BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Dante Silverfire on February 16, 2013, 06:48:53 AM
-
Title: Revise Bounty Board Fulfillment Requirements
Summary: Currently, any serious wound provides the gold off of a bounty board to the person who wounded them. I suggest revising this practice to not pay out bounties unless the wounding lasts long enough to remove someone from their positions.
Details: Don't give out bounties to infiltrators or warriors in battle unless the wounding lasts the 5 days(it is 5 days right?) necessary to remove someone from their positions in a realm.
Benefits: Actually makes the bounty board relevant. Right now the bounty board is irrelevant. The point was you could hurt someone by removing them from their positions. Placing a bounty on their head would make it more likely for infiltrators to attack them, which made their demise more likely. Right now, you can wound someone, pick up a bounty, without actually doing what one of the points of placing the bounty was.
Possible Exploits: None.
---------
Side thoughts: I have yet to see or hear of ANY instance in which a wounding by an infiltrator has actually caused someone to lose their positions within the past 2 years. Is this even possible any more? If it isn't, then perhaps the ability to wound longer times should be made possible. Or more likely on a successful serious wounding. OR reduce the amount of time in which you have to be wounded to lose your positions.
However, those are additional side feature requests to go along with this central one.
-
A wound from an infil is no different than a wound in battle, or a duel. I have seen characters lose positions, and even a duchy, twice in the past few months.
-
A wound from an infil is no different than a wound in battle, or a duel. I have seen characters lose positions, and even a duchy, twice in the past few months.
From infiltrator wounds? Or other methods?
-
From wounds. Not infiltrator wounds, but that's irrelevant. Wounds are wounds are wounds. Wounds from other sources than infils are much more common, therefore much more likely to cause removal from positions.
-
It's not irrelevant. The bounty board's primary intent is not for wounds received in battle. While it is reasonably activated should someone be wounded in battle, that is not the reason people would place gold on the bounty board.
Also, it IS relevant if the current code base makes it difficult or nigh impossible for infiltrator wounds to actually result in the loss of positions. It is quite possible that this is true, and that infiltrator wounding code is different than battle wounding code. One may be more likely to lead to loss of a position than another. This could be done for a variety of reasons. Battles are voluntary choices by players, while infiltrators can attack them against their will. Putting in place a modifier so that other players can't stop you from playing "as long" may be something in the code.
In addition, your statement also doesn't address the core concept in my request that a bounty can be filled without a player losing their position.
-
Indeed... bounties often don't attract infils because they aren't high enough, and most people don't want to invest more because they'll know the odds of the wound both coming from an infil and causing loss of position is minimal.
I, for one, would place much larger bounties if this was changed.
-
It's not irrelevant. The bounty board's primary intent is not for wounds received in battle. While it is reasonably activated should someone be wounded in battle, that is not the reason people would place gold on the bounty board.
I know that we've had this discussion before, probably on the old DList. The purpose of the bounty board and assassination is NOT to remove people from positions. If you are using it primarily for that purpose, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Assassinations are intended to wound characters, and knock them out for varying amounts of time. For this purpose, it works. but it is *not* a "Get him out of office" option. If you want to increase the chance that it does so, then that's a different feature request, which I feel pretty confident that Tom will reject.
The reason infils so rarely knock councilors out of office is complicated:
First, because there are relatively few assassinations, as compared to battle or preaching wounds. Both of which , by the way, I have seen remove characters from duchies, government offices, and region lordships, all in the past three to four months.
Second, some continents, notably Atamara, have often had negotiated "No councilor attacks" treaties. And I've seen this on other islands as well. Councilors often to do not march with the army on fight on the front lines, and often have large troops of men. Many realms also take a dim view of allowing assassins to operate out of their realm. (With notable exceptions like Talerium and Perdan.) That makes councilors harder to attack, and harder to successfully attack. Thus, council level assassinations that remove from office would have to be one of the rarest events you can find.
Third, successful infiltrator assaults depend on many factors, such as infiltration skills, sword skills, and just plain dumb luck. No, the actual equation for determining how wounded you are from an infiltrator attack is not the exact same as the equation for wounds from combat or preaching. But once the actual wound level has been determined, all wounds proceed from there down the same path to recovery.
Also, it IS relevant if the current code base makes it difficult or nigh impossible for infiltrator wounds to actually result in the loss of positions.
I see what you're getting at. But it does not.
It is quite possible that this is true, and that infiltrator wounding code is different than battle wounding code. One may be more likely to lead to loss of a position than another.
It is not.
This could be done for a variety of reasons. Battles are voluntary choices by players, while infiltrators can attack them against their will. Putting in place a modifier so that other players can't stop you from playing "as long" may be something in the code.
There is no such modifier. Once the actual severity of the wound has been determined, then the recovery is handled by common code that doesn't consider the source of the wound. In fact, the source of a wound is not even tracked.
In addition, your statement also doesn't address the core concept in my request that a bounty can be filled without a player losing their position.
That's because the bounty board is not intended to be a "knock these people out of office" board. It is quite possible that people on the bounty board do not even hold a position. You can put someone's name on there, and hope that they will eventually lose their office over it. But if that's what you want, then you take the chance that it just won't happen, and all your money will be wasted.
-
I agree with the feature request.
I also hear what Indirik is saying, and honestly is just makes me continue to wonder even more what the hell the point of Infiltrators is. You are only reinforcing the already stupid fact that infiltrators do nothing significant. Why do we even have them?
-
To do infiltrator-type things. If that's not for you, then don't play them.
-
Assassinations are intended to wound characters, and knock them out for varying amounts of time.
Fair enough. However, I have frequently seen mentioned that "assassinations" are one way to remove Royal Dukes from office, and that people should be using this option. However, I could not find anyone who could quote a time in which this actually has happened. If this is in fact NOT a potential point of using an assassination then MORE methods need to be implemented to remove characters from royal positions that are ruining the fun for other players.
The reason infils so rarely knock councilors out of office is complicated:
First, because there are relatively few assassinations, as compared to battle or preaching wounds. Both of which , by the way, I have seen remove characters from duchies, government offices, and region lordships, all in the past three to four months.
Second, some continents, notably Atamara, have often had negotiated "No councilor attacks" treaties. And I've seen this on other islands as well. Councilors often to do not march with the army on fight on the front lines, and often have large troops of men. Many realms also take a dim view of allowing assassins to operate out of their realm. (With notable exceptions like Talerium and Perdan.) That makes councilors harder to attack, and harder to successfully attack. Thus, council level assassinations that remove from office would have to be one of the rarest events you can find.
Third, successful infiltrator assaults depend on many factors, such as infiltration skills, sword skills, and just plain dumb luck. No, the actual equation for determining how wounded you are from an infiltrator attack is not the exact same as the equation for wounds from combat or preaching. But once the actual wound level has been determined, all wounds proceed from there down the same path to recovery.
1. I would assert that one reason assassinations are so few is that there is very little benefit to making the assassinations. Players "for the most part" don't care about wounding a character for a few days. People want to use assassinations for one of three reasons: A. Accomplish a strategic objective, B. Remove someone from their positions, C. Take revenge.
A. Accomplish a strategic objective: Such as getting rid of a Duke before an attack on a city, or getting rid of a martial that is leading enemy troops well. Under these circumstances, the bounty board will not be used.
B. Remove someone from their positions: As you have stated this is apparently not the purpose of the bounty board. However, I would argue this is one of the major reasons players would want to utilize an infiltrator for an assassination.
C. Take Revenge: The number of characters actually seeking true RP'ed revenge and using the bounty board are very few in number by my experience. Many players recognize that using the bounty board for this is much less effective than simply offer a public bounty for attacking a player, and giving out the gold personally, or getting revenge in other means. Because the attacks are not likely to remove a noble from position, then they don't even gain anything from their region. Which makes the bounty board "wasted gold" right now.
That's because the bounty board is not intended to be a "knock these people out of office" board. It is quite possible that people on the bounty board do not even hold a position. You can put someone's name on there, and hope that they will eventually lose their office over it. But if that's what you want, then you take the chance that it just won't happen, and all your money will be wasted.
The money is already wasted. I don't think you can find 5 players who honestly feel their gold was well used by placing it on the bounty board. My proposal makes the bounty board actually relevant.
I will however make two new feature requests which tie directly into this issue. They should all be considered together though.
-
Fair enough. However, I have frequently seen mentioned that "assassinations" are one way to remove Royal Dukes from office, and that people should be using this option.
It is an option. It is possible, but not guaranteed. There are no guarantees in BattleMaster. You pay your money, you take your chances. It may take multiple attempts to make it work, but it can work. And you'd better be a good assassin. No newbie assassin who can't tell a shadow from a sunbeam, and doesn't know to take the dagger from the sheath before stabbing is going to hit a duke hard enough to knock him out. But if you get a world-class swordfighter who is also a ninja-class infiltrator, who buries that dagger deep into that octogenarian duke, he's going down for a LONG time. Probably. Again, no guarantees. But it is worth a shot.
However, I could not find anyone who could quote a time in which this actually has happened. If this is in fact NOT a potential point of using an assassination then MORE methods need to be implemented to remove characters from royal positions that are ruining the fun for other players.
Secede. Declare war. Conquer!
Damaging? Yes. Fun? Definitely!
-
It is an option. It is possible, but not guaranteed. There are no guarantees in BattleMaster. You pay your money, you take your chances. It may take multiple attempts to make it work, but it can work. And you'd better be a good assassin. No newbie assassin who can't tell a shadow from a sunbeam, and doesn't know to take the dagger from the sheath before stabbing is going to hit a duke hard enough to knock him out. But if you get a world-class swordfighter who is also a ninja-class infiltrator, who buries that dagger deep into that octogenarian duke, he's going down for a LONG time. Probably. Again, no guarantees. But it is worth a shot.
I've tried. It is NOT an option. If not a single player can cite a single instance of this actually occurring in the past year let alone 3-5 years, then it isn't an option. The odds are either not high enough or some factor is off. A 1% chance is not a chance. If you seriously wound a Duke, they should lose their position 100% of the time. Serious wounds aren't easy to pull off, but if you do pull it off they should lose their position. (See new feature request as an addendum to this one)
Secede. Declare war. Conquer!
Damaging? Yes. Fun? Definitely!
I can't secede because my other feature request hasn't been approved yet to actually make secessions more reasonable. I can't declare war, because intra-realm warfare is banned. I can't conquer my own regions.
You're still missing the point though. The infiltrator class is pretty meaningless when their main action doesn't have any real in-game effect.
-
I agree with the feature request.
I also hear what Indirik is saying, and honestly is just makes me continue to wonder even more what the hell the point of Infiltrators is. You are only reinforcing the already stupid fact that infiltrators do nothing significant. Why do we even have them?
One assassination tipped the scales of the conflict on the Far East that saw Soliferum and Mosesadelphia destroyed, the dominance of the South broken, and Arcaea rise to the top of the heap. Had it not happened, or had the assassin been even identified, I would guess Arcaea would have been destroyed, and Conan McGahee would probably be the Prime Minister of the Empire of the Sun across the entire continent.
That said, I would like to see infiltrators reworked into something more relevant. I still think a more spymaster approach would work better.
-
One assassination tipped the scales of the conflict on the Far East that saw Soliferum and Mosesadelphia destroyed, the dominance of the South broken, and Arcaea rise to the top of the heap. Had it not happened, or had the assassin been even identified, I would guess Arcaea would have been destroyed, and Conan McGahee would probably be the Prime Minister of the Empire of the Sun across the entire continent.
That said, I would like to see infiltrators reworked into something more relevant. I still think a more spymaster approach would work better.
Would you mind expanding upon what actually happened? Was it simply the occurrence of an assassination attempt that caused the positive conflict? Or was it some feature related to the function of the assassination that helped the RP? There is a distinct difference there.
I do not deny that infiltrators have a large amount of RP potential, and I love them for that. What I would like to see though is for their abilities to be able to effect things in game more while also ensuring fun is preserved.
-
Can an infiltrator attack someone who is already wounded? Losing your seat for one wound seems a bit harsh, but if an infiltrator is willing to take the chance 2 or 3 times then why not?
-
You cannot assault someone who is already wounded.
-
Would you mind expanding upon what actually happened? Was it simply the occurrence of an assassination attempt that caused the positive conflict? Or was it some feature related to the function of the assassination that helped the RP? There is a distinct difference there.
There was an assassination of the High King of Cathay while two known Soliferan infiltrators where in the region, right as Arcaea was heavily lobbying Cathay to switch sides or at least go more neutral, while Soliferum was on the brink of convincing Cathay to join the active fighting against Arcaea. There was one Arcaean noble, who nobody had ever heard of, who had been previously announced as a forward scout to keep an eye on the Soliferan troop movements. The attack first kept the Ruler of Cathay from signing an alliance and declaring war (might not have happened then, but I have reason to believe it was possible), and second convinced Cathay that Soliferum was ready to trample all over their rights to get what they wanted. No one believed that with two well-known and skilled Soliferan infiltrators in the region that the nobody Arcaean could have done it, and none of Cathay's infils were around.
So, mechanically, the main thing was an attack that was not identified at a time when the most plausible attacker was from a hostile realm. I will also note that no one, ever (not even Jenred) learned IC that this was not done by a Soliferan. Even the Soliferan infils thought it could have been the other one. I only learned years later OOC. I'd always wondered why the hell Soliferum would take the risk.
-
@Silverfire: well, have your ruler turn the capital city into a one-region duchy. Or, since you will be ruler soon, do it yourself. Then have his city starved and ambassador'ed into oblivion. And keep having him stabbed. It can work. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't happen. I know of two dukes who have lost duchies due to extended wounds in the past 4 or so months.
-
There was an assassination of the High King of Cathay while two known Soliferan infiltrators where in the region, right as Arcaea was heavily lobbying Cathay to switch sides or at least go more neutral, while Soliferum was on the brink of convincing Cathay to join the active fighting against Arcaea. There was one Arcaean noble, who nobody had ever heard of, who had been previously announced as a forward scout to keep an eye on the Soliferan troop movements. The attack first kept the Ruler of Cathay from signing an alliance and declaring war (might not have happened then, but I have reason to believe it was possible), and second convinced Cathay that Soliferum was ready to trample all over their rights to get what they wanted. No one believed that with two well-known and skilled Soliferan infiltrators in the region that the nobody Arcaean could have done it, and none of Cathay's infils were around.
So, mechanically, the main thing was an attack that was not identified at a time when the most plausible attacker was from a hostile realm. I will also note that no one, ever (not even Jenred) learned IC that this was not done by a Soliferan. Even the Soliferan infils thought it could have been the other one. I only learned years later OOC. I'd always wondered why the hell Soliferum would take the risk.
Bedwyr, the thing is that this attack was based entirely upon RP and the fun situation occurred not necessarily because of the ability for an attack to remove posts at all. It also has nothing to do with the bounty board, so its not really relevant to this proposal.
@Silverfire: well, have your ruler turn the capital city into a one-region duchy. Or, since you will be ruler soon, do it yourself. Then have his city starved and ambassador'ed into oblivion. And keep having him stabbed. It can work. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't happen. I know of two dukes who have lost duchies due to extended wounds in the past 4 or so months.
You're right, because having to give someone more power in order to remove power is clearly a balanced way for game mechanics to work. That sort of manipulation reeks of game mechanics abuse to me. That however is a topic primarily for my other thread. None of these situations give any credence into why the bounty board should not be made more meaningful. (or removed completely)
-
None of these situations give any credence into why the bounty board should not be made more meaningful. (or removed completely)
"Because it doesn't do what I, personally, want it to do" is not a reason to remove it. There are infils (and non-infils) who have made a habit of knocking people off the bounty board. If these people are having fun, then what do you care if the bounty board isn't quite what you need to accomplish your goals? Let the people that use it have their fun.
-
"Because it doesn't do what I, personally, want it to do" is not a reason to remove it. There are infils (and non-infils) who have made a habit of knocking people off the bounty board. If these people are having fun, then what do you care if the bounty board isn't quite what you need to accomplish your goals? Let the people that use it have their fun.
If the wound was intended, such as by an infil attack or by a duel, then it's all fine. Having gold wasted to flukes, however, like battle wounds... that just sucks. That is, unless having a bounty exposed a character to greater chances of wounds in battle... THAT would actually be nicer than having battle wounds not give any bounty gold at all.
-
If the wound was intended, such as by an infil attack or by a duel, then it's all fine. Having gold wasted to flukes, however, like battle wounds... that just sucks.
I don't understand why the source of the wound matters. When you place a bounty, the intent is to get the character wounded. (And, yes, perhaps have it be bad enough that he loses his office.) Sure, you may feel like you wasted your gold, but one way or another you lost the gold the instant you set the bounty. If you're lucky, maybe some lucky warrior in your own realm got it. :)
-
Indirik, my proposal seeks to improve the fun of these infiltrators not detract from it.
I believe the bounty board will be used more often with this change in place. This means higher bounties and more engagement opportunities by infiltrators.
-
That is, unless having a bounty exposed a character to greater chances of wounds in battle... THAT would actually be nicer than having battle wounds not give any bounty gold at all.
I like this. It makes sense, too. Potential ransom's entice some folk to be opportunistic during battle. A huge bounty on someone's head would entice most folk to go the extra mile.
-
Bedwyr, the thing is that this attack was based entirely upon RP and the fun situation occurred not necessarily because of the ability for an attack to remove posts at all. It also has nothing to do with the bounty board, so its not really relevant to this proposal.
The fun situation occurred because the infiltrator was mechanically un-identifiable, not because of any RP. The fact that the infil picked the perfect time and place was brilliance. Don't think the infiltrator ever said a word to anyone ever about it, so it's hard for me to see how it's based entirely on RP.
But that's also actually my point. I don't see the bounty board as anything other than a vanity plate, something infamous people can brag about being on. I fully agree it doesn't do anything particularly meaningful, because the only time assassinations are actually useful are when they are properly coordinated. Having, for instance, the Ruler of Cathay wounded at a random time would have been pointless.
-
The fun situation occurred because the infiltrator was mechanically un-identifiable, not because of any RP. The fact that the infil picked the perfect time and place was brilliance. Don't think the infiltrator ever said a word to anyone ever about it, so it's hard for me to see how it's based entirely on RP.
Politics in this game are driven by two things, role playing and prudence. Role playing in the sense that players give diplomatic consideration to events that don't necessarily affect the prudence of a matter. Prudence in the sense that, barring the influence of such aforementioned events, players engage in diplomacy in manners which they decide are most effective.
In the scenario you described, the infiltrator's attack did not affect matters of diplomatic prudence, thus the resulting diplomatic considerations paid to it can be classified as role playing. Therefore, it is entirely based on role playing.
-
I don't understand why the source of the wound matters. When you place a bounty, the intent is to get the character wounded. (And, yes, perhaps have it be bad enough that he loses his office.) Sure, you may feel like you wasted your gold, but one way or another you lost the gold the instant you set the bounty. If you're lucky, maybe some lucky warrior in your own realm got it. :)
Because you pay with the intent of provoking a wound that wouldn't have otherwise occured. You pay to create risk. And when a bounty is collected due to battle, not only have you failed to trigger a wound that wouldn't have otherwise happened, but the risk you created is terminated.
The gold is *spent* the moment you set the bounty, but if it triggers a wound that wouldn't have happened, then it paid off. Paying the bounty to flukes like battle wounds would be like giving the soldiers who got Ossama the bounty that was on his head: they were just doing their job, it makes no sense.
-
Because you pay with the intent of provoking a wound that wouldn't have otherwise occured. You pay to create risk. And when a bounty is collected due to battle, not only have you failed to trigger a wound that wouldn't have otherwise happened, but the risk you created is terminated.
The gold is *spent* the moment you set the bounty, but if it triggers a wound that wouldn't have happened, then it paid off. Paying the bounty to flukes like battle wounds would be like giving the soldiers who got Ossama the bounty that was on his head: they were just doing their job, it makes no sense.
This is the reason that if people really want infiltrator hits they call for them privately and pay the infiltrator separately upon success.
-
I don't understand why the source of the wound matters. When you place a bounty, the intent is to get the character wounded. (And, yes, perhaps have it be bad enough that he loses his office.) Sure, you may feel like you wasted your gold, but one way or another you lost the gold the instant you set the bounty. If you're lucky, maybe some lucky warrior in your own realm got it. :)
Think of when you are haggling with someone. If they need to get their money out of it, you are more willing to pay that higher price, but if they got it for free you aren't going to want to pay top dollar for it. Its not exactly the same but you get the general idea of it, I hope.