BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: pcw27 on March 06, 2019, 08:00:41 PM
-
I've just been informed there is a new rule that requires 15 nobles to form a new realm. Is this for real? Part of the fun of this game is the ability to form new realms and make new in-game history. This bar is absurdly high. 8 would be reasonable, 10 maybe, but 15! Nearly half the realms on Dwilight have fewer than 15 nobles.
-
It can seem like a lot of fun and freedom to be able to found a new realm with just enough nobles to provide for council positions, but 98% of the time it doesn't actually make for a good realm to play in—especially for new players.
One thing we don't need in BattleMaster right now is more new tiny realms diluting the interaction available within the game and spreading our players thinner and thinner on the ground.
If we can get the player numbers up again, this is a restriction we can almost certainly lift.
Right now, though, we're far, far more likely to see fun destroyed and players lost because someone decided to secede with 5 or even 8 nobles in their realm than if they want to do that but can't.
-
It can seem like a lot of fun and freedom to be able to found a new realm with just enough nobles to provide for council positions, but 98% of the time it doesn't actually make for a good realm to play in—especially for new players.
One thing we don't need in BattleMaster right now is more new tiny realms diluting the interaction available within the game and spreading our players thinner and thinner on the ground.
If we can get the player numbers up again, this is a restriction we can almost certainly lift.
Right now, though, we're far, far more likely to see fun destroyed and players lost because someone decided to secede with 5 or even 8 nobles in their realm than if they want to do that but can't.
Yeah fine the underlying intention is reasonable enough but 15? How did you come to that figure? To me it seems it guarantees that there will not be a single new realm in the game for a very long time if at all.
-
We wanted to make sure that new realms would be large enough to be truly viable and sustain good conversation amongst nobles.
The fact that many realms are currently that size or smaller is not an indication that the number should be lower. Rather, it's an indication that the game is still quite unhealthy.
-
We wanted to make sure that new realms would be large enough to be truly viable and sustain good conversation amongst nobles.
The fact that many realms are currently that size or smaller is not an indication that the number should be lower. Rather, it's an indication that the game is still quite unhealthy.
Sustaining conversation cannot be achieved with total nobles alone, it has to do with how active those nobles are. A realm can have 20 nobles and be dead silent because most of them are the player's gold farmers.
It tends to be that new realms are actually more active regardless of size because they're composed of players who were active and engaged enough to try and build something new.
If you feel the existing smaller realms are "unhealthy" then you may as well have them all destroyed in one way or another.
-
If you feel the existing smaller realms are "unhealthy" then you may as well have them all destroyed in one way or another.
There's no need to be snide. It's pretty obvious that just destroying realms under 15 nobles would do more harm than good for the game.
Instead, what we do is provide less emphatic pushes to be larger. Such as allowing small realms to merge (and thus become larger), and preventing small realms from splitting (and thus becoming even smaller).
-
There's no need to be snide. It's pretty obvious that just destroying realms under 15 nobles would do more harm than good for the game.
Instead, what we do is provide less emphatic pushes to be larger. Such as allowing small realms to merge (and thus become larger), and preventing small realms from splitting (and thus becoming even smaller).
I did say "one way or another" which is basically what you're describing, whether you gently push or destroy in one fell swoop the point is there's a set goal of eliminating realms with fewer than 15 players.
Do you have actual hard evidence that large realms are by nature better for retention? I've only ever found large bloated realms to be alienating and uninteresting.
-
There's a big difference between saying "we want realms to have more than 15 nobles" and saying "we want to destroy realms with 15 or fewer nobles."
There's also a big difference between "realms with 15-30 nobles" and "large bloated realms."
-
There's a big difference between saying "we want realms to have more than 15 nobles" and saying "we want to destroy realms with 15 or fewer nobles."
There's also a big difference between "realms with 15-30 nobles" and "large bloated realms."
If 15 becomes the new minimum then it serves to reason average will be something more like 30 or 40, unless the goal is for realms to become homogeneous with all roughly having the same number of nobles and regions, which would also not be beneficial.
These specifics aren't the point anyway. The more pertinent question is what analytics if any support the idea that this will improve retention?
-
These specifics aren't the point anyway. The more pertinent question is what analytics if any support the idea that this will improve retention?
15 years of experience with the game.
-
15 years of experience with the game.
So pure conjecture then.
-
So pure conjecture then.
Well, I mean, sure, it's not something I can point to specific data or evidence for. But if you're saying experience and familiarity count for nothing...would you rather be operated on by the doctor with 15 years of experience, or the one who started yesterday, but who can show a dozen charts and graphs explaining how he knows what to do?
-
So pure conjecture then.
What rigorous statistical and repeatable method did use to determine that 8 would be "reasonable".
There has long been a sweat spot for realms. Too many nobles and realm becomes somewhat impersonal l, individuals are lost and it feels hard to make a contribution. Too few and the realm relies far too much on two or three nobles to generate interest. M&F is great example of what low bars for realms creates. There you need only 3 players to create a realm and there are methods to have a realm of a single player - which is sadly all too common. With the exception of a few realms where created by BM players I would say the majority of M&F realms have 3-8 players, and they are dead. Dead of all communication, dead of anything happening other then logging in to ensure your characters remain active just dead.
Really in my opinion 15 is too low for a viable long term realm, somewhere more like 20-30 produces on average the volume of interaction required. However setting the bar there is too high, and we need to acknowledge that colonies generate interest and interaction, so starting lower makes sense as there is a far chance they will be attracting more nobles in the medium term.
-
Well, I mean, sure, it's not something I can point to specific data or evidence for. But if you're saying experience and familiarity count for nothing...would you rather be operated on by the doctor with 15 years of experience, or the one who started yesterday, but who can show a dozen charts and graphs explaining how he knows what to do?
As a matter of fact if a doctor has been working for 15 years and thinks that somehow means he can forgo running any tests I would run as fast as I can to the first year resident who is willing to actually apply scientific and evidence based medicine to my treatment. I've actually had some treatments severely delayed because a lazy orthopedist, dismissed my persistent wrist pains off hand.
Of course the analogy isn't applicable anyway. I'm no newcomer. I've been playing for 12 years. I hope you wont try to argue that an extra three years makes a significant difference. As I've made clear I vehemently oppose this change and contest every argument you've offered in support of it. So if our own limited personal experiences can lead to wildly different conclusions some objectivity would be warranted.
The dev team has access to all information in the game don't they? So couldn't you, if you wanted to, see which realms have the best new player retention and see how that correlates with things like number of nobles, realm size and message traffic?
What rigorous statistical and repeatable method did use to determine that 8 would be "reasonable".
The difference is I'm not implementing sweeping changes. If I were and I had access to this information I most certainly would conduct at least a basic analysis to reenforce my assertions.
-
The difference is I'm not implementing sweeping changes. If I were and I had access to this information I most certainly would conduct at least a basic analysis to reenforce my assertions.
Then volunteer your time rather then putting more expectations and responsibility onto our volunteer devs.
Activity/Viability is subjective. There is no real objective metric by which you can run an analysis, pretending we even have the required data stored to make an attempt. As with many things in BM the new limit is no doubt not set in stone, and will be reviewed as we move on, just like recent changes to militia.
Otherwise make your own argument about the limit to convince the devs that is more objective then "I want to colonise Darfix and the new limit makes my goal harder."
-
Although I hate the idea of having a hard limit on 15 chars required to create a realm, I think this is going toward the right direction.
To be honest, realms just don't function under 15. Heck even that isn't enough to have an 'active' realm. You probably want at least 20.
What I do not like is while the game now is encouraging people to merge realms, the old mechanics that punish large realms(basic tax rate) is still in place. Can we at least have that removed now that we have all these limits like 1.7 density limit and so on?
I think people should just try to form realms of 20+ nobles. 30 would be even better than 20. But from seeing what happened on 4th War Island, going over 40 seems to be too hard on people. People aren't used to hyperactivity. So I'd say the sweet spot is 20~39 area.
I must confess while all these changes are implemented to improve the density, there haven't really been that many changes to make the game more fun. There has been too much focus on how to increase retention rate by increasing density and so on but with more limits being added, you probably want to think about making the game more interesting and fun. You can add more limits but with each limit being added, the game does become less flexible.
-
Then volunteer your time rather then putting more expectations and responsibility onto our volunteer devs.
Activity/Viability is subjective. There is no real objective metric by which you can run an analysis, pretending we even have the required data stored to make an attempt. As with many things in BM the new limit is no doubt not set in stone, and will be reviewed as we move on, just like recent changes to militia.
Otherwise make your own argument about the limit to convince the devs that is more objective then "I want to colonise Darfix and the new limit makes my goal harder."
I don't know how to code but if you could supply the data I'd be happy to draw up some cor-plots for you. If the concern is new player retention then you would want to calculate the number of new characters that autopause in each realm in each game world and see if there's any recognizable pattern based on realm size, player density or message traffic.
It's a bit unfair to demand an objective assessment when it's already been admitted there is no objective information in favor of this change, however I can offer one even based on the limited information I have access to. Consider the fact that the majority of realms on Dwilight could never have been founded under these rules. I suggested 8-10 because in my experience that's the most you can reasonably expect to get together for something like this. Niselur was founded by over ten nobles, but definitely fewer than 15, which was considered an almost absurd number at the time. Remember this was back when the continent was new and we had a lot more players. Moving forward to today Tol Goldora, the newest realm in Dwilight had seven nobles at it's founding, it now has the third highest number of noble characters on the continent. The only realm in all of Dwilight I can think of that might have started with 15 nobles is Luria Ferratta. The only realm right now that could realistically found another under these rules is Westguard and as with Luria this would require splitting their population in two.
Nearly every realm in the history of Dwilight came into being because it was possible for a group of characters to get together for the sake of creating something new and exciting. You didn't have to be a king or a duke to do this. Anyone could put together a colony effort if they had the leadership skills necessary to gather enough ambitious nobles and it would succeed or fail based on the inherent challenges involved (and many failed, even now founding a realm is far from easy). Under these rules founding new realms, one of the most exciting and rewarding undertakings a player can be a part of, will be impossible for all but the single largest realm on the continent, and in that case would be of such a scale that it could only happen in a top-down manner involving the realm's highest elites deciding to partition themselves for some reason. The pioneering expeditions composed of enterprising characters looking to make their mark on the world and carve out a place for themselves from a hostile wilderness will be impossible. We might never see such an undertaking ever again. Words cannot express what a loss that will be.
You might say "well if we get more players..." or "well if character density improves..." well that's a hell of a thing to gamble on seeing as it hasn't happened in a good ten years. I honestly don't think our retention problem can be fixed by tinkering around with the mechanics, so any change made on the off chance that it might get newbies to stick around longer is little more than wishful thinking.
Although I hate the idea of having a hard limit on 15 chars required to create a realm, I think this is going toward the right direction.
To be honest, realms just don't function under 15. Heck even that isn't enough to have an 'active' realm. You probably want at least 20.
What I do not like is while the game now is encouraging people to merge realms, the old mechanics that punish large realms(basic tax rate) is still in place. Can we at least have that removed now that we have all these limits like 1.7 density limit and so on?
I think people should just try to form realms of 20+ nobles. 30 would be even better than 20. But from seeing what happened on 4th War Island, going over 40 seems to be too hard on people. People aren't used to hyperactivity. So I'd say the sweet spot is 20~39 area.
I must confess while all these changes are implemented to improve the density, there haven't really been that many changes to make the game more fun. There has been too much focus on how to increase retention rate by increasing density and so on but with more limits being added, you probably want to think about making the game more interesting and fun. You can add more limits but with each limit being added, the game does become less flexible.
The thing is, on Dwilight at least, new realms don't just stay small, they either grow or they die. Point in case, Tol Goldora.
Also I've been in underpopulated realms that were plenty active. Morek was far from silent when I was there and they still have just five nobles.
-
Then volunteer your time rather then putting more expectations and responsibility onto our volunteer devs.
This is not an add-on like the character page pictures or signature banners. This changes the way every player will have to interpret the game and it blindsided a lot of people, myself included. If the devs need someone to volunteer to post upcoming changes to the community, then I'll volunteer.
If a new realm fails for any reason, that's on the players of that realm and no one else. My experience with this game over the years that I have played, only 2 realms had more than 15 knights when I had a character join up.
From what I understand about what was kicked around on the discord, not that I knew I had to check there as well, was that this rule and the 15 number came as a result of discussions about what Dukes on EC were doing? I don't know the full story and im not sure it would change my opinion. i was personally IG victimized by an EC duke whose actions would have been blocked by this rule. But IMO a Duke being able to exercise their power to break off whenever they please was a MAJOR game component.
I figured out how you guys came to 15. it's just (exactly) the average of the number of nobles by the number of realms, minus the SI. However, I cant be sure (for reasons mentioned above) whether or not the matter of just how limiting this change would be was brought up and discussed. I don't think setting the average as the standard is reasonable. For example, there are only THREE realms at this time that CAN have a ducal secession under this new rule and still have a minimum of 15 nobles remaining and NONE of them are even on the same island. In fact, one island doesn't have a single realm that COULD and still have enough left over to maintain the mother realm. I realize that minimum remaining is not part of the rule, but it can certainly be inferred as part of the intent in the context of supporting the proliferation of "viable" realms. I think 15 is a reasonable goal for realms to shoot for, but not realistic in that it would require extraordinary effort to hit that right out of the gate rather than building to it on their own.
That said, now that it's been imlemented, I don't actually believe it should be removed entirely. Adjusted perhaps. Even 10 would have meant a world of difference. Or even having an adjust scale so that a duke must carry at least a third of the realm or something. I worry that locking dukes in at 15 like this will only cause stagnation for little gain.
-
Also I've been in underpopulated realms that were plenty active. Morek was far from silent when I was there and they still have just five nobles.
Morek was not plenty active. It had a short lived span of activity that died out rather quickly. I left the realm a little while back so I can't comment on it now but I'm betting it isn't really any better. If it was more active then I would have stayed longer. Main point being though, don't take a couple weeks as evidence that the small realm wasn't quiet. You joined at the peak of the tension with Arnor and instigated a decent amount of conversation through protests. It didn't take long for the Arnor situation to cool and then for the realm to return to very few messages. Should also note that the realm had 9 nobles when you were there and not 5.
-
Morek was not plenty active. It had a short lived span of activity that died out rather quickly. I left the realm a little while back so I can't comment on it now but I'm betting it isn't really any better. If it was more active then I would have stayed longer. Main point being though, don't take a couple weeks as evidence that the small realm wasn't quiet. You joined at the peak of the tension with Arnor and instigated a decent amount of conversation through protests. It didn't take long for the Arnor situation to cool and then for the realm to return to very few messages. Should also note that the realm had 9 nobles when you were there and not 5.
Well as another example, every knight in Obsidian Islands has just turned out to help Perdan fight the entire North. Seems to me their getting to see plenty of action. I'm not saying there aren't major drawbacks I'm just saying the game isn't completely ruined, and there's always a chance for a realm to become rejuvenated through a new influx of players. Alternatively, the realm will tend to die out on it's own as happened with HD.
-
If they are going to implement something like this, they should really make realms easier to modify but harder to create.
Allow players to more easily change their government types and their realm names in return for this limitation.
-
There should be an exemption. If a Duke is banned they should have the opportunity to secede no matter what.
As for the 15 nobles I think 10 might have been a fairer number. Astrum was founded by 5 or 6 nobles trecking through winter and fighting the hordes to make it to Libidized.
-
Maybe the answer is let dukes and lords do more things? Where I play everything seems like 2-3 people saying to all the other people "Do this now"
Maybe if you can make own realm, also you can stand up for self and make inside realm fight? Go make war or take more lands?
And still everybody plays in same big group for talking.
-
I remember the "Grand Old Days" back when we could have two characters on a continent when Tara had 30 to 40 people and were rolling from one war to another. Things were active. Lots of talking. It was fun.
Now I'm a member of three different realms hovering around the 20 character number and it really does feel like we have the minimum number to maintain just basic operations. I honestly don't know how realms with 5 or 10 people even operate.
On the one hand, I'm against taking away player options through arbitrary rules.
On the other hand, I understand the idea behind this rule and what it is trying to achieve.
It may not be the RIGHT way to do it in my opinion, but I don't know WHAT the right way to do it IS. It sucks for people who were planning to create new realms. It really does. But does it suck for the GAME as a whole?
-
Like I said if 15 does prove to be too high, no doubt the devs will revisit it. I have no idea about the background, I don't particularly care. The constant knee jerk reactions from any change the devs make has seen me pause all but one of my characters, and all he does is sit around and count gold. To me there is a distinct lack of constructive feedback to the devs and an abundance of emotive criticism. It is why I quit the game and being a dev several years ago, and why I did not put my hand up to return to the dev team when I rejoined.
Many of these arguments are disingenuous. Colonies rarely rely on players only from 1 realm, or even 1 continent. ToL is a great example of this. People came to Dwilight to see the colony realised. I am not so sold on having a limit or such a high limit on Duchy succession, depending on circumstance they are self limiting anyway, particularly with recent militia changes.
I remember the "Grand Old Days" back when we could have two characters on a continent when Tara had 30 to 40 people and were rolling from one war to another. Things were active. Lots of talking. It was fun.
Now I'm a member of three different realms hovering around the 20 character number and it really does feel like we have the minimum number to maintain just basic operations. I honestly don't know how realms with 5 or 10 people even operate.
On the one hand, I'm against taking away player options through arbitrary rules.
On the other hand, I understand the idea behind this rule and what it is trying to achieve.
It may not be the RIGHT way to do it in my opinion, but I don't know WHAT the right way to do it IS. It sucks for people who were planning to create new realms. It really does. But does it suck for the GAME as a whole?
The grand old days had realms of 120 characters and a socialist tax system :)
-
I remember the "Grand Old Days" back when we could have two characters on a continent when Tara had 30 to 40 people and were rolling from one war to another. Things were active. Lots of talking. It was fun.
Now I'm a member of three different realms hovering around the 20 character number and it really does feel like we have the minimum number to maintain just basic operations. I honestly don't know how realms with 5 or 10 people even operate.
The answer is not to raise the bar for founding a realm but to make it harder to sustain one with too few nobles. The thing is that's already taken care of. HD just folded and Morek only survived because SA called a crusade.
On the one hand, I'm against taking away player options through arbitrary rules.
On the other hand, I understand the idea behind this rule and what it is trying to achieve.
It may not be the RIGHT way to do it in my opinion, but I don't know WHAT the right way to do it IS. It sucks for people who were planning to create new realms. It really does. But does it suck for the GAME as a whole?
I would say it does it creates more stagnation and limits opportunities for advancement. A new realm opens up new high ranking positions. Theres no other way to allow as many players to advance at once.
Many of these arguments are disingenuous. Colonies rarely rely on players only from 1 realm, or even 1 continent. ToL is a great example of this. People came to Dwilight to see the colony realised. I am not so sold on having a limit or such a high limit on Duchy succession, depending on circumstance they are self limiting anyway, particularly with recent militia changes.
Based on their wiki histories it sounds like most of these colonies had one primary realm backing them:
Everguard (Springdale)
Astrum (Morek)
Shadovar, the precursor to D'hara (Pian en Luries)
Terran (Caerwyn)
Thulsoma (Virovene)
Iashalur (Astrum)
Tol Goldora
The only pre-blight colony effort I can remember that was truly an inter-realm effort was Niselur. Post blight Westguard was specifically crafted for refugees from the sunken continents, it was not a player effort it was a dev made realm.
Even in the case of Tol Goldora three out of the seven founding members were well established in Sol.
Regardless none of these efforts, to my knowledge, were spearheaded by fifteen or more nobles. So the number is still unrealistic whether it's coming from one realm or several.
-
The answer is not to raise the bar for founding a realm but to make it harder to sustain one with too few nobles. The thing is that's already taken care of. HD just folded and Morek only survived because SA called a crusade.
I would say it does it creates more stagnation and limits opportunities for advancement. A new realm opens up new high ranking positions. Theres no other way to allow as many players to advance at once.
Based on their wiki histories it sounds like most of these colonies had one primary realm backing them:
Everguard (Springdale)
Astrum (Morek)
Shadovar, the precursor to D'hara (Pian en Luries)
Terran (Caerwyn)
Thulsoma (Virovene)
Iashalur (Astrum)
Tol Goldora
The only pre-blight colony effort I can remember that was truly an inter-realm effort was Niselur. Post blight Westguard was specifically crafted for refugees from the sunken continents, it was not a player effort it was a dev made realm.
Even in the case of Tol Goldora three out of the seven founding members were well established in Sol.
Regardless none of these efforts, to my knowledge, were spearheaded by fifteen or more nobles. So the number is still unrealistic whether it's coming from one realm or several.
Tol Goldora had people from other continents lined up to make characters as soon as the realms was founded. There is a difference between how many characters set out, and how many characters/players are committed to a project.
-
Tol Goldora had people from other continents lined up to make characters as soon as the realms was founded. There is a difference between how many characters set out, and how many characters/players are committed to a project.
But the new rules don't accommodate such an arrangement.
-
Yes.
Under the new rules, the players would need to start up their new characters in the sponsoring realm. Sol in the case of Tol Goldura.
They would make themselves knights of the duchy in question. Which means at least 15 estates would need to be established in that duchy for those nobles. That would constitute 15 estates at 6% share with a single estate of 10% for the duke or city lord. It would have to be a rich city to give them much income.
I would note that if we are now pushing to have larger realms rather than pushing people to create new realms, we may wish to revisit the penalties visited upon larger realms. Loss of control and the like.
We are otherwise going to be stuck in the situation of realms being too large to be efficient but too small to break up. It may end up an unhappy medium for all involved.
-
what makes it not possible to have 15 nobles start new realm, then many of them return home?
-
As one of the founding players of Tol Goldora, people came from all over the place. We would not of had the chance to demonstrate the colony idea with 15 nobles. While I understand the reasoning behind a ruling - we all want to be in active realms who can have a decent noble hierarchy and army, the number either needs to come down or dynamic based on realm size.
I am also more than happy to act as a soundboard for changes - I cannot code alas.
-
Yes.
Under the new rules, the players would need to start up their new characters in the sponsoring realm. Sol in the case of Tol Goldura.
They would make themselves knights of the duchy in question. Which means at least 15 estates would need to be established in that duchy for those nobles. That would constitute 15 estates at 6% share with a single estate of 10% for the duke or city lord. It would have to be a rich city to give them much income.
I would note that if we are now pushing to have larger realms rather than pushing people to create new realms, we may wish to revisit the penalties visited upon larger realms. Loss of control and the like.
We are otherwise going to be stuck in the situation of realms being too large to be efficient but too small to break up. It may end up an unhappy medium for all involved.
Or they would need to have more regions established before hitting the seceded button?
what makes it not possible to have 15 nobles start new realm, then many of them return home?
Nothing, though some might have RP issues with that. Oaths to a realm are important, to me such action would be similar placeholder lords.
-
There should be an exemption. If a Duke is banned they should have the opportunity to secede no matter what.
That would open up a glaringly obvious loophole: want to found a new realm? Still on good terms with your government? That's OK, have them ban you anyway!
As for the 15 nobles I think 10 might have been a fairer number. Astrum was founded by 5 or 6 nobles trecking through winter and fighting the hordes to make it to Libidized.
There's a big difference between letting people found arbitrary-sized realms when the overall playerbase is healthy, and letting people found arbitrary-sized realms when the average realm size is below 20 and there are issues with finding a decent, interesting, and interactive realm wherever you go.
-
That would open up a glaringly obvious loophole: want to found a new realm? Still on good terms with your government? That's OK, have them ban you anyway!
That's a small price to pay to retain Ducal Power. Dukes have always had that power. Taking the power away to allow them to secede is a HUGE power shift. I understand why you are making the changes, but this changes a very large dynamic to the game. Being able to secede as Duke is what kept the balance. If they banned you, good chance you were taking your Duchy with you.
As for having your realm ban you to allow you to secede and form a new realm... then deal with it on a case by case basis. If it happens like that people will make a Titan report and it can be dealt with. What's to stop people from loading a Duchy with nobles and have them trickle back to the main realm after the secession? Your current rule leaves a loophole too. How to fix that? Make it against the rules... the same way to fix the problem with friendly banishments, with a rule.
Maybe this is all too much work and not worth it. I understand there are limited resources, but removing so much power from a Duke will.change the dynamic of the game.
-
I think the 15 nobles threshold to found a new realm is reasonable enough. The game doesn't really need new realms at this stage, anyway. The conversion of Alara to Sydgard shows there are other ways to have fresh starts and try out new things. The same goes for realm mergers. Merge realms and create something new out of the merger (or meld existing cultures to provide a new twist).
New realms founded with a few nobles tend to be vanity projects that some times hit gold, but more often crash and burn.
-
Again I ask - why is there so much desire to make new realms that are small and boring? In real history, if a duke or someone says "Now I am a King!" someone else say "No you are not" and smashes him. Almost never you see this succssion thing happen.
In the game, even worse. No one to talk to. Nothing to do because you are not strong enough to do anything. Boring.
I think make more ways for Duke to try to be King, not more ways for Duke to run away with his ball and only play with his own friends.
-
Well as another example, every knight in Obsidian Islands has just turned out to help Perdan fight the entire North. Seems to me their getting to see plenty of action.
But how many engaging messages do they receive in comparison ? The answer is Perdan's received 74 realm-channel messages in the last month while Obsidian Islands has received 6. Would it not be better for them to be part of Perdan's team without having to march through additional lands to participate in the war?
There should be an exemption. If a Duke is banned they should have the opportunity to secede no matter what.
No. There is no inalienable right to secede. Internal situations as dukes being banned were considered and this is why there is not a requirement for the old realm to have any minimum, so there is flexibility for a realm's nobility to side with the duke and then wage war upon the old realm without keeping them stuck in one realm.
There's a big difference between letting people found arbitrary-sized realms when the overall playerbase is healthy, and letting people found arbitrary-sized realms when the average realm size is below 20 and there are issues with finding a decent, interesting, and interactive realm wherever you go.
When the playerbase was healthy, generally founding particularly tiny realms did not bode well for one's longevity - there was a natural minimum enforcement. The way I see it, this is replicating that in an environment that can no longer naturally pressure small realms.
That's a small price to pay to retain Ducal Power. Dukes have always had that power. Taking the power away to allow them to secede is a HUGE power shift. I understand why you are making the changes, but this changes a very large dynamic to the game. Being able to secede as Duke is what kept the balance. If they banned you, good chance you were taking your Duchy with you.
I'm not sure if dukes have *always* had that power, but certainly as long as you've played, its been true. While the change wasn't about the following at all, dukes *have* been considered overpowered and needing balanced in relation to the rest of the hierarchy for some time. Again, there is no inalienable rights for dukes to do as they please and always get their way. The game is a *team* game, not about particular individuals' getting their way, everyone else can be banned and lose lands too, if they're not prepared or in a bad spot. The changes were made such that if the dukes have the popular support of the realm, they should be able to emerge victorious in any power struggles.
-
I'd like to bring this conversation back into consideration. I was looking over the realm lists and it occurred to me that at this time it is impossible for any new realms to form on either Dwilight or East Continent. In both gamer worlds the largest realm on the continent is too small to achieve the 15 player minimum. Ironically nearly half the realms on Dwilight and and over half of the realms on EC have fewer than 15 nobles, and EC features three realms with less than ten.
The supposed benefit of the 15 player limit that's been argued in this thread is that it prevents the formation of small, sparsely populated and uninteresting realms that are alienating to new players, but the idea of this benefit is unfounded. There is no evidence newly founded realms have a greater tendency to remain small, sparsely populated, uninteresting and alienating to new players. The newest realm on Dwilight, founded with only seven nobles is on the cusp of becoming the most populous.
It seems clear to me that a limit of 10 is much more reasonable than 15. I can tell you from experience a ten noble threshold will not make it easy to found a new realm by any stretch of the imagination. It will merely make it possible. Right now the limit of fifteen makes it functionally impossible to form a new realm on two game worlds (and I doubt the others are better off).
If the limit were scaled back to 10 I can say with absolute certainty that we will not see realms popping up all over until the noble populations of the game are dispersed to the four winds. In fact I doubt we will see a single new realm before the end of this year. So what possible reason remains for the limit remain at 15?
-
No. 10 noble realms are too small. Even 15 is too small to be honest. Realms need to be at least 20.
I think they are being too generous with 15. I'd suggest raising it to 20.
-
But the new realm doesn’t stay at 10 that’s my point. Tol Goldora started with 7 nobles and has 23 now. A realm’s population at its founding has no relation to how many players eventually join it.
The limit does nothing to ensure a desired noble population. All it does is make it functionally impossible to found a new realm. Meanwhile on EC you have several realms with less that 10 players. So where is the benefit? No one can seem to articulate one besides insisting “ten’s too small†as if the noble population of a realm becomes fixed upon its founding. Do you consider it a minor thing that no new realm may ever be founded in Dwilight again? Are you happy with the fact that in the unlikely event that it does happen it will be a top-down choice by the realm’s elites with other players contributing little more than their opinions to the split?
-
The point is to reduce the total number of realms.
I don't know why you want to create more realms when there are plenty of other realms to join.
The game doesn't need more realms. Also there is no guarantee new realms will become large enough.
-
So that's the reason now, not noble population but total realm number? If so this is not effective for that either. As it was new realms getting founded was still rare. You prevent maybe one realm from forming every few years while three low population realms are sitting around on EC. If you want fewer realms the solution is to create a mechanism that makes it progressively harder to manage a realm with too few nobles, forcing them to eventually merge or die out.
The reason I care about the creation of new realms remaining a feature of this game is that quite simply, in the dozen years I've been playing Battlemaster, there has been no experience more thrilling or fulfilling than founding a new realm. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this.
Whenever I try to recruit a new player I almost always tell them about the colonizing period of Dwilight. Now, if I'm going to be honest with them I'll have to say "but that can't really happen anymore, maybe someday we'll get enough players...". That's the really sad thing. I got to have my fun but the next generation will probably never know what it's like.
The way you're describing things right now sounds like a very disappointing vision for the future of this game. If we eliminate the possibility for new realms then what happens to the old ones? One way or another they merge or get conquered until various existing mechanisms render further consolidation impossible. You'll reach a point where for all intents and purposes a realm can neither be created nor destroyed. So the whole game becomes fixed, stagnant. A few regions can change hands but there will be no serious consequences. The greatest draw of this game, the ability to create history becomes a thing of the past. It would no longer be a player controlled world because everything of consequence wont be under player control, it will be derived directly from the game mechanics.
-
"Tol Goldora started with 7 nobles and has 23 now."
And if Tol Goldora didn't exist where would those 23 nobles be? Would there still be realms below 15 nobles? Where would those nobles be, in the West making the island more spread out or in the east making the island more compact?
The total realm count matters. If you have 100 nobles and 5 realms, then the average will be 20 nobles per realm. If you have 100 nobles and 6 realms then you will have an average of 16.6. Dwilight, prior to the four realms (Luria Fer, HD, Morek Empire, and Fissoa) that have died by merging into other realms, had an average of 12 nobles per realm. That was the state of the island when the limit was put in place and is relevant to the discussion.
-
"Tol Goldora started with 7 nobles and has 23 now."
And if Tol Goldora didn't exist where would those 23 nobles be? Would there still be realms below 15 nobles? Where would those nobles be, in the West making the island more spread out or in the east making the island more compact?
That’s a huge assumption to be making. I know many would have been in entirely different game worlds. Some would have gone dormant. Some would have probably done the bare minimum and just gold farmed for their other characters. As I’ve said before a realm of 20 minimally active players is far worse than one of ten highly active and invested players.
Besides what kind of reasoning is that? The founders of Tol Goldora built an interesting realm that a lot of people want to play in and that’s somehow a bad thing because all the other realms couldn’t keep the interest of their players? So the players who want to build and create things that other players want to participate in should be punished and all those players should be forced to settle for less compelling realms?
This is the same logic people were floating a while back that they should shut down Dwilight because it was the most popular game world! The Devs at the time actually thought that all the players of Dwilight would meekly immigrate to all the other worlds. The reality is I would have quit if they’d gotten rid of Dwilight and I think a lot of other players would have too. We didn’t choose Dwilight out of some abstract metric like player density we chose it because it appealed to us as a place where we could play interesting characters in a dynamic setting. We rejected continents like Atamara because we didn’t see the same potential there.
Thankfully at the time the Dev team saw logic and we ultimately kept Dwilight and got rid of Atamara. That’s the approach that should be taken to realms. Make it harder to hold onto the small, underpopulated flagging realms, don’t force people into them from well developed, thriving and compelling realms, and don’t make building such realms impossible.
The problem is you’re thinking of this only in terms of numbers: X Player Density/ Y total number of realms = healthy game and it just doesn’t work like that. This isn’t a game of numbers it’s a game of people. Forcing people into your idealized vision of a proper realm distribution won’t make the game better if you do it at the expense of human agency. Trust me I’m a social scientist I know a thing or two about how people work.
-
We know that it's not down to bare numbers. But numbers are an important part of the equation, and just allowing anyone to secede and create a new realm, no matter how small their current realm is, is not a tenable solution given the size of our playerbase.
I understand your frustration and your concerns, but at least for the time being, that restriction is not going to be lifted.
That said, I am presently considering the reintroduction of the Colony Takeover in the foreseeable future, and given the different nature of what is required for a colony vs a secession, I would be willing to at least entertain the idea of allowing those with fewer nobles.
-
We know that it's not down to bare numbers. But numbers are an important part of the equation, and just allowing anyone to secede and create a new realm, no matter how small their current realm is, is not a tenable solution given the size of our playerbase.
I understand your frustration and your concerns, but at least for the time being, that restriction is not going to be lifted.
That said, I am presently considering the reintroduction of the Colony Takeover in the foreseeable future, and given the different nature of what is required for a colony vs a secession, I would be willing to at least entertain the idea of allowing those with fewer nobles.
Thank you. Bringing back CTO sounds like a great idea.