I've said it many times that the low density is mainly due to the fundamental economics of the game. The most powerful, stable, & prolific realms always have a ratio close to 1:1 because that's how you optimize your resources.
Fewer nobles per region = more gold.
The glacier plan was an attempt to force higher density instead of changing the economics, so density is gravitating back to the natural rate. Far from being a success, the glacier made things worse because it drove players away and it didn't accomplish its intended objective.
| Date | Nobles | Regions | Density |
| 5 May 2013 | 383 | 238 | 1.61 |
| 1 March 2014 | 281 | 133 | 2.11 |
| 16 August 2014 | 205 | 133 | 1.54 |
(http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/File:Density_graph_2014-08-16.png)
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/File:Density_graph_2014-08-16.png
except that's not true.
a region lord can't get his productivity above 76% (roughly) without knights on the other estates, and can't maximize his taxes on the other estates if they are empty.
the statement that 1:1 is optimized is false.
EDIT: actually, looking at my lordship, it doesn't seem to matter on maximizing taxes of the other estates whether they are occupied or not. Efficiency, however, needs that.
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on August 17, 2014, 02:37:51 AM
except that's not true.
a region lord can't get his productivity above 76% (roughly) without knights on the other estates, and can't maximize his taxes on the other estates if they are empty.
the statement that 1:1 is optimized is false.
EDIT: actually, looking at my lordship, it doesn't seem to matter on maximizing taxes of the other estates whether they are occupied or not. Efficiency, however, needs that.
I don't think that's correct. For a large realm like Morek, having lots of knights is of little benefit. Knights just cut into their lord's, duke's and ruler's tax revenue, giving them less gold with which to hire militia, build workshops, repair fortresses, etc. etc.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 17, 2014, 02:59:57 AM
I don't think that's correct. For a large realm like Morek, having lots of knights is of little benefit. Knights just cut into their lord's, duke's and ruler's tax revenue, giving them less gold with which to hire militia, build workshops, repair fortresses, etc. etc.
no, I'm sorry - that's simply not how the game mechanics work. Are you a lord anywhere? look at your estates page
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on August 17, 2014, 03:23:34 AM
no, I'm sorry - that's simply not how the game mechanics work. Are you a lord anywhere? look at your estates page
Yes it is. You seem to be confusing gold for lords with gold total. In order to extract the maximum amount of gold from a region for the realm as a whole, that requires knights. However, if we are just talking about the lords needs, knights are at best redundant and at worst a drag in finances, especially for rural lords.
Quote from: GundamMerc on August 17, 2014, 03:28:38 AM
Yes it is. You seem to be confusing gold for lords with gold total. In order to extract the maximum amount of gold from a region for the realm as a whole, that requires knights. However, if we are just talking about the lords needs, knights are at best redundant and at worst a drag in finances, especially for rural lords.
no, this is incorrect.
A lord cannot have more than 50% of the estates, NO MATTER HOW MANY KNIGHTS. They cannot tax higher than 50%, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A KNIGHT.
BUT... their efficiency - and so their own gold - cannot be maximized without knights in the other estates.
So, a knight NEVER DRAWS GOLD AWAY FROM THE LORD, but CAN increase it.
That's the whole design behind the new estate system.
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on August 17, 2014, 03:38:58 AM
no, this is incorrect.
A lord cannot have more than 50% of the estates, NO MATTER HOW MANY KNIGHTS. They cannot tax higher than 50%, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A KNIGHT.
BUT... their efficiency - and so their own gold - cannot be maximized without knights in the other estates.
So, a knight NEVER DRAWS GOLD AWAY FROM THE LORD, but CAN increase it.
That's the whole design behind the new estate system.
Honestly, whether or not you're right, it isn't what this thread is about.
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on August 17, 2014, 03:38:58 AM
no, this is incorrect.
A lord cannot have more than 50% of the estates, NO MATTER HOW MANY KNIGHTS. They cannot tax higher than 50%, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A KNIGHT.
BUT... their efficiency - and so their own gold - cannot be maximized without knights in the other estates.
So, a knight NEVER DRAWS GOLD AWAY FROM THE LORD, but CAN increase it.
That's the whole design behind the new estate system.
Efficiency of the estates is determined mostly by their size, not by whether or not they're occupied.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 17, 2014, 04:12:22 AM
Efficiency of the estates is determined mostly by their size, not by whether or not they're occupied.
<REMOVE BECAUSE WRONG>
You can actually read how it works here:
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Estates
EDIT: reading this, there is one thing I've noticed - wildlands that are small enough still have 100% efficiency. so it seems to not matter if there is a knight or not, but it never hurts the lord
As a lord, i never cared whether i was making the most gold i could personally. That's pretty pointless. Theres enough gold to go around that keeping as much of it to yourself as possible is just stupid. More estates brings you more knights, and more knights brings more fun.
Quote from: Indirik on August 17, 2014, 05:23:19 AM
As a lord, i never cared whether i was making the most gold i could personally. That's pretty pointless. Theres enough gold to go around that keeping as much of it to yourself as possible is just stupid. More estates brings you more knights, and more knights brings more fun.
which takes us full circle to our original problem... there's no knights, only lords & vacancies
Quote from: Indirik on August 17, 2014, 05:23:19 AM
As a lord, i never cared whether i was making the most gold i could personally. That's pretty pointless. Theres enough gold to go around that keeping as much of it to yourself as possible is just stupid. More estates brings you more knights, and more knights brings more fun.
I agree with you, I also welcome knights in my regions in the spirit of the game and I'm sure many others do too. My point is that the economics of the game favour a low density rate.
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on August 17, 2014, 05:37:11 AM
which takes us full circle to our original problem... there's no knights, only lords & vacancies
Which takes me to my original point, that corralling the characters on one side of the continent doesn't address the underlying economic flaw that puts high-density realms at a disadvantage.
| Realm | Regions | Nobles | Density |
| Morek | 35 | 22 | 0.63 |
| Astrum | 18 | 18 | 1.00 |
| Swordfell | 15 | 22 | 1.47 |
| Fissoa | 20 | 34 | 1.70 |
| Luria Nova | 18 | 50 | 2.78 |
| D'Hara | 8 | 27 | 3.38 |
| Barca | 4 | 15 | 3.75 |
| Asylon | 3 | 17 | 5.67 |
Quote from: Antonine on August 17, 2014, 01:39:00 AM
Those figures are quite interesting. It looks like Astrum and Swordfell have stayed roughly the same, like Luria, Fissoa and D'hara have seen increases, like Asylon, Barca and Morek have seen big drops and obviously Niselur and Corsanctum no longer exist.
So what I see there is basically the western realms losing a large number of nobles, including the surviving ones, which is to be expected with realms which have lost their homelands, but this in turn has driven an increase in nobles for the eastern realms with the exception of Morek which is managing to buck the trend by shedding nobles rapidly - almost certainly due to reasons unique to the atmosphere in that realm.
Which means that overall the closing of western Dwilight has been a partial success and a partial failure. On the one hand, it has driven an increase in noble density in the south (I suspect the north would have seen this decline pretty much no matter what happened) but it has also lead to a large fall in total noble numbers as well - which is not surprising considering how demoralising this must have been for nobles in the realms hit by monsters.
It'd be interesting to see what the numbers are like for other continents. I get the impression from the limited perspective of my characters that it's worked far better on EC than FEI and I have no idea what's happened in AT.
D'Hara's "growth" (in quotation marks, because it only increased in the first block, then remained constant for all of the rest) seemed pretty much sustained by new characters being created while older characters phase out. I did not witness any significant immigration there, if any immigration at all.
Also, as for the appeal of knights and new regions, I'd say it varies on the realms' geography. A city-wealthy realm that expands is likely to lose raw income, because if a knight moves from a city estate and moves to a rural lordship, the total output, efficiency considered, is very likely to be less gold. On the other hand, many people are likely to prefer a lordship even if their income drops a little for it, and more regions does mean for capacity for infrastructure (such as RCs and thus recruitment capacity), increased food security and a few other perks.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 17, 2014, 02:51:44 PM
Which takes me to my original point, that corralling the characters on one side of the continent doesn't address the underlying economic flaw that puts high-density realms at a disadvantage.
Why do you insist on repeating this, when we've demonstrated to you that it is factually incorrect?
Go find a new hypothesis, please
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on August 18, 2014, 12:29:31 AM
Why do you insist on repeating this, when we've demonstrated to you that it is factually incorrect?
Go find a new hypothesis, please
You haven't demonstrated anything. Your argument that more knights is economically beneficial is totally baseless, and the developers know this. 6 months after the glacier, it is still the low-density realms that are dominating. Look at Morek. Their economic strength is more than the next 2 realms combined, their military strength is 65% greater than the next biggest military, and they have
consistently had the lowest density rate on Dwilight, not just recently, only now to the point of absurdity.
Well Morek is a paper dragon. It does't matter how much gold you get when you can only recruit a limited number of men.
Maybe the Dev should tweak the numbers a bit to make it harder to commend too many men with too little honor maybe that should make gold even more abundant.
Quote from: Lapallanch on August 18, 2014, 01:20:11 AM
Well Morek is a paper dragon. It does't matter how much gold you get when you can only recruit a limited number of men.
Maybe the Dev should tweak the numbers a bit to make it harder to commend too many men with too little honor maybe that should make gold even more abundant.
Gold is needed to to build workshops and recruitment centres, raise militia, to build and repair fortifications, and to bribe foreigners. The more knights you have receiving tax revenue, the less gold going into the leadership's coffers, and the less gold in the leadership's pockets, the less is their ability to do those things that create stability for a realm. Morek is but one example. The most stable realms on any island typically have around a 1:1 ratio, or slightly higher. Greater than 2:1 can survive but it's a struggle, more than 3:1 and the realm is probably facing an existential threat.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 18, 2014, 01:16:15 AM
You haven't demonstrated anything. Your argument that more knights is economically beneficial is totally baseless, and the developers know this. 6 months after the glacier, it is still the low-density realms that are dominating. Look at Morek. Their economic strength is more than the next 2 realms combined, their military strength is 65% greater than the next biggest military, and they have consistently had the lowest density rate on Dwilight, not just recently, only now to the point of absurdity.
Obviously things are more complex then just mere density. High density in a tiny realm with average or sub average regions is hardly going to be a realm a economic powerhouse, nor a large military. In theory the economy taken as a whole is maximised with proper knight density, with each region producing its maximum output. There is room for discussion about if that truly occurs, if it is too much effort for too little effect etc, but to compare realms that have no commonality in terms of actual potential or historical factors and use that as a basis for realm density arguments is poor statistical analysis at best. Morek has had a long time of bugger all threat to ensure their regions are well maintained, with no war damage and to accumulate military forces without the expensive of refitting war worn troops after all.
A low density realm should be economically weaker then a similar realm with a higher density, when all other factors are equal. Obviously that is not all ways the case, food shortages, player choices, war effects etc all play rather large part in the overall economy of a realm.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 18, 2014, 01:16:15 AM
You haven't demonstrated anything. Your argument that more knights is economically beneficial is totally baseless, and the developers know this. 6 months after the glacier, it is still the low-density realms that are dominating. Look at Morek. Their economic strength is more than the next 2 realms combined, their military strength is 65% greater than the next biggest military, and they have consistently had the lowest density rate on Dwilight, not just recently, only now to the point of absurdity.
Morek is large, not dominating. Nobody with a minimum of a backbone has EVER attempted to expand into them. Even when Springdale existed, pretty sure they didn't initiate any of the hostilities that occured. Some tiny realms tried their luck and got crushed, but that result was hardly of any surprise.
Morek is actually an example to the opposite of what you try to claim. First of all, economic strength found on the statistics page, as far as I'm aware, does not account for estate efficiency. Secondly, military strength is equally misleading, as it includes militia, of which Morek overflows. Any given militia unit rarely ever sees a battle, if ever. On Morek's scale, militia payments are outright crippling. There are too few nobles to patrol all of the land, and as such large resources are spent on what is essentially a stationary defense, thereby leaving the mobile forces with crumbs to finance itself. All of that militia, though, is really mostly for rogues, because human armies would easily be able to bypass them or, thanks to overwhelming numbers, crush each regions' forces with minimal casualties. All of that militia CS that shows on the statistics page is no indicator of strength. And there is another factor that neither statistics account for: delays. It can easily take two weeks to assemble an army just to move to a border of a the realm, let alone cross it. This is an incredible weakness.
One thing that is certain is that realms do have a trend of decreasing noble density in time.
Invasion afaiu was introduced to rapidly increase noble density, but it has done nothing from what I can tell to break that trend and keep the realms from slowly drifting back to 1:1 ratio.
I don't think it's actually about tax optimization though. Being a lord is just way cooler and knights don't really have any solid incentive to stay as such.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 18, 2014, 01:16:15 AM
You haven't demonstrated anything. Your argument that more knights is economically beneficial is totally baseless, and the developers know this. 6 months after the glacier, it is still the low-density realms that are dominating. Look at Morek. Their economic strength is more than the next 2 realms combined, their military strength is 65% greater than the next biggest military, and they have consistently had the lowest density rate on Dwilight, not just recently, only now to the point of absurdity.
That's because of the players, not the code. If the players are dead, you can code them an extra 500gold each & 1000cs unit and they won't win anything. The devs can't force the players to play.
The CODE is written to favor higher density.
The largest non-allied force to Morek has had a standing treaty of "Here's a splitting line, we'll ignore each other beyond this line" for gods know how long. "The Theocracies" have been playing House in the north while everyone else has pretty much been content to ignore their existence for quite some time. The ratio of Density:Income of Morek isn't an indication of anything beyond perhaps fat wallets and bored nobles.
Quote from: De-Legro on August 18, 2014, 01:42:44 AM
A low density realm should be economically weaker then a similar realm with a higher density, when all other factors are equal.
Should be, but it's not because of the underlying economics of the game.
Quote from: Chénier on August 18, 2014, 01:52:59 AM
Morek is large, not dominating.
35 regions, 17,707 gold, 61,054 CS, all shared between 22 nobles, and, like you said, nobody dares to challenge them. If that's not dominant, nothing is.
Quote from: Chénier on August 18, 2014, 01:52:59 AM
First of all, economic strength found on the statistics page, as far as I'm aware, does not account for estate efficiency.
So what? They have 31% of all the gold on Dwilight.
Quote from: Chénier on August 18, 2014, 01:52:59 AM
Secondly, military strength is equally misleading, as it includes militia, of which Morek overflows. Any given militia unit rarely ever sees a battle, if ever.
I don't see it as misleading, since militia are part of the overall defense of the realm. If any realm decided to attack Morek, they'd have to overcome Morek's massive military, both mobile and stationary forces. If Morek didn't think militia units were important, they wouldn't have them, they would invest their barrels of gold in something else. But that's irrelevant. You may not agree with how they spend their gold, but you can't dispute that they have more gold than any other realm by a huge margin.
Quote from: Constantine on August 18, 2014, 02:05:46 AM
One thing that is certain is that realms do have a trend of decreasing noble density in time.
Invasion afaiu was introduced to rapidly increase noble density, but it has done nothing from what I can tell to break that trend and keep the realms from slowly drifting back to 1:1 ratio.
I don't think it's actually about tax optimization though. Being a lord is just way cooler and knights don't really have any solid incentive to stay as such.
You're right, but it's both. I've been saying the same thing since April. Being a knight
is boring.
Look, I'm talking about economics that are built into the game. Given the choice between having a rural region with a lord and 2 knights, or having 3 rural regions each with a lord and no knights, all other things equal, it's more advantageous to take the latter because of the
unmitigated upside of a 1:1 ratio. More land, more gold, more food, more infrastructure, fewer knights.
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on August 18, 2014, 02:24:00 AM
That's because of the players, not the code. If the players are dead, you can code them an extra 500gold each & 1000cs unit and they won't win anything. The devs can't force the players to play.
The CODE is written to favor higher density.
If Morek was the only example of a low-density superpower then maybe you could chalk it up to an anomaly, but when it's consistent across time and islands, it's not a coincidence. I'm not the only one who understands this.
Quote from: Anaris on April 11, 2014, 07:35:17 PM
Quote from: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 07:31:20 PM
One perverse feature of the current game is that it's actually better for lords if they have no knights, because knights cut into their tax revenue. This shouldn't be the case. It should be in the lord's interest to attract knights to his region.
I completely agree with this. It's been on my list for some time, but I need to have time to work out the details of how it should work.
In the past couple of years it hasn't been a problem in practice, because realms have desperately needed to attract more nobles in general, but yes, there's definitely a perverse incentive there that needs to be eliminated (or, ideally, reversed).
Quote from: CyberGenesis on August 18, 2014, 02:38:53 AM
The largest non-allied force to Morek has had a standing treaty of "Here's a splitting line, we'll ignore each other beyond this line" for gods know how long.
I think it was about May 2008 ;D
I honestly can't remember for sure if it was Alanna who originally signed that treaty, or the ill-fated Kaennji Shenron, first King of Pian en Luries, which means it must have been either Spring (just before Kaennji went inactive) or early Summer (soon after he stepped down and Alanna was elected) 2008.
But yeah, that treaty/understanding has been in force pretty much since the beginning of Dwilight.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 18, 2014, 02:53:20 AM
If Morek was the only example of a low-density superpower then maybe you could chalk it up to an anomaly, but when it's consistent across time and islands, it's not a coincidence. I'm not the only one who understands this.
That might be true, but you need to demonstrate a difference between correlation and causation and eliminate other factors. Does the low density you mention tend to happen in well established realm that go out of their way to avoid any risk and have basically been playing sim city for a good amount of time?
There is a definite problem in that knights in theory increase the productivity of a region and the benefits to a realm, but do nothing to provide much incentive to a Lord. I don't think fixing this is actually going to achieve much, since it assumes there is a supply of knights that aren't being utilised due to Lords actively trying not to gain them. A realm requires as many nobles as possible (active hopefully) to increase the total gold produced as well as for the theoretical advantages to the military aspect. A Lord character may or may not care about the "greater good" and thus further incentives would in a perfect game world provide more space for knights.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 18, 2014, 02:49:28 AM
35 regions, 17,707 gold, 61,054 CS, all shared between 22 nobles, and, like you said, nobody dares to challenge them. If that's not dominant, nothing is.
If that's dominant, everyone is dominant. Nobody's challenging D'Hara over Port Raviel, I guess D'Hara is dominant. Nobody's challenging Astrum, I guess they are dominant. Nobody seems to be challenging Swordfell, I guess they are dominant. It's not that no one "dares" to challenge Morek, but rather, that no one cares to. Astrum is a fellow theocracy, everyone else is ages apart and has a ton of reasons not to raise a fuss with them.
Dominance is not about being able to stand tall, it's about asserting dominance over others. Morek dominates no one.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 18, 2014, 02:49:28 AMSo what? They have 31% of all the gold on Dwilight.
No. They have 31% of the raw "economy" of Dwilight. They do not collect 31% of the tax income of Dwilight.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 18, 2014, 02:49:28 AMI don't see it as misleading, since militia are part of the overall defense of the realm. If any realm decided to attack Morek, they'd have to overcome Morek's massive military, both mobile and stationary forces. If Morek didn't think militia units were important, they wouldn't have them, they would invest their barrels of gold in something else. But that's irrelevant. You may not agree with how they spend their gold, but you can't dispute that they have more gold than any other realm by a huge margin.
Wrong on so many levels. Militia is scattered. If a 20000CS army fights 2000 CS of militia in one turn, then 2000 CS on the next, then 2000CS on the next, and so on for five turns, it will not end up with just 10000CS surviving. That militia is there to protect the realm from rogues, which scarcely ever spawn in forces greater than 2000 CS, and probably a few coastal cities because of the ridiculous potential of surprise sea attacks. When fighting human realms, militia is rarely worth much.
And no, I don't agree that they have so much more gold than anyone else. Militia is not a luxury, it's a requirement, without which rogues would devastate the regions. And estate efficiency is certain to be, on average, much worse than anywhere else. Morek's available income is not known (Morekians could share), but it is not the figure you suggest.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 18, 2014, 02:49:28 AMLook, I'm talking about economics that are built into the game. Given the choice between having a rural region with a lord and 2 knights, or having 3 rural regions each with a lord and no knights, all other things equal, it's more advantageous to take the latter because of the unmitigated upside of a 1:1 ratio. More land, more gold, more food, more infrastructure, fewer knights.
No.
Let's simplify: Realm Tinystan, 5 nobes, a city producing 2000 gold as capital and sole region. Estates split 5-way, 100% efficiency. Realm income: 2000 gold.
Tinystan expands, takes a rural and a badland. Rural produces 300 gold, badland produces 150 gold. Two city knights get promoted to lordships, all else remains the same. Total income potential: 2450 (+450). However, 40% of the city's income is now at 50% efficiency. Both new regions are at 50% efficiency. Capital thus collects 1600 gold. Rural collects 150 gold. Badland collects 75 gold. Realm income: 1825 gold (-175). Net result: realm Tinystan is poorer.
And this doesn't count the fact that tax tolerance decreases with size. Running 18% taxes in a one-city realm is fine. Add in three rurals, it isn't any more, not if you want to do other things than maintain region stats.
Expanding, under our new mechanics, makes realms poorer rather than wealthier in almost every case. People expand anyways, because people like being lords or looking big, or sometimes because they need more food sources. But in general, expanding makes realms weaker. I've felt the effects of this brutally when Enweil was in its final days: we got a few more nobles and decided to expand despite knowing we'd soon be dead... it threw the economy down the gutter. The three new depopulated rurals couldn't produce a penny and the capital could no longer afford interesting tax rates and no longer had good tax efficiency. We starved ourselves financially.
The problem is you keep calling it a superpower - Power by virtue of people ignoring you is not power.
I'm assuming that 61k CS includes Militia. If it does, that's a rather LARGELY skewed statistic. Given i've seen the scout report for the Morek force sitting north of Luria from maybe a week or so ago that consisted of roughly half to 2/3 their noble count, there's no way that 60k is mobile. Gold income means nothing when you're blowing it all on militia and infrastructure expenses.
Who cares if they have 22 nobles and 17,000 gold? Give me 44 nobles and 7,000 gold and I'll kick their ass.
Density is great for driving conflict, and we need that. But anyone who tries to increase their stability and personal income by driving their density down to 1:1 is an idiot. That's a sure death from boredom. Morek is the perfect example of the end result. As someone said, they are a paper tiger. 22 nobles can't protect that much land. Hell, if two 12 noble realms attacked them from opposite directions, they'd implode.
Also, FWIW, the effects of adding a new region to your realm are highly variable. You cannot authoritatively say that adding a region will tank your economy. That is possible. But it is also possible that nothing will change at all. The smaller your realm, the more likely it is that adding a region will not affect your other regions in any way. The realms that are likely to have problems are the already large realms, especially if they are already disproportionately large compared to the other realms on the island. I.e. Sirion will be a lot more heavily affected by adding a region than Eponllyn would.
However, i would almost always prefer adding a region than not, assuming you have a noble willing to be the lord of the region. Rewarding nobles with lordship is a great way to build loyalty.
You guys are focusing on Morek, but all realms gravitate towards a 1:1 ratio over time, even if they don't all achieve it.
Quote from: Chénier on August 18, 2014, 03:14:54 AM
Let's simplify: Realm Tinystan, 5 nobes, a city producing 2000 gold as capital and sole region. Estates split 5-way, 100% efficiency. Realm income: 2000 gold.
Tinystan expands, takes a rural and a badland. Rural produces 300 gold, badland produces 150 gold. Two city knights get promoted to lordships, all else remains the same. Total income potential: 2450 (+450). However, 40% of the city's income is now at 50% efficiency. Both new regions are at 50% efficiency. Capital thus collects 1600 gold. Rural collects 150 gold. Badland collects 75 gold. Realm income: 1825 gold (-175). Net result: realm Tinystan is poorer.
The realm might bring in a few pennies less, but the lords, dukes and rulers get more gold, and they're the ones that are likely to invest it in things the realm needs, e.g. recruitment centres, fortifications, workshops, militia, and distributing it to those who need it to recruit. So gold is worth more in the hands of the realm leadership. Also, estates in cities tend not to stay vacant.
Quoteall realms gravitate towards a 1:1 ratio over time, even if they don't all achieve it.
That happens for one of two reasons:
First, they are successful and expand as far as they can.
Second, they are boring and pretty much everyone leaves, except for the lords that have something invested in it.
It is NEVER because there is some conspiracy for people to drive away nobles so that they personally can make a couple more coins. People don't optimize their realms for personal income.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 18, 2014, 03:45:03 AM
You guys are focusing on Morek, but all realms gravitate towards a 1:1 ratio over time, even if they don't all achieve it.
The realm might bring in a few pennies less, but the lords, dukes and rulers get more gold, and they're the ones that are likely to invest it in things the realm needs, e.g. recruitment centres, fortifications, workshops, militia, and distributing it to those who need it to recruit. So gold is worth more in the hands of the realm leadership. Also, estates in cities tend not to stay vacant.
Did you ever think that is a consequence of player density and the desire to be Lords rather then something wrong with underlying mechanics? Like I said you need to prove the difference between causative and correlation. Outside of the War Islands for example the realms I visit rarely desire to improve infrastructure with any sort of urgency that would result in a push to maximise Lord incomes. Lords maximise their personal incomes mostly because people like to hoard things, you only need look at how fast people reached the increased family gold limits to see that.
So it is not that we do not see the forest for the trees, its quite clear what realm density gravitates towards. Simply we are not convinced that the hypothesis you set forward as to why that occurs is the dominate cause.
The reason why this trend exists is much less important than the fact that we've got no working recipe to change it.
War is one of the most fun parts of this game and landgrabs are the only persistent measure of military success. Realms successful in war are destined to become bloated. I wish we had other ways to measure domination and more incentives to not crave to enter the ranks of landed nobility and stay as knights for a longer while.
Quote from: Indirik on August 18, 2014, 03:58:22 AM
That happens for one of two reasons:
First, they are successful and expand as far as they can.
Second, they are boring and pretty much everyone leaves, except for the lords that have something invested in it.
It is NEVER because there is some conspiracy for people to drive away nobles so that they personally can make a couple more coins. People don't optimize their realms for personal income.
Quote from: De-Legro on August 18, 2014, 04:06:25 AM
Did you ever think that is a consequence of player density and the desire to be Lords rather then something wrong with underlying mechanics? Like I said you need to prove the difference between causative and correlation. Outside of the War Islands for example the realms I visit rarely desire to improve infrastructure with any sort of urgency that would result in a push to maximise Lord incomes. Lords maximise their personal incomes mostly because people like to hoard things, you only need look at how fast people reached the increased family gold limits to see that.
So it is not that we do not see the forest for the trees, its quite clear what realm density gravitates towards. Simply we are not convinced that the hypothesis you set forward as to why that occurs is the dominate cause.
Yes, I made both of those arguments repeatedly back in April. I'm not sure why you keep saying I need to prove causation vs. correlation. The fact that density rates trend towards 1:1 even after you force the numbers up by cutting out half the regions, clearly some force of nature is nudging them in that direction. The fact that successful realms are
able to spread their nobles that thinly and still maintain stability is a design flaw. I said back in April that the glacier would not solve the density problem because (1) economics and (2) the boringness of the knight game. There may well be other reasons, but I believe I identified 2 important ones. You guys seem to think you have a firmer grasp on things, so then why don't you solve the problem? I've made several suggestions and they were scoffed at. So please dazzle us with your superior understanding.
Quote from: Constantine on August 18, 2014, 04:20:22 AM
The reason why this trend exists is much less important than the fact that we've got no working recipe to change it.
War is one of the most fun parts of this game and landgrabs are the only persistent measure of military success. Realms successful in war are destined to become bloated. I wish we had other ways to measure domination and more incentives to not crave to enter the ranks of landed nobility and stay as knights for a longer while.
No its not, because you cannot develop solution to correct a problem without understanding the cause of the problem. Dev time is limited, we all know that. Spending it on implementing a system that will not actually address the problem is hardly going to improve the game. For example there is no point making the knight game more exciting, if current player density means people will still be pushed to become Lords due to a lack of nobles, so no one really gets the benefit from the improved system.
A concrete example of this in game was the not enough war mechanic. We knew what the problem was to address, to many realms spending too long at peace. The reasons for this, and the knock on effects were not properly analysed, leading to a system that didn't actually address the reasons realms weren't going to war as well as creating a system which actually made it more difficult for many realms to correct the "undesired" behaviour.
Quote from: Buffalkill on August 18, 2014, 04:39:27 AM
The fact that successful realms are able to spread their nobles that thinly and still maintain stability is a design flaw.
There is some truth in that. There are several factors, though, that affect things, specifically in the Morek area. If there were high density realms *around* Morek, or if it were at all interesting to a large portion of players to play in that area, then you wouldn't be seeing the situation that has developed there. Players seem to have decided that the south is where it's at, and so they move there. In order to attract players, the north has to do something to attract them. Splitting the region up into city-states would help. Then you could have some interesting conflicts, and perhaps a few wars there.
Anyway, the point is that there are game mechanics that are intended to prevent extremely large realms from being able to maintain themselves. Most of these incentives, though, are designed to affect their economic viability in relation to the other realms on the island. We may have hit a situation where a combination of factors may have broken that.
QuoteI said back in April that the glacier would not solve the density problem because (1) economics and (2) the boringness of the knight game. There may well be other reasons, but I believe I identified 2 important ones.
Anything that a knight can do, a lord can do. Adding a lordship onto an existing character should never be a bad thing.
QuoteYou guys seem to think you have a firmer grasp on things, so then why don't you solve the problem? I've made several suggestions and they were scoffed at. So please dazzle us with your superior understanding.
IIRC - Your specific suggestions were things that have been tried before, and didn't help, or would have made the situation worse.
Quote from: De-Legro on August 18, 2014, 04:49:03 AM
No its not, because you cannot develop solution to correct a problem without understanding the cause of the problem. Dev time is limited, we all know that. Spending it on implementing a system that will not actually address the problem is hardly going to improve the game. For example there is no point making the knight game more exciting, if current player density means people will still be pushed to become Lords due to a lack of nobles, so no one really gets the benefit from the improved system.
A concrete example of this in game was the not enough war mechanic. We knew what the problem was to address, to many realms spending too long at peace. The reasons for this, and the knock on effects were not properly analysed, leading to a system that didn't actually address the reasons realms weren't going to war as well as creating a system which actually made it more difficult for many realms to correct the "undesired" behaviour.
Barca had enough people (before the monster invasion) that the excitement (or lack thereof) of the knight game was a legitimate problem.
So give your knights something to do: Start a war.
BattleMaster simply cannot provide enough "excitement" to being a plain old knight to keep players interested in being a knight. Oh sure, we can provide a few buildings on their estate that they can build, or maybe implement the "hunt" thing that seems to have gathered so much interest. But estates are a short-term thing. Once you build your three or four buildings, then that three days of fun is over and done with, and it's time to move on. Hunts may provide an alternate means of gaining some h/p to people who don't have a war available.
But none of that will provide long term excitement and engagement for the players. The only way that players can have engagement in the game is through interaction with other players. The best and most important way for that to happen is through player-drive conflict. If the leaders in realms are content to sit at peace and do nothing, secure in their alliances and friendships, then there is nothing that the game can do to keep those players engaged.
The players must provide the engagement and entertainment for other players.
I have to agree, lordship grants very little additional game mechanics, and most of what sets it apart is more of a chore than privilege (holding courts?).
This topic underlines one of the fundamental problems with the game today, IMO. It's always gotta be about 'efficiency' and 'maxed stats'. I can't remember this being any sort of serious issue when I started playing some 9 years ago. The only times we brought out calculators is to tally up troops strengths before a battle. Now, you're almost expected to carry a degree in economics to keep your regions running in peace time. And slowly, BattleMaster seems to be getting repleced by Sim Medieval Kingdom, Extreme Economics Edition.
And yes, I exaggerate, but nobody can deny that the focus of the game seems to have largely shifted to "How do I keep my region at 100% stats".
Quote from: Indirik on August 20, 2014, 06:04:01 PM
So give your knights something to do: Start a war.
BattleMaster simply cannot provide enough "excitement" to being a plain old knight to keep players interested in being a knight. Oh sure, we can provide a few buildings on their estate that they can build, or maybe implement the "hunt" thing that seems to have gathered so much interest. But estates are a short-term thing. Once you build your three or four buildings, then that three days of fun is over and done with, and it's time to move on. Hunts may provide an alternate means of gaining some h/p to people who don't have a war available.
But none of that will provide long term excitement and engagement for the players. The only way that players can have engagement in the game is through interaction with other players. The best and most important way for that to happen is through player-drive conflict. If the leaders in realms are content to sit at peace and do nothing, secure in their alliances and friendships, then there is nothing that the game can do to keep those players engaged.
The players must provide the engagement and entertainment for other players.
I didn't say we did nothing to solve that problem, just that it was there to solve. We were getting ready to support our allies in the war after expanding to a few more regions, but then the monster invasion happened. *shrugs*
Well with the new region buffs no one can get 100% region stats without huge amounts of effort which make them unable to fight.
It might be different on Dwilight but Beluaterra is also testing and there I've never known anyone to obsess over region stats - all people seem to care about is getting them good enough so they can go out and fight.
Personally, I like the region system though - it makes wars far more fun when you might not have the strength and time to annex all your enemy's regions but when you can launch raids to ravage their regions and leave them unable to fight back.
Quote from: Sacha on August 20, 2014, 08:50:17 PM
This topic underlines one of the fundamental problems with the game today, IMO. It's always gotta be about 'efficiency' and 'maxed stats'. I can't remember this being any sort of serious issue when I started playing some 9 years ago. The only times we brought out calculators is to tally up troops strengths before a battle. Now, you're almost expected to carry a degree in economics to keep your regions running in peace time. And slowly, BattleMaster seems to be getting repleced by Sim Medieval Kingdom, Extreme Economics Edition.
In a way, I agree with this. We have been trying to make changes to simplify a lot of the game systems. However...
QuoteAnd yes, I exaggerate, but nobody can deny that the focus of the game seems to have largely shifted to "How do I keep my region at 100% stats".
I completely disagree with this. People are a LOT more relaxed about stats these days, thanks mostly to the change that hides the exact stats from everyone but the lord and knights of a region. No one knows that production is down by 2%, so no one cares.
What may be happening, though, are two things:
First, we don't have the armies of buros to take care of regions, like we used to have. There are fewer players overall to handle the load. So each individual person is probably more aware of the maintenance.
Second, I think that the estate tax system makes region stats more personal to each noble. Lords get a LOT more benefit when their production goes up by 10%. They are, therefore, more likely to obsess about it.
Having said that, I don't see a lot of focus or obsession about perfect stats, min/maxing, or perfecting the generation/distribution system. Region maintenance has been greatly reduced with the removal of estate points, and food distribution can be returned to centralization.
Well, I haven't played very intensely lately so I could have just missed the getting better phase. Though I distinctly remember leaving for a while after nearly every realm I was in was either dead quiet, or afraid to do anything remotely risky/interesting because it would supposedly ruin their own lands somehow.
I suppose most of the complaining happens here though, in concentrated doses. But when I see a thread go on for 15 pages about optimal taxation or some such nonsense... Eugh.
I'm with Indirik on this one. People used to be obsessed with having 100%. Now that most people don't have a clue what the real percentage is, they can obsess only for the best descriptor, without bothering for the final few %s.
Letting productivity drop, when taxes were realm-wide, was basically a crime against the realm.
If some realms are afraid to act, I wouldn't blame it on the culture of players becoming more obsessed, but rather with the general decrease in density and thus increase in realms with ridiculously low densities. Overstretched empires become extremely fragile.
Quote from: Chénier on August 21, 2014, 12:32:06 AMOverstretched empires become extremely fragile.
Unfortunately, this is true. A realm with low density is very fragile. Realms with higher density have more resilience, and thus can do more without as much risk. These realms are generally successful, which leads to their density going down, and thus circling back to fragile... bummer.
Anyway, I'm having a lot more fun in Eponllyn, with higher density and more conflict, than I was in many other, more secure realms.
Quote from: Indirik on August 20, 2014, 06:04:01 PM
So give your knights something to do: Start a war.
BattleMaster simply cannot provide enough "excitement" to being a plain old knight to keep players interested in being a knight. Oh sure, we can provide a few buildings on their estate that they can build, or maybe implement the "hunt" thing that seems to have gathered so much interest. But estates are a short-term thing. Once you build your three or four buildings, then that three days of fun is over and done with, and it's time to move on. Hunts may provide an alternate means of gaining some h/p to people who don't have a war available.
But none of that will provide long term excitement and engagement for the players. The only way that players can have engagement in the game is through interaction with other players. The best and most important way for that to happen is through player-drive conflict. If the leaders in realms are content to sit at peace and do nothing, secure in their alliances and friendships, then there is nothing that the game can do to keep those players engaged.
The players must provide the engagement and entertainment for other players.
And this is what I credit to the success of Thalmarkin and Luria Nova - they actively go out and seek wars rather than sit around.
Quote from: Vita on August 22, 2014, 04:54:19 AM
And this is what I credit to the success of Thalmarkin and Luria Nova - they actively go out and seek wars rather than sit around.
No one will ever go for this, but I seriously think it is time for Tom to send letters out to the players of rulers/council members who have held their positions for more than 5 years and say, "I think it's time for you to step down now". Obviously I'm thinking more about Atamara, but the same probably goes for other places. Perhaps he just wants to review and be selective about "problem areas"
You simply aren't going to get the level of dynamics needed if you have a small group of people running things who are all life-long buddies & have no personal interest in changing the status quo, with "knights & lords" who find it easier to just stop logging in than try to buck the system.
Out of curiosity, do you know how long the current rulers on AT have been in office?
Interestingly, except for one realm, not so long anymore. The problem seems to have finally cleaned itself out a bit with the disappearance of Ottar, Sordnaz, etc.
The Talerium / Darkan corner is still the same. I don't have time to try to look at all the Councils & Dukes, which is where the real problem lies, I suspect. If the mindset of the controlling group is all the same, it doesn't matter as much if they change figureheads from time to time.
What I DO know is I'm watching a lot of new players join, be very active for a while, then become vocally bored, then go inactive. There's a lot of talk of new estate system, war packages, etc but I think everyone is ignoring the effect on retention when a clear message is sent out that for new players who are unlucky enough to join a old realm, after the first month they've done everything they are going to be able to do in the game.
Yes, some will get lucky and discover better places to go, but many others will simply quit. If you put hours and hours of time into coding and then simply ignore that idea of sending a letter saying "your realm isn't dynamic enough and it is hurting all our efforts to make this game fun for everyone - make some changes to be more inclusive", you're doing your efforts an injustice
Length of time in power is not a good indicator of (lack of) effort in spreading the fun.
No, probably not. The problem is like Art - you know it when you see it.
In a different thread I will suggest some other ways of dealing with it, but one thing is for sure - there is little point in all the other code fixes if we are allowing realms to be run in a way that discourages players from sticking around.
I've been part of this game for slightly over a year now. I hardly participate on these forums as so often it appears to an internal conversation between old vets who have selected sides long ago and still hang on to them.
I can't agree enough with the view that those in leadership roles have a responsibility to ensure that the game is fun for more than just themselves. Recently, I had just such a person inform me, after I pointed out how terrible some (all) of his decisions were in game, that he was more interested in the setting for his extended RP messages than getting his decisions and orders right for the rest of us (I'm not quoting but relating the spirit of his comments). Balderdash.
If this game wants to retain people and attract more new people it needs to recognize that stagnant or selfish leadership isn't leadership just solipsism. You won't get a multi-player team-based game that way.
It used to be that all realms everywhere had massive amounts of nobles... and yet upwards mobility was almost always practically impossible, those in leadership stayed there for a very long time, and often seemed to make little effort to spread the fun or take into consideration new players.
The equation of "horizontal power distribution = more fun = more players" does not seem to hold up with the game's history. If anything, we have seen that as the average ruler time in office and time for a new player to get a title decreased, the player base shrank and complaints about the knight game not being fun enough increased.
I used to be extremely critical of the old leadership, when I was newer in this game. But why is it that these days were the game's most active and populous?
I'm not saying no other factors come into consideration, nor am I saying that we'd fix the game's problems by having more forever-ruling inactive leaders, but to blame the game's woes on these people when they have never been fewer seems misplaced.
Quote from: Chénier on August 23, 2014, 09:35:44 PM
It used to be that all realms everywhere had massive amounts of nobles... and yet upwards mobility was almost always practically impossible, those in leadership stayed there for a very long time, and often seemed to make little effort to spread the fun or take into consideration new players.
The equation of "horizontal power distribution = more fun = more players" does not seem to hold up with the game's history. If anything, we have seen that as the average ruler time in office and time for a new player to get a title decreased, the player base shrank and complaints about the knight game not being fun enough increased.
I think you're committing a
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In fact, I think the player base shrinking was itself the cause for the ruler time in office and time for new players to get a title decreasing. I think that the decrease in fun
in general was partly to blame for the shrinkage, but I don't think there's much you can really lay at the feet of more council-level turnover on that front.
Quote from: Anaris on August 23, 2014, 10:09:10 PM
I think you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In fact, I think the player base shrinking was itself the cause for the ruler time in office and time for new players to get a title decreasing. I think that the decrease in fun in general was partly to blame for the shrinkage, but I don't think there's much you can really lay at the feet of more council-level turnover on that front.
First part - yes, exactly.
Second part - we still have groups of players who only share the game among themselves. We need to split this thread and discuss ways of dealing with that.
Quote from: Anaris on August 23, 2014, 10:09:10 PM
I think you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In fact, I think the player base shrinking was itself the cause for the ruler time in office and time for new players to get a title decreasing. I think that the decrease in fun in general was partly to blame for the shrinkage, but I don't think there's much you can really lay at the feet of more council-level turnover on that front.
My point was that if player fun and numbers could be linked to rulership activity and turnover, either it was the opposite of what people claimed (and what seemed logical), or the causation was too weak to compensate for other game changes.
I think it'd be preposterous to claim that the old system with auto-votes and the age-long rulers who never did anything fun and stayed in place thanks to people never bothering to change their votes was more fun than what we have now, and that an increase in turnover made the game less fun. But if you look at the history of fun/player numbers and stagnant leadership/turnover, the claim that we must crack down on current realm leaders is largely unfounded. OOC persecution of players, solely off their IG success, is not going to fix the game.
yes, but we've already moved on from that, and if you read carefully, that was never actually what was being proposed.
From Thulsoma to Asylon it has always been my goal to involve as many people in the leadership and councils of my realm as possible and thats why they have always been successful, we have always had fluid councils and probably more kings and Queens than any other realms but that is because it was always known that the mantle of leadership was meant to be passed on and that divisions and chaos were to be cultivated where almost all the realms in Dwilight cultivate stability and unity, where Asylon created unity out of chaos.
Quote from: Miskel Hemmings on August 23, 2014, 02:19:38 PM
No, probably not. The problem is like Art - you know it when you see it.
In a different thread I will suggest some other ways of dealing with it, but one thing is for sure - there is little point in all the other code fixes if we are allowing realms to be run in a way that discourages players from sticking around.
So the problem is subjective and two rational people looking at the same thing will come up with two entirely different determinations?
| Date | Nobles | Regions | Density |
| 5 May 2013 | 383 | 238 | 1.61 |
| 1 March 2014 | 281 | 133 | 2.11 |
| 16 August 2014 | 205 | 133 | 1.54 |
| 1 January 2015 | 175 | 133 | 1.32 |
Quote from: Buffalkill on January 08, 2015, 05:56:16 AM
| Date | Nobles | Regions | Density |
| 5 May 2013 | 383 | 238 | 1.61 |
| 1 March 2014 | 281 | 133 | 2.11 |
| 16 August 2014 | 205 | 133 | 1.54 |
| 1 January 2015 | 175 | 133 | 1.32 |
Where do you get 133 regions from? Shouldn't it be 125? (or 124, I don't recall when Smokey Hills was recovered from the Rogues).
Quote from: Sypher on January 08, 2015, 06:09:08 AM
Where do you get 133 regions from? Shouldn't it be 125? (or 124, I don't recall when Smokey Hills was recovered from the Rogues).
Just from my own counting. Here's a spreadsheet that I used: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B85AasBw9ZoxYndMVXpUOWMwdWc/view?usp=sharing
Jorradith & Aquitain got mis-marked as east on your spreadsheet.
The two islands (Dizeddo, Libiddo, Libidizedd) & (Valkyrja, Yggdramir) should also be marked as west since they have been rogue since the invasion. I don't know 100% if the Dev's consider them as part of the west, but my impression is that attempts to recover them have failed.
Quote from: Sypher on January 08, 2015, 07:37:09 AM
Jorradith & Aquitain got mis-marked as east on your spreadsheet.
The two islands (Dizeddo, Libiddo, Libidizedd) & (Valkyrja, Yggdramir) should also be marked as west since they have been rogue since the invasion. I don't know 100% if the Dev's consider them as part of the west, but my impression is that attempts to recover them have failed.
Either way the density has gone down.
So, what's the point here? I don't think anyone had argued that overall, density everywhere is going up. We know players are still leaving, and that, in general, realms have less overall players than they had.
What are you trying to point out by posting all this? If this becomes another "look, i was right, you guys suck" thread, then look forward to getting this locked pretty quick.
Quote from: Indirik on January 08, 2015, 06:42:08 PM
So, what's the point here? I don't think anyone had argued that overall, density everywhere is going up. We know players are still leaving, and that, in general, realms have less overall players than they had.
What are you trying to point out by posting all this? If this becomes another "look, i was right, you guys suck" thread, then look forward to getting this locked pretty quick.
But I still don't remember anyone saying more knights did not provide more total wealth, nor wealth per % of esate size, both of which seem pretty obvious. ;)
Quote from: Indirik on January 08, 2015, 06:42:08 PM
So, what's the point here? I don't think anyone had argued that overall, density everywhere is going up. We know players are still leaving, and that, in general, realms have less overall players than they had.
What are you trying to point out by posting all this? If this becomes another "look, i was right, you guys suck" thread, then look forward to getting this locked pretty quick.
Someone is quick to overreact. All I was saying that the number of regions may have been miscounted, but because he used the same number for each comparison over time (save the first one), outcome was relatively the same. Besides that, this thread has been here for a while... why are you freaking out now? you're acting like this thread is a surprise.
I think a big challenge is the conflicting messages we send players.
1. If you are ruler, duke or lord, you must own that position. Just as a real noble would never happily give up power, neither should you.
2. Don't hold on to those fun positions like ruler, duke and lord. It ruins the fun for others when you cling to power like that!
I would rather there be a mechanic that ensures positions are not held by the same guy forever while allowing him to realisticly cling to his power. The only thing I can think of is mortality but my impression is that most players don't like that idea.
Quote from: Scarborn on January 08, 2015, 07:22:54 PM
I think a big challenge is the conflicting messages we send players.
1. If you are ruler, duke or lord, you must own that position. Just as a real noble would never happily give up power, neither should you.
2. Don't hold on to those fun positions like ruler, duke and lord. It ruins the fun for others when you cling to power like that!
I would rather there be a mechanic that ensures positions are not held by the same guy forever while allowing him to realisticly cling to his power. The only thing I can think of is mortality but my impression is that most players don't like that idea.
Oh, I know.
My ideal would be a family system not tied to player accounts, so that one player could play the heir of another. Then you could have actual inheritance of positions, without the problem of it locking up a position for a single player forever.
Quote from: Anaris on January 08, 2015, 07:24:43 PM
Oh, I know.
My ideal would be a family system not tied to player accounts, so that one player could play the heir of another. Then you could have actual inheritance of positions, without the problem of it locking up a position for a single player forever.
Cue ramblings of OOC nepotism :P