BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Penchant on April 29, 2013, 04:46:17 AM
-
I need to prove a point to someone regarding this, so I am looking for as many reasons multis are bad as possible. While it won't all port over to the developer I need to, just reasons for why multiing is bad with BM is fine. Perhaps also while several characters is ok but multiing is not would be good too.
-
One reason is that if you have many players, the game will go in one direction. If you have multies, the game will take the direction of that person or will have more chances for that to happen.
-
As success in this game is largely achieved democratically a multi-user would be afforded much potential power by his multiple characters. If the multi-user were to exercise his power he could win positions for himself and, by so doing, deny those positions from other players.
There is also the matter that bypassing the character limit with multiple accounts defeats one of the incentives for donation, and thereby reduces potential profit for the owner. Of course, in regards to Battlemaster this sort of thing is negligible, as there are few cheaters and few donators to make it substantial, but for other games it could be a big deal. I'm sure that Valve is more interested in banning multi-users in TF2 due to the potential lost profits, rather than the unfair trading advantage they have over fellow hat traders.
-
It's an unfair advantage; more gold and positions for one player. It reduces social interaction; fewer players to talk to.
-
It rewards players with the fewest friends to invite to a game: i.e. those with the fewest other activities to distract them. It's bad for the health of the game for antisocial tendencies to become dominant strategies. Ideally, the game should be structured (for the long-run health of the game) to reward players who bring in new players and who like to socialize with other players. Allowing multis strengthens the hand of players who actively try to suppress new player recruitment, and provides incentives for sabotaging game socialization.
-
One of the major obstacles for a leader to overcome in wartime is the general inactivity of your nobles and getting them to move together to accomplish an objective. Having multis allows you to create as many characters as you want and have them move and attack in perfect synchronisation, giving you an unfair advantage over every other realm.
-
Does your friend need an explanation with examples as to why ballot stuffing in elections is bad, too?
-
Multis are not always bad. In strongly progression oriented games the only purpose of multis is to have more alt characters. In games where a single player can easily control multiple accounts simultaneously, it can have a somewhat significant impact. I would say a strong OOC clan is a bigger problem than a 2-3 acc multi though.
-
Multi's are bad because in BM it's about more than just playing Risk, we create a story together. People only have so much imagination on their own, and external input is what keeps things interesting.
Look at roleplays. If it's one person 'performing' for a realm, these stories easily get bland, uninteresting or far-fetched. Only when several people get together and contribute, BM can be fun.
-
You will probably dislike what I am going to say but I will say it anyway.
We can create some different characters and play them at some level, but at some point we all will put a lot of ourselves in our chars making the disassociation of our inner self more and more difficult at each new char.
Someone who is able to create multiple characters and differentiates them make a disassociation from its inner self in a manner that borders on psychosis, and that's one reason why many of us, most of us don't do it.
Our ego is always there calling us back to reality.
So, in other words, the multi-account players are seriously risking a psychosis episode.
About psychosis there is one episode that describes it in a delicious way:
‘Who are you?’ said the caterpillar.
This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation.
Alice replied rather shyly, ‘I …I hardly know sir, just at present – at least I know who I was when I got up this morning but I think I must have changed several times since then.’
‘What do you mean by that?’ said the caterpillar sternly.
‘Explain yourself!’
‘I can’t explain myself, I am afraid, sir,’ said Alice, ‘because I’m not myself, you see.’
-
I fell sooo sad about someone who need to have multiple account to play a game, is worse than these people who do things to get attention.
Players who create multiple account don't do it to increase the dynamic of the game, have each of every class, to have a different point of view of oneself and the surroundings. A player with 10-15 different characters is just repeating himself on multiple clones, same characteristic, same ideals, same believe, hell. Is hard for many to separate two characters just imagine 10.... All i can do is feel pity for that kind of person.
I would take groups who plays together (called clan) over multiple account any time, even if they are strong, you can feel that they are different characters, their only downside is that they remain silent for most of the time.
-
I fell sooo sad about someone who need to have multiple account to play a game, is worse than these people who do things to get attention.
Players who create multiple account don't do it to increase the dynamic of the game, have each of every class, to have a different point of view of oneself and the surroundings. A player with 10-15 different characters is just repeating himself on multiple clones, same characteristic, same ideals, same believe, hell. Is hard for many to separate two characters just imagine 10.... All i can do is feel pity for that kind of person.
I would take groups who plays together (called clan) over multiple account any time, even if they are strong, you can feel that they are different characters, their only downside is that they remain silent for most of the time.
As someone who has in the past multi'ed to be able to play 8 characters, I can tell you that at least for me, it was so that I could play on all the continents and have a chance of being involved in some sort of action. Which is why I have in the past and still do support a change to the way character slots are assigned to players. Right now it's really a turn down for new players (something I've heard first hand from the people I introduce to the game) that they only get two characters.
Sure, you may not be able to roleplay five characters properly, but for a new player it would be much, much easier for them to find that place for two characters if they could create more than two. I believe there should be enough character slots to be able to play 1 noble per continent and a second noble on 1 continent, and that it should be that many characters for everyone.
-
- Multi-accounting is a breach of trust. The game says "one account per person". If someone is willing to break that rule, then what other rules are they willing to break?
- It is a blatant and insulting display of disrespect to other players. That person is saying that they are better than everyone else, that they are exempt from the rules.
- It conveys a large, and probably insurmountable, advantage on behalf of the multi-accounter. They can secretly, and untraceably, provide public and private support for their multis without anyone knowing.
- It provides a set of accomplices in which the multi-accounter has 100% unbreakable trust. People who follow the rules don't have this unfair advantage, there is always the chance they will be betrayed by their accomplices.
- It allows for unfair opportunities for untraceable spying and information gathering.
- It breaks the chain of player accountability. It allows the multi-accounter to play both sides of the fence, without anyone knowing they are doing it. They can be both the good cop and the bad cop. No one can trace these back to the real player behind the characters.
- It steals positions of power away from legitimate players. Multis will almost certain give positions of power and authority to their own characters rather than legitimate players. This reduces the overall number of available positions of authority in the game.
I could probably go on for quite a while with all the reasons that multi-accounting is one of the worst ways a player can cheat in a game like BattleMaster. None of the above problems exist with a single players having multiple characters via the legitimate methods.
-
Right now it's really a turn down for new players (something I've heard first hand from the people I introduce to the game) that they only get two characters.
Point.
-
Aurvandil.
-
Point.
Well, I think I only need to say "domain tasting" to explain just why allowing people to create characters they don't intend to play just to be able to check out different realms is a stupid idea.
But maybe an option to quickly switch to another realm for new players(!) (not characters) would be ok. Something like in the first month of your account, you can remove any character of yours from the map and start him in a different realm the same way it does after initially creating it.
Would be in the history and all, and you wouldn't get to keep any troops, so that'd be balanced.
-
Well, I think I only need to say "domain tasting" to explain just why allowing people to create characters they don't intend to play just to be able to check out different realms is a stupid idea.
But maybe an option to quickly switch to another realm for new players(!) (not characters) would be ok. Something like in the first month of your account, you can remove any character of yours from the map and start him in a different realm the same way it does after initially creating it.
Would be in the history and all, and you wouldn't get to keep any troops, so that'd be balanced.
While that may help, I have heard from beginning players - who later quit - that they did not have anything to do with their 2 characters. So the reason I agree with Gustav is that while the gameplay quality of these first characters is very hard to improve on your own, the quantity isn't. And it might go a long way in offering new players something to do and getting them drawn into the game.
-
I recall reading people years ago as thankful they had 3 characters to find an interesting realm with. And I know that as a returning player, I would've enjoyed starting out with 3 nobles. As admitted in in-game text, advies are a slower game with little social interaction (social interaction being the core of BM, to me). While new players being able to jump around might help, that seems like extra coding work in comparison to allowing 3 nobles at start. Also, there's the issue of player density that would be assisted by new players having the normal amount of nobles.
-
It also seems to me to be sending the wrong kind of message to new players that they only get to enjoy a limited scope of battlemaster while the more entrenched (say, around 6-8 years) players can have characters on every continent. It's an environment that actively encourages the kind of multi use that I used to do just so I could play on most of the continents.
-
While I think mutli-cheating just to experience all of the continents is the entirely wrong way to go about experiencing what the game as to offer, I can say that it would be nice if some sort of system was devised to allow newer characters to get a feel for what continent would suit their play style best.
My first three characters went to different continents and when they moved on, my fourth character went to two new continents. My fourth character also hopped realms until I found one I more or less enjoyed. Having that option for a newer person who might otherwise leave the game because the realm they picked isnt ideal would be nice.
As for multi-cheating itself, I think Indirik summed up some of the reasons why it's a nasty thing nicely. Multi-cheaters also tend to implode eventually, it seems, and drag an awful lot of people who weren't aware that it was going on down with them.
-
Multi-accounting is a breach of trust. The game says "one account per person". If someone is willing to break that rule, then what other rules are they willing to break?
It is a blatant and insulting display of disrespect to other players. That person is saying that they are better than everyone else, that they are exempt from the rules.
Those both imply its against the rules, which for BM it is, but isn't a reason multiing is bad when considering it as a rule. To everybody, what reasons are multiple characters but not families ok? For Indirik's post multiple characters can do the same thing except for the false family thing.
-
Multi-accounting would still be bad for many reasons. It allows a single player to circumvent many game rules and restrictions designed to make the game more enjoyable for everyone, such as per-island character limits, per-island council position limits, and others. It also removes the accountability link between characters played by the same family. It does break trust between players, who would think they were talking to a separate player, but who is secretly their enemy's alt account. Spying, moles, and other toxic behavior would be the rule of the day. It would create an environment of suspicion, fear, and distrust among the entire community. No one would talk to anyone they didn't know via some web of OOC trust. I can't help but think that the community in such a game would be riddled by OOC/OOG metagaming and abusive behavior/attitudes.
Secret multi-accounting is just a nasty piece of work. It's not good for anyone other than those willing to abuse the game and the other players.
-
For Indirik's post multiple characters can do the same thing except for the false family thing.
And that's it, right there. Games—especially those that involve many people—have rules, because rules allow people to establish a certain level of trust. Otherwise, the game doesn't work. A person with multiple accounts who is not abusing them for the advantage of any particular account cannot prove that they are not. It immediately arouses a suspicion, borne out by the vast majority of past examples, that cannot easily be satisfied.
In other words, it isn't a rule that exists to punish players who love the game so much that they want to experience more than the mechanics allow for. It's a rule that's designed to protect the social compact that the vast majority of players agree to, implicitly, when they play a game with strangers over the internet expecting a fair shot.
-
Ok, I see what you are saying with the trust issues. But why are multiple characters ok, but multiple accounts are not, other than the trust issues? Is the only reason multi's are worse than multiple characters is trust? I am not saying it is, simply saying thats all I am hearing. If trust was the only issue, then if someone had the time so that time was not an issue, do you think there is a reason a player should not be able to play as many characters as they can play with their time?
-
With multiple characters on the same account, you *know* that all those characters are played by the same person. So when Kepler is harassing you and being mean, you know that when Keplerina starts trying to sweet talk you, it's really *the same person* trying to work you from both sides. You won't be lulled into confiding your secret plans to depose Kepler. But if the supposed friend comes from a completely different family, there is a possibility that the person really is a friend, and wants to help. Sure, they *could* be a plant try to trap you, but they could also very well really be a true friend. A multi can take advantage of this anonymity to worm their way into your confidence using all their knowledge to bait you into believing whatever they want, and then screw you over.
A multi is, plain and simple, a liar through-and-through. It is someone metagaming in order to gain unfair advantage.
-
With multiple characters on the same account, you *know* that all those characters are played by the same person. So when Kepler is harassing you and being mean, you know that when Keplerina starts trying to sweet talk you, it's really *the same person* trying to work you from both sides. You won't be lulled into confiding your secret plans to depose Kepler. But if the supposed friend comes from a completely different family, there is a possibility that the person really is a friend, and wants to help. Sure, they *could* be a plant try to trap you, but they could also very well really be a true friend. A multi can take advantage of this anonymity to worm their way into your confidence using all their knowledge to bait you into believing whatever they want, and then screw you over.
A multi is, plain and simple, a liar through-and-through. It is someone metagaming in order to gain unfair advantage.
That certainly is black and white, in a world of greys. I agree that the rule should be black and white, but you never answered Penchant's main questioning, that being why can't players make more characters (with the continent character limits still up of course) if they have the time? Why do we limit the total number arbitrarily so that it is impossible to have characters on every continent except for the oldest of players? Please answer the question, instead of evading in a tirade against mulit's that we all don't need to be told. It's a rule, we already get that, can we please actually move on to questions of substance.
Therefore, I will ask again for Penchant so that you might hear it this time. If trust was the only issue, then if someone had the time so that time was not an issue, do you think there is a reason a player should not be able to play as many characters as they can play with their time?
-
In my Battlemaster time since 2009, I had witness personally how multi done to a realm voting process. All the multis voting for a same character from the multi, and he able to gain power. Thanks to Tom, Dev or someone, he was caught of course. The rebellion, counter rebellion made the almost-bored-to-death realm come alive as we the Rebels/So-called Loyalists fought our way to the capital and secured the realm. Er, there was a bug with our elections as half the realm nobles were banned by the multi-Judge. Interesting enough that we were all banned by the multi-Judge with same ban comment. The Judge fast finger banned all of us, half the realm nobles within 1 second of each other. As nobody could be elected, so all peasants confused and protested over no government members. Overall Battlemaster game was ruined pretty much at that time for all true players :(
-
That certainly is black and white, in a world of greys. I agree that the rule should be black and white, but you never answered Penchant's main questioning, that being why can't players make more characters (with the continent character limits still up of course) if they have the time? Why do we limit the total number arbitrarily so that it is impossible to have characters on every continent except for the oldest of players? Please answer the question, instead of evading in a tirade against mulit's that we all don't need to be told. It's a rule, we already get that, can we please actually move on to questions of substance.
Therefore, I will ask again for Penchant so that you might hear it this time. If trust was the only issue, then if someone had the time so that time was not an issue, do you think there is a reason a player should not be able to play as many characters as they can play with their time?
The answer to this 'problem' is not multiplaying. Donate, or play over time, and you'll get more character slots.
A multiplayer is, plain and simple, not subject to responsibility. He can do anything he wants on account A, and accounts B-Z are not held accountable for that. Multiplaying is a terrible act that is done by desperate people.
-
The answer to this 'problem' is not multiplaying. Donate, or play over time, and you'll get more character slots.
A multiplayer is, plain and simple, not subject to responsibility. He can do anything he wants on account A, and accounts B-Z are not held accountable for that. Multiplaying is a terrible act that is done by desperate people.
And I have already argued above that "playing over time" means a long... long time. I've been playing for nearly three years on this account, and still only have enough "fame" to play three characters, with a fourth if I donate. And like i've said, just about everyone I introduce to this game stops playing it because they have to delete and create new characters in order to find some place interesting.
-
Every time you create a character, don't you get to select which realm to play in, with the realms having a description? Large realm, lots of allies, small realm, etc. That should give you an idea which realms are fun to play in, and which are active.
-
Every time you create a character, don't you get to select which realm to play in, with the realms having a description? Large realm, lots of allies, small realm, etc. That should give you an idea which realms are fun to play in, and which are active.
I'm sorry, I don't think you've been listening. I am telling you what the people who I introduced to the game have told me. Take that as you will. To answer your question, no, it does not. At all.
-
@Gustav: do you have to be so rude? I answered two out of three of Penchant's questions. The two I felt comfortable answering. I have some vague ideas about the third, but nothing I can put together coherently enough to bother sharing. Is two characters to low to start with? Probably. Is 5 or 6 too high to start with? Probably. That's the best answer I can give right now.
-
That was all I asked. Thank you.
-
Perhaps someone can think of some guidelines that can be added to the new character creation screens to help new players choose good realms. It would have to be non-realm/island- specific.
-
Perhaps someone can think of some guidelines that can be added to the new character creation screens to help new players choose good realms. It would have to be non-realm/island- specific.
Rather than do all that, why not just make the realm names on the character creation screens clickable hyperlinks that let you see the realm page and realm descriptions again? That's one of the things perhaps most sorely missing from the old, realm-based character creation screens. At present though, you're essentially choosing a duchy/realm completely blindly based on arcane glory values and estate vacancies.
-
Perhaps someone can think of some guidelines that can be added to the new character creation screens to help new players choose good realms. It would have to be non-realm/island- specific.
Good realms is somewhat subjective and terrible for the game to be labeled during character creation. These are the bad realms, stay away from them, these are the good realms, go to these, results in every realm coined as bad receiving very few characters while the good realms get more making good realms gain power while the bad realms don't and thus the bad realms get destroyed simply for being named bad. Melhed seemed like a 'bad' realm to me at first, but now they are seemingly very fun to be at. Realms shouldn't be gave good or bad, simply viewable descriptions.
-
You misunderstood me. I don't want the game to provide labels of goob/bad. I want to help people choose realms that are suitable for their play style/atmosphere. What should people look for when picking a realm? We need to give them guidance on how to pick a realm.
-
You misunderstood me. I don't want the game to provide labels of goob/bad. I want to help people choose realms that are suitable for their play style/atmosphere. What should people look for when picking a realm? We need to give them guidance on how to pick a realm.
Yes, I completely misunderstood you and agree with your suggestion.
-
A multi is, plain and simple, a liar through-and-through. It is someone metagaming in order to gain unfair advantage.
Best definition so far.
I think we are going somewhere with the last posts.
Maybe have another screen to write a description of the realm like we have to regions.
Maybe we could have trophies (given by number of posts, %of RP's, battles) so peaceful realms would need to compensate peace with rps.
I am just writing and thinking at same time.
-
Character creation stuff, while I too was talking about, is off topic.
I have some vague ideas about the third, but nothing I can put together coherently enough to bother sharing.
The third question is well, the most important one out of the three to me, so could you perhaps think about it more? Also, would you say it is certainly bad without the limits on things like council positions, per realm, etc?
-
A multi-cheater is, by definition, cheating. He is breaking a rule of the game. The consequences are best stated by Carse in "Finite and Infinite Games":
If these [rules] are not observed, the outcome of the game is directly threatened. The rules of a [...] game are the contractual terms by which the players can agree who has won.
(emphasis in the original)
That seems obvious until you realize that BattleMaster can not be won. And this is the one point where I differ from Carse in philosophical evaluation of games per se, specifically his finale chapter 101. By the definitions of Carse, I believe BattleMaster to be an infinite game, and the word I left out in the second [...] is "finite" - this rule only applies to finite games.
On infinite games, Carse writes:
If the rules of a finite game are the contractual terms by which the players can agree who has won, the rules of an infinite game are the contractual terms by which the players agree to continue playing.
And if that rings true to you, then you understand BattleMaster.
-
And if that rings true to you, then you understand BattleMaster.
Whee! I understand BattleMaster! ;D
-
You misunderstood me. I don't want the game to provide labels of goob/bad. I want to help people choose realms that are suitable for their play style/atmosphere. What should people look for when picking a realm? We need to give them guidance on how to pick a realm.
Okay, there's a way to do this. I proposed it a while ago as a feature request. It was accepted. It was supposed to be implemented. It wasn't.
Do regular, in-game, game-wide surveys, or at least a survey to players maybe 100 days after they join a new realm, especially new players.
Have both quantitative and qualitative responses. Post, at minimum, the quantitative scores by realms.
Sure, you could game this system by spamming new characters in a realm: but that would just be multi-cheating, and we'd hopefully catch it easily enough.
Want to give players guidance on realms to go to? Then have other players give them guidance in an organized fashion.
Hell, I'll write the darn survey myself if you want. I'll do it tonight. I can't program it, which might be tough, but surely it's possible.
This idea has been debated at length at least 2 times previously. It has been deemed a Good Idea by many different people, including Tom, IIRC. It's high time we implement it. I've been doing internal organizational review as my job for two years now: this is pretty standard, simple stuff.
-
I agree it's a good idea. I would do it if I could, but I can't. The only one who can do it right now is Anaris. He is our only active coder. And while he does a LOT, he can't do everything.
-
Okay, there's a way to do this. I proposed it a while ago as a feature request. It was accepted. It was supposed to be implemented. It wasn't.
Do regular, in-game, game-wide surveys, or at least a survey to players maybe 100 days after they join a new realm, especially new players.
Have both quantitative and qualitative responses. Post, at minimum, the quantitative scores by realms.
Sure, you could game this system by spamming new characters in a realm: but that would just be multi-cheating, and we'd hopefully catch it easily enough.
Want to give players guidance on realms to go to? Then have other players give them guidance in an organized fashion.
Hell, I'll write the darn survey myself if you want. I'll do it tonight. I can't program it, which might be tough, but surely it's possible.
This idea has been debated at length at least 2 times previously. It has been deemed a Good Idea by many different people, including Tom, IIRC. It's high time we implement it. I've been doing internal organizational review as my job for two years now: this is pretty standard, simple stuff.
I've got your original post on this still flagged in my email (I get all forum posts sent to my email ;D ).
I have May more or less designated as a primarily bugfix month, because we've been racking up bugs pretty heavily these past few months, and not fixing many. However, if I can get a good number fixed in May, or certainly by June, I plan to start seriously tackling the Newbie Experience, and this is an important part of that.
So if you can have a good polished survey to me within the next few weeks, I can nearly guarantee that it will be able to go live by mid-June.
-
I might actually join in on that because I see me using it for M&F as well. But we should split that off into a seperate topic.