BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Dante Silverfire on February 16, 2013, 08:48:48 PM
-
Title: Make any "Serious Wound" cause loss of all positions.
Summary: Currently a player must remain wounded for 5-7 days to lose their positions. This is highly unlikely to occur from infiltrator wounding from my experience. One of the main reasons a player may be inclined to call an assassination on another character is in the hope of removing their positions. This change would reflect this tendency.
Details: This proposal is in connection with a change to the bounty board proposal which can be found here: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3860.0.html (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3860.0.html) Right now, infiltrator actions are not effective in causing loss of positions, yet assassination attempts are often cited by devs and others as to one primary method of removing unsavor types from their posts. I propose that the game mechanics reinforce actual in-game tendencies and allow the game to make some sense with regards to the use of infiltrators. One important note: An alternative method which I am against is increasing the length of time that infiltrator attacks remove a character from the game. This is counter productive as it causes loss of game time. Instead, the emphasis should be to allow the wounding to still last a shorter and more reasonable time frame, while still making assassinations to remove positions effective.
Benefits: Make the infiltrator class useful and meaningful without inhibiting player action and causing further debilitation through increased wound lengths. Also, make the bounty board actually a meaningful feature in the game. Right now, all gold spent on the bounty board is better used elsewhere, and is wasted as a bounty. In addition, this will increase position turnover which is positive for player retention and game fun.
Exploits: None.
-
There goes priests holding any positions ever.
Opposed. Seriously opposed. I've been critically and seriously wounded from preaching many times. Game even told me I was DEAD once (I got better).
-
There goes priests holding any positions ever.
Opposed. Seriously opposed. I've been critically and seriously wounded from preaching many times. Game even told me I was DEAD once (I got better).
Would you support a proposal that caused all serious wounds caused by infiltrators to cause loss of positions?
-
Personally, I'm against special treatment based on character class.
-
Personally, I'm against special treatment based on character class.
So am I. I also think if you're getting wounded preaching over and over again, you're doing something wrong. (Although I lack experience as a priest)
-
Yeah, you're preaching in an area where there is a faith that considers yours evil or misguided. You know, converting the heathens, which is what priests are supposed to do?
-
Would you support a proposal that caused all serious wounds caused by infiltrators to cause loss of positions?
Infils do use poison... one of the poison's side-effects could be that it looks like the guy is gonna die, hence making people think he may as well be replaced.
Doesn't feel right that the game handles infil attacks and other wounds in exactly the same way. Be it for loss of positions or bounties. Especially bounties... Seeing all that gold go to someone for a fluke battle wound that doesn't remove any positions feels like a total ripoff, because that wound would have happened regardless of the bounty.
-
Yeah, you're preaching in an area where there is a faith that considers yours evil or misguided. You know, converting the heathens, which is what priests are supposed to do?
What's wrong with getting wounded then? That makes perfect sense. I don't think Priests are supposed to be the sole means of converting large enemy faith zones. If the problem is that it is an enemy faith, then build some temples first. Use those to help change some of the population.
I don't think it should be easy to convert a region which is heavily against your religion.
If that also has consequences from losing titles then that should fit.
-
You definately have no experience being an active priest, do you? Because wounds have happened to me when I've still had a 90% rate of MY religion in the area.
-
You definately have no experience being an active priest, do you? Because wounds have happened to me when I've still had a 90% rate of MY religion in the area.
I said I didn't have experience. But this case is not the one you described above.
-
Yeah, it is. Since I am still preaching to members of hostile religions that are in a region. When you're preaching, you're not preaching to your followers, you're preaching to pagans and other faiths. Pagans never attack. Hostile religions do, though there is a chance they can be stopped by followers.
-
He's not asking that priests cease to be wounded, he's just stating that your suggestion would make it impossible for a hell of a lot of priests to maintain any kind of titles whatsoever.
-
He's not asking that priests cease to be wounded, he's just stating that your suggestion would make it impossible for a hell of a lot of priests to maintain any kind of titles whatsoever.
This.
-
He's not asking that priests cease to be wounded, he's just stating that your suggestion would make it impossible for a hell of a lot of priests to maintain any kind of titles whatsoever.
What is wrong with that? I'd like to see examples where priests in the middle ages held a lot of high feudal titles. The ones that did certainly weren't spending their time preaching in some rural town where they could be attacked by 10 followers of a foreign religion.
Yeah, it is. Since I am still preaching to members of hostile religions that are in a region. When you're preaching, you're not preaching to your followers, you're preaching to pagans and other faiths. Pagans never attack. Hostile religions do, though there is a chance they can be stopped by followers.
If 90% of the religion follows you and 10% are evil heretics, you shouldn't be getting wounded. Your followers should protect you. Whether or not the game mechanics reflect this or not is for a different topic and proposal.
-
What is wrong with that? I'd like to see examples where priests in the middle ages held a lot of high feudal titles. The ones that did certainly weren't spending their time preaching in some rural town where they could be attacked by 10 followers of a foreign religion.
And before you say that it would have been historically accurate for him to have done so: tough beans. There are plenty of things that would have been historically accurate that we prevent you from doing for game balance reasons.
I believe Anaris speaks on such comparisons quite well.
If 90% of the religion follows you and 10% are evil heretics, you shouldn't be getting wounded. Your followers should protect you. Whether or not the game mechanics reflect this or not is for a different topic and proposal.
Actually, it's a perfect topic for a poorly considered proposal.
The mere fact that your argument is essentially "go away! You're pointing out my flaws and lack of consideration for more aspects of the game than the singular one I want to change because someone I tried to get assassinated didn't get knocked from his/her position!" speaks volumes.
-
I am ignoring all replies, especially the de-railing of this topic to discuss priest stuff. My reply goes to the topic starter:
It used to be this way and was changed for a reason. Dig up the old discussions and read through them, you will understand why.
-
I believe Anaris speaks on such comparisons quite well.
If they feel for game balance reasons that priests should be excluded then they can do so.
Actually, it's a perfect topic for a poorly considered proposal.
The mere fact that your argument is essentially "go away! You're pointing out my flaws and lack of consideration for more aspects of the game than the singular one I want to change because someone I tried to get assassinated didn't get knocked from his/her position!" speaks volumes.
You haven't explained why this is a poorly considered proposal except for your reference to priests. If priests should be excluded they can be excluded. That says nothing though for the rest of the proposal. Also, if you haven't read the other thread, then you are missing a large portion of the point of this proposal. It is directly tied to improving infiltrator gameplay and the bounty board as I discussed there. I created a new proposal at Indirik's request.
Also, I haven't tried to assassinate anyone. Before you seek to make ad-hominem arguments against me, perhaps actually discuss my proposal.
I am ignoring all replies, especially the de-railing of this topic to discuss priest stuff. My reply goes to the topic starter:
It used to be this way and was changed for a reason. Dig up the old discussions and read through them, you will understand why.
Thank you Tom. Do you know if this was on the discussion list or forums? So I can narrow my search. Also, can you relate this to my other thread. Is there some workable solution to the general problem?
-
Ah...Tom, I very much doubt that those discussions can be dug up. They definitely predated the forums, and I think they were on the old old Discussion List. Whose archives, unless you have a copy lurking around, are long since lost.
As to preaching in evil regions:
You know you don't have to actually preach directly there to make some headway, right? If you can maintain 100% following in Region X, all the regions adjacent to Region X (that don't already have 100% following) will be making a good number of converts each day. Get enough converts in Region Y, with a majority of the evil religion, to build a shrine there, and you'll be able to make further headway without any further risk to you.
Naturally, if there are priests of the evil religion preaching in Region Y, you won't make progress. But...they won't be able to make progress against you in Region X, either, as long as you keep its following high.
-
Um, I certainly couldn't find any discussion on it on the forum.
Anaris is this still current:
For serious wounding by an infiltrator, Council positions are lost instantly, except the Ruler position in a Monarch, Theocracy, or Tyranny.
All positions can be lost if the character remains wounded for long enough, from any kind of wound.
We know that there is a certain amount of inconsistency in how wounding is treated. We intend to clear it up, but due to the way the code in these situations works, it's not as simple as it sounds.
That was written July 2011. And this:
For a very long time, it was nearly impossible for any wound to trigger the wound position timeout. That changed last year with my implementation of the new wounding system. I have now seen several characters affected by it.
That's not to say it will never be tweaked; like many aspects of the game, it bears paying attention to, and having its knobs turned if things aren't quite in balance.
We do want people to lose their positions from wounds, and it does happen—the question, of course, for both of those, is how often.
-
I believe one of the reasons for the change to not lose titles kon a serious wound was that the vast majority of the time, the same person was immediately reappointed. In many cases where this was not possible, a placeholder was elected/appointed "until the rightful lord came back". That used to be SOP for a LONG time. If we go back to removing so easily, then we'll have a lot of angry people, royal status will pretty much mean nothing, and we'll have a LOT of placeholders again.
-
I believe one of the reasons for the change to not lose titles kon a serious wound was that the vast majority of the time, the same person was immediately reappointed. In many cases where this was not possible, a placeholder was elected/appointed "until the rightful lord came back". That used to be SOP for a LONG time. If we go back to removing so easily, then we'll have a lot of angry people, royal status will pretty much mean nothing, and we'll have a LOT of placeholders again.
Except placeholders are now prohibited. So we won't have them....
-
Except placeholders are now prohibited. So we won't have them....
Uh-huh. You just keep thinking that.
-
Uh-huh. You just keep thinking that.
Does no one follow rules?
-
I believe one of the reasons for the change to not lose titles kon a serious wound was that the vast majority of the time, the same person was immediately reappointed. In many cases where this was not possible, a placeholder was elected/appointed "until the rightful lord came back". That used to be SOP for a LONG time. If we go back to removing so easily, then we'll have a lot of angry people, royal status will pretty much mean nothing, and we'll have a LOT of placeholders again.
Right, this, I remember, is what used to be said.
Which always seemed like a non-sequitur, to me. "Since woundings don't offer much turnover because of placeholders, we'll just make sure they offer even less turnover by having wounded people keep their titles".
Royal status means unbannable. I have a really hard time seeing how it would ever "pretty much mean nothing". If we have less placeholders, it's not because this policy has made them happen at a lower rate, but just at a lower frequency. In other words, the % of times a title loss results in a placeholder hasn't shrunk (I'd guess it'd likely even increase), there are just less opportunities for it to be done. And the more difficult it is for people to get rid of their ruler, the more conservative in their ruler-to-be choice will be.
-
Does no one follow rules?
There's a reason why the Magistrates have two pages of cases.
-
I believe one of the reasons for the change to not lose titles kon a serious wound was that the vast majority of the time, the same person was immediately reappointed. In many cases where this was not possible, a placeholder was elected/appointed "until the rightful lord came back". That used to be SOP for a LONG time. If we go back to removing so easily, then we'll have a lot of angry people, royal status will pretty much mean nothing, and we'll have a LOT of placeholders again.
Look, there are two barely related issues this might impact. First, general turnover. I agree, this won't help general turnover. This will, however, help the other issue, which is the "what in the name of all that is holy do I do about a Duke I don't like?!?" problem that people have been talking about for years. Especially Royal Dukes. Frankly, I don't think this is the best way to go about it, but let's not confuse the two issues.
-
Thank you Tom. Do you know if this was on the discussion list or forums? So I can narrow my search. Also, can you relate this to my other thread. Is there some workable solution to the general problem?
Anaris is probably right. The very short summary is that those removals led to a lot of undesirable behaviour, most importantly a proliferation of placeholder positions.
-
I see the two different issue. I was explaining the reason for the switch with wounds and positions. I also agree that this is probably not the best way to deal with the situation. Meking it so easy to knock someone out of an office makes dealing with that troublesome royal too easy.
-
What is wrong with that? I'd like to see examples where priests in the middle ages held a lot of high feudal titles. The ones that did certainly weren't spending their time preaching in some rural town where they could be attacked by 10 followers of a foreign religion.
No real reason for this reply except it made me think of an example. Henry the VIII when he got mad at the Pope for not granting him a divorce and created the Church of England and named himself as the head, then executed the clergy/cardinals/bishops that would not accept this. Unfortunately for him, his best friend, Sir Thomas Moore, could not accept it, and was executed.
Anyway, /history
-
Indeed, this used to be the case. Another issue with the serious wounding leading to loss of positions was that it made it all to easy to claim regions. I can recall several instances of it being done, and more being plotted, of nobles from wealthy families employing infiltrators to assassinate lords of cities so that they could use family wealth to buy the city. Back then its how at least some realms started- assassinate duke, buy city, secession. I think it still MIGHT allow you to do some of this when a lord is seriously wounded, but obviously cities and duchies are not quite the same pair they used to be.
Lots of meta-gaming.
-
I wouldn't consider wounding a noble to gain his position and then seceding from the realm metagaming. That's intrigue at its finest.
-
Whether or not it's metagaming is now moot.
Only Dukes can secede. Duchies cannot be bought: only regions. Buying a city no longer gets you anything but that city.