BattleMaster Community

BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Foxglove on April 08, 2014, 02:07:48 PM

Title: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Foxglove on April 08, 2014, 02:07:48 PM
Are any statistics available on how many players have closed accounts or paused all characters since the start of the glacier event? I seem to have seen a lot of people leaving the game or pausing over the past week in particular.

Just curious to know whether the stats are significantly up from normal rates of player loss.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Telrunya on April 08, 2014, 04:25:31 PM
Lots of those pauses have likely been caused by the April Fools joke. The Realm I play in, while not directly affected by the Glacier, has seen an increase in Nobles.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 08, 2014, 04:58:13 PM
I haven't been keeping any kind of close track, but I've definitely noticed what appears to be an increase in new account creation in at least one of my realms over the past week or so.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 08, 2014, 06:01:49 PM
I have not. Which is sad, considering Barca was one of the more active realms.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Atanamir on April 08, 2014, 08:02:59 PM
Being affected in almost all realms I can mention account deletions and migration as main event.
Especially players with only chars in one realm (2 char in one realm families are here very endangered).

The tricky thing though is if an account gets deleted it might hit also realms who are not affected as a players could have had only 1 or 2 chars out of 3 or 4 affected.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 09, 2014, 05:55:34 AM
I would have thought this would be one of the data points that the dev team would be right on top of.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on April 09, 2014, 05:59:16 AM
I would have thought this would be one of the data points that the dev team would be right on top of.
As has been stated elsewhere, the dev team expected there to be people who quit because of this. When something major happens, people quit. It was never intended to be something great for the game in the short term, but in the long term.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 09, 2014, 06:47:23 AM
As has been stated elsewhere, the dev team expected there to be people who quit because of this. When something major happens, people quit. It was never intended to be something great for the game in the short term, but in the long term.
Yes, but they can't test that hypothesis without keeping relevant data.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: bofeng on April 09, 2014, 08:19:56 PM
I agree some transparency could bring more trust between development team and the average players.

I believe development team are made of hardcore players who will guard the common interests of most players in making it attractive, balanced, fun in their best efforts. However, it happens that they are also players and have their own interests within the game. Consider the close result for many elections. If the development team were also voting on the south or north poll without prior knowledge, they probably will vote for their side, and the result would be different. Given the result of the decision is so devastating for many affected realms, such lack of transparency raises mistrust and may make some disappointed players leave.

Second, the changes are for the purpose of addressing a long term problem, which was identified as the player density problem. Yet the solution is a very rash one, that within one month, many lands have to be destroyed. Keep in mind a character can only move two regions every day. The monsters or the iceberg is almost moving as fast as the fastest character? Long term problems should be addressed with a more considerate plan. If the player density problem is not driving the players away, why should we hurry up with a plan to destroy lands and cripple realms in such a rush? Will these changes attract immediate attention for the game? Highly unlikely. It gives many players the feeling that God should not be punishing them so hard. This bitter feeling only ends at driving some players away instead of keeping them engaged. Luckily my character is on the eastern side of the Dwilight world, but honestly I feel confused what actions of those western realms have brought them into such punishment of rampaging monsters on their lands? Is it just because they decided to settle down in the newer part of the continent? Why can’t God gradually take their lands, giving them more time to invade the eastern world? Is it because the eastern world is favored by God? Most people have to think so. :-\

Going forward, I am sure development team will take best care of the game world as they can. But all these critical decisions are made within a small circle, yet affecting so many players. Please keep in mind some involvement from average players may not be necessarily a bad thing. Transparency may be the best way to deal with mistrust and conflict of interests.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 09, 2014, 08:33:07 PM
And this is why there's no possible way we can win: Because no matter how public we make the decisions, no matter how obviously open and random we make it, there will still be people who make bull!@#$ passive-aggressive non-accusations like this:

Consider the close result for many elections. If the development team were also voting on the south or north poll without prior knowledge, they probably will vote for their side, and the result would be different. Given the result of the decision is so devastating for many affected realms, such lack of transparency raises mistrust and may make some disappointed players leave.

If you do not believe that the decisions on which regions to glaciate were made entirely without reference to political affiliation or where our characters were located, despite dozens of assurances of this from the dev team, you may as well leave the game now, because you'll never, ever be able to trust anything we do.

Furthermore, this isn't even paranoia, it's just plain wrong:

Quote
The monsters or the iceberg is almost moving as fast as the fastest character?

The Ice has been moving, on average, something like 1-2 regions per week. I know, because I've been the one moving it. Every character in the game can move faster than that.

Finally, to address this:

Quote
Long term problems should be addressed with a more considerate plan.

This was the more considerate plan. Or have you forgotten already that we were talking about simply closing down an island—boom, done, no chance of any survival or reprieve? And anything that runs slower than what we're doing now would still have all the negative effects of losing the regions, but just drag it out over so much longer that it would piss off more people in the end.

All that said, once I can get a couple of current things out of the way (one being the Titan overhaul, the other being a project I'm keeping secret so it can be a pleasant surprise for everyone), I do plan to publicize more of the stuff I'll be working on. That doesn't mean that I'll be sharing everything, or that I'll take everyone's suggestions. As always, while it's good to hear the players' desires, doing everything they want is one of the easiest ways to destroy any game.

One of the most important—and most difficult—jobs the dev team has is deciding which possible courses of action to take in terms of improving the game. That includes everything from minor feature requests to events like the Ice Age. Just because it seems obvious to you that one way of doing things is Teh Bestest doesn't mean that it actually is. (And this part isn't just aimed at bofeng, but rather at pretty much everyone who's ever made or thought of a feature request.)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Atanamir on April 09, 2014, 08:50:01 PM
And this is why there's no possible way we can win: Because no matter how public we make the decisions, no matter how obviously open and random we make it, there will still be people who make bull!@#$ passive-aggressive non-accusations like this:

If you do not believe that the decisions on which regions to glaciate were made entirely without reference to political affiliation or where our characters were located, despite dozens of assurances of this from the dev team, you may as well leave the game now, because you'll never, ever be able to trust anything we do.

Anaris. Let's say this very straight.
The polls were not IC, they were on the forum.
On the forum are only active players.
So only active players voted.
Which again means that it hits active realms where these players play.
Which again makes it not really random.
If you can accept that this is why now so many players are against what happened, then you could also find a way for a solution to ease them.

I repeat, it is your current lacking failure management that does not let this discussion shut down.
I see players coming up with statistical data which make very valid points for what they say and the admins lock or delete threads.
Is that your plan to end this? Seriously?
Either the players will be heard or they will be continued to be shut down till they leave.

And then you will have your right and Bm again many less players.
I mean seriously, did I just read from the dev team the indirect soltuion to just leave the game?!
Is that what you want? Is that how you treat people who don't agree with you?

Maybe you should start accepting some input here and try to come up with some hard facts like has been asked for.
That would be more constructive.
But maybe now this thread will get locked or even deleted as well.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 09, 2014, 08:52:43 PM
And this is why there's no possible way we can win: Because no matter how public we make the decisions, no matter how obviously open and random we make it, there will still be people who make bull!@#$ passive-aggressive non-accusations like this:

If you do not believe that the decisions on which regions to glaciate were made entirely without reference to political affiliation or where our characters were located, despite dozens of assurances of this from the dev team, you may as well leave the game now, because you'll never, ever be able to trust anything we do.

Furthermore, this isn't even paranoia, it's just plain wrong:

The Ice has been moving, on average, something like 1-2 regions per week. I know, because I've been the one moving it. Every character in the game can move faster than that.

Finally, to address this:

This was the more considerate plan. Or have you forgotten already that we were talking about simply closing down an island—boom, done, no chance of any survival or reprieve? And anything that runs slower than what we're doing now would still have all the negative effects of losing the regions, but just drag it out over so much longer that it would piss off more people in the end.

All that said, once I can get a couple of current things out of the way (one being the Titan overhaul, the other being a project I'm keeping secret so it can be a pleasant surprise for everyone), I do plan to publicize more of the stuff I'll be working on. That doesn't mean that I'll be sharing everything, or that I'll take everyone's suggestions. As always, while it's good to hear the players' desires, doing everything they want is one of the easiest ways to destroy any game.

One of the most important—and most difficult—jobs the dev team has is deciding which possible courses of action to take in terms of improving the game. That includes everything from minor feature requests to events like the Ice Age. Just because it seems obvious to you that one way of doing things is Teh Bestest doesn't mean that it actually is. (And this part isn't just aimed at bofeng, but rather at pretty much everyone who's ever made or thought of a feature request.)

I feel that the more considerate plan would have been just closing an island. We all were expecting that, as it had been talked over before. This glacier/monster event was never talked about beforehand. We didn't have time to prepare for it, and it affects one set of people on a continent more than another, creating OOC tensions that need not be there.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 09, 2014, 08:55:19 PM
I repeat, it is your current lacking failure management that does not let this discussion shut down.
I see players coming up with statistical data which make very valid points for what they say and the admins lock or delete threads.

Again, you're assuming that this is a failure, and that the data showing people leaving "proves" this, when all it proves is that what is happening is exactly what we predicted so far.

If, in six months, the data shows that we're still bleeding players at a rate higher than before the Ice Age began, then you can come to me and say that it failed, and I'll agree with you. For now, it's just way, way too soon to tell. So be patient.

Quote
I mean seriously, did I just read from the dev team the indirect soltuion to just leave the game?!
Is that what you want? Is that how you treat people who don't agree with you?

No, it's how I treat people who accuse me of cheating and lying.

And I'm dead serious, and I know that Tom will agree with me completely: If you do not trust the dev team to be impartial, regardless of what we say, then you cannot hope to play this game without constantly looking over your shoulder. So you may as well leave.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 09, 2014, 08:57:03 PM
I feel that the more considerate plan would have been just closing an island. We all were expecting that, as it had been talked over before. This glacier/monster event was never talked about beforehand. We didn't have time to prepare for it, and it affects one set of people on a continent more than another, creating OOC tensions that need not be there.

Yes, and I'd heard a great deal of that talk. A lot of people were saying, "Well, if X island gets closed down, I'll just leave the game."

And closing an island affects one set of people more than another, too: they just happen to be people on this continent vs that continent.

In any case, we've been over this ground before, many times. We're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I'm still 100% convinced that this is a better option than closing a continent outright.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Atanamir on April 09, 2014, 09:09:47 PM
And I'm dead serious, and I know that Tom will agree with me completely: If you do not trust the dev team to be impartial, regardless of what we say, then you cannot hope to play this game without constantly looking over your shoulder. So you may as well leave.

No way. I have to be here in 6 months to ask you for that data  8)
And by failure management I don't mean that this is already a failure.
I mean more your current methods of communication with the complaining party.
Imagine what happens if in 6 months the other party is proven right.
That's why I'd ask you to be more transparent and less oppressive and aggressive in here and leave room for possible mistakes on your side. Just as you did in your reply to me now. But this could be done in more points in this discussion.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 09, 2014, 09:14:19 PM
That's why I'd ask you to be more transparent and less oppressive and aggressive in here and leave room for possible mistakes on your side. Just as you did in your reply to me now. But this could be done in more points in this discussion.

And what we've been saying, this whole time, isn't, "No, you're wrong, this is obviously working." It's been "It's too soon to tell, chill out and wait a while, we have to see how things go."

But some people, at least, aren't interested in waiting. They see things being bad NOW and so they assume we must have been wrong.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: bofeng on April 09, 2014, 09:44:06 PM
Not accusing anyone. But these decisions leave dev team vulnerable to doubts.

Many players don't leave, because the game is unique. I played four years ago for a short period of half year, and then quit. But I came back because it's unique. That doesn't mean everything can't be improved. It's fine with me if the point is not taken. After all, we all owe thanks to Tom and hard-working dev team.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 09, 2014, 09:47:04 PM
That doesn't mean everything can't be improved.

Oh, definitely. I've got waaaay more ideas for how to improve things (and even clearly laid-out plans) than I have time to implement them. At least so far.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 09, 2014, 09:51:28 PM
Give it a half year or so and you will then see the results. Big changes like this will take time to sink in.

You should all be thanking Tim for even trying to fix the problems we have. Hold on to your urge to complain until we get the results.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Eirikr on April 09, 2014, 10:18:14 PM
Anaris. Let's say this very straight.
The polls were not IC, they were on the forum.
On the forum are only active players.
So only active players voted.
Which again means that it hits active realms where these players play.
Which again makes it not really random.
If you can accept that this is why now so many players are against what happened, then you could also find a way for a solution to ease them.
(Emphasis added.)

While I'm not really interested in this discussion as a whole, I feel I need to point out a few things here:

You see, there's no actual link between your observations and final player complaints. They may be your complaints, yes, but that's one data point. You may even be right... but the observations presented here never make it to that step. We'd have to go out three things, in this order:

The first question does not make the assumption (as you seem to) that players inherently dislike the event.
The second question clarifies the first, proving or disproving your hypothesis. It's entirely possible people dislike the event because of what it represents (diminishing numbers of BM) or because it means they have to move... they may have no problem with the method at all.
The final question provides a control, either aligning real data with public opinion or shattering misconceptions about the effects. Either way, it ends the debate with facts. (Though we know that doesn't mean people won't stop trying to spin it some other way.) This can't be fulfilled until the ice has stopped moving and the event is over*.

I also guarantee that those answers will change depending upon when the questions are asked.

*- Yes, the event being over is technically "too late"... but it's Tom's game. He makes the rules and this is what he chose. He and the devs will stop it when they stop it, and from that point, they can choose to collect the data or not. It's you who have to decide if it's still enjoyable for you to play the game. Hell, he doesn't even have to do any of this. It's his right to just say things will be whatever they will be.

Sorry, I'm just not very tolerant of faulty logic and poorly-based assertions.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 09, 2014, 11:04:51 PM
(Emphasis added.)

While I'm not really interested in this discussion as a whole, I feel I need to point out a few things here:
  • You make a good point about the polls being on the forums. It was definitely mostly active players. New players and others do occasionally check the forums, though. If I recall, there may also have been a yellow box announcement about it, too... but I can't remember for sure.
  • The players still had no idea what impact the poll would have. Nothing was promised with the poll, only suggested with a clear disclaimer that it may not happen. You're right, this isn't truly random, but it also isn't driven by intent.
  • Even so, the assertion that this process is the reason players are against it is a loaded, logical leap.

You see, there's no actual link between your observations and final player complaints. They may be your complaints, yes, but that's one data point. You may even be right... but the observations presented here never make it to that step. We'd have to go out three things, in this order:
  • Do players like it or not?
  • If not, why not?
  • What are the actual statistical results of the event?

The first question does not make the assumption (as you seem to) that players inherently dislike the event.
The second question clarifies the first, proving or disproving your hypothesis. It's entirely possible people dislike the event because of what it represents (diminishing numbers of BM) or because it means they have to move... they may have no problem with the method at all.
The final question provides a control, either aligning real data with public opinion or shattering misconceptions about the effects. Either way, it ends the debate with facts. (Though we know that doesn't mean people won't stop trying to spin it some other way.) This can't be fulfilled until the ice has stopped moving and the event is over*.

I also guarantee that those answers will change depending upon when the questions are asked.

*- Yes, the event being over is technically "too late"... but it's Tom's game. He makes the rules and this is what he chose. He and the devs will stop it when they stop it, and from that point, they can choose to collect the data or not. It's you who have to decide if it's still enjoyable for you to play the game. Hell, he doesn't even have to do any of this. It's his right to just say things will be whatever they will be.

Sorry, I'm just not very tolerant of faulty logic and poorly-based assertions.

I would have to say that some of your own logic is faulty.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 09, 2014, 11:10:09 PM
I would have to say that some of your own logic is faulty.

Then please point it out with a clear explanation as to why. Don't just post random insulting one-liners.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 09, 2014, 11:18:47 PM
Then please point it out with a clear explanation as to why. Don't just post random insulting one-liners.

Frankly, my brain is too fuzzy after participating in these "discussions" to do anything more at this time.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 09, 2014, 11:21:36 PM
Then please point it out with a clear explanation as to why. Don't just post random insulting one-liners.

Can't agree more. Eirikr was just pointing things out in a logical fashion. If you are only here to express only your own opinion, you are not here for a discussion. You are simply here to complain and expecting people to agree with you not thinking of people you might have a different opinion. People will ignore you if you ignore their opinions.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 09, 2014, 11:27:31 PM
The polls were not IC, they were on the forum.
Of course they were not IC. We wanted players to vote, not characters. ;)

The fact that we did the polls as forums polls as opposed to IG polls (and yes, I know this is what you really meant) is because how many players voted is irrelevant. As we've already explained, the players had no idea what they were voting for. Which was by design. All we wanted, was some public random coin flip. If we had posted a message IG about "Vote North or South!", all we would have gotten was massive confusion, and still no more statistically valid random result.

Quote
Which again means that it hits active realms where these players play.
No matter what we would have picked, we'd have hit realms that had active players.

Quote
the admins lock or delete threads.
The only threads that have been locked were the threads that devolved into circular discussions and insults.

A single thread has been deleted. It consisted of one single message, which was a vicious attack upon the integrity of the dev team.

Quote
I mean seriously, did I just read from the dev team the indirect soltuion to just leave the game?!
Is that what you want? Is that how you treat people who don't agree with you?
If you don't trust the dev team to do what is best for the game, then what's the point of playing the game? If you think that the dev team is on some personal mission to destroy you and your realms, or that the dev team uses their mysterious powers of influence over Tom to do manual interventions over IC events and actions, or even directly introduces code bugs and loopholes for their personal benefit (and yes, all these are accusations that have been fired at the dev team in the past), then why are you still playing the game?

Quote
Maybe you should start accepting some input here and try to come up with some hard facts like has been asked for.
Hard facts about the results of the glaciating event won't be available for, I would guess, at least a year after the event has concluded. So come back in 14-15 months, and we will re-evaluate it then.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 09, 2014, 11:29:07 PM
Can't agree more. Eirikr was just pointing things out in a logical fashion. If you are only here to express only your own opinion, you are not here for a discussion. You are simply here to complain and expecting people to agree with you not thinking of people you might have a different opinion. People will ignore you if you ignore their opinions.

I've provided proof backing up my own opinions time and again, to have it ignored time and again for the same old excuses. If they're not going to extend that respect to me, I'm not going to for them.

Of course they were not IC. We wanted players to vote, not characters. ;)

The fact that we did the polls as forums polls as opposed to IG polls (and yes, I know this is what you really meant) is because how many players voted is irrelevant. As we've already explained, the players had no idea what they were voting for. Which was by design. All we wanted, was some public random coin flip. If we had posted a message IG about "Vote North or South!", all we would have gotten was massive confusion, and still no more statistically valid random result.

Hard facts about the results of the glaciating event won't be available for, I would guess, at least a year after the event has concluded. So come back in 14-15 months, and we will re-evaluate it then.

The issue people are having with the polls is that they were not done ethically. Everyone did not realize that by voting on the polls, they were basically choosing what would happen in this event. I can guarantee you that some people would not have voted at all had they realized what they were voting for.

As for waiting 14-15 months, I'm sorry, but that's just a cop out. I've provided hard numbers on the realms involved about the noble populations, and we've had several newer players post about their dissatisfaction. Especially relevant was the one who came from Niselur, who spoke about having 6-7 players deleting their characters, if not their accounts, and another 6-7 who stayed behind in Niselur to basically have their characters die in a blaze of glory before quitting. Tell me how that looks for the game? Not very good to me.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 09, 2014, 11:38:54 PM
I've provided proof backing up my own opinions time and again, to have it ignored time and again for the same old excuses. If they're not going to extend that respect to me, I'm not going to for them.

See, the problem is, Gustav, from my perspective, I've given solid logical arguments and, where it exists, evidence to back up my opinions, and you've ignored them time and again, giving the same old excuses.

Funny how that works, isn't it?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 09, 2014, 11:41:27 PM
See, the problem is, Gustav, from my perspective, I've given solid logical arguments and, where it exists, evidence to back up my opinions, and you've ignored them time and again, giving the same old excuses.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

No, I've refuted your arguments with evidence that supports my own. There's a slight difference that you apparently are being too thick to realize.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 09, 2014, 11:43:58 PM
No, I've refuted your arguments with evidence that supports my own. There's a slight difference that you apparently are being too thick to realize.

Yeah. And I've refuted your arguments with evidence that supports my own.

And you apparently still don't grasp that I have a point of view where I'm being logical and systematic, rather than just ranting incoherently at you because you disagree with me.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 09, 2014, 11:53:30 PM
Yeah. And I've refuted your arguments with evidence that supports my own.

And you apparently still don't grasp that I have a point of view where I'm being logical and systematic, rather than just ranting incoherently at you because you disagree with me.

You know Anaris, you're right. And when you're right you're right. And you? You're always right.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 10, 2014, 12:07:34 AM
You know Anaris, you're right. And when you're right you're right. And you? You're always right.

Think this is where we say it is pointless to discuss anymore. Instead of talking about the topic of the thread, now we are back at yelling at each other how the other isn't listening to one another.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: vonGenf on April 10, 2014, 01:25:18 AM
So come back in 14-15 months, and we will re-evaluate it then.

Isn't that an overly long time? I get that we're not expecting a turnaround while the event is taking place, but surely the point is the get the game in a better state where it will be more fun, inducing better word-of-mouth and player retention within, say, a few weeks, 3 months top? If in 6 months the player count is not up, or at least is not trending upwards, then certainly it's not the right solution that was applied.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Velax on April 10, 2014, 01:43:21 AM
I don't believe this solution was designed to increase the player count. It was designed to alleviate the problems that a declining player count causes, such as very few nobles per region/realm. And, as long as the number of players leaving doesn't exceed some ratio to the number of regions removed, it will do that.

I was lucky enough to escape any of my characters being significantly affected by the glacier. I did have my main realm badly affected by starvation caused by another GM event, though - the food/gold production rebalance. We lost eight regions and had the population of many of our cities reduced to the point where it will take months to fully recover. So I do feel at least partially qualified to say this:

You are more than welcome to express your dissatisfaction at events. Do not, however, take your anger out at Devs who are only trying to make this a better game for everyone. Most definitely do not accuse them of bias or of targeting realms their characters are in conflict with. Not only is it insulting, it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. One Dev lost a number of regions that formerly belonged to the realm he is ruler of, and that were fully intended to be reclaimed by that realm. Another lost the entire realm he is ruler of - that hardly seems like something he would do if he was trying to deliberately target certain realms.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Eirikr on April 10, 2014, 03:49:42 AM
I would have to say that some of your own logic is faulty.
Then please point it out with a clear explanation as to why. Don't just post random insulting one-liners.
I wasn't really insulted; I don't pretend my logic foolproof. For example, I'm quite aware that those three questions can be answered in any number of ways, skewing the results. I'm also aware that there's even some confirmation bias by asking the "Why not?" only rather than "Why?" as well.

I've provided proof backing up my own opinions time and again, to have it ignored time and again for the same old excuses. If they're not going to extend that respect to me, I'm not going to for them.
I've yet to participate in this discussion and you claim I am not willing to extend that respect to you? Tell me why I should bother looking for your other posts or respecting you now?

I don't believe this solution was designed to increase the player count. It was designed to alleviate the problems that a declining player count causes, such as very few nobles per region/realm. And, as long as the number of players leaving doesn't exceed some ratio to the number of regions removed, it will do that.

I was lucky enough to escape any of my characters being significantly affected by the glacier. I did have my main realm badly affected by starvation caused by another GM event, though - the food/gold production rebalance. We lost eight regions and had the population of many of our cities reduced to the point where it will take months to fully recover. So I do feel at least partially qualified to say this:

You are more than welcome to express your dissatisfaction at events. Do not, however, take your anger out at Devs who are only trying to make this a better game for everyone. Most definitely do not accuse them of bias or of targeting realms their characters are in conflict with. Not only is it insulting, it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. One Dev lost a number of regions that formerly belonged to the realm he is ruler of, and that were fully intended to be reclaimed by that realm. Another lost the entire realm he is ruler of - that hardly seems like something he would do if he was trying to deliberately target certain realms.

Thank you. In fact, I believe the stated reason was to increase character density which happens by reducing habitable land or gaining players. This solution definitely does one of those things... but it's hard to tell if player departure is large enough to counter the intended effect or if the end result causes an influx of new players. Cite stats of your specific realm and the accounts deleted all you want, but it means very little until you have the total picture.

Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on April 10, 2014, 05:57:29 AM
No, I've refuted your arguments with evidence that supports my own. There's a slight difference that you apparently are being too thick to realize.
Again, you're assuming that this is a failure, and that the data showing people leaving "proves" this, when all it proves is that what is happening is exactly what we predicted so far.

If, in six months, the data shows that we're still bleeding players at a rate higher than before the Ice Age began, then you can come to me and say that it failed, and I'll agree with you. For now, it's just way, way too soon to tell. So be patient.


I have looked through the last 45 posts by you, which covers the last month of your posts on the forum. Not one of them refuted the fact that the dev team is fully aware there would be people quitting when it happened but it will be best for the game. Since you have already refuted the argument, feel free to quote one of your past posts.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Alpha on April 10, 2014, 09:18:12 PM
I plan on pausing my characters in the next week or so. The glacier event is a major reason behind this. I don't think any malice was involved in the glacier position decisions, but the effect that it is having is certainly unpleasant for many, myself included. I understand why it is being done, as player density has been decreasing for a very long time.

I've had a lot of fun with BM over the years, and maybe I will again in the future.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: OFaolain on April 10, 2014, 09:42:33 PM
Related question:

What happens if a character is paused in the glacier's path, and is then later unpaused?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 10, 2014, 09:44:47 PM
Related question:

What happens if a character is paused in the glacier's path, and is then later unpaused?

All characters should be automatically moved to a safe region each time the glacier advances.

Once the glacier settles, I will run a check on all the frozen regions and make sure there's no one trapped back there.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 10, 2014, 09:53:55 PM
No human Popsicle? :(
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Stabbity on April 11, 2014, 12:23:00 AM
All characters should be automatically moved to a safe region each time the glacier advances.

Once the glacier settles, I will run a check on all the frozen regions and make sure there's no one trapped back there.

Which is sad, one of my characters I rp'd as having gone insane due to the ice wanted to offer himself up to the glaciers and be frozen under them. He was just pushed back. So I Rp'd the glacier bonking him on the head and curing his madness.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Eirikr on April 11, 2014, 01:01:01 AM
Which is sad, one of my characters I rp'd as having gone insane due to the ice wanted to offer himself up to the glaciers and be frozen under them. He was just pushed back. So I Rp'd the glacier bonking him on the head and curing his madness.

+10
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: DasYasha on April 11, 2014, 01:01:31 AM
The end result of this whole ordeal is that it was a very very bad show. Instead of allowing us to fight and show that we can hold our place, you had to force an artificial destruction of land that was invetable and could not be avoided. In my opinion, a fair challenge is the thing to go and allow players to determine their fate (bad outcome is good as long as it is your own fault).

Since the developers insist that this is the way to do it, there ain't much options left for me. For my part, I will start getting rid of my characters and I will not promote this game any longer. Game over so to say.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 11, 2014, 01:10:45 AM
The end result of this whole ordeal is that it was a very very bad show. Instead of allowing us to fight and show that we can hold our place, you had to force an artificial destruction of land that was invetable and could not be avoided. In my opinion, a fair challenge is the thing to go and allow players to determine their fate (bad outcome is good as long as it is your own fault).

You seem to have missed the point.

The entire purpose of this exercise was to reduce the number of regions available, so as to increase the player density in the remaining regions.

If we gave the players a fight they had any realistic hope of winning, that simply wouldn't have happened.

Remember, the alternative to this was never "do nothing." It was closing an entire continent, without any hope of fighting or changing it.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 02:10:28 AM
You seem to have missed the point.

The entire purpose of this exercise was to reduce the number of regions available, so as to increase the player density in the remaining regions.

If we gave the players a fight they had any realistic hope of winning, that simply wouldn't have happened.

Remember, the alternative to this was never "do nothing." It was closing an entire continent, without any hope of fighting or changing it.
I think "it was either this or nothing" is a false dichotomy. A simpler way to increase player density might have been to set minimum number of nobles to keep a region, let's say 3. Any region with fewer than 3 nobles goes rogue. As a result, you achieve smaller, more compact realms, but instead of corralling everyone like farm animals who are pissed off because they have no choice in the matter, you would empower them to collaborate and strategise to decide which regions they want to keep and which ones will go rogue. Things like fealty, honour & teamwork become more important, and peer recruitment would go up because it directly supports expansion. Best of all, it would be player-driven and not sky-hook-driven.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Ketchum on April 11, 2014, 02:34:50 AM
This topic interests me greatly as a player and I have browsed through every post.

In my humble opinion.

It is hard to put an estimate on number of players lost since glacier. Or even gain number of players. Only when the glacier stops(which we call the Ending Point), can we truly see the results. If we wish to see the results, we not only take into account the number of players lost/gained, we also have to take a look at the other direct or indirect results. Let me give you all an example.

Realms affected by ice -> Migrate to other lands peacefully -> Peaceful new colony -> More messages flowing -> More players talking -> More fun for all characters

Realms affected by ice -> Migrate to other lands not peacefully -> War for all realms -> More messages flowing -> More players talking -> More fun for all characters

Realms affected by ice -> Do not want migrate to other lands -> Characters fight to the end -> Establish good storyline for their characters

There could be more indirect or direct benefits, the above benefits are what I could think of at the moment.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Blue Star on April 11, 2014, 04:34:31 AM
Get off of Anaris' back!

He's doing this voluntarily! I hate the monster thing and how it was chosen to be done concerning the vote, but it is done with! Tighten those laces on your boots shut your mouth and continue to walk through the rain and the mud with your head held high.

I personally have seen a few disappear and some come and go, not much different than before it happened. Granted I am haphazardly playing I do notice more than just Blue, Green and Red messages.


Where is Foundation?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 11, 2014, 04:37:00 AM
Where is Foundation?

Gone
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 11, 2014, 05:02:13 AM
Quote
A simpler way to increase player density might have been to set minimum number of nobles to keep a region, let's say 3. Any region with fewer than 3 nobles goes rogue. As a result, you achieve smaller, more compact realms,

We had something similar with the old estate system. Players hated it. Also, this would have caused isolated realms surrounded by swathes of rogue land. That's not desirable. We want dense population. We want pressure for land. We want the struggles for elbow room. Vast swathes of low density or empty regions just makes everything feel empty and abandoned.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 11, 2014, 12:14:50 PM
We had something similar with the old estate system. Players hated it. Also, this would have caused isolated realms surrounded by swathes of rogue land. That's not desirable. We want dense population. We want pressure for land. We want the struggles for elbow room. Vast swathes of low density or empty regions just makes everything feel empty and abandoned.

You mean like Morek? I'm quite sure they would have welcomed this event more...
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 11, 2014, 12:16:57 PM
You seem to have missed the point.

The entire purpose of this exercise was to reduce the number of regions available, so as to increase the player density in the remaining regions.

If we gave the players a fight they had any realistic hope of winning, that simply wouldn't have happened.

Remember, the alternative to this was never "do nothing." It was closing an entire continent, without any hope of fighting or changing it.

Anaris, you're telling a new player that they're wrong. You know, the people we're trying to attract. They're telling you this is driving people away, including them. You're getting feedback and ignoring it.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 11, 2014, 05:03:28 PM
I haven't been keeping any kind of close track, but I've definitely noticed what appears to be an increase in new account creation in at least one of my realms over the past week or so.

Really? No mean to be rude, but the devs decided to !@#$ over a significant part of the playerbase without even bothering to monitor if it even did any good?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 11, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
Really? No mean to be rude, but the devs decided to !@#$ over a significant part of the playerbase without even bothering to monitor if it even did any good?

If you'd been paying attention, you would know that the timeframe for "doing any good" is expected to be in the range of 6-12 months. Not during the event itself.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: vonGenf on April 11, 2014, 05:23:58 PM
I'll write down some info here to be able to refer to it in 6 to 12 months:

DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293


While some inactive accounts have been lost, the level of activity has stayed level over the past 6 weeks.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Eirikr on April 11, 2014, 06:43:09 PM
I'll write down some info here to be able to refer to it in 6 to 12 months:

DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293


While some inactive accounts have been lost, the level of activity has stayed level over the past 6 weeks.

Activity refers to accounts that a player signed into? I'd say that's pretty good data if so. Maybe getting more regular intervals would drive home the point.

If you'd been paying attention, you would know that the timeframe for "doing any good" is expected to be in the range of 6-12 months. Not during the event itself.

To be fair, and I know how tedious it is, the data during the event is also valuable to determine short-term effects as well as a lens to examine long-term results. It won't show a meaningful trend of good or bad, but it will retrospectively help you understand the intricacies of the process.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 11, 2014, 06:56:24 PM
Anaris, you're telling a new player that they're wrong.
Mrh? Yasha is a new player? That's funny...
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 11, 2014, 07:07:03 PM
You mean like Morek?
The situation that developed around Morek, and the Lurias, too, is definitely undesirable. It was the result of a lot of bad factors, including the old estate system and the low player density. We didn't have enough people to conquer the rogue expanses of land. People struck out on their own to start new colonies far away. We ended up with isolated pockets of civilization that had essentially no hope of interacting with each other. And literally no reason to do so, even if they could. Everyone had all the land they could possibly want or use, and more. It wasn't until the old estate system was torn out, and realms could expand farther, that things started to pick up. But by then too many realms had just given up. And the major realms were so far away from each other that they still really had no hope of interacting in any major way. There weren't enough players to drive the pressure to expand. If you tried to institute a rule where you had to have X nobles assigned to a region to control it, you'd be returning to those horrible days of the old estate system, and the excruciatingly painful isolation that killed the island for so long.

The original Dwilight map would take a LOT of characters to fill. I'd estimate anywhere from 800 to 1000 noble characters, at an absolute minimum, to make it a really fun island.

It's no wonder that Tom refers to Dwilight as the biggest mistake, ever. (Except he uses a lot more profanity...)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 11, 2014, 07:19:47 PM
The original Dwilight map would take a LOT of characters to fill. I'd estimate anywhere from 800 to 1000 noble characters, at an absolute minimum, to make it a really fun island.

Oh, I don't think it's quite that bad.  My earlier "optimal" level of 3.5 nobles per region—which is actually pretty high by historical average—would put Dwilight a little over 850, and 3 nobles per region would put it at a little under 750.

4 nobles per region would be very high, and that's what 1000 nobles on Dwilight would be.

However, right now, it's got about 280 nobles. This means that once the entire western subcontinent is evacuated, we'll be a little over 2 nobles per region. That's not bad for now, but I'm hoping it'll be able to create that spark again that gets people excited about the game. (At least, combined with the various other stuff I've got planned.)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 11, 2014, 07:24:11 PM
DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293
[/tab
I'm glad to see active userbase is still steady.

The situation that developed around Morek, and the Lurias, too, is definitely undesirable. It was the result of a lot of bad factors...
This. This so much. Traveling between Morek, Swordfell, Niselur, and Asylon was a joke. Most realm capitals are almost a season away from each other. So, unless you were willing to drop everything and go backpacking through Dwilight, most realms/cultures would never even meet let alone have opportunity to clash.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 08:33:14 PM
I'll write down some info here to be able to refer to it in 6 to 12 months:

DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293


While some inactive accounts have been lost, the level of activity has stayed level over the past 6 weeks.


This is very useful. Would it be possible to drill down and see more details about the players, e.g. how long they've been playing, how often they play, what positions their chars' hold?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: vonGenf on April 11, 2014, 08:42:11 PM
This is very useful. Would it be possible to drill down and see more details about the players, e.g. how long they've been playing, how often they play, what positions their chars' hold?

I simply got that info from the in-game statistics page. I don't know how I could access any of that additional information.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 09:01:37 PM

I'll write down some info here to be able to refer to it in 6 to 12 months:

DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293


While some inactive accounts have been lost, the level of activity has stayed level over the past 6 weeks.


This is very useful. Would it be possible to drill down and see more details about the players, e.g. how long they've been playing, how often they play, what positions their chars' hold?


I simply got that info from the in-game statistics page. I don't know how I could access any of that additional information.


Anaris?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 11, 2014, 09:03:16 PM
That kind of statistical information would require extra tracking which we don't currently do.

More tracking is definitely on my list, but, like everything else, it takes time.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 09:24:19 PM
Does the "Registered players" column include paused accounts?


Do the "Activity" columns count the number of logins?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 11, 2014, 09:25:52 PM
Does the "Registered players" column include paused accounts?

Yes.

Quote
Do the "Activity" columns count the number of logins?

The "Activity" columns simply record the number of players who logged in within the relevant period.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Eirikr on April 11, 2014, 10:40:09 PM
Yes.

The "Activity" columns simply record the number of players who logged in within the relevant period.

Sounds like we've got the perfect statistic.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 11, 2014, 10:58:10 PM
What I can immediately get from these numbers is that, player count is dropping fast, the remaining characters have maintained approx the same level of weekly activity, and somewhat less daily activity. Of course this is a small window of time, so I wouldn't read too too much into it.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 11, 2014, 11:26:24 PM
Also note that BattleMaster activity is seasonally dependent. It changes based on the time of year. I am fairly certain that summer is a historically low point in player count. People seem to join back up when fall/winter roll around. Finding a new hobby for the school year? Less free time in the summer?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Tom on April 12, 2014, 12:34:39 AM
But all these critical decisions are made within a small circle,

Correct. As a famous man once said: Important decisions are best made in a comittee, made up of three people, two of them absent.

We've tried making decisions in public forums and there were endless discussions going nowhere. Almost everything good in this world is driven by a small group or even one individual with a strong vision.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 12, 2014, 12:37:16 AM
Correct. As a famous man once said: Important decisions are best made in a comittee, made up of three people, two of them absent.

We've tried making decisions in public forums and there were endless discussions going nowhere. Almost everything good in this world is driven by a small group or even one individual with a strong vision.

Can't agree more. That is why democracy leads to nowhere  8)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Tom on April 12, 2014, 12:40:31 AM
And I'm dead serious, and I know that Tom will agree with me completely: If you do not trust the dev team to be impartial, regardless of what we say, then you cannot hope to play this game without constantly looking over your shoulder. So you may as well leave.

I agree with Tim. My wording is different, but basically, we're the hosts here, and if you come to a dinner party and then start discussing whether or not the food has been poisoned, then you really shouldn't be surprised that everyone is looking at you with a "why the !@#$ are you even here?" expression.

Tim has access to the database. If he wants to boost his characters, he can simply give them 20,000 gold each, it would take him 5 minutes max. Anyone who assumes that a dev with database and code access would do something so complex and time-consuming as this event just to gain some in-game advantage has lost his mind.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Tom on April 12, 2014, 12:43:40 AM
Many players don't leave, because the game is unique.

Not anymore (http://mightandfealty.com/) :-)

But one way or the other, like in a good relationship, you can disagree with the devs and think they made a mistake, but you need to have some elementary trust or you're in the wrong place.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Tom on April 12, 2014, 12:51:10 AM
Anaris, you're telling a new player that they're wrong. You know, the people we're trying to attract. They're telling you this is driving people away, including them. You're getting feedback and ignoring it.

We knew it would drive people away. That's why it was such a hard decision (and the dev team discussed for months about this and alternatives, etc. etc.).

We all hated it, but we all agreed that doing nothing would kill the game, just slowly. So doing something was necessary, even if it hurt. And this is the solution we came up with.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Stue (DC) on April 12, 2014, 05:28:40 PM
Anaris. Let's say this very straight.
The polls were not IC, they were on the forum.
On the forum are only active players.
So only active players voted.

I would be more precise and say "on forums are only those who like forums". There has been long time since players who dislike forums are announced to be "second-grade" players, and they even cannot act against such devaluing - as all discussions go through forums.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 12, 2014, 05:31:41 PM
I would be more precise and say "on forums are only those who like forums". There has been long time since players who dislike forums are announced to be "second-grade" players, and they even cannot act against such devaluing - as all discussions go through forums.

Ignoring the blatantly false statements about what we've announced, what would you propose as an alternative?

Before most discussion occurred on the forum, it occurred on the mailing list—which had a lot fewer people on it.

And if you think I'm going to write some kind of custom code just for discussing stuff without a "forum" in some bizarre quasi-in-game way, then you're nuts. Discussion is exactly what a forum is designed for.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Deytheur on April 12, 2014, 09:50:07 PM
I would be more precise and say "on forums are only those who like forums". There has been long time since players who dislike forums are announced to be "second-grade" players, and they even cannot act against such devaluing - as all discussions go through forums.

As someone who dislikes the forum, I don't feel like the devs have ever acted as such. In fact I would go so far as to say that it's just many 'forum players' thinking they are first grade players and so have the right to complain more than the average person who is happy to just trust and play.

While I was at first annoyed that Eponllyn was chosen to be glaciated only by people on the forums, I have since realised that as they didn't actually know what they were voting for it probably would have made little difference how many people voted, it was essentially just a transparent random number generator. 
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Stue (DC) on April 13, 2014, 03:50:13 PM
in my current post there is no word that points dev team, i'm just mentioning what i can see on casual visits to forum, it has been long-spread thesis on forum players like "the most valuable" players, i don't know who initiated it and who supports it, but it certainly affects those who hang on forums, one way or another, more or less.

i don't know why would it be so troublesome to put some voting polls at login page, before login, where news are posted?

the same way, i don't know why in-game mentors are disbanded so the only way for new players to learn about game in methodical way is through forums, so new player must stick to forums if they want to pass through basic learnings.

it's significant to see that no any new player asks about glacier, how that's possible, one would expect that at least some of them would be surprised.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 13, 2014, 04:10:45 PM
it's significant to see that no any new player asks about glacier, how that's possible, one would expect that at least some of them would be surprised.

Oh believe me, there are plenty of new players on Dwilight who are asking many, many questions about the event. You just choose to ignore that as it doesn't fit your personal opinions.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: OFaolain on April 13, 2014, 04:22:40 PM
Oh believe me, there are plenty of new players on Dwilight who are asking many, many questions about the event. You just choose to ignore that as it doesn't fit your personal opinions.
Or perhaps he simply isn't seeing them.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 13, 2014, 05:20:57 PM
Or perhaps he simply isn't seeing them.

I think we forget that all our characters live in little bubbles. There can be vast differences in the demeanor of realms that border each other, as well as the player-base that are attracted there.

in my current post there is no word that points dev team, i'm just mentioning what i can see on casual visits to forum, it has been long-spread thesis on forum players like "the most valuable" players, i don't know who initiated it and who supports it, but it certainly affects those who hang on forums, one way or another, more or less.

I've always enjoyed the forum for discussing things OOC, as well as posting IC stuff so more than 10 people see it. I don't think anything make the players who post here 'more valuable', though. We don't actually play battlemaster here, we talk about playing.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 13, 2014, 05:33:47 PM
Welp, we just lost another player in Barca.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: trying on April 13, 2014, 08:14:09 PM
Maybe you're losing players because you're perpetuating that negative attitude.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Lychaon on April 13, 2014, 08:38:57 PM
The negative attitude is not shared IG by anyone but those who decide to leave. Those determined to keep playing and carving a new realm don't leave either their realm or the game.

Honestly, wasn't enough to screw the whole western island in Dwilight up? I understand the idea of popping some monsters in the eastern island to keep the realms there busy. But sending tons of monsters eastwards from the devastated west is about to just erase any possibility for many of us to have a chance to get new lands. Or at least in Barca. Which is the purpose for that?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 13, 2014, 09:44:25 PM
The negative attitude is not shared IG by anyone but those who decide to leave. Those determined to keep playing and carving a new realm don't leave either their realm or the game.

Honestly, wasn't enough to screw the whole western island in Dwilight up? I understand the idea of popping some monsters in the eastern island to keep the realms there busy. But sending tons of monsters eastwards from the devastated west is about to just erase any possibility for many of us to have a chance to get new lands. Or at least in Barca. Which is the purpose for that?

It has been nearly a month and a half since the initial announcement that the west of Dwilight would be cleansed. Yes, there were some unfortunate hiccups along the way that made things a little harder, but I think that amount of time should still be enough for everyone in the west to have made their plans and gotten a ways along in implementing them.

I don't know what people expected; did you think that the west would just be left there for you to use for as long as you needed it?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 14, 2014, 06:49:19 AM
No, we thought that the monsters wouldn't be swarming back east all over the island, preventing anyone who might want to help us from doing anything. For goodness sake, Fissoa isn't even on that !@#$ing island.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 14, 2014, 06:56:13 AM
Barca is losing players because of its incompetent leadership.

They planned this poorly. They started off with 31k CS and half of it disappeared by the time they arrived in Luria. Instead of crushing Fissona and taking the islands, they decided to take the hard way which led to nothing. Poor coordination from their allies didn't help either.

They should have abandoned their 'let's play nice' police and should have smashed Fissona or D'Hara withe everything they got. They would have had Barca II by now.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Lychaon on April 14, 2014, 09:47:19 AM
Of course Barcan command could have done things better, but it's normal to make mistakes when some of them maybe faced the first invasion operation. As you say we could have stabbed in the back our allies, but yes, we're supposed to be lawful. And with no ally support in the east, would have Luria and their Asylonian pals received our new realm with wide open arms?

What really bothers me is that we haven't seen any ally on this until our troops have been butchered. And if that has nothing to do with the monster uprisings, then I'd say that is incompetent leadership.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Tom on April 14, 2014, 11:46:19 AM
the same way, i don't know why in-game mentors are disbanded

They didn't work very well, especially with the dropping player count.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 14, 2014, 02:10:10 PM
No, we thought that the monsters wouldn't be swarming back east all over the island, preventing anyone who might want to help us from doing anything. For goodness sake, Fissoa isn't even on that !@#$ing island.

I'm not sure just what you mean here.

Have you paid attention to just where the monsters are swarming at present? Because not a single one that ran west has left the western subcontinent. Y'know, the place that we clearly stated would be depopulated.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 14, 2014, 05:54:20 PM
Of course Barcan command could have done things better, but it's normal to make mistakes when some of them maybe faced the first invasion operation. As you say we could have stabbed in the back our allies, but yes, we're supposed to be lawful. And with no ally support in the east, would have Luria and their Asylonian pals received our new realm with wide open arms?

What really bothers me is that we haven't seen any ally on this until our troops have been butchered. And if that has nothing to do with the monster uprisings, then I'd say that is incompetent leadership.

Asylonians went for Corsanctum. Why would they care about you guys attacking Fissona? Lurians were too busy getting owned by monsters and starvation. Barca's incompetent leadership brought this whole failure on themselves. They obviously lacked goals and plans for their little campaign. You don't attack a realm that large without any insurance which Barca thought they had. Why would Barca's allies even help Barca when they could just wait for Barca's armies to get wiped out and absorb their nobles as their own?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Stabbity on April 14, 2014, 06:42:14 PM
Given the track record of Barca's allies, I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly what they're doing. If so, bravo. Devilishly underhanded. I approve.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 14, 2014, 07:07:20 PM
Asylonians went for Corsanctum. Why would they care about you guys attacking Fissona? Lurians were too busy getting owned by monsters and starvation. Barca's incompetent leadership brought this whole failure on themselves. They obviously lacked goals and plans for their little campaign. You don't attack a realm that large without any insurance which Barca thought they had. Why would Barca's allies even help Barca when they could just wait for Barca's armies to get wiped out and absorb their nobles as their own?

Both Fissoa and D'Hara were overrun with rogues. Not to mention the huge monster force that was waiting out in the desert, blocking out the land path East. The monster forces on the Madinian isle were ridiculous, too.

Everyone was too busy getting owned by monsters and starvation. The same monsters plaguing Luria were also standing in the way of Barcan forces and of allied reinforcements.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 14, 2014, 07:25:20 PM
And Barcans thought their allies could help. See? More signs of incompetent leadership. They didn't even know their allies were in no shape to help them.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Lychaon on April 14, 2014, 07:58:11 PM
And Barcans thought their allies could help. See? More signs of incompetent leadership. They didn't even know their allies were in no shape to help them.

I hope Lurian leaders won't disappoint you that bad, it almost looks as if Barcan "incompetent leadership" has forced you to join our enemy.

Moreover, what else could have been done? If we delayed the departure from Barca, monsters there and wearing would have diminished our forces. We thought our allies would have been ready for our arrival, but it's clear now they weren't.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 14, 2014, 08:15:12 PM
And Barcans thought their allies could help. See? More signs of incompetent leadership. They didn't even know their allies were in no shape to help them.

Same kind of incompetence that led Luria to implode on itself, I guess.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 14, 2014, 08:16:44 PM
Same kind of incompetence that led Luria to implode on itself, I guess.

Several times! ;D
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: D`Este on April 14, 2014, 09:06:00 PM
I think the problem with Luria was more the ambition of it's nobles and the will to do something rather than incompetence.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 14, 2014, 09:12:34 PM
I only joined Luria to avoid rogues. It is nice to get a free pass through Luria :)

I am on my way to Swordfell. If you want you can join me Lychaon >:D
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfang on April 14, 2014, 11:34:55 PM
Asylonians went for Corsanctum. Why would they care about you guys attacking Fissona? Lurians were too busy getting owned by monsters and starvation. Barca's incompetent leadership brought this whole failure on themselves. They obviously lacked goals and plans for their little campaign. You don't attack a realm that large without any insurance which Barca thought they had. Why would Barca's allies even help Barca when they could just wait for Barca's armies to get wiped out and absorb their nobles as their own?
'S what my char's been preaching since the very beginning (when we were still in the motherland) yet few listened. To be honest I just blame our allies, our leadership made errors, such as not knowing that doing a takeover stopped the enemies from using fortifications, but these are the things that newer players don't know and is simply gamey, and the other mistake of relying on our allies. We waited for ages in Barca and then in Fissoa and then pillaged half of Luria and still no help came. Seems like our leadership just thought 'well !@#$ that let's have a big last battle then', by which time only 1 allied noble had reached us, one. Let's be honest, even 'Barcan incompetent leadership' at least managed to march 70% of the nobles from one region to another in cohesion, not in tiny trickles of twos and threes.

We could've completely crushed Luria if we had received even the slightest of help. edit: before we were destroyed
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 14, 2014, 11:41:29 PM
think it was a good lesson for newer players. But Galvez isn't new!

Isn't Barca's general a new guy as well?

I had my fair share of defeats and failures. But if you stay long enough, you learn enough to win more :)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfang on April 14, 2014, 11:57:07 PM
Yes, I'm happy to have learned that, and have looked through your guide on the wiki, yet this seems an extremely important piece of information which is certainly not 'obvious'.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 15, 2014, 12:06:31 AM
oh my guide. I haven't had time to put everything. I should have time to update it after my exams :o

I learned it the hard way and it seems Barca is too.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfsong on April 15, 2014, 02:17:00 AM
Ironically, the Southern League had assembled (Fissoa, at least) a large force with the express purpose of invading Luria Nova before the whole monsters thing happened... And then, conveniently for Luria Nova, so many rogue forces popped up on the Madinan Isle, and all across Fissoa, that our army was whittled back down to nothing and overextended trying to defend against 10-20k of CS of monsters in single regions, each turn, every turn. On top of that, Barca was decimated. After that, every time Fissoa pledged to defend Barca, another 25k CS of monsters would crop up somewhere, making it absolutely impossible to even think about moving offensively into Luria Nova... and then when we finally do pledge a force to go help them no matter what, over 40k CS of monsters rolls into Candiels.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 15, 2014, 02:50:47 AM
Ironically, the Southern League had assembled (Fissoa, at least) a large force with the express purpose of invading Luria Nova before the whole monsters thing happened... And then, conveniently for Luria Nova, so many rogue forces popped up on the Madinan Isle, and all across Fissoa, that our army was whittled back down to nothing and overextended trying to defend against 10-20k of CS of monsters in single regions, each turn, every turn. On top of that, Barca was decimated. After that, every time Fissoa pledged to defend Barca, another 25k CS of monsters would crop up somewhere, making it absolutely impossible to even think about moving offensively into Luria Nova... and then when we finally do pledge a force to go help them no matter what, over 40k CS of monsters rolls into Candiels.

Yep. Bull!@#$ like this really ruins it for me. I'm pausing my character and putting my account on hiatus.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 15, 2014, 02:52:03 AM
Yep. Bull!@#$ like this really ruins it for me. I'm pausing my character and putting my account on hiatus.

Again?  :o
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on April 15, 2014, 04:58:54 AM
'S what my char's been preaching since the very beginning (when we were still in the motherland) yet few listened. To be honest I just blame our allies, our leadership made errors, such as not knowing that doing a takeover stopped the enemies from using fortifications, but these are the things that newer players don't know and is simply gamey, and the other mistake of relying on our allies. We waited for ages in Barca and then in Fissoa and then pillaged half of Luria and still no help came. Seems like our leadership just thought 'well !@#$ that let's have a big last battle then', by which time only 1 allied noble had reached us, one. Let's be honest, even 'Barcan incompetent leadership' at least managed to march 70% of the nobles from one region to another in cohesion, not in tiny trickles of twos and threes.

We could've completely crushed Luria if we had received even the slightest of help. edit: before we were destroyed

Well obviously Barca sucks. Their nobles have no loyalty, no trust in their allies, and don't like to communicate but then complain that their allies didn't magically arrive right when Barca did.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Lubomirski on April 15, 2014, 07:16:10 AM
I believe the Dev’s desire to create “Hordes” to move into the East is a failure for the monster outbreaks and starvation actively worked against Barca being able to construct a force to achieve that goal.  I believe the Dev’s tried to give the hordes a fighting chance after all they did reduce the morale and upkeep penalties but they did not change the equipment damage rate so even though Barca won the initial battles their equipment was almost useless and they took losses they can never replace. 
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 15, 2014, 07:21:48 AM
Equipment damage wasn't that big of a deal. I knew that was going to have some impact.

You were supposed to use the seas or hit your neighbours. If you are really desperate, who cares about your allies. You first allies second. Barca had a chance. They just didn't communicate enough. If they knew their allies were in trouble, they should have known they weren't going to come to help them anytime soon.

Also, Barca kept on wasting their time on looting. They had one replaceable army and they decided to waste it on doing nothing. When they finally decided to do something, they didn't have much to work with. On top of that their inexperience with TO system also brought them down.

Just all the mistakes coming together to form a disaster.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Lychaon on April 15, 2014, 12:27:09 PM
Well obviously Barca sucks. Their nobles have no loyalty, no trust in their allies, and don't like to communicate but then complain that their allies didn't magically arrive right when Barca did.

Yeah, sorry. After crossing the sea, going through Fissoan regions towards Luria and not seeing monsters, then receiving a letter from Fissoan generals threatening to withdraw their support because of an isolate case of killing of peasants in a Lurian region, kind of made us hesitate. That along with the absolute absence of a single ally until we got screwed up.

I'd like to see what D'Harans would have done in a similar situation.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Vogelens on April 15, 2014, 12:47:15 PM
Fissoa communicated with Barcan leadership, and even mentioned they would not be able to help until monsters were cleared. Barca at one point offered to help kill monsters, which would free up Fissoan forces to march with them right away.

But, they ended up marching ahead anyway, rather than kill monsters where Fissoa actually needed it. Fissoa was literally unable to help, being attacked all over the place.

All the extra monsters everywhere was kind of a deathblow in many regards, as it stopped allies from aiding them in a war, until now with those things dealt with.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 15, 2014, 01:30:49 PM
Yeah, sorry. After crossing the sea, going through Fissoan regions towards Luria and not seeing monsters, then receiving a letter from Fissoan generals threatening to withdraw their support because of an isolate case of killing of peasants in a Lurian region, kind of made us hesitate. That along with the absolute absence of a single ally until we got screwed up.

I'd like to see what D'Harans would have done in a similar situation.

Communicate more, perhaps?

Barca did seem extremely disorganized and uncoordinated. We had a guild to organize, and yet I never saw Barcans use it, or really barely. We expected Barca to give us all of the food it had, too, and never saw (or noticed) it. Had we not been so short on food, we'd have had more resources to help out, and to help out more quickly. Barcans came to D'Hara to sail, and then disappeared. Then when we finally met up, we won the battle, and you guys ditched us anyways and retreated.

Barca should have given a daily report to the full members of the Southern League. They also should have respected the chain of command, instead of panicking and bailing out after a victory. So what if you risk losing a few more men? D'Hara can do the takeover and cede the region to you afterwards. Can't help you if both realms lose all of their men.

Communication is really a must if you require others to succeed. Going to D'Hara, and then sailing to Fissoa (why?), and then marching back North to meet up with D'Hara... Not the most efficient path.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: jaune on April 15, 2014, 01:55:18 PM
I'm not sure if my possible future "disappearance" is result of the glacier, but it propably speeds up my pause/quit of BM, atleast at Atamara. Will continue playing BT i guess.

Politics and geography simply didnt give Darka chanche to cover up losses what glacier and monsters are causing. Only way to cover up losses is to declare one more war to one of the neighbours and we already are at war half of the continent. There was some attemps to co-operate with other realms, but none seemed to be intrested or were scared of CE.

Overall this ofcourse can bring more density to Atamara, but for me... i cant see much of left for me there.

I cant blame devs for this ofcourse, they have to do something. Darka just happened to have short end this time... which personally sucks a lot, cause we had fought hard and long against horrible odds and doing decently. I really hope if Darka collapses, it will not collapse for nothing and BM will be better game after that. But Darka aint dead yet :)

-jaune
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfang on April 15, 2014, 02:21:44 PM
edit: nvm no point continuing this discussion
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 15, 2014, 06:17:28 PM
Did Barca really try and march the whole way there? Why not sail over, and then land all together in an isolated rural somewhere? At least then you could avoid the monsters en route. (Note: I have no idea what Barca actually did, just combing the forum thread for my info.)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 15, 2014, 06:47:53 PM
Did Barca really try and march the whole way there? Why not sail over, and then land all together in an isolated rural somewhere? At least then you could avoid the monsters en route. (Note: I have no idea what Barca actually did, just combing the forum thread for my info.)

We sailed what we could, but the food provision mechanics are debilitating, to say the least. We had to march over land occasionally just to recover more food for our troops.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfang on April 15, 2014, 06:50:24 PM
Yes, we lost about 10% of our forces to starvation alone.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 15, 2014, 07:07:17 PM
Yeah, sorry. After crossing the sea, going through Fissoan regions towards Luria and not seeing monsters, then receiving a letter from Fissoan generals threatening to withdraw their support because of an isolate case of killing of peasants in a Lurian region, kind of made us hesitate. That along with the absolute absence of a single ally until we got screwed up.

I'd like to see what D'Harans would have done in a similar situation.

Isolated case? 4 reports from a minimum of 2, if not 3 nobles. This was despite apparent orders from Julius to stop - a claim of no honor is sort of a side effect to an epic failure to follow the simplest of orders for 3 days in a row. Means either people simply don't care, or aren't bothering to read the orders given.

We sailed what we could, but the food provision mechanics are debilitating, to say the least. We had to march over land occasionally just to recover more food for our troops.

The Isles would have made a good halfway point, but that also implied the Isles weren't starving as well - which according to intel reports from the D'Haran Banker mails i've seen, the Sallow duchy has a decent food surplus that could have been redirected - or simply marched from the north rather than the south

----

All in all, there are a great many logistical failures that cannot wholly be blamed on game mechanics. There are half a dozen ways that this war could have gone, all within mechanics, and most of them very very bad for Luria. We've spent a great deal of time OOC counting the ways we thought we were hosed - when Barca showed up in Mellifera, we breathed a sigh of relief.

EDIT: I think that personally my biggest issue with the 'events' in BM lately is that it's bruising egos of players. Rulers and other long-serving council positions, as well as lords and dukes, are going to be a fair bit butthurt having to start over in a new area of a continent, or simply relocate to another. My sentiment on this is simply "Too Bad". These are the complaints of people who quit your average MMO over a class nerf because suddenly they cant 1-button the game anymore. People are pissed they have to give up positions they 'earned' in a game that has a declining population of players - Many lords since even I started playing are Lords for no other reason than they were active players and there was an opening. There was no 'earning' involved, right place at the right time.

Starting from the bottom and working up got me involved in the game. I made friends, allegiances, enemies, etc. all in the process of ascending the ranks. That's where the fun is - not sitting on your ass as the lord of a knight-less region collecting taxes you'll never spend.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 15, 2014, 07:31:39 PM
Starting from the bottom and working up got me involved in the game. I made friends, allegiances, enemies, etc. all in the process of ascending the ranks. That's where the fun is - not sitting on your ass as the lord of a knight-less region collecting taxes you'll never spend.

This is the one thing I wish I could tell any player lost to the glacier/monsters. Starting over isn't a punishment, it is a process. Once you get to the top of the mountain, you don't get to magically fly higher and higher, you have to go down. The only way to the next mountain top is to stop obsessing over the one behind you and begin to imagine the path to the one ahead of you.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: jaune on April 15, 2014, 07:35:56 PM
Quote


EDIT: I think that personally my biggest issue with the 'events' in BM lately is that it's bruising egos of players. Rulers and other long-serving council positions, as well as lords and dukes, are going to be a fair bit butthurt having to start over in a new area of a continent, or simply relocate to another. My sentiment on this is simply "Too Bad". These are the complaints of people who quit your average MMO over a class nerf because suddenly they cant 1-button the game anymore. People are pissed they have to give up positions they 'earned' in a game that has a declining population of players - Many lords since even I started playing are Lords for no other reason than they were active players and there was an opening. There was no 'earning' involved, right place at the right time.

Starting from the bottom and working up got me involved in the game. I made friends, allegiances, enemies, etc. all in the process of ascending the ranks. That's where the fun is - not sitting on your ass as the lord of a knight-less region collecting taxes you'll never spend.

Thats prolly true on many cases, on my case(Not having any position in Darka, and i guess many other old Darkans) is that 10 years of "habit" to be Darkan is about to disappear. Culture which had grown along with us. I guess thats what has kept me playing past few years, along with this pesky war with CE. Overall, i'm not that worried about the results of this... but we prolly will lose many old farts who are playing just for the habit of playing.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Stabbity on April 15, 2014, 07:49:12 PM
Asylon sailed the whole damn way, no problem.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 15, 2014, 09:40:07 PM
Thats prolly true on many cases, on my case(Not having any position in Darka, and i guess many other old Darkans) is that 10 years of "habit" to be Darkan is about to disappear. Culture which had grown along with us. I guess thats what has kept me playing past few years, along with this pesky war with CE. Overall, i'm not that worried about the results of this... but we prolly will lose many old farts who are playing just for the habit of playing.

So playing for the habit of playing is better than playing for the sake of doing something constructive? With your own time in the game, let alone everyone else. Do what Barca and Asylon in Dwilight are trying to do - Hijack some land, relocate. Or what Niselur did - ask an ally for a place to stay, tell their invaders to piss off, get land afterward and relocate.

Viewing this event solely as the death of a Realm is simply ludicrous. You're basically giving up. People love to apply real world history to events in BM, this is one of them. Europe and Asia have been conqured how many times? By how many vastly different cultures? How'd that turn out for them? Pretty damn good considering. The clingyness of players to their specific realm's ideals and politics is what's killing the game, not this event. Realms seem to VERY rarely merge for any reason outside of dwindling populations or simply getting their asses kicked in a war.

Someone has to give up a title in a merger, but a step down from ruler to Duke of the new lands you bring to another Realm isn't that large a gap in power. How many realms are basically Run by their dukes? Quite a few actually, I haven't seen many absolute tyrannical states in BM. They tend to not be a lot of fun for the players, so they don't really exist.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: jaune on April 15, 2014, 09:46:08 PM
Well, situation at Darka is a bit complicated. We are at war with 5 realms, been there for 2-3 years, been able to hold off. Now we have lost big chunk of our land and losing more all the time. We were doing good to keep enemy off, but we are not in position to get 2 more realms against us to expand, it would only speed up our wipe out.

Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Lychaon on April 15, 2014, 10:20:33 PM
Isolated case? 4 reports from a minimum of 2, if not 3 nobles. This was despite apparent orders from Julius to stop - a claim of no honor is sort of a side effect to an epic failure to follow the simplest of orders for 3 days in a row. Means either people simply don't care, or aren't bothering to read the orders given.

Sorry, but no. When that happened for the first time, some nobles, ruler, general and judge reprehended the author of the killing spree, and a whole debate started. Some of us argued in favour of the poor Lurian peasants and some others just thought they're just goat !@#$ and manifested openly their will to keep on killing them.

Before a second killing spree started, Suffete Julius quoted the letters where our Fissoan allies threatened with the withdrawal of their support. And then, as some Barcan characters played a villainous and rather egoistic role, the following carnages occurred.

I have to admit that some killing spree even had a really cool RP behind, and the two nobles banned for that left the realm quite epically. That's pretty much what happened. Anyway, it's not like it matters much at this point.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 15, 2014, 10:34:27 PM
I was less concerned with the killing sprees than the Rape spree, but it was after the open letter from Julius to the rulers that it would stop that it continued into Grodno for 2 days.

Edit: Good to know the 2nd noble was Banished - nothing was ever said to Luria about it. I've seen more information from random Barcan/Fissoan/D'Haran nobles than i have from those I've asked directly.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfang on April 15, 2014, 10:39:53 PM
Yes, Barca had a wide range of crazy characters. Always interesting and a headache for our council.  :)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 15, 2014, 10:43:58 PM
I honestly wish this event hadn't happened when it did. I just started getting into the realm politics when everything hit the fan. Dealing with D'Hara and Barca could have been a lot more fun (Fissoa's a bit more boring) if it hadn't been for half the continent suddenly crapping their collective pants
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on April 16, 2014, 02:00:51 AM
I was less concerned with the killing sprees than the Rape spree, but it was after the open letter from Julius to the rulers that it would stop that it continued into Grodno for 2 days.

Edit: Good to know the 2nd noble was Banished - nothing was ever said to Luria about it. I've seen more information from random Barcan/Fissoan/D'Haran nobles than i have from those I've asked directly.
Rape is not reported to the realm doing so, only killing, so they actually didn't know rape was happening until you said something.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: retipuj on April 16, 2014, 04:58:24 PM
I'm the player of Reylich Corvian, the General of Barca. I seldom visit the forums, as I think it's a very bitter place where people are seemingly always arguing. But I do drop by once in a while and check out what's up with other realms and other OOC stuffs. After reading some of the comments in this thread, I feel obliged to clarify things as best I could. Maybe learn from my mistakes and ask what many of you would have done in my place. Most of this is in response to the points brought up by Lapallanch.

Firstly, why did Barcan forces not sail across the seas and land on rurals with D'Haran forces? This was one of the first strategies I had in mind. But after some discussion, the council felt that it was very risky. Because 1) most of our units did not have that much gold with them, and sailing and landing on rural would incur a high costs, especially considering the size of our units and the number of siege engines we were bringing. 2) sailing with such large units and high number of siege engines was going to take ages, and starvation due to lack of provisions was a distinct possibility. 3) we were aware that our allies needed some time to rally, and we needed all the gold we have to continue paying our men should the timetable dragged on.

We knew our allies were in trouble, but we couldn't risk staying in western continent for too long lest our path was blocked by monsters, and we had to waste even more men fighting through them to get to Paisly. We knew we needed to wait for our allies, but that was a risk we had to take. Sail to Fissoa, and hope that our allies could be ready soon enough.

Secondly, why not target our allies? This was an IC decision. D'Hara has stuck by us, and Fissoa did put in a lot of effort to join the Southern League and help D'Hara. I personally don't think Reylich as a character would have accepted invading D'Hara to get a new home. Maybe if you had brought this up before we left, it would have made for a good debate, and things could have turned out differently.

Thirdly, why did we march across Lurian lands to loot? Reasoning was two-fold 1) we didn't want to risk starving to death marching through Palm Seas from Drowenton 2) we thought it would be good to cripple Lurian economy and add some more gold into Barcan pockets to allow them to pay their men longer.

What happened with the killing and raping? It all actually started out with a simple mis-click. Someone intended to loot for tax gold, but mistakenly killed and raped instead. He RP-ed it IC, which I accepted. Then many other Barcan nobles voiced their discontent and this ended up splitting the realm in half. The continued killing and raping was done out of blatant disregard for orders issued by the RUler and General (myself). This resulted in the banning of two nobles, which caused even more dissent. I actually loved those two nobles OOC-ly, as they added a lot of flavour into the game. Shame that those two nobles had to leave the way they did.

To Vogelens point: I did offer to help Fissoa with the monster problem, but did not receive any reply and direction. Granted, I could have pushed for it, and maybe communication was lacking on my part. But I've always assumed that the monsters appeared after Barcan forces have begun marching into Lurian lands. If I am mistaken, then I admit my mistake.

I will also admit my mistake with regards to not initiating a TO in Shinnen P to force an open battle, and for the lack of communication between the military leadership and the rest of the nobles. I wish I could have done things differently, but they are all over, and we are in the situation we are in now. And we just have to deal with it I guess.

I understand all the RP and IC decisions made by Barcan players, and as much as I dislike the situation, it made for a good gaming experience perhaps. Or maybe I'm the only one feeling this way, even in the face of failure and the extinction of the one realm that I have had the most fun playing in. But I can't help but feel that the Barcan council is being attacked personally on the forums. I hope to just clear the air a bit. If I have made any wrong assumptions, or mistakes, please do let me know. It would even make me feel better knowing my mistakes. I'm not exactly a new player, having played quite a bit a few years ago, but there are still lots of things I'm learning.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Deytheur on April 16, 2014, 05:41:16 PM
My perpective on recent events, as the content are rarely the most vocal I thought I wouuld write something.

To start with, I don't really know much about Dwilight and have only half paid attention to everything that has been said in this thread. However, there will always be people that complain at you, whayever decisions you made. If you did something else people would find a way to complain about that instead.

But it the end, only quitting leads to failure.

In Eponllyn we also lost all our lands but we have managed to relocate to one city. We are probably going to get boned by Perdan. In fact I'm surprised they didn't ambush us while we were travelling. As we only have one region we can't even give everyone as estate, we certainly don't make enough food, and time will tell about gold. So we are certainly in a worse position than before. However, I'm glad that I have seen very little complaining by our members on the forum.

I'm glad that we've managed to stick together and at least get something not too bad out of it. The event spurred a lot of activity, interest and realm wide discussion as we tried to adapt. One's realm can be destroyed by any number of reasons, that's the nature of the game. It's about writing the histories of our realms through good and bad.  Just because this was done by outside influence (in an attempt to make the game better in the long run) it shouldn't warrant that much different a response.

I hope there is still hope for Barca in the short term as so many people seem to like it there but if there isn't then there is always an option to make a long term goal of refounding it somewhere some time in the future.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 16, 2014, 07:38:58 PM
Does a TO force the loss of the walls to the defender? I always hear conflicting reports on that front -

I sorta wish people would double post RPs in siutations like that to both their realm and all nobles in the region, then maybe we'd have seen it to. We're playing a game driven by RP, a little more shown to your 'enemy' wouldn't hurt if it isn't giving up secret info. Even then, I always hope people are mature enough to not be metagaming wanks. I try hard to cram an RP post in every so often simply because RP posts in luria have dwindled lately. It's sad, but again - it happens. My character isn't going to have a safe place to run to if Luria falls, in a way i'm looking forward to that.

To the note of Disregard to orders, I had assumed as much after the continued reports when Julius made such an adamant claim to be making orders to stop. It happens, tis the way of things. Happened in history, will happen in a game.

On a personal note - I have every expectation that the events currently happening in Luria can possibly lead to our demise. I knew that as soon as the League gave us the finger weeks ago. The combined note of persistent horde issues, years straight of starvation from droughts, and a 3v1 fight after getting gutted by parts A and B? Yeah, it could happen. It's head-desking frustration, but it's part of the game. If you can't handle getting kicked in the stones in the game from time to time, don't play. This isn't a carebear friendly game. Yeah it sucks for realms like Darka that have years of history and constantly in a pissing contest with everyone around them and doing well for themselves, but i'm sure the persians, celts and everyone else felt the same way. Divide, assimilate, and eventually hijack the realms you move to. This isn't real life, the other realms aren't going to murder every noble of a conquered realm or banish them from everywhere. Somewhere will take the refugees
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 16, 2014, 07:56:13 PM
Defeated defenders will not get access to the walls, TO or otherwise. At least not in the following round, if I understood the battles in Fheuvenem correctly. However, there are some things which can trigger a new battle with the defenders behind the walls. I don't recall which, but a takeover prevents this from ever happening. A takeover also takes away a lot of options from the defenders.

Also, I'd like to say that I strongly disagree with the people accusing those discontent of caring only for their titles. Since when have titles been hard to come by? Years, at least. It is not uncommon for newbies with but a few months under their belts, sometimes not even one, to get elected to lordships and government positions. We just don't really have many people running for most positions in most places anymore. Of course, this varies greatly from realm to realm, but it remains that in many, if not most, promotions are incredibly easy. Losing one's realm is not about losing one's titles, it's about losing one's team. The culture of the realm is lost, and that culture has a lot to do with how fun a realm is. Even in the best cases where a realm is immediately refounded after being destroyed, it always seems like part of what was had is lost. And while the motives of the GMs is understandable, it's also understandable for those targeted feel it unjust.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 16, 2014, 11:14:52 PM
Does a TO force the loss of the walls to the defender?
When a TO is running, the realm running the TO is always the defender.
Only a region owner fighting as the Defender, can use the walls. Therefore, when an active TO is running, no one gets the walls.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfsong on April 17, 2014, 02:16:42 AM
Something to note:

If there is ANY militia or troop presence left in the city/townsland, then the region owner is the defender and will always get the walls in defense, even if the attacking realm has won the last few battles and should, by rights, be cozily set up in the castle. Hence why hunting enemies is so vitally important - if you leave scattered forces in a region, and they rally just before a counter-attack, your troops will be the ones attacking.

If you start a TO, and there is zero presence of enemy troops, militia or otherwise, you should be set up as the defender and get full use of the walls.

Otherwise, if you start a TO, neither side will get the walls since both sides are defending.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 17, 2014, 02:18:15 AM
Something to note:

If there is ANY militia or troop presence left in the city/townsland, then the region owner is the defender and will always get the walls in defense, even if the attacking realm has won the last few battles and should, by rights, be cozily set up in the castle.

That's actually not quite true. It only works when the militia rallies, or a new militia unit is recruited. (As your next sentence implies, but I thought it was important to clarify.)

Quote
If you start a TO, and there is zero presence of enemy troops, militia or otherwise, you should be set up as the defender and get full use of the walls.

No. If you are not the region owner, you will never, ever, ever get the walls.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 17, 2014, 04:16:14 AM
retipuj,

No one is a good general from the start. I also smashed my armies against walls and sent them to their deaths many times. You will eventually learn what to do and find your own style. Until then, brace yourself for a rough ride  8) because you won't be mastering it over a day or two which can only lead to a lot of dead troops and angry nobles.

You don't usually need to have more than 50 SEs. Usually a bit less will do the trick as well. If you can overpower(with infantry) your enemy then you can do with a lot less. We should have gotten some gold from our allies instead of asking them for actual units. If we had gold to cross the sea, we would have saved ourselves a lot of time. Although this sounds weird, using the ferry is pretty much same thing as walking over land. SEs slow your movement speed down a lot. But using boats is different. It also moves a lot faster. Instead of 8 hours a turn, it moves 12 hours or more. And usually, you can move one sea zone within a day (2 turns, 3 at max). Also, another reason why it cost so much to embark was b/c Paisly was a rogue region

Also, it is usually good to minimize your risks but sometimes it is good to take more risks for the bigger gain. Many generals don't like risking their reputations but if you don't take risks you will never reach higher. Of course your goal and gain should justify your risk.

I understand why people don't attack their allies but desperate times call for desperate measures. Taking Madina islands away from Fissona was probably the most feasible plan. Sure they stuck around a lot but when your own arse is on fire who cares! You first, your allies second. Not the other way around.

Marching across Luria was fine. The problem lies with how you executed the campaign. You gave too much time to Luria. At least enough to let them mobilize their armies. If you were planning to strike a city, you should have whipped your army all the way to SP first. Wasting time looting a rural region is not productive. The region didn't even have that much gold and food to begin with and at the end, it only made the situation worse.

When you have one shot, you don't waste it on looting some regions. You go straight for your goal.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: OFaolain on April 17, 2014, 05:03:06 AM
When you have one shot, you don't waste it on looting some regions. You go straight for your goal.

That's why I didn't understand why Asylon wandered around in Shilorak, Vorstadt and Mimiravair when they landed; they landed a spy a couple days before their main force who could have told them easily that all (not joking here) of our regions were starving (and that we had no military force to speak of whatsoever).  Knowing that, why risk Morek and Astrum assembling in time?  Why not go straight for Unterstrom?  If Astrum had been faster to respond they might not have even gotten into the city at all.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 17, 2014, 05:42:16 AM
Also there is no such thing as a perfect plan. You just deal with your problems as you go. Sometimes you just pray to Tom and start your plan. Because people have never done this before they seem to all tried to make it perfect.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 17, 2014, 05:26:28 PM

You gave too much time to Luria. At least enough to let them mobilize their armies.

Our armies were always mobilized, we were busy purging hordes - same as everyone else. We just happened to be in the same area doing so when Barca arrived. To be fair, we also knew about it some time beforehand. D'Hara is rife with silent nobility providing that information.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 17, 2014, 05:55:26 PM
Our armies were always mobilized, we were busy purging hordes - same as everyone else. We just happened to be in the same area doing so when Barca arrived. To be fair, we also knew about it some time beforehand. D'Hara is rife with silent nobility providing that information.

I really hate this kind of behavior. This is the kind of thing that gets people to mistrust their peers, and limit trust, cooperation, and sharing. Many things that used to be discussed openly and had everyone invited to contribute shift towards secrecy, with smaller discussion groups and many actions taken without consulting anyone at all. And who pays for it? In the end, it's the newbies in particular, but everyone in general. It promotes silence and stagnation.

Just another symptom of the realm-as-a-team spirit being gone and replaced with an utterly destructive self-serving mentality. I don't recall spies ever being a significant concern when I joined the game, but now it's safe to assume that every realm and religion probably has at least 10% of its nobles that are just there to see it fail.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 17, 2014, 05:57:00 PM
Just another symptom of the realm-as-a-team spirit being gone and replaced with an utterly destructive self-serving mentality. I don't recall spies ever being a significant concern when I joined the game, but now it's safe to assume that every realm and religion probably has at least 10% of its nobles that are just there to see it fail.

Then either you weren't paying attention, or you got quite lucky in your realms, because I saw this kind of paranoia everywhere in 2004.

I agree that it's a serious problem, but it's a long way from being a new problem.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Lychaon on April 17, 2014, 05:59:21 PM
When a TO is running, the realm running the TO is always the defender.
Only a region owner fighting as the Defender, can use the walls. Therefore, when an active TO is running, no one gets the walls.

One question regarding this matter of TO's and walls: is there any possible way to enter a region guarded by a garrison and start a TO (avoiding to engage in combat with the defenders), in order to refrain them from using the walls?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on April 17, 2014, 06:00:09 PM
I really hate this kind of behavior. This is the kind of thing that gets people to mistrust their peers, and limit trust, cooperation, and sharing. Many things that used to be discussed openly and had everyone invited to contribute shift towards secrecy, with smaller discussion groups and many actions taken without consulting anyone at all. And who pays for it? In the end, it's the newbies in particular, but everyone in general. It promotes silence and stagnation.

Just another symptom of the realm-as-a-team spirit being gone and replaced with an utterly destructive self-serving mentality. I don't recall spies ever being a significant concern when I joined the game, but now it's safe to assume that every realm and religion probably has at least 10% of its nobles that are just there to see it fail.
Settle down, he was probably just referencing Lucius which shouldn't have been that hard to guess would give Luria Nova what ever information he had when joined.

One question regarding this matter of TO's and walls: is there any possible way to enter a region guarded by a garrison and start a TO (avoiding to engage in combat with the defenders), in order to refrain them from using the walls?
Sending a large enough unit with evasive settings and getting lucky that they are actually able to evade. Otherwise I don't think so.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 17, 2014, 06:02:25 PM
One question regarding this matter of TO's and walls: is there any possible way to enter a region guarded by a garrison and start a TO (avoiding to engage in combat with the defenders), in order to refrain them from using the walls?

No. If you do not control the battlefield, you cannot start a takeover.

(That actually may not be not strictly true, as there may be some odd edge cases involving having a third party present to confuse the troops into not fighting...but any deliberate use of such tactics would be considered abusive, and I'm hoping to be able to do away with them soon anyway.)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Lychaon on April 17, 2014, 06:05:33 PM
No. If you do not control the battlefield, you cannot start a takeover.

It makes sense. Thanks for the replies.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 17, 2014, 06:18:25 PM
I agree that it's a serious problem, but it's a long way from being a new problem.
Yeah, spying sucks. Horribly destructive for the game as a whole. There may be logically RP'd reasons for some characters to spy. But it still sucks, from an OOC perspective. When you know that every message you send to your realm is going to be handed over to your enemies, or perspective enemies, you hesitate to involve more than a trusted few in your discussions. This drives conversations into small, closed councils. You don't involve other players in your decision making process. This makes the realms quieter, and the players bored/dissatisfied. I've seen it happen quite often.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Deytheur on April 17, 2014, 06:42:44 PM
Yup I agree.

It's just too easy to spy and there's little that can be done against it while it provides huge benefits to those who use them.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 17, 2014, 10:36:24 PM
Silence and stagnation was part of the issue to begin with. Anyone who was in D'Hara just before the monsters/glaciers struck would have known the situation that spawned the dissent in the ranks - and none of them should have been surprised given the way things escalated.

A pissing contest over land from long before i ever started playing spawned something like the 3rd or 4th war over the Isles. About a day after I took office as ruler, i made the attempt to start diplomatic discussions over an arrangement for the isles. Almost the next day the event started, which made -everyone- paranoid as hell. Those that were sympathetic to the attempts of peace were immediately shushed, or in the case of the Prime Minister - removed from office citing rather ridiculous reasoning.

Since then, from what i've seen of the shared letters, every effort has been made to basically dictate a "Do as we say" mentality about the war. Leading to more than a few pissed players who had completely valid reasons to seek external support for internal issues. I'm lost as to how a sudden regime change and 'do-or-die' order structure is less damaging to the game than people trying to maintain sanity in what has amounted to one HELL of a cluster!@#$ on the continent.

Indrik, i would agree more with the sentiment about 'close circles only' but that was basically what spawned the 'spying' issues all by itself. The discussions that were made public had their usual political spin to make everyone but them and their allies look like !@#$%^&s. The letters i've seen were twisted into knots, if not straight up lies, about everything I'd said or worked for since taking my seat as ruler. The history of Luria hasn't helped in that regard (not that anyone can deny Luria has a history of backstabbing) but to essentially lump inter-game espionage of any kind with something like OOC Metagaming is ridiculous.

The game doesn't provide a lot of opportunity to remove a leader or council member, let alone get support from the realm. I've seen a fair number of people who simply follow every order given because apparently free thought in a game based around RP and interaction is too much to ask. These are the kinds of people 'crazy rulers' rely on to follow through with plans. You get a couple of well-known people in a realm to agree with you, group-think sets in for the sheep. I got to where i was because i questioned the order from above. Questioning in the Southern League has lead to letters of political manslaughter, or simply direct death threats.

It's simply part of the game, and for that matter - a part of life.

Anyone that is part of this continental mess in Dwilight can see exactly what events took place to cause the sentiment of the players on both sides. No one is innocent in the matter, and those that tried to do something about it without spying were basically run out of town for trying. I'll never denounce IC spying, I expect it and act accordingly for the most part. The only issue i'll raise is the use of IRC to arrange IC situations that have simply no basis or reason to happen. Some of us had friends within the league prior to the war - were we supposed to stop our IC discussion simply because the new sheriff in town said so? That sort of thought will murder the game faster than anything


EDIT: I should clarify that I'm not defending the people who spy essentially just to cheat the game - screw them as well. I'm referring to those that have entirely logical reasons for what they're doing within the scope of the game and the events happening.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 17, 2014, 11:09:31 PM
Silence and stagnation was part of the issue to begin with. Anyone who was in D'Hara just before the monsters/glaciers struck would have known the situation that spawned the dissent in the ranks - and none of them should have been surprised given the way things escalated.
I don't currently play on Dwilight, so I can't really talk about the situation in D'Hara. But yeah, there are a lot of silent, stagnant realms in the game.


Quote
The game doesn't provide a lot of opportunity to remove a leader or council member, let alone get support from the realm.
Rebellion, protests, region/duchy allegiance change, civil disobedience, etc. You just have to find the right people. And if you can't get that support, then perhaps it's not the game that's at fault, but that your realm really doesn't want the kind of change you're trying to force.

Quote
It's simply part of the game, and for that matter - a part of life.
Sure, it is indeed part of life. But people in life who do these kinds of things run a very real risk of imprisonment and death. There are risks involved, and opportunities to catch them. You have none of that IG. (Unless they're complete idiots. But that's another story.)

IMHO, the damage that spying can do to the game far outweighs any minor increase in enjoyment it can provide to a very small number of players.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: OFaolain on April 17, 2014, 11:26:52 PM
If you really want to get rid of spying (or at least put big bright lights above the spies' heads), why not remove the ability to directly contact foreign nobles from people who are not diplomats or Council members?  Then the only way spying could happen is if someone changes class to diplomat, gets elected to a government position, is a member of a guild or religion, or actually enters a region that contains a member of the realm they are spying for (thus introducing that opportunity to catch them). (also leaves a great many ways to contact people from other realms, most of which are traceable)

And let's say you have some Evilists in your realm and you're at war with Evilstan; maybe the Evilstanis predict your army's movement one too many times and *bam*, suddenly all the Evilists in your realm are suspect.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 18, 2014, 12:43:59 AM
Civil Disobedience? Banishment/exile as a result

Protests aren't nearly as effective as they should be because they require fellow nobles to support you. Silent protest doesn't change anything and public protests usually result in the same as civil disobedience.

In the case of a duchy change - That happened in the war, the duke was marked a coward (and also disappeared from the game nearly the same day as the change)  and was shat upon within the realm for doing so without making an attempt to any of the above instead

You bring up rebellion, but such an action requires support - usually from the outside. Outside support requires something in terms of payment. Future promises are meaningless when you're currently locked into a war with the same people they want to rebel against. Information pays off now

While it's an irritating course of action, spies serve their purpose. They're faster and usually more effective than the above. Had we been able to completely block the Barcan army without significant losses, this war would have likely ended where it started. In the time i've been playing, i've only seen the occurrence of straight up treason like the Duke once, and shared military information twice. At this point the only information I receive is letters from nobles voicing their discontent and the wish to leave the war zone unmolested.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfang on April 18, 2014, 02:30:52 AM
Our armies were always mobilized, we were busy purging hordes - same as everyone else. We just happened to be in the same area doing so when Barca arrived. To be fair, we also knew about it some time beforehand. D'Hara is rife with silent nobility providing that information.
That's a shame.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 18, 2014, 06:09:55 PM
As the dev team has said, an initial drop in players/characters was expected and factored in when they decided to do the glacier/monster invasion, so the fact that their predication has come true is not necessarily an indictment of their master plan. They’ve also said that they’re looking at a timeline of about 6 months, so any assessment should be re-evaluated as time goes by. That said, here’s a little bit of data that might be relevant for anyone wanting to provide their 2 cents. I’m not advancing any personal agenda. I’m just a fan of the game trying to help out.
Registered players
14 Jan. 2014: 848
13 Apr. 2014: 801

Characters
12 Apr. 2014: 1535
18 Apr. 2014: 1515

Characters on Dwilight
~Apr. 2013: 481
18 Apr. 2014: 364

Non-rogue regions on Dwilight
~Apr. 2013: 216
18 Apr. 2014: 103
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 18, 2014, 07:35:21 PM
I'd be skeptical of the non-rogue counts if i hadn't seen how many regions we lost to monsters and starvation in just our corner of the east. But a goodchunk of the west is now hijacked by monsters. So that count is sort of misleading for anything relevant.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 18, 2014, 08:58:40 PM
I'd be skeptical of the non-rogue counts if i hadn't seen how many regions we lost to monsters and starvation in just our corner of the east. But a goodchunk of the west is now hijacked by monsters. So that count is sort of misleading for anything relevant.
I'd respectfully have to disagree with you. Since the purpose of the monster invasion/glacier is to increase the number of nobles in non-rogue regions, you need to look at how many non-rogue regions there are in relation to the number of nobles to know whether the plan is working or not. The number of characters is only half of that equation.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 18, 2014, 09:46:37 PM
RIght but without a full count of rogue regions ONLY in the west and Occupied regions in the west AND east in addition to the total count on the island - This information is much less useful
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 18, 2014, 09:58:59 PM
RIght but without a full count of rogue regions ONLY in the west and Occupied regions in the west AND east in addition to the total count on the island - This information is much less useful
Western rogues: 91 out of 105
Eastern rogues: 46 out of 133
Nobles: 277
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 18, 2014, 11:34:49 PM
We're still only looking at a 2:1 density, still a bit light but it's better than 1.1:1
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 18, 2014, 11:35:37 PM
We're still only looking at a 2:1 density, still a bit light but it's better than 1.1:1

And around the level we were projecting when we chose the land to remove.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Blue Star on April 19, 2014, 03:48:40 AM
Pulling his blade from the ice he hears rumors of a new land once sunk under the waves of the world now once again reemerging, a man with a dream awakens and walks toward the sea what only those of old age and rumors have said existed, he prepares himself and begins to atone for his sins, though plenty more are surely to come.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Bhranthan on April 19, 2014, 10:58:52 AM
Perhaps a silly idea, but how cool would it be if the current effects given to realms effected by the ice/monster invasion, where given to every realm in the game with a fairly extreme player density.
Those rare situations where a realm is so crowded that tax shares are so low only a few can pay for a unit, for example after being seriously reduced in size after a war or something else.
These effects will give that realm a boost to be able to for example migrate to the together side of the map or simply start a war against their a little bigger neighbor.
Why? because we normally see these realms just slowly bleed out noble for noble, without any realistic chance for conflict.
Its like a last chance for potential, small realms to not only survive, but to remain fun and grow.

Perhaps equally, the opposite effect could be given to realms with an extremely low noble density, slowly increase their unit costs, more morale penalties for marching away to far.
This will force bigger realms with low noble counts to fight wars only with direct neighbors or just reduce in size, preferably both.
Preventing big realms to become police realms of the continent, marching anywhere to include them selves in every conflict.

I understand there are already other mechanisms in place, but i really see potential in this effect on the game in general.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Poliorketes on April 19, 2014, 06:41:35 PM
Honestly, I don't think the ice will send a lot of players out of the game, but I don't think more density is going to make the game more fun. If we want more players, we must do the game funnier.

For example: This game have a lot of limitations without any real justification and only make the play more limited and boring. Honestly, this game is wonderful, but sometimes I found myself thinking "There is no human way to make this thing more boring?!".

We want a fun game? get rid of (or lesser A LOT) equipment damage, morale loses for distance, limit of troops for honour, infinite Take Overs, etc... give freedom to the noblemen! not tie them with a ton of limitations. This would be only a small step, but it would be a step in the right direction!
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: trying on April 19, 2014, 07:02:56 PM
Then the big realms would just stomp the small realms into the ground.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Antonine on April 20, 2014, 12:22:21 AM
Density does help a lot. If you're an active player in a realm with a total of ten nobles in total where the majority of players are passive then the odds are you'll be bored stiff because there's no one else active to play with and very little activity within the realm.

If you have the same situation with three times the nobles then at least there's likely to be enough active players to keep a decent level of activity going on within the realm.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: sharkattack on April 20, 2014, 01:23:51 AM
I feel like if Barca/Asylon/Niselur plans dont work out in the East because of lack of income/resources and their armies get wiped out that many of their nobles will quit the game.

Me personally will try and stick to the game as long as i have will to play on. But this whole situation frustrated me a lot.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Poliorketes on April 20, 2014, 01:43:52 AM
Then the big realms would just stomp the small realms into the ground.
I don't see how is different now. Big realms stomp small realms right now!

Density does help a lot. If you're an active player in a realm with a total of ten nobles in total where the majority of players are passive then the odds are you'll be bored stiff because there's no one else active to play with and very little activity within the realm.

If you have the same situation with three times the nobles then at least there's likely to be enough active players to keep a decent level of activity going on within the realm.

Small realms without active nobles don't survive and in small realms one noble can make the difference... Big realms where only the council decide and 50 noblemen follow orders, are no much fun either.

If this was the matter, all big realms would have a steady growing in noblemen, while small realms would had disappeared... is this the case?... and  honestly, if this was the matter, why begun the number of players begin to fall??? If the number of players is the reason, and some years ago, we have the "good proportion" of them... then why begun the fall in players?



Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 20, 2014, 01:51:58 AM
They should have probably executed it together.

I think all three realms failed on carving a new realm on the east.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Lubomirski on April 20, 2014, 04:39:53 AM
I feel like if Barca/Asylon/Niselur plans dont work out in the East because of lack of income/resources and their armies get wiped out that many of their nobles will quit the game.

Me personally will try and stick to the game as long as i have will to play on. But this whole situation frustrated me a lot.
 

THIS.

Even if Barca reestablishes itself in the west it will be a shadow of its former self.  A shame as it was one of the most vibrant realms in the game.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 20, 2014, 07:25:26 AM
Ice will probably stop advancing anytime soon. It has just went over the estimated area slightly but I don't think it will advance any farther than that.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Antonine on April 20, 2014, 08:46:58 AM
I don't see how is different now. Big realms stomp small realms right now!

Small realms without active nobles don't survive and in small realms one noble can make the difference... Big realms where only the council decide and 50 noblemen follow orders, are no much fun either.

If this was the matter, all big realms would have a steady growing in noblemen, while small realms would had disappeared... is this the case?... and  honestly, if this was the matter, why begun the number of players begin to fall??? If the number of players is the reason, and some years ago, we have the "good proportion" of them... then why begun the fall in players?

The most fun I've ever had in BM was 9 years ago when I was in a realm with so many nobles it wasn't uncommon to see 100 messages every time you logged in and that was considered normal. And the game was much more centralised back then.

And small realms have disappeared, massively so. One duchy realms used to be both commonplace and able to survive. Now they can get wiped out easily because most realms have consolidated into much larger ones.

The number of players hasn't begun to fall either - it's been in a slow and steady decline for years and years. Yes, there's been a spike in the number of players leaving the game now, but that's true of every big event in the game. When people's realms get wiped out some people quit. It's as simple as that.

On the other hand, if you look at the character density on Dwilight you can see it's gone from being just over 2 nobles per non-rogue region to over 3 nobles per non-rogue region. That's quite a good improvement, IMO.

And if people don't like being in big realms then the answer is to secede - just like people used to. The only reason we don't see secession as much nowadays is because duchies haven't got the nobles to survive as an independent realm and, if anything, increasing the noble density is likely to improve that situation.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 20, 2014, 02:29:08 PM
Atanamir has it right. This is the exact reason behind the shrinking.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Poliorketes on April 20, 2014, 02:40:42 PM
...The number of players hasn't begun to fall either - it's been in a slow and steady decline for years and years...

This was my question. Why the slow and steady decline??? This is the matter I don't think the shrinking is going to solve.

This "steady decline" have a cause... or we solve it, or not matter how many regions we ice, the game will not survive.

Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Antonine on April 20, 2014, 02:51:00 PM
This was my question. Why the slow and steady decline??? This is the matter I don't think the shrinking is going to solve.

This "steady decline" have a cause... or we solve it, or not matter how many regions we ice, the game will not survive.

Because, put simply, text based browser games aren't as popular anymore and because the kind of people who play them are often significantly older now and have more RL things consuming their time. When you can play a game like Crusader Kings 2 in multiplayer with intricate politics, rebellions, wars, alliances, etc, etc. then a lot of people are going to plump for something with shiny new graphics and which can be played on demand instead of a slower, less graphical, turn based game.

We also have, as part of this general trend, a decline in the popularity of websites and forums talking about and reviewing browser based games which means there are fewer "gateways" for people to discover Battlemaster. It's like asking why MUDs are in decline - put simply because MMORPGS like World of Warcraft came out and so new players will go for the fancy new games and it's generally only old timers who'll go for a MUD because they have direct experience of how fun it can be.

On top of that, we then had the opening of an entirely new continent at a time when the player base was already shrinking - that spread the player base out even more thinly and then we had the first estates system rolled out which, in many ways, turned the game into "Region Maintenance Master" and these two things, between them, made the game less dynamic and less fun.

So reducing the number of regions in the game to increase character density won't magically stop the decline of the player base. However, what it will do is do a lot to make the game more dynamic and fun. And if that happens then it may be possible to reverse the decline of the player base by removing many of the reasons which make people lose interest in the game.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Antonine on April 20, 2014, 02:54:29 PM
And to put this into context, I first started playing the game in something like 2004 or 2005. The internet was a very different place back then. To put it another way, I first started playing Battlemaster before MySpace became popular. That's how different things were.

In many ways, Battlemaster is a relic of an entirely different era of gaming. That's what makes it so awesome because it has elements which no other game today has. But you can't expect it to be as popular now as it was back when it was a top of the range game.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 20, 2014, 04:58:06 PM
On top of that, we then had the opening of an entirely new continent at a time when the player base was already shrinking

I don't believe that's quite the case—I believe that it was still growing at the time Dwilight opened, though the growth rate may have slowed.

Additionally, I believe that we could make a big difference in registration and retention if we could get a serious graphical overhaul for the game. Unfortunately, that's not something I'm qualified to do.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: OFaolain on April 20, 2014, 06:08:40 PM
I don't believe that's quite the case—I believe that it was still growing at the time Dwilight opened, though the growth rate may have slowed.

Additionally, I believe that we could make a big difference in registration and retention if we could get a serious graphical overhaul for the game. Unfortunately, that's not something I'm qualified to do.

What kind of a graphical overhaul are we talking, here?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 20, 2014, 06:11:05 PM
What kind of a graphical overhaul are we talking, here?

If I knew that more specifically, I'd be able to do at least some of it myself ;D

Update the site's look, give it a more modern feel, while still keeping the BattleMaster aesthetic. As far as I'm concerned, nothing's off the table in terms of making the game more interesting, more fun, and more attractive to players new and old. (I won't necessarily approve any given change—but I'll certainly listen to it.)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 20, 2014, 06:15:04 PM
"Region Maintenance Master"

There really is no point in every person being a lord, other than some shiny buttons to press. This means people end up spreading out resources to every badland and two turn mountain region, cause everyone wants those buttons. I know it is a game and you want to take all the pieces, but it doesn't seem sound strategy. Often a city estate will offer more than any two of the realms backwater gold/food sinks.

How often are awesome recruitment centers outside a cities walls? How often are paraphernalia spread all over the place? I think Region Maintenance Master is taking away from Battlemaster in a big way.

We could have policed this as players. WE failed to do so. We all got greedy, wanted every title and medal and trinket. The freeze will help reign in the seduction of Regionmaster, and War Islands will help cure people of the terrible affliction.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Antonine on April 20, 2014, 07:12:25 PM
There really is no point in every person being a lord, other than some shiny buttons to press. This means people end up spreading out resources to every badland and two turn mountain region, cause everyone wants those buttons. I know it is a game and you want to take all the pieces, but it doesn't seem sound strategy. Often a city estate will offer more than any two of the realms backwater gold/food sinks.

How often are awesome recruitment centers outside a cities walls? How often are paraphernalia spread all over the place? I think Region Maintenance Master is taking away from Battlemaster in a big way.

We could have policed this as players. WE failed to do so. We all got greedy, wanted every title and medal and trinket. The freeze will help reign in the seduction of Regionmaster, and War Islands will help cure people of the terrible affliction.

Well Region Maintenance Master referred more to the original estate system where every knight had an estate which had to be set to support either authority or production and if you didn't have enough estates supporting both then the region stats tanked and it went rogue.

In practice, that meant it was impossible for realms to expand and that lords had to spend all their time maintaining their regions. The new system is a big improvement on that.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Vita` on April 20, 2014, 08:40:33 PM
I've given some general thoughts to a graphical redesign of BM with a bent to increasing appeal, but I don't have the graphical skills for the images nor the time to implement it. Responsive webdesign (that means no more frames/accepting a new design in menu unless someone is still in contact with that hotmail-email graphic designer credited on battlemaster.org and he wants to help) that shrinks down to comfortable mobile/tablet viewing. Distinct, recognizable logos/buttons for the sections like Information, Politics, Actions, Orders, Tournament, Prison, Religion, Command etc. Include Status in this; status's button should try to retain the text '4hrs/9g/16men' even when other menu items convert to icon-only in mobile views. Get rid of fixed status footer. Shrink menu to smaller version when doing specific tasks (news, seceding, training, preaching, telling tales, joining estates, changing realms, viewing character list, realm and regions, army info etc.). Organize menu pages' (Actions/Orders/Command etc.) links into something with more background design and link grouping shape, some images instead of only text too, but more  detailed(say some visual image on page out of a medieval-looking book) than a recognizable logo. Perhaps Can't do items as footer and  separate out elipsis links from non-elipsis and location-based items (visit guild/temple, interact with priests, advies, loot etc.)? Kill remaining tables.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 20, 2014, 08:41:25 PM
There really is no point in every person being a lord, other than some shiny buttons to press. This means people end up spreading out resources to every badland and two turn mountain region, cause everyone wants those buttons. I know it is a game and you want to take all the pieces, but it doesn't seem sound strategy. Often a city estate will offer more than any two of the realms backwater gold/food sinks.

How often are awesome recruitment centers outside a cities walls? How often are paraphernalia spread all over the place? I think Region Maintenance Master is taking away from Battlemaster in a big way.

We could have policed this as players. WE failed to do so. We all got greedy, wanted every title and medal and trinket. The freeze will help reign in the seduction of Regionmaster, and War Islands will help cure people of the terrible affliction.
I agree with you a little bit. The reason it doesn't play out this way IMO is a problem with the cost-benefit analysis. The current mechanics favour low density. For example, 'Realm A' with 12 nobles and 12 regions can have more gold, more food, more recruitment centres, and control more of the map than 'Realm B' with 12 nobles and 4 or 5 regions, and at no additional cost to Realm A. Also, the players behind Realm A will be more engaged because, as you pointed out, players do want to be more than knights.


As long as the incentives favour a Realm A type structure, Realm A will continue to be the standard model. To change this behaviour, you need to change the underlying incentives, which means there needs to be a cost, or a downside to spreading your nobles too thin like Realm A, and conversely there has to be a benefit, or upside to following the Realm B model instead of the Realm A model. That's why I think regions with too few nobles should not be able to achieve 100% productivity, loyalty, efficiency and morale. Right now, a lord with no knights can collect more gold on tax day than a lord with knights. In other words, increased density is penalized, and decreased density is rewarded.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 20, 2014, 08:53:30 PM
I agree with you a little bit. The reason it doesn't play out this way IMO is a problem with the cost-benefit analysis. The current mechanics favour low density. For example, 'Realm A' with 12 nobles and 12 regions can have more gold, more food, more recruitment centres, and control more of the map than 'Realm B' with 12 nobles and 4 or 5 regions, and at no additional cost to Realm A. Also, the players behind Realm A will be more engaged because, as you pointed out, players do want to be more than knights.

I would disagree. There may be a slight return on gold, but if you spread too thin you cannot project power. If realm B is heavily invested in a profitable city and surrounding rurals, it has a defensive edge and can focus effort. Not to say there isn't an edge on gaining as many gold/food producing regions, but if you have to fight tooth and nail to keep an extra 30 gold per week...it isn't worth it. I'll avoid going into more detail, don't want to derail this into a BM military theory thread, but there is power in focused effort.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: OFaolain on April 20, 2014, 09:02:42 PM
Right now, a lord with no knights can collect more gold on tax day than a lord with knights. In other words, increased density is penalized, and decreased density is rewarded.

Not true, actually.  Because all portions of the region that are not part of the lord's estate operate at 50% efficiency (and the lord's estate operates at best at 100% efficiency but likely lower than that if he has no knights), a lord with knights who has 50% lord's share tax settings will receive the same gold in income as a lord without knights, and likely more because he can reduce the size of his own estate to increase its efficiency (and also harbor more knights).

That also ignores the other benefits of having knights, which is an increase in your own personal power; there's nothing quite like being the lord of a city and having five other people answer directly to you.  It gives you a lot of sway; if in a realm of thirty people you alone control 1/5th of it, the government is going to respect the heck out of your opinion (and that of your knights if you stick up for them, which will in turn make them like you more).
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 20, 2014, 10:10:03 PM
a lord with knights who has 50% lord's share tax settings will receive the same gold in income as a lord without knights, and likely more because he can reduce the size of his own estate to increase its efficiency (and also harbor more knights).
Is this realistic though? I've never seen a region with 50% lord's share and knights who are willing to stay there. It's usually closer to 10-15%.

That also ignores the other benefits of having knights, which is an increase in your own personal power; there's nothing quite like being the lord of a city and having five other people answer directly to you.  It gives you a lot of sway; if in a realm of thirty people you alone control 1/5th of it, the government is going to respect the heck out of your opinion (and that of your knights if you stick up for them, which will in turn make them like you more).
That's not realistic either. A region with 6 nobles is extremely rare, a region with 1-2 nobles is the norm.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 20, 2014, 10:22:06 PM
Is this realistic though? I've never seen a region with 50% lord's share and knights who are willing to stay there. It's usually closer to 10-15%.
That's not realistic either. A region with 6 nobles is extremely rare, a region with 1-2 nobles is the norm.

I always put 50% lord's share on my knights. If they don't like it, they can get the f out! I usually award those who dedicate more to the region. Sending them more gold or increase their estate size.

A region with 6 nobles is indeed rare. That is why we are shrinking regions to have more knights per regions.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 20, 2014, 10:30:29 PM
I always put 50% lord's share on my knights. If they don't like it, they can get the f out! I usually award those who dedicate more to the region. Sending them more gold or increase their estate size.

A region with 6 nobles is indeed rare. That is why we are shrinking regions to have more knights per regions.

This is why regions with 4 or 5 knights is rare. Why the hell would you tax at 50%? Use the estate system to distribute gold. If you have to hand all that gold back, skip the bank and look at how your estates are setup. You can change the estate sizes however you'd like.

You not fond of the paper trail?  ;)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 20, 2014, 10:33:28 PM
This is why regions with 4 or 5 knights is rare. Why the hell would you tax at 50%? Use the estate system to distribute gold. If you have to hand all that gold back, skip the bank and look at how your estates are setup. You can change the estate sizes however you'd like.

You not fond of the paper trail?  ;)

I don't distribute gold all the time. If they work, sure. They didn't do any work this week, nope all mine! Why would I want my knights to have more gold when I can keep all of it myself to build more RCs? ;)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 20, 2014, 10:41:41 PM
I would disagree. There may be a slight return on gold, but if you spread too thin you cannot project power. If realm B is heavily invested in a profitable city and surrounding rurals, it has a defensive edge and can focus effort. Not to say there isn't an edge on gaining as many gold/food producing regions, but if you have to fight tooth and nail to keep an extra 30 gold per week...it isn't worth it. I'll avoid going into more detail, don't want to derail this into a BM military theory thread, but there is power in focused effort.
You're describing how the game should work, but I don't think it does work that way in reality, at least based on what I've seen. I think most regions have 1 noble, and only a handful have more than 2.


I always put 50% lord's share on my knights. If they don't like it, they can get the f out! I usually award those who dedicate more to the region. Sending them more gold or increase their estate size.

A region with 6 nobles is indeed rare. That is why we are shrinking regions to have more knights per regions.
But the reason you can afford to have that attitude ("If they don't like it, they can get the f out!") is that you can maintain the same level of income with or without them. My argument is that there should be meaningful consequences when knights vacate the region.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on April 20, 2014, 11:02:34 PM
But the reason you can afford to have that attitude ("If they don't like it, they can get the f out!") is that you can maintain the same level of income with or without them. My argument is that there should be meaningful consequences when knights vacate the region.
There is. The region makes less gold when its just the lord in command. That means the realm is hurting because its region's aren't making as much gold as they can. And if you look at cities, there are plenty with 5 or 6 nobles. Townslands will tend to have at least 1 or 2 knights. The rest previously I will admit it wasn't overly common to have more than 1 knight, and it wasn't exactly rare for it to be just a lord. The Ice Age and Monster Invasion are changing it from it being normal to have just the lord.

I will state this, realms with higher density though are almost always better, funner, stronger realms than those with low density. Realm size does take effect, but higher density certainly helps a realm. (Its also generally caused by the realm being fun so things to tend to be a cycle in growth/shrinkage)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 20, 2014, 11:25:20 PM
There is. The region makes less gold when its just the lord in command. That means the realm is hurting because its region's aren't making as much gold as they can. And if you look at cities, there are plenty with 5 or 6 nobles. Townslands will tend to have at least 1 or 2 knights. The rest previously I will admit it wasn't overly common to have more than 1 knight, and it wasn't exactly rare for it to be just a lord. The Ice Age and Monster Invasion are changing it from it being normal to have just the lord.

I will state this, realms with higher density though are almost always better, funner, stronger realms than those with low density. Realm size does take effect, but higher density certainly helps a realm. (Its also generally caused by the realm being fun so things to tend to be a cycle in growth/shrinkage)

Also, regarding the region making less gold, why should the lord care as long as he makes more gold? While having more knights in a region would benefit the realm, it doesn't benefit a lord directly. Oh, and for those who do tax your knights at 50%, good job scaring new nobles away.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: OFaolain on April 20, 2014, 11:54:01 PM
Is this realistic though? I've never seen a region with 50% lord's share and knights who are willing to stay there. It's usually closer to 10-15%.
That's not realistic either. A region with 6 nobles is extremely rare, a region with 1-2 nobles is the norm.
A knight in a big city can make 150-200 gold per week, which is more than most rural lords, let alone rural knights.  Lords of large cities can (and, IMO, should) amass 4-5 knights without too much trouble if noble density allows it; this gets very hard when noble density is low because people frequently want titles more than they want more gold.  I'd rather be "Count of Badlandia" than "Knight of Richcity" and just request gold from the realm council constantly whenever they want me to march to war.

Rurals are very rarely going to have knights, it's going to be cities (primarily) and townslands that really attract knights, and that's just fine; it's part of what makes being a Margrave a more prestigious position than being a Count.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 20, 2014, 11:55:47 PM
Even after taking 50%, my knights are getting 185 gold per week. Why would I let my knights get 300 gold each?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 21, 2014, 12:05:12 AM
I will state this, realms with higher density though are almost always better, funner, stronger realms than those with low density. Realm size does take effect, but higher density certainly helps a realm. (Its also generally caused by the realm being fun so things to tend to be a cycle in growth/shrinkage)
Yes, I think most people would agree. The problem that I see is the disconnect between what's good for the community, and what's good for the individual. The incentives overwhelmingly favour expansion over density. Consider this hypothetical. You're a regional lord and I'm a knight. My estate yields 100 gold, of which you get 50 and I get 50. Then our realm conquers a new region and I'm appointed as its lord. Now I'm getting 175 gold per week, and you're still getting 50 gold from my vacant estate. So I'm happy because the game is more fun now that my char has a title, plus my income goes up, my duke's income goes up, my ruler's income goes up, and your income stays about the same (maybe 5 gold less than before). As a realm, we gain access to whatever amenities come with the new region, e.g. food, paraphernalia, recruitment centres, strategic advantages. The effect of the reduced density is too negligible to even think about, and in any case we think that more nobles will join our realm as we continue to expand.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: OFaolain on April 21, 2014, 12:15:11 AM
Buffalkill:

Which is good; it should always be better to be bigger or else there would be very little incentive for realms to expand and try to get bigger (obviously being big will come with its own challenges like distance to capital, etc.).  The problem is that when you get so big that everyone is a lord, you miss out on a lot of what's dynamic about having knights and, unfortunately, that's where a lot of realms were at.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 21, 2014, 12:18:55 AM
That is why all the realms are so huge these days. People keep crying about single duchy realms but why? When you can be bigger and better?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 21, 2014, 01:25:16 AM
Buffalkill:
Which is good; it should always be better to be bigger or else there would be very little incentive for realms to expand and try to get bigger (obviously being big will come with its own challenges like distance to capital, etc.).  The problem is that when you get so big that everyone is a lord, you miss out on a lot of what's dynamic about having knights and, unfortunately, that's where a lot of realms were at.

Getting bigger and bigger makes sense for a boardgame like Risk or some cardgame...but this is Battlemaster. It is a roleplaying game based loosely on medieval Europe. There is a board, pieces, and all that jazz...but there's more. We try to mimic the intricacy of thousands of characters from history, all with motivation and background, condensed for modern sensibilities and fun. The relationships between players mean more than the gold and CS.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Ketchum on April 21, 2014, 02:31:34 AM
That is why all the realms are so huge these days. People keep crying about single duchy realms but why? When you can be bigger and better?
I have been thinking of something I experienced previously. Is it not the bigger the realm size, the more disadvantage you have such as lack of control issues in the regions? Or have this situation changes with the implementation of the new estate?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 21, 2014, 04:44:09 AM
It's a roleplaying game, yes, but there's also a competitive element. It's natural for realms to strive to expand and conquer new lands, but the fact that most stable realms are able to hold nearly 1 region for every noble means that it's too easy to hold a region. Yes, we want realms to strive for world domination, and it's up to the game to make it hard enough that it's not boring, and easy enough that players are not discouraged. It's a delicate balance.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on April 21, 2014, 06:01:33 AM
It's a roleplaying game, yes, but there's also a competitive element. It's natural for realms to strive to expand and conquer new lands, but the fact that most stable realms are able to hold nearly 1 region for every noble means that it's too easy to hold a region. Yes, we want realms to strive for world domination, and it's up to the game to make it hard enough that it's not boring, and easy enough that players are not discouraged. It's a delicate balance.
I feel like you don't understand the problem. It's not bad that realms can have 1 noble hold a region by himself, it's that their aren't enough nobles for all these lands, hence the freezing and rogue invasion.

 When realms have more nobles than regions, they aren't telling knights to screw off nor are knights going I need a lordship, I am out. We just don't have as many players so we don't have as many nobles. The increased density should end boosting fun in a variety of ways that can't always be seen by some immediately but some I talk with are understanding. It's not the end all, perfect fix, but helps a lot and more is constantly being developed to aid the game, but it takes time.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 21, 2014, 06:41:05 AM
I feel like you don't understand the problem. It's not bad that realms can have 1 noble hold a region by himself, it's that their aren't enough nobles for all these lands, hence the freezing and rogue invasion.

 When realms have more nobles than regions, they aren't telling knights to screw off nor are knights going I need a lordship, I am out. We just don't have as many players so we don't have as many nobles. The increased density should end boosting fun in a variety of ways that can't always be seen by some immediately but some I talk with are understanding. It's not the end all, perfect fix, but helps a lot and more is constantly being developed to aid the game, but it takes time.
I do understand. But one problem is density, another is recruitment and retention. Eliminating regions will certainly increase the density in the short term (it already has) but it's far from certain that this will stick in the long term, and we could potentially be right back where we started in a few months but on a smaller scale. Requiring more nobles to hold a region doesn't address the retention problem, but it would address the density problem in a more sustainable and player-driven way.


As for the retention problem, my personal view is that the game doesn't do enough to hold the attention of new players. It's not that they're shouting "give me a title or I'll quit," it's that apathy sets more quickly for new players and they simply don't feel the same motivation to log in every day or every week the way older players do. For old players, logging into the game is already part of their daily or weekly routine and they'll keep playing for some time even when the game becomes stagnant. New players, on the other hand, will have far less tolerance for boredom. And I think the easiest way to address this is by giving new players more to do.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 21, 2014, 07:04:27 AM
Technically their lords or other higher ups supposed to give those knights more to do but they themselves fall into apathy as well. If you feel you are going to be quiet and less active, you should probably step down so younger and more active players can hold those positions.

The coming War Island should give new players a lot more to do. Let's hope they will branch out from there.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: bofeng on April 21, 2014, 08:42:23 AM
Seriously, what's the purpose of the huge army of Ice Deamons on Far East? Some regions are not marked to be frozen on the original map. Has the glacier thing stopped at all?

Battlemaster is a very very slow game. Players have to play a very long time in order to really build up anything, fame, prestige, titles, more lands etc. I wish development team could give more thoughts into this in making critical decisions. Again, I think long term problems should only be solved by a long term plan.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 21, 2014, 08:45:33 AM
Ice is almost done advancing. Once the noble density reaches a certain point, it will stop.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Jens Namtrah on April 21, 2014, 12:36:50 PM
I don't think the density solutions are going to fix the game problems you are talking about.

In Darka, unless I'm misunderstanding something, about 1 in 4 nobles do not even bother to have an estate. There is a central Treasury and if you need gold you just ask and then sit and wait until they send you some.

Several regions have no estates or a minimum number, but no one seems to be very worried about it. I haven't heard much at all about trying to push south and take new regions. We are the largest realm on the island, by the way, and while we are technically "at war" with a large group of realms, it's really a very minor affair with one other realm.

I thought when I joined that the ice was supposed to push the northern regions south so they were forced to conquer lands to have a place to live, but all that seems to be happening is the realm got squished a little thinner. The realm to the south of us has about 1:1 noble to region. The realm south of THAT, that we are at war with,  is half as dense as we are, and when I went down there to loot I saw many empty estates.

You'll need to cut the size of the island in half to force any sort of noticeable change in the way people play, I feel.

----

On  a side note, despite being the largest realm on Atamara, there is hardly any interaction between players and it is dull as mud. Any recommendations for a realm with lots of fighting and role-playing about it?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 21, 2014, 01:04:10 PM
Any realm on EC except Obsidian Islands will offer you a lot of battles. FEI is pretty much done with their war. I think they are pretty much close to unifying the entire continent under one alliance. Dwilight has some interesting realms. Most of them are fighting and they do have some responsive people in each realm.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: jaune on April 21, 2014, 02:31:21 PM
I think you have a bit misunderstood Darka a bit. REalm south of Darka is Talerium, ally of Darka and Ally of our enemy. Darka prolly would take Talerium's lands in few weeks if there would not be over half of the continent helping them. We are at war with 3 biggest realms on island, we would only speed up our death by going war against TAlerium for now, our enemy cant take our land, cause they dont border with us.

-Jaune
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Jens Namtrah on April 21, 2014, 02:47:26 PM
EDIT: I misread you completely.

No, I don't think we should go to war with Talerium. However, it might be nice if there was some in-game discussion of what is going on.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 21, 2014, 02:58:27 PM
I don't think Talerium even knows how to war anymore. That realm hasn't fought in ages.

Should just crush them.  8)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Foxglove on April 21, 2014, 03:25:19 PM
On  a side note, despite being the largest realm on Atamara, there is hardly any interaction between players and it is dull as mud. Any recommendations for a realm with lots of fighting and role-playing about it?

The EC, as Lapallanch said. Every realm except Ol and Caligus is currently fighting. Pre-glacier FEI was really good for hard fought wars and RP, but  the island's now virtually dead to anything interesting, and is likely to stay that way for a long time. Suville in Atamara is good for wars at the moment (lots of fighting and massive amounts of gold available), but I don't know about any of the other AT realms.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Jens Namtrah on April 21, 2014, 03:57:19 PM
I think you have a bit misunderstood Darka a bit. REalm south of Darka is Talerium, ally of Darka and Ally of our enemy. Darka prolly would take Talerium's lands in few weeks if there would not be over half of the continent helping them. We are at war with 3 biggest realms on island, we would only speed up our death by going war against TAlerium for now, our enemy cant take our land, cause they dont border with us.

-Jaune

I'm sorry, I really don't believe any of that.

The other realms are at war on paper only. Cagilians have marched north once in a month - I have no idea what they are doing.

As I explained in my first post, the Darkan lords are still quite comfortable, and so there's no need to do anything different in the near future. I think the Ice was a good idea, but I don't think it went nearly far enough to have any actual effect on the game on Atamara, at least. Perhaps other changes are occurring in other parts of the island.

Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: jaune on April 21, 2014, 04:17:38 PM
Only reason why CE has not marched on us earlier was prolly to secure Eston and/or monsters infestions on their own lands.

Darka is silent, has been past few years, occasionally some talks happen.

I dont know what you mean by Darkan Lords are comfortable? Most of the lords are experienced and long timer Darkans who  dont get shocked or panic very easily. Some have given up already and waiting just end to come one way or another. We could have a chance without glacier, but for now, no way we can match with CE army, even thought our pockets are still quite full of gold, we dont have recruits to build up big enough army fast enough after defending CE's attacks. And they are able to make rogue 2-3 regions every visit they make. So, i guess leadership is now pondering what to do? Fight back? Give up? Start new war? Darka doenst have much of good options left.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 21, 2014, 04:31:33 PM
I think that density, limited to nobles/region, is a poor indicator. Increased competition for lordships is a good thing, as it got way too low, but what is really wanted is more nobles per realm.

Which the glaciers will do nothing about unless they provoke total realm collapses. If the border realms lose half of their regions, and can't expand to compensate, then the net result is 0 impact for most of that continent's realms and 0 increased competition for all government titles in the targeted realm. And as targeted realms tend to lose players, who find it unfair, you really end up with decreased nobles/realm ratio on that continent.

The impacts on Dwi might be different, because you've overrun half of the regions and the most populous realms, but you should be really careful about looking at density as being purely nobles/regions, without considering nobles/realm. Most of the issues brought up in the last few pages relate to nobles/realm, and have little to do with nobles/region. A realm with 40 nobles over 40 regions is just as able to secede and form new realms as one with 40 nobles over 20 regions, even if the "density" is half in the former. A realm with 15 nobles over 5 regions is not able to split up into multiple viable realms, despite having a density three times greater than the ones with 40:40, and it has nothing to do with lack of regions on the latter's part (realms can always expand).
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: bofeng on April 21, 2014, 07:03:50 PM
Just as some of us pointed out, the density indicator may not work properly in some cases.

For example in FEI, the infected realms are losing players constantly. Number of characters in Kindara has dropped from ~45 to ~30. In the following week, I believe this number will continue to reduce. Will they move to other regions in FEI? I don't think so. These natural disasters will likely to make some of them to leave this game world.

When they leave, the density will drop again. Will the dev team advance the glacier again? That would be ridiculous.

If the glacier thing is affecting the west side of the continent, then at least the nobles can join their allies. Now the ice age and the military oppression may likely leave these nobles no choice but give up.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Foxglove on April 21, 2014, 08:32:31 PM
When they leave, the density will drop again. Will the dev team advance the glacier again? That would be ridiculous.

If they're true to their word, then yes. Anaris said he'd advance the glaciers to a point where the density reached levels he was happy with. Players leaving the island will further reduce the density.

The glacier event has been quite catastrophic for FEI as a playing environment. As LGM Alpha said before he quit the game, the glacier was dropped on the island during the biggest and most interesting event in FEI history while it had a really good island-wide war raging that would probably have run for at least another year (likely much longer). Many players are understandably pissed at the GM event's intervention, and will leave the island (and the game in some cases) as a result or as a protest.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: stuartalexmc on April 21, 2014, 09:46:26 PM
This is all hot air.

SOMETHING had to be done. Wrongly or rightly this is what was chosen. We should all work to make the game better rather than bicker over actions we cannot change.

Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 21, 2014, 09:58:25 PM
Players quitting can't be summarized to protests, or the like, only. Some players are simply attached to very little, and if that very little happens to be removed, then without necessarily being pissed off against anyone or anything, they could simply not have any motivation left to keep playing. Which, in turn, can demotivate others, even in other realms, that relied on interactions with these people.

Just because action had to be taken doesn't mean that all consequences of the action taken shouldn't be studied and discussed.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Foxglove on April 21, 2014, 10:30:08 PM
This is all hot air.

Erm.. No. Character count is falling on FEI as Bofeng gave in his stats.

Players quitting can't be summarized to protests or the like.

It can when that's what they say they're doing.

SOMETHING had to be done. Wrongly or rightly this is what was chosen. We should all work to make the game better rather than bicker over actions we cannot change.

This is also true, but people have a right to say when they don't believe this course of action is helping. It doesn't mean that they're not working to make the game better through their characters. It just means they hold a different opinion to the Devs.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Jens Namtrah on April 21, 2014, 11:55:37 PM
So, i guess leadership is now pondering what to do? Fight back? Give up? Start new war? Darka doenst have much of good options left.

Would love to know what leadership is thinking, as well. Perhaps since you feel Darka is probably going to die anyway, you might risk sharing the discussion with others to keep them interested? I don't think I should have to come to the forums to learn all of this.

Since player retention seems to be the ultimate goal here.

Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 22, 2014, 05:10:21 AM
A better macro indicator for the dev-level discussion IMO is nobles-to-available regions (NAR), because the dev role is to establish the game board and set the parameters, then let the players configure the pieces naturally in the most advantageous way as the players see it.


I’m not totally convinced that nobles-per-realm (NPR) is always the best indicator when talking about the density problem because it seems like a kind of apples-to-oranges comparison when talking about the macro composition of the game board. It is however a good indicator for studying the infinite realm compositions that might emerge, but that study should happen at the player level.

If you want more nobles per region: it seems very logical to tweak the parameters so the appropriately dense regions function better than those “one-horse” regions that are most common. Then the realm has a strategic judgment to make: e.g. “Do we stack nobles in our city that’s about to be attacked, or do we deploy more nobles to the food regions so they’ll produce food and gold more efficiently?” The answer will depend on a few variables, and they wouldn’t always reach the same conclusion, depending on the season, how much food is in storage, the threat of war, and the state of other friendly regions, etc. So in other words, don’t force them into increased density, give them parameters that make a denser region have a comparative advantage.

It you want more war: tweak the parameters to slow down equipment damage, and starving, and speed up travel time. I’m not saying to get rid of those things, just turn down the knob a little bit and make it easier for armies to travel.


I think Chénier is absolutely right that player retention is the more urgent problem and I wish more resources were devoted to it instead of the ambitious roll-outs that seem to be the main focus.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on April 22, 2014, 08:34:47 AM
Buffalkill: And how do propose to increase retention?

The most straight forward thing to me is make war happen more often. What's the two things that most often stand in people's way for starting a war? The huge potential damage and that currently if you are smaller it's much harder to fill the military gap with tactics and strategy. For the huge potential damage, look into changing how looting affects a region would go a long ways. Then for overcoming the gap because you are smaller, would be introducing more things to differentiate armies. Both of those issues are being addressed already.

As well you want to know what helps retention, making sure that new players can always be involved in war at the beginning. How? War Islands, an island in constant warfare. The War Islands is great for the game in many other ways as well, but that is the one relevant to the topic at hand.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 22, 2014, 03:48:00 PM
Buffalkill: And how do propose to increase retention?

The most straight forward thing to me is make war happen more often. What's the two things that most often stand in people's way for starting a war? The huge potential damage and that currently if you are smaller it's much harder to fill the military gap with tactics and strategy. For the huge potential damage, look into changing how looting affects a region would go a long ways. Then for overcoming the gap because you are smaller, would be introducing more things to differentiate armies. Both of those issues are being addressed already.

As well you want to know what helps retention, making sure that new players can always be involved in war at the beginning. How? War Islands, an island in constant warfare. The War Islands is great for the game in many other ways as well, but that is the one relevant to the topic at hand.
There many possible strategies worth debating to improve retention. Here a few possibility off the top of my head:
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 22, 2014, 08:16:01 PM
Allowing newbies to have up to 3 characters wouldn't be too bad but might want to limit them to create 1 character per continent so they can experience all the continents.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 23, 2014, 12:46:48 AM
I wonder how many players would have been pissed at the devs for the freeze if they had known the War Islands might be coming back. It solves most qualms in this thread.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 23, 2014, 01:47:41 PM
I wonder how many players would have been pissed at the devs for the freeze if they had known the War Islands might be coming back. It solves most qualms in this thread.

Doubtful.

Also, one has to wonder how creating more land is supposed to increase either activity or density.

Finally, I'd also add that while noble:region and nobles:realm ratios were mentioned, realms:continent ratios also need to be considered, because ultimately, other realms of the continent are the only ones a realm can declare war on.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 23, 2014, 06:15:05 PM
Also, one has to wonder how creating more land is supposed to increase either activity or density.
War Islands character slots are planned to be completely separate. The plan is for each account to play one noble on the war island, and this character will not affect any other character slots you may have. IOW - playing a character to the War Island will not reduce the number of active nobles you have to play on other islands.

Quote
Finally, I'd also add that while noble:region and nobles:realm ratios were mentioned, realms:continent ratios also need to be considered, because ultimately, other realms of the continent are the only ones a realm can declare war on.
Hopefully, increasing the nobles:region ration, and thus the nobles:realm ratio, will help to increase the pressures to form new realms. If by no other means than allowing realms to spawn new colonies.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 24, 2014, 12:54:38 AM
War Islands character slots are planned to be completely separate. The plan is for each account to play one noble on the war island, and this character will not affect any other character slots you may have. IOW - playing a character to the War Island will not reduce the number of active nobles you have to play on other islands.
Hopefully, increasing the nobles:region ration, and thus the nobles:realm ratio, will help to increase the pressures to form new realms. If by no other means than allowing realms to spawn new colonies.

WI - Strictly speaking, yes, the characters there don't count towards the character limit. However, there are a number of people who play less characters than they are entitled to, namely because they feel they don't have time for more. If such people start a character on the WI, then they are likely to remove one from elsewhere.

Density - Increasing the nobles:region ratio has no impact on nobles:realm ratio if no realm dies and all characters remain. The only other ratio I can think of it would affect is regions:realm, which is a ratio if lesser importance. And if it is considered that the current nobles:realm ratio is too low (which I do think it is), then if increasing it only serves to break up the realms to increase realms:continent, then you'll just end up returning to the unsatisfying point of origin as far as nobles:realm goes. Increasing realms:continent, without decreasing nobles:realm, would require merging continents together.

In the end, though, it all just seems like band-aids. All "fixes" are to extend the life of the game a little, but there is no solution in sight for stopping playerbase decay.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfang on April 24, 2014, 12:09:14 PM
I'm one of those players that plays less characters than I'm entitled to, but I think I will try a character in WI to see what that island is all about.  :)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 24, 2014, 01:58:24 PM
I'm one of those players that plays less characters than I'm entitled to, but I think I will try a character in WI to see what that island is all about.  :)

It's not a bad thing. All I'm saying is that if someone tells themselves they only have time for two characters, and they are attracted by the WI, this extra character slot may not translate in an additional character.

About the War Islands, I'd also add something else... BM is not the same as it was back when we last had them. If we expect the same results, we are bound to be disappointed. The War Islands relied heavily on a team spirit that has long since vanished. Might yield good results, but it might also end up being as war-like as FEI is an "RP island" and Dwi is an "SMA island"... not at all how they started out and what was hoped of them.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 24, 2014, 02:14:17 PM
Well, I guarantee you we won't have peace on the War Island.

Broadly, though, that is a possibility. However, I'm hoping to see it start to bring back the team spirit and the hunger for war that "Classic BattleMaster" seemed to engender. Especially when combined with the War Improvements Package.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfsong on April 24, 2014, 03:49:23 PM
If the war island turns into a RP SMA permadeath island... I might actually play a character on it.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: vonGenf on April 24, 2014, 04:47:17 PM
If the war island turns into a RP SMA permadeath island... I might actually play a character on it.

I've never played on the old war Islands, but my impression was it was meant as the least SMA of all islands where BM was more of a game of strategy than a RP game. Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 24, 2014, 04:56:37 PM
I've never played on the old war Islands, but my impression was it was meant as the least SMA of all islands where BM was more of a game of strategy than a RP game. Am I wrong?

Yes and no.

First of all, of course, SMA wasn't even conceived of until the War Islands were being shut down, and Dwilight opened.

More generally, though, yes, the War Islands were more military in nature, and there was a lot more focus on that aspect of the game than there was in some other places...but I remember there being a lot of roleplay there, too. Having lots of epic battles really is (at least in my experience) more conducive to telling interesting stories.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 24, 2014, 06:06:37 PM
We've lost 51 registered players since January. Something worth debating is the effect of seasons on player retention. Player losses occurred 69% in Autumn; 18% in Spring; 13% in Winter. Summer is the only time we gained players. Among the continents, Dwilight has lost the most chars.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Bael on April 24, 2014, 09:22:22 PM
If I knew that more specifically, I'd be able to do at least some of it myself ;D

Update the site's look, give it a more modern feel, while still keeping the BattleMaster aesthetic. As far as I'm concerned, nothing's off the table in terms of making the game more interesting, more fun, and more attractive to players new and old. (I won't necessarily approve any given change—but I'll certainly listen to it.)

To be honest, the most important page is the front page. It just isn't that appealing. Its too dark and dreary, not streamlined or very grabbing.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Antonine on April 24, 2014, 11:13:18 PM
In the end, though, it all just seems like band-aids. All "fixes" are to extend the life of the game a little, but there is no solution in sight for stopping playerbase decay.

I think we do have to accept, to a certain extent, that this game is not going to last forever. Eventually it will come to an end.

For the foreseeable future though, I imagine there will always be a niche for a game like Battlemaster even if that niche might get smaller over time.

And you know what? If we get to a point where the game has to be reduced to a single, small continent full of characters playing dynamically then I'd be happy with that. As long as the game is still fun then I don't care if it's only a maybe a hundred people playing it or even less.

I'm also fairly sure that, in the long run, the player base will eventually bottom out to a sustainable level. There will probably be a lot more changes to the game involved with that but I reckon it will happen.

On the other hand, even if that doesn't happen, even if the game does eventually die then it's certainly got a fair few years left in it at the very minimum. So really we should be doing all we can to have fun playing it and to make the game as much fun as possible - because sooner or later every single one of us will have to stop playing at some point.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 24, 2014, 11:45:59 PM
Furthermore, we do have at least general solutions in mind: Make the game more fun, and get a graphical overhaul done when we can (i.e., when we actually have someone on the dev team who has graphical skills).

In the meantime, my recommendation for the players still in the game is: Play the game. Have fun. Be fun to play with. Don't panic or stress out about the decline in the playerbase; leave that to the dev team.

The #1 thing every single player can do to help the game be more fun is to play it actively, treat it as a game, and do your best to include others in your fun.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: sharkattack on April 25, 2014, 12:34:56 AM
We've lost 51 registered players since January. Something worth debating is the effect of seasons on player retention. Player losses occurred 69% in Autumn; 18% in Spring; 13% in Winter. Summer is the only time we gained players. Among the continents, Dwilight has lost the most chars.


Asylon might fall apart in next couple of days/weeks. It will be interesting to see how many players will quit the game.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Blue Star on April 25, 2014, 05:47:14 AM
The #1 thing every single player can do to help the game be more fun is to play it actively, treat it as a game, and do your best to include others in your fun.

Its easier said than done... *coughs* thread we are posting in. For a long time we've known the route and niche this has been in will not last forever, but hey well see. mm where did I leave my hat?

Not many left who remember the war islands, but it should draw some people in/back. Toren must have a lot of seaweed on it.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Disturbedyang on April 25, 2014, 06:49:01 AM

Asylon might fall apart in next couple of days/weeks. It will be interesting to see how many players will quit the game.

Actually i do not understand what's in the mind of the players especially the rulers. Swordfell could had made it very fun by helping out Asylon, but they chose to go about their own business. Astrum and Morek probably have their own IC agenda and not suitable to help Asylon out. That's understandable. But even that can be turned around. Morek can always choose to wipe out Astrum and suddenly Astrum helping out Asylon. You see there are so many opportunities for stories and twist but yet, these rulers i believe do not want any of that. Any threat must be wiped out so that they can go back to their boring life. It is a game where it involves a big group collaborating to make it fun for everyone else. But somehow, the rulers for some of these realms are rather selfish and self-sufficient(or so they think).

I tried my best in Beluaterra to create an event and make it fun for everyone else. Realms that are heading downwards or being monotonous are often wiped out while those that showed a high level of activity of often being spared. What i am trying to say is, it is really up to the ruler to make the game fun for everyone else. Think about it.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 25, 2014, 07:09:14 AM
Morek can always choose to wipe out Astrum and suddenly Astrum helping out Asylon.
The hatred between Asylon and Astrum runs deep.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Disturbedyang on April 25, 2014, 10:04:10 AM
The hatred between Asylon and Astrum runs deep.

My apologies for the bad english. Posting early in the morning is a bad choice. Yes, that was what i was saying. IC wise, it is understandable. But the players and rulers can always make different things happen. But some of the players are so afraid of losing that it became boring for everyone else. What's the point then?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 25, 2014, 10:13:50 AM
No worries. Once I become a ruler again, it will definitely happen  8) since I don't give a crap about losing.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 25, 2014, 01:28:48 PM
Swordfell was attacked by Asylon's ally, Niselur. Why would they help Asylon? And how could they? They were also overrun by monsters, just like everyone else.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: D`Este on April 25, 2014, 03:05:27 PM
Swordfell was attacked by Asylon's ally, Niselur. Why would they help Asylon? And how could they? They were also overrun by monsters, just like everyone else.

Huh what? Really, what?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Graeth on April 25, 2014, 04:01:01 PM
I thought a bunch of Niselurians just joined Swordfell?  The only attacks on Swordfell lately have been from Wildcard Wassiley.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on April 25, 2014, 06:27:34 PM
Actually i do not understand what's in the mind of the players especially the rulers. Swordfell could had made it very fun by helping out Asylon, but they chose to go about their own business. Astrum and Morek probably have their own IC agenda and not suitable to help Asylon out. That's understandable. But even that can be turned around. Morek can always choose to wipe out Astrum and suddenly Astrum helping out Asylon.
The things you choose to do still need to make sense for your character, and the situation in which they find themselves. How would it make sense for Morek to attack Astrum? How would it make sense for Astrum to ally with Asylon against Morek?

And don't just blame the rulers. Yes, rulers may be the one to actually click the "Declare war!" button, but they have to answer to the nobles in their realms. If the nobles don't go along with it, then the realm will crumble and fail. Then the net result of the swapped alliance will be that the ruler loses his position, and the realm goes right on doing what it did before. Or the realm completely fails, and disintegrates, getting gobble up by everything around it. Take, for example, the recent situation on EC with Eponllyn being surrounded by the Southern Alliance realms. When the ice hit, Eponllyn was offered an opportunity to join the SA and carve a new realm out of Sirion. As ruler of Eponllyn I could have said "Sure, let's go for it!". But if I had, then probably at least 80% of my realm would have either rebelled or walked away.  Assuming I kept my throne, I would have an ineffectual realm of about 5 or 6 nobles left, and three of those would have been newbies who had just joined.

You have to take actions which make sense for your character, and which the other characters in your realm will go along with. Face-Heel turns with no warning/justification are no fun for anyone.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: CyberGenesis on April 25, 2014, 07:21:37 PM
Swordfell was attacked by Asylon's ally, Niselur. Why would they help Asylon? And how could they? They were also overrun by monsters, just like everyone else.

Pretty sure this never happened - in fact, when it was brought up in Ruler it was mysteriously swept under the rug and the war declaration was still never recinded
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Disturbedyang on April 25, 2014, 08:58:46 PM
The things you choose to do still need to make sense for your character, and the situation in which they find themselves. How would it make sense for Morek to attack Astrum? How would it make sense for Astrum to ally with Asylon against Morek?

And don't just blame the rulers. Yes, rulers may be the one to actually click the "Declare war!" button, but they have to answer to the nobles in their realms. If the nobles don't go along with it, then the realm will crumble and fail. Then the net result of the swapped alliance will be that the ruler loses his position, and the realm goes right on doing what it did before. Or the realm completely fails, and disintegrates, getting gobble up by everything around it. Take, for example, the recent situation on EC with Eponllyn being surrounded by the Southern Alliance realms. When the ice hit, Eponllyn was offered an opportunity to join the SA and carve a new realm out of Sirion. As ruler of Eponllyn I could have said "Sure, let's go for it!". But if I had, then probably at least 80% of my realm would have either rebelled or walked away.  Assuming I kept my throne, I would have an ineffectual realm of about 5 or 6 nobles left, and three of those would have been newbies who had just joined.

You have to take actions which make sense for your character, and which the other characters in your realm will go along with. Face-Heel turns with no warning/justification are no fun for anyone.

Firstly, rulers are the one 'guiding' their people. It's how and what you tell them that actually in a way help them make a decision. Epollyn made a better decision by helping Sirion instead of joining the rest of the pack and destroy Sirion. By joining them, you are only making the war that little bit more fair. What's the use of a ruler that do not lead? I made a lot of decisions that non of my people liked, but eventually accepted and in the end, they actually think i made the right decision. I am not quite sure what was the diplomatic situation in Far East as i just joined recently, but i somehow would like to assume that it is just an assumption you made that people will leave when you make a certain decision. I am sure a lot of the nobles want something interesting to happen.

A lot of the things don't have to make sense. Tell me if any of these migrations are making any sense, please? Reasons and excuses can be made out of thin air. That is what a ruler should do. In Beluaterra, I, in away created a rumour for the destruction of Sint. I then used a very vague excuse to fight Fronen. There are lots of reason or excuse that can be created. And i am sure there are surely that little bit grudges between Morek and Astrum. That can be used. I am not blaming just the ruler of course. I blame those with powers. Everyone including the dukes and duchess. But ruler is there for a reason. They are there to make things fun for people. A person that push away responsibilities to make that happen should not be a ruler because then, no amount of regions destroyed by glacier or infestation will help. Being afraid of losing is also something a ruler should not have. Go and carve new opportunities and challenges is the way to play it, not stick with an old character and reluctant to move away.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 25, 2014, 09:33:00 PM
When Asylon first took lands in the east, Swordfell had just about half of their regions (and about 3/4 of the nobles). Despite the Alliance with Morek, Swordfell has offered amnesty to the migrants and has sat on the sidelines because it has always had a tenuous grip on its lands because of rogues (even before the event spawns). Plus, have you ever tried to get a bunch of nobles to betray their large mother realm? Not even I could stir that pot enough.

Density might help change that, but I know the war package will. Swordfell has been PvsE for too long, and it needs to join the PvP game. The thing is, it was Niselur (Asylon's ally) who left Asylon high and dry.

The "cards" just didn't seem to land right here. I think there was a reasonable chance, but coordination broke down. Mixed with entrenched powers, it might have not been capable even if more of the cards had landed right.

Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 25, 2014, 10:22:34 PM
Pretty sure this never happened - in fact, when it was brought up in Ruler it was mysteriously swept under the rug and the war declaration was still never recinded

The fear was real enough in the end for the fact that whether it actually happened or not didn't matter.

Rogues were real, though, as was starvation. The realm was in shambles when Machiavel went there.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: D`Este on April 26, 2014, 12:22:11 PM
So because you fear a war, you start one?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 26, 2014, 05:11:44 PM
I thought a bunch of Niselurians just joined Swordfell?  The only attacks on Swordfell lately have been from Wildcard Wassiley.
Only one Niselurian joined Swordfell recently. The rest took their swords and left.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on April 26, 2014, 05:26:51 PM
There must be something in the water on East Continent because they've gained about 20 characters while every other continent has lost characters.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: trying on April 26, 2014, 05:40:05 PM
Maybe it's because we have a war here.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 26, 2014, 11:23:12 PM
So because you fear a war, you start one?

Swordfell feared war, and thus did not, to my knowledge, start any itself.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 27, 2014, 01:03:48 AM
Swordfell feared war, and thus did not, to my knowledge, start any itself.

There's more to the story, which I'll probably tell later. Wheels are still vaguely turning, even though most plans have went FUBAR.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: jaune on April 28, 2014, 07:43:04 AM
Atamara is about to lose serious amount of characters. Not sure if that effects game char account, but Atamara is messed up.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Jens Namtrah on April 28, 2014, 09:25:06 AM
Atamara is about to lose serious amount of characters. Not sure if that effects game char account, but Atamara is messed up.

Can you blame them, the way it has turned  back into "Peace Alliance Parking Lot"? Down to one small war in the south, which will no doubt get gang-banged soon.

For a role playing game, there's an incredible lack of imagination among a great many people. Seems like many simply want the war islands, and nothing more. Perhaps the devs should take note when thinking about ways to save player retention.

Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Eduardo Almighty on April 28, 2014, 02:33:53 PM
Asylon is just trying to solve its own problems for a while. Of course we'll lose characters. Maybe players too. And here we have a clear difference between a player and those who stop at the first adversity -- or thousandth.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: trying on April 28, 2014, 04:02:48 PM
Huh Talerium finally got off its a** and did something?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: sharkattack on April 28, 2014, 07:13:37 PM
Asylon is just trying to solve its own problems for a while. Of course we'll lose characters. Maybe players too. And here we have a clear difference between a player and those who stop at the first adversity -- or thousandth.

But its like we are trying to set foothold in the East and with situation as it is, it is next to impossible without income and a place to replenish our armies to succeed. I think thats why there is a lot of chatter about giving up as we are just delaying the inevitable. We were gimped from the start and there is nothing that can help us. Fighting in a forced situation where there is absolutely no chance of succeeding and having to go through it anyway is very frustrating.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Eduardo Almighty on April 28, 2014, 07:28:24 PM
We can move to Luria... or just join Swordfell and implode the realm. lol.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfang on April 28, 2014, 07:42:09 PM
Well both Asylon and Barca at least managed to grab a toehold in the east, which is an achievement I feel  :P I hope both realms survive, I'm sure more realms in the Morek or Lurian region would spice things up and make the east more interesting.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: sharkattack on April 28, 2014, 08:06:24 PM
Well both Asylon and Barca at least managed to grab a toehold in the east, which is an achievement I feel  :P I hope both realms survive, I'm sure more realms in the Morek or Lurian region would spice things up and make the east more interesting.

Barca might be able to survive in the East. But Asylon wont be able to maintain themselves near Swordfell anymore . They either have to join Swordfell or move to Luria. It is impossible to survive there with Morek and Astrum constant raiding while you have no income and no way of replenishing troops.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Qyasogk on April 28, 2014, 09:12:46 PM
The hatred between Asylon and Astrum runs deep.

That every time we find a traitor or madman within our ranks, they turn around and find a comfy home in Asylon doesn't help matters either.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Qyasogk on April 28, 2014, 09:17:10 PM
No worries. Once I become a ruler again, it will definitely happen  8) since I don't give a crap about losing.

Which is why no one in their right mind should ever let you become a ruler.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on April 28, 2014, 10:01:24 PM
Which is why no one in their right mind should ever let you become a ruler.

What are you talking about? More reason to vote for me since you will always have war.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Glaumring the Fox on April 29, 2014, 12:43:40 AM
That every time we find a traitor or madman within our ranks, they turn around and find a comfy home in Asylon doesn't help matters either.

It goes both ways...  :P
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 29, 2014, 01:55:17 AM
Well both Asylon and Barca at least managed to grab a toehold in the east, which is an achievement I feel  :P I hope both realms survive, I'm sure more realms in the Morek or Lurian region would spice things up and make the east more interesting.

This is what I'm most afraid of. If things go back to Morek and Luria sitting on 90% of the east island with a peace-lock on each other, we'll see more players drop. Duke's might secede if everything gets boring, I suppose, but long-standing dukes are more patient with peace and week long marches than most characters.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Graeth on April 29, 2014, 01:58:04 AM
Players formerly of Asylon will not allow perpetual peace, wherever they land.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 29, 2014, 02:35:41 AM
This is what I'm most afraid of. If things go back to Morek and Luria sitting on 90% of the east island with a peace-lock on each other, we'll see more players drop. Duke's might secede if everything gets boring, I suppose, but long-standing dukes are more patient with peace and week long marches than most characters.

How are they on a peace-lock...? They've been at war, and have not been on friendly terms in a while.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Dishman on April 29, 2014, 02:49:48 AM
How are they on a peace-lock...? They've been at war, and have not been on friendly terms in a while.

I haven't been around for too long, but the entire time I have, Morek and Luria have been pacifying to each other. I joined late 2012, and the only thing I've seen was a quick loot of Dongwei and a quick peace.

The main problem is, they can't march on each other. You can't war with capitals on either end of the island. How long would it take to even march from one capital to the first region of the other realm?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on April 29, 2014, 03:13:27 AM
Especially with a honking great mountain range in the way.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: OFaolain on April 29, 2014, 03:42:34 AM
The Divides can be bypassed in the east without hitting desert, and the eastern sea can be sailed.  It's still a long trip, but Donghaiwei -- Poryatown shouldn't take more than a few days, I think.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Jens Namtrah on April 29, 2014, 04:35:12 AM
I haven't been around for too long, but the entire time I have, Morek and Luria have been pacifying to each other. I joined late 2012, and the only thing I've seen was a quick loot of Dongwei and a quick peace.

The main problem is, they can't march on each other. You can't war with capitals on either end of the island. How long would it take to even march from one capital to the first region of the other realm?

So just declare war and let nobles run a guerrilla war on each other, at their own leisure.  No threat to the Kings, so no need to ban it. In any case, seems like Luria has its hands full at the moment, from what I hear (and hope)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on April 29, 2014, 01:33:35 PM
Both have been busy with their own wars for quite a while.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Eduardo Almighty on April 29, 2014, 08:08:13 PM
Ok, I don't know if this is the right place for my complaint. Specifically in Dwilight and only in Dwilight. My character was Duke of Itau. His family is fairly rich (8k gold). He had the option to buy a region. Great! I can understand why I cannot buy an enemy region with a Lord. But why I can't buy a Rogue Region? Not a city... By the gods, nor a townsland. But why not a rural region to call mine!? Henrich feel the most miserable of his kind...  :P
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfang on April 29, 2014, 08:19:58 PM
You can send that gold to me and I will buy it for you.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Eduardo Almighty on April 29, 2014, 08:43:16 PM
I prefer to buy it by myself, don't worry  8)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on April 29, 2014, 10:22:24 PM
Ok, I don't know if this is the right place for my complaint. Specifically in Dwilight and only in Dwilight. My character was Duke of Itau. His family is fairly rich (8k gold). He had the option to buy a region. Great! I can understand why I cannot buy an enemy region with a Lord. But why I can't buy a Rogue Region? Not a city... By the gods, nor a townsland. But why not a rural region to call mine!? Henrich feel the most miserable of his kind...  :P
Likely because there is no government in place. Happens with a priest too. (Can't claim rogue regions)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Graeth on April 29, 2014, 10:24:49 PM
Likely because there is no government in place. Happens with a priest too. (Can't claim rogue regions)

Was that changed?  I remember my priest claiming Echiur from rogue after preaching there for several weeks.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfsong on April 30, 2014, 04:30:17 AM
Was that changed?  I remember my priest claiming Echiur from rogue after preaching there for several weeks.

Yup. Devs seriously nerfed the priest class a few RL years ago.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Antonine on May 04, 2014, 06:50:38 PM
Yup. Devs seriously nerfed the priest class a few RL years ago.

This is something which really annoys me - the priest class is boring enough as it is and is hardly used actively in war anyway so nerfing one of their few useful powers is a pain.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on May 05, 2014, 06:52:32 AM
Moderator Note: Further discussion of the East Continent Issue should be discussed here (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,5699.msg128766.html#new)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on May 05, 2014, 06:23:07 PM
Nothing to see here ... move along...   :-[
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: vonGenf on May 05, 2014, 06:59:05 PM
Mrh? Nerfing one of their useful powers? Priests were never intended to be traders. They couldn't be traders until trader was implemented as a subclass. Even then, they were never intended to be traders. In fact, I think it was only available as a bug, for a very short period of time, and only a very few priests were ever able to take advantage of it.

Having said that, priests can still trade. Appoint one as a region lord or steward. The only thing they won't be able to do is broker deals. But given the fact that as a lord/steward they can buy and then sell, they actually come out ahead of a trader who is not a lord/steward.

This assertion that priests not being able to be traders is some kind of major nerf is complete crap.

This has nothing to do with priest/traders - the word trader is not mentioned in this thread, are you confused with a different one?

This is about RTOs not being available in rogue regions.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on May 05, 2014, 11:12:26 PM
This has nothing to do with priest/traders - the word trader is not mentioned in this thread, are you confused with a different one?

D'oh!  :-[  I apparently got my threads mixed up.

Sorry 'bout that, Antonine.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on May 10, 2014, 07:21:11 PM
I'll write down some info here to be able to refer to it in 6 to 12 months:

DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293


While some inactive accounts have been lost, the level of activity has stayed level over the past 6 weeks.


Update:


DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
2014 April 1st814549281
April 10th797541293
2014 May 1st799533305
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Tandaros on May 12, 2014, 05:27:54 AM
This thread is now literally 20 pages long... wow.

If we took all the effort to write this an instead lent it to writing in-game letters and roleplays, maybe losing players wouldn't be that much of a problem. Granted I only have a character on one continent impacted by the catastrophes (Dwilight), but he nonetheless lost his city and duchy. But as a player, I loved watching the chaos of the Occidental D'Harans migrating, the Asylonian and Barcan exoduses, and the whimper of Niselur's demise. God it can be fun to watch something fall apart, right?

When there is a fall, there is a great potential for new things. Don't get hung up on what was lost OOCly - though I can totally understand it from an IC perspective! I just hate to see a lot of good players wasting their writing skills on Forummaster and not pressing for their characters' interests in Battlemaster itself.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Jens Namtrah on May 12, 2014, 11:30:12 AM
This thread is now literally 20 pages long... wow.

If we took all the effort to write this an instead lent it to writing in-game letters and roleplays, maybe losing players wouldn't be that much of a problem. Granted I only have a character on one continent impacted by the catastrophes (Dwilight), but he nonetheless lost his city and duchy. But as a player, I loved watching the chaos of the Occidental D'Harans migrating, the Asylonian and Barcan exoduses, and the whimper of Niselur's demise. God it can be fun to watch something fall apart, right?

When there is a fall, there is a great potential for new things. Don't get hung up on what was lost OOCly - though I can totally understand it from an IC perspective! I just hate to see a lot of good players wasting their writing skills on Forummaster and not pressing for their characters' interests in Battlemaster itself.

This.

I think the Ice is - or at least is potentially - the best thing to happen to the game.

Too many people settled into long-term roles. Too many people settled into long-term plans, with the need to then control everything and everyone around them to make sure their investment pays out. Too many ruts in the game.

You are not here to plan out the rest of your characters' lives and then try to maximize your plan. You are here to role play. Learn how to deal with things that come to you.

I think the devs ought to start making random catastrophes, famines, monster invasions, floods, volcano eruptions, etc & so on, a regular part of the game until players take that to heart.

I think the players are all leaving because the game is too static, and the players all sink into lethargy and stop caring enough to keep logging in.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: jaune on May 12, 2014, 11:38:19 AM
Many old "skool" players are those who think this sucks most. They are players who played mostly strategic part of the game. Battlemaster used to Strategic game with RP flavours, slowly it has turned other way around. Roleplaying game with strategic flavours. I dont say its bad thing, but unexpected "outside the rules" coming event doesnt fit well for those who are focusing strategic parts of game.

Everybody doesnt enjoy roleplaying, they enjoy fighting other realms, planning assaults, planning to fend of those assaults etc.

People enjoy diffrent things, some would love that on chess game there is random effect which swipes part of your(or your opponent) soldiers and officers away, some would like to play the game with the rules which were set when the game starts.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Jens Namtrah on May 12, 2014, 12:18:16 PM
Many old "skool" players are those who think this sucks most. They are players who played mostly strategic part of the game. Battlemaster used to Strategic game with RP flavours, slowly it has turned other way around. Roleplaying game with strategic flavours. I dont say its bad thing, but unexpected "outside the rules" coming event doesnt fit well for those who are focusing strategic parts of game.

Everybody doesnt enjoy roleplaying, they enjoy fighting other realms, planning assaults, planning to fend of those assaults etc.

People enjoy diffrent things, some would love that on chess game there is random effect which swipes part of your(or your opponent) soldiers and officers away, some would like to play the game with the rules which were set when the game starts.

And yet, some of your greatest successes have been in the last few days. What did you lose exactly?

The biggest affect on your realm is when your largest duchy split and joined Talerium. They didn't have to do that - imagine if they had stayed.

Imagine if any of the affected nobles cared enough about Darka to go back? Have you asked yourself why only Sebastian has returned?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: jaune on May 12, 2014, 12:27:45 PM
:D

Greatest successes were many years ago :) Greatest success during this war were that we were able to stay pretty much untouched for 2 years against several realms. These few battles we won were just few battle victories.

As for why Darkans have not returned to Darka after Azzal moved to Talerium, i think they know their future is there, while Darka future is pretty much written already, date just have not yet printed up.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Poliorketes on May 12, 2014, 12:39:27 PM
Honestly, this game have many good things, but it have many bad things too!

The game is a war-game, but for most noblemen this only mean to wait days for an order to follow as a zombie... in a few weeks it can become boring... And it have a role-play part too, but the characters are too limited to exploit it, and the conflict between players is very rare, and when arise, is usually too easy to solve.

All this problems and many others, will not be solved with a bit of ice.

Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Jens Namtrah on May 12, 2014, 12:51:52 PM

As for why Darkans have not returned to Darka after Azzal moved to Talerium, i think they know their future is there, while Darka future is pretty much written already, date just have not yet printed up.

no mate, sorry - that's wishful thinking. They could come join Talerium any time; they could fight for you for months and then come.

When Azzal joined Talerium, 3 things happened:

1) The Marshal  of your main army gushed about how happy he was to be in Talerium now

2) The "Duchess" of Azzal then explained it was part of a secret plan to appease Cagilan

3) A giant yawn

When Miskel rode north to fight the monsters so you could concentrate on Cagilan, who came with him? Remember? The Prime Minister of Talerium and the Judge of Talerium. Not a single former Darkan. Even though Miskel told the realm they were marching to free Darka from the monsters so they could fight. Not a single former Darkan cared.

Miskel is planning another similar trip now. No one wants to be bothered. You hammered all the independent thought out of them.

Sorry for this to be your "Ceausescu Moment", but your Darkans didn't stick around out of love or loyalty. They just didn't give a !@#$ enough to leave.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: jaune on May 12, 2014, 12:57:50 PM
Quote
Sorry for this to be your "Ceausescu Moment", but your Darkans didn't stick around out of love or loyalty. They just didn't give a !@#$ enough to leave.

:D Mayby so.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Jens Namtrah on May 12, 2014, 12:59:33 PM
:D Mayby so.

That's why I've always like you ;-)

And why Miskel does what he can to stand by Darka, even though he couldn't stay
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Qyasogk on May 12, 2014, 08:59:04 PM
Many old "skool" players are those who think this sucks most. They are players who played mostly strategic part of the game. Battlemaster used to Strategic game with RP flavours, slowly it has turned other way around. Roleplaying game with strategic flavours. I dont say its bad thing, but unexpected "outside the rules" coming event doesnt fit well for those who are focusing strategic parts of game.

There is no perfect strategy that survives unmolested by the unexpected unplanned gremlins in the gears. It is a true test of your ability to still achieve your objectives in a highly unstable hostile environment. Which is what a truly strategic game must attempt to simulate.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on May 12, 2014, 09:02:12 PM
Many old "skool" players are those who think this sucks most. They are players who played mostly strategic part of the game. Battlemaster used to Strategic game with RP flavours, slowly it has turned other way around. Roleplaying game with strategic flavours. I dont say its bad thing, but unexpected "outside the rules" coming event doesnt fit well for those who are focusing strategic parts of game.

Everybody doesnt enjoy roleplaying, they enjoy fighting other realms, planning assaults, planning to fend of those assaults etc.

People enjoy diffrent things, some would love that on chess game there is random effect which swipes part of your(or your opponent) soldiers and officers away, some would like to play the game with the rules which were set when the game starts.


Jaune, BM started as a role playing game and evolved from there, not the other way around. Just because some people haven't been role playing for however many years they have been here, doesn't mean it all of a sudden was a strategy game first.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on May 12, 2014, 09:06:02 PM


Jaune, BM started as a role playing game and evolved from there, not the other way around. Just because some people haven't been role playing for however many years they have been here, doesn't mean it all of a sudden was a strategy game first.

This. I believe BM originally started as a side project of SM which was purely RP based.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on May 12, 2014, 09:17:03 PM


Jaune, BM started as a role playing game and evolved from there, not the other way around. Just because some people haven't been role playing for however many years they have been here, doesn't mean it all of a sudden was a strategy game first.

You realize that Jaune is one of the early, early players, and would probably know what the early game was like...

If Lapallanch is right that it started as a side project of SM, with that he proves jaune's point. SM was to be where most if not all the roleplay took place, with BM providing a background of the world using a more strategic setting.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: jaune on May 12, 2014, 09:42:30 PM
There was not much roleplaying atleast early Atamara. Things were a lot in character, but it was a lot player talk too. We discussed a lot game mechanics and strategies and number crunching in game too. Mostly that discussion were at IRC, but also important parts were discussed in game too. But gotta admit, i dont know much outside Darka/CE/Tara/Eston early Atamara.

Those realms were lead by ex Utopia players, more or less hard core strategists and net addicts, which prolly explains that they dominated Atamara. And game evolved all the time to limit advantages of being online all the time. Many HC players worked hard to find advantages from battlereports, behaviour of battle code...

Slowly RP thins started to become more, silly nicks were forbidden and later even enforced to those old farts to change their names to more proper. I bet majority of Atamara players at early stage were strategy players, atleast leaders. They were lightly roleplaying their characters. Later when realms started to have some cultures, news papers, religions it turne more and more to roleplaying game... and all kind of restrictions appeared. Capital change, you needed to border regions to take them over, you were not able to ban people for lagging (Early Darka Elders bansihed 1 player every week by shout voting, just to keep people following orders, remember those times there was influx of players).

Mayby this started as RP, but quite early it was brutal strategy game atleast for a while :) And some point it had good balance, these days... strategy things have been made a bit too hard. Game has too much restrictions as mechanic wise.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on May 12, 2014, 10:06:40 PM
You realize that Jaune is one of the early, early players, and would probably know what the early game was like...

If Lapallanch is right that it started as a side project of SM, with that he proves jaune's point. SM was to be where most if not all the roleplay took place, with BM providing a background of the world using a more strategic setting.

Do you even know what SM is ???
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on May 12, 2014, 10:46:00 PM
Spellmaster, yes, I do know.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Blue Star on May 13, 2014, 02:22:28 AM
There was not much roleplaying atleast early Atamara. Things were a lot in character, but it was a lot player talk too. We discussed a lot game mechanics and strategies and number crunching in game too. Mostly that discussion were at IRC, but also important parts were discussed in game too. But gotta admit, i dont know much outside Darka/CE/Tara/Eston early Atamara.

Those realms were lead by ex Utopia players, more or less hard core strategists and net addicts, which prolly explains that they dominated Atamara. And game evolved all the time to limit advantages of being online all the time. Many HC players worked hard to find advantages from battlereports, behaviour of battle code...

Slowly RP thins started to become more, silly nicks were forbidden and later even enforced to those old farts to change their names to more proper. I bet majority of Atamara players at early stage were strategy players, atleast leaders. They were lightly roleplaying their characters. Later when realms started to have some cultures, news papers, religions it turne more and more to roleplaying game... and all kind of restrictions appeared. Capital change, you needed to border regions to take them over, you were not able to ban people for lagging (Early Darka Elders bansihed 1 player every week by shout voting, just to keep people following orders, remember those times there was influx of players).

Mayby this started as RP, but quite early it was brutal strategy game atleast for a while :) And some point it had good balance, these days... strategy things have been made a bit too hard. Game has too much restrictions as mechanic wise.

Agreed it was mainly strategy game when it was first under way rarely I can't remember rping often, save unless we were rping we were drinking. SM was RP happy wizards/mages running around with Fireballs (Fizban)!

I think RPing happened more as we saw it more often or when the wiki started getting used more I think around 04-05 wiki got made and that's when I recall actually seeing more RPs. Before that we all mainly had description of our chars in our profile pages.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on May 15, 2014, 11:25:01 PM
The roleplaying evolved over the years, but that doesn't mean there was no roleplaying back in the early years. It was just more lightweight, less serious, more humoristic or ridicule. It was stuff like giant wooden badgers and vikings in tutus riding humans instead of horses. It was light years away from the "Serious Medieval Atmosphere" kind of RP, especially as it was when Dwilight first opened. But that doesn't mean there wasn't RP. Nor does the additional hardcore strategy philosophy that was present undermine this.

To be fair, there was a lot more players, too. Maybe not when the game first opened, but it increased in membership relatively quickly. When realms easily had over a hundred nobles, it was easy to have some people be pure strategists while a bunch of lower-ranking nobles could easily write up a lot of roleplays. I certainly saw a lot more narrative roleplays back when I joined up than I do now. It was somewhat more distinct back then, people would act as per strategy and write as per roleplay, whereas now it is somewhat more combined, but it was there nonetheless.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Blue Star on May 16, 2014, 05:41:53 AM
People Rped yes, but it was not the same as now, plus we had some good rps but I just remember a few the extent back then was similar to now I assume if we went by percentages. mmm old Darka and Ibladesh I can remember Rps... Fontan eh arguing Greeks and black hand spys, back then I can even remember Tara nobles speaking often.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Wolfsong on May 18, 2014, 09:24:49 AM
Orcs and elves and back-flipping over trees in platemail with chainswords.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on June 16, 2014, 01:00:49 PM
The roleplaying evolved over the years, but that doesn't mean there was no roleplaying back in the early years. It was just more lightweight, less serious, more humoristic or ridicule. It was stuff like giant wooden badgers and vikings in tutus riding humans instead of horses. It was light years away from the "Serious Medieval Atmosphere" kind of RP, especially as it was when Dwilight first opened. But that doesn't mean there wasn't RP. Nor does the additional hardcore strategy philosophy that was present undermine this.

To be fair, there was a lot more players, too. Maybe not when the game first opened, but it increased in membership relatively quickly. When realms easily had over a hundred nobles, it was easy to have some people be pure strategists while a bunch of lower-ranking nobles could easily write up a lot of roleplays. I certainly saw a lot more narrative roleplays back when I joined up than I do now. It was somewhat more distinct back then, people would act as per strategy and write as per roleplay, whereas now it is somewhat more combined, but it was there nonetheless.

Was a lot easier to RP before characters became nobility and the SMA straightjacket leaking out.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on June 16, 2014, 02:07:17 PM
Was a lot easier to RP before characters became nobility and the SMA straightjacket leaking out.

Characters "became" nobility?

Sorry to burst your bubble, Kai, but our characters were nobility since the game first launched. And I've seen plenty of RP on Dwilight (and thus under explicit SMA) and on every other continent I've been on since Dwilight opened (where I presume you mean it's "leaking out").
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on June 16, 2014, 04:35:45 PM
I hope you're just pretending that you didn't know I was talking about TLs.

You can't see what RP would have happened without the formalism of the power structure. You've just selected for the die hard nerds who like to be called Sir.

This RP couldn't happen today because there would be incessant complaints about how nobles shouldn't be at a bar drunk etc. http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Ikalak_Ball
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on June 16, 2014, 04:39:17 PM
I hope you're just pretending that you didn't know I was talking about TLs.

Despite the fact that characters were frequently referred to as "troopleaders" in years past, they were always nobles.

We get it, Kai. You think BattleMaster should have stopped in 2004 and never changed an iota.

But it did, and it will continue to, and you just need to accept that.

I don't think I've ever seen a positive comment out of you. Even with the War Island coming back, all I've seen out of you regarding it are complaints that it's not 100% exactly the way you remember it from before.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on June 16, 2014, 04:52:39 PM
It balances out the mass of yes-men.

The d-list was way better also.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on June 16, 2014, 04:54:10 PM
It balances out the mass of yes-men.

No, it just makes you come across as a toxic jerk.

Quote
The d-list was way better also.

Tom probably agrees with you, but I don't. The forum is much more accessible, and much easier for most people to understand and deal with.

Plus, it's easy to just ignore certain subforums, threads, or posters.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on June 16, 2014, 05:00:50 PM
If there are changes causing some portion of the playerbase to leave, the stragglers in leaving will seem toxic.

Being able to ignore things is the problem of the forum.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on June 16, 2014, 05:07:44 PM
If there are changes causing some portion of the playerbase to leave, the stragglers in leaving will seem toxic.

You're not a straggler in leaving. You haven't left.

If you're saying the people who don't leave will seem toxic, that is obviously not borne out by the evidence, either, as there are plenty of long-time players who are not toxic.

If you're saying the people who want to leave will seem toxic...well, then, if you want to leave, why don't you? The game is not going back to the way it was, and you obviously don't find it fun. So if you're not having fun, and you're making it so we don't have fun by your presence, why do you stay??

Quote
Being able to ignore things is the problem of the forum.

I'm afraid that doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: vonGenf on June 16, 2014, 05:39:32 PM
Back to topic:

DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293
2014 May 1st799533305
2014 June 16th (WI created)784491277
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on June 16, 2014, 06:19:06 PM
This RP couldn't happen today because there would be incessant complaints about how nobles shouldn't be at a bar drunk etc. http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Ikalak_Ball
There was a long RP series on AT at the recent tournament in Riverholm. Happened in a tavern/inn/whatever. I don't remember anyone complaining. In fact, I can't remember ever hearing anyone complain about that kind of stuff IG. There was some debate about it on the forum (or maybe even on the old DList...), but nothing ever really came of it. People just use the terminology they are familiar with.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: vonGenf on July 04, 2014, 11:01:19 PM
There was a precipitous drop in the last 3 weeks, probably due in part to summer starting.

DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293
2014 May 1st799533305
2014 June 16th (WI created)784491277
2014 July 3rd757460248
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Foxglove on July 05, 2014, 01:38:16 AM
Yeah, there's been a steady decline throughout the last six months, followed by a stark drop in the past few weeks. In fairness, it's still far too early to make a final judgement on the success or failure of the glacier experiment, but the signs aren't looking good as we approach the 6 month mark since the start of the freezing. The benchmarks for assessment were set at 6 to 12 months during the event, so we'll have to see how things are once we hit the first mark and then as we progress into the autumn and winter when the game has traditionally gained players (although I can't say I saw many new players appearing last autumn and winter).

Even trying to look at it objectively with the best will in the world at this stage, it appears that the glacier has done more harm than good.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on July 05, 2014, 03:01:54 AM
If you ask me, the glacier didn't really do much harm. We were losing 15~20 players per month and from looking at the numbers, it seems to have done neither harm nor good.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Foxglove on July 05, 2014, 03:32:05 AM
In terms of their playing enjoyment, the players in the most badly effected realms might think differently on the harm.

But it's an interesting idea that the glacier may not have accelerated the ongoing decline beyond the normal numbers. Mind you, if it doesn't even reduce the decline, it won't have been worth the hassle.

That big drop between January and March is interesting. I wonder whether that could have been sparked by anything in particular?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Indirik on July 05, 2014, 05:42:24 AM
Could correspond to the large multi strong that got locked.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: trying on July 05, 2014, 06:59:38 AM
And the whole Atanamir affair.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on July 05, 2014, 07:01:08 AM
And the whole Atanamir affair.
I am sure thats the biggest part of the recent drop but they were talking about from January to March.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: trying on July 05, 2014, 07:04:44 AM
Well I wouldn't say the Atanamir affair impacted only the numbers of the past month.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Penchant on July 05, 2014, 07:37:07 AM
Well I wouldn't say the Atanamir affair impacted only the numbers of the past month.
I am referencing people quitting the game in protest of the Titan decision. From April to May there was in fact a slight increase and I doubt he had any major effect from March to April, that was likely mostly due to protests over the Freeze.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: vonGenf on August 16, 2014, 09:06:59 PM
DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293
2014 May 1st799533305
2014 June 16th (WI created)784491277
2014 July 3rd757460248
2014 August 13th736445250
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on August 16, 2014, 09:12:21 PM
Sharp drop between June to July is probably the Atanamir incident.

Other than that we are just losing players at the same rate as before the glacier.

To be honest, I'd only look at players weekly activity and daily activity.

Many registered players are paused and most of them will probably lose their accounts at some point as they will forget to log in once every three months.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Anaris on August 16, 2014, 09:13:23 PM
We also typically have a noticeable dropoff in the summer. I think the really important figures will be September and October.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on August 16, 2014, 09:54:36 PM
We also typically have a noticeable dropoff in the summer. I think the really important figures will be September and October.

True. I know some people who are planning to come back once their schools start. I think our activity level peaks around October then drops a bit over the winter period then comes back a bit around February or March.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: vonGenf on October 21, 2014, 07:43:02 PM
DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293
2014 May 1st799533305
2014 June 16th (WI created)784491277
2014 July 3rd757460248
2014 August 13th736445250
2014 October 21st683402224
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on October 22, 2014, 01:40:39 AM
July 2007: over 1700 players.

The player base was still growing back then.

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/User:Ch%C3%A9nier/French_Wiki
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on January 08, 2015, 05:20:49 AM
(http://wiki.battlemaster.org/images/thumb/Registered_players_2014.png/800px-Registered_players_2014.png)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on January 08, 2015, 05:21:39 AM
(http://wiki.battlemaster.org/images/thumb/Weekly_Activity_per_registered_player_2014.png/800px-Weekly_Activity_per_registered_player_2014.png)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on January 08, 2015, 05:22:39 AM
(http://wiki.battlemaster.org/images/thumb/Weekly_Activity_2014.png/800px-Weekly_Activity_2014.png)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on January 08, 2015, 05:26:34 AM
(http://wiki.battlemaster.org/images/thumb/Nobles_to_regions_on_Dwilight_2014.png/800px-Nobles_to_regions_on_Dwilight_2014.png)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on January 08, 2015, 05:39:28 AM
(http://wiki.battlemaster.org/images/thumb/Characters_on_Dwilight_2014.PNG/800px-Characters_on_Dwilight_2014.PNG)
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on January 08, 2015, 05:49:09 AM
(http://wiki.battlemaster.org/images/thumb/Weekly_Activity_per_registered_player_2014.png/800px-Weekly_Activity_per_registered_player_2014.png)

This seems more like a sinuous function than an exponential one to me. Having more data would likely show a seasonal trend. Interestingly, it starts and finishes with the same value.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Buffalkill on January 08, 2015, 06:14:56 AM
This seems more like a sinuous function than an exponential one to me. Having more data would likely show a seasonal trend. Interestingly, it starts and finishes with the same value.
Yes this one is the most interesting to me. It's per capita, so it's not effected by changes in the number of registered players. I think you're right that it shows seasonal trends, such as increased activity in cold months (if you live in the northern hemisphere) and vice versa. It also shows that the diehards haven't been discouraged by the year long exodus.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Zakilevo on January 08, 2015, 06:44:42 AM
Looks like we are reaching a point where we are left with the most active or those who have been playing this game for years.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on January 08, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
There is obviously going to be periodic behaviour on all our regular timescales: time of day, week, year (not so much month). However the long term trend is decline which doesn't seem to be slowing or reversing.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on January 08, 2015, 12:46:17 PM
What I think would be pretty interesting would be comparing the results of the continents that got glaciers and monsters to the continents that did not, to see what impact it had on retention.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: GundamMerc on January 08, 2015, 07:27:18 PM
What I think would be pretty interesting would be comparing the results of the continents that got glaciers and monsters to the continents that did not, to see what impact it had on retention.

I would agree with this, but unfortunately that would be skewed by the fact that the continents that did not have special rules to them that would possibly affect the results. Beluaterra is an immigration only continent. You have to move a character from somewhere else to there. The other continent that wasn't affected, the Colonies, has only one turn per day, so the activity would significantly be affected by that.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on January 08, 2015, 08:24:25 PM
I would agree with this, but unfortunately that would be skewed by the fact that the continents that did not have special rules to them that would possibly affect the results. Beluaterra is an immigration only continent. You have to move a character from somewhere else to there. The other continent that wasn't affected, the Colonies, has only one turn per day, so the activity would significantly be affected by that.

Noble count and density are the only metrics I'd really like measured in this regard.

"Did reducing the size of some of the continents allow them to retain greater density than the continents that were not reduced" is the hypothesis to test. It doesn't matter if it's apples and oranges between the continents, what's important is not the raw value, but that variation ratio.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on January 09, 2015, 02:02:02 AM
Density doesn't matter with the current estate system. Lords who have an empty estate just lose money so that number of free estate slots in a realm is always tiny and many players per region just lead to people getting shafted in tiny estates.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: De-Legro on January 09, 2015, 02:17:41 AM
Density doesn't matter with the current estate system. Lords who have an empty estate just lose money so that number of free estate slots in a realm is always tiny and many players per region just lead to people getting shafted in tiny estates.

What? Many realms struggle to fill the estates in their cities, let alone worry about estates in other regions.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on January 09, 2015, 02:24:13 AM
Do people really set a bunch of open estates and wait for them to 'fill'?
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: De-Legro on January 09, 2015, 02:31:33 AM
Many do yes. It ensures that new characters/players have estates to select from the character creation page.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on January 09, 2015, 02:44:26 AM
Density doesn't matter with the current estate system. Lords who have an empty estate just lose money so that number of free estate slots in a realm is always tiny and many players per region just lead to people getting shafted in tiny estates.

Density allows for more realms, which in turn allows for lesser distance between said realms.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on January 09, 2015, 02:45:41 AM
I don't see why density would give more realms instead of larger ones.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on January 09, 2015, 02:48:17 AM
I don't see why density would give more realms instead of larger ones.

Because more people fighting over the same titles tends to lead to splits? And because having too few nobles tends to discourage splits, as each fraction would be nonviable on its own?

Density always seemed to lead to more realms in my experience...
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: De-Legro on January 09, 2015, 02:49:24 AM
I don't see why density would give more realms instead of larger ones.

It varies, but in general the theory is more characters = more points of view = more ambitious nobles fighting for fewer positions of power = more arguments = more realms.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on January 09, 2015, 09:29:18 AM
That might be true when you increase the number of players while holding number of regions constant, but what has been done in practice is decreasing number of regions while holding player numbers constant. I don't think the latter case can logically lead to more realms.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: De-Legro on January 09, 2015, 10:03:45 AM
That might be true when you increase the number of players while holding number of regions constant, but what has been done in practice is decreasing number of regions while holding player numbers constant. I don't think the latter case can logically lead to more realms.

It COULD, since again forcing density has the propensity to force internal conflict which leads to splits. But as with all things it makes assumptions, like characters being different enough to create the conflict, characters with the opportunity and power to do something actually being involved etc. However Chénier was making general statements about density, not necessarily stating that actions like the glacier to force higher density would result in more realms.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Chenier on January 09, 2015, 03:00:02 PM
That might be true when you increase the number of players while holding number of regions constant, but what has been done in practice is decreasing number of regions while holding player numbers constant. I don't think the latter case can logically lead to more realms.

It COULD, since again forcing density has the propensity to force internal conflict which leads to splits. But as with all things it makes assumptions, like characters being different enough to create the conflict, characters with the opportunity and power to do something actually being involved etc. However Chénier was making general statements about density, not necessarily stating that actions like the glacier to force higher density would result in more realms.

Indeed, it was more of a general statement. However, the thing with historics is that it all depends where you put the start of the data. Did increasing the density increase the number of realms on Dwilight? No, it did not. We even lost many, but let's just picture an earlier post-invasion time when the realms of the west were struggling for a foothold, because we also lost a lot of density since that. If you look at farther back, however, you'll see that the realm:density ratio of the post-invasion was the same as one found before.

I don't think I'm being very clear right now, though...

Let's look at it another way: realm numbers react more quickly to increases of density than to decreases. While logically, one could assume that if increasing density results in splits, decreases should result in mergers. But for one, realm mergers are against the rules. Then, one must consider that people grow attached to realms, and will stick to them for far longer than they are viable.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on January 10, 2015, 03:08:47 AM
I forgot what we were even arguing about.

I think inter-realm conflict is much more fun than intra-realm conflict
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: vonGenf on April 01, 2015, 04:27:23 PM
DateRegistered PlayersWeekly ActivityDaily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)880577304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)825539288
April 10th797541293
2014 May 1st799533305
2014 June 16th (WI created)784491277
2014 July 3rd757460248
2014 August 13th736445250
2014 October 21st683402224
2015 March 30th566370184
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Kai on April 06, 2015, 05:02:43 AM
RIP, better extract the players to a game that has a subscription while you still can.
Title: Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
Post by: Antonine on April 17, 2015, 01:13:25 AM
This kind of tallies with what I've found with the game. There seems to have been a massive decline lately and I have to confess that I myself wound up auto pausing because there was nothing interesting happening with any of my characters that made logging in worth while.

I've unpaused again but things seem really dead across the board.