BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: squirrel on July 14, 2011, 07:26:57 PM
-
People complain when nothing is happening in a realm, and I totally get that. It's depressing to play a character and see nothing but five or six automated messages from the turn change.
But it's hard not to get cynical when you try to make something happen and the overwhelming response is "hey, you can't make something happen unless everybody votes on it first! derpy derp!" You feel like a sucker when it seems like everyone else is waiting for you to stick your neck out so they can squash you.
I'm probably just whining about sour grapes, but honestly I can't think of another game I've played that was more risk-averse than this one. It's like a game of NetHack where you're so worried about setting off traps that you just hold down the "." key and hope that a monster runs into your lap.
-
Meh. I've had an enhanced version of that problem: when Alanna still ruled Pian en Luries, people would often complain that she didn't do enough, or say enough. Indeed, there were certain people who would complain to her (or OOC to me) that the realm was too quiet, and thus she had to say something. Of course, they couldn't say anything themselves; that obviously wouldn't work. Besides, it must be the Ruler's job.
But when she would try to do something, or make some sort of speech to get the realm interested, half the realm would complain that she was being tyrannical, and that everyone should overthrow her. No matter what it was she was trying to do.
-
Meh. I've had an enhanced version of that problem: when Alanna still ruled Pian en Luries, people would often complain that she didn't do enough, or say enough. Indeed, there were certain people who would complain to her (or OOC to me) that the realm was too quiet, and thus she had to say something. Of course, they couldn't say anything themselves; that obviously wouldn't work. Besides, it must be the Ruler's job.
But when she would try to do something, or make some sort of speech to get the realm interested, half the realm would complain that she was being tyrannical, and that everyone should overthrow her. No matter what it was she was trying to do.
Judges should hand out more fines than they normally do.
Bankers should organize the rural regions to charge the dukes for their food.
There are plenty of people who can stir things up.
-
Should have had whoever that was hung. Or their head lobbed off. Defenestration is a definite option. Askilion has high towers, I expect.
I've never had a problem with things being too quiet. "Too quiet" is just code for opportunity knocking. How easy is it to stand out if you're the only one standing at all? Every game I've played has this to one degree or another. It generally leads to people quitting because they're bored or try so hard they get burned out.
Still, it is the responsibility of the ruler (or RC) to make sure a realm doesn't stagnate. We're all players, but it comes to ability (a Queen does sorta have more ability to louden things up) and genre. I don't think much of Rulers that tell Knights that they're the one's who should be speaking up. That's putting it mildly. Knights should take part, obviously, but if people are to be prompted, it should be the top tier of the hiarchy, followed by the lords et al. Doesn't happen enough in my opinion, and methinks I'm not alone in that view.
Finton.
-
i will repeat my usual mantra, as short as possible - things cannot happen if there are almost no chance to make really interesting event, and really interesting event has very simple definition - event that influences power balance.
Small events like actions of harsh judges, duels, rulers speeches and so on, do give nice additional flavor as supplement to major events. but they cannot be replacement for major events. so people eventually do not care for small events when there are no large events, and apathy prevails.
unfortunately, even continent-wide wars make change only to realms who suffer heavy consequences, but they eventually disappear; all other realms remain apathetic as they are simply - too stable internally.
-
Should have had whoever that was hung. Or their head lobbed off. Defenestration is a definite option. Askilion has high towers, I expect.
Still, it is the responsibility of the ruler (or RC) to make sure a realm doesn't stagnate. We're all players, but it comes to ability (a Queen does sorta have more ability to louden things up) and genre. I don't think much of Rulers that tell Knights that they're the one's who should be speaking up. That's putting it mildly. Knights should take part, obviously, but if people are to be prompted, it should be the top tier of the hiarchy, followed by the lords et al. Doesn't happen enough in my opinion, and methinks I'm not alone in that view.
Finton.
if dukes are made pivotal power in bm, than, following your logic which i mostly agree with, it would be dukes responsibility to make things happen as well. the same would apply to council members, and even to the region lords who have one single knight as a vassal.
the problem is that many attempts lead to risks while doing almost nothing and being completely silent carries no risk.
if silence would be more risky than at least some level of interactive effort, we could expect more things to happen.
-
Should have had whoever that was hung. Or their head lobbed off. Defenestration is a definite option. Askilion has high towers, I expect.
I've never had a problem with things being too quiet. "Too quiet" is just code for opportunity knocking. How easy is it to stand out if you're the only one standing at all? Every game I've played has this to one degree or another. It generally leads to people quitting because they're bored or try so hard they get burned out.
Still, it is the responsibility of the ruler (or RC) to make sure a realm doesn't stagnate. We're all players, but it comes to ability (a Queen does sorta have more ability to louden things up) and genre. I don't think much of Rulers that tell Knights that they're the one's who should be speaking up. That's putting it mildly. Knights should take part, obviously, but if people are to be prompted, it should be the top tier of the hiarchy, followed by the lords et al. Doesn't happen enough in my opinion, and methinks I'm not alone in that view.
Finton.
Rulers have a duty to do their best to keep things from stagnating, but players have no right to complain when they aren't making any efforts themselves.
That's *my* mantra. Too many people expect things to magically happen.
-
Rulers have a duty to do their best to keep things from stagnating, but players have no right to complain when they aren't making any efforts themselves.
That's *my* mantra. Too many people expect things to magically happen.
Have to confess that I feel like I've turned into that guy. A BMer who moans/is resentful that no-one else makes an effort whilst not really putting in much effort himself. No-one else can be bothered so I won't be bothered. A real self-defeating posture, though a justifiable one I think. All of BM has become quiet, it isn't just me.
I'm trying to ease myself back into interacting in the largely silent realms I inhabit. If nothing is happening, I'm going to try and spark something or discuss something or post something. Better than everyone sat looking at turn reports. Maybe we should make a little campaign of this. Sign a charter or something >.<
Re: Rulers, I've had this problem myself. Sure people want you to be publicly active and leading by example, but sometimes you're doing so much stuff behind closed doors making that extra effort can be a real chore. I was also conflicted by the nature of my position. I did want to talk more, but RP wise, I don't feel like I should be engaging in banter with my nobles or having an ale in the tavern or whatever. You're the King. Of necessity, the way the ruler engages with the realm is going to be different to the way the average noble can.
-
Sometimes, things are silent not because nobody is doing anything, but because it's all being done in private. And sometimes still, just making the least of a public gesture showing interest will get you included in these groups.
I, for one, do a lot of things in private. But I always reply when people write to me, or write about something I can comment on. And I always seek to include people who show they give a damn, especially if they publicly expose enough about themselves so that I may judge if said person has the potential to be turned into a valuable ally (and thus worth extra attention).
I know others do this too, as, especially in the days when I was not as influential, it often happened that I was this new guy that someone picked up to turn into an ally.
Make some noise, and you may have positive echoes. Or you may disturb some people, that's all fun and games too. There is, however, a skill in making noise, and some poorly master it and usually just end up ignored by everyone. :P
-
Well, it is a big problem when those in power are /too/ good at maintaining power. There needs to be some rotation in the leadership, unless the rulers are great both at governing and keeping people interested. Players whose sole motivation is to be in power end up killing realms. If they succeed, they'll make the realm much less interesting, and if they don't they'll probably cause some OoC resentments and weaken the realm. They need to learn to play not only as the powerful ones from time to time. Else people will just leave and find somewhere else more interesting.
-
Well, it is a big problem when those in power are /too/ good at maintaining power. There needs to be some rotation in the leadership, unless the rulers are great both at governing and keeping people interested. Players whose sole motivation is to be in power end up killing realms. If they succeed, they'll make the realm much less interesting, and if they don't they'll probably cause some OoC resentments and weaken the realm. They need to learn to play not only as the powerful ones from time to time. Else people will just leave and find somewhere else more interesting.
You don't need to be good at both. You just need to have both covered by someone in the realm. The ruler doesn't need to be the one who keeps things interesting.
In Enweil, for example, I was the one who brought Enweil into wars and made things happen, after I joined it, finally getting it out of its lethargic state. However, it was only much, much later than I got significant support in my rulership bids and finally got elected. Handkor was good at keeping power while maintaining a rather passive agenda, but I managed to make things move as a mere lord of a godawfully poor rural.
I don't know how many people manage to get elected as rulers for the sake of being ruler. The two most common profiles I encounter are those who get elected as rulers so that they can achieve more, and those that get elected as rulers out of fear of what might happen if another (that they implicitly do not trust) does.
-
True, Ruler is a more dynamic title. Dukes, on the other hand...
-
Meh. I've had an enhanced version of that problem: when Alanna still ruled Pian en Luries, people would often complain that she didn't do enough, or say enough. Indeed, there were certain people who would complain to her (or OOC to me) that the realm was too quiet, and thus she had to say something. Of course, they couldn't say anything themselves; that obviously wouldn't work. Besides, it must be the Ruler's job.
But when she would try to do something, or make some sort of speech to get the realm interested, half the realm would complain that she was being tyrannical, and that everyone should overthrow her. No matter what it was she was trying to do.
My theory is that Askileon and Giask are simply too rich to have quiet realms rule them. They are always going to have money-hungry people after them, and people will make up anything to achieve an underlying aim. Even if they themselves do not realize it.
-
True, Ruler is a more dynamic title. Dukes, on the other hand...
Are often chosen precisely because of how quiet they are.
-
Well, it is a big problem when those in power are /too/ good at maintaining power. There needs to be some rotation in the leadership, unless the rulers are great both at governing and keeping people interested. Players whose sole motivation is to be in power end up killing realms. If they succeed, they'll make the realm much less interesting, and if they don't they'll probably cause some OoC resentments and weaken the realm. They need to learn to play not only as the powerful ones from time to time. Else people will just leave and find somewhere else more interesting.
rotation of weakened rulers changes little when most of sensible power is held among never-rotating dukes.
-
Re: Rulers, I've had this problem myself. Sure people want you to be publicly active and leading by example, but sometimes you're doing so much stuff behind closed doors making that extra effort can be a real chore. I was also conflicted by the nature of my position. I did want to talk more, but RP wise, I don't feel like I should be engaging in banter with my nobles or having an ale in the tavern or whatever. You're the King. Of necessity, the way the ruler engages with the realm is going to be different to the way the average noble can.
There are many RP solid ways of the king interacting with the nobles of the realm. Throw a party, invite people on a hunt(always thought it'd be a nice game mechanics addition if you could actually organize a hunt at your estate, sort of like an mini tournament) etc.
As far as time consumption goes, sorry, don't have the power to add hours to a day :)
-
Rulers have a duty to do their best to keep things from stagnating, but players have no right to complain when they aren't making any efforts themselves.
That's *my* mantra. Too many people expect things to magically happen.
Actually, the game is set up in the exact opposite way: Those who are in power have every incentive to keep the risks low and not have too much change - they have more to loose than they have to win. Those at the bottom are the ones who should be pressing for change and action. They have much to win and little to loose. Like in the real world, the main incentive for a king to go to war should be so internal politics calm down while everyone focuses on the external enemy.
Unfortunately, too many of the lower people put the pressure on. Some of the changes I have in mind are intended to change that.
-
Actually, the game is set up in the exact opposite way: Those who are in power have every incentive to keep the risks low and not have too much change - they have more to loose than they have to win. Those at the bottom are the ones who should be pressing for change and action. They have much to win and little to loose. Like in the real world, the main incentive for a king to go to war should be so internal politics calm down while everyone focuses on the external enemy.
I even tried that! They were opposing the war I was trying to fight! :'(
-
I even tried that! They were opposing the war I was trying to fight! :'(
You weren't doing it right then! To succeed you have to whip your realm into a patriotic frenzy! Your enemy obviously wasn't compelling enough. Fissoa? Small potatoes, not very threatening to the Lurian way of life. What you needed was something like the Red Menace of Sanguis Astroism! Now there's a boogey man to frighten the children with...
Honestly I don't think it's possible to distract PeL with a war - you just don't have any enemies nearby who are big enough and threatening enough to make war a truly unifying event. With Fissoa, everyone's going to recognize it for what it is - a distraction.
-
You weren't doing it right then! To succeed you have to whip your realm into a patriotic frenzy! Your enemy obviously wasn't compelling enough. Fissoa? Small potatoes, not very threatening to the Lurian way of life. What you needed was something like the Red Menace of Sanguis Astroism! Now there's a boogey man to frighten the children with...
Honestly I don't think it's possible to distract PeL with a war - you just don't have any enemies nearby who are big enough and threatening enough to make war a truly unifying event. With Fissoa, everyone's going to recognize it for what it is - a distraction.
That's the problem, right there.
What I should have done is encouraged (OOC, probably), a long time ago, the creation of a realm in Sallowtown/Shinnen, or the expansion of Aquilegia (though that came to a bad end without any help from Alanna...). That would have provided Pian with a nice close realm to fight.
-
Actually, the game is set up in the exact opposite way: Those who are in power have every incentive to keep the risks low and not have too much change - they have more to loose than they have to win. Those at the bottom are the ones who should be pressing for change and action. They have much to win and little to loose. Like in the real world, the main incentive for a king to go to war should be so internal politics calm down while everyone focuses on the external enemy.
Unfortunately, too many of the lower people put the pressure on. Some of the changes I have in mind are intended to change that.
that is exactly how i feel to understand it, but the problem is that there are no internal conflicts for simple reason that few in power have interest to initiate conflicts. if seats of those in power would be endangered at least to some extent, they would have incentive to do something which will enable them to hold their powers, but if the most effective way to hold powers is to be passive, as is now in my opinion, than we have lack of events.
-
One problem is that rulers without ambition aren't getting toppled enough by others with it.
I, for one, like to aim big. So when I seek positions of power, it's not to crush the realm under my heel and have them beg for mercy. It's to crush everyone else's realms under my heel and have *them* all beg for mercy. A ruler who isn't doing enough on the continental level is easy pickings for me to invade or to replace/manipulate with agents and puppets.
One needs patience, though, these things do take a lot of time... ;D
-
Perhaps a good question to make, instead of "why were/are people not accepting me as a ruler?", would be "what do /I/ want in a ruler I'm subordinated to?". If you don't want a power-monger ruling you, then you should not be surprised people oppose you when you hold too tight to power.
I personally like rulers who are not too attached to their positions (which don't see the throne as an actual personal possession, but as a transitive job), and that don't rule too much for themselves (hoarding gold, not splitting loots, keeping a much larger personal army than the rest, etc.). I cannot see how those who do not act like that can maintain a successful realm for long.
That is OoC-wise, of course. IC there will always be tyrant and madmen characters, but those shouldn't surprise their players for receiving opposition, and being eventually kicked out.
-
I personally like rulers who are not too attached to their positions (which don't see the throne as an actual personal possession, but as a transitive job)
That doesn't fit very well at all with SMA.
-
Perhaps a good question to make, instead of "why were/are people not accepting me as a ruler?", would be "what do /I/ want in a ruler I'm subordinated to?". If you don't want a power-monger ruling you, then you should not be surprised people oppose you when you hold too tight to power.
I personally like rulers who are not too attached to their positions (which don't see the throne as an actual personal possession, but as a transitive job), and that don't rule too much for themselves (hoarding gold, not splitting loots, keeping a much larger personal army than the rest, etc.). I cannot see how those who do not act like that can maintain a successful realm for long.
That is OoC-wise, of course. IC there will always be tyrant and madmen characters, but those shouldn't surprise their players for receiving opposition, and being eventually kicked out.
Having the most days in realm helps. A lot.
We get the rulers we elect, so bitching about it is kinda stupid. People *are* making them gain power and then constantly reconfirming it, after all.
-
One problem is that rulers without ambition aren't getting toppled enough by others with it.
I, for one, like to aim big. So when I seek positions of power, it's not to crush the realm under my heel and have them beg for mercy. It's to crush everyone else's realms under my heel and have *them* all beg for mercy. A ruler who isn't doing enough on the continental level is easy pickings for me to invade or to replace/manipulate with agents and puppets.
One needs patience, though, these things do take a lot of time... ;D
You wait and watch Fissoa then ;)
Absoloute Monarchy here we come.... oh I should stay quiet about this stuff.... :-X
Hopefully most of my council doesn't use the forum! ;D ;D ;D
-
That doesn't fit very well at all with SMA.
That is OoC-wise, of course. IC there will always be tyrant and madmen characters, but those shouldn't surprise their players for receiving opposition, and being eventually kicked out.
-
I'm not talking about tyrants and madmen. I'm talking about good old-fashioned absolute rulers. You know, real Kings and Queens, the ones who truly believe they rule by the will of the Gods, or otherwise have a natural right to rule. Not your pansy-ass "let's vote on stuff" rulers.
-
I'm not talking about tyrants and madmen. I'm talking about good old-fashioned absolute rulers. You know, real Kings and Queens, the ones who truly believe they rule by the will of the Gods, or otherwise have a natural right to rule. Not your pansy-ass "let's vote on stuff" rulers.
Yeah this is my favourite style too. It creates lots of drama and fun.
-
Those are good, for a while, but while playing with /players/ they are bound to become tyrants if they never get old, sick or have any other IC reason to stand aside of power after some time.
It was used the analogy that BM should be played like you'd play a board game with friends. Surely it's usually not good for everyone if one's always in charge, being the rest the servants. Unless you have a particularly unusual and working mix of personalities, and manage to delegate enough power, resources and tasks to keep the rest entertained, you are bound to need to cede your place to someone else sooner or later.
This is specially true for the most active rulers, those who monopolize the diplomacy, decision-taking and other game-experiences like that.
It sums up in "share the toys, others want to play too". Of course IG it makes total sense, but we are not real medieval lords, we are players.
-
It was used the analogy that BM should be played like you'd play a board game with friends. Surely it's usually not good for everyone if one's always in charge, being the rest the servants.
Obviously you've never played the greatest board game of all time: Diplomacy. ;D
-
Obviously you've never played the greatest board game of all time: Diplomacy. ;D
I would like your assistance in Warsaw. In return, I will backstab you in Berlin.
-
I would like your assistance in Warsaw. In return, I will backstab you in Berlin.
You all should play Pax Britannica sometime. It is one of the greatest diplomacy-oriented board games I have ever played.
On another note, if you like Diplomacy and don't mind making a little more complicated I recommend Machiavelli. It's set in renaissance Italy, uses Diplomacy's basic rules and introduces various scenarios and additional mechanics to spice things up.
-
On another note, if you like Diplomacy and don't mind making a little more complicated I recommend Machiavelli. It's set in renaissance Italy, uses Diplomacy's basic rules and introduces various scenarios and additional mechanics to spice things up.
That actually sounds fantastic.
-
You wait and watch Fissoa then ;)
Absoloute Monarchy here we come.... oh I should stay quiet about this stuff.... :-X
Hopefully most of my council doesn't use the forum! ;D ;D ;D
Heh. Well, this should be fun, then.
-
Heh, great game indeed.
-
Heh, great game indeed.
But so dreadfully long. :O
-
I'm not talking about tyrants and madmen. I'm talking about good old-fashioned absolute rulers. You know, real Kings and Queens, the ones who truly believe they rule by the will of the Gods, or otherwise have a natural right to rule. Not your pansy-ass "let's vote on stuff" rulers.
I also prefer such kind of ruler, believing they can make more stories and thrills, but the problem is that you actually cannot be neither tyrant nor overly strong ruler, as ruler has no powers.
so, knowing that ruler is weak, many will often complain loudly against every bold speech. and that is when tension is relieved before even creating any in-game event.
if such tyrant would have real power, many will fear of opposing him directly and publicly, but would have strong incentive to work against him behind the scene by all available means once he crosses the line.
for instance, if ruler would annoy lords too much, they would overthrow him and reform to republic, or if all nobility took arms against him, maybe they would decide to make democracy. however, such scenarios would make sense if there would be distinction between tyranny, monarchy, republic and democracy in way of real council powers. than every realm would find balance for herself, with many internal conflicts; sole distinction of ruler power in different regimes could easily become driving force for very dynamic internal political life.
-
I also prefer such kind of ruler, believing they can make more stories and thrills, but the problem is that you actually cannot be neither tyrant nor overly strong ruler, as ruler has no powers.
While I quite agree that Rulers are currently far weaker than they should be and need some means to counterbalance the Dukes, I would take issue with this. It is possible to have a strong absolute Ruler. I play one, and I've played in a couple of realms that had them (though admittedly most were some years ago when Dukes had less power).
-
I would like your assistance in Warsaw. In return, I will backstab you in Berlin.
An excellent one-line description of Diplomacy.
-
I also prefer such kind of ruler, believing they can make more stories and thrills, but the problem is that you actually cannot be neither tyrant nor overly strong ruler, as ruler has no powers.
so, knowing that ruler is weak, many will often complain loudly against every bold speech. and that is when tension is relieved before even creating any in-game event.
if such tyrant would have real power, many will fear of opposing him directly and publicly, but would have strong incentive to work against him behind the scene by all available means once he crosses the line.
for instance, if ruler would annoy lords too much, they would overthrow him and reform to republic, or if all nobility took arms against him, maybe they would decide to make democracy. however, such scenarios would make sense if there would be distinction between tyranny, monarchy, republic and democracy in way of real council powers. than every realm would find balance for herself, with many internal conflicts; sole distinction of ruler power in different regimes could easily become driving force for very dynamic internal political life.
Being ruler, judge, and duke would help with that. ;)
-
Meh. I've had an enhanced version of that problem: when Alanna still ruled Pian en Luries, people would often complain that she didn't do enough, or say enough. Indeed, there were certain people who would complain to her (or OOC to me) that the realm was too quiet, and thus she had to say something. Of course, they couldn't say anything themselves; that obviously wouldn't work. Besides, it must be the Ruler's job.
But when she would try to do something, or make some sort of speech to get the realm interested, half the realm would complain that she was being tyrannical, and that everyone should overthrow her. No matter what it was she was trying to do.
I don't understand how this is possible. Pian en Luries was my favorite realm to play in during the time that Brom and Alanna had some good intermixing for all of those in game crazy rebellious times. I never thought Pian en Luries didn't have something going on. We almost always had monsters to fight which made daily actions almost commonplace, while there was a ton of politicing going on in the background. Sure, I guess not much was seen publicly of that, but so many people were involved (on both sides) that I fail to see how people could have been left out enough to feel nothing was going on.
On the second note, I don't see what is wrong with the overthrowing piece? The point of the game is to have fun and have some awesome interactions. Pian en Luries was fun precisely because the Dukes and ruling council members involved both lords and knights in different vies for power in some form or another, some of which were a pursuit at taking the Crown itself. Now, I can understand where being the ruler it isn't as appreciated to have to defend her crown all the time, but I would think that this is more of the goal of what we are looking for in the game. A realm where nobles can be involved to the lowest level for or against their leadership.
At any rate, I can bet it wouldn't have been as interesting to play Alanna as a ruler if every single person in your realm just rolled over and accepted everything said as fact and the will of the gods. I think Alanna was very well RP'ed but I also thought that some of the interactions that came from that time were very enjoyable on multiple fronts, primarily because so many players were involved for such a long time.
-
While I quite agree that Rulers are currently far weaker than they should be and need some means to counterbalance the Dukes, I would take issue with this. It is possible to have a strong absolute Ruler. I play one, and I've played in a couple of realms that had them (though admittedly most were some years ago when Dukes had less power).
yes, that would be the point, things were different... i don't deny at all that it is impossible to have strong ruler right now, and there are some now and than, but their power is hanging on tiny rope, as good will of button-holders can change and nothing in game can oppose that.
I think the whole idea of having lords and dukes somewhat untouchable is profound, as the whole bm is, but things slipped somewhere in tweaks, and we now have untouchable positions, and those who play it passively cannot be blamed if we all know that is the most effective way to retain power. once they would be forced to do at least something to keep their posts, things can change radically, and there would be no need for "too much peace" or fear of too large realms that endlessly expand while being completely dead in terms of internal affairs.
I believe to understand that lords should never be removable easily, if hold on feuds is basics of complete feudal system, mechanics just needs some "vortex" that would eventually create permanent need to play internal politics. direct taxing of cities could be something in that direction, if it ever comes alive.
chenier, taking power by taking many positions, yes, it is to be admitted that players who want to play tuff game cannot be blamed for doing that if that's one of rare opportunities to play power-grabber at all. Personally i think it defeats concept of team play and interaction (though i use it myself when no other feasible option exists in some circumstances).
-
chenier, taking power by taking many positions, yes, it is to be admitted that players who want to play tuff game cannot be blamed for doing that if that's one of rare opportunities to play power-grabber at all. Personally i think it defeats concept of team play and interaction (though i use it myself when no other feasible option exists in some circumstances).
Sorry but team play and interaction is not SMA. :P
-
Sorry but team play and interaction is not SMA. :P
sorry but i see very little sense in your notion if we know that teamplay and interaction are major game values, and everything else is revolving about it.
i cannot even closely understand what it has to do with sma. in sma you are required to hold your character as strictly medieval person, to avoid expressions, subjects and way of living which does not fit middle age, but how it could be against interaction?!
i would personally prefer sma on all continents, and am trying to play all my chars sma to the extent possible.
maybe you feel term "interaction" as something like ooc chat, but interaction is general term much wider than chatting. there is good and bad interaction, flavored, and non-flavored, sma or non-sma, but without interaction we have nothing, almost everything in game are sole messages.
and teamplay is play of aware individuals who prefer to conduct their activities together with others in some sort of mutual coordination, so what is more valuable and appealing than that? of course, someone could call ooc ganging as teamplay, but that is something completely different, that is abuse and is not actually teamplay, as ooc gangers ignore other players who would naturally be part of some team in ic environment, and form their "team" goals and strategies outside the game.
-
sorry but i see very little sense in your notion if we know that teamplay and interaction are major game values, and everything else is revolving about it.
i cannot even closely understand what it has to do with sma. in sma you are required to hold your character as strictly medieval person, to avoid expressions, subjects and way of living which does not fit middle age, but how it could be against interaction?!
i would personally prefer sma on all continents, and am trying to play all my chars sma to the extent possible.
maybe you feel term "interaction" as something like ooc chat, but interaction is general term much wider than chatting. there is good and bad interaction, flavored, and non-flavored, sma or non-sma, but without interaction we have nothing, almost everything in game are sole messages.
and teamplay is play of aware individuals who prefer to conduct their activities together with others in some sort of mutual coordination, so what is more valuable and appealing than that? of course, someone could call ooc ganging as teamplay, but that is something completely different, that is abuse and is not actually teamplay, as ooc gangers ignore other players who would naturally be part of some team in ic environment, and form their "team" goals and strategies outside the game.
The :P face indicates that the poster was joking, or only half-serious.
-
Exactly, I was giving what seems to be a popular answer for defending acting against teamplay.
Sure, in the Medieval times the rulers and group of nobles could be some power-mongering bitches, but this is a game, and though power-grabs and such are interesting in certain contexts, in some they are not, and they suck the life out of the game.
A popular answer I've had when I've invited people to the game went along "I don't want to be a knight, I want to be a ruler. I'll join if I can get there (without having been a knight before)". Well, that sums up the spirit: some are after the power trip, not after the rest of the gaming experience.
-
lust for power is not problem by itself, on contrary it is what potentially creates conflicts.
the problem is that mechanics setup allowed those who grab power to hold it indefinitely by too simple means, while there is no way to play against it.
personally, i don't believe ordinary nobles can make revolutions, they are lucky to get 50 golds per week, and they are almost never able to save some funds, to prepare some power.
historically, i think it is somewhat accurate - the main power of lower nobles should be support that they give to one of power factions, they could be tip on balance.
but the problem is that there are no power factions - almost all in power are always glad with what they have, they do not go one against another, so that turn in conflict weak ones vs. power ones which is so hopeless that rarely even develops.
-
really interesting event has very simple definition - event that influences power balance.
Not sure if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, but there are two sorts of 'making things happen':
1) Things happen that cause battles to be fought, regions to be won and lost, rulers to be overthrown, generally politically motivated
2) Things that give you something interesting to read and react to other than automated turn-change messages, that give interesting roleplay opportunity and some memorable moments
Trying to do (1) does fit your definition. But trying to do (2) does not. Having just returned to see Battlemaster after three years away, the things I most remember from my previous time here were the light-hearted, frivolous-but-not-silly roleplays we had in Falasan's Black Army, surrounding the impossible game of Skat, and the mysterious lure of Loronzo of the Mist. Neither of these had anything to do with power, neither involved our council members or dukes with any regularity, but both were interesting (and entertaining).
I find that trying to get involved in political roleplay and communications is extremely hard, since so much of it happens behind closed doors that even if you do try to get involved, you are so ignorant of the political situation that all you can do is make your character appear similarly ignorant. Whereas things irrelevant to politics and power are easier for everyone in the realm, newbies included, to be involved with. And being light-hearted doesn't mean you have to be being silly like fighting off badgers let loose by elves.
---
As a new player (again) now, I'm back to finding that there are very few messages of any kind to read that aren't automated ones, and fewer still that offer any sort of interactive opportunities. I don't think it's because everyone just logs in, does nothing but click a button, and then logs out again. Because when I message one of the senior realm members personally, I often get a good reply. I think it's because so many of our more active, better roleplayers are in senior positions, and they then only message and roleplay with other people in senior positions, so that all the more interesting messages are hidden from the view of a normal boring knight.
A few do provide something entertaining, and that's great. Some are really read-only as a fair number involve senior people loving/hating/etc each other in private, and a very few are easier to interact with either then, or at a later date. But others will go for weeks without ever messaging realm-wide which I think is a shame.
So - a plea to rulers/dukes/councils or even people who only ever message their elite army or their lord-comms-group - if you're sending off ten goodly messages in a week, make at least one of them realm-wide and preferably non-private and non-political, whether it's sparking off something new, or continuing some other realm-wide roleplay that's already happening. Even if it's just inviting everyone to your fortress for a banquet or writing your duke into a mild predicament that another knight could come and join.
I try to do this myself, even if I'm the only one posting and even if I get no replies (so apologies if you're sick of 90% of realm-wide non-automated messages being from me!) as after a while I trust people will become more familiar with my character and more confident with their characters interacting. Will see how it goes, but for now my optimistic hat is on and I'll keep on trying until the OOC messages turn up to tell me to shut it :) It's either that, or go for the method of trying to powergame your way into a position of high power just in order to have something interesting to do/say, which I am trying very hard to avoid.
-
Psymann, I couldn't agree more.
There is also a problem I have noted, which I suspect has something to do with the Estates system, that people are always seeking nobles, but they are seeking /knights/, not other kind of nobles. While the gameplay of the knights is much lighter, and likely, as Psymann just said, they are completely ignorant of whatever is happening politically (both internally and externally), not having any say in it even if they'd discover what's going on.
I've invited several players, and it's a little bit frustrating telling them that the only things they can do at the beginning is accepting and enlarging their estates, and moving to the capital to recruit. They'll only get sent scout reports, or similar semi-automatic messages, and little more than that, being all the rest of the political, administrative and diplomatic work done in upper closed groups. Not that good for retention. I feel that being a knight should be something you'd choose in order to play the game in a light-weight mode, not spending much time and work on it, not a position you are forced to have in large scale, an army of servants. I can see the appeal to multi-accounting that way. :/
-
Not sure if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, but there are two sorts of 'making things happen':
1) Things happen that cause battles to be fought, regions to be won and lost, rulers to be overthrown, generally politically motivated
2) Things that give you something interesting to read and react to other than automated turn-change messages, that give interesting roleplay opportunity and some memorable moments
Trying to do (1) does fit your definition. But trying to do (2) does not. Having just returned to see Battlemaster after three years away, the things I most remember from my previous time here were the light-hearted, frivolous-but-not-silly roleplays we had in Falasan's Black Army, surrounding the impossible game of Skat, and the mysterious lure of Loronzo of the Mist. Neither of these had anything to do with power, neither involved our council members or dukes with any regularity, but both were interesting (and entertaining).
it is nothing unusual that two of us have somewhat different view of same thing, Akutagava made that global wisdom.
in my mind two things you separate are interconnected. if you look once more in my previous posts, you'll see that i expressed opinion that what you describe at (2) cannot draw attention for too long if there is nothing that fits (1)
maybe my wording is not lucky, both (1) and (2) has its value, but without (1) other things do not work for too long. i even stated something like that already.
I find that trying to get involved in political roleplay and communications is extremely hard, since so much of it happens behind closed doors that even if you do try to get involved, you are so ignorant of the political situation that all you can do is make your character appear similarly ignorant. Whereas things irrelevant to politics and power are easier for everyone in the realm, newbies included, to be involved with. And being light-hearted doesn't mean you have to be being silly like fighting off badgers let loose by elves.
agreed, but again i will repeat my thoughts - if such kind of fun extends for too long without fun your described as (1), things fade away and I saw such thing in some realms. you can make game you described funny literally for months. but without dramatic events on realm level, everything will eventually sink into apathy.
---
As a new player (again) now, I'm back to finding that there are very few messages of any kind to read that aren't automated ones, and fewer still that offer any sort of interactive opportunities. I don't think it's because everyone just logs in, does nothing but click a button, and then logs out again. Because when I message one of the senior realm members personally, I often get a good reply. I think it's because so many of our more active, better roleplayers are in senior positions, and they then only message and roleplay with other people in senior positions, so that all the more interesting messages are hidden from the view of a normal boring knight.
that is because all in power within realm are in unnatural idyllic relationships, as once they reach power balance, nothing can pull them out, i call that too stable realms, and believe that game mechanics should disturb such stability.
A few do provide something entertaining, and that's great. Some are really read-only as a fair number involve senior people loving/hating/etc each other in private, and a very few are easier to interact with either then, or at a later date. But others will go for weeks without ever messaging realm-wide which I think is a shame.
they are too safe on their positions, if they are not, they would care to gain respect from as many knights as possible. even if sending you one message a month you would be glad knowing that they need you over one-time setting of estate.
So - a plea to rulers/dukes/councils or even people who only ever message their elite army or their lord-comms-group - if you're sending off ten goodly messages in a week, make at least one of them realm-wide and preferably non-private and non-political, whether it's sparking off something new, or continuing some other realm-wide roleplay that's already happening. Even if it's just inviting everyone to your fortress for a banquet or writing your duke into a mild predicament that another knight could come and join.
why don't you try to send it, somewhat adopted to game world, in-game? i do it from time to time, and what i hate the most is when ruler does not say the word even after appeal, but some of his lower ranked loyalists attacks me.
though, you need to know other side of story. rulers are rather weak currently, and those who speak with wider nobility too often, encourage some of very low rank to send them too many intimate questions which do not fit rank difference. that can spoil flavor of ream hierarchy, and judges are currently extremely frightened to do what is their task to do, so sometimes rulers who speak too much only get themselves trouble.
I try to do this myself, even if I'm the only one posting and even if I get no replies (so apologies if you're sick of 90% of realm-wide non-automated messages being from me!) as after a while I trust people will become more familiar with my character and more confident with their characters interacting. Will see how it goes, but for now my optimistic hat is on and I'll keep on trying until the OOC messages turn up to tell me to shut it :) It's either that, or go for the method of trying to powergame your way into a position of high power just in order to have something interesting to do/say, which I am trying very hard to avoid.
that creates frustration after while, wall of silence made by many nobles creates bad feeling. i could only recommend that you try something on duchy or even region level at beginning, to initiate at least minimal conversation and find some friends, sometimes it works much better than sending letters to all.
-
Psymann, I couldn't agree more.
There is also a problem I have noted, which I suspect has something to do with the Estates system, that people are always seeking nobles, but they are seeking /knights/, not other kind of nobles. While the gameplay of the knights is much lighter, and likely, as Psymann just said, they are completely ignorant of whatever is happening politically (both internally and externally), not having any say in it even if they'd discover what's going on.
I've invited several players, and it's a little bit frustrating telling them that the only things they can do at the beginning is accepting and enlarging their estates, and moving to the capital to recruit. They'll only get sent scout reports, or similar semi-automatic messages, and little more than that, being all the rest of the political, administrative and diplomatic work done in upper closed groups. Not that good for retention. I feel that being a knight should be something you'd choose in order to play the game in a light-weight mode, not spending much time and work on it, not a position you are forced to have in large scale, an army of servants. I can see the appeal to multi-accounting that way. :/
well, any marshal or even region lord could make much more explaining knights how many useful tasks they can do from very beginning. i don't agree with what you say to them, that they can only set the estate and move to capital.
they have many things to learn about how to lead their troops, how to be good army troop leaders, how to support region the best, and where they are mostly useful.
they need to know that there is large difference between skilled and unskilled knight. that is job for mentors as well, but every region lord should explain some of that.
though i am fully against situation where those in power are allowed to cement it in too easy way, i am also against idea that knights who still have to learn much should be involved in high politics by giving tham some additional fancy buttons.
kinghts who barely know how to ride a horse, know very little about realm economy, almost nothing about way how politics works to be admited to high politics quickly? that disturbs basic concepts of hierarchy, long-time service, developing career through hard work making it pointless.
i personally believe players would not be impatient to reach high positions if they would know how much knowledge is needed to be learned. some things goes out of mere ignorance - people learn very basic things and than they believe they are ready to take hardest duties. some of them even reach such duties too quickly, and sometimes you will see them completely leaving game in utmost frustration as they had no time to understand how much skills are needed.
i saw guy who is excellent rp-er, spent some months in the realm, but when he was granted lordship, he destroyed the most stable region in the realm doing terrible region work, while being fully convinced that he is game veteran already. not to mention that some come and go from council positions in the same manner.
i believe that had more to do with mentoring system than anything else.if mentors would be given some more in-game weight, people would probably listen them more, and they could affect that much.
more and more players spend months in game while apparently not realizing at all how deep this game is. what is worse for retention than that?...
i believe
-
they have many things to learn about how to lead their troops, how to be good army troop leaders, how to support region the best, and where they are mostly useful.
How do they lead their troops, other than following orders?
How are they good army troop leaders, other than setting the tactics their Marshals issue?
How they support a region the best other than enlarging the estate twice and setting it to what the Lord prefers (Authority of Productivity)?
they need to know that there is large difference between skilled and unskilled knight. that is job for mentors as well, but every region lord should explain some of that.
In leadership skill, you mean? How that knowledge improves their strategy gameplay? None of my characters was told about that, anyway. Frankly, I don't think their superiors want to spend money in them training the skill at the academy, and I wonder if anyone does want that.
-
How do they lead their troops, other than following orders?
How are they good army troop leaders, other than setting the tactics their Marshals issue?
putting gang-bang wars aside, where everyone except gang-banged has excess of resources, they can do much in maintaining their troop morale, paying them at right time, using excess hours to train them, economize with their gold. when to give them some hours of rest, when to use it for training, or for scouting - all that micro-decisions fall on knight. marshals should take care to allow few options within their orders whenever possible. ok, there are marshals or even generals who try to micromanage every single hour of every single man... but than they are the ones who make trouble.
How they support a region the best other than enlarging the estate twice and setting it to what the Lord prefers (Authority of Productivity)?
by civil and police work, courtier work, telling tales etc. region support is never limited to knight's region, much of time there are regions who need more help than their own knights can provide.
good police troop can make serious trouble to infiltrators, whole small game can develop around that.
In leadership skill, you mean? How that knowledge improves their strategy gameplay? None of my characters was told about that, anyway. Frankly, I don't think their superiors want to spend money in them training the skill at the academy, and I wonder if anyone does want that.
i did not mean leadership skills directly, they are developing long-time and to some extent i am glad about that. sending someone to academy just to increase skills is so sterile and artificial, that could be life-time decision of noble, and academy is good to be only sligt support to it.
i ment, for example, about simple precious activity - scouting. good organized scouting can make big, really big difference in strategic things and can be conducted by any knigth.
all the mentioned can make ordinary knight noticeable.
of course - it is leaders responsibility to make new players aware of it. when i mean leaders, i really do not mean rulers only, such role fit very good to marshals, vice-marshals, military council members (for military issues), judges, dukes, bankers (for region work), and, of course, region lords in all matters.
though estate system is announced to be changed, and there are some apparent reasons for that, still many concepts are great.
simply said - if knight is very bored, that could be addressed to his lord firstly.
i agree that ruler should send some realm-wide announcements at least now and than, but the same apply to each and every region lord as regards to his vassals.
sometimes i see region lord abandoned by his knights because he ignores and devalues them. and that is certainly good part of estate system - if you do not put at least some effort in your leadership duties, you do not deserve to be leader, even of 100 population badlands... :D
-
1) Things happen that cause battles to be fought, regions to be won and lost, rulers to be overthrown, generally politically motivated
2) Things that give you something interesting to read and react to other than automated turn-change messages, that give interesting roleplay opportunity and some memorable moments
both (1) and (2) has its value, but without (1) other things do not work for too long
I'll agree with that much - it becomes stale if there's no change in realms, both in terms or their size or their council members and region lords.
But I'd also say that (2) is just as important as (1), and just as interesting as (1) - often more so.
they have many things to learn about how to lead their troops, how to be good army troop leaders, how to support region the best, and where they are mostly useful.
I think in terms of 'making stuff happen', there are two sorts of 'things' and we're probably talking about both at once here.
A) Roleplay
B) Mechanics
When I join the game, as a newbie, I can say that there is precious little of either. And I know that there's meant to be little in a lightweight game, but I mean there's little to do in comparison with other players playing the same game. Council members, Dukes, Lords - they all have more to do of both these things.
Years ago I moaned for a good while about the fact that simple knights have so little to do in game mechanic terms. You say they have lots to learn, but this really isn't true, as JPierreD points out. Every thing you do is determined by your army marshal (your settings, where you travel, whether you loot, hunt or do civil work etc - and doing anything else is considered disobedient). And one or two things are determined by your lord (estate settings). There is pretty much Nothing you can do as a simple knight that requires you to turn your brain on. When I first started, it took me about one day to understand all the options available to me - the wiki is good, I can read, and that's about all there is to it. I had two knights and one bureaucrat, and it was then a full year before any one of them got any position of any kind other than being a simple knight. I certainly didn't need a year to learn how to be a knight.
Something I campaigned for back then, and still would love to see now, is more options for simple knights. Things like a unit setting for your troop that differs for each troop (a bit like their favourite type of entertainment) and affects how they fight - which would be something that a marshal could not just send you instructions for. Or advanced things you could do with your own estate, or something.
One of the two arguments back then, against that sort of thing, was that "players in high positions don't have much more to click on than simple knights". Which I still think is untrue, because there are more options, including more influencial options and more though-provoking options, for lords, dukes and particularly council members. And therefore I'd still love more options for simple knights. I suspect that's something for another thread though.
The other of the two arguments back then were that "you shouldn't be just wanting to click buttons - it's a roleplay game". And to a large degree, they were right in that. It is indeed an RP game, and ever since then I tried harder to do more RP and worry less about buttons. And I think that's been good. However, you can only do this if there is some roleplay going on to interact with, otherwise you're just writing a monologue or writing a book. And that's where we come back to this thread where we need more people to roleplay. And, for new players, we need some of that roleplay to involve them.
If people have the high positions, with all the buttons to press, they need to give something back to the simple knights by providing something they can roleplay to - because besides roleplay, there is nothing for a simple knight to do. I still don't agree that this _needs_ to be something that is political and realm-changing - I would say that some of it actively _needs_ not to be political so it's more inclusive for newbies. But I do agree that if there is never anything political and realm-changing then that's not good either.
i saw guy who is excellent rp-er, spent some months in the realm, but when he was granted lordship, he destroyed the most stable region in the realm doing terrible region work, while being fully convinced that he is game veteran already
Is that a bad thing? If he was roleplaying his character to be useless, then he probably did the correct thing in-character. And if he wasn't doing it on purpose, then surely completely destroying your realm's most stable region is a fine event to inspire some roleplay - it is very much 'making something happen', isn't it?
i could only recommend that you try something on duchy or even region level at beginning, to initiate at least minimal conversation and find some friends, sometimes it works much better than sending letters to all
The easiest ways to get interactions is to write personal letters to people, as they feel compelled to reply. Sadly most people you have reason to write to are those up the chain - your lord, your duke, your marshal, for example - most of whom are involved in political message groups that take more of their attention. Armies are often the best place as there are lots of knights with nothing better to do, though of course a newbie doesn't have an army for a few days at the start. The worst armies are the ones full of region lords who just stay in their regions holding court and not talking to anyone, which ironically are usually the 'defensive' armies that newbies are often assigned to at first.
-
they can do much in maintaining their troop morale, paying them at right time, using excess hours to train them, economize with their gold. when to give them some hours of rest, when to use it for training, or for scouting - all that micro-decisions fall on knight
...
by civil and police work, courtier work, telling tales etc. region support is never limited to knight's region, much of time there are regions who need more help than their own knights can provide.
If we're still talking about newbies here, then:
- Maintaining troop morale is rarely an issue - it stays at 100% pretty much all the time unless you do civil work, and then there are two options to get the morale back - paying for lots of entertainment (which you can't afford) or paying for normal entertainment which you do instead.
- Paying them at the right time doesn't really figure. You have autopayment so they pay themselves. There is rarely an occasion where you need to be clever about paying them such that you can stay longer in the field, and in general as long as you don't pay them every day, they cost you pretty much the same amount per day on average, I believe.
- When to give them hours of rest: pretty much never. Doesn't really do anything after all.
- Economising their gold doesn't take much effort: just don't train at the academy and don't buy 100 troops.
- Police work you can't do unless you're a Courtier, which you can't be if you are a newbie
- Courtier work you can't do unless you're a Courtier, which you can't be if you are a newbie
- Telling Tales you can't do unless you're a Hero, which you can't be if you are a newbie
- Region Support is actually just civil work, which you've already mentioned, and you can't swan about to other regions to do some because you have to be where your marshal tells you to be.
That just leaves scouting, training and civil work. It's simple enough routine:
1) Scout anywhere you have been told to scout and hasn't already been scouted by someone else
2) If you have spare gold and can handle the equipment damage, then train
3) If you can't afford to train or you've been specifically told to prioritise it, do civil work.
4) If you can't afford to train, the region doesn't need civil work, and you've scouted everywhere, rest your troops and save four hours.
All of these being mindless tasks requiring no thought.
-
Some people actually scorn me when I share rather unimportant stuff realm-wide. I ignore them by sending to all of my continuously growing duchy instead, but some are unfortunately still left out.
A pity some players are too paranoid.
-
I disagree that there is little for a knight to do early on. Maybe the first three days, when you are still getting aquainted with your realm, but after that you just need to start sending out messages of your own, joining guilds, perhaps even asking a Marshal to take your character under his wing and act as his tutor.
I'll give you an example. My character Sayuki is less than a month old. In that time, he has derailed the Principality of Zonasa's General as an incompetent, disobeyed orders because he could refit out in Greater Aenilia, charged against a force of Arcaeans single-handedly, reached an agreement with the Marshal of an Arcaean army because of his frustration with the Zonasan General and his own ambition, fed information to Arcaea on Zonasan movements while moving out to meet with an Arcaean lord to change allegiance, changed the course of the Arcaean campaign with said info, was rewarded by the king of Arcaea for his service, and has joined the Pheonix court to jump-start his political career.
You don't even need to turn traitor to make things happen for your knight. Roleplay some rivalry with another noble, ask a Marshal, Lord, or the ruler himself (if he is the type to do so) to tutor you in the ways of leadership. Send a message to a far noble of another realm on a whim and see how he reacts. So many ways to play. If your knight is new, why act logically? Put on the veneer of sanity, then roleplay the times when your true nature shows itself.
-
If we're still talking about newbies here, then:
- Maintaining troop morale is rarely an issue - it stays at 100% pretty much all the time unless you do civil work, and then there are two options to get the morale back - paying for lots of entertainment (which you can't afford) or paying for normal entertainment which you do instead.
- Paying them at the right time doesn't really figure. You have autopayment so they pay themselves. There is rarely an occasion where you need to be clever about paying them such that you can stay longer in the field, and in general as long as you don't pay them every day, they cost you pretty much the same amount per day on average, I believe.
- When to give them hours of rest: pretty much never. Doesn't really do anything after all.
- Economising their gold doesn't take much effort: just don't train at the academy and don't buy 100 troops.
- Police work you can't do unless you're a Courtier, which you can't be if you are a newbie
- Courtier work you can't do unless you're a Courtier, which you can't be if you are a newbie
- Telling Tales you can't do unless you're a Hero, which you can't be if you are a newbie
- Region Support is actually just civil work, which you've already mentioned, and you can't swan about to other regions to do some because you have to be where your marshal tells you to be.
That just leaves scouting, training and civil work. It's simple enough routine:
1) Scout anywhere you have been told to scout and hasn't already been scouted by someone else
2) If you have spare gold and can handle the equipment damage, then train
3) If you can't afford to train or you've been specifically told to prioritise it, do civil work.
4) If you can't afford to train, the region doesn't need civil work, and you've scouted everywhere, rest your troops and save four hours.
All of these being mindless tasks requiring no thought.
well, it seems we have quite different experiences.
i was playing many hard wars and things you describe are possible only in realms with overwhelming power and wealth. large entertainment, for example, is luxury option in long wars.
setting up region quickly means using each and every hour of your civil work effectively, taking care of morale, and you don't have time to both hold high morale and do lot of civil work.
for courtiership you need as little as 5 prestige points, and i beleive you are still newbie when reaching that.
moreover, if your marshal is constantly telling you how to spend each and every hour, without ever leaving you a choice, as soon as you learn enough, you are ready to oppose his seargent-style commanding. so that is one more game for you.
really, you have many options, and some of my chars live as knights literally for years having enough to do all the time.
first of all, you only need very light rp to be noticed, it is enough that you play your char in sma manner and your char will be recognized.
you can join guilds and religions, and develop parallel careers at the same time. friends you acquire in-game are more worthy than extra buttions - you can develop many campaigns with them - the only condition is that something happens in the realm generally.
you say that you learned all needed in a single day?
i spent three weeks wandering as lunatic, believing that i will learn everything on-the-road. when i saw that does not work and realized how deep game is, it took me at least one full week of deep wiki study until i grasped what i consider basics.
newbies only need to read wiki and they will find wealth of examples on what is possible in-game, enough to be interested.
interaction gives you most of things... most of leaders have no more than few extra buttons and its use is limited to specific occasions.
as a mentor, one of the most important advices i gave to new knights is that they need to develop their patience, and i can sign that all who accepted that became very notable players, and i see them around after years....
-
I disagree that there is little for a knight to do early on. Maybe the first three days, when you are still getting aquainted with your realm, but after that you just need to start sending out messages of your own, joining guilds, perhaps even asking a Marshal to take your character under his wing and act as his tutor.
I'll give you an example. My character Sayuki is less than a month old. In that time, he has derailed the Principality of Zonasa's General as an incompetent, disobeyed orders because he could refit out in Greater Aenilia, charged against a force of Arcaeans single-handedly, reached an agreement with the Marshal of an Arcaean army because of his frustration with the Zonasan General and his own ambition, fed information to Arcaea on Zonasan movements while moving out to meet with an Arcaean lord to change allegiance, changed the course of the Arcaean campaign with said info, was rewarded by the king of Arcaea for his service, and has joined the Pheonix court to jump-start his political career.
You don't even need to turn traitor to make things happen for your knight. Roleplay some rivalry with another noble, ask a Marshal, Lord, or the ruler himself (if he is the type to do so) to tutor you in the ways of leadership. Send a message to a far noble of another realm on a whim and see how he reacts. So many ways to play. If your knight is new, why act logically? Put on the veneer of sanity, then roleplay the times when your true nature shows itself.
And would you have done all of this if you were a new player and not just a new noble?
-
And would you have done all of this if you were a new player and not just a new noble?
is it not good example how experienced player can do much with the same amount of buttons as newbie has? and that actually means that newbie has many things to learn even without being promoted.
-
Most of the things he did were not button actions but RP actions, and not things a newbie would know about, or think about doing.
-
Most of the things he did were not button actions but RP actions, and not things a newbie would know about, or think about doing.
Then perhaps the problem isn't that they don't have enough to do, but that they don't properly understand what they could do?
I would greatly favor us encouraging newbies to spend 5 more minutes day writing messages than giving them 5 minutes' worth of button clicking a day. We already have too much routine clicking for my tastes.
-
Then perhaps the problem isn't that they don't have enough to do, but that they don't properly understand what they could do?
I would greatly favor us encouraging newbies to spend 5 more minutes day writing messages than giving them 5 minutes' worth of button clicking a day. We already have too much routine clicking for my tastes.
Agreed. I would have greatly appreciated people talking in general more when I was a newbie, as well as people helping IC and OOC with getting me started in the game. Like recently, I asked a new player if he wished to become my knight in the new realm I will be forming with Allison Kabrinski. I also directed him to a lord who needed a lord and told him that I would be there for him if he needed any help. I've now got a very loyal follower, which may come of use in the future.
-
i believe that through all this dicussion we can come to the core of the problem, but stating that in many other threads I will try to be as short as possible:
there is too large stability which forces those in power to be in balance, and those who attempt to shake that balance are mostly doomed, so experienced players mostly avoid that, and that leads to situation that they simply have nothing to talk about, as no effort is needed to maintain power, while those who make efforts to "cause troubles" (all initiatives always lead to that) are mostly doomed.
look at some smaller realms that are not even stable enough - leaders in power will often tend to attract and gain respect from even lowest ranked nobles, and they will be involved to at least some storyline from very beginning.
such realms, however, fail very often as they cannot compete unnaturally compact realms and overall continent stabilization mostly leads to gand of overly stable realms. in such realms, on the other hand, as there are no much stories, only buttons make difference, and people eventually give more value to buttons than they should, but as said, core reasons for that are elsewhere.
so, yes - solution is definitely more stories, not more buttons, but political stall does not allow that, and some rearrangement of buttons is needed to break that stall.
-
Well, if you try to overthrow the government by yelling to everyone who can hear "Let's overthrow the government! Join me!", you aren't going to get many comers. You have to be more indirect than that.