BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: Lorgan on June 01, 2016, 07:22:01 PM
-
Age sucks. No offense to our older players.
So, what is it good for?
Turnover? No. Oldies remain in power for as long as they want/ are allowed to. They just don't fight battles anymore. Hooray for encouraging idleness and stagnation!
What is it bad for?
Constant game-interruptions if you dare to fight battles with a char you've grown attached to over the years.
Idleness and stagnation. Encourage characters to sit on their butts and do nothing at all. It fills your realm with old-timers who can barely still contribute in any meaningful game-mechanic way. Create a character, build relationships, achieve something, then kill the character out of frustration. That's the BM cycle.
There should be more emphasis on fun, and less on "realistic" features that are detrimental to fun. Because seriously, who here enjoys NOT being able to play the game for days on end, enjoy a few days of playing then be stupid enough to fight another battle and be out again for less than a week, if you're lucky.
Whatever the intention of age was, the result is that players get a choice: play the game fully for half the time and be blocked of it for the rest or just play half the game, avoid battles and try to suck it up and be content. Together with all the other oldies incapable of fully playing the game. We can only have one character per continent now, there's less players but a majority of characters that remain get less hours, are wounded more often and longer and simply cannot play the game that should be encouraging to play it, and play it hard. Like, actually wage war.
For those of you who say "kill the old bastard already", this is an RP game. People get attached to their characters and the way they RP them. People also play for years on end and get tired of having to come up with new characters all the time to keep playing and then forcibly play him as a new inexperienced noble. There's the GoT mentality that dictates that all characters need to die and die easy. And it makes for great stories, but it sure does not for the game experience in a game that's built on long-term enjoyment.
So, get rid of physical age. Or remove it's effects and replace it with actual age for the rp element.
There, I vented. Now I'll go back to the game and try to write a couple of letters before I get wounded again.
-
I think you RP Dunbor as a pussy and that's why you get wounded all the time.
No, I'm kidding. You just suck in swordfighting.
No, I'm kidding again. I really dislike getting less and less hours, too. Being wounded all the time.. hmm it's do-able, my chars aren't that old.
But I understand your frustration.
-
I understand the frustration. Still at the same time I am a fan of a far higher mortality rate, introduced even for non hero's, but increased for hero's. There should at least be some risk involved I think.
Removing age, or at least its detriments would free up more of the game also at least I think, so I might agree...
-
I disagree with the statement that this 'age' encourages people to have their old characters just sit in cities and do nothing.
I think that part of that frustration of old chars, is that you should get rid of them earlier to make room for new adventures.
But yeah, I dislike playing a new and young/inexperienced noble as well. Making a story for him again. But that's simply how it works.
-
My bf has a character he's been trying to kill off since Atamara sank. He's a hero... So battle is the way to go. All he gets is wounded.... Wounded... And more wounded. Seriously sometimes, but the plucky basted just won't die. Now some might say... RP it yourself. First... He hasn't achieved the achievement of the hero's death. Second, this character wouldn't just die.
So it's funny to see a character killed in a duel, but my boyfriend sends his into a region with 50-1 odds, and survives....
-
my only issue with "age" is that it starts to effect at age 35.
obviously the game is full of youngsters to whom that sounds old. professional athletes still play at that age; you shouldn't be penalizing how many hours you get so quickly.
45+ sounds better to me.
-
I completely agree with this sentiment.
The dev team has been talking for a few years now about doing away with physical age as a detrimental factor to your character's ability to do stuff. I honestly can't see a good enough reason to keep it around, so while it may take me a few days to clean up my code repository enough to safely send it live, I will be disabling all negative effects of age Soonâ„¢. (I will make an announcement when it happens.)
However, the fact remains that age was introduced to combat a very real problem: namely, that of people keeping around old, tired characters long past when they stopped actually doing anything useful.
Thus, I propose the following (still somewhat sketchy) system to replace it.
All characters will have a Health value, which will, broadly, improve by doing things, and decline from inactivity. It will operate on a threshold system, so that there will be a clear cutoff point below which you will start losing hours, and a plateau above that where the system will be smart enough (and generous enough) to warn you when you're likely to slip into Ill Health or whatever we end up calling it.
It will be a constantly shifting value, so that if you have a period of, say, six months when you can't log in as often (or just don't feel motivated to do so), you may end up getting 5 hours/turn for a while when you start being more active again, but once you are reasonably active again, it shouldn't take very long for you to return to full health.
It will act as something of a buffer, so if you're the type of person who has bursts of activity every few days, that should be plenty to ensure that you remain healthy.
It will, however, also be affected by torture and wounding—but since activity counteracts those effects, people who are already active should not find them to be too onerous, while people who are not will find them to significantly impact their play.
We will make every effort to ensure that people who log on and act regularly, even if it is less than once or twice a day, do not find themselves falling into Ill Health. It is intended specifically to penalize those who log on infrequently so as to maintain positions they do nothing useful with.
The components of "activity", for the purposes of Health, will include travel, a variety of actions, combat, and length and frequency of messages.
All of this is subject to change, and open to suggestions and criticism!
-
Here's a "critique":
- You already have about 5 years of necessary development ahead of you on other tickets, and this sound like it will take a long time & just be a distraction.
- It could probably be challenged because of inalienable rights (it punishes people who are less active as a normal way they play the game)
- It doesn't actually make any sense, RP-wise. Logging in more often means your character can travel to the next region faster?
- It is a convoluted, many part system that begs to be full of bugs & unintended consequences that will need constant patching.
No one likes getting old, but it is probably better for you & the game to refresh your characters from time to time.
-
Your critique is duly noted.
-
It is intended specifically to penalize those who log on infrequently so as to maintain positions they do nothing useful with.
If that's the point of it, then address it directly by making titles something the King can strip (and the Duke can strip Lords).
The whole "the Lord IS the Region " has always been a farce, especially in democracies.
Aging should be because you want an effect of aging, not to try to force some side effect. Old players who just squat don't care how many hours they have, since they only log in a couple times a week so they still accrue in time to do what they want, and their recovery time from injuries seems pretty random anyway from what I've seen.
-
KK is cheering if all this will come to effect :)
Been thinking to retire him and bring his son active... but i just cant give up all the gold i have :)
-Jaune
-
I honestly can't see a good enough reason to keep it around
What about (not so) new players being practically shut away from all higher kingdom positions because hundred year old kings and dukes just sit on their asses in their capitals forever?
Aging penalties at least could make gameplay unsatisfying enough for such players to shelf their ancient characters. Otherwise there will be just characters who win the game because they were created ten years ago and accumulated stupid amounts of gold, honour, influence, stats, etc. without any drawbacks.
-
Then they can rebel, stab or go to another Kingdom.
There isnt that much Old idle kings i think? Many Kings are Kings because realm members want them to be king, because they are good leaders, creating fun times...
Old idle Kings realms start to fade away... and dynamic Kingdoms will get more and more nobles.
-Jaune
-
Kings were less the problem than Dukes.
-
I recall my earlier statement. I am wounded, age sucks!
-
Your critique is duly noted.
Wouldn't it be an idea to allow rulers to tax their Dukes more or less individually. This way the ruler has some power against the Dukes and it would make the game more dynamic with more Duke powerplay and internal struggles sometimes as well.
-
We have some ideas about how to put pressure on Dukes, but we don't yet have anything clear enough to move on.
I think that would be worthwhile for a complete separate thread, so feel free to make one with suggestions as detailed as you like! ;D
-
What about (not so) new players being practically shut away from all higher kingdom positions because hundred year old kings and dukes just sit on their asses in their capitals forever?
Aging penalties at least could make gameplay unsatisfying enough for such players to shelf their ancient characters. Otherwise there will be just characters who win the game because they were created ten years ago and accumulated stupid amounts of gold, honour, influence, stats, etc. without any drawbacks.
The problem with that is twofold.
First, there's not a particularly high correlation between "characters with high physical age" and "characters we want to remove from their positions so someone else can take over." It's not, after all, like there's anything specific about a character who's been around a long time that makes them inherently less good for the game, or less worthy to hold a high position. It's characters who hold high positions purely for the sake of it that are really detrimental.
Second, age doesn't actually have a strong enough turnover effect. Sure, I've seen a half-dozen people grump that their character is getting old, and they have to delete them...but I've seen a lot more just keep the character out of battles, sitting around in their towers doing nothing. Indeed, I would posit that it is exactly the type of person we want to affect most that is most likely to start from the assumption, "My character gets to stay around," and work from there on how to make it happen.
That's why we've come up with the Health mechanic. It is essentially the inverse of Age, for while avoiding Age and its consequences means staying at home and doing nothing (thus making you much less likely to lose your position), avoiding Ill Health and its similar consequences means getting out in the field and doing stuff. This not only means that your characters are more likely to be interesting, it means that they're more likely to run into situations that cost them their high positions.
-
Kings were less the problem than Dukes.
Fair point.
It's not, after all, like there's anything specific about a character who's been around a long time that makes them inherently less good for the game, or less worthy to hold a high position. It's characters who hold high positions purely for the sake of it that are really detrimental.
I don't completely agree here.
It's not that super old characters are inherently bad, it's just that younger character need more chances to become movers and shakers. Otherwise an active geezer can keep his position indefinitely which is not very great even if he's a wonderful player.
On a slightly different note, I was under an impression that age penalties were there to balance out the character's inevitably accumulating power. Like usually characters who can recruit 250 archers are old enough to be really slow and do not participate in too many battles. But with no penalties realms with a handful of really old dudes will simply be able to mow down armies with several times more knights.
I mean, I agree it sucks to see realms fade away because many characters are too old to be active enough. But wouldn't it also suck to let them acumulate stats until they can single-handedly storm and take over regions? Maybe old characters should just.. well.. die of old age? I mean, 5+ RL years per character is a damn good run for any game.
-
Yes, but what IS "Ill Health"?
Is it like being wounded? Or just less hours?
If a character does nothing but log in once per week to maintain their titles, how does this make them change how they play?
-
Fair point.I don't completely agree here.
It's not that super old characters are inherently bad, it's just that younger character need more chances to become movers and shakers. Otherwise an active geezer can keep his position indefinitely which is not very great even if he's a wonderful player.
I'm not sure I agree with this. There are enough realms out there where you should be happy if you find one or 2 active geezers to begin with and properly fill your government.
On a slightly different note, I was under an impression that age penalties were there to balance out the character's inevitably accumulating power. Like usually characters who can recruit 250 archers are old enough to be really slow and do not participate in too many battles. But with no penalties realms with a handful of really old dudes will simply be able to mow down armies with several times more knights.
I mean, I agree it sucks to see realms fade away because many characters are too old to be active enough. But wouldn't it also suck to let them acumulate stats until they can single-handedly storm and take over regions? Maybe old characters should just.. well.. die of old age? I mean, 5+ RL years per character is a damn good run for any game.
This could be dealt with by adding the penalties on traveling with large units etc. Or even remove 1 or 2 hours per turn when your army is 80+ men and 150+ men respectively, which will be dedicated to more management tasks in respect to your men.
-
just make it so less-hour age tiers are at older ages, like 7 hours at 48 instead of 35 or 38, etc, and make the recovery time a little less onerous. still realistic while not as annoying.
remove the penalties for heroes, encouraging older chars to go that path. heroes are more than the aversge man after all.
make heroes easier to kill in battle.
voila, mortality incentivized rather than inactivity punished.
-
Just add mortality already. Make all characters 'heroes' in battle so they may be killed as any hero might, and allow a chance for any critical wound to result in death. Scale the risk so that younger characters have improved odds of surviving.
And for the dogged centenarians who just won't die either by chance or by design, allow simply dying of old age above a certain treshold. For instance, at age 100, start a counter. Week 1, 1% chance of death every morning turn. Week 2, 2%. Week 3, 3% and so forth. After a RL year, you'll have 50% chance of dying every morning, or even every 7 days if you want to be generous. That should all but guarantee that nobody lives past 120.
Let's get Game of Thrones-y.
Adding even more complex code that nobody will understand isn't going to help, IMHO. More code = more bugs = more frustrations for both devs and players, and as was pointed out, there is already plenty of stuff on the devs' plate. That's not meant as a diss, either.
-
As I've already told Vita:
I'm not going to force mortality on anyone who doesn't choose it without a damn good reason, and enthusiastic support for the plan from Tom.
I'm all for adding mortality as an option, but not mandatory for anyone.
-
Sacha's plan + Scrolls of Eternal Youth that remove 5-10 years from their age.
They WILL die, but only if they don't work to actively prevent it. They can make some effort to play & spend all that horded gold to stay alive indefinitely.
Might be a nice magical property to add to other Uniques, as well.
-
Then at least do it for the dinosaurs who just sit in their ivory towers, and who really should have spared us the trouble of having to kill them off in the first place. There is absolutely no acceptable reason for anyone to be upset that their 114-year old might keel over at any moment.
-
are there actually very many of those left, now that Atamara is shut down?
-
I agree with getting rid of hours.
But I think it would be better to just make older/inactive characters to have a chance of getting killed from any wounds. That way we can clear out older inactive characters while awarding those who stay active.
-
How do you define "active", and how do you do it without breaking the Inalienable Rights.
"Inalienable rights are the rights which every troop leaders has, simply because they are a noble. These rights can not be taken away or made conditional. They are absolute and final. "
"The inalienable rights are:
Playing at your own speed, timing and activity level, i.e. logging in as often or seldom as you like, at whatever times you like."
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Inactivity
-
Again, people are making things too indirect and complicated.
The thing you are complaining about isn't age, it is inactive players who can't be removed.
So make it that they can be removed.
We can remove rulers, council members, marshals, diplomats. So make it that lords and dukes can be stripped of their titles if they aren't "doing their job".
Seems like problem solved to me.
-
Don't know about you but having an old char with 6 hours a day is definitely a problem to me.
-
Don't know about you but having an old char with 6 hours a day is definitely a problem to me.
5 hours a day is taking it a bit higher, right? It is hard to hold court with 5 hours :)
But then again, we do have a little problem where many new characters cannot become Region Lords. I have an example where on East Island for Nivemus realm we have a few characters we thinking of promoting them to Region Lordship, but they do not have enough Honor and Prestige to become one. What do you say if we lower a bit requirement for Region Lordship? Honor and Prestige is a hard thing to come by nowadays, unless you fighting against odds and won the battle. Perhaps that is also why many old age characters are holding positions because many young age characters do not have enough Honor and Prestige to take on positions. Just my take on this topic since we considering the factors for age.
-
Ever since I replied on this topic, 2 of my chars got wounded.
Karma..
-
Again, people are making things too indirect and complicated.
The thing you are complaining about isn't age, it is inactive players who can't be removed.
So make it that they can be removed.
We can remove rulers, council members, marshals, diplomats. So make it that lords and dukes can be stripped of their titles if they aren't "doing their job".
Seems like problem solved to me.
I very much dislike this idea. I would much rather see more definitive options like I said before. Allow a ruler to tax his Dukes differently, so he can raise taxes to 50% for more inactive dukes.
-
I very much dislike this idea. I would much rather see more definitive options like I said before. Allow a ruler to tax his Dukes differently, so he can raise taxes to 50% for more inactive dukes.
How does that fix the problem?
They prolly don't care since they don't use the gold for anything.
Or else they DO care, like the Dukes of Cagilan Empire, and they just throw the Ruler out.
-
If a character does nothing but log in once per week to maintain their titles, how does this make them change how they play?
This is spot on. Apparently cutting hours for low-activity players is simply useless.
-
How does that fix the problem?
They prolly don't care since they don't use the gold for anything.
Or else they DO care, like the Dukes of Cagilan Empire, and they just throw the Ruler out.
Even those who wish to maintain their position do care about the gold they get, that's often half the reason why they do it I think. This suggestion would in fact increase the power dynamics between Dukes and the ruler and the different dukes amongst themselves etc. If I'm an active Duke I could get the ruler to levy no taxes to me in exchange of extra support or whatever. At this point a Lord can also not be stripped of his title for instance. Being able to strip Dukes of titles will only result in new rulers being elected and then subsequently grabbing more power for them and their friends. If I get a large enough group of people in a realm and then elect the ruler we could strip all the Dukes of the realm (and their Lordships) and then take them for ourselves and effectively take all the power. In my opinion this would take away even more of the dynamic and would push people evern further into the "must do right for the realm, not for me" kind of mentality and in my opinion we should go the other way around. "Less purely for the realm and also more for yourself, after all as Duke you'd want to keep your position"
-
How about making powerful positions like dukes to get a faster inactive warning? Instead of losing the position after a week, why not make it 5.
-
Read the convo and I have to say, the more I read the more I like Anaris's idea of Health.
Active and engaging characters are the movers and drivers of the game, regardless of age. You have Rebellions and other ingame mechanics to get rid of dinosaur chars. I also think that actual inactive chars should be dealt with more effectively. There are chars who just do nothing at all. Limiting their hours won't affect them I reckon, Do I know what would affect them from a mechanics point of view? I do not.
Then again, I do know there are Ingame ways of dealing with them. My Oldest Char is 45 ish years old? I sometimes struggle with RPing him or portraying him. He's getting into the zone of being regarded like a sage and a living piece of history. Do I use this to my full advantage and tell stories of the old days and educate younger chars? Definitively, this opened up an entirely new arena and sphere of influence for me to use and employ!
I think the playerbase itself is increasingly becoming more and more unwilling or unable to roleplay. To instigate, to explore and to craft stories. The dinosaurs hold power because of their influence, sure they do. Creating new stories will give you the very same influence. I've done it with a slew of different types of chars, Even evil ones, good ones, chaotic ones, peaceful ones and weird ones.
Make a presence, a personality and you will gain the influence to affect real change within the game. Do I like the idea of positive rewards in regards to active players? Definitively. Because that's what makes the game fun, players.
Anyhow, Cheers Anaris for your work.
-
Read the convo and I have to say, the more I read the more I like Anaris's idea of Health.
Active and engaging characters are the movers and drivers of the game, regardless of age. You have Rebellions and other ingame mechanics to get rid of dinosaur chars. I also think that actual inactive chars should be dealt with more effectively. There are chars who just do nothing at all. Limiting their hours won't affect them I reckon, Do I know what would affect them from a mechanics point of view? I do not.
Then again, I do know there are Ingame ways of dealing with them. My Oldest Char is 45 ish years old? I sometimes struggle with RPing him or portraying him. He's getting into the zone of being regarded like a sage and a living piece of history. Do I use this to my full advantage and tell stories of the old days and educate younger chars? Definitively, this opened up an entirely new arena and sphere of influence for me to use and employ!
I think the playerbase itself is increasingly becoming more and more unwilling or unable to roleplay. To instigate, to explore and to craft stories. The dinosaurs hold power because of their influence, sure they do. Creating new stories will give you the very same influence. I've done it with a slew of different types of chars, Even evil ones, good ones, chaotic ones, peaceful ones and weird ones.
Make a presence, a personality and you will gain the influence to affect real change within the game. Do I like the idea of positive rewards in regards to active players? Definitively. Because that's what makes the game fun, players.
Anyhow, Cheers Anaris for your work.
This is bull!@#$. I know because I've tried, over and over, to do the exact same thing. I've watched and tried to help other people who were trying to do the exact same thing. Please, get off your high horse of superiority. The issue is that making an active presence of yourself doesn't remove the influence of the old guard through some magical happenstance. They still have the ability to squash anything you want to do if they have both the dukeships and Ruler position in their hands. The Cagilan Empire for example actively refused to change. The Morek Empire needed for its own Ruler to step down and secede herself for something to happen. And I know the person who was the ruler, they did that because they were bored, not because of the pressure being put on their character. They could have just as easily banned the people who were protesting his character, rather than just exiling them.
So much responsibility and onus is on the ruler to take the actions necessary for fun to be had, that often I wish the game was more decentralized, with focus given to Duchies rather than realms.
-
What you call Bull!@#$ are my own experiences within the game. What may not have worked for you has worked for me. I wouldn't be able to tell you why it hasn't worked for you but all I can say is that it has worked for me. That's what I contributed to this discussion.
If I seemed to sit on a High horse I guess I'll say thank you, if you regard me superior. I didn't want that nor did I feel I was presenting myself as such. If anything I made a suggestion. I've played in the Cagilan Empire and know people who've been in leadership positions in that Realm. Sure there were issues there, I agree.
On the other side, and not of my own pool of limited experience, there are plenty of examples where what I said earlier has worked. Splendidly well and repeatedly. If you feel wronged by my words or think that what I said is bull!@#$ that's fine, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Also, I'm not in any particular way part of the Establishment. Wasn't the Cagilan empire a gold farming realm, send to family and use on other continents
?
-
its not what you do, its how you do it.
-
Health like in CK2! And also death for old characters! I smell a chance to add another fame point or two!
-
Hooray! \o/
Whatever comes in it's place, I'm happy it's been removed, on testing, already. :)
-
lets get rid of prison too while were at it.
there should be a mechanism that encourages players to retire old chars by one means or another.
-
I think that all characters should be able to die, and that being wounded should have actual effects on y our character. Say you get wounded in battle and you have your leg broken, travelling between regions takes longer. You hurt your arm, your swordfighting ability is lowered.
I'd love to see actual in game effects when you get wounded.
-
I think it might also help get rid of some of the older characters if there was a way to pass down estates/lordships/dukeships.
Say you have a 60 year old character, it's very likely that they would have grown children. Make it so there's a way to let them inherit everything from you so that when your character dies, they get it.
Right now, I have Mariah as the sole priestess of a new religion, I didn't want her to die because then I would lose all of my titles and stuff and then I'd have to wait forever before being able to make it with a new character.
If there had been a sort of inheritance, I would have been way happier with her dying in order to pass it on. Same thing with the religion, If she dies, I'd love for there to be a way for an heir to take over.
Wounding as well should be a much bigger thing. Very few people died in actual battles, it was almost always afterwards with infections. Being lightly wounded should have the chance to be a death sentence but not actually stop you from doing anything. Maybe make it so the further you move/train/participate in battles, the higher chance of the wound festering and getting worse. Then as it gets worse maybe you're given an option, Amputate a limb (with in-game effects) or wait to see if it heals.
-
I think it might also help get rid of some of the older characters if there was a way to pass down estates/lordships/dukeships.
The only real reason behind getting rid of older characters is exactly so that important titles maybe change hands now and then.
-
I think it might also help get rid of some of the older characters if there was a way to pass down estates/lordships/dukeships.
Say you have a 60 year old character, it's very likely that they would have grown children. Make it so there's a way to let them inherit everything from you so that when your character dies, they get it.
Right now, I have Mariah as the sole priestess of a new religion, I didn't want her to die because then I would lose all of my titles and stuff and then I'd have to wait forever before being able to make it with a new character.
If there had been a sort of inheritance, I would have been way happier with her dying in order to pass it on. Same thing with the religion, If she dies, I'd love for there to be a way for an heir to take over.
Wounding as well should be a much bigger thing. Very few people died in actual battles, it was almost always afterwards with infections. Being lightly wounded should have the chance to be a death sentence but not actually stop you from doing anything. Maybe make it so the further you move/train/participate in battles, the higher chance of the wound festering and getting worse. Then as it gets worse maybe you're given an option, Amputate a limb (with in-game effects) or wait to see if it heals.
I think that's exactly what we do not want, though. Having players or families own a position into eternity.. Losing positions through any way (dying, prison, election, wounds, whatever) is a way of creating chances for other players to control certain positions.
We already have a bulk of players with old characters sitting on positions without ever getting removed. With this sort of inheritance, there would be no stopping it but encouraging it..
Regarding wounds, sounds realistic to say you will travel slower with a broken leg (unless you ride a horse?) or your swordfighting skills take a hit when you wounded your arm. But whether that is realistic to implement code-wise, I'm not sure. I think that'd bring us into very complex things.
-
What if, things were allowed to pass down, but the knights/lords, had the ability to refuse to accept it. So there would be a mini-rebellion within the region/duchy.
So that way if someone dies and his dukeship gets passed down, the region lords can go "No, this isn't happening" and take it over by force?
Actually, I think that should be allowed anyway.
-
What if, things were allowed to pass down, but the knights/lords, had the ability to refuse to accept it. So there would be a mini-rebellion within the region/duchy.
So that way if someone dies and his dukeship gets passed down, the region lords can go "No, this isn't happening" and take it over by force?
Actually, I think that should be allowed anyway.
Power is meant to shift around, when it is horded by a player, opportunity ceases and everything just stays the same.
Allowing an heir in any way would most likely not be beneficial for the game. The effects of aging are supposed to make you want to make a new character to allow for others to have a chance at what you had.
-
Yeah but the way it works right now is that people get older, don't step down or get a new char. and spend all the time wounded.
If everyone could die, then passing down would at the very least be more beneficial because everyone is mortal.
-
I would like everyone to die from old age and wounds myself.
But death will not happen for existing characters because it is not fair to change the founding basis of 'no character death' when characters were created. It may happen for new characters (such as a new island which starts as death-for-everyone, which is not happening, just a hypothetical). Death in BM has always largely been a choice by the player's own actions.
What is currently approved is a voluntary mortality for non-heroes for those who wish to play their own characters as mortality. But again, a volunteer has not set aside the time to do it. There are only three development-access volunteers.
-
I would like everyone to die from old age and wounds myself.
But death will not happen for existing characters because it is not fair to change the founding basis of 'no character death' when characters were created. It may happen for new characters (such as a new island which starts as death-for-everyone, which is not happening, just a hypothetical). Death in BM has always largely been a choice by the player's own actions.
What is currently approved is a voluntary mortality for non-heroes for those who wish to play their own characters as mortality. But again, a volunteer has not set aside the time to do it. There are only three development-access volunteers.
It seems you are forgetting the most important rules for heroes my friend:
When you want your hero to die, he will live forever and when you get to a point where you don't want him to die, he'll pass away. So it's not much of a choice ::) :P
-
Can confirm.
Zeph has only ever gotten lightly wounded, no matter how many battles I throw him into against impossible odds.
-
it seems to me that heroes only ever die in very evenly matched battles with a lot of hits and casualties.
if your unit panics and retreats early it reduces the number of hits and therefore the number of chances for death as far as i understand the mechanics.
-
That's why I always set retreat to the highest number possible and with the largest unit possible.
-
it seems to me that heroes only ever die in very evenly matched battles with a lot of hits and casualties.
if your unit panics and retreats early it reduces the number of hits and therefore the number of chances for death as far as i understand the mechanics.
Not true. You can always get as many men as possible then charge in by yourself while the rest of your armies are behind you.
-
@bronnen still going to need them to hold together,ive been seeing a lot of low cohesion units panic super early lately even with banners and high retreat rates.
@zakky right, aren't they a lot less likely to panic still as long as the sides are relatively even?
-
@bronnen still going to need them to hold together,ive been seeing a lot of low cohesion units panic super early lately even with banners and high retreat rates.
@zakky right, aren't they a lot less likely to panic still as long as the sides are relatively even?
I've seen heroes die against a undead mob-up (or ambush) as well, so glorious :)
-
Just realized that KK is 118 years old Hero :)
And he has fought quite a battles and wars, althought durin CE war he was most of the times wounded :D or badly late from battles.
Anyway, still alive and kicking...
Biggest reason why i have not retired KK is that he is still roaming with family fortune with him :P Damn that day he dies and that gold goes poof!
-jaune
-
Just realized that KK is 118 years old Hero :)
And he has fought quite a battles and wars, althought durin CE war he was most of the times wounded :D or badly late from battles.
Anyway, still alive and kicking...
Biggest reason why i have not retired KK is that he is still roaming with family fortune with him :P Damn that day he dies and that gold goes poof!
-jaune
Send to the family estate for safekeeping?
-
Send to the family estate for safekeeping?
His family is probably already at max gold.
-
His family is probably already at max gold.
I looked. It wasn't.
-
I looked. It wasn't.
Huh.
-
Family gold above 3k is a waste :)
I take cities by force, 3k is enough for investments.
You cant raise armies with family gold.
-Jaune
-
Family gold above 3k is a waste :)
I take cities by force, 3k is enough for investments.
You cant raise armies with family gold.
-Jaune
But family gold cannot be lost, a concern you expressed, as when carried by a character. Risk and benefit.
-
I simply dont find family gold worth to have. I used it only when i had to leave Atamara and all realm meights had been given that 10k with them. Then i put rest of my gold to family wealth. If you really could take gold out from there at will, or even with some sort of limits it would be more usefull. But for now, its more like status issue.... and i rather build my status through actions ;)
-
you already can withdraw with limits, it enables you to ransom out of prison when your character has no gold, you can do family investments...
-
Family invests are the only ones i find even semi sensible. Even then its not often even profitable. What invest is that? :P
Another use what i find even semi good is to buy region, but that option is more depending luck.
So, sending gold to the family is pretty much last option i would use gold.
-
Family invests are the only ones i find even semi sensible. Even then its not often even profitable. What invest is that? :P
Another use what i find even semi good is to buy region, but that option is more depending luck.
So, sending gold to the family is pretty much last option i would use gold.
I don't think you understand the value of family invests. A direct analogy would be a dam pumping water up from the river below into its reservoir during the night to help produce power during the day. It isn't a positive balance, but because the power load at night is much lower they produce extra during that time period, with which they can pump up the water so that they have more power during the high of daytime loads.
So when you're overflowing with wealth, send it to your family so that in the lean times, they can give it to your poor characters or invest it into regions.