BattleMaster Community

Hello,

I will share some thoughts here about what I think in current setup of game mechanics is preventing game to be interesting from point of view where lack of competitive opportunities deprive us of fun.

Do not expect much more response from me, partly for not having time to hang on forums, partly for not being able to enjoy in offenses and rude talk from some forum member who express their disagreement that way. :-[

So, here are some item related to current game mechanics state.

1. Since the time religions are castrated being deprived of ability to collect gold and with situation where religious takeover became only hypothetical possibility, all what I saw with religions is that they split in two types of religions: theocratic religions or religions tightly tied with some realm's hierarchies and independent religions. First group, who was more powerful before as well, now became overly too powerful, and other group cannot be significant in any way, anymore. so, now, on continents, we can see either totally dominant or completely weak religions. there will never be clashes or possibilities to change something in-game.

2. Though changes to tax system made some great step toward reinstating logical game hierarchy, where rulers are stronger than dukes, there is still untouchable and too comfortable position of dukes which make them more fun-killers than driving force to fun. Dukes cannot be replaced neither in rebellion nor via infiltrators attack, so they are here forever, they get used to such position and fall asleep. Not all of them, of course, but large majority.

3. The fact that game still have concept of honor and prestige and that rulers do not "earn" any penalty for large betrayal directly affects boredom in diplomacy all the time. While judges can lose incredible amount of honor by torturing lowly infiltrator, ruler can break long-term alliance and attack former ally within one -day. So we permanently have sudden change of side "all-against-one" gangbang which more looks as a lottery than as a consequence of some long-term diplomatic efforts. Alliances are shapeless and meaningless as game mechanics allow them to be such. The other example of it is possibility that realm can be allied to both opposing sides in war. If game mechanics does not enforce some logic at least on basic level, we can expect that grotesque situations will take place, and if such situations are not aligned with any in-game flavor, they are not funny at all.

4. Possibility to freely adjust realm government options made even realm type shapeless and tasteless. We have monarchies where all positions are re-elected, and monarchies where ruler appoint judge, which should be major characteristic of tyranny. Giving too many too easy options rendered government type insignificant.

5. Too many too long elections referendum - that is one of real sources of boredom and annoyer. The modern concept where elections are ideal just way of resolving political issues, while being questionable in modern world is really, really not aligned with medieval world. There should be as little elections as possible, power should be taken by force, plotting, rebellion, assassinating, not by "fair" elections, that are simply tasteless.

6. Weakening realm government positions rendered them non-attractive as many other things in game.
- I could understand why generals were deprived of power in times when some generals were micromanaging each and every troop in the realm, but I feel now it could be time that some power or at least some more options should be given back to them. For instance, if generals do not need to know conditions of each and every troop as that is marshal's duty, shouldn't they at least have overall troop condition of the army, to know how marshals are doing? Should they have opportunity to read all internal army orders and standing orders, or even to change marshals standing orders for each army, where something like that would be known to nobles? Should they know how recruitment centers are filled even when they are not in capital? If not giving them significantly more power, should at least some more buttons be given to them, to make that positions more attractive, as they are seemingly not so attractive currently. General is simply too responsible for realm affairs, while having too little power.
- It is even more the case for bankers. If bankers would be given more power, I humbly believe the whole concept of economics could more affect politics, intercept with it, creating much more fun. For instance - just an idea - should banker be given exclusive right for all foreign trade? Lords who does not want banker messing with their supplies would be able to trade only with internal regions, while all foreign prices would be set by bankers. Dukes who does not like that should simply secede! Or if they prefer current realm's shield, they should negotiate with bankers.
- Rulers also need, really need, more powerful  exiles. That could give much more interesting clashes with government members, especially with judges, and put more logic in ruler's position. Should exiles be so penalized? Maybe some initial prestige loss would suffice? I am pretty certain exiles, especially many exiles, would be seen as unjust and tyrannical by most of nobility even without game mechanics to enforce it. The opinions comes from simple long-time observation - exiles are penalizing rulers so much that they are rarely used or not at all, while they could create lot of in-game fun. Why rulers have to beg judges to punish some noble day by day? Or why rulers should not get rid of some government member? In times where they are in clash, ruler should have some ultimate button that proves his/her position of ultimate power.
- Judges.. I don't think they need more buttons, but they certainly need more direction, very clear and authoritative direction about game policies. It is so common that judge fears to send any kind of fine against any noble as they simply fear or Titans so much that they would rather never take risk.

Your assertions might be more persuasive if you gave some examples. You also don't offer very many suggestions about how to fix the problems you have identified.

1. You are generalizing too much here I think, and are definitely in need of examples. RTOs are far from impossible. As for the rest of your argument about state-backed religions versus religions that don't have state support, shouldn't a religion that enjoys the backing of one or more realms (with all of the influence and assets that realms can provide in service of said religion) have an advantage over one that doesn't? I mean that just seems logical. If not, what specific changes would you propose to alter that state of affairs?

2. Replacing Dukes isn't easy, but it is certainly possible. Having an infiltrator stab him and then banning him before he gets better is the easiest way by far. Again, what specific changes would propose to address this issue?

3. There can certainly be costs for betrayal and such not, it's just that they are not measurable by game enforced statistics like honor and prestige. If the ruler of realm A backstabs realm B, he risks damage to his reputation and trustworthiness as it is perceived by other characters, as well as the reputation of his realm. This can have real costs in the form of fewer allies and greater diplomatic vulnerability. These political impacts cannot be measured but they are quite real. Experienced or natural rulers can do such things and get away with it at times, but that is due to their skill, not because their actions are inherently free of consequences.

Your hypothetical about one realm being allied to two realms at war with each other is actually impossible I believe. When the two realms try to go to war they will not be able to unless one of them first lowers their alliance with the realm that's allied to both of them.

4. Personally I prefer the current system where governments are flexible to an extent. It allows for greater customization to fit with your realm's culture.

5. Again, I enjoy elections. For one thing, they provide for a way to generate turnover in positions of power, which is good for the game from an OOC perspective. For another, they offer opportunities to generate debate and fight political battles, which are also good for the game. Elections will never replace plotting, intrigue and rebellions either. I've been in Republics that experienced secessions and rebellions.

6. I don't really have a strong opinion about government positions. I think they're OK the way they are, even if General and Banker are more or less ceremonial in terms of the game options they permit. They're really just titles that give you authority for the most part, though you do get a bit of extra information and a couple of seldom-used buttons.

I think nobles need to be more killable. The number one cause of a noble "leaving" is still pausing or inactivity rather than killed in action. Higher mortality would surely lead to more volatile politics and !fun!. Perhaps allowing executions without banning might help.

too many inactive old character sitting on positions where they shouldn't. Let the killing begin!

Allowing executions without bans is a bit over the top, you will have retaliation executions, and after all is done then there will be only 17 year olds left  :P.
I just want voluntary mortality to be implemented, then I will activate it on all my characters and taunt those who haven't  8)

Quote from: Geronus on September 27, 2013, 09:20:27 PM
Your assertions might be more persuasive if you gave some examples. You also don't offer very many suggestions about how to fix the problems you have identified.

1. You are generalizing too much here I think, and are definitely in need of examples. RTOs are far from impossible. As for the rest of your argument about state-backed religions versus religions that don't have state support, shouldn't a religion that enjoys the backing of one or more realms (with all of the influence and assets that realms can provide in service of said religion) have an advantage over one that doesn't? I mean that just seems logical. If not, what specific changes would you propose to alter that state of affairs?

in current circumstances i really do not see rto's as any practicable solutions - rogue regions cannot be rto'd, long term stuck which is reported to bugtracker many times lead to situation where most of regions cannot reach 80% followers with any effort, and only regions on province control level or lower can be rto'd, which was the same as before, but it was much harder before to maintain  high control without courtier work.
which now leads me to another issue - too easy region control rendered courtiers mostly useless as well-...
in reality i simply do not see rto's as practical reality of any political significance.
that together with multple cost burden on temples left religions bound to mundane support. i know that it was intentional, but here i dare to state my opinion - religions weakening only reduced number of power players in game, which crippled many political complexities and clashes and reduced number of ways on how to play games at all - which really reduces fun.

Quote from: Geronus on September 27, 2013, 09:20:27 PM
2. Replacing Dukes isn't easy, but it is certainly possible. Having an infiltrator stab him and then banning him before he gets better is the easiest way by far. Again, what specific changes would propose to address this issue?

is it not hypothetical? ruler has to reveal that he works together with lowly infiltrator to get rid of duke and they together have to use all in-game buttons to try to accomplish it. that is so stretched that i fail to see its practicality.
what would i propose - more edge to infiltrators, more power to rulers exile option and let power clashes begin!

Quote from: Geronus on September 27, 2013, 09:20:27 PM
3. There can certainly be costs for betrayal and such not, it's just that they are not measurable by game enforced statistics like honor and prestige. If the ruler of realm A backstabs realm B, he risks damage to his reputation and trustworthiness as it is perceived by other characters, as well as the reputation of his realm. This can have real costs in the form of fewer allies and greater diplomatic vulnerability. These political impacts cannot be measured but they are quite real. Experienced or natural rulers can do such things and get away with it at times, but that is due to their skill, not because their actions are inherently free of consequences.

again, i see it completely different in real game practice. rulers who make last-minute betrayal and join gang-bang are very often the most successful in a game and make example to others how to deal with diplomacy. that is in enormous contradictory with proclaimed principles of medieval world. i am not saying that betrayals should be completely discouraged, but rulers should be forced by game mechanics to do lowly things in dark, not publicly. to conclude, there is no ANY penalty for major public betrayal, and in all game aspects that brings only benefits to those who commit it.

Quote from: Geronus on September 27, 2013, 09:20:27 PM
Your hypothetical about one realm being allied to two realms at war with each other is actually impossible I believe. When the two realms try to go to war they will not be able to unless one of them first lowers their alliance with the realm that's allied to both of them.

you are right, i was wrong on this. yet much can be done to streamline some diplomacy logic, like disallowing to go to war with former ally within one month time, disallowing blitzkrieg wars of realms in peace, time lag for each change in diplomatic stance, so more strategic planning and formal diplomacy could take place.

Quote from: Geronus on September 27, 2013, 09:20:27 PM
4. Personally I prefer the current system where governments are flexible to an extent. It allows for greater customization to fit with your realm's culture.

5. Again, I enjoy elections. For one thing, they provide for a way to generate turnover in positions of power, which is good for the game from an OOC perspective. For another, they offer opportunities to generate debate and fight political battles, which are also good for the game. Elections will never replace plotting, intrigue and rebellions either. I've been in Republics that experienced secessions and rebellions.

it would not be a problem if governments would be flexible to some extent, the problem is that they are completely flexible. some threshold should exist which differs realm governments. ruler present realm hierarchy and radical changes should involve at least ruler's stepping down if not rebellion. allowing all that to be modifiable via buttons simple releives many possible in-game clashed that could naturally develop

as for the election, of course, you have your view. what i see in game that there is almost absolute indolence for any re-elections. again that relieves so many tensions which should be resolved by clashes; again it is game mechanics that disallows such clashes.

Quote from: Geronus on September 27, 2013, 09:20:27 PM
6. I don't really have a strong opinion about government positions. I think they're OK the way they are, even if General and Banker are more or less ceremonial in terms of the game options they permit. They're really just titles that give you authority for the most part, though you do get a bit of extra information and a couple of seldom-used buttons.

less authority = less power player = less clashes = less competition = much less fun

we simply have too few really powerful positions and minor number of ways to challenge them.

Anyone that believes Banker is a ceremonial title has no idea how to be a Banker.

Quote from: ^ban^ on October 06, 2013, 12:25:57 AM
Anyone that believes Banker is a ceremonial title has no idea how to be a Banker.

+1

It is tied up with the mindset that can't accept the changes to the Banker. The banker has MASSIVE responsibilities, even if they have limited power to achieve it.

Quote from: Stue (DC) on September 27, 2013, 08:09:55 PM
1. Since the time religions are castrated being deprived of ability to collect gold and with situation where religious takeover became only hypothetical possibility, all what I saw with religions is that they split in two types of religions: theocratic religions or religions tightly tied with some realm's hierarchies and independent religions. First group, who was more powerful before as well, now became overly too powerful, and other group cannot be significant in any way, anymore. so, now, on continents, we can see either totally dominant or completely weak religions. there will never be clashes or possibilities to change something in-game.

I believe that religions in general should be more powerful. Their power should matter. Currently the consequences of their actions are punished too harshly while it achieves too little. This regards the option to influence followers. Relgions are the closest connection to the peasants. Their propaganda should matter. If a Cardinal is in a region stirring the people up, causing civil unrest, it should really make a difference. Currently is is almost never used because it is an easy way to lose many followers. That shouldn't be the case. While I understand that you lose some followers who really disagree with you, the religion usually provides someone's principles, values and morals, and the majority blindly follows the Church's path.

Quote from: Galvez on October 07, 2013, 12:30:04 PM
I believe that religions in general should be more powerful. ...

... and that could be said for many other things as well.

my infil is just about to finish his career, and the same applies as mentioned - whatever is achieved is minor, while punishments are utterly harsh.

why bother playing at all in such circumstances? it's more masochism than any chance of joy. only thing that ties me to priest role is long-term dedication to game in overall, while having no fun at all. it's about current setup of game mechanics that discourages many players i believe.

Quote from: De-Legro on October 06, 2013, 11:16:29 PM
+1

It is tied up with the mindset that can't accept the changes to the Banker. The banker has MASSIVE responsibilities, even if they have limited power to achieve it.

i think i mentioned somewhere up there, that collision between responsibilities and power is something which deprives us of so much fun. general is also a position with massive responsibilities and little authority.

so i am asking again - where is the fun? why anyone in game which is designed for lightweight play would bother with massive responsibilities and little power? is it expected that only players prone to self-sacrifice would drive fun here?  ???  WHY anybody would bother with massive responsibilities and lilliputian authorities?

Quote from: Stue (DC) on October 07, 2013, 07:08:38 PM
i think i mentioned somewhere up there, that collision between responsibilities and power is something which deprives us of so much fun. general is also a position with massive responsibilities and little authority.

so i am asking again - where is the fun? why anyone in game which is designed for lightweight play would bother with massive responsibilities and little power? is it expected that only players prone to self-sacrifice would drive fun here?  ???  WHY anybody would bother with massive responsibilities and lilliputian authorities?

I think this is why not many people want to become a general. They get burned out after a war or two.

I wrote long and bitter message... but thought i dont send it.

I'm just saying, not happy how the game is now... dunno what is wrong, dont have any good suggestions... i just know, it is not fun anymore... maybby it is just me what is wrong.

But what i was about to comment, was that comment about generals lasting 1-2 wars, most generals and rulers at Atamara have not lasted this one war :P

KK and Ottar are the only rulers who were rulers when this war started :P

-jaune

Quote from: Lapallanch on October 07, 2013, 07:10:20 PM
I think this is why not many people want to become a general. They get burned out after a war or two.

This is due to a change in philosophy by the players. Perhaps this was caused by a change in philosophy in council positions, and the orders experiment that went through a few iterations. (The thing about who is allowed to send orders, limitations on who could use red paper, etc. ...) I think that all this has resulted in the players current philosophy that only one or two people are allowed to ever send orders. Three, tops. (General, Marshal, and Vice Marshal) This is a 100% guaranteed recipe for player burnout, and causing people to not want any of these three positions. Only the hyper-active people volunteer. I've been asked many times, in several realms, to be a general or marshal. I have to refuse every time, because I just can't dedicate the time, especially in the turn change hours, to do it.

It used to be that in almost every realm, there was a war council, or a military council that cooperated to send orders. Anyone in that council was authorized to send orders. The generals usually kept a list in their bulletin that provided the chain of command. In Perdan back in '06/'07 time frame, our military council had ~20 players in it, spread across time zones to cover both turn changes. Not all of them could make every turn change, and some couldn't do turn changes at all. But they all contributed to strategy. And anyone in there who was on at turn change could send orders. The result of this was that Perdan could rapidly respond, and orders were always sent within 1 hour of turn change, every turn. Other realms were the same way. And this is how the massive war machines that marched hundreds of nobles across islands was handled.

This camaraderie and cooperation of players to accomplish goals like this is something that is missing now. Back then, if one person couldn't handle something, it was no big deal. There were other players that could do it. People probably wouldn't even remark on the fact that one particular person wasn't helping with orders for any one turn. The way it is now, if your marshal or general isn't there for a turn change, no one gets orders. That's way too much pressure for a fun/casual game, for most people.

Oh boy, it almost brings tear to my eye :)

Those times were when BM really was team game. At Darka we used irc quite a lot back then... qiuck analyzis with irc people and military council... and orders out quickly. Some of us sit out hours at irc chatting/gaming... Good times :P

But yeah, war needs something. We need somehow make multiple armies > big mass of army.

At Atamara, there is 50kCS army roaming around, there is nobody who could stop that... they come and smash until they run out of gold, then they get back home... refit and get back. I admit, this is more Atamaran politics and diplomatic problem, but it is also game problem. We need more strategic options and variety.

Limit army to consist only 10 players? Only 10 units can use roads at turn to certain direction? I think we need to get riddoff those big blob armies.

Anyway, prolly got carried away from the the topic :P

There is also a MASSIVE culture of blame in the game right now. While it is good RP for nobles to be called out for bad decisions, I see it being taken to an extreme that means the players behind the characters just aren't willing to put their necks out. The politics in the game, perhaps understandably, have taken on some of the worst characteristics of modern politics were any mistake, absence or "weakness" is constantly attacked and rehashed. Players want team work and camaraderie as we once had, but it seems for a majority of the active players they only want these things if they are at the top of the pyramid.

Quote from: jaune on October 07, 2013, 11:03:40 PM
Those times were when BM really was team game. At Darka we used irc quite a lot back then... qiuck analyzis with irc people and military council... and orders out quickly. Some of us sit out hours at irc chatting/gaming... Good times :P

I have at various times tried to bring back some of that "military council gives orders" mentality over the past couple years. It has always failed for one reason or another. Even in Darka, no one really wanted to participate in it. In most realms you either have a hyper-active player to give orders, or you're SOL.

Is there really any realm that still does the whole "anyone in MC can give orders" deal anymore? Does Perdan still do it?

Quote from: jaune on October 07, 2013, 11:03:40 PM


But yeah, war needs something. We need somehow make multiple armies > big mass of army.

At Atamara, there is 50kCS army roaming around, there is nobody who could stop that... they come and smash until they run out of gold, then they get back home... refit and get back. I admit, this is more Atamaran politics and diplomatic problem, but it is also game problem. We need more strategic options and variety.

Limit army to consist only 10 players? Only 10 units can use roads at turn to certain direction? I think we need to get riddoff those big blob armies.

Anyway, prolly got carried away from the the topic :P

Would love to be able to do this, however in terms of mechanics it is hard/impossible to balance without in the end giving too much power to small armies. Part of the reason is you need to look at how smaller armies won in general

• Smaller but better trained and equipped, well we already simulate this, a army with less actual men but higher CS is likely to win
• Better leadership, we do a bit here but again this is hard. In a RTS this is easy via the micro management of your forces and constant movement, redeployment extra. I've not seen an elegant solution to this for the style of combat in BM that remains approachable. However I think it is possible to say that a cohesive well lead smaller army will win out against poorly lead larger armies, if for no other reason then they arrive in force against hopefully scattered troops
• Terrain Advantage, we don't really simulate terrain of the battlefield, and again this might be difficult

We have tried things like the marching times being slowed down when lots of troops are marching between regions to "break" up large forces. If we better simulated the logistics of large armies perhaps that would also make a difference. Since armies rarely carried all the food required with them on the march it was necessary to constantly forage. Large armies in this instance would possibly need to march in separate spread columns in order to ensure they could adequately forage on the march.

It is a catch 22. You want to reward realms that manage to grow and produce impressive military forces for the effort they expended to do so. But you also want to ensure they don't just stomp everyone once critical mass is obtained.

Quote from: Indirik on October 07, 2013, 10:49:58 PM
This is due to a change in philosophy by the players. (...)

maybe you are right, but there might be other reasons as well. the system you described was finely developed in many realms on east continent. i tried to reestablish it more than once, in current times.

what i feel is that too few people bother at all. some wars are too boring, in some realms indolence completely prevailed. what i see is that almost everyone is aware of the fact that sending orders carries large responsibility. why making effort when nothing will be gained?...

there are too few attractive rewards which could be hoped for by long-term effort conducted by eager war council member.

in times when that was real fun, being promoted to war council member meant much. being promoted to vice-marshal marked martial career... being appointed as general meant reaching real heights, which could be brought to its peak by successfully leading army in long-time campaigns.

now very few feel some pleasure in having general or marshal's position. too much responsibility, too little authority. and when some army discipline should be reinforced, than it's 9 out of 10 probability that judge would fear of titans to issue even simplest fine against disobeying warrior... how to accomplish anything, how to strive for anything, how to feel some pleasure of achievement? balance was seemingly lost somewhere...

if general has more options, i would use it to delegate more, instead of micromanaging more.

for instance, if general has option to read orders and standing orders to all armies, he could check now and than whether his strategy is implemented. some generals issue too many direct order only because they don't know how to check whether their directions for marshals are implemented. asking it via letters is very tedious.
he could, for instance, have option to impose standing orders, but that should be noted by steward (via note in standing orders), so everybody would know that he is doing so, and each noble could think whether the reason is incompetent marshals, tyrannical general or there are some special circumstances why general would superimpose orders.
moreover, militia assignment could be relieved a little more.
marshals could, for instance, be able to dismiss (while assignment would stay at lords) incompetent or disobedient warriors from their army besides judge's actions which are more related to general noble conduct.
such things do not make revolution, but could give some more weight to position, and potential for more power clashes.
there are so few clashes now as there are simply too few powerful positions.

Quote from: Stue (DC) on October 08, 2013, 12:58:05 AM
maybe you are right, but there might be other reasons as well. the system you described was finely developed in many realms on east continent. i tried to reestablish it more than once, in current times.

what i feel is that too few people bother at all. some wars are too boring, in some realms indolence completely prevailed. what i see is that almost everyone is aware of the fact that sending orders carries large responsibility. why making effort when nothing will be gained?...

there are too few attractive rewards which could be hoped for by long-term effort conducted by eager war council member.

in times when that was real fun, being promoted to war council member meant much. being promoted to vice-marshal marked martial career... being appointed as general meant reaching real heights, which could be brought to its peak by successfully leading army in long-time campaigns.

now very few feel some pleasure in having general or marshal's position. too much responsibility, too little authority. and when some army discipline should be reinforced, than it's 9 out of 10 probability that judge would fear of titans to issue even simplest fine against disobeying warrior... how to accomplish anything, how to strive for anything, how to feel some pleasure of achievement? balance was seemingly lost somewhere...

if general has more options, i would use it to delegate more, instead of micromanaging more.

for instance, if general has option to read orders and standing orders to all armies, he could check now and than whether his strategy is implemented. some generals issue too many direct order only because they don't know how to check whether their directions for marshals are implemented. asking it via letters is very tedious.
he could, for instance, have option to impose standing orders, but that should be noted by steward (via note in standing orders), so everybody would know that he is doing so, and each noble could think whether the reason is incompetent marshals, tyrannical general or there are some special circumstances why general would superimpose orders.
moreover, militia assignment could be relieved a little more.
marshals could, for instance, be able to dismiss (while assignment would stay at lords) incompetent or disobedient warriors from their army besides judge's actions which are more related to general noble conduct.
such things do not make revolution, but could give some more weight to position, and potential for more power clashes.
there are so few clashes now as there are simply too few powerful positions.

Instead of requesting new features, cause lets face it the turn around on new features being implemented is not always the best, how about we identify the changes that have resulted in the current problem. Then perhaps we can see about returning the system to something similar to the "golden age". The advantage here also is that we "know" that worked. The game is being bogged down with more and more features and intricate system to correct problems that supposedly we never used to have.

Quote from: De-Legro on October 08, 2013, 02:01:15 AM

Instead of requesting new features, cause lets face it the turn around on new features being implemented is not always the best, how about we identify the changes that have resulted in the current problem. Then perhaps we can see about returning the system to something similar to the "golden age". The advantage here also is that we "know" that worked. The game is being bogged down with more and more features and intricate system to correct problems that supposedly we never used to have.

If you're suggesting that code be reverted to some earlier point in BattleMaster history, that's not going to happen. There have just been too many changes to try and turn back the clock like that—and before you suggest trying to just revert parts of it, that's even worse, because the whole codebase is far too interlinked for that to be feasible.

If you want changes that don't require lengthy feature-request-fulfillment coding, then you need to make them at the player-culture level.

Quote from: Anaris on October 08, 2013, 02:20:33 AM
If you're suggesting that code be reverted to some earlier point in BattleMaster history, that's not going to happen. There have just been too many changes to try and turn back the clock like that—and before you suggest trying to just revert parts of it, that's even worse, because the whole codebase is far too interlinked for that to be feasible.

If you want changes that don't require lengthy feature-request-fulfillment coding, then you need to make them at the player-culture level.

I understand that we can't just press the magic revert button. However what I constantly see is feature creep to fix problems that supposedly we never used to have. So instead of new untested features that may or may not actually address the problem I propose that people examine what was ADDED that has resulted in the undesired state of affairs.

Quote from: De-Legro on October 08, 2013, 02:36:34 AM
I understand that we can't just press the magic revert button. However what I constantly see is feature creep to fix problems that supposedly we never used to have. So instead of new untested features that may or may not actually address the problem I propose that people examine what was ADDED that has resulted in the undesired state of affairs.

I've seen a lot of complaints about this, and occasionally, I think it may be justified.

However, besides changes like the first couple of iterations of the estate system, and Too Much Peace, and maybe a couple of others, I really don't see the added features having been major culprits behind the decline in engagement and player numbers. Most of the time, after seriously considering the assertion that this feature or that had contributed to the declines, the primary conclusion I reach is that the people making the assertions are pining for a "Golden Age" that, by and large, didn't exist.

Oh, sure, BattleMaster had more players and more engagement five years ago. But that doesn't mean that the game itself was better—I think that a lot of what it means is that the players were better. (Plus, we had higher player density, which is a problem that the sinking of an island or two is meant to solve. That has nothing directly to do with game features, though.)

I think that there are two big changes that have led the playerbase to be less active and engaged over the 9+ years I have been playing BattleMaster. The first is the state of the world, and the world of online games. When I started playing in January of 2004, World of Warcraft didn't even exist yet. Persistent online games were still a novelty to most. Today, you can't take a walk through the mainstream parts of the online world without stepping on two or three.

The second is related: because of this first change (in part, obviously), we have not retained as many new players as we used to. This means that our core, dedicated userbase is, by and large, made up of those who have been around for a while. And...we're not as young as we used to be. Many of us have graduated from high school and/or college, gotten full-time jobs (hopefully), gotten married, had kids, and in general done all the different kinds of Real Life Stuff that tends to drastically reduce the amount of time we have to spend on an online game.

I think a lot of people spend way too much time trying to assign blame for the decline of the game. This is normal, and human, but it can also be incredibly counterproductive if the real causes are primarily external factors. Deciding that this or that piece of the game that a lot of people actually enjoy is responsible for decreases in player numbers may very well result in more people being angered and the game being made worse, rather than having any beneficial effect.

Looking through everything that was added to the game between 2007 and 2013 (or whichever time period) that might have "resulted in the undesired state of affairs" is a witch hunt that is highly unlikely to produce helpful results.

Quote from: Anaris on October 08, 2013, 02:55:10 AM
I've seen a lot of complaints about this, and occasionally, I think it may be justified.

However, besides changes like the first couple of iterations of the estate system, and Too Much Peace, and maybe a couple of others, I really don't see the added features having been major culprits behind the decline in engagement and player numbers. Most of the time, after seriously considering the assertion that this feature or that had contributed to the declines, the primary conclusion I reach is that the people making the assertions are pining for a "Golden Age" that, by and large, didn't exist.

Oh, sure, BattleMaster had more players and more engagement five years ago. But that doesn't mean that the game itself was better—I think that a lot of what it means is that the players were better. (Plus, we had higher player density, which is a problem that the sinking of an island or two is meant to solve. That has nothing directly to do with game features, though.)

I think that there are two big changes that have led the playerbase to be less active and engaged over the 9+ years I have been playing BattleMaster. The first is the state of the world, and the world of online games. When I started playing in January of 2004, World of Warcraft didn't even exist yet. Persistent online games were still a novelty to most. Today, you can't take a walk through the mainstream parts of the online world without stepping on two or three.

The second is related: because of this first change (in part, obviously), we have not retained as many new players as we used to. This means that our core, dedicated userbase is, by and large, made up of those who have been around for a while. And...we're not as young as we used to be. Many of us have graduated from high school and/or college, gotten full-time jobs (hopefully), gotten married, had kids, and in general done all the different kinds of Real Life Stuff that tends to drastically reduce the amount of time we have to spend on an online game.

I think a lot of people spend way too much time trying to assign blame for the decline of the game. This is normal, and human, but it can also be incredibly counterproductive if the real causes are primarily external factors. Deciding that this or that piece of the game that a lot of people actually enjoy is responsible for decreases in player numbers may very well result in more people being angered and the game being made worse, rather than having any beneficial effect.

Looking through everything that was added to the game between 2007 and 2013 (or whichever time period) that might have "resulted in the undesired state of affairs" is a witch hunt that is highly unlikely to produce helpful results.

I completely agree. Part of the reason I was suggesting they examine exactly which changes they believe have "ruined" the game is I had hoped if they sat down and carefully examined it, they would come to realise that while there are things that can be improved in the game, they aren't going to "fix" the current issues, since most are unrelated to the game. There is an expectation that more buttons and features will magically re-engage the super active players who find themselves playing less and less. However I think mostly its just people being burnt. Again I use PeL as an example, before I left we had a massive influx of new players that really, really put in effort to the game, and PeL went from being the realm I was in to help out some friends to being the most exciting realm I was in. Arcaea on the other hand which had been my favourite realm suffered from a few key players leaving. While the realm was still active and fighting wars, the charm and interest for me had gone.

BM is a unique game for one major reason in my opinion. Once you sit down and take the game apart and apply some rudimentary game theory to it you see that the feature set is a mere framework. It is the players that make or break it. This is why two people can be in the same realm and have completely different experiences, it all has to do with which players you are largely interacting with.

Quote from: De-Legro on October 08, 2013, 03:15:44 AM
BM is a unique game for one major reason in my opinion. Once you sit down and take the game apart and apply some rudimentary game theory to it you see that the feature set is a mere framework. It is the players that make or break it. This is why two people can be in the same realm and have completely different experiences, it all has to do with which players you are largely interacting with.

Exactly.

However, this is not to say that careful design of game features cannot produce incentives which guide players and shape their actions, nudging them in the directions we prefer—but they key there is "careful design," which is a lot harder than most people realize, especially in such a very player-driven, interaction-heavy game like BattleMaster.

Quote from: Lapallanch on October 07, 2013, 07:10:20 PM
I think this is why not many people want to become a general. They get burned out after a war or two.

Depends on the kind of wars he's fighting. Long, dragged out trench wars take a heavier toll then short, quick wars.

Quote from: Anaris on October 08, 2013, 02:55:10 AM
Looking through everything that was added to the game between 2007 and 2013 (or whichever time period) that might have "resulted in the undesired state of affairs" is a witch hunt that is highly unlikely to produce helpful results.

In at least a couple cases, I have some disagreement with your summation. You even acknowledge that there were, in fact, code changes that "resulted in the undesired state of affairs":

QuoteHowever, besides changes like the first couple of iterations of the estate system, and Too Much Peace, and maybe a couple of others, I really don't see the added features having been major culprits behind the decline in engagement and player numbers.

There were several changes that did, indeed, affect the game. You've started the list: Estates and TMP are definitely right up there. But really, those are the low-hanging fruit. Anyone who's been playing for 6 or more years can easily identify those as landmark moves that really had long-term effects. They should have been rolled back much quicker. (We need to get better at quickly reacting to things like this.)

There are a few other changes that altered the philosophy of the game. The entire Orders experiment was a big one. That change, though rolled back, was a major shift on the way in which players approached the military command element of the game. It almost single-handedly placed the burden of command on Marshals alone, mostly cut generals out of the loop, and overloaded those few players who actively tried to get into the philosophy that was being pushed on them. Instead of cooperative committees, you placed the entire burden of command on one single person: The Marshal of the army. We then reinforced that with things such as taking away red paper, threatening lightening bolts on people that didn't follow the game-enforced command structure, and even completely removing the ability of the general to even see the status of any army of which he was not the marshal/vice-marshal.

This caused a major shift in player philosophy. That changed philosophy exists to this day. It has caused the overload and burnout of uncountable marshals and generals. Players like me, who would be happy to help out on the few turns where I could actually help in real time, are actively cut out of the loop. (Because if you can't do the job practically 24/7, you just can't be a marshal. And let's not try to pretend that's not really the case, because it is.) In fact, I think that experiment was probably one of the major causes of the current fear that people have in regard to lightning bolts and orders.

We have also systematically diffused the concentration of power in the interest of trying to spread it out among more players. We even went so far as to cram it down the throats of people that didn't want it. Food, anyone? We've only recently turned that back around, at least a bit, to let the realms centralize food control again. We've taken away traditional powers, and either spread them out, or outright gotten rid of them. How about generals and rulers that can't sponsor armies? (Unless they happen to be region lords. Or are already an army sponsor, in which case they can sponsor as many more as they want.) Generals that can't see army status. Vice Marshals that couldn't set formations. Bankers that can't set tax rates. Judges that couldn't ban people because of "good marks". Judges that are afraid of punishing people because they think that they'll get bolted for damn near anything they do.

It's not always just one specific feature or change that causes things to radically alter the way that players perceive or play the game. Sometimes it's a whole series of changes that, in aggregate, add up to a significant change.

Anyway, it's getting late, and I really don't have time or energy to devote to thinking up more examples of these kinds of things.

Quote from: Indirik on October 08, 2013, 04:45:21 AM
Stuff

This. I agree fully with Indirik here especially about the "changed philosophy exists to this day". Quite a number of times I find myself in this situation where I ask myself: Do I break the rule or not? Whether as Mentor, General, Banker, Marshal, there are players asking me questions where they need my advice.

About General/Marshal able to see siege engine, I like that feature. As General/Marshal, I have been messaging nobles just to ask how many siege engines they carry previously. This feature helps to lessen my burden, especially when at times, I found myself lack of time to keep click messaging nobles to ask around.

About Stue post on "some wars are too boring". We can shake things up, give them a few buttons, new functions, etc but ultimately it is left to the players to execute them and play them as they wish. And yes, last time being promoted to war council member meant much. My character who rise up from being adventurer to be noble, got enough conflicts with other characters who do not view him as noble-born. Yet he was promoted to become part of the council, which some nobles disagreed. All those good times.

Quote from: De-Legro on October 07, 2013, 11:14:56 PM(...)

It is a catch 22. You want to reward realms that manage to grow and produce impressive military forces for the effort they expended to do so. But you also want to ensure they don't just stomp everyone once critical mass is obtained.

i think for long that the best marker of good overall game balance would be if overly large realms would naturally tend to split apart. so let realms be rewarded by growth as much as possible, let nobles enjoy in victories and proof of their competence until the moment when too large realm would be simply split by internal grievances.

how to accomplish that? first concept i believe in and repeating it many times is a concept that there should be more power to position, so there would be more players with large power.

for instance, if all council positions would be significantly more powerful, than at least some dukes would develop ambition to rise the rank instead of sitting on his super-comfortable post forever. that also applies for other council position. if many would strive for council positions, there would be much more interest to split large realm and obtain more such position, especially if new  founded realms would still be large enough to self-defend.

giving more power to ranks would mean inciting more ambition.

if we add to that some level of insecurity for any position, for instance lucky infiltrator attack that can remove anyone but ruler from the post, upheavals that enable removing all neutral nobles from their posts, stronger exile function of ruler... all that would force dukes to balance pros and contras of secessions much more often than now. if we say that now in 99% of cases, duke have most comfort when not doing anything, and any risk mostly brings little reward, dukes would be forced to actively follow political affairs if they want to make sure to stay on posts. of course, actively is not related to number of log-ins.

simply said more power to higher positions, and more positions with real power means more clashes. even in such circumstances giant realms could exist, but their existence would be proof of really good play conducted by their ruler and hierarchy, rather than something which stands with little political effort.

Quote from: Indirik on October 08, 2013, 04:45:21 AM(...)

It's not always just one specific feature or change that causes things to radically alter the way that players perceive or play the game. Sometimes it's a whole series of changes that, in aggregate, add up to a significant change.
(...)

yep, you reinstated some of the previously mentioned examples, and the main point is really worthy in my opinion.

multitude of changes, where none of them is radical, but many point in the same direction... that seemingly affected game much over time.

Quote from: Indirik on October 08, 2013, 04:45:21 AM
In at least a couple cases, I have some disagreement with your summation. You even acknowledge that there were, in fact, code changes that "resulted in the undesired state of affairs":

Yeah; I thought about adding something along the lines of "and a few others." Not sure why I ended up not doing so ;)

Quote
There are a few other changes that altered the philosophy of the game. The entire Orders experiment was a big one. That change, though rolled back, was a major shift on the way in which players approached the military command element of the game. It almost single-handedly placed the burden of command on Marshals alone, mostly cut generals out of the loop, and overloaded those few players who actively tried to get into the philosophy that was being pushed on them. Instead of cooperative committees, you placed the entire burden of command on one single person: The Marshal of the army. We then reinforced that with things such as taking away red paper, threatening lightening bolts on people that didn't follow the game-enforced command structure, and even completely removing the ability of the general to even see the status of any army of which he was not the marshal/vice-marshal.

Yep. That's been a big contributor to the burnout problem, no question. I guess I wasn't thinking along those lines because I was trying to look at actual feature changes that we stuck with, stuff that we could still remove now and (hypothetically) improve things by their absence. But yeah, that really caused some problems.

I'm not exactly sure how to fix it, but one idea that's come to me is a feature we've talked about a number of times, and Tom has even approved in principle: game-recognized Councils, such as a Military Council.

And what if we were to give the Military Council—and anyone on it—the ability to send orders to any army in the realm?

It seems to me that would help to give a strong signal to the players that not only is it OK for someone other than the Marshal to be giving orders, it is actively encouraged. Particularly with some of the changes we're already considering that would the Marshal's ability to order specialized formations more important, I think declaring that the Marshal's focus should be tactics, rather than always giving out the daily orders, might be the way to go forward with this.

Quote
We have also systematically diffused the concentration of power in the interest of trying to spread it out among more players. We even went so far as to cram it down the throats of people that didn't want it. Food, anyone? We've only recently turned that back around, at least a bit, to let the realms centralize food control again. We've taken away traditional powers, and either spread them out, or outright gotten rid of them. How about generals and rulers that can't sponsor armies? (Unless they happen to be region lords. Or are already an army sponsor, in which case they can sponsor as many more as they want.) Generals that can't see army status. Vice Marshals that couldn't set formations. Bankers that can't set tax rates. Judges that couldn't ban people because of "good marks". Judges that are afraid of punishing people because they think that they'll get bolted for damn near anything they do.

Oddly enough, this is going generally in exactly the opposite direction from the previous change.

The army sponsorship thing I have always seen as a bug. First of all, either Rulers and Generals should be able to sponsor armies or not, period, end of story. The fact that some are "grandfathered" in should mean that all should simply have the option available to them. I never really understood Tom's logic in trying to take that away from them.

I agree that it's best for Vice-Marshals to be able to set formations. (Though I don't recall offhand if they can at this point or not...)

Given the structure of the current system, I honestly can't see what taxes the Banker should be able to set. Unless you want to argue that, though the Ruler is the titular head of the feudal hierarchy, the Banker is his "hands" in matters of money, and thus should be able to set the crown's tax rate on Duchies.

Good and bad marks were an interesting system, but I think they went too far.

Judges being afraid to ban people for fear of bolts or violating IR is, frankly, largely an issue among player culture, not something that the devs or our policies are directly responsible for. There is a subset of our players who actively scaremonger about the big bad Titans/GMs, using them as a boogeyman to show how oppressed and persecuted they or their group is. I don't think there's been an actual lightning bolting—let alone a storm, which is when it actually kills the character—for at least five years now. (And that's a pretty arbitrary number, because the last one I can actually remember was when the ruler of Luz de Bia was bolted—wounded for one turn, immediately re-elected due to the insta-elections bug—for moving the capital of their realm to Grehk during their war against Riombara back in...I want to say 2006? ...Yep, the Wiki says 2006.)

Honestly, I don't think there's a way to completely fix this particular problem, as long as there are people in the game who believe it is to their advantage to continue to use the idea of lightning bolts as a boogeyman, and people who have bought into the idea and continue to perpetuate it simply because they don't know any better. After all, this is the kind of thing that if we say we're not going to bolt you for any arbitrary issue, that clearly means we're just waiting, hoping for some infraction that crosses our invisible line just a hair so we can bolt them. (To the people who believe the "GMs" are all out to get them, that is.)

Quote
It's not always just one specific feature or change that causes things to radically alter the way that players perceive or play the game. Sometimes it's a whole series of changes that, in aggregate, add up to a significant change.

Certainly. But if we're thoughtful and careful, I believe we can use this effect to our—and the game's—advantage, rather than its detriment.

Quote from: Anaris on October 08, 2013, 03:01:24 PM
Yep. That's been a big contributor to the burnout problem, no question. I guess I wasn't thinking along those lines because I was trying to look at actual feature changes that we stuck with, stuff that we could still remove now and (hypothetically) improve things by their absence. But yeah, that really caused some problems.

We can't just consider code, though. We also have to consider the effects of policies, whether official or unofficial. Let's face it, Tom coming on to the forums and saying something off-hand can have far-reaching effects when it is quoted IG by someone trying to shore up their arguments. Things like that spread quickly, and often out of context. When things like that happen, perhaps we need to take a look at making some kind of official position statement, or something to set the record straight.

QuoteI'm not exactly sure how to fix it, but one idea that's come to me is a feature we've talked about a number of times, and Tom has even approved in principle: game-recognized Councils, such as a Military Council.

And what if we were to give the Military Council—and anyone on it—the ability to send orders to any army in the realm?

It seems to me that would help to give a strong signal to the players that not only is it OK for someone other than the Marshal to be giving orders, it is actively encouraged. Particularly with some of the changes we're already considering that would the Marshal's ability to order specialized formations more important, I think declaring that the Marshal's focus should be tactics, rather than always giving out the daily orders, might be the way to go forward with this.

I have liked the idea of game-created councils ever since they were first discussed. Most realms manually make them anyway. Why not have some automated support for it?

Some form of game-supported military council, with orders capabilities as you have mentioned, may help bring back the cooperative environment.

QuoteI agree that it's best for Vice-Marshals to be able to set formations. (Though I don't recall offhand if they can at this point or not...)

I believe that the Marshal and Vice Marshal both have access to the same formation setting. I.e. it's a common setting that both can set, and controls the formation of both.

QuoteGiven the structure of the current system, I honestly can't see what taxes the Banker should be able to set. Unless you want to argue that, though the Ruler is the titular head of the feudal hierarchy, the Banker is his "hands" in matters of money, and thus should be able to set the crown's tax rate on Duchies.

Yes, there is not much to set for taxes anymore. But having the banker control some tax-related things sounds good. Right now the banker isn't really a "banker". He's a glorified food wholesaler/distributor. (And while he always has been that to a greater or lesser degree depending on the realm, he used to at least have some control of financial aspects of the realm.)

QuoteJudges being afraid to ban people for fear of bolts or violating IR is, frankly, largely an issue among player culture, not something that the devs or our policies are directly responsible for.

That's partially correct. Yes, it is a player culture thing. We may not be directly responsible for it, but various actions and statements over the past have caused quite a bit of fear on the part of the players. Yes, some of it is no doubt sensationalized and some intentional (or even unintentional) fear mongering.

QuoteThere is a subset of our players who actively scaremonger about the big bad Titans/GMs, using them as a boogeyman to show how oppressed and persecuted they or their group is. I don't think there's been an actual lightning bolting—let alone a storm, which is when it actually kills the character—for at least five years now.

I think the last lightning storm I remember was on EC back during the Orders experiments. One of the dukes of Caligus was fried when he sent a Request and said "This is an Order" in it. So, maybe 2007?

As for regular bolts, a couple people on Dwilight got a bit crisped due to sending too many OOC messages in their realm. Chenier may have been one of them? I can't remember, but that would have been 2008 or so.

I can't remember anything more recent.

QuoteHonestly, I don't think there's a way to completely fix this particular problem, as long as there are people in the game who believe it is to their advantage to continue to use the idea of lightning bolts as a boogeyman, and people who have bought into the idea and continue to perpetuate it simply because they don't know any better. After all, this is the kind of thing that if we say we're not going to bolt you for any arbitrary issue, that clearly means we're just waiting, hoping for some infraction that crosses our invisible line just a hair so we can bolt them. (To the people who believe the "GMs" are all out to get them, that is.)

The Magistrates system was an attempt at transparency to help resolve this kind of thing. Tom has always been against the publishing of the Titans verdicts, so I really can't think of anything off-hand. The people who know the real story need to make sure that whenever they see this fear-mongering happening IG, that they set the record straight.

QuoteCertainly. But if we're thoughtful and careful, I believe we can use this effect to our—and the game's—advantage, rather than its detriment.

We certainly can.

Quote from: jaune on October 07, 2013, 08:15:55 PM
KK and Ottar are the only rulers who were rulers when this war started :P

-jaune

What about Captain/Aldarion? Has he left now?

Ah, yes he is ruler again, he was away from throne a while.

-Jaune

adding some small game mechanics to military council could indeed make it more attractive to some extent, but the main point i tried to express in this thread is that there is lack in positions of power which would be attractive enough to be fought for and which would enable power clashes.

too many positions are reduced to ceremonial role, and few which have power do not have any incentive to make risks. in such situation interest of players is lost, there is simply too little to be played about. it is boring and people are leaving day by day. i can recall 5-6 long-term players that left within last 3-4 weeks. should it not be sign that some more energetic measures should be taken soon enough?

Quote from: Stue (DC) on October 13, 2013, 01:31:40 PM
adding some small game mechanics to military council could indeed make it more attractive to some extent, but the main point i tried to express in this thread is that there is lack in positions of power which would be attractive enough to be fought for and which would enable power clashes.

It was suggested due to the burnout of military leaders/orders issue, not lack of power.

Quotetoo many positions are reduced to ceremonial role, and few which have power do not have any incentive to make risks.

None are ceremonial, but some have less direct power. I still partially blame the bankers lack of authority in many realms due to the initials messages which IMO was giving off the vibe that characters should not let the banker have authority over them. 

Quotein such situation interest of players is lost, there is simply too little to be played about. it is boring and people are leaving day by day. i can recall 5-6 long-term players that left within last 3-4 weeks. should it not be sign that some more energetic measures should be taken soon enough?

While BM is definitely suffering issues, 5-6 people leaving long-term or otherwise is not the indicator of that and rash decisions based on the guesses of someone does not seem like the way to fix it.

Quote from: Penchant on October 13, 2013, 09:37:47 PM
It was suggested due to the burnout of military leaders/orders issue, not lack of power.

if it is so, in my view, it missed the point. the only usefulness of it what i see in incentive in giving players motivation to accomplish something and that happens if, for instance, military council has some more weight.

Quote from: Penchant on October 13, 2013, 09:37:47 PM
None are ceremonial, but some have less direct power. I still partially blame the bankers lack of authority in many realms due to the initials messages which IMO was giving off the vibe that characters should not let the banker have authority over them. 

i feel general's and banker's positions purely ceremonial, while judges are blocked by fear. whoever cannot move things forward in any way is irrelevant in respect of potential for creating conflict.

Quote from: Penchant on October 13, 2013, 09:37:47 PM
While BM is definitely suffering issues, 5-6 people leaving long-term or otherwise is not the indicator of that and rash decisions based on the guesses of someone does not seem like the way to fix it.

i used only example using current short-term memory, as i would not find ability to make year-long statistics. only feeling could be transmitted how players are leaving at increased rate over the whole year. estates are emptied, it is even hard to find nobles for lordships in many realms (while i believe sinking some continent will not help at all).

Try think more creatively. This following below come from my experience.

General
During rebellion planning, General is the key to your success. General can disband militia and ensure your rebellion force does not encounter stronger force in the capital, which in turn ensure your rebellion success in as few turns as possible. Best example, is when Colonies realm Oritolon experienced a lot of rebellions. No wonder one of the rebellion tips is having General on your side, rather than against you   ;D

Banker
Becoming a banker and arranging the food trade by contacting other realm Bankers. Otherwise who Banker is foolish enough to trust an unknown, new Trader who has no reputation. Of course Bankers do not look like doing much either. Other than Black Market, I do not recall it is of much use. So I concur it is ceremonial as Stue points out  :-\

Judge
Have you ever have a fast finger Judge who quickly banned all of you before you even able to start a rebellion? I did experience it, during the many rebellions from the same realm Oritolon. I took the fast finger Judge ban as one token of my loyalty to my realm. You can refer my Family Wikipedia for the source ;)

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Ketchum_Family (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Ketchum_Family)

I do understand in recent times, Judges come into much focus as they are blocked by fear, past cases and IR. Instead of focus on the player inactivity, why not the Judge focus on the character disobeying order instead? This has potential to create conflict and generate enough interest for the game. The characters involved will have much disdain for each other. Best example is when SaDiablo as Lukon Judge on Colonies island, he executed Lady Silks Noble, causing much friction between both their character family. Of course the high gold bounty put on Lucivar SaDiablo's head can only come from who else but Noble family member 8)

Quote from: Ketchum on October 14, 2013, 02:20:50 AM

General
During rebellion planning, General is the key to your success. General can disband militia and ensure your rebellion force does not encounter stronger force in the capital, which in turn ensure your rebellion success in as few turns as possible. Best example, is when Colonies realm Oritolon experienced a lot of rebellions. No wonder one of the rebellion tips is having General on your side, rather than against you   ;D

this is so common that it's explain in basic wiki guide if i remember well. that i general one and only power and cannot be used at all in power play - general cannot say to ruler "respect me more or I will help rebellion", so it is useless in any power clashes, which could create dynamical politics.
rebellion themselves are similar story that could be more elaborated in separate threads, they also remained quite sterile and succeed only when formally removing ruler hated by everyone, which can be achieved easier by protest.
rebellions cannot affect feudal hierarchy, government can be changed by simple button pressing without rebellion, so rebellions also fall of category of ceremonial actions.
this is particularly grotesque when large number of nobles stand up against ruler who is deemed too weak in relation to dukes, new ruler ascends to throne, who again cannot do anything against dukes. Dukes were obstructing old ruler, dukes will continue obstructing new ruler. Dukes are powerful, but their main power is exerted through blocking events, not to initiating them, and they are very protected in doing that. i hoped new tax system will help, but do not ever see it happening.

Quote from: Ketchum on October 14, 2013, 02:20:50 AM
Banker
Becoming a banker and arranging the food trade by contacting other realm Bankers. Otherwise who Banker is foolish enough to trust an unknown, new Trader who has no reputation. Of course Bankers do not look like doing much either. Other than Black Market, I do not recall it is of much use. So I concur it is ceremonial as Stue points out  :-\

if all things fit fine by luck, generals can at least gain informal respect by winning war campaign, while banker have little chance to gain any respect, as almost noone can see their usefulness or proof that they can affect anything. with giving lot of trading options to dukes, bankers were additionally rendered hopeless to the point that I am prone to beleive it would be better if they were shut down totally.

Quote from: Ketchum on October 14, 2013, 02:20:50 AM
Judge

I do understand in recent times, Judges come into much focus as they are blocked by fear, past cases and IR. Instead of focus on the player inactivity, why not the Judge focus on the character disobeying order instead? This has potential to create conflict and generate enough interest for the game. The characters involved will have much disdain for each other. Best example is when SaDiablo as Lukon Judge on Colonies island, he executed Lady Silks Noble, causing much friction between both their character family. Of course the high gold bounty put on Lucivar SaDiablo's head can only come from who else but Noble family member 8)

had you chance to see it in practice, in last years? i have seen brand new players who received advice from older players ang began to use ooc shield soon after joining game.  in-game disobediences were followed by later ooc messages like "sorry guys I had no time to play" and it worked fine even when player was sending troop opposite to where is ordered (so it means he logged in but intentionally worked against orders), where explanation was something like "i had real life issues, so i did not have time to read orders carefully"! with such situation and bolts hitting frequently, i am not surprised to see judges in fear and strongly disagree with idea that "it is matter of players (judges) mentality"


what i am trying to accomplish in these posts is to reveal, through discussion, how there are elements and concepts of game mechanics which are directly responsible for fun-killing.

Quote from: Stue (DC) on October 14, 2013, 12:15:22 PM
with such situation and bolts hitting frequently, i am not surprised to see judges in fear and strongly disagree with idea that "it is matter of players (judges) mentality"

This is blatantly false. I can't even remember the last time a judge got bolted. And you don't get bolted for punishing someone for not following orders. The only bolt I remember in the past 4 or 5 years was for someone tossing around some pretty nasty personal attacks.

Players have got to stop sensationalizing and exaggerating the frequency of characters getting bolted. It just doesn't happen. Continuing to claim it does is fear-mongering and damaging to the game.

Quote from: Stue (DC) on October 14, 2013, 12:15:22 PM
this is so common that it's explain in basic wiki guide if i remember well. that i general one and only power and cannot be used at all in power play - general cannot say to ruler "respect me more or I will help rebellion", so it is useless in any power clashes, which could create dynamical politics.

Unless the general is better friends with the judge than the ruler. Though, yes, it should be generally a bad policy to publicly consider rebellion unless the ruler is extremely hated. Regarding rebellions not changing anything, while I will fairly admit that I haven't seen rebellions do much since I returned, I do remember times when rebellions in a realm had continental ramifications. Of course, that was also when it was *much* easier to rebel (only needed 3 nobles, not a certain proportion of the realm). Considering how much easier it is to protest (and generally safer) than rebel, perhaps the proportion should be shifted downward slightly. Still, rebellions will always be a risky proposition. For what its worth, that risk is rewarded with extra reward in the ability to change the government system, which can't be done post-protests.

Quote from: Stue (DC) on October 14, 2013, 12:15:22 PM
if all things fit fine by luck, generals can at least gain informal respect by winning war campaign, while banker have little chance to gain any respect, as almost noone can see their usefulness or proof that they can affect anything. with giving lot of trading options to dukes, bankers were additionally rendered hopeless to the point that I am prone to beleive it would be better if they were shut down totally.

My banker absolutely disproves this. My banker currently has *vastly* more respect in her realm than the general does, who has considerable respect across the continent. Increased the realm's tax collection by 30% in one week, brought in an extra 2k gold in food deals, subsidizing various realm expenses etc. Now she's running for ruler (hopefully winning) and if she wins, the banker will become the favored position ahead of general or judge. Bankers can have power and influence if they strive for it.

Quote from: Stue (DC) on October 13, 2013, 01:31:40 PM
adding some small game mechanics to military council could indeed make it more attractive to some extent

Out of curiosity, what types of power/mechanics do you think a military council should have?

Quote from: Indirik on October 14, 2013, 06:31:27 PM
Out of curiosity, what types of power/mechanics do you think a military council should have?

I do not have exact and firm belief, while i do have belief that power should be increased if we want some events. non-revolutionary tweaks are likely possible which would enable council members and some other positions to set things on fire when they decide on it.

it is my first post in this thread i believe where i posted some propsal. i will repeat them, while some justifications can be found up there:

- rulers - much stronger exile option
- generals - ability to see all armies' orders and standing orders
- judges - they just need some additional guidance which could relieve them of apparent fear, that could possibly be done through this forum, or wiki update
- bankers - control of foreign trade - ability to impose selling/buying prices for foreign trade over lord's offers plus ability to limit or completely shut down trade with particular realms.
- generals/marshals - ability to dismiss any noble from army (marshals limited to own army), generals also to have ability to dismiss every marshal. they should not be able to assign them to armies (except for their vassals), but should be able to ban them from armies.

I very much like the idea of banker being able to impose realm-specific minimum/maximum trading prices. I could easily see a counter-argument that that should be left to the banker's influence so that there is yet another reason for internal conflict though. The same effect could be made, without imposing a hard limit, by allowing bankers to receive reports of all trades involving regions of the realm (or only regions whose granaries they have access to?). Then, a banker could announce such trading price policy, lords could either follow or not follow the banker's commands, but the banker is at least aware of their policy being broken, unlike now.

Quote from: Vita on October 14, 2013, 06:14:30 PM
My banker absolutely disproves this. My banker currently has *vastly* more respect in her realm than the general does, who has considerable respect across the continent. Increased the realm's tax collection by 30% in one week, brought in an extra 2k gold in food deals, subsidizing various realm expenses etc. Now she's running for ruler (hopefully winning) and if she wins, the banker will become the favored position ahead of general or judge. Bankers can have power and influence if they strive for it.

See also: Hrok Stefanovic of Luria Nova. Some of the most influential members of Luria have or have had massive loans and debts owed to him, and the man almost single handedly funded the first half of the realm's war against D'Hara -- and made a profit. Had I more time to put into playing him, I have absolutely no doubt that he could be one of the most influential (and therefore powerful) people on Dwilight... all by leveraging his position as Banker.

Quote from: ^ban^ on October 14, 2013, 10:00:04 PM
See also: Hrok Stefanovic of Luria Nova. Some of the most influential members of Luria have or have had massive loans and debts owed to him, and the man almost single handedly funded the first half of the realm's war against D'Hara -- and made a profit. Had I more time to put into playing him, I have absolutely no doubt that he could be one of the most influential (and therefore powerful) people on Dwilight... all by leveraging his position as Banker.

Quote from: Vita on October 14, 2013, 06:14:30 PM
Unless the general is better friends with the judge than the ruler. Though, yes, it should be generally a bad policy to publicly consider rebellion unless the ruler is extremely hated. Regarding rebellions not changing anything, while I will fairly admit that I haven't seen rebellions do much since I returned, I do remember times when rebellions in a realm had continental ramifications. Of course, that was also when it was *much* easier to rebel (only needed 3 nobles, not a certain proportion of the realm). Considering how much easier it is to protest (and generally safer) than rebel, perhaps the proportion should be shifted downward slightly. Still, rebellions will always be a risky proposition. For what its worth, that risk is rewarded with extra reward in the ability to change the government system, which can't be done post-protests.

My banker absolutely disproves this. My banker currently has *vastly* more respect in her realm than the general does, who has considerable respect across the continent. Increased the realm's tax collection by 30% in one week, brought in an extra 2k gold in food deals, subsidizing various realm expenses etc. Now she's running for ruler (hopefully winning) and if she wins, the banker will become the favored position ahead of general or judge. Bankers can have power and influence if they strive for it.

There was no button to achieve all this, so obviously it is both broken, and you are lying.

Quote from: Stue (DC) on October 14, 2013, 09:05:36 PM
it is my first post in this thread i believe where i posted some propsal. i will repeat them, while some justifications can be found up there:

- rulers - much stronger exile option
- generals - ability to see all armies' orders and standing orders
- judges - they just need some additional guidance which could relieve them of apparent fear, that could possibly be done through this forum, or wiki update
- bankers - control of foreign trade - ability to impose selling/buying prices for foreign trade over lord's offers plus ability to limit or completely shut down trade with particular realms.

I actually agree with all these. They seem like reasonable requests that are not overpowering and are in line with the existing purpose of the positions.

Also, I would add that the general should get the same army status information that marshals get, but for every army. Like they used to have...

As far as judges go, we have been trying to correct this misconception regarding punishing of characters for not following orders, rumors/lies about lightning bolts, and the abuse of IRs as a blanket excuse for characters not performing their duties. It's a tough hill to climb, and takes the effort of every player to correct this erroneous belief.

Quote- generals/marshals - ability to dismiss any noble from army (marshals limited to own army), generals also to have ability to dismiss every marshal. they should not be able to assign them to armies (except for their vassals), but should be able to ban them from armies.

I disagree with this one. The armies do not belong to the general. They belong to the sponsor, as such, the composition of the army belongs to the sponsor. If the general wants this kind of control, he should sponsor his own army.

However, these powers are good, but they should reside in the army sponsor, not the general. The sponsor can already change Marshal/VM at will. The sponsor should also have the ability to kick people out of their own armies. Just add that power, which has been frequently requested, and you have the powers you want, just in different people.

Quote from: Indirik on October 14, 2013, 10:54:00 PM
However, these powers are good, but they should reside in the army sponsor, not the general. The sponsor can already change Marshal/VM at will. The sponsor should also have the ability to kick people out of their own armies. Just add that power, which has been frequently requested, and you have the powers you want, just in different people.

But it would also seem reasonable to allow army sponsor to also grant these powers to marshal and/or general if they so choose like the feature of bankers being able to have control over the regions food.

@Stue, You seem to either not completely understand the positions/features you are complaining about and/or the definition of ceremonial. I don't 100% disagree with you but I am more against than for your general complaints although your suggestions overall seem good.

@De-Legro and ^ban^, While Vita's situation is a valid example of showing the banker's powers, ban's is not. Him being banker does not affect his ability to do debts or loans to people in any positive manner. Why was he able to do those thing? Because he is rich from his other positions and can send gold to people like anyone else, although I do agree the banker has a decent amount of power to fulfill his job. Is there room for improvement? Of course, as there is with anything.

@Vita` Thanks for the good example of bankers using their powers in an important/influential manner.

--

Quote from: Stue (DC) on October 14, 2013, 09:05:36 PM
- rulers - much stronger exile option
- generals - ability to see all armies' orders and standing orders
- judges - they just need some additional guidance which could relieve them of apparent fear, that could possibly be done through this forum, or wiki update
- bankers - control of foreign trade - ability to impose selling/buying prices for foreign trade over lord's offers plus ability to limit or completely shut down trade with particular realms.
- generals/marshals - ability to dismiss any noble from army (marshals limited to own army), generals also to have ability to dismiss every marshal. they should not be able to assign them to armies (except for their vassals), but should be able to ban them from armies.

My opinion on suggestions:
Rulers-yes, because the current favors exilee.
Generals-Standing orders definitely, but I am less sure on the all armies' orders
Judges-Whether or not it is needed, it definitely can't hurt given its explained properly so it seems good
Bankers-I would suggest something like the judges ability to make things illegal, it doesn't prevent it but you get reports on it and can do what you want with it from there. It could even replace the current inability to trade with realms you are at war with, but making it default still for it to not allow trading with warring realms. (<-Might be confusing for others but I think the devs will get what I mean). Another benefit is it would give an initial use for the blackmarket.

Quote from: Indirik on October 14, 2013, 10:54:00 PM
The sponsor should also have the ability to kick people out of their own armies. Just add that power, which has been frequently requested, and you have the powers you want, just in different people.

I disagree. Let the Marshal kick people out. His job is to manage the army, so let him. :)

Quote from: Penchant on October 15, 2013, 12:22:42 AM
Why was he able to do those thing? Because he is rich from his other positions and can send gold to people like anyone else, although I do agree the banker has a decent amount of power to fulfill his job.

Wrong. Hrok got his positions - and gold - after he stepped up to become Banker. His position as Banker has allowed him to claim insane things as under his jurisdiction -- everything from trade to dereliction of a lord's responsibilities have come under his domain of power at various times.

You requested money for your unit? Hrok knows your income. Hrok knows you've you been wasting your gold; no money for you.

Failed to make even a token effort at feeding your own region? Planning rebellion against the crown? Hrok has shot them down.

In fact, unless I'm mistaken (please correct me if I am, Delvin/whoever), Hrok has been - through his position as Banker - directly involved in every single Lurian exile for the last two years. The trick is to realize that, like in the real world, you can distill any situation down to one single element: money.

And it's the Banker's job to control the money.

Quote from: ^ban^ on October 15, 2013, 01:20:00 AM
Wrong. Hrok got his positions - and gold - after he stepped up to become Banker. His position as Banker has allowed him to claim insane things as under his jurisdiction -- everything from trade to dereliction of a lord's responsibilities have come under his domain of power at various times.

You requested money for your unit? Hrok knows your income. Hrok knows you've you been wasting your gold; no money for you.

Failed to make even a token effort at feeding your own region? Planning rebellion against the crown? Hrok has shot them down.

In fact, unless I'm mistaken (please correct me if I am, Delvin/whoever), Hrok has been - through his position as Banker - directly involved in every single Lurian exile for the last two years. The trick is to realize that, like in the real world, you can distill any situation down to one single element: money.

And it's the Banker's job to control the money.

Couple of things, the game does not in any way portray the idea that the Banker's job is to control the money. Not saying its bad for you to make it your job, but thats false to say it is. Knowing people's income is something everyone can know with a bit of work (and almost none for those above knight) and whether or not they wasted their gold is not something being banker affects. As well, related to my first point, the ability to become powerful in certain, rare circumstances, does not equate to the position having the ability to commonly become powerful. You being a great player and making it possible is great, but you can't be like I did something so everyone else can too, the position is fine. Vita's examples cover things any banker can do, thus great examples. Thinking of it in a bit of statistical manner, your case would seem to simply be an outlier, perhaps with lurking variables that caused it, but nonetheless looking at bankers overall, an outlier. (I did say seem covering myself in case I somehow turn out to be wrong btw).

Quote from: ^ban^ on October 14, 2013, 10:00:04 PM
See also: Hrok Stefanovic of Luria Nova. Some of the most influential members of Luria have or have had massive loans and debts owed to him, and the man almost single handedly funded the first half of the realm's war against D'Hara -- and made a profit. Had I more time to put into playing him, I have absolutely no doubt that he could be one of the most influential (and therefore powerful) people on Dwilight... all by leveraging his position as Banker.

You don't need to be the Banker to do any of this. The only way I even see the Banker position being slightly connected to this strategy is if you're obtaining the money to lend out by stealing it using that option Bankers have to cook the books. The rest of it is all simply good RP and political savvy. Any rich Duke could do the same thing.

You do have access to some extra information as the Banker that it sounds like you actually bother to use, but I have some doubts as to whether that really made much of a difference here. Information is power, but only if you are active enough as a player to make use of it. But then again, if you're that active you'll likely be powerful anyway - that's how the game works.

Quote from: Indirik on October 14, 2013, 10:54:00 PM

I disagree with this one. The armies do not belong to the general. They belong to the sponsor, as such, the composition of the army belongs to the sponsor. If the general wants this kind of control, he should sponsor his own army.

However, these powers are good, but they should reside in the army sponsor, not the general. The sponsor can already change Marshal/VM at will. The sponsor should also have the ability to kick people out of their own armies. Just add that power, which has been frequently requested, and you have the powers you want, just in different people.

if sponsors would be allowed to ban nobles from the army, and generals would be allowed to ban marshals - to block some noble to hold marshal position in the realm - that could possibly be even more sophisticated while not giving too much power to anyone.
yet marshals should have at least something more than now, they do so much of hard work. maybe at least perks that could be visible only to sponsors, nobles in question and their lords, and maybe to generals as well. perks could not have any direct mechanical influence, but could act as some sort of noble's rating in terms of martial affairs.

the general idea attempted over all this proposals is to give some more power to positions, just to allow them to have more weight in power clashes and more opportunity to initiate power clashes, not to allow them to take ultimate command.

Quote from: Vita on October 14, 2013, 06:14:30 PM
Unless the general is better friends with the judge than the ruler. Though, yes, it should be generally a bad policy to publicly consider rebellion unless the ruler is extremely hated. Regarding rebellions not changing anything, while I will fairly admit that I haven't seen rebellions do much since I returned, I do remember times when rebellions in a realm had continental ramifications. Of course, that was also when it was *much* easier to rebel (only needed 3 nobles, not a certain proportion of the realm). Considering how much easier it is to protest (and generally safer) than rebel, perhaps the proportion should be shifted downward slightly. Still, rebellions will always be a risky proposition. For what its worth, that risk is rewarded with extra reward in the ability to change the government system, which can't be done post-protests.

i have strong feeling that rebellions faded away once landed nobles, especially dukes, learned that it is safest to stay neutral even if they strongly support some option. maybe it has become circumventing, maybe not, it's not up to me to decide, but if for instance, winning rebel ruler would be allowed to strip all feuds, maybe rebellions would have much more weight. dukes would still have time to secede if they want, but they will have to make some decisions during rebellions, instead of simply staying neutral.

Quote from: Vita on October 14, 2013, 06:14:30 PM
My banker absolutely disproves this. My banker currently has *vastly* more respect in her realm than the general does, who has considerable respect across the continent. Increased the realm's tax collection by 30% in one week, brought in an extra 2k gold in food deals, subsidizing various realm expenses etc. Now she's running for ruler (hopefully winning) and if she wins, the banker will become the favored position ahead of general or judge. Bankers can have power and influence if they strive for it.

i admit that i had no opportunity to learn much about new banker features. since they were implemented i was banker only once in totally indolent realm where no-one wanted to give access to granaries even when regions starved. yet i believe some additional tweaks as mentioned could make banker very attractive.
this is particularly interesting for game-wide pluralism: if players prone to economic game would have more fun and incentive, they would be able to compete prevailing warriors more.

To get access to granaries, I stole an idea from another player, even if a basic idea. Basically, those who allow access to their granaries, in addition to the banker being able to quickly feed the starving region or move food away from looting armies or monsters in the region, would receive a portion of all the food profits from the banker's trading. I cut it pretty simple as 50% to a realm treasury the banker holds and 50% divided by the lords, by proportion of how much their region contributed that month.

Quote from: Vita on October 15, 2013, 09:04:56 PM
To get access to granaries, I stole an idea from another player, even if a basic idea. Basically, those who allow access to their granaries, in addition to the banker being able to quickly feed the starving region or move food away from looting armies or monsters in the region, would receive a portion of all the food profits from the banker's trading. I cut it pretty simple as 50% to a realm treasury the banker holds and 50% divided by the lords, by proportion of how much their region contributed that month.

...and the lords weren't smart enough to realize that they could have sold the food themselves, for 100% of the profits?

Quote from: egamma on October 16, 2013, 02:42:51 PM
...and the lords weren't smart enough to realize that they could have sold the food themselves, for 100% of the profits?

• They might not actually have been able to, if the Banker is brokering trades across a long distance.
• They might not actually have been able to, if they were off fighting a war when the trades went through.
• Even if they could in fact have made the trades themselves, there's a lot to be said for paying for convenience. The Banker wants to be doing this stuff, the Lords may or may not think it's a totally unnecessary hassle.

Pretty much what Anaris said, but to detail my specific situation...

My banker has a long-term trade deal for as much food as can be sold for 50 gold/100 bushels on the other side of the continent, thus requiring monthly trips that take about half a month to travel there and back. The best trade deals in the realm's vicinity is 35 gold/100 bushels, with most being lower, in the 20-30 gold range. So, to do it themselves, they might cut an average of something between 20-30 and there'd be nothing for the realm treasury. With the banker, the first month's average gold per 100 bushels was about 44 gold iirc, so thats an average of 22 gold/100 bushels (with some reginos contributing over 1k bushels), plus another few thousand gold for the realm treasury on top of that.

To be competitive it is essential for all players to operate on the same time scale. The fundamental time unit of the game is the "turn" and there should be no way that the timing of a character's activity within that  unit is significant. That is to say "real time" factors should not influence the gameplay.   
One obvious way they do is the obsession for early military orders. There can be no doubt orders issued early in the turn will be received by more characters than late ones and therefore overall response rate will probably be influenced.
The simple answer is for all actions, including messaging, to be resolved at the start of the next turn.

Quote from: Carl on January 05, 2014, 05:19:40 PM
The simple answer is for all actions, including messaging, to be resolved at the start of the next turn.

I think this deserves an addition to the frequently rejected list (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Wish_List/Frequently_Rejected).

Message delays will have one primary effect: People will move their communications outside the game.

Quote from: Carl on January 05, 2014, 05:19:40 PM
To be competitive it is essential for all players to operate on the same time scale. The fundamental time unit of the game is the "turn" and there should be no way that the timing of a character's activity within that  unit is significant. That is to say "real time" factors should not influence the gameplay.   
One obvious way they do is the obsession for early military orders. There can be no doubt orders issued early in the turn will be received by more characters than late ones and therefore overall response rate will probably be influenced.
The simple answer is for all actions, including messaging, to be resolved at the start of the next turn.

Hi Carl :)

Yes, it is true that orders issued early in the turn will be received/read by more characters than late orders. Though you can do this via planning early within your military council and preparing advance orders to cope with possible scenarios. It never hurts to plan early especially when you could have chain in command such as General, Marshal wounded in battle, thus they unable to give out orders. Also it helps the travelling part as well when you need pass by a few regions to get to the target region, you may set the Next Destination in your Travel; this has been done as part of the game.

Hopefully this answer your questions on how to cope with "turn".

Quote from: Indirik on October 07, 2013, 10:49:58 PM
It used to be that in almost every realm, there was a war council, or a military council that cooperated to send orders. Anyone in that council was authorized to send orders. The generals usually kept a list in their bulletin that provided the chain of command.

This sounds like a really good idea.

Quote from: Carl on January 05, 2014, 05:19:40 PM
To be competitive it is essential for all players to operate on the same time scale. The fundamental time unit of the game is the "turn" and there should be no way that the timing of a character's activity within that  unit is significant. That is to say "real time" factors should not influence the gameplay.   
One obvious way they do is the obsession for early military orders. There can be no doubt orders issued early in the turn will be received by more characters than late ones and therefore overall response rate will probably be influenced.
The simple answer is for all actions, including messaging, to be resolved at the start of the next turn.

i have a feeling that, unfortunately, you equals concept of competitiveness with concept of military effectiveness.

this is far from what i had in mind when initiating this post. under competitiveness it was meant - political competitiveness in first place - ability of different power players to exert their power in different way, depending on their positions, and that way create internal political dynamics.

i'm not surprised, though, if you have only military achievements in mind - monolithic realms with dead internal political life dominate on continents with possible tendencies to totally prevail.

i feel that is exactly where concept of competitiveness would bring most fruits to the game - if such concepts would be encouraged, overly large and rich realms would naturally tend to dissipate as every realm would have more power players - in very large realms such players would be powerful enough to grow their ambitions. if, however, we don't have enough competitive position within a realm, oppositions never grow.

Quote from: Carl on January 05, 2014, 05:19:40 PM
The simple answer is for all actions, including messaging, to be resolved at the start of the next turn.

Not enough chatter? Let's fix this by making it so that discussions are essentially handled at 1 message per turn! Interacting with people sure will be fun!

Quote from: Chénier on January 16, 2014, 03:06:03 PM
Not enough chatter? Let's fix this by making it so that discussions are essentially handled at 1 message per turn! Interacting with people sure will be fun!

While I don't agree with Carl's idea, there is no need to to be so rude. As well considering all you amounted to saying was that you dislike the idea, your comment shouldn't have really been made when the discussion has been done with for awhile.

Saying you don't like something is completely fine during active discussion to voice opposition to something but just dropping by after a discussion is done with to disagree on a point that no longer matters seems like you are just trying to attack the person and either way unnecessary negativity is not wanted, especially with a shrinking forum community because many people view it as a very hostile place.

Quote from: Penchant on January 17, 2014, 07:11:43 PM
While I don't agree with Carl's idea, there is no need to to be so rude. As well considering all you amounted to saying was that you dislike the idea, your comment shouldn't have really been made when the discussion has been done with for awhile.

Saying you don't like something is completely fine during active discussion to voice opposition to something but just dropping by after a discussion is done with to disagree on a point that no longer matters seems like you are just trying to attack the person and either way unnecessary negativity is not wanted, especially with a shrinking forum community because many people view it as a very hostile place.

I did not mean to be rude, though I'll admit it came off that way. I wished to express that letters did not just have to do with military activities and orders, as he and the others that replied him focused solely on the impacts such a measure would have on military workings.

Quote from: Chénier on January 17, 2014, 07:20:58 PM
I did not mean to be rude, though I'll admit it came off that way. I wished to express that letters did not just have to do with military activities and orders, as he and the others that replied him focused solely on the impacts such a measure would have on military workings.

That's fine but if it's already been decided against is it needed really anyway? If it is truly, then simply stating what you want to express outright is generally best.

Quote from: Penchant on January 17, 2014, 07:57:22 PM
That's fine but if it's already been decided against is it needed really anyway? If it is truly, then simply stating what you want to express outright is generally best.

Decided against by who?

Quote from: Chénier on January 18, 2014, 07:55:02 AM
Decided against by who?

Quote from: Tom on January 05, 2014, 10:19:41 PM
I think this deserves an addition to the frequently rejected list (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Wish_List/Frequently_Rejected).

Message delays will have one primary effect: People will move their communications outside the game.

Quote from: Penchant on January 18, 2014, 08:23:16 AM

Didn't see that.

I've found that the military game aspect stays too competitive. Realms launch at each other with total destruction (or reformation) in mind. I would like to see more casual and light-hearted looting and raiding.

I've found the political game really depends on the realm. Too many are filled with die-hard loyalists and complacent toadies, but when you find a realm with interesting characters with their own goals and aspirations it's all the more special.

Quote from: Dishman on January 19, 2014, 08:42:27 PM
I've found that the military game aspect stays too competitive. Realms launch at each other with total destruction (or reformation) in mind. I would like to see more casual and light-hearted looting and raiding.

I've found the political game really depends on the realm. Too many are filled with die-hard loyalists and complacent toadies, but when you find a realm with interesting characters with their own goals and aspirations it's all the more special.

At the realm level, I certainly agree. I feel BM could go for more characters that are selfish instead of team oriented completely, aka more competition within realms.

Quote from: Chénier on January 16, 2014, 03:06:03 PM
Not enough chatter? Let's fix this by making it so that discussions are essentially handled at 1 message per turn! Interacting with people sure will be fun!

I do not agree with this "1 message per turn" idea. The game is kinda slow at the moment, let us not make us more boring. Communication in game is essential, let us not restrict it further than the slow movement it is now at...

Quote from: Penchant on January 20, 2014, 07:10:23 AM
At the realm level, I certainly agree. I feel BM could go for more characters that are selfish instead of team oriented completely, aka more competition within realms.

If only we have more players, then we will have more competition within realms. I vividly remember how there are many internal teams to join in the realm, each team has their own purposes; some loyalists, some rebels, some even has blurred line between loyal and rebel, some only wish to achieve certain hidden aims. As things stand now, it is all of us(in the same realm) against the outsiders/the world/the other realms.

If we are to have characters that are selfish, some of the characters branded the whole family characters as selfish and banned them from all the island realms or something like that... a good cause for conflict between 2 families I admitted it will do ;)

I read this topic with great interest, because I was a very active player back from 2006-2008 or thereabouts. Those of you who played on Atamara around that time might remember me as Xuanye, general and later ruler of Abington before its demise. After around 2008 I stopped, partly for real life reasons, but partly because the game had changed for the worse. I've tried to restart an account since then, two or three times (I just created another one very recently) and the few times I joined, what I found was that the realms were very quiet - so quiet that I didn't know there were other players. My interest in those attempts ran out after a few weeks of basically silence in realms that sometimes had dozens of nobles. My messages were generally ignored, and there just wasn't much going on or much communication. Once you've hit a low critical mass of players like that, it's going to be problematic. My character is now over a day old and in a realm with only 15 people. So far, in the last day, there hasn't been a single message sent in game that isn't an auto-message, never mind the fact that there are undeads running around.

I think there were always some issues that were fundamental to the game's ability to attract and retain players, and it seems like those problems have not gone away at all in the interim, based on my relatively limited play the past few years. I'll try to write down what I think in the following.

1) The role of "powergaming"
When I was general I was accused by some as a power-gamer, mostly because I was relatively successful and I would bark out orders within the first hour of the turn. I would also demand scouting reports from people on the front lines, and I'd chew out players (IC) for failing to set their units on the right (rather unconventional, sometimes) settings. In those cases, I'd send the characters personal messages. I think I was within the rules, and I was never punished for it, but there were murmurs that I was borderline. Thing is though, I was having loads of fun, and I'm pretty sure that most of my realm-mates in Abington at the time also had loads of fun during those very tense months when the entire continent was bearing down on us. Winning those battles and surviving against the waves was, in and of itself, a great source of roleplay opportunities and also of movement - people rising in ranks, new players getting very interested and ended up in the game for years, so on. Since then, however, the military command structure was substantially changed. The red paper was taken away from the general, to the point where the general had very little to do and had to rely on the marshals, who may or may not have been active players. Since generals were not allowed (IIRC) to tell dukes who to appoint as marshals, the whole military command system broke down. My time after that when I played in other realms was basically that of intense frustration - nobody knew where they were supposed to go, what the settings should be, etc. It was all over the place, except in realms lucky enough to have the right people in the right job (not very common, it seemed).
I understood the rationale for the changes - Tom & Co wanted to decentralize the system so that it was not just one man barking out orders in a somewhat dictatorial manner, but the end result, as some previous posters have mentioned here, is that it crammed responsibility down to people who didn't necessary want/ready to perform. The result is disorganization - it's fine in so far as all realms were equally hit by this problem, but as a player, it's not very fun.
Moreover, there was always a group of people who didn't roleplay a whole lot but enjoyed the war part of the game, which has always been, by design, a pretty central part of the game for the average player without realm responsibilities. Abington had about 150 nobles, and I'd say only about 30-40 of them talked much, with the rest dutifully logging in and doing things, but rarely vocally participating outside of "yes, that was a great victory!" and so on. Taking away the clear command structure (especially for new players, who had to figure out the whole armies-marshals-settings-general isn't really in charge thing) was confusing, and that can easily lead people to just give up and play something else.
My point here is that powergaming at least in the form of a strong hand in the center did a lot to make the game meaningful for the average player with little time commitment. I'm not saying it should be strongly promoted as a part of the game, but you need it to make it interesting enough for the newer players to get involved. When I join a realm and I can't even figure out where I'm supposed to go (because I got no orders) for two weeks of real time, it's a frustrating experience and it's not going to get people to play this game

2) Inertia
Others have already mentioned this, but I think it's worth point out again. The game is very static. That's by design, of course, which is fine insofar as it provides some stability. However, like others have said, it also leads to very static alliances that have no real meaning aside from "well, we've been allies forever so we'll stay allied." It doesn't help that some realms are run by basically the same people forever - I noticed, for example, that Atamara's current alliance structure is relatively intact since about 2008/9, with the exception of Darka no longer being friends with CE. Some realms have disappeared, but they have been replaced, almost replicated, by realms in the same place and occupying similar positions. Now, I know the system was designed so that quick annihilation is all but impossible - that's only doable with a continent wide alliance, which is what usually ends up happening for people to want to effect change. With the nerf of military command, it's also the only real way for decisive results to happen - absent brilliant command (which is very difficult to do with the way it's structured in this game - with armies suffering heavy losses even when winning, and sieges being always bloody without the option of sitting there and just reducing the fortress - or has that been changed?), the only alternative is overwhelming force.
I think allowing characters a chance to die after a certain age (let's say, 65?) would make it more realistic and also push things along and move power to different players, who may have a different idea of how the realm should behave. Yes, you get attached to characters, but if they're real characters, they should and will die. Armitage III is still in the game, from way back when, and I'm guessing the character must be 100 years old by now. That's silly - if realism is so important in other somewhat trivial aspects of the game, I'm surprised death isn't properly done here. Let them die and let power be circulated and lords be appointed because PEOPLE DIE.

3) The role of GMs
I was always a bit confused as to the role of GMs in this game, because they straddle something between people who ran the game, and people who enforced rules. When I say ran the game, I mean things like orchestrating undead invasions. When I say enforcing rules, I mean bolts and storms. It seems like bolts haven't happened much recently, but it's still a threat that some people take seriously.
I think in general aside from obvious things like exploiting bugs to cheat (say, it gives you unlimited gold because of a bug) the GMs should probably stay out of enforcement. I remember as general people would tell me they couldn't log in to follow my orders. Of course I wasn't telling them they must, and certainly wasn't doing it OOC, but I think IC my character, as a general who issued orders and when these orders determined whether my army would win or lose, I'd of course care very much about whether they were followed. In fact, it would not be IC if my general just said "oh, it's fine, don't worry about following them." Can you imagine a general, in any period of history, saying that? No. Yet there was always that nagging worry that I would somehow push too hard, and that some GM would find my orders to be too much "powergaming". It becomes the arbitrary judgement of one or a few GMs, instead of clearly written rules that can be followed, worry free.
The classic example, and one that I know has been debated to death, is the moving capital business. Historically, capitals were moved all the time precisely because of strategic reasons - because the empire got bigger and needs a new capital (Constantinople, Mongol Empire's move to current day Beijing), because the old one was destroyed (Chang'an to Luoyang in China, Krakow to Warsaw in Poland), because climate changed and the old place was now no longer suitable, etc. These were all, relatively speaking, for strategic reasons. But somehow in this game it's the one reason you CANNOT use to move capitals. I know Tom has strong feelings about this, but it's a fine line between these reasons and the other "acceptable" reasons listed. At the end of the day, it's a judgement call based on the GM's views. That makes it unpredictable and hard to guess - if you do it, you might run the risk of being seen as abusing the rules. Why not, for example, just make it so costly that it would completely neutralize any benefit of moving the capital? In fact, I believe these are already part of the game, so why worry about realms moving it for strategic reasons? If lots of realms do it, then maybe it's not expensive enough. Change the rules and incentive structure, but don't police behaviour on a case by case basis (especially if you want people to roleplay all sorts of characters)
Tom seemed to have rejected the idea of GM intervention to make things happen earlier in this thread, but I'd like to point out that many large, realm-shaking historical events have been caused by outside forces. In Europe one needs to look no further than, say, Huns invasion, Vikings, Plague, Crusades, Mongols, Discovery of the New World, Climate stress in the 17th century and the collapse of the silver boom, etc etc. These were all world-historical events that changed things for multiple regions - and they were caused by factors that were outside of the actors within the theater. A gamemaster's role is to provide enough of these when the game becomes too static, I think, and some suirtable intervention - changing, for example, maximum populations in cities by meaningful events, will help to change the dynamic of the land and therefore diplomacy. Speaking of Atamara, which I know best, Ashrily has always been a food-suck and caused problems for realms that owned it. The food demand has been a source of friction for those realms - and the friction never goes away because the population is always the same (barring war and starvation). Once those things change, the diplomacy arrangements that might have worked earlier may no longer work. Why not do something with that? You can even make this an auto-process so the GMs don't have to get personally involved.

Here are just some of the things I've observed as a player. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to figure out where I'm supposed to go with my new character, even though my realm is at war with a neighbour I get no sense that a war is going on. Well, we'll see.

Quote from: MarshalN on February 02, 2014, 07:06:13 PM
3) The role of GMs
I was always a bit confused as to the role of GMs in this game, because they straddle something between people who ran the game, and people who enforced rules. When I say ran the game, I mean things like orchestrating undead invasions. When I say enforcing rules, I mean bolts and storms. It seems like bolts haven't happened much recently, but it's still a threat that some people take seriously.

I'm not going to respond to your whole post right now, but I did want to address this, as it seems to be an all-too-common misconception.

Though it is true that there have been certain individuals who held both positions at one time or another, the position of "invasion GM" and "Titan" have always been completely separate. GMs who ran the invasions (and other such events) have never been charged with enforcement of any rules in that position. Any enforcement has always come through official channels, with the Titans making rulings on what is and is not a violation by consensus.

The only exception is, of course, Tom, who, as the #1 guy in charge of the whole game, has done some of all of these things at various times. To the best of my knowledge, however, he has handed down very, very few lightning bolts since the Titans were first constituted.

Quote
I think in general aside from obvious things like exploiting bugs to cheat (say, it gives you unlimited gold because of a bug) the GMs should probably stay out of enforcement. I remember as general people would tell me they couldn't log in to follow my orders. Of course I wasn't telling them they must, and certainly wasn't doing it OOC, but I think IC my character, as a general who issued orders and when these orders determined whether my army would win or lose, I'd of course care very much about whether they were followed. In fact, it would not be IC if my general just said "oh, it's fine, don't worry about following them." Can you imagine a general, in any period of history, saying that? No. Yet there was always that nagging worry that I would somehow push too hard, and that some GM would find my orders to be too much "powergaming". It becomes the arbitrary judgement of one or a few GMs, instead of clearly written rules that can be followed, worry free.

There are clearly written rules. They are called the Inalienable Rights (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Inalienable_Rights), and it is the responsibility of everyone in any position of power in BattleMaster to know and follow them.

In fact, the inalienable right to be inactive has been a part of BattleMaster since before the Inalienable Rights were codified, as you can see on the older Government Rules page (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/index.php/Government_rules), which is presented as required reading to every single government member upon their election or appointment.

If you have a problem with following any of these rules, or the other ones on the Rules and Policies page (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/index.php/Rules_and_Policies), then I'm afraid BattleMaster is not for you, if it ever was.

Quote from: MarshalN on February 02, 2014, 07:06:13 PM
The red paper was taken away from the general, to the point where the general had very little to do and had to rely on the marshals, who may or may not have been active players. Since generals were not allowed (IIRC) to tell dukes who to appoint as marshals, the whole military command system broke down.

I don't know if that was true at one point, but at this time in history it is false in three different ways:

• Everyone can send red paper Orders, it's an IC event and if you are powerful enough to get people to follow, then you do it.
• Any region Lord can sponsor an army, it's not limited to Dukes, and in fact the General can do so himself
• Marshals can be replaced at will, and you can combine being General and Marshal if it suits you

Quote from: Anaris on February 02, 2014, 07:20:04 PM
There are clearly written rules. They are called the Inalienable Rights (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Inalienable_Rights), and it is the responsibility of everyone in any position of power in BattleMaster to know and follow them.

In fact, the inalienable right to be inactive has been a part of BattleMaster since before the Inalienable Rights were codified, as you can see on the older Government Rules page (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/index.php/Government_rules), which is presented as required reading to every single government member upon their election or appointment.

If you have a problem with following any of these rules, or the other ones on the Rules and Policies page (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/index.php/Rules_and_Policies), then I'm afraid BattleMaster is not for you, if it ever was.

Yes I'm very familiar with that - I'm not saying people with positions of power should have the ability to tell players to log in and punish them for not doing so. What I'm saying is there was always that nagging worry that a general (or ruler, or whatever) telling people to follow orders is somehow borderline violating these rights - these were voiced to me personally, although as I've mentioned they never even got to the point where people filed complaints and Titans dished out punishments. I would also like to point out that I was making the point of how as an in-game general, for IC purposes he was very much (and should very much) care about whether people were following orders. It would be crazy if he didn't.

The thread is about "What prevents game to be competitive" and I'm just pointing out some of the things that I believe is lowering the game appeal for players - especially new players, which BM seems to desperately need. Basically, the game is not "gamey" enough.

Quote from: vonGenf on February 02, 2014, 07:37:54 PM
I don't know if that was true at one point, but at this time in history it is false in three different ways:

• Everyone can send red paper Orders, it's an IC event and if you are powerful enough to get people to follow, then you do it.
• Any region Lord can sponsor an army, it's not limited to Dukes, and in fact the General can do so himself
• Marshals can be replaced at will, and you can combine being General and Marshal if it suits you

Ah, as I mentioned I'm working off old memories and information, some of which is probably outdated since I haven't played a position of power for a long time. The general idea is the same though - the army command structure is very convoluted, and is not conducive to new players figuring out what's going on. Instead of spending a few weeks, people just give up.

Quote from: MarshalN on February 02, 2014, 07:43:35 PM
The general idea is the same though - the army command structure is very convoluted, and is not conducive to new players figuring out what's going on.

The army structure can be convoluted, but it does not need to be. There is nothing preventing an extremely straightforward setup of working.

Armies... Usually not many people want to be involved in it. Too much 'work' and not enough reward in return.

Quote from: vonGenf on February 02, 2014, 07:37:54 PM
I don't know if that was true at one point, but at this time in history it is false in three different ways:

• Everyone can send red paper Orders, it's an IC event and if you are powerful enough to get people to follow, then you do it.
• Any region Lord can sponsor an army, it's not limited to Dukes, and in fact the General can do so himself
• Marshals can be replaced at will, and you can combine being General and Marshal if it suits you

There was a time where your first point was not true, and people trying to give orders, without actually being marshals, were given harsh treatment.

Quote from: Chénier on February 03, 2014, 02:21:00 AM
There was a time where your first point was not true, and people trying to give orders, without actually being marshals, were given harsh treatment.

Indeed there was, there was also a time when there were no marshals. Things evolve. If we are discussing the current state of the system, then it is important to state the actual workings of the current system.

Quote from: De-Legro on February 03, 2014, 02:35:31 AM
Indeed there was, there was also a time when there were no marshals. Things evolve. If we are discussing the current state of the system, then it is important to state the actual workings of the current system.

Just seeking to enlighten the player in question about something he did not appear to know, so that perhaps he may better understand the point of view of the person he is interacting with. I'm not taking sides, I didn't even read most of this thread.