Hey guys,
I noticed that many regions can't increase production more due to the lack of population.
One thing that I seem to have forgotten is how do you increase the population then in the fastest and most effective manner?
Quote from: Kain on June 26, 2011, 06:58:33 PM
Hey guys,
I noticed that many regions can't increase production more due to the lack of population.
One thing that I seem to have forgotten is how do you increase the population then in the fastest and most effective manner?
You show them dirty movies.
...There isn't any way to get your peasants to procreate faster. On testing, they will migrate from well-populated regions to underpopulated regions, provided the underpopulated regions have a functional government and are well-fed.
Or I suppose you could try magic.
Why can't morale have an effect? I'd assume happier peasants means more reproduction, and more incentives for immigrants to come over.
Quote from: Artemesia on June 26, 2011, 07:14:57 PM
Why can't morale have an effect? I'd assume happier peasants means more reproduction, and more incentives for immigrants to come over.
Well, what about consolation sex? :P
Quote from: Anaris on June 26, 2011, 07:01:45 PM
You show them dirty movies.
...There isn't any way to get your peasants to procreate faster. On testing, they will migrate from well-populated regions to underpopulated regions, provided the underpopulated regions have a functional government and are well-fed.
Or I suppose you could try magic.
If there isn't, I suggest we do something about that. Not for realistic reasons but for game-being-fun reasons.
This sure contributes to it being beauracrymaster more than battlemaster.
Which realm can go to war when their cities are running at 50% production or less, for a period that feels like forever?
Ah yes, that is one of the excuses realms might use for refraining from war, huh.
Well, at least we shouldn't let realms that got beaten to within an inch of their lives to sprout right up again too soon. Perhaps the rate of growth for all regions can be altered depending on the glory in each region.
I personally think the new migration code to be a good balance.
Quote from: Artemesia on June 26, 2011, 08:54:53 PM
Ah yes, that is one of the excuses realms might use for refraining from war, huh.
Well, at least we shouldn't let realms that got beaten to within an inch of their lives to sprout right up again too soon. Perhaps the rate of growth for all regions can be altered depending on the glory in each region.
I agree with you. There has to be some reasonble middleground, but from what I can tell, it takes too long right now.
It is probably holding back more than war. Which duke would seceede with his city while production is at 50% or less?
Which realm would feel it worthwhile to take over a region that will give them almost zero production due to the missing population that will take ages to return?
And so on.
It is realistic, but it makes battlemaster less fun than it could be.
Quote from: Chénier on June 26, 2011, 09:26:30 PM
I personally think the new migration code to be a good balance.
Can you enlighten me about it please? :)
the new migration code drains half full (or something around but not quite that) rurals / towns into empty (but huge max pop) cities. can't say it was a good balance to me.
obviously, it might have been tweaked since..
mind you.. whatever happened to the region max pop resizes?
Wouldn't it make more sense if the people simply moved to regions with more food (instead of to regions with less inhabitants)?
That way, instead of losing half of a city's inhabitants, they would move to the surrounding regions to avoid starvation.
Quote from: Shizzle on June 26, 2011, 11:32:34 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense if the people simply moved to regions with more food (instead of to regions with less inhabitants)?
That way, instead of losing half of a city's inhabitants, they would move to the surrounding regions to avoid starvation.
This is, in fact, what happens. Starving regions do not experience immigration, only emigration.
The new migration system is quite well balanced, IMHO, based on my observations of it in Terran, Barca, and D'Hara. We've actually gotten Barca's population levels up much faster than I thought would be possible.
Quote from: Kain on June 26, 2011, 09:28:26 PM
I agree with you. There has to be some reasonble middleground, but from what I can tell, it takes too long right now.
It is probably holding back more than war. Which duke would seceede with his city while production is at 50% or less?
Which realm would feel it worthwhile to take over a region that will give them almost zero production due to the missing population that will take ages to return?
And so on.
It is realistic, but it makes battlemaster less fun than it could be.
If we make it considerably quicker, then there will be no more way to truly cripple realms, and since it will be too easy for them to get back on their feet and seek revenge, aggressors will be more inclined to completely eliminate their foes, which is not something I would particularly favor. I'm not saying they shouldn't, just that we shouldn't give them any more incentives to do so.
As for secessions, well, the wait makes it all the more legitimate. If you can say you built a city from the grounds up, you have much greater rights to govern it autonomously.
And for expansions? People do it all the time on Dwilight. And elsewhere. It's an investment. If you leave a city rogue, others will take it as soon as they get a chance.
Quote from: Vellos on June 26, 2011, 11:45:52 PM
This is, in fact, what happens. Starving regions do not experience immigration, only emigration.
The new migration system is quite well balanced, IMHO, based on my observations of it in Terran, Barca, and D'Hara. We've actually gotten Barca's population levels up much faster than I thought would be possible.
Which makes D'Hara that much more happy, as we can maintain optimal production while having less mouths to feed.
Quote from: Chénier on June 27, 2011, 12:06:52 AM
If we make it considerably quicker, then there will be no more way to truly cripple realms, and since it will be too easy for them to get back on their feet and seek revenge, aggressors will be more inclined to completely eliminate their foes, which is not something I would particularly favor. I'm not saying they shouldn't, just that we shouldn't give them any more incentives to do so.
As for secessions, well, the wait makes it all the more legitimate. If you can say you built a city from the grounds up, you have much greater rights to govern it autonomously.
And for expansions? People do it all the time on Dwilight. And elsewhere. It's an investment. If you leave a city rogue, others will take it as soon as they get a chance.
I think people don't destroy their enemies often enough. The most recent one that got me slightly scratching my head with a big question mark popping up over it was Sirion letting Fontan go. Remember when Arcaea was down to like Akanos in the summer of 2008? Yeah...Now it's the one dominating FEI while Soliferum is dead (Good work). Falasan was allowed to continue its cursed existence as a fate worse than death more or less before they finally got wiped.
But then again, I'm also someone who, given the opportunity on a smaller continent like maybe Colonies, would seek to have my realm conquer as many regions as it can support, then wipe all other regions on the continent rogue, thus effectively declaring sole inhabitant of the island before rebellions and/or secessions occur. Just for, you know, the rights to claim that "achievement". So maybe my destruction > disarmament is biased. meh.
Quote from: Artemesia on June 27, 2011, 12:15:25 AM
I think people don't destroy their enemies often enough. The most recent one that got me slightly scratching my head with a big question mark popping up over it was Sirion letting Fontan go. Remember when Arcaea was down to like Akanos in the summer of 2008? Yeah...Now it's the one dominating FEI while Soliferum is dead (Good work). Falasan was allowed to continue its cursed existence as a fate worse than death more or less before they finally got wiped.
But then again, I'm also someone who, given the opportunity on a smaller continent like maybe Colonies, would seek to have my realm conquer as many regions as it can support, then wipe all other regions on the continent rogue, thus effectively declaring sole inhabitant of the island before rebellions and/or secessions occur. Just for, you know, the rights to claim that "achievement". So maybe my destruction > disarmament is biased. meh.
I've got plenty of reasons to seek it myself. If others don't wish to destroy their enemies as much as I do, then they must have their reasons.
Sometimes those reasons are a bit dumb. Many times it's called "thinking for the future" or something, when it couldn't be clearer the realm just doesn't have the guts to make that enemy realm's characters/players hate them for a long time. Of course it's sometimes interesting to wonder just how long term some players think. BM's been going on for what, 8 years? That's already a pretty long time, but just how long do they want their plans to take? I wouldn't place any bets on any 10 year plans because you're probably better off investing in some stocks in the hopes that the economy gets better in 10 years. Maybe 5 year plans are a bit more credible, but even then, BM would be 13 years or so. That's a pretty long time for a specialty online game.
Quote from: Artemesia on June 27, 2011, 12:58:25 AM
Sometimes those reasons are a bit dumb. Many times it's called "thinking for the future" or something, when it couldn't be clearer the realm just doesn't have the guts to make that enemy realm's characters/players hate them for a long time. Of course it's sometimes interesting to wonder just how long term some players think. BM's been going on for what, 8 years? That's already a pretty long time, but just how long do they want their plans to take? I wouldn't place any bets on any 10 year plans because you're probably better off investing in some stocks in the hopes that the economy gets better in 10 years. Maybe 5 year plans are a bit more credible, but even then, BM would be 13 years or so. That's a pretty long time for a specialty online game.
Just for the humiliation of the beating, that realm's nobles are likely to hate them for a very long time. And in a lot of cases, it's not the first time war broke out. Take Riombara and Enweil, for example. I don't think the old blood in Enweil really were out for Riombara's extermination, but due to Riombara's historical hostility against Riombara, a significant portion of Enweil wanted to do away with her once and for all, to finally be able to "move on to other things". People tire of fighting the same enemy over and over, I would assume. Pity can only go so far before the patience that supports it crumbles.
Quote from: Artemesia on June 27, 2011, 12:58:25 AM
Sometimes those reasons are a bit dumb. Many times it's called "thinking for the future" or something, when it couldn't be clearer the realm just doesn't have the guts to make that enemy realm's characters/players hate them for a long time. Of course it's sometimes interesting to wonder just how long term some players think. BM's been going on for what, 8 years? That's already a pretty long time, but just how long do they want their plans to take? I wouldn't place any bets on any 10 year plans because you're probably better off investing in some stocks in the hopes that the economy gets better in 10 years. Maybe 5 year plans are a bit more credible, but even then, BM would be 13 years or so. That's a pretty long time for a specialty online game.
The other factor is always fun. As a player I have some responsibility to other players in terms of providing fun. This counts for my enemies as well as my realm mates. Not saying that means I won't destroy realms, I'm certainly all for it, just that I do consider the OOC aspect of such things as well.
I see...So some people do allow OOC decisions, which I guess is in fact unavoidable for possibly everyone to some extent in this game, no exceptions.
Quote from: Artemesia on June 27, 2011, 04:55:31 AM
I see...So some people do allow OOC decisions, which I guess is in fact unavoidable for possibly everyone to some extent in this game, no exceptions.
Of course. We are playing a game for fun. The Definition of fun is going to vary from player to player. Eventually some OOC consideration needs to be given to try and ensure that the fun is as universally available as possible to everyone your characters have some sort of influence over. Perhaps it is just my upbringing, but when Tom says "play like you are playing a board game with friends" well I sure as hell don't try and dominate and destroy my friends when playing board games, cause soon enough they will simply not bother to play since they aren't having fun.
You can destroy enemy realms, but then your subsequent conquests would get increasingly harder, as you would be fighting nobles from all the previously destroyed realms as well.
So it's better to defeat and pacify enemy realms. Better yet, force your enemies to fight on your side.
Well, there are different board games too. For example in Chess (Yes, I consider Chess a board game. You play it on a board, don't you? lol) the goal is very clear: Win against your opponent. Of course that's just one opponent, so fine, let's up the ante. Chinese Checkers. You're still trying to get all your pieces to your opposite point before everyone else. Clear victory conditions.
BM is supposedly not like that, at least on the large scale. People insist that you can't "win", though what exactly do they mean by that? Obviously you can win against enemy realms in-game, but there is no overarching victory condition. In that case it's somewhat like Scrabble, depending on how you play, where sure, you can tally points, but any "victory condition" such as "Get to X points" would be arbitrary and not a feature of the game itself. That, I believe, is more or less where BM fits. You just keep battling it out, or something...Not sure. I don't recall ever seeing pity moves in any board games I've played though.
Chess? Get mercilessly destroyed. Ok, sometimes depending on opponent he'd toy around with me before the final blow. Monopoly? One does not stop to let his competitors breathe when he attempts to fulfill his destiny by achieving the game's namesake status. Risk? Strategic allowance of existence before you take everything.
Maybe that's where BM also fits in terms of mercy play. It's like Risk, where it would be of benefit to you to let the realm live. But in Risk, the victory condition is most often "Conquer Everything". In BM, I'm pretty sure you can't conquer everything. But if the goal is just to survive, well, that's actually not so hard. Just be so insignificant no one would care to fight you. But if it's to have a future ally, well, ok, that could work. Things like that are complicated, sure. I understand that. I'm not against those. Though there are some cases that at first don't make sense. Yeah, sure, there's always a story behind that stuff.
Now let's pose the hypothetical and consider exactly how much benefit would arise from keeping the realm alive versus the consequences of destroying it. Sometimes the skew is not that extreme, in which case, well, destruction does let you fight a new enemy, sort of. You get to fight a realm with a different name (Or in Tuchanon's case, the next Roman numeral appended to the name). Maybe they're the same guys, but eh, whatever, new faces, new enemies to defeat and all.
Quote from: Artemesia on June 27, 2011, 05:17:42 AM
Well, there are different board games too. For example in Chess (Yes, I consider Chess a board game. You play it on a board, don't you? lol) the goal is very clear: Win against your opponent. Of course that's just one opponent, so fine, let's up the ante. Chinese Checkers. You're still trying to get all your pieces to your opposite point before everyone else. Clear victory conditions.
BM is supposedly not like that, at least on the large scale. People insist that you can't "win", though what exactly do they mean by that? Obviously you can win against enemy realms in-game, but there is no overarching victory condition. In that case it's somewhat like Scrabble, depending on how you play, where sure, you can tally points, but any "victory condition" such as "Get to X points" would be arbitrary and not a feature of the game itself. That, I believe, is more or less where BM fits. You just keep battling it out, or something...Not sure. I don't recall ever seeing pity moves in any board games I've played though.
Chess? Get mercilessly destroyed. Ok, sometimes depending on opponent he'd toy around with me before the final blow. Monopoly? One does not stop to let his competitors breathe when he attempts to fulfill his destiny by achieving the game's namesake status. Risk? Strategic allowance of existence before you take everything.
Maybe that's where BM also fits in terms of mercy play. It's like Risk, where it would be of benefit to you to let the realm live. But in Risk, the victory condition is most often "Conquer Everything". In BM, I'm pretty sure you can't conquer everything. But if the goal is just to survive, well, that's actually not so hard. Just be so insignificant no one would care to fight you. But if it's to have a future ally, well, ok, that could work. Things like that are complicated, sure. I understand that. I'm not against those. Though there are some cases that at first don't make sense. Yeah, sure, there's always a story behind that stuff.
Now let's pose the hypothetical and consider exactly how much benefit would arise from keeping the realm alive versus the consequences of destroying it. Sometimes the skew is not that extreme, in which case, well, destruction does let you fight a new enemy, sort of. You get to fight a realm with a different name (Or in Tuchanon's case, the next Roman numeral appended to the name). Maybe they're the same guys, but eh, whatever, new faces, new enemies to defeat and all.
When you play those games do you insufferably gloat when you are winning? Depending on the context that is generally the feeling players will get while you absolutely destroy the realm. If things are well handled, then destroying a realm can be fun for all, otherwise the fallout, the OOC bad feelings, the claims of cheating etc that are generally associated with this just aren't worth the result. Hetland is a great example of this, since the whole thing got taken into OOC whines, which only gave the attackers OOC resolve to destroy the entire realm.
Hetland is dumb anyway.
As for those board games, among actual friends, there's an implicit understanding that all the banter and trashtalking and gloating and insults are not done with any serious ill-will. In BM, we're not all friends, obviously, and so there will inevitably be people crying out over things that might actually be no big deal.
Quote from: Artemesia on June 27, 2011, 05:36:42 AM
Hetland is dumb anyway.
As for those board games, among actual friends, there's an implicit understanding that all the banter and trashtalking and gloating and insults are not done with any serious ill-will. In BM, we're not all friends, obviously, and so there will inevitably be people crying out over things that might actually be no big deal.
I guess therein lies the difference, among my friends we don't trash talk or gloat, it is simply not an aspect of how we relate to each other. We commiserate when somebody has a bad roll of the dice, congratulate those who are having uncommonly good luck or simply playing well and share stories about whatever new thing our young children have recently discovered. The closest we come to gloating is when I take all their money playing poker, but then I'm generally the only one not enjoying some alcoholic beverages, so I have a distinct advantage.
It definitely matters what age group you play in too I believe. Maturity varies usually depending on that factor.
Quote from: Artemesia on June 27, 2011, 05:52:08 AM
It definitely matters what age group you play in too I believe. Maturity varies usually depending on that factor.
I'm only 29, not over the hill just yet.
Quote from: De-Legro on June 27, 2011, 05:52:45 AM
I'm only 29, not over the hill just yet.
Based on the other post I would have said 39 :P
I feel board games tend to be more fun with a little atmosphere. Nothing cooler than to be full of hybris, and to pull off your insane move. Or lose trying and have a good laugh :)
Isn't the point of Battlemaste fighting battles, to put it so crude? Sure, there's lots of extra aspects to the game, but the core idea is to fight battles. And preferably win them, of course.
Quote from: fodder on June 26, 2011, 10:22:54 PMthe new migration code drains half full (or something around but not quite that) rurals / towns into empty (but huge max pop) cities. can't say it was a good balance to me.
This is only partially correct. The mechanic is actually very simple:
If a region has a high percentage of its maximum population, then peasants from that region will migrate to adjacent regions that have a low percentage of their maximum population, provided that the destination region is not starving, and is not rogue or an NPC realm. Region types are irrelevant, as are realm borders. Peasants will migrate between realms, even if those realms are at war.
Quotemind you.. whatever happened to the region max pop resizes?
Still on the radar, but not actively being worked on. Bedwyr came up with some equations to work out actual numbers. When the time comes to actually do this (which won't be until after the new estate code) the numbers will be run and hand checked to ensure a good balance before they are implemented.
Quote from: GoldPanda on June 27, 2011, 05:14:55 AM
So it's better to defeat and pacify enemy realms. Better yet, force your enemies to fight on your side.
I partially disagree with the first unless it leads to the second.
Fighting the same foe all the time gets repetitive. Mercy should only be granted if it doesn't deny the winner the opportunity to seek out fights elsewhere.
Let's take Krimml city as an example. It now has 4737 inhabitants. They seem to be growing in an average pace of about 40 per day. I've seen on the wiki that the city's population once was 17900. At that pace it will be another 330 days, almost a year, before the city is back to normal.
Am I mistaken somehow? If I'm not, this is lunacy. We talk of crippeling a realm, but a realm can't be crippled for well over a year. 2 months might be reasonable or so.
Growth rates are variable.
Growth is a percentage function. So as the population gets higher, it will grow faster. Even so, high pop regions take a LONG time to fill back up.
Quote from: Kain on July 31, 2011, 03:09:21 PM
Let's take Krimml city as an example. It now has 4737 inhabitants. They seem to be growing in an average pace of about 40 per day. I've seen on the wiki that the city's population once was 17900. At that pace it will be another 330 days, almost a year, before the city is back to normal.
Am I mistaken somehow? If I'm not, this is lunacy. We talk of crippeling a realm, but a realm can't be crippled for well over a year. 2 months might be reasonable or so.
In Dwilight, there are regions that have been near-continuously held by human realms for over a year that have never seen max population.
Quote from: Vellos on July 31, 2011, 08:19:32 PM
In Dwilight, there are regions that have been near-continuously held by human realms for over a year that have never seen max population.
Starvations considered. Most other continents have it easier when it comes to food.
Quote from: Vellos on July 31, 2011, 08:19:32 PM
In Dwilight, there are regions that have been near-continuously held by human realms for over a year that have never seen max population.
Yes, and I think there is a reason why we have a quite long thread on this forum called "Too much peace too much for Dwilight".
Quote from: Indirik on July 31, 2011, 03:38:54 PM
Even so, high pop regions take a LONG time to fill back up.
Not just high population regions. One of my characters is lord of a woodland region on EC with a maximum population of 5800. It was devastated when I got it, and some five months or more later it's barely reach a quarter of its maximum pop. That seems ridiculously extreme.
Quote from: Velax on August 03, 2011, 07:37:55 PM
Not just high population regions. One of my characters is lord of a woodland region on EC with a maximum population of 5800. It was devastated when I got it, and some five months or more later it's barely reach a quarter of its maximum pop. That seems ridiculously extreme.
- What have the stats been like?
- Has it been well-fed?
- What continent?
- Is it adjacent to fully-populated or well-populated regions?
Giask is growing at an average rate of aboyt 1,200 people a day. How's that for slow growth 8)
Quote from: Anaris on August 03, 2011, 07:48:18 PM
- What have the stats been like?
- Has it been well-fed?
- What continent?
- Is it adjacent to fully-populated or well-populated regions?
1. Its stats have consistently been in the 80s and 90s, if not 100%, with Main or Core control.
2. Yes.
3. EC.
4. Two of the regions bordering it are well or fully populated, four are not.
Quote from: Velax on August 04, 2011, 07:57:59 AM
3. EC.
OK, this is the key piece of information, then.
The changes to population migration have not yet gone to stable. However, they will with the next update (they are in rev. 5545).
That should make your region's population grow much faster.
Quote from: Sacha on August 03, 2011, 08:41:49 PM
Giask is growing at an average rate of aboyt 1,200 people a day. How's that for slow growth 8)
Wow. And here I am getting excited whenever the population of a Barcan increases by more than a hundred...
Quote from: Sacha on August 03, 2011, 08:41:49 PM
Giask is growing at an average rate of aboyt 1,200 people a day. How's that for slow growth 8)
yea, now just need to feed it..
Quote from: Pelgart on August 04, 2011, 03:05:52 PM
Wow. And here I am getting excited whenever the population of a Barcan increases by more than a hundred...
there have been several peak days with growth of 1500-1700 a day... its like, whoa.
DWI: Raviel is sending about 100 people a day to Port Raviel, and birthing a similar number.
Quote from: Anaris on August 04, 2011, 01:14:39 PM
That should make your region's population grow much faster.
Thank god. My poor border toll collectors need something to do!