BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: fifo on April 07, 2011, 03:21:28 PM
-
Currently, when a king decides to exile a character that character will be removed from the judge list of people he is able to ban (kick out/ask to leave).
Since exiling a player has a smaller effect than banishment it should still be possible for to ban an exiled character.
-
I believe that this is an intended part of exile. I'm not 100% certain, though, and it's at least worth discussing.
-
I thought that exile would only be used on characters who cannot normally be banned, like royals, and that's why they're mutually exclusive.
-
Does Exiling work immediately or needs some time like a banishment?
In the first case, one would like to block the to-be-banned person from recruiting before bans goes into effect maybe.
-
I do not believe Exiling is instant, in fact, it probably gives more time than banning, although this is just my speculation, I haven't looked at the code for this. Not many things are instant, and for a reason too, since though we communicate through instant letters, things were most definitely not instant back then.
-
Makes sense.
Perhaps in addition to what the exiled noble won't be able to do, under the exile page, it could be useful to mention also what can't be done to the exiled noble in return. It is said it's a good remedy against nobles that can't be banished, but judge and ruler are often 2 different characters and it may very well happen that they think independently.
-
And in my case the king didn't know about this side effect. ;)
-
Exile is instant.
It prevents the exiled person from recruiting or using banks.
It is intended to be used against people who cannot be banned.
It is intended to be a battle of wills between the ruler and the exiled noble.
I don't know why you would use exile on someone you could ban in the first place.
-
If your banker steals your monies, then you can exile him/her immediately and disallow bonds -> gold, right? ;)
-
Could happen if the judge is uncooperative, yet not the target. Though in that case, I don't imagine this would be an issue since the ban would not be forthcoming anyway.
-
I don't know why you would use exile on someone you could ban in the first place.
Maybe to not give him too much time taking money or recruiting, because you don't know when the judge will be in BM.
-
Maybe to not give him too much time taking money or recruiting, because you don't know when the judge will be in BM.
Or without going ooc, in order to prevent him from cashing his bonds and run for it before the ban goes into effect, since it needs a couple days.
-
Um...the ban goes into effect immediately. That prevents banking and recruiting.
The ban does not make the noble a rogue until three turns have passed.
-
Um...the ban goes into effect immediately. That prevents banking and recruiting.
The ban does not make the noble a rogue until three turns have passed.
Uh. How many things one can learn on the forums!
-
Uh. How many things one can learn on the forums!
Heh, yeah. I didn't learn that bans took effect immediately for years...
-
Um...the ban goes into effect immediately. That prevents banking and recruiting.
The ban does not make the noble a rogue until three turns have passed.
Whoawhoawhoa, what an abundance of learning today. :o
-
Nice.
Well, anyways. It doesn't see to make a lot of sense to me. Neither technically, nor from an IG perspective. Being in exile shouldn't save someone from being banned.
-
It's a question of whether someone wants to live a life in the realm with basically nothing or set out to start anew somewhere else.
If exile works as described in the ruler command, then exiled noble should have very few messages, and can't use the banks, can't recruit, etc. If you're really spiteful of the ruler, you could stay, but then you have one character doing basically nothing.
-
Nothing except causing the Ruler to lose honour (every day) and prestige (every week). And if you get your taxes in gold, then not being able to use a bank isn't that much of a problem.
-
What else though? If all that can be done is collect gold, then it appears that such is not strong enough incentive to keep people around in a realm.
-
I've seen people do it. I guess the joy of watching the ruler lose honour and prestige is more then enough reward.
-
Yes, but I have a feeling that the point was not only to make it a battle of spite but also something that would actually make the exiled noble want to leave. It would be a sort of alternative to banning, in that instead of telling the noble he is banished from the realm, he is told that there is nothing for him in the realm. While not forbidden from entering the lands, there would be no home waiting for him.
-
Yes, but I have a feeling that the point was not only to make it a battle of spite but also something that would actually make the exiled noble want to leave. It would be a sort of alternative to banning, in that instead of telling the noble he is banished from the realm, he is told that there is nothing for him in the realm. While not forbidden from entering the lands, there would be no home waiting for him.
Exactly, and the only real incentive people have to stick around is pure spite. Or if they are a priest I would guess it wouldn't impact them too badly.
-
Psh, I've been exiled twice on two different characters and neither were anywhere close to royalty. The first time was an OOC exile but the second one, which was actually last week, was on a 9-day old character who looted a neutral realm's city. I don't know why the Assassins didn't just ban me - I can still argue and make them very mad at me.
-
Seems to me that spite is more than enough reason to stick around in a situation like that.
-
Well it's not my character that's doing nothing but talking smack, so to each his own.
-
Well it's not my character that's doing nothing but talking smack, so to each his own.
Thanks.. he is doing more than that but I didn't mention it on here to ruin the whole plot?
-
My post was meant for the general public, but if it applies to you, then...good that you enjoy making the ruler lose H/P?
-
My post was meant for the general public, but if it applies to you, then...good that you enjoy making the ruler lose H/P?
Oh definitely. But he really doesn't lose much H/P every turn. It would take over 3-4 months for it to hurt.. probably even more?
-
Depends on what the ruler does, and his initial H/P. For a theocracy ruler priest, that might be pretty awful because they might not have particularly high H/P and there isn't much they can do if they're not a lord or judge to regain any.
-
Oh definitely. But he really doesn't lose much H/P every turn. It would take over 3-4 months for it to hurt.. probably even more?
As a noble, any loss of H/P should hurt.
-
True, even if they don't hurt in terms of game mechanics, our characters should take their honor and prestige seriously.
-
I still think banishment should be possible, because I can't see any IG reason which would prevent a judge from doing so. When the judge was able to do so before a character has been exiled why render him immune after exile? Preventing banishment is certainly not the intention when exiling a character (from an ingame point of view I mean).
I do not talk about being able to ban someone you weren't able to ban.
-
It might be to enforce the intentions of exile. Exile, as it says right on the page, is a battle of willpower against the ruler. How long will the exile stay, getting limited information and unable to do much of anything? How long will the ruler tolerate daily drops in H/P? (That is pretty important in case he loses the position/can't run due to low prestige) Obviously rulers with high H/P have the luxury of exiling someone, and on the other side, characters with absolutely nothing better to do or that are seriously that spiteful of the ruler would have no problems doing nothing. I think the player of such a character would find it boring though, as that probably would literally mean clicking the play link on the character, then going back to the family page immediately to see what happened for everyone else. Play the character only to prevent him from auto-pausing...at that point, is there really a reason to play? Some think so, I guess.
So if the H/P loss due to the exile staying in the realm is key to the feature, it seems like the function of exiling nobles is to be an actual one-on-one battle of wills between ruler and exile. To ban someone would remove him in shorter time than usual, and would interfere with this single-minded conflict, thus undermining the very idea of exile.
-
Not only is a judge unable to stop the loss of prestige by punishment it is also possible for the player of the exiled character to leave the realm and the game and even when the character is paused he can't be removed, still destroying the kings prestige.
I usually do not moan when the admin of a game considers something a part of game, even when I think different about it, but this destroys fun for players and helps the guy who isn't even active. Okay, he came back, but don't really know whether he just logged in to see what happened maybe giving some information from real messages to his friend. I don't know if that's the reason, but I don't see an IG reason prevent punishment and I don't see an IG reason on how someone who isn't even known to still be alive can drain prestige.
When a ban would remove him in shorter time and that's not intended why make it possible anyway. What I mean is that I think the exile function wasn't intended to protect someone.
I am not king, so it doesn't affect me directly, but this seems far from what was intended. Wouldn't something like a timer be helpful here? Currently exile is final, there isn't anything that could change it in any way. This doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
It's really bad in this case, because the judge (my character) asked the king for the permission of banishment when that character became known as traitor IC (OOC it was known much longer). The king agreed, but exiled the traitor before the judge had a chance to click the ban button. I know, it's a misfortune, but it's been more than a month since then. The traitor became inactive and active again, we don't know where he is, ...
Okay, enough moaning. Just hope there will be a way to make this a bit more fitting to the game itself. I mean I am also unsure how this stuff should be handled from an IG/RPG POV. It's like a block hole :D
-
Did I read correctly that the King is still losing prestige and honour from an exile who paused? If so that's a pretty obvious bug.
-
Not only is a judge unable to stop the loss of prestige by punishment it is also possible for the player of the exiled character to leave the realm and the game and even when the character is paused he can't be removed, still destroying the kings prestige.
That's a bug, and will be fixed.
When a ban would remove him in shorter time and that's not intended why make it possible anyway. What I mean is that I think the exile function wasn't intended to protect someone.
No, it was not intended to protect anyone.
As I believe I have stated previously, it was intended to give the Ruler and his government something that they can do against people who cannot be banned.
So if you can ban someone...just ban them!
It's really bad in this case, because the judge (my character) asked the king for the permission of banishment when that character became known as traitor IC (OOC it was known much longer). The king agreed, but exiled the traitor before the judge had a chance to click the ban button. I know, it's a misfortune, but it's been more than a month since then. The traitor became inactive and active again, we don't know where he is, ...
So, your king's an idiot. Sorry, we haven't coded a cure for stupidity into BattleMaster.
-
So, your king's an idiot. Sorry, we haven't coded a cure for stupidity into BattleMaster.
Or maybe just didn't know exile blocks banishment.
-
Do you know the story of Napoleon? Exiled first, banished later.
Of course I understand it's about the mechanics, just think it could be done better than that. BM is great because the mechanics support a variety of situations, but this seems to be a rough edge. Would be great if it could be fleshed out.
-
Do you know the story of Napoleon? Exiled first, banished later.
Of course I understand it's about the mechanics, just think it could be done better than that. BM is great because the mechanics support a variety of situations, but this seems to be a rough edge. Would be great if it could be fleshed out.
The only thing this really needs is a clear statement on the Exile page that someone who has been exiled cannot be banished.
This has been added in rev. 5409.