BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: pcw27 on August 04, 2018, 10:47:30 PM
-
I just did the math and Dwilight is at 2.6 players per region, well above the recommended minimum of 2, yet we're still getting ravaged by monsters and undead. It's at the point where only three realms even share a country border. This will eventually become a huge problem as p2p interaction is severely hindered.
-
I just did the math and Dwilight is at 2.6 players per region, well above the recommended minimum of 2, yet we're still getting ravaged by monsters and undead. It's at the point where only three realms even share a country border. This will eventually become a huge problem as p2p interaction is severely hindered.
Thought you had to reach 3?
-
3 is our target. Calling 2 a recommended minimum is a good way of putting it.
I will see about adjusting things a bit over the next few days, but can't promise anything immediate.
-
I would like to point out that this forces people to make decisions they don't want to make. This is a game and should be a lot of options for people to feel good about their characters. Over the months we have lost quite a few players (autopaused) because of this constant grinding of monsters (and how many wars?). Is it so bad that people want to keep their realms alive? Why do characters have to completely change their realm and in some cases go against historical or traditional reasons just to fulfill this quota or face elimination? The lesser of the two evils would be just to pick a few realms and completely remove them then let players suffer or lose interest. Dragomir would rather die than to lose his home which a lot of people think the same way. Instead of making a decision they don't want to make, they leave the game. A better option that I am in favor of would be to just let realms thrive and allow more player to player interaction. People were excited of the things about to happen until the bug was fixed and ruined some people's plans and I had to see them leave the game.
One question I do have is why isn't this a realm to realm circumstance? Morek Empire has a 6:1 noble to region ratio and they are the worse off. Arnor has a 3.5 to 1 ratio and they are just as bad. Everyone else is doing better then them when almost half the realms on the continent have 2.5 or less noble to region ratio. The Lurias have an unfair advantage as a lot of players moved their characters there for OOC reasons a while ago to make a fun interactive place leaving all other realms to get pummeled by monsters. I can't blame players for wanting a more fun environment but I gotta say that this whole thing is unbalanced and realms like Arnor and Morek have suffered enough when they are well inside the intended ratio. Just remove them if that was the intention or throw them a bone if it wasn't.
-
This came up because people didn't want to be relocated. Nobody wanted to move. Let's not go into previous mistakes devs made which caused even sharper drop of players. They had a choice between doing nothing and letting the game die slowly over time or try to do something and make a difference.
Unfortunately, changes came with expected consequences but did not come with desired effects. So all the attempts ended in failure and now we are sitting at barely 400. To be honest, I think they should have just done it the hard way if they were going to force changes on people. Forcefully moving realms closer by taking cities away from realms close to each other so far off realms can be put there. That would have made people complain a lot but at least they would have gotten their desired changes of having realms closer. Instead, they went for a softer approach which yielded nothing but angry players and no result.
Now, some people are threatening to leave the game when they lose their realms. Madinan players and Fissoan players both will not move so they will just let their realms die then either leave the game or leave the island forever.
This was completely expected. I think the devs should have just given up on the idea of hoping to force people out of their realms and would rather just allow people to war each other without any distance penalty. At least that would have kept the game more interesting. Making things interesting attracts people. Forcing people to do what they don't want to in a GAME will only make them leave.
-
Hi. I'm playing the ruler of Arnor and the Devs mechanism is not working well. The three realms with the worst or lowest ratio of players to regions are doing really well, so its clear the code is not working as expected:
Morek Empire 6/1 = 6
Luria Nova 25/7 = 3.57
Arnor 7/2 = 3.5
Madina 12/4 = 3:1
Avernus Monarchy 18/6 = 3
Westgard 26/9 = 2.89
Luria Ferrata 21/8 = 2.625
Helyg Derwyddon 5/2 = 2.5
Astrum 19/8 = 2.375
D'Hara 19/8 = 2.375
Swordfell 11/5 = 2.2
Sol 11/5 = 2.2
Fissoa 10/6 = 1.67
My point is that its a poor blunt instrument to achieve the aims of the Devs and they need to use something more precise and controllable. I suggest an ice age to wipe out regions in the north and south. Or something similar.
Another mistake was to allow Westgard to flourish in the West. That sent the population density down overall. Those westgard knights would have been more useful in the east to increase density.
Whatever the reasons for it, I think that your mechanism just isn't working as intended. There is still too much space. My sugestion is that the rogue increase in the west and an ice age starts in the north and south forcing players to compress in the center of the east continent. This will probably destroy Madina, Westgard, Avernus and it will badly hit Fissoa and Arnor, but it will at least compress everyone quickly without this constant attrition. Why not ask players in Dwilight to vote on it? I would vote to have the space compressed.
-
Really, I don't like any of it. Players are being punished for trying to play the game. It's not the players' fault that we have so few players. We should be thinking of other ways that doesn't hinder the players.
-
I believe the devs are thinking of replacing monsters with something else. I think someone suggested disallowing TO once you fall below a certain threshold. It would be a lot better than monsters for sure. Wouldn't mind having monsters around but there are just too many at the moment for players to do anything pvp. If they do go with disallowing TO once you fall below 3.0 ratio,
Morek Empire 6/1 = 6 - allowed 2 more regions
Luria Nova 25/7 = 3.57 - allowed 1 more region
Arnor 7/2 = 3.5 - allowed 1 more region
Madina 12/4 = 3:1 - x
Avernus Monarchy 18/6 = 3 - x
Westgard 26/9 = 2.89 - x
Luria Ferrata 21/8 = 2.625 - x
Helyg Derwyddon 5/2 = 2.5 - x
Astrum 19/8 = 2.375 - x
D'Hara 19/8 = 2.375 - x
Swordfell 11/5 = 2.2 - x
Sol 11/5 = 2.2 - x
Fissoa 10/6 = 1.67 - x
So only three realms would be allowed to have more regions.
-
Regarding current levels, remember rogues are cyclical. They choose their targets based on density while still far away and spend 1-2 weeks marching over, meaning situation has changed when they arrive. This also means realms get lulls after getting reduced where they rebuild 'to take back all our old regions', which causes them to come back again.
It's not about punishment or fault. It's about the simple reality that most realms today lack the players to provide a sustainable community that welcomes new players. The regions and realms that exist today are a relic of having many more players and are not sustainable for the current playerbase. Two and three nobles per region is a sheer reasonable minimum. The reality of a realm community was usually much more than that. I'm also starting to realize, based off player discussion in discord, that a minimum (10? 15?) number of nobles in a realm before it snowballs into a talkative community. It's really not about punishment as the whole point is to provide gradual, dynamic pressure allowing player reactions to the hordes vs the invincible onslaughts that closed the west and offered no reaction but fleeing, which I believe were a much worse mistake.
It has been the intent ever since daviceroy suggested it to change to a red text warning for low density on the start takeover page, blocking takeovers of rogue regions at a lower density level, and if a blocked-rogue-TO realm is in a human war and TOs a region it goes rogue instead of joining their realm. And an Abandon Region mechanic. And reduce rogue spawning and targeting.
Additionally, I've been looking at resurrecting the old nomad code from glaciers for realms who might want to forsake their lands to conquer new land elsewhere (or be given land by another ruler).
It takes time to implement these.
And with what Zakky said, I do not intend to have the block at such a high level initially. I think better to set it lower than 3 and to gradually increase it over time.
-
I think that nomad code should just be a standard feature on all islands at this point. Might give more flexibility for people to move closer.
-
Whatever we do I'd advise against something that isolates either east or West. One of the things that's always made Dwilight an exciting and dynamic place to play was its central sea. If we want to push the realms in a certain direction I suggest towards the center. Perhaps we could make all lands along the coast of the central sea a temporary "safe" zone. Or if that's too many regions maybe just the cities and strongholds. That could create an interesting element reminiscent of Roman and Greek colonies.
Perhaps for the sake of player engagement we could make it possible for adventurers to create a buffer zone. Like if they hunt often enough in a certain region not only will rogue groups not form there but rogues from outside will avoid the region.
-
I agree with making more realms along the central coastal lines. Get rid of the distance penalty. Encourage realms to move toward the inner sea.
-
Regarding the idea of limiting takeovers by noble density. A realm needs a minimum size of 3 regions, say a city and 2 rurals to survive. So if you set the density to 2 nobles per region then you need 6 nobles to sustain a minimum sized realm. All the small realms in Dwilight have around 5 or 6 knights so could continue to survive in a small area of 3 regions. If however you set the limit to 3 nobles per region, Morek, Arnor and HD will soon cease to exist or at any rate will remain chronically short of food.
None of this sorts the problem, because even if you do shut down small realms all you will have is larger realms isolated by long distances with vast uninhabited areas in between. So no effective interaction between realms.
-
Some radical suggestions:
There are around 190 nobles in dwilght. That means if you ct the playable map area to 60 regions you will have an average density of 3 nobles per region. I have 2 ideas as to how to achieve this:
(1) Simple. Rogue make the entire west uninhabitable including Madina and Islands but not Dhara. Ice makes the north uninhabitable down to Aegirs Deep. Ice makes the south uninhabitable up to Orz bridge wiping out everything up to the bottom half of Luria. Result is around 60 inhabitable regions.
(2) Complex. Redesign the whole map taking every 7 regions and making them into one region. I think you'll end up with around 60 regions and the whole east and west will be opened up. Its a new map but I think it will keep the flavour of the old one and preserve continuity.
Either of these solutions will solve the problem without resorting to unpredictable devices. And they have the advantage of being a quick hit rather than the current death by a thousand cuts. Pease consider these options.
Cheers
-
2 is not going to happen. They are not interested in redesigning the map. Too much work.
1 is also not going to happen. Ice just didn't really work well. Allowing relocation would probably be a better idea. Make people settle near the inner sea. Like Vita said, start off with lower density limit then slowly raise it as the island gain new players.
To be honest, small dysfunctional realms should die. Morek, Arnor, Madina, and Fissoa don't contribute anything to the game at the moment. Would rather see them die but that is not how things work. Would rather see them be relocated to the cities on the inner sea like GF, Cheatau, Chesney and Paisly.
-
To be honest, small dysfunctional realms should die. Morek, Arnor, Madina, and Fissoa don't contribute anything to the game at the moment. Would rather see them die but that is not how things work. Would rather see them be relocated to the cities on the inner sea like GF, Cheatau, Chesney and Paisly.
This.
-
Actually Morek and Arnor are currently the source of a major conflict within Sanguis Astroism. As the original theocracy the Elders are voting for a crusade to preserve Morek.
-
My point is that if they have to die then they should die quickly with a big forced bang, not die over an extended period by a thousand cuts. This constant attrition is really demoralizing to players. Just decide what needs to happen and impose it to happen over just a few weeks.
I have yet another suggestion which I think will make it a really interesting, crowded and unique continent. Here it is. Make all regions unlivable except for those directly bordering the inland sea. That way humanity would be confined to a narrow strip around the inner coast, making sea travel important and forcing us all together to fight and trade. There are about 70 such regions so the density would be much greater than currently. It can be implemented very simply and easily. nothing like this has been attempted before and it would create a unique campaign in which the islands and sea travel would be really important. Its a great experiment and should be tried on this experimental continent.
-
Another mistake was to allow Westgard to flourish in the West. That sent the population density down overall. Those westgard knights would have been more useful in the east to increase density.
It wasn't a mistake. You have to remember that all of the nobles who joined Westgard when it began had been forced to move to Dwilight because of their islands sinking. Westgard was an important psychological carrot to induce players to move characters to Dwilight (including some players who'd never played on Dwilight before (such as me)). By giving players something new to create, the Devs gave people an incentive to move. If they hadn't done that, Dwilight may not have got anything like as big an influx of characters as it did. It's also worth noting that Westgard has consistently been one of the most successful realms in Dwlight in terms of keeping a good noble count. In contrast, at least half of the eastern realms are failing.
This whole idea of 'the West should be abandoned and move everyone to the East' seems to be rooted in a mindset that the East is somehow intrinsically better. Which is untrue. Pretty much any quarter section of the map is theoreticallly as good as any other section. We could just as easily say that everyone should move in to the Northwest section in the box formed by Gelene, Darfix, Eidulb and Crysantilys. The same is true about the central map section. It's pretty much as good as any other section although it has the added advantage that every realm could probably reach every other realm via the sea.
I have yet another suggestion which I think will make it a really interesting, crowded and unique continent. Here it is. Make all regions unlivable except for those directly bordering the inland sea. That way humanity would be confined to a narrow strip around the inner coast, making sea travel important and forcing us all together to fight and trade. There are about 70 such regions so the density would be much greater than currently. It can be implemented very simply and easily. nothing like this has been attempted before and it would create a unique campaign in which the islands and sea travel would be really important. Its a great experiment and should be tried on this experimental continent.
People just don't like being forced to move, what ever way its done. This is the central problem that needs a solution. Anything that tells players 'you must move or you will be destroyed' is going to be counterproductive. Any time this has been done (e.g. with the ice) players have left the game in protest or disgust. If you - or anyone - wants players to move, it needs to be done through incentives. However, it should be noted that while my charater of Rosalind has been ruler of Westgard, she's repeatedly made offers to small realms that Westgard would help them to relocate their entire realms to other places in the map. For example, Madina has been offered Westgard's help to try to move to a more northern coastal city at least 3 times that I can remember.
So, the problem has three aspects. The first is that people can't be forced to move without creating negative blow back. The second is that people have natural sentimental attachments to their realms and don't want to let them die off even when they're down to a handful of nobles. The third is that some people are sentimentally attached to geographic sections of the map (particularly Madina, where the players really do love their lsland).
Any solution must satisfy these three problems, or it won't work. Redrawing the map simply to move every existing realm closer to each other is the ideal solution, but it's never going to happen. It's far too much work for a small volunteer Dev team. Also, by the time that such a big project was finished, some of the small realms might have ceased to exist anyway.
Resurrecting the nomad code to allow realms to relocate is a possible solution. However, this runs in to the problem of the identity of some realms being so wedded to their geographic locations that they wouldn't use it.
The solution probably is something along the lines of trying to induce everyone to form up around the inner sea using the nomad code or some other means. The main difficulty with that is that most prospective coastal capital cities are over on the inner coast of the West. But, vitally, any solution has to be done with the broad consent and input of the players so that they feel that it's a team effort. The wishes of realms that just don't want to move have to be respected and the solution works with them. Some how.
To be honest, and I don't know if this could even be done, the best thing would probably be just to have the Devs manually move entire realms in to formally rogue regions that are Dev stabilized. So, for example, some massive magical event moves Arnor (intact as a realm) to Golden Farrow. The nobles fall asleep and just wake up in a new perfectly stable area of the map in a better location. Again, it would have to be done in consultation with the players of the effected realms so they could choose where they landed to a certain extent.
Incentives are the key. Rather than forcing things on people.
-
I very much agree with Foxglove above.
-
So, the problem has three aspects. The first is that people can't be forced to move without creating negative blow back. The second is that people have natural sentimental attachments to their realms and don't want to let them die off even when they're down to a handful of nobles. The third is that some people are sentimentally attached to geographic sections of the map (particularly Madina, where the players really do love their lsland).
This is key and well-summarized here, so I'm quoting it by itself separate from rest of Foxglove's other important words.
-
I don't think we need to make it only the central sea coast, just that that should be the "safe zone" If there are only 70 regions that means we can afford to have a few spaces inland free as well.
Attachment to specific lands is not as much of a problem as we might think. As it stands there's only one realm that never had lands bordering the central sea, Arnor. Even HD once held Caiylin.
I think anything over dramatic like whole realms teleporting will upset players more. Better to just establish "safe zones" and "wild zones" the latter being free of monsters and the former impossible to take over. For flavor just say a natural evolution has taken place, the more aggressive monsters that recklessly attack human settlements have died out leaving only more docile ones that stay put and attack only when threatened.
-
Foxglave put it perfectly. Couldn't have put it better myself.
Devs should contact the rulers of these tiny realms and talk to them individually as well not just push codes that they think will work because they clearly haven't.
There is a big advantage to moving people to the inner sea regions. People will be able to interact with each other using sea zones which is much faster than land travel. This alone should help people interact each other more.
I kinda like the idea of setting safe zones. Making monsters stay out of the inner sea regions while making them prevent players from occupying regions connected to oceans (Darfix, Poryatown, Flowerestown etc).
But yeah, talking to players who need to be moved is important. Maybe talking to them will find a way to preserve their realms cultures as well.
-
I can't help but make the observation that, regardless of density, realms with wealthy cities fare well, realms with poorer regions get crushed.
-
I can't help but make the observation that, regardless of density, realms with wealthy cities fare well, realms with poorer regions get crushed.
That's how things often work out in real life too.
-
I can't help but make the observation that, regardless of density, realms with wealthy cities fare well, realms with poorer regions get crushed.
That is why Westgard is doing well as well. Imagine what would have happened if Westgard only owned Gaston.
-
Why not just relax the density code?
If you allow a density as low as 1.5 nobles per region before rogues are attracted then a realm of 6 knights can hold 4 regions, a city, a townsland and 2 rural regions. That is enough to survive.
-
I like the idea of safe zones along the inner sea. I don't like the idea of not being able to take sea border regions. I think safe zones along INNER sea only will force us all to the center around the sea and will also allow us to expand out at a cost of rogue attacks.
At least this will allow us a unique inner sea culture and will alow a lot of realms to keep their current lands or portions thereof. Its a good solution.
-
That is not the point though. If the density is set that low, realms will try to grow super large again.
If your realm is too small, you shouldn't even be playing there unless it is a new realm. It means your realm is not interesting and is a failure. The density should be at least 2. 3 is too stiff but 1.5 is just too low. You should at least have a lord and a knight per region otherwise we are back to good old lords only regions.
-
Maybe instead of density we should have codes that drive regions rogue when there are no knight in the region. Forcing people to have at least 1 knight 1 lord per region.
But yeah for now that preventing TO when your density falls too low will work.
-
I hope that someone is collating and considering these ideas. There are some creative ideas here.
I have yet another suggestion. This idea will allow us to use the whole map, and it will be quite easy to implement. Here it is. We know we need 60 regions to have a density of 3 players or more per region. So lets do this: Put a blight on about 60% of all regions across the whole map. The rules of the blight are that blighted regions cannot be taken over, have zero population and are always starving. This makes them possible to traverse but they can never be part of a realm. This can be done with a random map generator until the devs get a map that looks workable. It need not be a lot of effort. As a result, good areas which have a city and contiguous regions will be sought after and fought over. Since the blight will occur all over the continent it should affect all realms equally.
Please consider it.
-
That's how things often work out in real life too.
To further clarify my point, the code is supposed to make all realms go at about 1:3 to 1:2 density, right? But it's not. Some realms have 1:6 density and still get crushed, other realms have about 1:2 and are doing pretty much fine.
If the density code isn't really punishing low density as much as it is punishing poverty... is it not going a little bit beside its intended purpose? Furthermore, if the code's result will be to force realms into only being in the richest cities... are we not going to end up with further isolation of the realms?
-
To further clarify my point, the code is supposed to make all realms go at about 1:3 to 1:2 density, right? But it's not. Some realms have 1:6 density and still get crushed, other realms have about 1:2 and are doing pretty much fine.
If the density code isn't really punishing low density as much as it is punishing poverty... is it not going a little bit beside its intended purpose? Furthermore, if the code's result will be to force realms into only being in the richest cities... are we not going to end up with further isolation of the realms?
Oh you mean crushed by the monsters rather than crushed by other realms.
-
I'd really appreciate some sort of clarity so that I can plan. As soon as a fix is agreed it would be good if it could be posted here.
-
It has been the intent ever since daviceroy suggested it to change to a red text warning for low density on the start takeover page, blocking takeovers of rogue regions at a lower density level, and if a blocked-rogue-TO realm is in a human war and TOs a region it goes rogue instead of joining their realm. And an Abandon Region mechanic. And reduce rogue spawning and targeting.
Additionally, I've been looking at resurrecting the old nomad code from glaciers for realms who might want to forsake their lands to conquer new land elsewhere (or be given land by another ruler).
This code is almost ready.
-
Thank you Vita. Sounds workable. Can I make one more suggestion to add to your changes. Could you also add a message to the realm report that warns the ruler when they have too few knights for their regions and are at danger of attracting rogue. That will give them a warning that they need to abandon a region. This will be useful warning when a realm loses nobles.
-
to add more interactions/activity, maybe make nobles able to message other allied, federated, and/or neighboring nobles, just like how they can message their realm mates. maybe even get message alert if those other realms have a new noble joined.
-
to add more interactions/activity, maybe make nobles able to message other allied, federated, and/or neighboring nobles, just like how they can message their realm mates. maybe even get message alert if those other realms have a new noble joined.
Federations can just create guilds for that. Luria already does.