Quote from: Tom on August 26, 2013, 12:28:57 AM
Our problem is not noble count. Our problem is player count.
I'm done discussing ideas to increase the number of characters per player. We've been over this two dozen times.
I hate to poke something you said you're done discussing and I'm absolutely not saying that player count isn't the bigger issue, but I *really* think that new accounts should start with one more noble slot.
Two noble slots and an advy, in my opinion, is a very poor way to get interested in the game. Finding a good realm, especially in these days of low player & noble density, is hit or miss. Playing an advy means missing out on the social core of the game, which doesn't help attract one to the game. Both hit or miss realm selection with only two chances at hitting and playing an advy who is segregated from the social core of the game are likely one reason why players don't stick around and thus, why retention and low density are issues.
I would urge you to consider returning new accounts to 3 starting nobles and only allowing adventurers after 30 days. Its a simple change and one that I *really* think should happen, for the good of newbie retention.
split this off, because it really, really doesn't belong into the other topic.
A lot of people have been saying the same thing. I am inclined to agree with them.
Me three.
Same here.
I concur, good idea from Vita
Agreed, if you want to keep it down to three characters make the advy something they earn later.
Or just leave them with a choice? Either a third noble or an advie?
Advies should be restricted like they used to be. 90 days to make one. It is a side-game. A small, feature-limited minigame that will never be as developed or feature-rich as the noble game. Advies were originally intended as a bonus extra character, and not as a main character. They are a completely separate experience, and should remain as such, not presented as a main line of play.
This is a side-game, however we still have to spend one slot to play with an adventurer... I would like to play with one, but I don't want to spend a slot with them while I also want to play more the game itself.
I was a new player once. I remember being rather overwhelmed (and underwhelmed) with the game on my very first character. I joined the Barony and loved the color, but there were all these things I didn't understand. I gave reverence to people who had positions, etc. and just tried to figure out what I was supposed to do and what was going to be effective. I actually didn't make a second character until six months, maybe a full year after. (Yes, I know I can go check and prove myself somewhat wrong... but it was a while.) Then, I got him in deep and was scared to make another character after that. How would I maintain one character as a "model citizen" (for Vikings, at least) and the other as a crazy mess?
Now I have four characters. One, admittedly, is essentially quiet and pokes her head up every now and then. Two are loud and defining of my play. The last is that abused advy everyone seems to have. I feel like I get the most reward, as a player, out of the advy. I know my contributions are small, but nobody else can get it done.
My point is this: I don't know that changing the character limit will change anything. I think having the option there (and allowing to choose an advy, if you want) is good because it essentially gives you several chances to try the game out different ways, but I really don't think it's part of the problem at all.
Just my two cents. Sometimes, we can't remember how it was to be new.
Quote from: Eduardo Almighty on August 28, 2013, 03:47:30 AM
This is a side-game, however we still have to spend one slot to play with an adventurer... I would like to play with one, but I don't want to spend a slot with them while I also want to play more the game itself.
That's an interesting point.
This is just an idea that I'm throwing into the ring, but what about giving
everyone the ability to play one adventurer as a free character that doesn't count towards character limits? Over the last couple of years I've read quite a few posts saying the adventurer game is virtually dead - not enough adventurers; not much interaction between the ones that there are; not much co-operative hunting; etc.
Giving everyone the chance to play one free adventurer character could have a lot of benefits - making the adventurer game more lively and social; increasing the use of unique items because there would be more adventurers to get them repaired; etc. Also, giving new players the option to play 3 full nobles and an adventurer as a bonus character would allow them to experience different paces to the game, and also different aspects of the gameplay and seeing how everything links together. The more gameplay diversity they see in the game, the more there is to hook their interest and keep them playing, perhaps helping with retention.
Just a thought, anyhow. I can't really see any disadvantages to giving everyone the chance to have one free adventurer. If it meant increased hunting saw fewer rogue hordes, the spawn rates could just be increased as was discussed elsewhere.
I concur.
Let's not distract from the main point of the thread please.
I think this is directly related to the main point of your thread. As I read it, you want new players to have 3 starting nobles to get them more engaged with the game and encourage them to stay around. In other words, you want them to have more chances to experience more of the game more quickly. However, increasing the overall activity level within the adventurer game throughout the player base is another way to engage new players.
Quote from: Vita on August 26, 2013, 06:35:55 PM
Playing an advy means missing out on the social core of the game, which doesn't help attract one to the game. Both hit or miss realm selection with only two chances at hitting and playing an advy who is segregated from the social core of the game are likely one reason why players don't stick around and thus, why retention and low density are issues.
If the adventurer game is boring, unengaging, and under-populated, as you say, increasing the overall number of adventurers would improve it. What new players need is the chance to play
more of the game to showcase more of what it has to offer. And the adventurer class gives them a chance to play at a different speed to the noble game. Why short change what the game has to offer by making them wait 30 days to experience the adventurer game when you could give them 3 starting nobles + one free adventurer? If the adventurer game wasn't so dull, it would be another tool to help with player retention.
Even at the height of the adventurer game, when everyone (or more realistically, a very large proportion) shared hunts, roleplayed, interacted with lords, and were responded to bugs where advies became ruler of a realm, the advy game was less social than the noble game. There are *far* less reasons for an advy to talk to others, or receive messages, than a noble due to not being part of noble message groups, realm, duchy, region, position etc. channels, having to pay 5 gold to join a religion/guild, and not being allowed to be an elder. The advy game will *always* be less social than the noble game and its a poor way to have a character start and then have boring silence where you click buttons to advance and then wait for more hours to click buttons again.
I'm not directly opposing your idea; I just recognize how threads start with a simple suggestion and then have 'lets do this', 'lets add this', 'oh, what about this' etc. Considering my suggestion was split from a thread where Tom rejected a host of ideas to increase character limits, I'd like for this thread to stay on point and not devolve into a myriad of alternative suggestions like the original thread. If you believe in the idea, as I'm sure you do, I welcome you to create a new thread for feedback on that suggestion.
In the meantime, Tom, in light of the support for this simple change, can we get an official verdict?
I am also in support of this idea. More opportunities for new players to explore the game.
I remain unconvinced that increases in character count will do ANYTHING to help our issues. Many players don't even use the full character slots they have available. We would only tilt the playing field even further to the advantage of the addicts.
But what Eirikr posted gave me a thought. I believe if we really wanted to help newbies, then an ability to quickly pack up your things and go elsewhere in case your first realm choice was bad is A LOT more important then having another character slot. And I think it will accomplish what most people are seeking with asking for an additional slot.
We are just asking you to give back the 3 starting nobles for newer players. Its not like a universal increase in character count for everyone. And if addicts really want to spend more time on the game, let them, we need more people to do stuff anyways.
And giving people the option to pack up easier and faster does not negate this request too. People sometimes just want to have different experiences with their characters. Like playing an infil, a priest, or a warrior with their 3 nobles. Most people dont just break character just to try a different class or a different playing experience.
Quote from: Tom on August 28, 2013, 10:16:41 AM
But what Eirikr posted gave me a thought. I believe if we really wanted to help newbies, then an ability to quickly pack up your things and go elsewhere in case your first realm choice was bad is A LOT more important then having another character slot. And I think it will accomplish what most people are seeking with asking for an additional slot.
Glad to help, that sounds like something that might have an effect.
I agree with Jaron that it doesn't address why people believe there needs to be 3 slots for new players, but I still maintain that I'm not sure it even needs addressing. (I'm not against it, I just don't see a reason to support it, either.)
Quote from: Eirikr on August 28, 2013, 10:47:35 PM
(I'm not against it, I just don't see a reason to support it, either.)
The most compelling reason I see to support it is people want it.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 28, 2013, 10:51:52 PM
The most compelling reason I see to support it is people want it.
People want to eat dessert exclusively, but that's never been reason to list it as an entree option.
In cases like this, neutrality is preferable to me.
Quote from: Eirikr on August 29, 2013, 02:10:33 AM
People want to eat dessert exclusively, but that's never been reason to list it as an entree option.
In cases like this, neutrality is preferable to me.
Ever been to Baskin Robbins?
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 29, 2013, 03:05:59 AM
Ever been to Baskin Robbins?
Yeaaaaars ago. Is it now like DQ where it has actual meals as well, or is it like Cold Stone? Either way, point stands.
EDIT: Though, this is now massively off-topic.
Quote from: Eirikr on August 29, 2013, 03:24:15 AM
Yeaaaaars ago. Is it now like DQ where it has actual meals as well, or is it like Cold Stone? Either way, point stands.
EDIT: Though, this is now massively off-topic.
This isn't food, its a game. You aren't putting it into your body and hoping nature decides that you have a good metabolism, so it isn't a good analogy...
Popular support does not always mean that it's a good idea. Look at the eighteenth Amendment.
In this case, I agree that the proposal is a good one. But not because several people on the forums say it's a good idea.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on August 29, 2013, 03:51:37 AM
This isn't food, its a game. You aren't putting it into your body and hoping nature decides that you have a good metabolism, so it isn't a good analogy...
Quote from: Indirik on August 29, 2013, 03:59:30 AM
Popular support does not always mean that it's a good idea. Look at the eighteenth Amendment.
In this case, I agree that the proposal is a good one. But not because several people on the forums say it's a good idea.
Indirik once again saving me the time of coming up with a response to take over for my laziness in coming up with a better initial response! That was my exact point. (Thank you.)
Would you care to elaborate on why you believe it's a good idea? I'm not adverse to changing my mind, I just haven't been convinced so far. (Not that my singular voice matters in the grand scheme.)
Quote from: Indirik on August 29, 2013, 03:59:30 AM
Popular support does not always mean that it's a good idea. Look at the eighteenth Amendment.
In this case, I agree that the proposal is a good one. But not because several people on the forums say it's a good idea.
The eighteenth amendment being supported by a majority of Americans (rather than Congress) is a myth. it was a vocal minority that supported it, which is why you see it being voted away in (at least a political sense) a very short time afterwards.
If by "a very short time" you mean 14 years, then sure. But that's pretty OT.
You don't have a huge number of people here saying it's good. Just a few. I.e. a vocal minority. Which, again, is an OT discussion.
We both agree that this proposal is a good. Which is also OT. By which I mean "on topic". ;)
Stand back everyone, it's a wikipedia fight.
Addendum: And Gustav is right. 14 years is a very short time when speaking about the constitution.
Quote from: Eirikr on August 28, 2013, 10:47:35 PM
(I'm not against it, I just don't see a reason to support it, either.)
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 28, 2013, 10:51:52 PM
The most compelling reason I see to support it is people want it.
Quote from: Indirik on August 29, 2013, 03:59:30 AM
Popular support does not always mean that it's a good idea.
Quote from: Eirikr on August 29, 2013, 05:49:00 AM
Would you care to elaborate on why you believe it's a good idea? I'm not adverse to changing my mind, I just haven't been convinced so far. (Not that my singular voice matters in the grand scheme.)
If people want to spend more time playing your game, it's silly to tell them they can't. You want better player retention, you want people more engaged, and here people are expressing a desire to play more and you're telling them no! If Facebook had told people they could only use the site for an hour a day, they'd have never gotten the traction they did. I understand not wanting players with 2 nobles on the
same continent because of the conflict of interest. I see no reason
not to allow up to 1 char per continent.
I've been playing for about 6 months and have chars on 2 continents. Both are lords and one also has a govt position (actually '
had' because he just died :( ). My advy has developed mad skills, collected a plethora of items including a unique item, and he has a decent amount of gold. I've wanted to check out other continents, but I'd have to give up my existing roles that I've invested 6 months in to do that.
That's a better explanation, but I'm curious how many other newbies (<1 year) are in the same boat. Then again, I suppose raising the cap doesn't mean the newbies will feel particularly pressured to fill said slots.
Now, I also haven't played particularly with you, but the argument could also be made that the time you spend on the game can be completely independent of character count. (Just playing Devil's Advocate here...) You can send an infinite number of letters, including roleplays when people aren't responding to you. Another possibility is that having more characters available encourages playing all of them less. If I have two characters and spend 2 hours on the game each day, a third character either increases that play time or decreases the "love" put into the other characters.
Just something to think about. I do think you're getting me on the right track, though.
Quote from: Eirikr on August 31, 2013, 11:24:33 PM
Now, I also haven't played particularly with you, but the argument could also be made that the time you spend on the game can be completely independent of character count. (Just playing Devil's Advocate here...) You can send an infinite number of letters, including roleplays when people aren't responding to you. Another possibility is that having more characters available encourages playing all of them less. If I have two characters and spend 2 hours on the game each day, a third character either increases that play time or decreases the "love" put into the other characters.
I also think players understand that their level of engagement, or lack thereof, affects how much fun they are to play with. There will always be people who are less engaging, but that's just a fact of life and rules won't change it.
It's a myth that players have a fixed amount of time for BM, or will send a fixed number of messages each day. People will make time for things that engage their interest. Moreover, the char limit is lowest for newbies who, generally speaking, have very little to do. "Older" players with higher char limits are more likely to have lordships and govt positions that require more time to play.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 31, 2013, 09:22:28 PM
If people want to spend more time playing your game, it's silly to tell them they can't.
It's not about that. It's about keeping the game at a level where the casual players don't feel left out and utterly dominated by those who have more time.
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 04:33:06 AM
It's not about that. It's about keeping the game at a level where the casual players don't feel left out and utterly dominated by those who have more time.
If I'm a casual player, somebody having another char on a different continent does't affect me. If anything, it allows the power players to spread their excessive playing time out across more characters, instead of concentrating their energy in a small number of realms. And again, the char limits only disadvantage the newbies. The players that have the highest char limits are already dominating the game because they've been playing longer and they hold all the powerful positions.
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 04:33:06 AM
It's not about that. It's about keeping the game at a level where the casual players don't feel left out and utterly dominated by those who have more time.
Char limits might make sense if you limited the
old timers' char count instead of the newbies. Right now the system is top heavy. You have a small number of veteran players with several chars occupying all the fun positions and hardly any low-level knights. In the 2 realms that I play in, the vast majority of regions only have a lord with no knights.
Quote from: Buffalkill on September 01, 2013, 02:52:37 AMI also think players understand that their level of engagement, or lack thereof, affects how much fun they are to play with.
I'd hesitate to say a level of engagement has a direct connection to "fun". I'd agree it's generally the easier way to create it, but I have known several unengaging characters that end up being quite fun when they simply
do something out of nowhere. To say it another way, I don't necessarily agree a player has to be particularly active to be fun to play with. Sometimes, that week of silence is topped off with a shocking turn more interesting than the treaty you've been working out.
Just a proverbial stone in my shoe.
Quote from: Buffalkill on September 01, 2013, 05:43:09 AM
Char limits might make sense if you limited the old timers' char count instead of the newbies. Right now the system is top heavy. You have a small number of veteran players with several chars occupying all the fun positions and hardly any low-level knights. In the 2 realms that I play in, the vast majority of regions only have a lord with no knights.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean to say here. It would sound to me like the new players are getting lordships, which are generally gateways to higher ranks. I won't disagree that, in general, longer-term players hold most of those positions and tend to stay there, but I feel like I'm missing your real point. Having more knights doesn't change the system from being top heavy, and new players in lordships would indicate to me that the median point is actually higher now than it would be with more knights.
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 04:33:06 AM
It's not about that. It's about keeping the game at a level where the casual players don't feel left out and utterly dominated by those who have more time.
This would only be a problem if those character slots could be translated into multiple characters in the same realm. At present that is limited to 2 on most islands.
Someone else made a good point also - the game already gives more character slots to the long time players. Shouldn't that have the effect that you're worrying about more so than implementing one character slot per island?
Quote from: Eirikr on August 31, 2013, 11:24:33 PM
but the argument could also be made that the time you spend on the game can be completely independent of character count. (Just playing Devil's Advocate here...) You can send an infinite number of letters, including roleplays when people aren't responding to you.
Those who write roleplays generally relate their roleplays to in-game events. The number of in-game events one experiences is related to the number of characters one has, so the more characters, the more events, the more roleplays. It is said that there is the possibility that ones effort could be diluted this way, but that is a fool notion, because generally there is not a lot going on ever. Battles happen weekly, sometimes monthly, and other diversions -- tournaments, marriages -- are even rarer. While increasing the number of players would increase the number of events any given roleplayer could write about, it would not at all dilute their effort, except in cases where the effort to begin with is exceedingly small. It is all benefit, no loss.
But it must be said that most players do not even write roleplays. For them it is fair to presume that the chief draws of this game derive from the setting and gameplay. For them there is no risk of diluting their roleplay contributions at all, as they are non-existent. Likewise there is no risk of diluting their other messages, as they are very few and very sporadic. For them there is only benefit in providing additional characters, as additional characters might provide them fuller experiences, retaining them longer and more reliably.
To play devil's advocate myself, I will say that the one reason to be weary of providing too many characters is that it can over-indulge players and spoil their appetites. Having two characters means that it will take time to experience the various things the game has to offer, and so there is a tantalizing effect that maintains a player's interest. Give the player, say, ten characters and suddenly he can experience everything at once. It is like giving him an entire cheesecake. It makes him sick of cheesecake, he wants it no more, and he leaves.
So the thing to consider is how many characters should there be to adequately engage a player's interest without spoiling him. Where to begin when deciding that? Well, the game used to provide three characters at the start and it did not cause problems as far as I am aware. That is certifiable proof that three characters is not too many. I would also add that the number three is a great number for anything.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 01, 2013, 06:20:38 AM
I'd hesitate to say a level of engagement has a direct connection to "fun". I'd agree it's generally the easier way to create it, but I have known several unengaging characters that end up being quite fun when they simply do something out of nowhere. To say it another way, I don't necessarily agree a player has to be particularly active to be fun to play with. Sometimes, that week of silence is topped off with a shocking turn more interesting than the treaty you've been working out.
No disagreement here. My point was that fun players will be fun and boring players will be boring, regardless of how many chars they play.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 01, 2013, 06:20:38 AM
I won't disagree that, in general, longer-term players hold most of those positions and tend to stay there, but I feel like I'm missing your real point.
Tom said that char limits keep the game at a level where casual players don't feel left out and dominated. Well, then it's a failed policy because the most dominant players also have the most chars.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 01, 2013, 06:20:38 AM
I'm honestly not sure what you mean to say here. It would sound to me like the new players are getting lordships, which are generally gateways to higher ranks.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 01, 2013, 06:20:38 AM
new players in lordships would indicate to me that the median point is actually higher now than it would be with more knights.
Don't get me wrong, I was happy when my guys became lords because you get more gold and it gives you a bit more to do. But at the same time, a lord without knights is just a glorified knight. It's like being a department manager when you're the only one in the department.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 01, 2013, 06:20:38 AM
Having more knights doesn't change the system from being top heavy,
Why not? It's top heavy because there are too few underlings.
Quote from: Kwanstein on September 01, 2013, 07:20:38 AM
Stuff
While increasing the number of players would increase the number of events any given roleplayer could write about, it would not at all dilute their effort, except in cases where the effort to begin with is exceedingly small. It is all benefit, no loss.
More stuff
(Sorry for my shortening...) Very eloquently written. Good points in there. In the specifically quoted section, I assume you meant to say "characters", not "players"? In line with this, I do want to restate my point to highlight the fact that you can create your own in-game events. There's nothing to stop you from RPing pretty much anything under the sun, excepting where you have some impact that isn't backed up by game mechanics. For example, I could always RP that I went hunting for wild game, but not that I fought a nonexistent peasant militia. (Though, if that militia is a bunch of drunken commoners in a bar, that'd be fine.)
Ergo, a player could theoretically spend infinite time on a single character. I'm sure the constant RP messages would be annoying for some recipients, but that's why I say "theoretically".
More in line with your actual point, I would disagree that bare-bones (even no messages at all) players would see only benefit and no dilution, as you put it. Even performing the actions for basic maintenance of a character takes real-world time. If a player has some kind of time limit (say, a 30-minute lunch break), it's possible they may have to sacrifice various aspects of their character maintenance to accommodate a larger number of characters. Inevitably, some characters will get more "love" than others.
But... this is all moot if we can expect the player to make a rational decision about whether or not to create another character.
Quote from: Buffalkill on September 01, 2013, 07:46:29 AM
Tom said that char limits keep the game at a level where casual players don't feel left out and dominated. Well, then it's a failed policy because the most dominant players also have the most chars.
It sounds like you're equating number of characters directly with success in the game. Correlation does not imply causation. I know several players who have one character in a high position, but all of their others are at the very bottom. You're right that it's probably unlikely that a strong player has only one or two characters, but I think it's a bit far to say that they're dominant just because of their character limit. Using myself as another example, my second character has been my most successful, actually leading a realm for a few years... but he got there without help from my first character. In fact, I don't think a single player in Coria had heard of my other character. (My next characters were created MUCH later.)
If I may, I'd suggest a counter-statement:
The most dominant players are generally the most outgoing. Casual players could be defined as those less outgoing, maybe, but other than handing out lordships at random, I don't see why you'd give a completely silent character a government position.
Quote from: Buffalkill on September 01, 2013, 07:46:29 AM
Why not? It's top heavy because there are too few underlings.
I'm not sure I follow the logic. Having more underlings doesn't create more avenues to the top unless they're all actively trying to topple things... Which has not been the case in BM. Then again, I am running under the assumption that you mean things are top heavy because there's little flux at the upper ranks. I'd thought you had identified the problem as being older players holding power, thereby stagnating the game for newbies?
Of course, if you're just referring to population, then yes, you'd be right. Adding more knights would create a proper pyramid of power and population, but it would do little to make it cycle.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 01, 2013, 08:46:22 AM
It sounds like you're equating number of characters directly with success in the game.
No.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 01, 2013, 08:46:22 AM
I am running under the assumption that you mean things are top heavy because there's little flux at the upper ranks.
No. It's top heavy because there are too few chars in the bottom ranks.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 01, 2013, 08:46:22 AM
If I may, I'd suggest a counter-statement: The most dominant players are generally the most outgoing. Casual players could be defined as those less outgoing, maybe, but other than handing out lordships at random, I don't see why you'd give a completely silent character a government position.
Your argument is with Tom, not with me, because
Tom (not me) said that the purpose of the char limits is so that casual players will not feel dominated. I merely pointed out that the existing rules don't achieve that end. Full stop.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 01, 2013, 08:46:22 AM
but I think it's a bit far to say that they're dominant just because of their character limit.
Again, you're talking to the wrong guy.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 01, 2013, 08:46:22 AM
I'd thought you had identified the problem as being older players holding power, thereby stagnating the game for newbies?
No. The problem is too few people at the bottom. And who has the strictest char limits? The people at the bottom. Increase the number of chars at the bottom by relaxing the char limits on newbies.
Quote from: Buffalkill on September 01, 2013, 09:46:20 AM
No. The problem is too few people at the bottom. And who has the strictest char limits? The people at the bottom. Increase the number of chars at the bottom by relaxing the char limits on newbies.
Yup exactly. This thread is asking for the
3 starting nobles for new players to be given back, and not asking for a general increase in active characters.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 31, 2013, 09:22:28 PM
If people want to spend more time playing your game, it's silly to tell them they can't.
We want people to play the characters they have. Not in a button-pushing sort of way, but they could be writing letters, forming alliances, informing their liege as to what they are up to, etc. Playing 3 silent drones instead of 2 silent drones isn't much of an improvement.
I disagree with that. Some people enjoy playing as a drone, I played as a drone for 6 years and only got into the game because one of my realms was falling apart. Drones are still players that BM sorely needs, and giving them more characters = more chance for stuff to happen and for them to stay in the game.
And opening up an extra slot is not going to make people suddenly ignore their other 2 characters. If they have limited time, it is much more likely that they will spend much less time on the third character or not even bother to create the 3rd character. We are just giving the option to people who have the time.
Some people just find it hard to fit in particular realms, and then there's a difference in opportunity with different characters. there is just more chances for you to be more involved in the game when you play 3 nobles rather than 2 nobles.
Quote from: egamma on September 01, 2013, 02:44:35 PM
We want people to play the characters they have. Not in a button-pushing sort of way, but they could be writing letters, forming alliances, informing their liege as to what they are up to, etc. Playing 3 silent drones instead of 2 silent drones isn't much of an improvement.
Like I said, fun players will be fun, and boring players will be boring. Don't let the 'perfect' be the enemy of the good.
Quote from: Buffalkill on September 01, 2013, 05:34:51 PM
Like I said, fun players will be fun, and boring players will be boring. Don't let the 'perfect' be the enemy of the good.
This. Reminds me of a military quote: The greatest enemy of a good plan, is the dream of a perfect plan - Carl Von Clausewitz, Prussian general and military theorist
Honestly trying to come up with something perfect will just yield diminishing returns. We should instead look to come up with something good, which is what giving new players 3 nobles would be.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on September 01, 2013, 07:01:04 PM
This. Reminds me of a military quote: The greatest enemy of a good plan, is the dream of a perfect plan - Carl Von Clausewitz, Prussian general and military theorist
Honestly trying to come up with something perfect will just yield diminishing returns. We should instead look to come up with something good, which is what giving new players 3 nobles would be.
Amen. I think I might pick up one of his books once I finish the one I'm reading now. Any recommendations? (Sorry everyone for going off-topic).
Quote from: Buffalkill on September 01, 2013, 07:46:29 AM
No disagreement here. My point was that fun players will be fun and boring players will be boring, regardless of how many chars they play.
Tom said that char limits keep the game at a level where casual players don't feel left out and dominated. Well, then it's a failed policy because the most dominant players also have the most chars.
Don't get me wrong, I was happy when my guys became lords because you get more gold and it gives you a bit more to do. But at the same time, a lord without knights is just a glorified knight. It's like being a department manager when you're the only one in the department.
Why not? It's top heavy because there are too few underlings.
Thanks for clearing that up; as we have seen, I was drawing the completely wrong conclusion from your words. It does bring one final question, though: When speaking of those in lordships, you indicated that currently, a lordship is like a 'glorified knight'. Are you trying to say that this isn't enough of a power increase (that is, it's a small step up and few tend to go farther), or that the power (or meaning, more accurately) of a lordship is diminished by the lack of knights/underlings?
I guess what I'm really trying to understand here is why this is a separate issue from increasing our player ranks in the first place. There's much to be said for the (oversimplified wording here) "good over perfect" mentality, but the question becomes what if BM's player count picks up again? (Or rather, why shouldn't we be focusing on increasing player count over this?) It seems to me that the ideal solution would be more players and this is just a band-aid for the short-term (which can be fine, as long as we understand the long-term ramifications).
EDIT: Please forgive me for being difficult, I'm just trying to get a good grasp on the point. We're seeing a lot of changes pop up, but that doesn't instantly mean they should all be accepted.
Eirikr,
I'm not saying that player count isn't the bigger issue. I'm saying this is a pretty simple fix and reverts back to how the game was for a very long time. If it was OKAYed, it wouldn't take much to see it done and we could return to player count, content that new accounts start with 3 nobles now.
For older returning players, its a bit of a disappointing shock to only have 2 nobles, especially when the rest of the game is slower. While anecdotes prove that everyone treats character slots differently, it does give a newbie looking for more of the game more opportunities to find something than 2 nobles/1 advy would. The advy can still appear later, just give them a bit of time to figure out the noble game first. I think more initial characters is likely to result in a better retention rate than one with less.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 02, 2013, 08:09:29 AM
When speaking of those in lordships, you indicated that currently, a lordship is like a 'glorified knight'. Are you trying to say that this isn't enough of a power increase (that is, it's a small step up and few tend to go farther), or that the power (or meaning, more accurately) of a lordship is diminished by the lack of knights/underlings?
The second thing you said. A boss without subordinates isn't really a boss.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 02, 2013, 08:09:29 AM
I guess what I'm really trying to understand here is why this is a separate issue from increasing our player ranks in the first place.
I don't think it necessarily is a separate issue, but maybe this will answer your question:
Quote from: Tom on August 31, 2013, 10:01:41 AM
Stop !@#$ing derailing topics. This point has its own topic already.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 02, 2013, 08:09:29 AM
the question becomes what if BM's player count picks up again?
That would be great. I don't see a problem if that happens. If it ever gets too crowded, that would be a good problem to have, albeit unlikely.
Quote from: Eirikr on September 02, 2013, 08:09:29 AM
(Or rather, why shouldn't we be focusing on increasing player count over this?) It seems to me that the ideal solution would be more players and this is just a band-aid for the short-term (which can be fine, as long as we understand the long-term ramifications).
Everybody wants more players. You just need to find a way to make that happen. The point of increasing the char limit is 2-fold: 1. increase the number of characters in the game; & 2. increase the amount of fun for newbies.
Noble limit from 2 to 3 will help the newbies longtermish, as I doubt that a newbie is truly going to be having 3 nobles within their first 3 months at minimum. I didn't have 3 nobles by choice for over 1.5 years.
I had 2 nobles and an advy fairly soon. Learned the ropes with my first character and then moved on to asking around which other realms were nice. Proceeded to create my second character and got curious about advies so yeah. That filled up my character slots in under a month.
As soon as I garnered 5 or was it 7? Family fame I made my 3rd noble, pauzing my advy, in a third and different realm on a different continent.
I have avoided deleting characters, if I didn't like one place I took the time to travel away to different realms and / or emigrate.
With the slower pace this game runs at, changing realms is a somewhat strenuous process in my opinion. 3 character slots would've been nice from the start. If I would receive a 4th slot I would most likely make another character hehe.
I'm (finally) convinced. I can't really see much harm myself, though I think Tom's idea also has a lot of merit, for a different problem altogether.
If I had had only 2 chars as new player 9 years ago, I might not be now here.
I can't imagine how it would have gone with either Ikalak (SEI), Darka (Atamara) or Old Rancagua (EC) not being there, cause all three gave me a different experience which made the game complete for me.
Three different continents are very important to try out as new player.
When I started making the second and third character was exciting. It must suck having only 2 chances, you would feel like the second character created would seal your fate. Oritolon/Ikalak/Lasanar(I think) was a great combo.
Quote from: Atanamir on September 04, 2013, 02:01:29 PM
If I had had only 2 chars as new player 9 years ago, I might not be now here.
I can't imagine how it would have gone with either Ikalak (SEI), Darka (Atamara) or Old Rancagua (EC) not being there, cause all three gave me a different experience which made the game complete for me.
Three different continents are very important to try out as new player.
Quote from: Kai on September 05, 2013, 06:11:11 AM
When I started making the second and third character was exciting. It must suck having only 2 chances, you would feel like the second character created would seal your fate. Oritolon/Ikalak/Lasanar(I think) was a great combo.
I just want to point out that Tom's suggestion addresses that exact point. Perhaps a third character is more exciting than just two, but Tom's suggestion actually gives you potentially two chances per character to find a place you like. Quoted and emphasized:
Quote from: Tom on August 28, 2013, 10:16:41 AM
I believe if we really wanted to help newbies, then an ability to quickly pack up your things and go elsewhere in case your first realm choice was bad is A LOT more important then having another character slot.
Why not both? :D
Quote from: Eirikr on September 05, 2013, 09:16:32 AM
I just want to point out that Tom's suggestion addresses that exact point. Perhaps a third character is more exciting than just two, but Tom's suggestion actually gives you potentially two chances per character to find a place you like.
The problem I have with Tom's suggestion is that it is not good for the realms the players start in.
Imagine people hopping around like locusts when they are not greeted within a second in a realm or beacuse they don't like a region name or whatever else.
It is not good for the realms as they would never achive to build up a decent foundation of nobles.
I think it is important to take time to get to know your realm and vice versa.
The old system was a successful one since so many want it back, why not returning to it?
Quote from: Atanamir on September 05, 2013, 10:29:11 AM
The problem I have with Tom's suggestion is that it is not good for the realms the players start in.
Only if they suck and can't engage new people.
Quote
Imagine people hopping around like locusts when they are not greeted within a second in a realm or beacuse they don't like a region name or whatever else.
You'd think by now you would have trust in the dev team that we won't allow a realm change within seconds, if only for the abuse/spy potential.
Quote from: Tom on September 05, 2013, 12:01:03 PM
You'd think by now you would have trust in the dev team that we won't allow a realm change within seconds, if only for the abuse/spy potential.
Cant we do something like a buffer period of like one week where you are able to be banned even after you return to your original realm?
Quote from: Atanamir on September 05, 2013, 10:29:11 AM
The problem I have with Tom's suggestion is that it is not good for the realms the players start in.
Is deleting a character any better for the realm? This is still an option... Tom's suggestion removes the "frustration factor" by allowing for a change without undoing the work you put in to get to that point.
Quote from: Atanamir on September 05, 2013, 10:29:11 AM
The problem I have with Tom's suggestion is that it is not good for the realms the players start in.
Imagine people hopping around like locusts when they are not greeted within a second in a realm or beacuse they don't like a region name or whatever else.
Personally I don't see a big problem if a new player bounces around until they find a realm they like. Eventually they'll either settle in somewhere, or they'll realise the game isn't for them, but at least they'll have tried it out.
Quote from: Atanamir on September 05, 2013, 10:29:11 AM
I think it is important to take time to get to know your realm and vice versa.
I agree, and that's exactly why players will eventually settle in somewhere. The few "rovers" I've noticed since I started playing weren't newbies. They were veterans who had already achieved significant success in the game and then (presumably) decided to go wandering and shake things up. Which is also ok IMO.
So, someone feel like putting this in as a feature request?
Allow new players (less than 1 month into the game) to move characters back to the realm selection screen. They must stay in the same realm for at least 24 hours, to give the people in the realm time to respond to them.
Quote from: Tom on September 05, 2013, 05:58:03 PM
So, someone feel like putting this in as a feature request?
Allow new players (less than 1 month into the game) to move characters back to the realm selection screen. They must stay in the same realm for at least 24 hours, to give the people in the realm time to respond to them.
If its not done by the time I get home, I'll do it.