BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Solari on December 04, 2011, 03:38:32 PM
-
I have my own thoughts on this, but it's Sunday morning and I'd rather just get the ball rolling first. Several people have made the observation that there is a disconnect between the culture of older and newer players. That got me thinking about the different aspects of BM culture. Things which have been mentioned before are things like PvP vs. team-based play, conceptions of IC and OOC, and trust and civility issues.
My questions: do real differences exist along these lines? If so, what are some of the commonly-observed causes? More importantly, does BM have a generalized culture and if so, (how) do we want to promote and protect it?
Why I'm asking: I've noticed a lot of rudeness IC lately. Just plain dickishness, really. There are ways to write that do not involve insulting the players around you and creating a generally unhealthy environment. Again, perhaps this is a personal preference, but it does appear that there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that there are very large camps on both sides of the issues mentioned at the top.
Comments, please!
-
I have seen that from rather old players, though not to an exaggerate level. Only saw the major accusations I suppose you are talking about through the forums. It is on the culture of each group.
I have always been of the theory that you've got to make it visible that being a dick to another player is /not/ accepted. For that some warnings, followed by some bolts should things not change, would be very useful. Nobody is forced to love someone else, but they are to respect them. If you cannot keep a minimum level of decency with someone, it means you really hate him, and then the game is no longer a healthy environment. Move along or quit it, else you destroy everyone's game.
Of course, there are several levels of bad behavior, but if we start tolerating small things, they usually escalate into larger ones. There is one thing that has been bothering me for quite a while, and it is the explicit rivalry between players in this same forum. Attached to it there are several comments, some bordering trolling, which just go without anyone saying anything about it. I am rather new to the game, haven't been for a year yet, so I don't feel trying to change the established culture would be wise (or effective, for that matter). But I still don't feel comfortable with such bickering. I don't care if this realm is lame, or if that player is a crybaby/delusional fool. If someone says he is frustrated or annoyed by someone else's behavior, then it's good, because it shows he is attempting to dialogue and have things change. If he says the other player is an idiot, then he is just starting a violent conflict, and given that we cannot actually kill or hurt each other enough to solve the conflict (yes, violence was very useful for solving conflicts, and still is in other environments), nor we want to be in that situation, then we have to employ other methods.
I'm also not interested in starting a witch hunt, on who said what to who. If there could be an agreement that no more trolling-bordering comments, followed by a gentle remark when someone does it, I think it would do the forum first and the game latter a great good. This is at least my preference, someone is bound to be stimulated by this conflicts and enjoy them (thus not wanting to change such culture).
-
One remark:
A culture, by necessity, needs to cover everything. That especially includes both in-game conversations and the forum.
-
If you asked me, I would say that there may be a different in aims of old and new players, not so much of their cultures. Put simply, a new player who comes in would want to excel in this game, some would go so far as to try to dominate and win the game. An impossibility, of course. Older players were once new players with that same mindset initially but that has changed to a more sustaining type of gameplay rather than ambitious. That is simply all there is to it. The rest is just simply two sides trying to fight for their own standpoint. Some players simply like stability whilst others love action.
-
Bak when I waza kid... wont no new fangled com puttn machine to do our game playin for us... whipper snapper...
Is the difference of experiences players vs energetic youngsters any different in game then it is in the real world?
-
I ain't here for nothing more than doing my own thing, see. Just keep trucking it along. And fried chicken tastes good, even if people keep vulgaritizing me, cause none of y'all can defeat the might of the fried chicken.
-
I would agree, to be rude out of necessity makes for a very unhealthy environment because it promotes others to do the same. But to the contrary, being rude for a reason is quite realistic in terms of atmosphere. If a decision is made or a noble is acting against my interests, then I'll most certainly express my character's emotions. Nobles just do not agree on every term, for them to dispute and "jest" with words is perfectly acceptable. I should not be forced to act nice, play nice, or write nice, but perhaps we could use more subtlety in doing so, (along with a little more respect.)
Directly to your question, I believe Crescent sums it up quite nicely. New players enter the world ambitious, wanting to experience what Battlemaster has to offer. The old players, usually, have experienced a good portion of it and settle into a more "sustaining" play-type, as Crescent said. To preserve or protect one culture would mean the extermination of the other, and quite frankly, I believe both cultures work together seamlessly.
-
Why I'm asking: I've noticed a lot of rudeness IC lately. Just plain dickishness, really. There are ways to write that do not involve insulting the players around you and creating a generally unhealthy environment.
You may be discussing something specific I'm not aware of, but generally speaking I think this is largely due to the way the players in the game treat dueling.
Typical scenario: Character 1 acts like a dick, is challenged to a duel, and then makes stupid excuses ("you have no honor/my duty to the realm/blah blah blah") and the rest of the game simply allows it.
If you are challenged to a duel and you avoid it, you ought to be branded a coward and doors shut in your face. (then it becomes a matter of that chars political strength, but let's stay in a general sense). This way, dueling acts like the deterrent it was meant to be - don't want to be killed in a duel, best watch your language.
-
If you are challenged to a duel and you avoid it, you ought to be branded a coward and doors shut in your face. (then it becomes a matter of that chars political strength, but let's stay in a general sense). This way, dueling acts like the deterrent it was meant to be - don't want to be killed in a duel, best watch your language.
This is the best solution by far. It means people will only be dicks either if they can afford to do so, or if the thing they want to be dickish about is important.
-
This is the best solution by far. It means people will only be dicks either if they can afford to do so, or if the thing they want to be dickish about is important.
It would allow for infils, former advies and players who trained swordsmanship to be dickish. It has its benefits and its problems. Not really the solution I'd give.
-
It would allow for infils, former advies and players who trained swordsmanship to be dickish. It has its benefits and its problems. Not really the solution I'd give.
By infils, if you mean they can't duel, I never accept that as an in-game excuse.
As for others being dickish because of good swordsmanship skills, I guess that's just unfortunately a bit of real life. However, my experience has been that those players aren't usually the dicks, it is usually newer players or guys who have been around forever but hardly ever trained.
-
I really think the duelling only scrapes the surface. Usually I find the mentality rather healthy in BM, tough every now and then I meet a scumbag :) Sometimes 'politics' also seem to revolve around no more than medievalistic flamewars and trolling. Not that I can fully excuse myself from that :)
-
I have no idea what anyone is talking about here. It's just a bunch of vague references to random stuff.
-
There's only one player IG that I can't stand. Are there a few characters that I don't particularly agree with? Sure. But only 1 player since 2007 that I really can't stand. In an environment the size of BM, I think that's doing pretty good.
Now, on the forums, there are a few more that I've butted heads with--forums seem to bring that out in me, and probably in others. There isn't any dueling in the forums, no bans, no fines, no reason for anyone to treat anyone else nicely. Perhaps more active moderation--48 hour lockouts perhaps--would help keep the trolling down.
-
There's only one player IG that I can't stand. Are there a few characters that I don't particularly agree with? Sure. But only 1 player since 2007 that I really can't stand. In an environment the size of BM, I think that's doing pretty good.
Now, on the forums, there are a few more that I've butted heads with--forums seem to bring that out in me, and probably in others. There isn't any dueling in the forums, no bans, no fines, no reason for anyone to treat anyone else nicely. Perhaps more active moderation--48 hour lockouts perhaps--would help keep the trolling down.
I don't think it's trolling, though. People aren't arguing for the "lulz". They do it because they are genuinely annoyed.
-
I have no idea what anyone is talking about here. It's just a bunch of vague references to random stuff.
I have to say I'm kind of in agreement with this. I've been playing since 2006 (having changed accounts since then) and so while I'd consider myself one of the "oldies" now I think although there is a different mindset when you first join the game I don't think it necessarily creates rudeness.
Conflict in BM IC wise is good in opinion. In fact, I've had the most fun in this game either causing or being part of conflicts in which my character IC makes some incredible enemies and great friends alike. While a character may be rude you can still play a character that way without being rude to the players.
Perhaps I've just not witnessed much of this happening, but I think overall our playerbase makes BM one of the best games around.
-
the only thing I'd like to add is that there is a perfectly good ignore button for those characters/players who are just too disagreeable to have any fun with, assuming it is player-driven rudeness and not just an over the top character (although it works for them, too).
-
interesting... subtle... Very well, Challenge Accepted:
I myself have seen some oldies be 'dickish' both IC and OOC with baiting and fueling flames. Some cannot seem to seperate IC and OOC and some are just like 'that' I guess. I've seen some characters go round baiting the single character in the realm who will generally talk right back and defend itself etc, heck seen one go around calling an entire realm's military a bunch of cowards and then take offence when he got a talking to right back. OOC I have seen a guy turn out to be one hell of a 'dick' just because he didnt like the way another player roleplayed his character.
I've also seen my fair share of newbies be 'dickish' both IC and OOC as well. And from this I gain this outcome:
I would say there is NO divide. Humans are Human. !@#$ happens. And everyone can be a dick when they want to!
Now my question here: Why do Americans always use the word dick instead of other non-genitalia 'cusses'? Seems a fixation or is that just the media? :P
-
You may be discussing something specific I'm not aware of, but generally speaking I think this is largely due to the way the players in the game treat dueling.
We're having a fight on FEI, in Toupellon, at this very moment over dueling. Some people want dueling outlawed because it "hurts the realm" when nobles get injured, because they won't be able to do their regular regional maintenance duties.
Typical scenario: Character 1 acts like a dick, is challenged to a duel, and then makes stupid excuses ("you have no honor/my duty to the realm/blah blah blah") and the rest of the game simply allows it.
Yeah, that does happen. But then again, there's also no social castigation when some no-name young punk thinks he can challenge the king to a duel.
If you are challenged to a duel and you avoid it, you ought to be branded a coward and doors shut in your face. (then it becomes a matter of that chars political strength, but let's stay in a general sense). This way, dueling acts like the deterrent it was meant to be - don't want to be killed in a duel, best watch your language.
There is a bit of truth in this. But it's not the complete answer. In addition to the situation you have described, there are also plenty of situations where idiots make duel challenges for little or no reason. In those cases the challenge should be refused, and the challenger scorned.
-
Yeah, that does happen. But then again, there's also no social castigation when some no-name young punk thinks he can challenge the king to a duel.
Could we solve this with an official "champion" option? Allow people to name someone else to fight in their stead? If it's an official game option, the punk can't complain much, and most kings will hold a champion with a really good skill so the punks can get a beating.
-
That would be great.
-
Could we solve this with an official "champion" option? Allow people to name someone else to fight in their stead? If it's an official game option, the punk can't complain much, and most kings will hold a champion with a really good skill so the punks can get a beating.
This would be especially useful in situations where characters are clearly outmatched. Courtiers, Priests and the like. It might even create a little side market for hired swords!
-
We're having a fight on FEI, in Toupellon, at this very moment over dueling. Some people want dueling outlawed because it "hurts the realm" when nobles get injured, because they won't be able to do their regular regional maintenance duties.
Well, the judge *can* declare dueling illegal and set an automatic fine for it. That kinda helps the mindframe that looting is a luxury that needs the approval of higher up.
-
Something what tires me is that some players, usually old ones with a long time in the realm, think your character cannot oppose them. Several arguments are used: hierarchy (if so, then we'd never have rebellions), service to the realm (you serve interests which are not necessarily shared by everyone, and there is no right and wrong in that), and realm culture - as in 'we have been planning this all along' (can't the newer players have different ideas, as long as it makes sense IC?).
-
Something what tires me is that some players, usually old ones with a long time in the realm, think your character cannot oppose them. Several arguments are used: hierarchy (if so, then we'd never have rebellions), service to the realm (you serve interests which are not necessarily shared by everyone, and there is no right and wrong in that), and realm culture - as in 'we have been planning this all along' (can't the newer players have different ideas, as long as it makes sense IC?).
What tires me is that some players, usually the new ones with little time in realm, think their character cannot oppose us. Several arguments are used: hierarchy (if so, then we'd never have rebellions), service to the realm (you serve interests which are not necessarily shared by everyone, and there is no right and wrong in that), and realm culture - as in 'we have been planning this all along' (can't the newer players have different ideas, as long as it makes sense IC?).
;)
But seriously, I tend to do everything myself because I have a hard time getting others involved, lately. 'twas much easier in the times of early RoF and of the Blood Cult. Hell, even in Enweil, prior to the fourth invasion. Can't just seem to be able to find people willing to really be creative and invest themselves anymore. I won't hide that I also do less too, though, but my previous levels of activity were inhuman. I played as much BM as the nerdiest of nerds can play WoW.
-
Something what tires me is that some players, usually old ones with a long time in the realm, think your character cannot oppose them. Several arguments are used: hierarchy (if so, then we'd never have rebellions), service to the realm (you serve interests which are not necessarily shared by everyone, and there is no right and wrong in that), and realm culture - as in 'we have been planning this all along' (can't the newer players have different ideas, as long as it makes sense IC?).
This is an excellent point.
JPD and I have talked about this at great length, and in my experience it seems to come down to trust. When new players arrive—especially when they arrive in groups—and take similar positions IC, it raises the suspicions of established players. Nobody should be in the business of telling friends that they can't play together in BM. At the same time, newer players need to understand that many of the in-game relationships between characters have been built up over time... sometimes with considerable effort. Newer groups of players can appear to "cheat" the system by functioning like a power bloc that's taken years to develop naturally. Established (and well-intentioned) players aren't going to form ad hoc opposition blocs IC to offset this new reality because it would cheapen their argument against the very situation that's frustrating them. So, mistrust blossoms.
When these newer player blocs also start doing things bucking the IC hierarchies or proposing sweeping "reforms" that suggest they aren't as familiar with the game mechanics as they could be, there's nowhere for this adversarial relationship to go but down the toilet. In my experience, most of these situations arise out of an attempt to graft experiences in one game or forum onto BM. That upsets a lot of people, and can discourage some older players from investing the time in trying to educate newer players about the vagaries of BM in an attempt to assimilate them into the culture.
-
Something what tires me is that some players, usually old ones with a long time in the realm, think your character cannot oppose them. Several arguments are used: hierarchy (if so, then we'd never have rebellions), service to the realm (you serve interests which are not necessarily shared by everyone, and there is no right and wrong in that), and realm culture - as in 'we have been planning this all along' (can't the newer players have different ideas, as long as it makes sense IC?).
Yeah, there are some players like that. But in some cases, though, they are correct. A noble who has been serving as general of the realm for 20+ IC years should not be challenged by an 18 year old newbie who just arrived in the realm 3 weeks ago, for anything short of a deadly insult to him or his family.
When considering duel challenges, you do need to think about the relative station of the nobles involved, as well as the magnitude of the insult. if the nobles involved are of equivalent station, then sure, a refusal to duel should bring on shame and scorn from the other nobles. But challenges across a vast disparity of station or even swordsmanship skill, especially over frivolous matters, should also garner some scorn and shame for the challenger as well. A multi-tournament-winning swordsman challenging a young courtier to a death duel over some minor comment regarding the color of a tunic shouldn't be celebrated as a champion of justice and nobility. (But keep your comments to yourself, or he might decide that you are his next victim opponent!)
-
It's way too easy to refuse duels though. And really, there is pretty much NO consequence for refusing. Really. What's going to happen? Dude you pissed off starts getting a hissy fit and barking bad stuff about you? Ok...have fun doing that? There's bound to be a realm that will take you in no matter what (As evidenced by the fact that to date, no one, and I do mean NO ONE has managed to become banned in every single realm on a continent via legitimate means...or even illegitimate.)
-
It's way too easy to refuse duels though. And really, there is pretty much NO consequence for refusing. Really. What's going to happen? Dude you pissed off starts getting a hissy fit and barking bad stuff about you? Ok...have fun doing that? There's bound to be a realm that will take you in no matter what (As evidenced by the fact that to date, no one, and I do mean NO ONE has managed to become banned in every single realm on a continent via legitimate means...or even illegitimate.)
Agreed, but it's also too easy to issue one.
-
Not so much, as long as your judge decides to actually, you know, do something about realm laws, where clearly there are no less than four different ways to handle duel challenges. Then again, that is really broad and blanket, so eh, no way to make everyone happy really. Sometimes no way to make anyone happy either.
-
How about setting duelling limitations based on H/P? If the challenger would not meet a certain required H/P relative to the person he challenges, an H/P penalty would ba applied to the challenger. I'm not for simply preventing the challenger to request a duel for RP value. Sometimes it's just cool to be the brat challenging the top dog, even knowing that the duel will never be held. Even at an H/P cost :)
I also like the Champion thing. Perhaps something reserved to Dukes and Rulers? (not for Prime Ministers, though)
-
I also like the Champion thing. Perhaps something reserved to Dukes and Rulers? (not for Prime Ministers, though)
I know a lot of dukes and kings who use their income and station to ride into every battle they can. It's likely that their swordfighting skill is as high or higher than most. Some other kind of restriction (if any) on the use of Champions would probably be a better idea. ;)
-
I know a lot of dukes and kings who use their income and station to ride into every battle they can. It's likely that their swordfighting skill is as high or higher than most. Some other kind of restriction (if any) on the use of Champions would probably be a better idea. ;)
This assumes that they are using infantry or Special Forces. Personally, I have a character who selectively uses Cavalry and another who once used only archers irrespective of how many funds they have.
But yes a different criteria is preferred.
-
Why put any kind of criteria on it at all? Just let any noble have someone champion them in a duel. That lets you use a champion for various RP reasons as well. (Poor health, advanced age, class, etc.)
This brings up the question, though: Should there be some mechanism to allow the challenger to decline the substitution of a champion, thus canceling the duel altogether? And should the challenger be allowed to know who the champion will be when they are offered the choice to proceed or back out?
-
Why put any kind of criteria on it at all? Just let any noble have someone champion them in a duel. That lets you use a champion for various RP reasons as well. (Poor health, advanced age, class, etc.)
This brings up the question, though: Should there be some mechanism to allow the challenger to decline the substitution of a champion, thus canceling the duel altogether? And should the challenger be allowed to know who the champion will be when they are offered the choice to proceed or back out?
Excellent questions that should probably be answered in another subforum. ;)
-
I'll agree with Perth on this.
I have no idea what this thread is "getting at."
What "dickishness"? Can we get some examples please? I have not personally witnessed this anytime recently (maybe I was the dick?), so I'm curious what people are talking about.
Then again... I do play most intently in that wonderful bubble of BM bliss, Terran....
-
Actually, there is an issue in BM culture.
Nepotism.
I swear, the same players play together all the time. I try to be careful to mix it up some; I've played as an ally and an enemy to Anarises, Bedwyrs, Solaris, Chéniers, Lefanises, and many other families. The only prominent families that I have played with in multiple different circumstances that I have always been an ally with that immediately come to mind are Perth and Keithson.
I think if "old" BM players would work harder at destroying, IC, their OOC friends' characters and building up, IC, their OOC "not-as-much-of-friends' " characters, it would go a long way.
In other words, we should force an Anaris, Chénier, and Lefanis to all play in the same realm. For a long time. And work together.
-
In other words, we should force an Anaris, Chénier, and Lefanis to all play in the same realm. For a long time. And work together.
So...you want to cause a realm to spiral down into total insanity, then?
Keep in mind that it's far, far easier for two people who generally like each other and get along well to fight against each other than for two people who tend to strike sparks off each other constantly to work together.
-
Actually, there is an issue in BM culture.
Nepotism.
I swear, the same players play together all the time. I try to be careful to mix it up some; I've played as an ally and an enemy to Anarises, Bedwyrs, Solaris, Chéniers, Lefanises, and many other families. The only prominent families that I have played with in multiple different circumstances that I have always been an ally with that immediately come to mind are Perth and Keithson.
I think if "old" BM players would work harder at destroying, IC, their OOC friends' characters and building up, IC, their OOC "not-as-much-of-friends' " characters, it would go a long way.
In other words, we should force an Anaris, Chénier, and Lefanis to all play in the same realm. For a long time. And work together.
I've played in the same realm as Lefanis with many characters and for extended periods of time.
That was enough.
As for Anaris, circumstances have put them regularly in realms opposing those I've went to. Result of circumstances, really. Took me quite a while to associate Anaris with Riombara, as in my earlier years a realm was a thousand times more important than the person ruling it. I OOC wouldn't mind it though I have a hard time seeing cooperation IC actually working out.
And by the way, none of the OOC friends I've brought into this game, or who brought me into the game, still play. Any friendships my family and characters hold have been developed purely IG. And I've never been one to turn people who want to help me away (except if that character pissed off another of the family or if the family as a whole has a bad history with mine). I have never marginalized newer families because of their youth: indeed, I tend to find that they make better allies, because they tend to be a lot more eager to prove themselves.
But really, how's nepotism an issue in the BM culture? I can imagine it being so in some cases, but not in most places I play. The realms I play have tons of positions attributed to the single person putting his name in the referendum for it. Yea, I tend to be at the top, and yea, I tend to take up a lot of power... but that's because I don't see anyone who actually wants to take that power. I'd rather take the power and make something of it than give it to someone that doesn't really want it and won't do anything of it. In the past, when ambitious people were more plentiful, I used to want to limit myself to one or two titles in order to satisfy the greatest number of allies possible. I don't really do that anymore, but it ain't because I've become greedy or power-hungry.
Years ago, I had to constantly struggle to increase my power or influence, and put great efforts because the old guard seemed to universally be, everywhere, considering me as a trouble-maker that threatened their hard-earned titles with propositions of such silly things as wars. I always feared that, years later, I would become like that, and that having achieved my power I would crush all those who challenged me, and I promised myself I wouldn't let that happen, that I would use my power to promote fun instead of stifling it. Maybe my strategies work, maybe not, I can't really say, but I can say that I don't see anyone running around even remotely resembling what me and the people I associated with. The other challengers to my powers are not people close by would would like what I have gotten, but people far-away who would rather I be more quiet and docile or have strategic interests against me or my realm.
Note: I'm also not sure what making all the established families working together would accomplish? We could organize power structures that would create invincible alliances, until all the rulers of the continents we play together on are friends? I don't see what the fun in that would be.
-
Vellos is correct. There is a fair bit of that in the game. It would be interesting to see if some statistics nut could put together some kind of web or graph to show how various players play together on different islands. I would bet there's some kind of correlation.
There would be a tendency for players who play in a realm to get to know each other. And when they move around, to choose realms those people play in. After all, the same players would tend to produce the same play style that you already like, right?
From experiences I have had in the past year or so, though, this can also result in some OOC bias against players as well. If you play for years in Keplerstan while fighting against Evilstani, then die and start a new character in Evilstani, you are likely to get a very cold reception. And that's likely to be an OOC unfriendliness, too. I have experienced something similar myself:
"We'd all rather you just left and went somewhere else."
:( :'(
-
I know a lot of dukes and kings who use their income and station to ride into every battle they can. It's likely that their swordfighting skill is as high or higher than most. Some other kind of restriction (if any) on the use of Champions would probably be a better idea. ;)
Ah...No. That doesn't get your sword skill to high levels at all. My Abington characters, who never led anything but infantry, and during one point fought in battles multiple times a week, every week, for months on end, never got above 50%, and I'd be surprised if either got much over 40%.
Which is the problem I have with duelling. You will always be at a disadvantage to people who spend time at academies training. And you know what? That's boring as hell, burns through gold like anything, and is generally only available to people who have a lot of clout in the realm so they can get out of any of the standard duties.
-
Actually, there is an issue in BM culture.
Nepotism.
I swear, the same players play together all the time. I try to be careful to mix it up some; I've played as an ally and an enemy to Anarises, Bedwyrs, Solaris, Chéniers, Lefanises, and many other families. The only prominent families that I have played with in multiple different circumstances that I have always been an ally with that immediately come to mind are Perth and Keithson.
I think if "old" BM players would work harder at destroying, IC, their OOC friends' characters and building up, IC, their OOC "not-as-much-of-friends' " characters, it would go a long way.
In other words, we should force an Anaris, Chénier, and Lefanis to all play in the same realm. For a long time. And work together.
I tend to enjoy doing this, when I can, but the problem is that people often don't take it well. I've been lucky enough that Tim and I are still friends despite two of my characters betraying two of his, and there are a few other examples of that I can name, but I tend to like playing for major stakes, and when you play on that level and destroy someone else's long-laid plans...(shrugs) Doesn't always go well OOC.
I'm not sure nepotism is necessarily a bad thing, so long as it isn't taken to extremes. One of my favorite parts of the game is the relationships between families as well as characters. There's a whole circle of Houses that House Bedwyr considers "associated" (some members, in back rooms where no one can here, might be heard to whisper "vassals"), others it considers enemies, and often it gets more complicated. House Himoura, for instance, is divided into two branches, one of which the Bedwyrs are very friendly to, and the other of which they'll try to kill on sight.
And to a certain extent, there's no getting around it. When I call for a colony, where do I go to find the people for it? Places where I already know people, of course. Otherwise the colony never gets off the ground.
-
I'll agree with Perth on this. I have no idea what this thread is "getting at."
It was supposed to be getting at a discussion on why there are commonly repeated tropes about new and old players and how older players tend to reference a BM "culture", but has taken a much better detour into issues of trust, playing style and the like. And maybe that's what comprises the "culture". Either way, I've personally learned more useful information about the way people approach and play the game from this thread than from any extended IRC session or OOC gabfest through the game's message system.
-
Vellos is correct. There is a fair bit of that in the game. It would be interesting to see if some statistics nut could put together some kind of web or graph to show how various players play together on different islands. I would bet there's some kind of correlation.
There would be a tendency for players who play in a realm to get to know each other. And when they move around, to choose realms those people play in. After all, the same players would tend to produce the same play style that you already like, right?
From experiences I have had in the past year or so, though, this can also result in some OOC bias against players as well. If you play for years in Keplerstan while fighting against Evilstani, then die and start a new character in Evilstani, you are likely to get a very cold reception. And that's likely to be an OOC unfriendliness, too. I have experienced something similar myself:
:( :'(
Well, that's rather normal. If you go to unknown lands, why not at least pick a place where you know someone in? Especially if he's powerful there? Means you get an easier time to fit in, and someone to help you get some promotions. Also means you get some contacts with minimal effort, 'cause hey, we all gotta set priorities eventually. When I went to AT, that's sure what I did, 'cause I didn't know anything about politics there. (still don't, but that's another issue)
As for cold receptions, that's rather normal. IC, family is supposed to matter a lot, after all. And lots of families play in the same style, even if they aren't necessarily clones. I won't hide it, I tend to play characters with a few similar characteristics, such as a volatile temper, too much pride, self-righteousness and a strong desire to crush everyone that stands in their way. This varies a bit from character to character, but it's usually quite noticeable for anyone, and then a few random personality traits are added, and (especially) the mix is influenced by the character's history. What can I say, I find such extravert characters to be more fun to play, so those I dump more time on tend to follow these same visible traits. Some have said there were clones, but it's much easier to see similarities between characters than differences when you don't deal with them much privately (though granted, my last batch of characters was somewhat less inspired, none have as much personality as Jean-Olivier, Louis-Joseph or Nicolas had).
So to make a judgement on a character based on his family is quite reasonable, and normal. But hey, sometimes characters prove that they aren't so bad in the end, and such wariness wears down. Machiavel was quite suspicious of Marche for a while, for example, but ended up seeing he wasn't so bad and supported him. Same for Vellos II, he got a bit more open-minded to him with time.
-
Ah...No. That doesn't get your sword skill to high levels at all. My Abington characters, who never led anything but infantry, and during one point fought in battles multiple times a week, every week, for months on end, never got above 50%, and I'd be surprised if either got much over 40%.
Which is the problem I have with duelling. You will always be at a disadvantage to people who spend time at academies training. And you know what? That's boring as hell, burns through gold like anything, and is generally only available to people who have a lot of clout in the realm so they can get out of any of the standard duties.
That's the same issues I have with dueling, really. The only people actually good at it are the ex-adventurers and people who have a lot of gold and who, for long periods of time, did nothing but train at the academy.
-
That's the same issues I have with dueling, really. The only people actually good at it are the ex-adventurers and people who have a lot of gold and who, for long periods of time, did nothing but train at the academy.
Or who can, being the underdog and severely under trained, predict the type of advanced dueling strategy their opponent will use and beat them because of it. but yes.
-
Well, that's rather normal. If you go to unknown lands, why not at least pick a place where you know someone in? Especially if he's powerful there? Means you get an easier time to fit in, and someone to help you get some promotions. Also means you get some contacts with minimal effort, 'cause hey, we all gotta set priorities eventually. When I went to AT, that's sure what I did, 'cause I didn't know anything about politics there. (still don't, but that's another issue)
That is exactly the problem. Unless there is excess of positions, you are being put in front of others because of OoC knowledge.
-
That is exactly the problem. Unless there is excess of positions, you are being put in front of others because of OoC knowledge.
Show me a realm where there isn't an excess of positions in the current game today (besides like CE which is huge) and I'd be surprised. Most of the realms I've been in every election is one person running, maybe two, but very very maybe.
And I hear the same from other realms as well.
-
That is exactly the problem. Unless there is excess of positions, you are being put in front of others because of OoC knowledge.
What are you talking about? What the hell is out-of-character about "Hey, Grand Duke Bob whose brother has had long cordial relations with mine, shall we go hunting together?", or, more bluntly, "Great Bob, surely you have heard from your brother of how reliable me and my family are!". We play families. In a medieval setting. There's absolutely nothing out of character about it.
And though it's not really the point, there is *is* an excess of positions. Pretty much everywhere I play.
-
As evidenced by the fact that to date, no one, and I do mean NO ONE has managed to become banned in every single realm on a continent via legitimate means...or even illegitimate.)
1. Is that even possible?
2. If so, Challenge Accepted! Was looking for an excuse to make a new toon...
-
That's the same issues I have with dueling, really. The only people actually good at it are the ex-adventurers and people who have a lot of gold and who, for long periods of time, did nothing but train at the academy.
I can't remember a time where someone was being a dick & my char challenged them & and they turned out to be a great swordsman who won the duel.
Virtually every time they make excuses & refuse to duel - and very often continue being a dick.
You can talk about the fringe cases until the cows come home, but I'll bet you that if you built an atmosphere of treating chars who behave badly and then refuse to duel as outcasts, you would quickly "cure" 90% of the problem (which is not a huge one in the game in any case, IMHO)
Peer pressure & the ignore button ought to make this a non-issue
-
Then again, you were being a dick and Ender challenged you and won...
And now we have that damn ghost lurking around. Talk about ridiculous...
-
Then again, you were being a dick and Ender challenged you and won...
And now we have that damn ghost lurking around. Talk about ridiculous...
Uhm, not exactly.
Vort and Arnor had a duel over who would be the next Lord of Melmoor. Vort won, and is Lord.
Go back to sleep.
-
I do think there's a disconnect between old/young players. I feel like I came into a game heavy into RP and light-hearted chatter, without this really slack hierarchy and revolving door positions here there and everywhere. You had to work a lot harder at progression and recognition. Even then, there was a lot more fun to be had whether you were going up in the world or not. There was greater emphasis not only on working together, but forming relationships with other players/characters. Newer players haven't experienced/don't see that same world. They don't have to care either, because their first position will probably come with some lordship election uncontested by any other character.
(Though the above could possibly be rose-tinted glasses? It was infuriating waiting for a chance at lordship, or rulership years and years ago. Rulers just didn't budge. They were as solid as rock. Positions were as hard to get then as they're easy to get now.)
I suppose I agree in a way that people have got nastier towards each other. But with chat and interaction harder to come by, who is teaching the new players what the accepted forms are and ought to be? Why aren't we older players playing the game like it used to be played and interacting in the same ways? Surely we ought to be leading by example, but a lot of us have withdrawn. Older players who once might have been a pretty interactive bunch tend to be silent now - I mean, my characters tend often to go through these long periods where they're essentially silent automatons whereas a few years ago, I made more of an effort.
It doesn't help, either, that we have so many older players who have been around long enough to know whether they like playing with this or that player. It definitely feels like a few of us are carrying grudges with our characters and that isn't helping any. Then there are all the issues of player nepotism which has been mentioned, or realms where a few old players dominate top positions yet have become fairly quiet inactive and inadvertently suck the life out of realms.
So yeah, not only did I start out playing what I feel to be a very different (I'd say more more fun) version of BM, but now I'm one of those old players with all the baggage that brings. I play out of habit more than anything these days. If I go for positions it's probably just so I get to see and indulge in more chatter than seen in typically deserted realm channels than for reasons of ambition or wish to make a mark. All that's very same-old, same-old now. A lot of the fun I do have is based in continuing to play with players I've played with for years, like all the ASI folk and what have you.
I have tried the last six months or so to be more interactive with my characters, to try and provoke more discussion and chatter. But newer players don't seem to have the knowledge or the tools to reciprocate and I too easily fall off the wagon back into silence again myself. So I'm not even a decent poster-child for that old, inclusive, light-hearted, chatty culture I wish we still had. I suppose it's pining for a bygone age and I should get involved in the politics and all the strategy side again, but as I say, don't have the passion and General/Marshal positions are things you had to get to prove yourself back in the day. Probably still now. The point is that you get them done and move on to greater things. Then never, ever go back :-P
That's the same issues I have with dueling, really. The only people actually good at it are the ex-adventurers and people who have a lot of gold and who, for long periods of time, did nothing but train at the academy.
And then they go out of their way to challenge any and everyone to deaths duel as a form of meta-execution/assassination. I love that this age-old debate keeps on raging >.<
-
holy crap. Revan, you make really good points. I agree with old players being very quiet. It feels like I am sending a letter to zombies whenever I have to write a letter to them. I only see RPs in Sirion out of four characters I have. I thought FEI supposed to be an RP continent but I don't see any RP... Newer players might be leaving because they got tired of dealing with silence in the realms they are in too. We need something to make old players be more active and newer players to be involved into things.
-
holy crap. Revan, you make really good points. I agree with old players being very quiet. It feels like I am sending a letter to zombies whenever I have to write a letter to them. I only see RPs in Sirion out of four characters I have. I thought FEI supposed to be an RP continent but I don't see any RP... Newer players might be leaving because they got tired of dealing with silence in the realms they are in too. We need something to make old players be more active and newer players to be involved into things.
Its not the RP continent, that concept and experiment die long ago. Realms like Arcaea (though the amount has reduced lately) GA and Arcachon do tend to have a far bit of RP though.
-
holy crap. Revan, you make really good points. I agree with old players being very quiet. It feels like I am sending a letter to zombies whenever I have to write a letter to them. I only see RPs in Sirion out of four characters I have. I thought FEI supposed to be an RP continent but I don't see any RP... Newer players might be leaving because they got tired of dealing with silence in the realms they are in too. We need something to make old players be more active and newer players to be involved into things.
The new aren't really any more talkative than the old, though.
-
Most of the time, they don't even know what most nobles of the realm they are in are talking about. The problem is, some people vote for nobles because they are elders of the realm. Especially newer ones I think. They might think leaving the government positions to older people is a better thing to do than taking it for themselves. I would rather have someone active and a bit inexperienced than someone much more experienced but a zombie. An inexperienced player can become experienced over time.
-
The new aren't really any more talkative than the old, though.
Maybe because they don't have the old players setting the chatty example for them any more? We also don't have a lot of the copy/paste police work and civil work reports, etc. that we used to have.
-
Most of the time, they don't even know what most nobles of the realm they are in are talking about. The problem is, some people vote for nobles because they are elders of the realm. Especially newer ones I think. They might think leaving the government positions to older people is a better thing to do than taking it for themselves. I would rather have someone active and a bit inexperienced than someone much more experienced but a zombie. An inexperienced player can become experienced over time.
I would prefer that people stop throwing the word active around. It always makes my IR sense tingle.
-
Maybe because they don't have the old players setting the chatty example for them any more? We also don't have a lot of the copy/paste police work and civil work reports, etc. that we used to have.
I like to think that I am more chatty than the leaders of my day used to be. The realm overall was a lot more chatty back then, though.
-
Well at least you are still trying. That is good. Someday I might even join one of your realm ;)
-
(Though the above could possibly be rose-tinted glasses? It was infuriating waiting for a chance at lordship, or rulership years and years ago. Rulers just didn't budge. They were as solid as rock. Positions were as hard to get then as they're easy to get now.)
Heh, yeah. Damn difficult. To enter the military academy in Abington to get trained to have a chance at getting a Marshalship if you passed the course you had to read Sun Tzu's Art of War and pass a Q&A session about it to show that you had a basic understanding of the concepts. They trained me for a year, and I was the official apprentice of the General for most of that, and I still didn't even take all the "courses", because they put me through the abbreviated "strategy" run rather than the full "strategy and tactics" run. Hell of a different time...
I suppose I agree in a way that people have got nastier towards each other. But with chat and interaction harder to come by, who is teaching the new players what the accepted forms are and ought to be? Why aren't we older players playing the game like it used to be played and interacting in the same ways? Surely we ought to be leading by example, but a lot of us have withdrawn. Older players who once might have been a pretty interactive bunch tend to be silent now - I mean, my characters tend often to go through these long periods where they're essentially silent automatons whereas a few years ago, I made more of an effort.
I try. Every so often I pull something in Arcaea, like the award for Bagpipe and Unicorn Marshal (referencing the Royal Bagpipe Regiment and the Arcaean emblem of Unicorns. And that's the only reason for it. No others, nope...), or awards for the best (appropriate to a noble) insult on campaign, but I can't keep the stuff up solo, and generally only one or two people go along. I think the real problem is a lack of player density. Abington had 180 nobles at any given time. Arcaea's the biggest realm on the Far East with ~60 (a whole bunch joined recently), and Astum is the biggest on Dwilight at 44. You need more people to get self-sustaining stuff going.
-
I would prefer that people stop throwing the word active around. It always makes my IR sense tingle.
Shall we use participate? That's definitely a problem.
-
When I last posted about my experiences as a new player regarding the BM Culture, the results were mixed. Some people saw the points I made and addressed them. Others said "it's hearsay, it's bull". This thread, so far, mirrors what I found in the Retention thread after I made that post - so some agreeing, some saying that there is no problem.
What I want to address in this one (as I have no real stance on the original post regarding IC asshattery at this time) is the OOC side of it, or to be precise these forums. Someone brought up the idea of 48-hour suspensions if you break the rules, or you troll/flame etc. I would like to maybe take that one step further.
When I look at the front page of the forums, and I look to see who moderates each one, there are names I've never seen post on these forums, at least not for the last few months. While I'm sure there are global moderators who can do the job, usually they have other things to worry about such as coding the game itself. What I think we need as a start are active, "local" moderators who can devote the time and effort to keeping their part of the forums clean and tidy as well as deal with any minor incidents.
That said, I do agree with the idea of handing out suspensions for misconduct. What we would need to define though, is whether the misconduct is based on the game's Social Contract, or whether it is based on a specific code of conduct for the forums. That is easy enough. What I've seen used before is a warning system that is also linked to your game account itself. Basically, on that game's forums you had 5 chances - 20% increments. I believe at 60%, you got a 1 day suspension. 80%, 2 days. 100% - your forum AND game account were banned. And appeals were very, very difficult.
I'm not suggesting that be implemented, because that could cause a conflict of IC and OOC which we have a clear definition of here (compared to that other game where there was no such thing). What I am saying though, is I think there needs to be a system where people can be given the proverbial kick up the backside. Maybe something along the lines of three strikes, or even follow Tom's example on the rules and go with one warning, then punishment. There are a myriad of issues with this such as who has this level of power, what do you do if you think you've been treated unfairly, and so on. But that said, there should be one defining concept - the only person above the system is Tom. No-one else.
I'll give an example of what I personally would like. I have no doubt it'll not come to pass, but it's just an example. I would add a new section of the forums, near the Magistrates section, where players can report issues that they feel are rulebreaking - and I mean solely for forum infractions, not for in-game stuff as that is the realm of the Titans/Magistrates. One of the assigned moderators takes a look at the report (set format, needs to include a link to the offending post), and decides what to do based on what they've seen. So if the reporter was being an ass earlier on the thread which caused a particularly nasty rebuke, then it's "both as bad as each other" and both get smacked verbally. If it continues, then warnings/infractions get handed out. If there are enough to hit a trigger point (say, second warning/infraction), then a suspension can be handed out. There would be a place to appeal these warnings, and good behaviour will result in them coming off at a rate of one per month or so.
I would welcome thoughts on what others thing the OOC state of the forums is, whether they think there is a problem or not and so on. Because all of this which I've written would obviously depend on whether there is actually a problem or not, really.
-
When I last posted about my experiences as a new player regarding the BM Culture, the results were mixed. Some people saw the points I made and addressed them. Others said "it's hearsay, it's bull". This thread, so far, mirrors what I found in the Retention thread after I made that post - so some agreeing, some saying that there is no problem.
What I want to address in this one (as I have no real stance on the original post regarding IC asshattery at this time) is the OOC side of it, or to be precise these forums. Someone brought up the idea of 48-hour suspensions if you break the rules, or you troll/flame etc. I would like to maybe take that one step further.
When I look at the front page of the forums, and I look to see who moderates each one, there are names I've never seen post on these forums, at least not for the last few months. While I'm sure there are global moderators who can do the job, usually they have other things to worry about such as coding the game itself. What I think we need as a start are active, "local" moderators who can devote the time and effort to keeping their part of the forums clean and tidy as well as deal with any minor incidents.
That said, I do agree with the idea of handing out suspensions for misconduct. What we would need to define though, is whether the misconduct is based on the game's Social Contract, or whether it is based on a specific code of conduct for the forums. That is easy enough. What I've seen used before is a warning system that is also linked to your game account itself. Basically, on that game's forums you had 5 chances - 20% increments. I believe at 60%, you got a 1 day suspension. 80%, 2 days. 100% - your forum AND game account were banned. And appeals were very, very difficult.
I'm not suggesting that be implemented, because that could cause a conflict of IC and OOC which we have a clear definition of here (compared to that other game where there was no such thing). What I am saying though, is I think there needs to be a system where people can be given the proverbial kick up the backside. Maybe something along the lines of three strikes, or even follow Tom's example on the rules and go with one warning, then punishment. There are a myriad of issues with this such as who has this level of power, what do you do if you think you've been treated unfairly, and so on. But that said, there should be one defining concept - the only person above the system is Tom. No-one else.
I'll give an example of what I personally would like. I have no doubt it'll not come to pass, but it's just an example. I would add a new section of the forums, near the Magistrates section, where players can report issues that they feel are rulebreaking - and I mean solely for forum infractions, not for in-game stuff as that is the realm of the Titans/Magistrates. One of the assigned moderators takes a look at the report (set format, needs to include a link to the offending post), and decides what to do based on what they've seen. So if the reporter was being an ass earlier on the thread which caused a particularly nasty rebuke, then it's "both as bad as each other" and both get smacked verbally. If it continues, then warnings/infractions get handed out. If there are enough to hit a trigger point (say, second warning/infraction), then a suspension can be handed out. There would be a place to appeal these warnings, and good behaviour will result in them coming off at a rate of one per month or so.
I would welcome thoughts on what others thing the OOC state of the forums is, whether they think there is a problem or not and so on. Because all of this which I've written would obviously depend on whether there is actually a problem or not, really.
If you want to report a post, there is a button for it at the bottom of the each post. That will notify the relevant moderator. Right now I find moderating rather difficult, we don't have a concrete policy on what is or isn't acceptable and what if any punishments apply. Since I can be rather heavy handed about such things, I've chosen to take a softer approach using PM's to inform people if they need to think about their behavior.
-
Maybe because they don't have the old players setting the chatty example for them any more? We also don't have a lot of the copy/paste police work and civil work reports, etc. that we used to have.
I do think that's key. I was in chatty realms when I first started out, with some good and memorable RPers too, and it still took a few months before I worked up the courage to start getting involved in the life of my realms. To interact with others publicly and on a semi-regular basis. The thing is, once you gain that confidence to just speak up and throw out an RP or letter any time, you're set fair for life in BM. It's no trouble to go to a new place and start talking at these 40 new faces or what have you without feeling embarrassed or inhibited or anything else. Maybe that's something the young'uns are missing?
Heh, yeah. Damn difficult. To enter the military academy in Abington to get trained to have a chance at getting a Marshalship if you passed the course you had to read Sun Tzu's Art of War and pass a Q&A session about it to show that you had a basic understanding of the concepts. They trained me for a year, and I was the official apprentice of the General for most of that, and I still didn't even take all the "courses", because they put me through the abbreviated "strategy" run rather than the full "strategy and tactics" run. Hell of a different time...
That's insane. Though saying that, it's not like Abington faired too badly in war back in those days ;-) I do remember that I pretty much daily hoped I'd log in and find that Doc's Revenge was paused so I might have a crack at the rulership in ASI. Only after about two years of painstakingly building myself up and working towards it did I get the chance to go for the rulership, and even then, it nearly didn't come off. Nowadays though you can probably rise to rulership in any realm inside a couple of months if you put your mind to it. Same for anything else. Different times indeed.
I try. Every so often I pull something in Arcaea, like the award for Bagpipe and Unicorn Marshal (referencing the Royal Bagpipe Regiment and the Arcaean emblem of Unicorns. And that's the only reason for it. No others, nope...), or awards for the best (appropriate to a noble) insult on campaign, but I can't keep the stuff up solo, and generally only one or two people go along. I think the real problem is a lack of player density. Abington had 180 nobles at any given time. Arcaea's the biggest realm on the Far East with ~60 (a whole bunch joined recently), and Astum is the biggest on Dwilight at 44. You need more people to get self-sustaining stuff going.
Player density is probably right. I find it very easy myself to lapse into silence again because it's such a chore and an effort trying to keep something interesting going on your own. Or simply watching myself RP into the ether. And you know, it's not like I have anything left to prove or any need to make my name look any shinier. I have the medals, I've got the fame, I have the experience. I can probably get a way with lapsing into silence for long periods without it adversely affecting my ability to do what I want to do in the game. I suppose that means I'm a damaging influence on BM culture as an older player really, because I don't see myself as having to make an effort any more. I can play it my own way and hang everyone else. Maybe I've become just as individually focused as I think all the newer players are? O.o
-
That's insane. Though saying that, it's not like Abington faired too badly in war back in those days ;-)
Perdan didn't require that kind of thing to become a marshal. It was more of a performance-based promotion, but there were rarely any openings for promotion.
I think, though, that Abington and Perdan were very similar. In Perdan the armies were organized by the ruler's message groups. We had three or four armies. With 160+ nobles, you had the flexibility to do that. The Marshals/Vice Marshals filled out Excel spreadsheets on a daily basis to report the army's status to the military council. We routinely had 10+ players available to plan out moves at each turn change, full and half, and issue orders guaranteed to be given less than one hour after the turn. (Not necessarily the same players, but some did both.)
As others have mentioned, I also think that player density is one of the key points. Say you have a 5% participation rate for large-scale, realm-wide RPs. With 150 characters, that's ~7.5 people. Plenty to keep an RP alive and moving. With 35 characters, that's only 1.75. And if you consider that 10 of those players are probably dual character, it leaves you 25 players, or probably about 1.25 participants. Even if you double that, because you think that the remaining players are more dedicated, that's still only 2.5 physical people to participate. With that few people working at it, it dies fast. (I think that's really where realms composed of a lot of dual-character players really suffer. The fewer physical players in the realm really limits the mix of players and subsequently the opportunities for interaction.)
-
So basically, we do need to close down one or two game worlds, because we simply don't have the player density required?
-
So basically, we do need to close down one or two game worlds, because we simply don't have the player density required?
Honestly, at this point, I really believe that would cause more harm than good, as people who were deeply invested in those continents left the game for good.
I think that the code changes we are making have a very good chance of improving retention so that we see real increases in the playerbase again.
The only continent I can see being a viable candidate for closing would be Beluaterra, and that only because of the way invasions work.
I also think that nearly everyone will be hoping to see it reopen at some point when the player numbers have increased again.
-
So basically, we do need to close down one or two game worlds, because we simply don't have the player density required?
You will find more than one person that supports the idea of blowing up BT. I still think the invasion should open up a portal to another continent (Dwilight), allowing daimons, humans, or both, to stream through from BT. >:D
-
You're largely going to find two schools of thought regarding what to do with game worlds and what provides the best opportunity for player growth/retention. And it boils down to differences in personality preferences. I'll give you a Jungian slant just because that's what I'm most familiar with.
School A - This group likes status quo. The box has held up this long, so let's keep thinking of better ways to reinforce the box if problems arise. It's the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" mentality, and if it is broken, look for the simplest solution to not disrupt flow. This group will hold on to the bitter end to history and nostalgia and like to make references to "how we used to do it". They're not going to be as excited about jumping into a new project, but once it's set up, they'll be the ones to last the longest in it. But until they can see it in front of them, it's not tangible enough to be bothered with. In BM, largely you'll find these people congregating in the East Continent and Atamara. A hardcore Beluaterra subset would also fit this description- BT being reset is not a novelty "change" so much as a way of life and thus has become their default status quo.
School B - This group likes new, it likes change, and it likes novelty. The box is a box for them, and why can't we think outside the box? Or better yet, blow the box up. The thinking here is that status quo = boredom/apathy/complacency and people need a jolt to keep them excited and energized about what's going on. Just because it's not broken doesn't mean it can't be improved- or completely rebooted in favor of a new way of doing things. Rather than looking back to reference the past, this group will usually be heard saying "maybe next time we should try this instead" or "hey I have an idea that I don't think has been done before. Can we do it?" They're going to jump in with both feet whenever a new project arises. It's a chance to be able to share ideas and develop something that's not yet tangible, but this group can see it or even taste it. They go full bore until things start to slow down, even out, and the novelty wears off. By then, it starts to get "boring" and they're looking for a new project or new "event" to liven things up or they'll move on. In BM, you'll find most of these people on Dwilight, the Far East (as it was being developed and then colonized), Beluaterra (either during an invasion or just after to re-colonize), and anywhere else it seems like something new and exciting is going on.
Most of you will find yourself absolutely identifying with one side and largely abhorring the other. But truth be told, it's a personality preference and neither one is right or wrong. It's a personal preference and we have players who favor both. In the same way, tackling the issue from only one side of the argument will marginalize the other side, isolate them, and drive them away from the game. Which could account for periods of turnover at any given point during development this past decade since the game started up. You focus too much on the new, the status quo people complain about the changes and leave. You let things play out as they are, the people looking for novelty and change complain about the game being too static, stuffy, and they leave too.
It's why games like WoW constantly release new patches and new expansions with new races/classes/quests/worlds and yet continue to fine tune older quests/mechanics/etc to make sure the standard grind part is still enjoyable and doesn't chase off the older players. Even there, Blizzard and the others fail to make everyone happy.
-
Honestly, at this point, I really believe that would cause more harm than good, as people who were deeply invested in those continents left the game for good.
I think that the code changes we are making have a very good chance of improving retention so that we see real increases in the playerbase again.
The only continent I can see being a viable candidate for closing would be Beluaterra, and that only because of the way invasions work.
I also think that nearly everyone will be hoping to see it reopen at some point when the player numbers have increased again.
This.
Some might want Dwilight closed. I personally think East Island and Atamara are wastes of space (see "Retention Revisited"). But I know many players are deeply invested there.
Phase out Beluaterra. Reopen when the player base expands ("recolonization"). Finish coding changes ongoing now (which by and large are excellent; new estates rock and removal of TMP has not reduced wars; maybe increased them in Dwilight).
-
I think we rather need different kind of islands to offer diversity, rather then having the same kind of. BT has an unique setting which attracts people, dwi is unique, the rest is all rather the same. Rather merge EC/AT then close BT.
-
I think we rather need different kind of islands to offer diversity, rather then having the same kind of. BT has an unique setting which attracts people, dwi is unique, the rest is all rather the same. Rather merge EC/AT then close BT.
The thing is that regardless of the solution that is created someone is going to be upset. Having played on all of the islands (except Colonies), I can definitely see where everyone will be coming from when they make their arguments but player density is important imho. We need more players to be playing together instead of separately.
Now, my personal opinions is that the easiest solution is a gradual closing down of Beluaterra through either an invasion which can't be won, or some sort, and either have them escape to Dwilight (with a possibility of chase?) or have an escape to any particular continent they choose. That would help first off while still giving the invasion fanatics time to get in one more invasion defense.
EC/AT are essentially the same continent with just different realms, cultures, etc, but they are both played the same way from all that I can tell. I know they are vastly different but essentially all we are doing here is splitting the playerbase over two continents. There is NO good way to fix that situation without more players though. Also, closing down one continent in favor of the other is likely impossible, (even though CE could essentially have been said to have "won" Atamara if they win the war over the next year). The only situation I can see being equal to both continents is to close both, and open up a single new continent which both player bases would go into, of about the same size, and it could be on the same map. They would just start from scratch and go from there, but this would be looked upon with disdain by many.
Essentially we'd then have the Far East, Dwilight, and 1 new continent (along with Colonies). This would give one continent for each type of play that is currently supported (with the exception of Beluaterra, but I don't see a way to preserve that).
-
I think we rather need different kind of islands to offer diversity, rather then having the same kind of. BT has an unique setting which attracts people, dwi is unique, the rest is all rather the same. Rather merge EC/AT then close BT.
Another vote for a differentiation in continent offerings (or gimmick continents, as I call them). How about lifting the character limit on one of the continents?
-
I'm not going to sink 10 years of history. Absolutely not.
But we need to fight this trend. I still hope we can double the amount of players in the game, and I think opening Dwilight was a mistake, but closing it down now would be trying to fix a mistake with an even bigger one.
-
I don't see anything particularly unique about FEI. Nothing that would differentiate it from AT/EC, that is. There are no specific game mechanics or major play style differences. You can argue all you want about culture/RP, but there's probably just as many people that could argue against any particular island as for it.
-
Another vote for a differentiation in continent offerings (or gimmick continents, as I call them). How about lifting the character limit on one of the continents?
I'm actually thinking of going one step further. We are all complaining about OOC groups and clans, but what if we embraced them? Take a continent large enough, like Dwilight, or Atamara (but not Colonies, or EC) and invited them to set up their own realm. Let them show us that they're the man, prove it! I claim that a random group of BM players who have grasped the game will be more than a match for any clan, no matter how perfect their OOC organisation.
And it would be an interesting challenge for tons of clans out there.
The first step might be to differentiate one game world by essentially declaring it a free-for-all, making it clear that on this continent, which is a bad and evil place, every judge injustice, ruler favoritism, etc. is just part of the game, be it for IC or OOC reasons.
-
I'm not going to sink 10 years of history. Absolutely not.
But we need to fight this trend. I still hope we can double the amount of players in the game, and I think opening Dwilight was a mistake, but closing it down now would be trying to fix a mistake with an even bigger one.
I also think dwilight is the reason a decent amount of people still play this game, who would have left otherwise. But I'm biased as I only play on BT and dwi...
Anyway, keeping history just for the sake of keeping history is not related to what should be good for the future. Would it be possible to do a BM wide survey which players can fill in when the log into the game to find out what aspects they like about BM, the continents, etc? So we can have a better view of how the playerbase thinks about the subject rather then going on the opinion of the few who use the forum?
-
I'm actually thinking of going one step further. We are all complaining about OOC groups and clans, but what if we embraced them? Take a continent large enough, like Dwilight, or Atamara (but not Colonies, or EC) and invited them to set up their own realm. Let them show us that they're the man, prove it! I claim that a random group of BM players who have grasped the game will be more than a match for any clan, no matter how perfect their OOC organisation.
And it would be an interesting challenge for tons of clans out there.
The first step might be to differentiate one game world by essentially declaring it a free-for-all, making it clear that on this continent, which is a bad and evil place, every judge injustice, ruler favoritism, etc. is just part of the game, be it for IC or OOC reasons.
The risk is that while it starts on one island it will spread to others..
-
The risk is that while it starts on one island it will spread to others..
It's possible, but I think the opposite is more likely. Either a lot of people will flock to that island for the freedom it allows, or nobody will because they're afraid of the stigma that might be attached to it. Either way, it seems like a fine experiment.
-
It is an intriguing idea. A no-holds-barred island, with no IRs, and only the Social Contract about cheating/abuse of the game/multi-accounting to conform to.
I wouldn't use an existing island, though. I'd rather see something new, and varied, and set up with a more realistic layout and sensible design. Dwilight is fun, but I think there were some significant errors on how it was laid out. Not to mention the names...
-
It's possible, but I think the opposite is more likely. Either a lot of people will flock to that island for the freedom it allows, or nobody will because they're afraid of the stigma that might be attached to it. Either way, it seems like a fine experiment.
"I'm sorry to inform you, but you can't become lord in this realm because our incompetent and lazy OOC friend will get it"
-
"I'm sorry to inform you, but you can't become lord in this realm because our incompetent and lazy OOC friend will get it"
Yep. I can't wait to see realms run by people who give positions based on merit beating realms run by people who give positions purely based on "he's my OOC friend" openly ;D
-
Anyway, lets first find out what the player base thinks before making changes?
-
I fear that you'd end up with a military powerhouse the likes of Averoth, except with a big enough realm and gold to make it really work. I shudder to think what they could have done if they had a realm that legitimately earned more than 200 gold a week. 40+ characters with 100% guaranteed late-turn (i.e. within 1.5 hours of the turn change) movement. Ouch... Who cares how well you manage your rural region's 175 gold tax income and 200 bushels of food, when the enemy commands ultra-reliable 40K CS clone armies?
-
It's possible, but I think the opposite is more likely. Either a lot of people will flock to that island for the freedom it allows, or nobody will because they're afraid of the stigma that might be attached to it. Either way, it seems like a fine experiment.
"It's a Trap!"
Or at least, that's one knee-jerk reaction any of those groups might have. Round 'em up in one place and then lock 'em all out.
-
I fear that you'd end up with a military powerhouse the likes of Averoth, except with a big enough realm and gold to make it really work. I shudder to think what they could have done if they had a realm that legitimately earned more than 200 gold a week. 40+ characters with 100% guaranteed late-turn (i.e. within 1.5 hours of the turn change) movement. Ouch... Who cares how well you manage your rural region's 175 gold tax income and 200 bushels of food, when the enemy commands ultra-reliable 40K CS clone armies?
They would kill each other.
But... HUGE issue:
That island would need to have:
1. Family gold contributions disabled
2. Fame points disabled
Or else there could be big issues.
Basically, it would be a continent purely for min-maxing BM with OOC clans.
-
You're all arguing as if there were no game-mechanics to stop abuses.
No, I absolutely wouldn't isolate that island. And like Tim I am pretty sure that while the bad would find their place, the good would prevail.
I learnt something very interesting during the beta of Mortal Online - the red towns, where you could rob, kill and steal at will, with not automatic NPC guards coming for you, but of course your victim could also retaliate in kind - were a lot safer and better places to be than the blue towns. Because griefers exploit the system. !@#$%^&s try to stay on this side of the fence while maximizing the piss-you-off-factor.
And it would absolutely have to be an existing island. We don't have the players to start a new one.
-
FEI it is it seems or BT hehehehe
-
Might be a interesting way to shake up an any Islands that are settling into defined power blocs already.
-
Might be a interesting way to shake up an any Islands that are settling into defined power blocs already.
Are there any islands of which that is not (to greater or lesser extent) true?
-
Are there any islands of which that is not (to greater or lesser extent) true?
There are islands were the power bloc have less aggregate power, and thus can more easily be upset, but no I can't think of an Island that doesn't have some form of power bloc already established
-
Challenging clans is to challenge multiers.
I'm not saying that all people in clans cheat, but if their first interest in the game is to prove something, then the temptation to do so is quite stronger. And since they are new, they don't have anything to lose by cheating.
I'm concerned of the impacts such a policy might have...
-
I don't see anything particularly unique about FEI. Nothing that would differentiate it from AT/EC, that is. There are no specific game mechanics or major play style differences. You can argue all you want about culture/RP, but there's probably just as many people that could argue against any particular island as for it.
I haven't updated the "retention revisited" numbers recently but, at least during the summer, FEI had good retention pattersn, like Dwilight and Beluaterra, while Atamara and East Island had steep, persistent declines. It might not seem different, but, at least in the summer, the playing experience was apparently different enough to result in hugely divergent results.
-
I haven't updated the "retention revisited" numbers recently but, at least during the summer, FEI had good retention pattersn, like Dwilight and Beluaterra, while Atamara and East Island had steep, persistent declines. It might not seem different, but, at least in the summer, the playing experience was apparently different enough to result in hugely divergent results.
It is Jenred's Charisma and Sexiness.
-
So basically, we do need to close down one or two game worlds, because we simply don't have the player density required?
Well, it's maybe not the whole problem. In Carelia there have been 60-70 nobles around at a time all year and more often than not I've found it quieter than realms with fewer players. Even though there has been this big war going on. Granted, big realms are the exception rather than the norm these days but I suppose we should be careful of making things out wrong. Even when we had oodles of players, back in the old days there were still lots and lots of players who didn't say a word no matter what and still realms where interaction barely featured. I mean, I don't recall Carelia being a wellspring of fervent activity even back in 2005 when I was kicking around there a while.
I say just roll out that new estate system and see how things go. And maybe this little discussion can serve as good wake-up call to those of us who rest on their laurels. When I was making a real effort to get involved again earlier this year, it had a lot to do with realising I'd reached this point where I could moan a lot in the forums about other people not making an effort and all these problems I saw whilst other people were saying 'Yeah, I see that. But I'm doing this, this and this to keep things fresh for everyone. What are you doing about it?' It was something that Chenier said that snapped me out of it I think.
When I unpause again I hope to get back to making an effort. But right now I suppose I'm finally feeling BattleMaster fatigued after all these years? Need a little break to recharge. Forum chatter is about all I'm good for right now! >.<
I also think dwilight is the reason a decent amount of people still play this game, who would have left otherwise.
That's an oft-mentioned claim, along with the stats that Dwilight is stickier than other continents. Never understood it myself. When Dwilight finally happened it felt like all the most ambitious players of BattleMaster got together and started measuring dick's against one another. Too much testosterone flying around for what was really a massive gold rush. I suppose I got the chance to do some cool things, but it turned me off pretty quickly. I don't know, everyone always rages about the well-defined power blocs, the history of EC/AT but Dwilight will head the same way sooner or later.
-
It is almost there.
SA bloc, southeast bloc and southwest bloc. Just three southern realms which have not joined any blocs yet.
-
I don't know, everyone always rages about the well-defined power blocs, the history of EC/AT but Dwilight will head the same way sooner or later.
I personally like the current direction Dwilight is taking. Sure, there are power blocs, but it seems to me that there is a lot of internal discord (at least in the bloc I'm a part of) to prevent anything too hegemonic. Anyways, the power blocs are actually different in culture, whereas in EC/AT it seems like they're just power blocs for the sake of it.
-
I say just roll out that new estate system and see how things go.
Let us finish it first! ;D
-
I'd say propose a list of possible changes (invasion island, clan island, sinking island, etc.), then place a poll for players of each continent to vote. There you'd see which continents would better receive being the next invasion island, or any other idea. You might get interesting results.
-
I'd say propose a list of possible changes (invasion island, clan island, sinking island, etc.), then place a poll for players of each continent to vote. There you'd see which continents would better receive being the next invasion island, or any other idea. You might get interesting results.
Now that I think about it, one way to easily liven up and shake things up on Atamara would be if Beluaterra were to lose the next invasion and have to flee, then have them flee to Atamara and the invaders follow them onto Atamara.
I mean, being on CE's side of things (Coria) I think this current war is rather interesting and all, but frankly CE is going to win unless we just make a massive military strategy error which I don't see happening as long as Enri is still general of CE, so although it'll maybe take another 6-12 months, CE will win the war and the continent will be back in a hegemony type situation. But, if the island were to be invaded by non-humans, it could be very interesting to see what would happen, especially if they initially started with a heavy target on the strongest realms such that they would have to defend themselves. This could allow those other realms to either help or stop the invaders with the respective consequences.
-
But, if the island were to be invaded by non-humans, it could be very interesting to see what would happen, especially if they initially started with a heavy target on the strongest realms such that they would have to defend themselves. This could allow those other realms to either help or stop the invaders with the respective consequences.
No, that would be boring. Too much temptation for people with grudges to time their entry into the war until the CE/Tara block was too crippled to recover, but not too long to put a stop to it before all is lost.
What would be *interesting* is if the invaders started picking off the small guys individually. Then you'd really see some scrambling. Would the northern realms pull it together fast enough, and drop their internal conflict in time to stop it? Would the CE/Tara block abandon their grudges and save them, or let them die and count on their power/unity to defeat the invaders on their own?
-
Either way, a shake up on Atamara due to an invasion of non-humans could be quite interesting. I cannot comment on the other continents current state of affairs (except Dwilight which I would say would not be fitting) so it sounds like an interesting proposal.
-
Either way, a shake up on Atamara due to an invasion of non-humans could be quite interesting. I cannot comment on the other continents current state of affairs (except Dwilight which I would say would not be fitting) so it sounds like an interesting proposal.
Indeed.
An invasion on Dwilight would be silly.
It's so huge that "invasion politics" wouldn't play out in the same intense way they did on, say, Beluaterra. Invaders could wipe out the entire Moot, and still have the Astroist realms kind of shrug and go "whatever." Being so segmented into "mini-continents" means an invasion wouldn't play out as well.
-
No, that would be boring. Too much temptation for people with grudges to time their entry into the war until the CE/Tara block was too crippled to recover, but not too long to put a stop to it before all is lost.
What would be *interesting* is if the invaders started picking off the small guys individually. Then you'd really see some scrambling. Would the northern realms pull it together fast enough, and drop their internal conflict in time to stop it? Would the CE/Tara block abandon their grudges and save them, or let them die and count on their power/unity to defeat the invaders on their own?
That would not be fair either. CE would just blackmail the northern realms: "I'll save you if you do this, this, and this..."
Please leave any experimental projects like "IR-free island", "no character limit island", etc., to Beluaterra, because:
1. Other islands are exposed to new players, whose first impression of BM will be whatever island they started out at. Beluaterra is populated with players who have at least experienced a little bit of the other islands, because they had to have immigrated to Beluaterra. Imagine a new player who started out on an IR-free island, plays for a year, and then immigrates to another island, and gets a military leadership position. Guess what he's going to do? What if he's used to stuffing five characters in one realm? Will he be tempted to multi-cheat?
2. Players in Beluaterra signed up for crazy stuff happening. Players in AT and EC just want a "vanilla", basic BM experience. Is that so wrong? As someone mentioned earlier, some of us play BM for new thrills, and some of us play BM for familiar comforts.
Finally, player retention is a problem, yes. But if we invite in clanners? Then we'd have two problems. ;D
-
Beluaterra should never be "IR-free".
-
Repeating myself, how about a poll on each continent, so we know not only individual opinions, but also what most players think?
-
Am I the only one who likes new BM better than old BM? I found that before positions were much more solid (they didn't budge) and this severely limited the type of person who could inhabit leadership positions; particularly to the type that just tries to satisfy everyone.
For example, I can't imagine my character Shin (who is a greedy, lying, manipulative, religious douche-bag) in the old BM, everyone would have turned on him too fast and he could never have seized power. Nowadays the politics is more fluid and characters like Shin can get a very good grip on people. In the past (and I'm talking long long ago) you'd have to keep your head down and follow orders for like a year before getting anywhere.
Obviously this isn't a black and white case where old = boring and new = exciting but I've certainly noticed that now everyone is at each others throats a lot more and I personally love it.
I understand however that some of you miss the team-oriented gameplay. My condolences.
-
I think that each continent should subscribe to one style of play. It's not like we have a surplus of nobles, so having redundant continents is kind of silly.
Currently, all continents apart from AT and EC have some sort of gimmick, or attraction. I don't think we should do anything as hamfisted as sinking one of the vanilla continents, or merging them together. How about adding one such gimmick? Adding a gimmick to one of them would allow us to cater to a wider playerbase.
This gimmick should not be a "FFA zone" thing, because people would freak out and it would ruin the continent. What could an alternative gimmick be that wouldn't be so extreme as to "ruin" the continent, but could still fill a niche that, so far, is not filled by any other continent?
How about victory conditions? This is something every other strategy game has, but isn't in BM, and we could fill a niche using it. I have no idea how it could be implemented, but hey, food for thought.
-
Challenging clans is to challenge multiers.
I'm not saying that all people in clans cheat, but if their first interest in the game is to prove something, then the temptation to do so is quite stronger. And since they are new, they don't have anything to lose by cheating.
I'm concerned of the impacts such a policy might have...
I agree, we may need to have to establish a new rule: You cheat, you lose. All of you. The entire clan.
Basically, what I'd do is support guild-like structures on the player level. Let players join a clan, openly. Let the clan do whatever it wants. But if any of its members is caught multi-cheating but once, the entire clan gets dishonoured and permanently flagged.
That might result in the opposite: Clans being strong defenders of our anti-cheating policies.
-
Would the northern realms pull it together fast enough, and drop their internal conflict in time to stop it?
I'm gonna go with a big "doubt it" on that one.... :-\
I mean, being on CE's side of things (Coria) I think this current war is rather interesting and all, but frankly CE is going to win unless we just make a massive military strategy error which I don't see happening as long as Enri is still general of CE, so although it'll maybe take another 6-12 months, CE will win the war and the continent will be back in a hegemony type situation.
Barring some kind of huge military error or political shift (someone significant changing sides, etc.) I think you are right. And, oh so perfectly, it seems CE's victory may come timed well with the New Estate System's move to the stable islands meaning it will probably afford the CE block enough spare nobles to destroy a Northern or Southern (or one of each) realm to prop up yet another colony to further enforce their vice-grip over the island.
-
I agree, we may need to have to establish a new rule: You cheat, you lose. All of you. The entire clan.
Basically, what I'd do is support guild-like structures on the player level. Let players join a clan, openly. Let the clan do whatever it wants. But if any of its members is caught multi-cheating but once, the entire clan gets dishonoured and permanently flagged.
That might result in the opposite: Clans being strong defenders of our anti-cheating policies.
If nothing else it would be a interesting social experiment.
-
What could an alternative gimmick be that wouldn't be so extreme as to "ruin" the continent, but could still fill a niche that, so far, is not filled by any other continent?
How about mortality? Everyone is treated as a hero for combat mortality, and being stabbed is made potentially deadly. I doubt I am the only one who would love to play in such kind of isle.
-
How about mortality? Everyone is treated as a hero for combat mortality, and being stabbed is made potentially deadly. I doubt I am the only one who would love to play in such kind of isle.
That'd be cool.
-
How about mortality? Everyone is treated as a hero for combat mortality, and being stabbed is made potentially deadly. I doubt I am the only one who would love to play in such kind of isle.
Ummm, we did this for the 4th invasion. While a vocal minority like myself were quite pleased with it, the overwhelming response was not kind. I haven't seen the feedback stats, but I have a feeling it would be a rather small niche island.
-
Ummm, we did this for the 4th invasion. While a vocal minority like myself were quite pleased with it, the overwhelming response was not kind. I haven't seen the feedback stats, but I have a feeling it would be a rather small niche island.
I'd hate to have mortality imposed on Dwilight, for example, but I'd love there was an island I could create a character or emigrate which had mortality. I'd say the problem is having it imposed in an island with many characters were made with plans that would not involve the risk of mortality.
-
Am I the only one who likes new BM better than old BM?
I tend to think of it as "Dwilight is better than Atamara" more than new/old BM. But hey, maybe I moved just at the moment when BM changed?
-
I think that each continent should subscribe to one style of play. It's not like we have a surplus of nobles, so having redundant continents is kind of silly.
Currently, all continents apart from AT and EC have some sort of gimmick, or attraction. I don't think we should do anything as hamfisted as sinking one of the vanilla continents, or merging them together. How about adding one such gimmick? Adding a gimmick to one of them would allow us to cater to a wider playerbase.
This gimmick should not be a "FFA zone" thing, because people would freak out and it would ruin the continent. What could an alternative gimmick be that wouldn't be so extreme as to "ruin" the continent, but could still fill a niche that, so far, is not filled by any other continent?
How about victory conditions? This is something every other strategy game has, but isn't in BM, and we could fill a niche using it. I have no idea how it could be implemented, but hey, food for thought.
I claim that you are claiming this out of ignorance of the lore on AT and EC. :) When I say vanilla, I mean vanilla game mechanics. AT, EC, and Far East have normal game mechanics. That doesn't mean that every single realm on those islands are exact clones of each other. They all have different cultures and traditions. They all add intrinsic value to BM. That's a lot more valuable than "gimmicks".
Before declaring any island to be "boring", or "not fun for me", you would have to play in every realm in it. Otherwise, it's just an unfair blanket judgement, right?
-
Ummm, we did this for the 4th invasion. While a vocal minority like myself were quite pleased with it, the overwhelming response was not kind. I haven't seen the feedback stats, but I have a feeling it would be a rather small niche island.
The fourth invasion was, probably, a poor way to test the idea. I believe that pretty much all of the mass killings happened when fighting against the monster faction. Were there any records of two or three nobles dying in a single battle when fighting against other humans? Or when fighting the undead or daimons? From what I saw from afar (not having a character on BT for the invasion) the problem was the battle mechanics of the monsters that gave universal mortality the bad experience that it was. I would still really like to see a normal island with universal mortality.
-
Invaders could wipe out the entire Moot, and still have the Astroist realms kind of shrug and go "whatever."
Well... we wouldn't do that, would we?
Of course, there's really not much we could do about it, I think. It's not liek we could march a 30,000 CS army all the way down to Barca.
-
Well... we wouldn't do that, would we?
Of course, there's really not much we could do about it, I think. It's not liek we could march a 30,000 CS army all the way down to Barca.
And even if you could, what on earth good do you think 30,000 CS would do against the full force of a Daimon invasion?
Especially 30,000 CS that has to turn around and go home after the first battle, victory or defeat...
-
And even if you could, what on earth good do you think 30,000 CS would do against the full force of a Daimon invasion?
Especially 30,000 CS that has to turn around and go home after the first battle, victory or defeat...
Entertain the Diamons? oh and provide food for the breeding grounds.
-
All of which was really kinda my point. Even if we had 30,000 CS to send, we couldn't. And even if we could, and assuming we *wanted* to save the moot (which most of us don't even know exists (well, some of us know of it, but mostly just as a name)) what we could send would be mostly useless.
It would be a fairly uneventful Invasion, so far as we have come to know them.
-
When Dwilight finally happened it felt like all the most ambitious players of BattleMaster got together and started measuring dick's against one another. Too much testosterone flying around for what was really a massive gold rush.
lol'in hard because it's true
-
I agree, we may need to have to establish a new rule: You cheat, you lose. All of you. The entire clan.
Basically, what I'd do is support guild-like structures on the player level. Let players join a clan, openly. Let the clan do whatever it wants. But if any of its members is caught multi-cheating but once, the entire clan gets dishonoured and permanently flagged.
That might result in the opposite: Clans being strong defenders of our anti-cheating policies.
Or, someone with a scheming and vindictive personality (like me?) would come along, and get into a rivalry with a clan... and create a multi in the enemy clan, separate it with some IP proxies and whatnot, create some multis associated with it, and then let it get "discovered." And get the whole enemy clan punished, thereby gaining an advantage for the ACTUAL clan.
Even if you said "clans reporting themselves will not be punished," you could manipulate it to make sure that your clan uncovered the multi-ing first.
-
Or, someone with a scheming and vindictive personality (like me?) would come along, and get into a rivalry with a clan... and create a multi in the enemy clan, separate it with some IP proxies and whatnot, create some multis associated with it, and then let it get "discovered." And get the whole enemy clan punished, thereby gaining an advantage for the ACTUAL clan.
And you bet the house on me not finding you out, because everyone here knows, and it's written somewhere on the wiki that the harshest punishments are reserved for those gaming the system. So if I find that out, I'll not only remove the dishonour badge from the other clan, I'll also do something like delete every account of everyone in your real clan.
And don't get me started on trying to abuse that...
-
Or, someone with a scheming and vindictive personality (like me?) would come along, and get into a rivalry with a clan... and create a multi in the enemy clan, separate it with some IP proxies and whatnot, create some multis associated with it, and then let it get "discovered." And get the whole enemy clan punished, thereby gaining an advantage for the ACTUAL clan.
Even if you said "clans reporting themselves will not be punished," you could manipulate it to make sure that your clan uncovered the multi-ing first.
One problem with your evil plot--the clans we're talking about typically come from another gaming site, they all know each other, and won't accept you into their group. In fact, that's been the historical reasoning against allowing clans into BM. So they would likely kick your characters out themselves--this is a side affect of the policing Tom was talking about.
-
Ummm, we did this for the 4th invasion. While a vocal minority like myself were quite pleased with it, the overwhelming response was not kind. I haven't seen the feedback stats, but I have a feeling it would be a rather small niche island.
I think the concensus was that while it may be cool for a new continent that opens up, it should not be imposed on established continents.
You might have enjoyed it, but I consider those events to have the source of a significant decline in interest and activity. Due to how the factions work in combat, the monsters were the ones who tended to cause more mortality, and a sizable chunk of Enweil died within a very limited time frame. It didn't create opportunities, it just created a rotting core. Bitterness and nostalgia. In a light-weight game that focuses on player interactions and RP relations that tend to take time to establish, to forcefully cut out entities that are core elements of this network (characters) is, imo, counter-productive.
There's also a ton of reasons why I don't think it's overall a good idea.
Which is why, mostly, if it were to come to be, it should be somewhere where everyone agrees to it, i.e. a new continent or a reseted one.
-
The fourth invasion was, probably, a poor way to test the idea. I believe that pretty much all of the mass killings happened when fighting against the monster faction. Were there any records of two or three nobles dying in a single battle when fighting against other humans? Or when fighting the undead or daimons? From what I saw from afar (not having a character on BT for the invasion) the problem was the battle mechanics of the monsters that gave universal mortality the bad experience that it was. I would still really like to see a normal island with universal mortality.
Daimons were almost all (or were all, not sure) ranged fighters in the fourth invasion, they seemed to lack the deadly chargers of the third invasion. Archers in combat tend to wound a hell of a lot more than they kill, which is what happened. A few did die, though. Undead are the opposite of monsters: they hit weaker but don't retreat. The way people understand wounding and mortality to work is rather simple: the more damage you get in one round, the more likely your char is to be wounded or killed. As such, monsters were much more likely to kill than the undead and daimons were. The odds of death were eventually tweaked, but then again death was still frequent against the monsters, so it ended up being removed. People did die all over, but very few against non-monsters. I think the monsters killed like 3 times as many nobles as both others combined. I know in Wheling, I think it is, we've got the Imperial Crypt where the name of all the dead are noted in the region description. It's a pretty long list.
-
I claim that you are claiming this out of ignorance of the lore on AT and EC. :) When I say vanilla, I mean vanilla game mechanics. AT, EC, and Far East have normal game mechanics. That doesn't mean that every single realm on those islands are exact clones of each other. They all have different cultures and traditions. They all add intrinsic value to BM. That's a lot more valuable than "gimmicks".
FEI actually has slightly different game mechanics, as it has seasons. And this actually does affect things at least somewhat, at least in Zonasa.
-
And don't get me started on trying to abuse that...
Which would be easy...
-
Which would be easy...
I think the point that Vellos is trying to make is that inviting any "easing" of the rules which we play this game by will likely have drastic consequences which will be hard to control, so it isn't really worth it. I am in agreement on this point because allowing in OOC clans will just ruin the entirety of the game unless we intend to create a new "War Islands" which is essentially what is being proposed and I thought you were against Tom. If we invite an OOC clan or two to join here, then they will simply treat it like a war island and try to conquer everyone. Why not?
It's not a good idea if the goal is player retention imo. If the goal is a social experiment, then sure it is fine, but it will have adverse effects and the new "rules" will be easier to exploit than the blanket rules we have now.
-
I think the point that Vellos is trying to make is that inviting any "easing" of the rules which we play this game by will likely have drastic consequences which will be hard to control, so it isn't really worth it. I am in agreement on this point because allowing in OOC clans will just ruin the entirety of the game unless we intend to create a new "War Islands" which is essentially what is being proposed and I thought you were against Tom. If we invite an OOC clan or two to join here, then they will simply treat it like a war island and try to conquer everyone. Why not?
It's not a good idea if the goal is player retention imo. If the goal is a social experiment, then sure it is fine, but it will have adverse effects and the new "rules" will be easier to exploit than the blanket rules we have now.
OOC clans are allowed, as long as they follow the rules
-
OOC clans are allowed, as long as they follow the rules
Yes, the rules of not working together as an OOC clan. Which essentially means they aren't allowed. Yes, they can play in the same realm together, but they have to play IC, instead OOC focused. There is a big difference. These rules essentially mean that an "OOC clan" in the terms of ppl working together for out of game derived goals is currently not allowed which is what most ooc clans that come from other games consist of. Playing with friends and having your characters work for or against each other is completely different.
-
Yes, the rules of not working together as an OOC clan. Which essentially means they aren't allowed. Yes, they can play in the same realm together, but they have to play IC, instead OOC focused. There is a big difference. These rules essentially mean that an "OOC clan" in the terms of ppl working together for out of game derived goals is currently not allowed which is what most ooc clans that come from other games consist of. Playing with friends and having your characters work for or against each other is completely different.
"Don't use your clan to ruin other peoples' fun. "
that is the only rule.
-
Perhaps I'm confused then, so the proposal is to allow OOC clans to be able to ruin people's fun if they want to?
-
Playing with friends and having your characters work for or against each other is completely different.
In principle, yes. In practice, it usually ends up working out the same way: a few characters follow pre-determined paths of cooperation and end up excluding others because they either don't desire full assimilation or because they don't trust people outside the "group". The proposal is to turn an island into a test bed for whether or not serious clan behavior can provide any real advantage over competent and naturally-formed power blocs.
I've seen a lot of realms run by "clans". A disproportionately high number of them were run right into the ground. A clan doesn't necessarily provide the advantage that those people seem to think it does. An unintentional side effect of this continent might be very team-based play, which would be a return to days of BM yore.
-
Clans have three major advantages over any ad hoc group of players:
- Available player numbers - Real clans often have a few dozen people willing to join a game to help out one of their members, or to find a game to conquer.
- Explicit trust in members - They don't have to worry whether or not Duke Kepler is loyal to the cause. He is 100% loyal. Because he's part of "Clan WeKickzYerAzZ!!1!"
- Player activity - the real clanners are usually dedicated to the task. They will log in twice a day, every day to do what they're told. This gives you high, reliable movement rates. See: Averoth.
Having said that, they will have two big disadvantages:
- Possible inability to work cooperatively with others. They tend to be insular. After all they are "Clan WeKickzYerAzZ!!1!". They don't need to steenking help!
- Attention span - How many of them are going to be willing to put in the time it take to truly build a realm, and stick with it long enough to achieve their global domination? This can take *years* of real-life time. How many of them are going to be willing to dedicate that time span to BattleMaster?
-
Due to their disadvantages, pure clan realms seem to last for only a short duration..
Sometimes they piss off other realms too..
-
Clans have three major advantages over any ad hoc group of players:
- Available player numbers - Real clans often have a few dozen people willing to join a game to help out one of their members, or to find a game to conquer.
- Explicit trust in members - They don't have to worry whether or not Duke Kepler is loyal to the cause. He is 100% loyal. Because he's part of "Clan WeKickzYerAzZ!!1!"
- Player activity - the real clanners are usually dedicated to the task. They will log in twice a day, every day to do what they're told. This gives you high, reliable movement rates. See: Averoth.
Having said that, they will have two big disadvantages:
- Possible inability to work cooperatively with others. They tend to be insular. After all they are "Clan WeKickzYerAzZ!!1!". They don't need to steenking help!
- Attention span - How many of them are going to be willing to put in the time it take to truly build a realm, and stick with it long enough to achieve their global domination? This can take *years* of real-life time. How many of them are going to be willing to dedicate that time span to BattleMaster?
I reiterate the danger of spillover effects.
So a clan comes and plays like an OOC clan on the clan-continent. Cool. Fine. Have fun.
But what happens when they all start characters in the same realm (or the same allied realms) on Atamara? What happens when they start funneling gold to characters in Dwilight? What happens when they manage to do those two things in coordination: all have second (and/or third) characters in the same alliance bloc on another continent, and export their clanning there?
These are issues we already have (see discussions of social inbreeding on this thread and others; certain players always playing with the same people) and do not very effectively deal with. Inviting clans to exploit issues we already address in a sub-par fashion does not seem wise.
-
I reiterate the danger of spillover effects.
So a clan comes and plays like an OOC clan on the clan-continent. Cool. Fine. Have fun.
But what happens when they all start characters in the same realm (or the same allied realms) on Atamara? What happens when they start funneling gold to characters in Dwilight? What happens when they manage to do those two things in coordination: all have second (and/or third) characters in the same alliance bloc on another continent, and export their clanning there?
These are issues we already have (see discussions of social inbreeding on this thread and others; certain players always playing with the same people) and do not very effectively deal with. Inviting clans to exploit issues we already address in a sub-par fashion does not seem wise.
Such behavior would be quite obvious, and easy to punish.
The multi-ing you described earlier is a much bigger problem, and I think we can handle it, too.
-
Due to their disadvantages, pure clan realms seem to last for only a short duration..
Sometimes they piss off other realms too..
Is this because they are less risk-averse than the "old guard tradional BM player"? And, you know, isn't more conflict precisely what people keep saying they want?
Makes me wonder of clanners contribute more to the game than we'd like to admit.
-
Is this because they are less risk-averse than the "old guard tradional BM player"? And, you know, isn't more conflict precisely what people keep saying they want?
Makes me wonder of clanners contribute more to the game than we'd like to admit.
Mostly it seems to stem from arrogance about just how powerful they are, with their OOC knowledge that their activity levels and support as a group are rather extreme.
-
Mostly it seems to stem from arrogance about just how powerful they are, with their OOC knowledge that their activity levels and support as a group are rather extreme.
Still. How many wars would we have if we didn't have pockets of players that lack any form of risk aversion whatsoever? We'd still have wars, of course, but how many?
Clans tend to either declare wars as soon as possible, or alienate their neighbors quickly and have those declare war on them instead.
-
Is that still a problem anymore?
Chénier, how quickly would you make sure your realm gets involved in a war, if Tom threatened to bring TMP back? :)
-
Is that still a problem anymore?
Chénier, how quickly would you make sure your realm gets involved in a war, if Tom threatened to bring TMP back? :)
TMP had zero impact on what I did IG. It made things easier or harder, but did not influence my decisions. I have always been pro-war, since way before TMP appeared.
Furthermore, TMP was !@#$ing over my militaristic realm just as bad as my peaceful realm, because while the game considered Fheuv'n tiny for some things, it didn't consider it tiny at all as far as TMP was concerned, and it therefore forced us to make a big costly suicide attack just so we could stave it off. Whenever we took the time to TO a rogue region, we'd get hit by it again.
TMP or no TMP, I rule Fheuv'n as a militaristic realm, and play D'Hara as an commercial one.
But I'm not really the average player either, so I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. :P
-
I have never played a game quite like BM before, I have played tonnes of games but none like BM to pull me right in and allow so much in such a limited interface and environment. It's odd because I roleplayed for decades, played all sorts of video games and there is nothing out of any of them that pulls me back here like Glaumring Apasurain. I am the one man wolf pack of Dwilight.
I really don't understand what people cannot find interesting in this game, the amount of drama in a jumble of words and a few actions to create a little trouble and you have epic webs of lore and history and culture that is refreshed and spins out every day... Its quite fascinating.
I have played in BM since the Antozan Commonwealth on another account, so I consider myself to be a kinda of old guy who isn't actually an old guy, who is not really affiliated with any cliques, who plays each of his 4 characters vastly different from eachother and is generally looked upon in Dwilight as a guy who pissed in a few cornflakes and showed up for the tea party uninvited... And I am cool with that.
Dwilight is the best server all round
FEI is good
BEL is fun and was my favorite server before Dwilight.... BM is hands down the best thing to happen to computer gaming in a long time, its a shame that very few will recognize it because of the lack of shiny graphics and all sorts of other nonsense. There are very few games with the amount of culture and lore all player made out there.
-
There are very few games with the amount of culture and lore all player made out there.
I'll be honest, when Tanos first recommended the game to me and the description said it was very social based, I was leery of it. But that's more a personal thing anyway. Even a few months on, I still don't fully partake in everything there is for players of the game. IRC as an example, and the forums too. I mean I've started posting a bit more but after someone's responses in that current Magistrate's case I'm starting to think that posting on here is a massive mistake, and I'm considering just leaving the forums alone and just logging in twice a day to play the game itself.
It's a bit like a tightrope - if you say one wrong thing, you get slammed for it for the sake of petty point scoring. There's no need for it, and that is why I made a call earlier on in this thread for stricter moderation. Or at least for some guidelines or rules to be followed, both for users of the forums and the moderators themselves so they know when to act.
-
good point. Some basic rules would be nice.
-
I'm going to have to echo Glaumring a bit, I've never played a game like BM. It's very unique, and I roleplayed a lot bofore I found BM. I started the game very much with the new player "mentality" of winning, but after the first year or two, it warped. I just passed the completion point of year 6 a while back and I'm far more towards making the gaming interesting while still having my characters make IC sense. They want power of some sort, be it political, military, civil, whatever, but on the same note, I want things interesting for everyone else (as anyone who is familiar with my character Karana Tian will tell you--Barca would be quiet place without her).
So far there is about one player I can't stand, and my one character that's familiar with that family has legit IC reasons to hate them anyways. Beyond that, there are several family names I've come to recognize, but generally I try to avoid following people. Still a lot of realms I've never seen. It's unintentionally happened a few times though, but that kind of comes with the territory if you play for long enough.
On the flipside, my first five months in the game saw me get two characters banned from Ibladesh, join Perdan, one of them became a Duchal Marshal, who shortly therafter died in glorious combat as a legend, then the other character became a Countess. All of this in late 2005/early 2006 of the East Continent. I think I hit a stroke of lucky timing for most of it though.
I'll stop my rambling here though, before sleep deprivation lets me get too much further off track.