BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Zatirri on March 13, 2019, 02:44:30 PM
-
In Taselak I have observed an OOC conversation about implementing a limit on the number of ruler positions that can be held per person.
In order to take the conversation publicly, and to spare spamming in game, I've opened a thread for it.
-
Bad idea. There's a reason individual players have a ruler character in more than one realm - other people either choose not to run against them in elections because they don't want to be a ruler; or, they can't be bothered to write letters and campaign during said elections; or, if they become rulers, they don't put in any effort to try to make their realm (and the game) more interesting. There are numerous realms across the game where people could virtually walk in to ruler (or other government) position if they put in the slightest bit of effort.
Hard restrictions of this sort never work in this game. How would people feel if everyone was forced to play one priest character to revive the religious game, for example? The game works best when it's as open as possible.
-
I'm inclined against this proposal.
But I do think there is something to be said for too many players spread out over too many realms resulting in great ease for any old family to collect rulerships by virtue of continuing to exist as a character. This requires community-wide participation to address.
-
Maybe it should become more like a good thing to do instead of making it a rule. After all it takes much time to properly rule a realm and the players sure would benefit from it when someone is fully dedicated to the position.
-
We have families that have rulers in all 4 continents for more than 10~20 years.
There is literally NO DYNAMIC and NO SPACE for new players.
Take a look at the East Continent, it is the same !@#$ for 20 years. THE VERY SAME !@#$.
Sirion and friends always win the war.
Now, please, tell me where is the dynamic in that?
If you disagree with one ruler per account you must be from the "power hungry rulers group" (to not say the "god" group), otherwise there is no way you will disagree with this statement.
1 ruler per account FTW.
-
We have families that have rulers in all 4 continents for more than 10~20 years.
That is patently false. There are cases of longterm rulers in a realm, but not of a family ruling four continents for over ten years. The longest ruler character was about ten years, I think. And that was still broken up between three elections iirc. And did not rule any other realms as I recall.
If you disagree with one ruler per account you must be from the "power hungry rulers group" (to not say the "god" group), otherwise there is no way you will disagree with this statement.
That's some rather fallacious reasoning.
-
I'm sorry my previous msg is not good enough, what you want me to write here that will make you happy?
I already told you, I agree with everything that you said and I am a fool.
I apologize for not seeing the game the way you see.
You are right and I am wrong.
I am so sorry.
How many times you had to push for realm creation because no one else would do it?
Do you think, if you were not a dev you would have had the same results?
What happened to those rulers after? Did they got banished? Did they left the game? Are those families hated or no one else will give them space "game wide" ?
-
I see you aren't interested in a productive conversation, but merely increasing community toxicity. If you cannot abide by the social contract or the forum rules of conduct, action will be taken.
-
Can we put the start of this?
A character was deleted yesterday and the player gave this reason:
Steon Le Bras has deleted the character Avielour. The reason for leaving was: There may be some person having fun, but I do not know who.Maybe the general who does all the things?
Some people started to give their thoughts about the matter and we ended up discussing this one ruler per family thing (which, I am totally against).
I believe that, having a lot of players, it is wise and fair to not hold too many positions but, as we are now, sometimes we don't have much option.
It would be lovely to have all what was said posted here and so I will copy what I've said.
We gave space to new players in one of the realms I play and the result was not the expected. It take some time to new players to understand how unique is BM. What applies to other games does not aplly in here. I can tell this.
First ime I was at IRC, coming from another game, I've called Tim "Queen Anaris" and I was told that BM separate IC and OOC so well that we even have this option to message people ooc and this is only one detail that make this game so good.
As K Monks said, if you doesn't like the game, you just leave, quietly. You don't need to make drama. If you want to be a ruler, fight for the position, as you would do in RL. Show you are a leader and you can lead the team to something good. Many of us are in Taselak because we believe Erdogan will lead us so I think its just not fair to blame him.
As for the one ruler per family thing, I believe that if we were back to a bigger player base this will happen automatically. It doens't need to be a rule. If we have some players with many positions now is because we don't have enough players wanting the job.
Thing is, some players put more effort in the game than others and it is because of them that the game still exist.
Eleanor (Dubhaine) should be a example for us on all this. She holds the banker position in some realms just because she is the best banker EVER.
I could never do this job as good as she does.
-
Yes, there are some players that may be power/title hungry.
Yet there are others that hold council positions because no one else will step up to take on the responsibilities involved with some of those positions.
I have seen Banker and General positions sit vacant through two or more consecutive elections because no one was willing to step up to fill the positions.
I have seen people beg for others to fill these positions.
I have been Banker in Nivemus for (RL) years now. Is this a position that I covet and would fight to my dying breath for?
No. It is a position that I took on long ago because no one else stepped up for it and it needed to be done.
There are regular elections (quarterly, I believe) for the position and I don't remember the last time that anyone put forth a candidacy against my character for the banker position.
My character took Nivemus from often seeing hungry/starving regions to being a well fed realm. It took a lot of hard work.
My character has proven herself over time and has earned the respect of her fellow nobles. They have come to respect her ability to be fair and keep the realm fed (her "job").
Sirion is a Republic and Nothoi a Democracy (I currently play in neither realm). Leaders of these realms are voted in on a regular basis.
Prime Minister Foxglove and Diadochi Kinsey have held leadership of their respective realms for quite some time now.
I ask you, "why is that?"
There is no reason that someone else could not run for either of these leadership positions and oust either of these leaders, is there?
I suspect, that like my character in Nivemus, they have put the work in and earned the trust and respect of their fellow nobles.
Both of these realms are good sized realms, so you would have to convince many nobles of your worthiness to rule before you could usurp power in either realm.
Do you need a good family name to be considered to be a ruler?
No, all you need to do is prove to your fellow nobles that you are worthy of being followed as a ruler.
If you truly are interested in a leadership position, I suggest that obtaining one would not be too difficult IF you are prepared to put the work into obtaining and holding one.
There are MANY realms with between 10 and 15 nobles.
This means you could formulate a plan to be the ruler of your own realm by convincing as few as 5-8 nobles of your worthiness to lead them. I will not get into details or specifics, but if you can convince half (or even less with the right plan) of the nobles in a realm, a ruler position could be yours.
Quit bellyaching about what others have earned for themselves and get a plan together to earn it for yourself.
-
I complain in other thread, but this is my idea:
I do not think it is bad thing (maybe) if one player have many rulers, many generals - this power is only pretend, game power, not real
I think bad thing when one player have all these jobs AND DOES NOT LET OTHERS DO THINGS. This is real bad - now players only sit and wait for what order for today.
Now you have one player making no fun game for many, many, many people.
I do not think a rule in game can fix this very much. I think TAKE AWAY RULES from others is what helps. If you want me to do a thing, show me it more fun than do my own thing instead.
EDIT: Also I have this thought - everywhere is "we are game for play together". But I see these generals never play together. Always is one person say everything. I play in one realm, I ask - "Why never the marshal tell me orders? Only sponsor who is also vice marshal"
So now this one players wants do EVERYTHING, but of course this is too big job, so many players forgotten with no idea what to do.
I think you want group play, first make power people learn how make group play.
Also, maybe PolarRaven shows more about other thing I asked - why so many people want make own realm? Even in small realm, no one want to take positions. Why make worse with own realm?
-
That is probably why the recent 15 noble limit to secede got added. There are certainly realms that can't even fill their gov positions anymore.
Regarding one person trying to take all the positions, if you see someone trying to do that and not let anyone take a gov position, report that person to the titans.
-
Also I have this thought - everywhere is "we are game for play together". But I see these generals never play together. Always is one person say everything. I play in one realm, I ask - "Why never the marshal tell me orders? Only sponsor who is also vice marshal"
So now this one players wants do EVERYTHING, but of course this is too big job, so many players forgotten with no idea what to do.
I think you want group play, first make power people learn how make group play.
Also, maybe PolarRaven shows more about other thing I asked - why so many people want make own realm? Even in small realm, no one want to take positions. Why make worse with own realm?
It usually works like this: a military council discusses strategies for the war, the general decides what to do in the grand scheme of things (e.g. which regions to target or a vague looting run), the marshal decides how to execute this plan (e.g. when to move where, what are the line settings), and the vice-marshal is there in case the marshal is wounded or is unable to give the orders (maybe the player is busy with life that day/week.)
There can be variations to this but generally this is how it works. As you can see, it isn't one person doing everything but a team of players. Want to get involved in the process? Make some plans yourself and send them to the realm or military council.
-
It usually works like this: a military council discusses strategies for the war, the general decides what to do in the grand scheme of things (e.g. which regions to target or a vague looting run), the marshal decides how to execute this plan (e.g. when to move where, what are the line settings), and the vice-marshal is there in case the marshal is wounded or is unable to give the orders (maybe the player is busy with life that day/week.)
There can be variations to this but generally this is how it works. As you can see, it isn't one person doing everything but a team of players. Want to get involved in the process? Make some plans yourself and send them to the realm or military council.
That is the ideal that we wanted back when we said Generals shouldn't send orders to the army. In most realms I have been a part of General dictate every aspect of the war. There may or may not be a council that discuss matters but the General sends out all orders for movement, refit and the like. The marshals only job is formations, pretending you are in a realm that uses them. Otherwise the General orders also include all required line settings.
-
That is the ideal that we wanted back when we said Generals shouldn't send orders to the army. In most realms I have been a part of General dictate every aspect of the war. There may or may not be a council that discuss matters but the General sends out all orders for movement, refit and the like. The marshals only job is formations, pretending you are in a realm that uses them. Otherwise the General orders also include all required line settings.
People are free to speak up and/or protest. If everyone remains silent about it then nothing will be done.
-
That is the ideal that we wanted back when we said Generals shouldn't send orders to the army. In most realms I have been a part of General dictate every aspect of the war. There may or may not be a council that discuss matters but the General sends out all orders for movement, refit and the like. The marshals only job is formations, pretending you are in a realm that uses them. Otherwise the General orders also include all required line settings.
In Luria, I generally only send marshals (or the military council) what I want armies to get done for the coming week. It has worked quite well so far. The only time when I actually directly ordered armies was when marshals wanted me to do it to reduce confusion of having the same order across 2 armies. But for about 3 or 4 months, we've managed to maintain a system of general only ordering marshals and marshals ordering TLs directly. So I'd say, it is entirely doable. But you need to find active marshals which is quite a challenge these days with reduce players.
-
People are free to speak up and/or protest. If everyone remains silent about it then nothing will be done.
Since General is a thankless job, people tend not to complain unless the general sucks a lot. Usually, if your general is even half decent, you don't object because you can't fill his shoes.
-
In Luria, I generally only send marshals (or the military council) what I want armies to get done for the coming week. It has worked quite well so far. The only time when I actually directly ordered armies was when marshals wanted me to do it to reduce confusion of having the same order across 2 armies. But for about 3 or 4 months, we've managed to maintain a system of general only ordering marshals and marshals ordering TLs directly. So I'd say, it is entirely doable. But you need to find active marshals which is quite a challenge these days with reduce players.
Sure its doable, people just mostly don't. It is one more point of contact, one more delay with orders getting out depending on people play time etc etc. Besides so many realms no only have 1 army.
-
I personally think what's important s that players are honest with themselves.
If you're a ruler, and you notice your realm isn't doing well, or it's completely silent, or that all new players that join leave within a week; are you what is best for the realm at this time?
There are some realms that are large, keep a constant ruler, and are doing well. No issue with that at all, clearly what they're doing is working for them.
My issue is with the realms that bleed players, particularly new players. If you can't retain nobles, something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
But from a more subjective view, I think rulers need to be willing to take risks. They need to be trying to create a story.
As a ruler, they're like the directors of the realm's story and all the nobles below them are characters in it.
If everyone's sat idle, you should find something for the realm to do.
Be that a war, aiding an ally, a pilgrimage, or a roleplay event.
Anything.
If you can't, then be willing to step aside and let someone else try.
-
I think bad thing when one player have all these jobs AND DOES NOT LET OTHERS DO THINGS. This is real bad - now players only sit and wait for what order for today.
Agreed. The Government Rules (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Government_rules) (to which all government players are expected to abide) state:
As leaders of the realm, it is your responsibility to look out for the fun of all members of your realm. Even in internal conflict, it is your responsibility to ensure that all parts of the realm are enjoying themselves. Do not actively suppress player attempts to engage one another in the interests of asserting your dominance over the realm.
If all your attempts to work it out have failed (we always encourage players to try to work out their issues themselves first before involving Titans), the Titans should absolutely know about government leaders not fulfilling their obligations.
I do not think a rule in game can fix this very much. I think TAKE AWAY RULES from others is what helps. If you want me to do a thing, show me it more fun than do my own thing instead.
The rules exist to protect players and a balanced game. No-holds barred BM would be *way* worse.
EDIT: Also I have this thought - everywhere is "we are game for play together". But I see these generals never play together. Always is one person say everything. I play in one realm, I ask - "Why never the marshal tell me orders? Only sponsor who is also vice marshal"
Yes, Generals are to involve other players' characters.
Even in small realm, no one want to take positions. Why make worse with own realm?
Yup, absolutely.
-
I personally think what's important s that players are honest with themselves.
If you're a ruler, and you notice your realm isn't doing well, or it's completely silent, or that all new players that join leave within a week; are you what is best for the realm at this time?
There are some realms that are large, keep a constant ruler, and are doing well. No issue with that at all, clearly what they're doing is working for them.
My issue is with the realms that bleed players, particularly new players. If you can't retain nobles, something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
But from a more subjective view, I think rulers need to be willing to take risks. They need to be trying to create a story.
As a ruler, they're like the directors of the realm's story and all the nobles below them are characters in it.
If everyone's sat idle, you should find something for the realm to do.
Be that a war, aiding an ally, a pilgrimage, or a roleplay event.
Anything.
If you can't, then be willing to step aside and let someone else try.
People already know if they want to make things fun, they need to take risks. But do people want to let go of their hard earned titles? Doubt so.
-
People already know if they want to make things fun, they need to take risks. But do people want to let go of their hard earned titles? Doubt so.
That is a pathway to fun for some, not for all. And hard earned titles? It is also not particularly consistent to have a RP world full of risk takers.
-
I personally think what's important s that players are honest with themselves.
If you're a ruler, and you notice your realm isn't doing well, or it's completely silent, or that all new players that join leave within a week; are you what is best for the realm at this time?
There are some realms that are large, keep a constant ruler, and are doing well. No issue with that at all, clearly what they're doing is working for them.
My issue is with the realms that bleed players, particularly new players. If you can't retain nobles, something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
But from a more subjective view, I think rulers need to be willing to take risks. They need to be trying to create a story.
As a ruler, they're like the directors of the realm's story and all the nobles below them are characters in it.
If everyone's sat idle, you should find something for the realm to do.
Be that a war, aiding an ally, a pilgrimage, or a roleplay event.
Anything.
If you can't, then be willing to step aside and let someone else try.
Absolutely this.
-
By my very humble opinion:
There isn't a term limit in the game because there wasn't one on real-life kings as well. However, real-life kings have a built-in term limit, it's called life expectancy. It is something (aging) that I brought more strongly into Might & Fealty because I felt like I hadn't done it right in BattleMaster.
I would strongly support any idea to increase ruler turnover without making too hard rules about it. But our players being who they are, they will quickly find ways around any restrictions. So the driving force behind should be PLAYERS.
And in any government system, if the players want to change their ruler, they can. So if someone rules for 10 years, apparently most players in the realm are happy with that, or they would've thrown him out.
-
Tom speaks wise words.
It absolutely MUST be player driven. The players have plenty of resources at their disposal. They can protest gov members out, they can organize rebellions, Dukes can cede (although more difficult with the 15 noble min, but they can still change their duchy allegiance to another realm).
This whole discussion bothers me a little bit. I do not like being a ruler. In fact, it is probably my most disliked position. Yet, I find myself continually taking up the position because of lack of interested candidates. And then I see people complaining about players having more than one ruler character.
Seriously?
It isn't a conspiracy. It is a handful of people trying to keep the game from completely stagnating.
These same people who are complaining are the same people who just log in and click orders and log out. If you can't even put in some effort to being a Knight, how do you think you will be successful at being a ruler and making an entire realm interesting?
These people need to stop complaining and actually start contributing to the game.
-
The actual facts are that out of 46 realms, there are only thirteen realms ruled by a family with multiple rulers. That is, only five families (Foxglove, Ketchum, Beatrix, Pryde, Abjur) with two rulers and one family (Altenahr) with three rulers. Specifically, Sirion-Westgard, Morek Empire-Nivemus, Avernus-Eponllyn, Astrum-Nothoi, Angmar-Redhaven with double rulers and Gothica-Arnor-Grehkia with a triple ruler.
-
The ruler turnover rate dropped because there just aren't enough people. It is easier to keep a small group of 10~20 people happy. But it becomes hard as the noble size increases. 90 people realm is a nightmare to rule compared to 10~20.
-
I only rule one realm.
Though I HAVE ruled at least five different realms on three continents.
-
My apologies, I've got you stuck as 'permanent ruler of Nothoi' in my brain. So that makes it even less multiple-rulers in BM. ;) Really don't see this as a huge issue.
-
Thinking about this, the recent push towards larger realms will see many less realms and therefore most of the game will be ruled by just a few families. I believe Vita said somewhere there are currently 46 realms total. If each island ends up with only 4-5 larger realms, that would reduce the ruler population down to around 20 positions. I am currently one of the 46, but it is unlikely that I would be one of the 20.
We could see 5-20 families "ruling" the game.
-
Thinking about this, the recent push towards larger realms will see many less realms and therefore most of the game will be ruled by just a few families. I believe Vita said somewhere there are currently 46 realms total. If each island ends up with only 4-5 larger realms, that would reduce the ruler population down to around 20 positions. I am currently one of the 46, but it is unlikely that I would be one of the 20.
We could see 5-20 families "ruling" the game.
Very unlikely to have only 5 ruling 20 realms. Why? Because populous realms always have power hungry players who want to replace the existing ruler.
-
And yet, how often does the leadership of Sirion, Obeah, Thal or most of the larger realms change?
-
And yet, how often does the leadership of Sirion, Obeah, Thal or most of the larger realms change?
Obia'Syelah has had 5 unique rulers in its lifetime (1 year, 10 months).
Sirion has had 2 unique rulers in the same time period.
Thalmarkin has had 6 unique rulers in the same time period.
Westgard has had 1 unique ruler in the same time period.
Avernus has had 2 unique rulers in the same time period (3 months younger than OS).
Nothoi has had 3 unique rulers in the same time period.
Shattered Vales has had 4 unique rulers in the same time period.
Perleone has had 4 unique rulers in the same time period.
Nivemus has had 1 unique ruler in the same time period.
Perdan has had 8 unique rulers in the same time period.
This does not include realm founders, rebellions, and such, just elected unique characters.
-
And yet, how often does the leadership of Sirion, Obeah, Thal or most of the larger realms change?
Yeah, rulers changed quite a lot in Thalmarkin. Not sure why you include that one...
-
Yeah, rulers changed quite a lot in Thalmarkin. Not sure why you include that one...
Yeah, my bad. I have not payed attention lately, but I was specifically thinking back to the time of Fingolfin.
I believe he ruled Thal for a very long time. King of Kings and all.
Pretty sure he ruled through 2 or 3 different invasions before he finally left.
-
Yeah, my bad. I have not payed attention lately, but I was specifically thinking back to the time of Fingolfin.
I believe he ruled Thal for a very long time. King of Kings and all.
Pretty sure he ruled through 2 or 3 different invasions before he finally left.
Well my first response would be.. 'So what?'
This probably means he is doing his job well. It is not a democracy where elections are run every month.
People can always rebel, protest, secede, ...
-
Well my first response would be.. 'So what?'
This probably means he is doing his job well. It is not a democracy where elections are run every month.
People can always rebel, protest, secede, ...
Oh, I am not complaining. I do not agree with 1 ruler per account, i was just following up from Zakky's response to an earlier post of mine.
Very unlikely to have only 5 ruling 20 realms. Why? Because populous realms always have power hungry players who want to replace the existing ruler.
Thinking about this, the recent push towards larger realms will see many less realms and therefore most of the game will be ruled by just a few families. I believe Vita said somewhere there are currently 46 realms total. If each island ends up with only 4-5 larger realms, that would reduce the ruler population down to around 20 positions. I am currently one of the 46, but it is unlikely that I would be one of the 20.
We could see 5-20 families "ruling" the game.
-
Yao Ling did not form Nothoi. She has been the banker there for most of its history, but she wasn't even a founding member of the realm. And she only ruled it for a short time during a Daimon Invasion when the previous ruler disappeared. Once the invasion was over, it was no longer the right time for a priest to lead a nation and she did not run in the next election.
Also, I was tired of being a ruler.
The thing that would stop people from having multiple rulers naturally is that running realms takes a lot of work.
I will note once again that I have ruled numerous realms over the years. And each time it has been a great honor that the people elected me to do so. I've never once taken power through a rebellion or a secession. Every single time I was elected by my fellow realm mates to represent them.
In one case, the realm was destroyed not long after by the Daimons. And that character was captured and deported to another island. In the other cases, I got to a point where things were running well, I was getting tired of all the work, and there were other people who wanted to do it. So I could hand the leadership over to someone else and I did. Because running a realm takes a long time, and the more people there are in a realm the more time it takes. I would prefer not to do that for a long time. So after a time, election time comes, I announce that I'm not running this time, and someone else steps up to take over. And I'm happy.
The point is that as we reduce the number of realms by getting smaller realms to join larger ones, we will concentrate the number of people willing to spend the time to rule in a smaller number of realms with more players that takes more time to run. Assuming we hit that happy medium, I will probably not lead another realm again, and I will be very happy indeed. ;)
-
A funny thing.
I was just looking at the list of realms with double rulers. Or people who rule realms on multiple continents.
In almost every case, I am a member of the government of a realm bitterly at war with them on one continent. And then I'm a member of a government that is bosum allies with them on another continent.
That makes me chuckle. ;)
I think it is a very good thing that this game emphasizes first names all the time, because it allows for some very interesting mixes across the continents that would otherwise be much harder to maintain.