:46 AM
If 500 people really think that way, it should be the easiest thing in the world to accomplish this.
Indeed.
Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2012, 10:39:46 AM
If 500 people really think that way, it should be the easiest thing in the world to accomplish this.
then hold a poll among players(preferably who play or played there).
I'd have some objections on interfering with the game like this and so i thought would you...
500 people is a bit rediculous perhaps, most people wouldn't care or just don't want realm specified interventions in the game.
A daimon invasion a (map changing)earthquake or a plague or somehting that would start int he middle of Atamara could perhaps be a better idea.
It could depopulate the island a bit and shake up things.
Then again we should perhaps first think why the Terran CE federation isn't fun for people and how about EC?
Isn't that quite a stagnant island too?
I perosnally believe it will not change anything to intervene, there is a reason that thinsg stagnate, that is the desire of players to sort of win the game.
By winning i mean getting your characters on high positions with lots of power for as long as possible, barley intrested in the real aspects of the game, like true complex social interaction, conflicts, warfare, cultuural and religious difrences and disputes and most of all the values of honour and valour.
People play the game without beeing aware of there own paradigm and play there character as a modern politician or a modern activist or better, a modern banker.
I could be wrong, but I think that Tom was suggesting that the players could band together in-game and take out the two countries and not that he would delete the realms if someone managed to collect 500 signatures...
Quote from: Unwin on October 22, 2012, 01:38:54 PM
I could be wrong, but I think that Tom was suggesting that the players could band together in-game and take out the two countries and not that he would delete the realms if someone managed to collect 500 signatures...
oooooow yeah :P
I geuss i scanned read this thread a little to fast.
we all know thats not how it works, most players seem to care first about what i mentioned earlier.
There acounts are almost an extensions of them selves.
Quote from: Unwin on October 22, 2012, 01:38:54 PM
I could be wrong, but I think that Tom was suggesting that the players could band together in-game and take out the two countries and not that he would delete the realms if someone managed to collect 500 signatures...
I'm sure you're right.
We should start referring to wars as "CS-weighted polls". Maybe they'd start more easily?
Quote from: Unwin on October 22, 2012, 01:38:54 PM
I could be wrong, but I think that Tom was suggesting that the players could band together in-game and take out the two countries and not that he would delete the realms if someone managed to collect 500 signatures...
That's already been tried.... I think the total was about 5-6 realms banded up last I counted.
Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2012, 10:39:46 AM
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on October 22, 2012, 05:52:41 AM
I'd remove the CE-Tara Federation from Atamara.
Bam, 500 people more interested in BM again.
If 500 people really think that way, it should be the easiest thing in the world to accomplish this.
Unfortunately, it's entirely possible that he's correct that 500 people would be having more fun, but that they would not all actually support the destruction of CE if they were asked.
Just because taking some particular action might improve someone's lot in life (or in BattleMaster) doesn't mean they themselves recognize that and support the action necessary to do so.
Quote from: Unwin on October 22, 2012, 01:38:54 PM
I could be wrong, but I think that Tom was suggesting that the players could band together in-game and take out the two countries and not that he would delete the realms if someone managed to collect 500 signatures...
Exactly.
500 players is pretty much everyone on AT - character count right now: 530 active characters, played by 366 different players - wait, 500
is everyone and then some.
If everyone agreed on this, or even just almost everyone, overthrowing, rebelling, or destroying that federation would be trivial. If it doesn't happen, than apparently enough people support it.
Quote from: Anaris on October 22, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Just because taking some particular action might improve someone's lot in life (or in BattleMaster) doesn't mean they themselves recognize that and support the action necessary to do so.
That's true.
But we do not know with 100% certainty if it would make the game more fun for everyone.
So what can the people who don't have fun do? Either, change the situation, or go somewhere else. Heck, we have
6 game worlds - why anyone would complain about one being stagnant when there are so many options is beyond me. Sure, you might have a long history in your realm and all that. But what is that worth if the game isn't fun anymore?
Change it or leave. Complaining on the forum doesn't change a thing. If you need to vent so you feel better - that's ok, sometimes we humans just need to talk about something. But if you really want it to change - then make it change.
It would be awesome if you could kidnap characters as infiltrator.
Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2012, 10:39:46 AM
If 500 people really think that way, it should be the easiest thing in the world to accomplish this.
True enough. However, I believe there is a distinct difference between an OOC player wanting things to be different, and that player RP'ing their character correctly. Just because the player sees a means of improving the atmosphere, doesn't mean that their character IC will tend toward that action. Without OOC interference its almost impossible for this to be accomplished.
I know exactly the ideal way to accomplish it using OOC influences on IC events, but I also know that without some OOC solidarity with some other major players that it simply won't happen. Thus, we have the current situation.
I'm not complaining personally about the situation because I'm still having plenty of fun, but as one of the leaders on Atamara, I do have concerns about whether some of my knights are having fun.
As far as IC concerns, it really only needs the support of about 20 characters for the current state of the game to continue. That could be as few as 10-20 players which can guarantee a lockdown of the CE-Tara federation. Now, if all other players opposed the situation, removal would be trivial but only if they enacted this IC. However, for those players such as those having knights and lords within CE, Tara, or their allies, it doesn't make great IC sense to want it to happen. Even if they would have more fun in the long term by doing so.
Side Note: Just as 10-15 players working to protect it can make it nearly impossible to stop, if you gave me 9 other players working in an OOC manner, I could easily destroy it as well using purely IC means to affect the change outside of those 9 players. The whole point though is that such action explicitly goes against the social contract.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on October 22, 2012, 05:52:41 AM
I'd remove the CE-Tara Federation from Atamara.
Bam, 500 people more interested in BM again.
Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2012, 10:39:46 AM
If 500 people really think that way, it should be the easiest thing in the world to accomplish this.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/25546000.jpg)
Quote from: Perth on October 22, 2012, 09:36:24 PM
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/25546000.jpg)
Just about shat myself laughing.
Quote from: Tom on October 22, 2012, 06:16:23 PM
Exactly.
500 players is pretty much everyone on AT - character count right now: 530 active characters, played by 366 different players - wait, 500 is everyone and then some.
If everyone agreed on this, or even just almost everyone, overthrowing, rebelling, or destroying that federation would be trivial. If it doesn't happen, than apparently enough people support it.
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3375.0.html
Started a poll. We'll see what we get.
Quote from: Vellos on October 22, 2012, 10:03:52 PM
Just about shat myself laughing.
No no, this where you say: "AND YOU HAVE MY BOW"
Quote from: Perth on October 22, 2012, 10:30:29 PM
No no, this where you say: "AND YOU HAVE MY BOW"
No no, this is where we say: "AND MY AXE".
Because we are putting axes at their federation on AT. I have a look at the poll, nice result 8)
Quote from: Perth on October 22, 2012, 10:30:29 PM
No no, this where you say: "AND YOU HAVE MY BOW"
Quote from: Ketchum on October 23, 2012, 03:42:35 AM
No no, this is where we say: "AND MY AXE".
Because we are putting axes at their federation on AT. I have a look at the poll, nice result 8)
And My Wizard Staff!
:o :o :o :o
Ohh wait this is not Spell Master, sooo....errr.. need to make a contribution to the topic so i don't get lynched...ohh yes!
-------Deep Breath of Inspiration-------
If were on my power I would Change:
Replace the Paraphernalia Scouts, by Adventurer Scouts? just let the scouts be
Players!Since they are lesser nobles they will fit into this category pretty well, just need some balance adjustments and will be ready.
Bye!
I would remove Chenier. Because I find him supremely distasteful.
Quote from: Vellos on October 23, 2012, 11:14:31 PM
I would remove Chenier. Because I find him supremely distasteful.
I would remove myself as well, because I find that people get too intimidated by my glorious superiority.
;D
Off-Topic Messages about accented characters deleted. People, there is off-topic and then there is spam-chat. Don't crap all over the forum, please.
Quote from: Sonya on October 23, 2012, 03:14:27 PM
And My Wizard Staff!
:o :o :o :o
Ohh wait this is not Spell Master, sooo....errr.. need to make a contribution to the topic so i don't get lynched...ohh yes!
-------Deep Breath of Inspiration-------
If were on my power I would Change:
Replace the Paraphernalia Scouts, by Adventurer Scouts? just let the scouts be Players!
Since they are lesser nobles they will fit into this category pretty well, just need some balance adjustments and will be ready.
Bye!
I like this idea but I have two concerns:
1. In war times adventurers would be pressured to scout full time or face arrest
2. Timeliness. I let my 16 hours build up before I spend them so a scouting request might take +1 turns to complete.
However, perhaps adventurer scouting provides additional details that the current scouting does not? (like what? who knows - maybe rumours about troops incoming to the current region from other regions?)
Quote from: Azerax on October 26, 2012, 04:48:16 PM
I like this idea but I have two concerns:
1. In war times adventurers would be pressured to scout full time or face arrest
2. Timeliness. I let my 16 hours build up before I spend them so a scouting request might take +1 turns to complete.
However, perhaps adventurer scouting provides additional details that the current scouting does not? (like what? who knows - maybe rumours about troops incoming to the current region from other regions?)
Maybe things like siege engines or details on particular units?
Quote from: Sonya on October 23, 2012, 03:14:27 PM
And My Wizard Staff!
:o :o :o :o
Ohh wait this is not Spell Master, sooo....errr.. need to make a contribution to the topic so i don't get lynched...ohh yes!
-------Deep Breath of Inspiration-------
If were on my power I would Change:
Replace the Paraphernalia Scouts, by Adventurer Scouts? just let the scouts be Players!
Since they are lesser nobles they will fit into this category pretty well, just need some balance adjustments and will be ready.
Bye!
Tom has emphatically rejected this multiple times before. He doesn't want the adventurer game and the noble game to overlap too much, and he definitely very strongly does not want adventurers to be treated as paraphernalia by nobles.
I would significantly reduce or even remove unit-realm distance penalties.
Not sure what's been posted here and what hasn't, but...
1. The ability to write messages after a character dies - but limit it to roleplay messages or possibly (?) OOC messages.
1. The ability to choose a name for your unit's captain once one is found, or have an option to rename them. Would be optional and in addition to the randomization of names already.
1. The ability to "attach" adventurers (other player characters) to units with their permission. When attached, they lose the ability to travel on their own (unless they remove themselves from the unit) but have new options like the ability to train soldiers (effectiveness depending on their skill level), raise morale, scout bordering regions, etc. Attached adventurers automatically fight in any battle the unit engages in, and have the chance to be injured, seriously injured, killed, etc. They can also be "promoted" to captain and would replace your named captain, if you have one. They cannot move the unit on their own, and their communication isn't expanded here - they use the same message system as before.
1. Death. Everyone has a small chance of death, and class choices augment this slightly - heroes would still be the riskiest, with courtiers having the least risk of death.
Quote from: Wolfsong on October 28, 2012, 11:00:21 PM
1. The ability to choose a name for your unit's captain once one is found, or have an option to rename them. Would be optional and in addition to the randomization of names already.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Humans are named by their parents, not their superiors.
I'd make looting a more viable way of warfare.
Wars are too much about conquest, too little about other spoils in my opinion.
Quote from: ^ban^ on October 28, 2012, 10:47:26 PM
I would significantly reduce or even remove unit-realm distance penalties.
Not sure I'd make this my number one, but it'd definitely be up there somewhere.
Quote from: Lorgan on October 29, 2012, 12:16:34 AM
I'd make looting a more viable way of warfare.
Wars are too much about conquest, too little about other spoils in my opinion.
Yea, this too.
Quote from: Lorgan on October 29, 2012, 12:16:34 AM
I'd make looting a more viable way of warfare.
Wars are too much about conquest, too little about other spoils in my opinion.
Troops should be able to use looting to repair damage, so that you can have a "Mongol horde" traveling across the lines.
Quote from: egamma on October 29, 2012, 12:18:39 AM
Troops should be able to use looting to repair damage, so that you can have a "Mongol horde" traveling across the lines.
Looting yielding more gold, reducing equipment damage, and increasing troop morale in a more significant matter would make it more interesting.
Looting, right now, is only done when people wish to utterly destroy. It'd be nice to have a more balanced choice of looting options, some options which do lots of damage but little rewards, other options that deal very little damage but yield much greater rewards.
Quote from: Chénier on October 29, 2012, 12:21:51 AM
Looting, right now, is only done when people wish to utterly destroy
...or if they're Makarian.
Quote from: Tom on October 29, 2012, 12:01:03 AM
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Humans are named by their parents, not their superiors.
It isn't the character naming the captain, but the player. It'd be useful for continuity and roleplay purposes, purely.
Edit: To clarify...
Let's say I recruit a unit of men with a captain named John. I create RP around the interaction between captain and knight, insofar as there is interaction, and this becomes a core of my roleplay. The unit is left to become a militia unit, but my knight would probably drag the captain along after him in his retinue when recruiting a new unit as the militia unit would be staffed by administrators native to the region it's in (and not mercenaries or foreigners, or whatever.) I recruit a new unit, but this captain is named Ted. Suddenly I need to explain away where John has gone, and then after that, explain away Ted too when I get captain Timmy.
I'd just like the ability to alter a NPC captain's name so that Ted could be John - I could play it as the same man, etc., assuming he has survived that long.
Alternatively, let's say my character is playing in a realm where Viking names are commonplace. Suddenly a captain shows up to lead my unit of murdering, baby-eating marines and his name is 'François' - where the hell did this Frenchman come from? It doesn't fit the theme of things, and there comes a time when "mercenary captain" starts to sound tired and overused.
You're the only one who ever sees the name. Or even the fact that you have a captain. If you don't like the name, use whatever name you want. Who cares?
Quote from: Indirik on October 29, 2012, 03:25:58 AM
You're the only one who ever sees the name. Or even the fact that you have a captain. If you don't like the name, use whatever name you want. Who cares?
Game Engine trumps role play might be why he cares, though your points are true also. Basically, if it was officially said what you said it wouldn't matter but except it might bug a few that it says otherwise though not a huge deal, but the devs don't always agree so just because you say it doesn't make it official policy. (Yeah seems dumb to have an official policy on something like this but doesn't mean it's bad to say, the official stance on this issue is you may role play your unit's captain with whatever name you please.)
I think I would prefer sticking to the name given and being forced to lose the captain with the unit. Incorporating these changes into your story seems like is would help generate a more organic story. Personal taste I guess..
It's not a big enough deal, IMO, to warrant a policy about, or even a code change (even if it was just one or two lines of extra code) given how many other things BM needs. (Players, anyone?) It's just something I think would make the game easier for me personally. I've always been more about the roleplay and world-building than the other aspects of BM, though.
Edit: Admittedly, pretending an already named captain had a different name would be easy as well, but it wouldn't sit well with me to circumvent game mechanics in such a way.
Quote from: Wolfsong on October 28, 2012, 11:00:21 PM
1. The ability to choose a name for your unit's captain once one is found, or have an option to rename them. Would be optional and in addition to the randomization of names already.
What's your name, pardner?
Sylvester Newel, why?
Sylvester?... Newel? ... ... ... I'll call you pardner. ;D
Gotta agree just rp your captain as a different name. I do all the time. mm If i could change one thing it be to actually keep my captain when I wanted to switch units. That would be nice. Maybe they'd take a leadership hit since they'd not be used to the new combat style.