BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: PolarRaven on September 08, 2019, 10:18:28 AM
-
PAGE 1
From the Rulers channel on Discord:
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 11:40 AM
For transparency because the DEV's do not play in the game:
Out-of-Character from Glynkar Plaraveen
Message sent to the rulers of Beluaterra (9 recipients) - 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
For those who do not use the Discord channels:
VITA
"So...what would people think if we created a mechanic similar to penalties for failed elections, no gov office held, anarchy et cetera whereby if a realm had less than X nobles for X period of time, the realm would be made rogue (each day of X time-period having a warning message)? If the realm goes over the minimum noble requirement, the timer is reset."
"So, for example, what I'm specifically thinking is
If udner 10 nobles (or 5 on Colonies), you get 60 days to find a solution, or the realm is rogued on day 60. if a realm say gets 10 nobles for a week, and then goes back under 10, they restart at the full 60 days."
I find this very disheartening as it would basically see the end of Caelint 8, Angmar 8, Grehkia 8, Gotland 10, Ar Agyr 12, Nothoi 13.
So it would likely be better if all of the central realms decided to fold and join Thalmarkin or one of the Obean realms.
Any new members that join the Discord are usually advised that joining Thal or Obeah is the best choice.
Then we could all yell at each other from opposite ends of the map while sharing religious RP's. Good times.
Harold Miller
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 11:48 AM
From what I understand, after talking to a few people, this is an idea, not a certainty.
That being said, I personally would like to respectfully disagree. I believe that the variety of realms give players different ways to play their characters, and also make complicated, multi front battle possible.
There's merit to the comment on "dead" realms being terrible for player retention. That's valid. But perhaps rogueing the realm isn't the only solution. Maybe we put that activity onus on the ruler. We are responsible for the fun. It's a SOB in Thal to keep them entertained, and it takes work on my part. But I'm doing it. And it's working. Rulers, within reason, should be responsible for maintaining a certain level of activity. The only measurable metric for that would be sent letters I suppose. Putting a quota on it sounds like a horrible idea, but an initiative to increase activity, if only by TALKING, might help.
We all agree we have activity issues in plenty of places. There has to be more than one solution. One that doesn't see cultures that people care about removed only because of low noble count. We might be able to find other ways to accomplish this
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 11:55 AM
I understand that new players need some activity to gain their interest. But there are MANY players that just do not have the time or "will/want" to sit around typing letters every day all the time. We all come to this game for different reasons. Should the players that don't want to spend hours each day writing RP's be punished for their level of play?
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 11:55 AM
No, I don't think so.
But as rulers, there's another level of responsibility to the game and the players within your realm.
I'm just trying to find another solution that doesn't involve rogueing realms like this
I'm with ya
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 11:57 AM
Currently the only real executable conflict on BT involves 5 of the 6 realms that would be rogued with this idea.
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 11:57 AM
Yep.. and that stinks
Could remove the distance caps I guess, or greatly soften them
But then it basically becomes SI
The small pockets of civilization all over, in the midst of invasion, is part of BT
I think the flavor, which the multitude of realms create, is very very important to the survival of the game on that continent
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Thursday at 12:02 PM
3 realms would be affected if this idea was implemented, not 6. The number given was those that had less than 10 nobles.
Also, @Vita` , you wanted feedback so see above if you haven't already.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 12:05 PM
Sadly Vita is of the opinion that small realms have nothing to offer the game.
The current actionable conflict on BT was started by two of the smallest realms on the continent
Vita`Last Thursday at 12:13 PM
What I find disheartening is the completely uncharitable interpretations of everything for no purpose other than to further divide the community. Nothing will change if we can't work together. BTW, developers do play the game. I'll answer more later when I don't feel so disheartened by assuming the worst of each other's intentions.
LancasterLast Thursday at 12:14 PM
The fact that small realms CAN contribute to the game overall doesn't mean that they all do
Generally, they trend to be quiet, isolationist. If I wasn't pushing some of the members of Fallangard to leave our borders, we probably never would
GreybrookLast Thursday at 12:25 PM
This is kind of why I am glad to see war in Dwilight and localised conflict in BT - makes engagement that involves realms of all sizes or makes governments have to make decisions to merge etc
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 12:29 PM
Tried to be kind about it, and very constructive, Vita
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 12:51 PM
Well then I my point has merit. If the rulers foster fun and activity, however they need to, whether it be religion, battle, RP.. then we'll see activity. I think that even the isolationist realms, if given the push by a ruler, can have fun. Or get crushed by another realm.. self maintenance.
And, @Vita` and @Delvin Anaris I know that we don't know the full picture behind the coding and what's possible, what's not. And I personally respect that, and the work you all do. However this group, the rulers, have their fingers on the pulse of this game like no others. Socially, we have a very very good idea of what's happening, and why. I mean this with the utmost respect, and I hope my well meaning words are not misconstrued
I still don't have an answer to the issue, which I agree exists. But I think I'm on to something. Accountability for the rulers, regarding activity. I wouldn't be offended if you asked me to prove I was doing my job
Vita`Last Thursday at 1:18 PM
Okay, getting back to this...
Yes, its only an idea, not a certainty. Hence seeking feedback.
I think there's merit to the variety of realm's line.
I think you've noticed we have been trying to stress the gov responsibilities more recently. :wink: But Titans aren't going to start investigating realms like the Secret Police and if people don't report issues, issues linger. We've spent years trying to emphasize to rulers the need to address these issues and while some have, others have just sat there 'waiting'. Waiting doesn't fix things.
I'm open to solutions, absolutely, but I also fundamentally question if a culture is cared about if it cant attract enough nobility and they don't actually do anything to maintain or pass on the culture, if the culture is 'only' the memory of past times. That's not culture, thats history. History can become culture again, certainly, but by and large, its been quite unlikely in the last five years.
BattleMaster is a social game based upon interactions. While you're not expected to constantly write, there should be something written. Especially as a government player.
There are only 3 realms on BT that would, at current noble counts, be made rogue if this were implemented and they went 60 days without being above 10 nobles. There's an exception to the no mergers rule for a reason. And if it were implemented, and on day 57 one of the realms got its 10th noble, the timer would stop. And if they lost a noble and went back down to 9, they would start all over at 0. The proposal is that it would take two months of sustained, continually under 10 nobles (or 5 for colonies). Each day giving a warning to the realm, the same as the warning you get for having no one in a government office, or being in anarchy.
Removing or softening distance caps....would be a step backwards.
I think flavor is important, but that there isn't flavor if realms aren't actually engaging one another or themselves. The mere existence of realms is not flavor. You have to actually interact to have flavor.
Thanks Abstract.
No, I'm of hte opinion that small realms, more often than not, provide a terrible experience to the game, especially for a new player's introduction to BattleMaster. Also, the game was not designed to have such realms. Its a disease, not something to be preserved. Exceptions have and can exist, but much like two characters on an island, more often than not it makes the game more static and less dynamic.
You were Jitney, and I appreciate it.
I'll be considering yours and Left's arguments and how to address those concerns.
The problem is Jitney, not all rulers bother to give a push. And not all realms have the players available to dedicate to playing such a character.
I'm not sure why you're telling me this. I'm the one who made the #rulers channel to increase communication, came up with the TODO for the ingame ruler-admin channel, and has pushed for more ruler involvement in community decisions. That's the way the community used to operate and what I've been pushing to get us back towards.
I appreciate the effort you put into BM and while I wouldn't refer to it as a 'job' (hey, its a game, lighten up :P), there are certain community responsibilities to playing a character in a government office. And I'm rather close to making an announcement that henceforth, dukes are included in the Government Rules too, since what a duke is now is not what a duke used to be when those rules were being formed. Anyway, accountability for rulers requires the community to uphold that accountablity. Everything comes down to community effort, to uphold accountability, atmosphere, rules, to cooperate to find solutions for hte playerbase decline et cetera.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 4:03 PM
Out-of-Character from Glynkar Plaraveen
Message sent to the rulers of Beluaterra (9 recipients) - just in
No need to redraw a new map.
Maybe have Atamara rise from the sinking with many of the former regions lost to the ocean bottom.
Maybe allow only immigration from another continent?
Maybe make this only available to members of another continent (BT shares the same original map).
If you move your character from the existing continent to the new continent, then you give up your right to a character on the old one.
Maybe pose this offer to the players on BT (in-game so that everyone has a say).
Would you be willing to emigrate your existing character to this new island and give up the existing island for the betterment of the game?
If the response is positive enough, it may be worth considering for several of the continents.
Realms could start with their existing capitals and maybe one or two rurals to keep it fed.
Voluntary relocation to a new continent?
Harold Miller
PeregrineLast Thursday at 5:39 PM
I agree that tiny realms are terrible for the game. Especially as a new player experience.
DupontLast Thursday at 5:43 PM
Yeah, I remember when I joined Nova as a new player with a load of other people. There was a big RP event for our arrival and we assumed that was what the game was like.
But no, it was just everyone being excited for a bunch of new players
Because players realise that new players need to feel like there's a lot going on. A tiny realm will instantly discourage a new player if they joined
Vita`Last Thursday at 6:03 PM
It used to be like that...
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 7:53 PM
@Peregrine you say that tiny realms are terrible for the game yet you are in Grehkia, one of the smallest realms on BT?
@Dupont and yet you stayed even when the RP action died down. Also a member of Swordfell, one of the smallest realms on Dwilight.
It seems to me that even the smallest of realms CAN have a draw for players.
I understand that many smaller realms do NOT appeal to everyone, but there are players who prefer a smaller realm.
I for one do not want 25-30 various RP's every turn requiring a reply.
To be honest, I have seen many RP's that I consider to be stupid, but hey, to each their own. If it works for some people and others are willing to go with it, power to them.
When was the last time that something exciting happened in say... Shattered Vales? I read discord fairly regular and don't recall anything exciting from one of the largest realms on BT.
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:07 PM
I agree with plaraveen here. Any realm can be fun. I was in eppy on my last time playing and ruled there for a bit. We had what, 7 nobles? And we had fun. We even drew in a new noble or two. We were active, because we created the activity. I created it. Player of Aurelius created it.
We can make ANY realm fun. I don't think I'd love OS because I like a balance between RP and battle. But it's there for people who do.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:09 PM
Exactly, your realm is as fun as you make it. If your realm is not the kind of fun you are looking for, then move to another realm. This is even stated in the game somewhere, if what you find is not what you expect, there are many more realms to find your fun in.
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:10 PM
Which means, unfortunately, that some of us aren't doing enough to create that fun for everyone
There are quiet realms that like the peace, and then there are dead realms. All it takes is one player though.. One person to ignite something. Usually the ruler can help that happen, or be that person.
Before we make any mechanical changes, perhaps a message to all rulers in the game appealing to exactly this.
While the govt rules are read, I think people lose touch with the creating fun aspect. And that's fair, to a point.. we're allowed to have periods of inactivity, even a rulers. But if the ruler just coasts and lets the realm down, something is wrong.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:15 PM
There aren't 25-30 various RPs every turn in any realm. There aren't even 25-30 various roleplays in a realm over a month's time.
There aren't even 25-30 roleplays in an island over a month's time.
oh. sorry. caveat. to realmwide channel.
-
PAGE 2
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:07 PM
I agree with plaraveen here. Any realm can be fun. I was in eppy on my last time playing and ruled there for a bit. We had what, 7 nobles? And we had fun. We even drew in a new noble or two. We were active, because we created the activity. I created it. Player of Aurelius created it.
We can make ANY realm fun. I don't think I'd love OS because I like a balance between RP and battle. But it's there for people who do.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:09 PM
Exactly, your realm is as fun as you make it. If your realm is not the kind of fun you are looking for, then move to another realm. This is even stated in the game somewhere, if what you find is not what you expect, there are many more realms to find your fun in.
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:10 PM
Which means, unfortunately, that some of us aren't doing enough to create that fun for everyone
There are quiet realms that like the peace, and then there are dead realms. All it takes is one player though.. One person to ignite something. Usually the ruler can help that happen, or be that person.
Before we make any mechanical changes, perhaps a message to all rulers in the game appealing to exactly this.
While the govt rules are read, I think people lose touch with the creating fun aspect. And that's fair, to a point.. we're allowed to have periods of inactivity, even a rulers. But if the ruler just coasts and lets the realm down, something is wrong.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:15 PM
There aren't 25-30 various RPs every turn in any realm. There aren't even 25-30 various roleplays in a realm over a month's time.
There aren't even 25-30 roleplays in an island over a month's time.
oh. sorry. caveat. to realmwide channel.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:16 PM
As a player, I MAKE my own fun. As a ruler, I try to present opportunities to my realm mates to have fun. Sadly, I can not force people to have fun.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:16 PM
probably lots more to guilds, regions, other channels
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:16 PM
I think that was just an arbitrary argument about their preference that plaraveen was making
Not wanting a RP heavy experience
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:17 PM
My point is that the argument is extreme.
I doubt even OS has 25-30 roleplays every turn.
The choice isnt between realms with reasonable amounts of messages traffic and those with constant activity.
The problem are there are realms that can go without realmwide messages for over a week.
Its harder to make exciting things happen if players are spread out and isolated.
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:18 PM
That's not good. And their rulers should be talked to, imho
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:19 PM
Any realm can be fun. And any player can play two characters on an island as distinct characters. But that is not the rule, its the exception.
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:20 PM
Rulers need to learn to be the exception then, for a start. How we go about that is anyone's guess though..
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:20 PM
just recently, I recall several players apologizing for being behind in their responses to RP's of others. I play for the fun, not the responsibilities of needing to keep up with all the chatter. Thats just me, but that is OK if that is acceptable to others
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:20 PM
Yes, you should move to places where you are having more fun. Absolutely. But that isn't an excuse to allow dead realms to linger because a few players insist on holding the last few titles.
"Before we make any mechanical changes, perhaps a message to all rulers in the game appealing to exactly this."
:face_palm:
What have we been doing for the last four years?
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:21 PM
I don't know, I'm new on the ruler scene this time around and haven't heard anything
There's discord, but that's not covering everyone at all
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:22 PM
Being a small realm does not always imply no room for fun or inactivity of players. Just like a large realm does not mean the realm is fun or active.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:22 PM
"And that's fair, to a point.. we're allowed to have periods of inactivity, even a rulers. But if the ruler just coasts and lets the realm down, something is wrong." <--Yes, absolutely. But again, we're not going to go on witch hunts of rulers. That's not a positive playing atmosphere.
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:22 PM
Well
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:22 PM
Discord represents a very small number of players (the more active/RP ones specifically)
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:23 PM
It's between upsetting a large amount of the player base, including some active ones, or getting personal with a few rulers who, honestly, should not be surprised by dev contact. They're rulers.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:24 PM
The thing is
I've had talks with some rulers repeatedly over years
Who will tell me, 'oh yes, this is a problem'
'im working on it'
and nothing changes
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:26 PM
We want to help you guys, and help ourselves by reigniting this. I don't know much about the past and trends, etc. Idk what you've tried. But I want to help. And I have a lot of contact with active players. I know what they want. Everyone on this channel has that contact, that knowledge. We'll help you if we can.. Just keep listening to us, please. We're trying to help. I just feel like you're defending yourself Vita, and I know I want what you want, or what I think you want.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:27 PM
^^
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 8:27 PM
I always felt like there was a pretty decent sized responsibility on me as a ruler. The game implied that, and the wiki. I took it seriously.. maybe some didn't, but give us a chance
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:27 PM
Yeah, absolutely.
That's what we keep trying to do.
But likewise, it doesn't feel reciprocated after such a period.
If we'd wanted to wipe realms out, we'd have done it when we sunk islands.
But I specifically advocated for more gradual, dynamic pressures to give realms and rulers opportunity to move.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:31 PM
People regularly complain about Madina and Nivemus, yet people still play in these realms. Rea recently went to Madina to stir up trouble. The players there were active enough to "repel" his attack on them. Complaining about what others are doing is not helping the game. If you feel those realms should be more active and are dying off, move to another realm and pursue a mission to wipe them from the map.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:33 PM
Is it playing to sit in the realm and not write one another?
Rea didn't bother to build proper support before stirring up trouble and managed to turn supporters against them
Much like when realms would try to do something different on Atamara and then got gangbanged because they rushed it too fast isntead of laying diplomatic groundwork.
IC solutions are not appropriate solutions to OOC issues plaguing BM.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:35 PM
I am not defending Madina, but complaining from afar and doing nothing about it is not productive either.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:37 PM
I would also say that I think Rea has sparked some sustained discussion in Madina
we'll see how long it lasts
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:39 PM
If all the players that have complained on Discord about Madina got together and actively pursued an action (war/diplomacy/...) against them, the players in Madina would need to get their !@#$ together or fall. I don't know the actual numbers, but I would guess that I have seen more than 10 different people say that Madina should merge/die/be wiped out. If thsoe ten people got together, Madina would change one way or the other.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:39 PM
yup, I agree
alas, I think they're spread out through other realms they enjoy.
But I would also say that pursuing those objectives ICly while fine, should not be limited to IC solutions. The issue is an OOC one of game enjoyability and new player retention, it should not be solved only via 'fight them IC'.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:41 PM
Complaining does not help, but the current situation in Madina allows lots of room for fun for others if they put the effort into its destruction.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:42 PM
or improvement.
im really not that concerned either way with whether the realms are destroyed or improved, so long as the overall experience improves. very agnostic on method. if we could recruit players to populate all the lands, that would be ideal. in lieu of that...if folks need to merge, destroy realms, switch realms, migrate realms, revitalize a realm et cetera....wahtever works. I do absolutely think there are too many realms on the islands for the current player count and we need less.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:43 PM
I understand the need to retain new players, but that should NOT be the basis of decisions that affet all of the existing players as well. Some of us have been playing for years and honestly, our needs should be considered as well.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:44 PM
They are. But not at the cost to new players, which may not be you, and may only be my perception, but is the perception I get from some older players, that their 'right' to play in a realm they love trumps new players being given a fair shot at being interested in BM.
I've gotten yelled at by newer players for implementing old features that were approved for older playesr long ago because 'we didnt get a say in this, no one told us it was happening'
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:47 PM
Well, some changes that haven;t been discussed for a long time could maybe use a quick note to existing players. Some of the recent changes from long ago have come as a surprise to many players. Can't recall specific example here, but recall recent complaints as you mention.
Vita`Last Thursday at 8:47 PM
Heck, I've even implemented old approved features that were championed by former players in the hopes it might attract them back to the game. :stuck_out_tongue:
yeah, we're not the best at roadmaps. better at announcements. which is more than what used to happen in BM. Again, something else I've pushed for, to help the players be more informed.
the irony of providing that helpful info is I get yelled at for them afterward :smile:
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 8:52 PM
Not complaining, but I was broadsided by the Wealth list when it was implemented. It is not really a problem, but it is something that I would have "fought against" had I had foreknowledge. I did not and I have not complained after the fact because there no sense in complaining about a done deal that no one else is concerned about.
A simple announcement a few days ahead of time would likely be much better accepted than surprise, the update yesterday included... :smiley:
Another thing I find slightly confusing and contradictory is that the DEVs seem to be pushing for larger realms but they are limiting alliances to smaller sizes.
LancasterLast Thursday at 9:03 PM
Two separate problems
One involves realms being more than quiet graveyards of people just logging in to follow orders, while the other is that we've basically re-enacted WWI with both recent wars. Half the world allied against the other half.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 9:07 PM
OK, but 40 nobles in a realm is not really any different than 40 nobles in an alliance when it comes to fighting a war.
LancasterLast Thursday at 9:10 PM
Its more than that, its about communication. Separate realms stifle communication and gameplay. Its why realm splits never work in the long run. One half of the realm always dies relatively quickly and just gets re-absorbed without a ton of effort
Even shared guildhouses only go so far.
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 9:17 PM
I am not up on Obeahan politics, but if I understand correctly, their split could lead to a war between former realm members. So splitting realms may not always be a bad thing. Depends on what and how the PLAYERS do with the split.
LancasterLast Thursday at 9:18 PM
sure, there's always initial interest and excitement. But what happens if the war doesn't happen, SV/Nova/Obia all sign a typical alliance
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 9:18 PM
The Circle of Fate on EC seems to do quite well for the northern realms.
That leads back to my original concern of rogueing smaller realms. Most of the central BT realms would be at risk leaving Thal in the north and Obean realms in the south. The small realms of Gotland and Caelint are the source ofthe current war involving 6 of the 10 realms on BT. Likely the obeahan realms would have jumped in on this war if they were not so far away
To be honest, several of us in the north tried to get them involved anyways.
I believe that OS even had their army embarked at one point and found themselves stuck at sea (bug) before they got too far. Then things changed in the south and they moved on to their own problems/concerns.
-
PAGE 3
PlaraveenLast Thursday at 9:51 PM
@Lancaster If I read your comments correctly, you seem "against" having smaller realms, but I see that you are currently in Fallengard (smallest realm on EC) and Swordfell (tied with 2 others for smallest).
LancasterLast Thursday at 10:07 PM
Dwilight is probably the healthiest continent overall in terms of noble counts, the dang thing is just so big
I am against smaller realms, and am doing what I can to fix it. Unfortunately in Fallangard, I've got folks that are staunchly anti-merger and in Swordfell we had a bit of a purge recently. We had 20+ nobles like a month ago
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Thursday at 10:08 PM
OS wouldn't have been in the Caelint-Gotland war. We would have simply been fighting Thalmarkin for our own reasons. Probably even before the Caelint-Gotland war even started.
LancasterLast Thursday at 10:09 PM
BT has other issues besides realm sizes. The continent is so damn big Nova was created basically so OS nobles would have people to interact with
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Thursday at 10:09 PM
I think small realms are but a symptom of the problem. The real problem is there aren't enough players for the number of regions. This leads to pockets of isolation which leads to smaller realms not having a force driving their death or resurgence.
BT would be in great shape if the south moved north or vice versa. The problem is getting people to do it.
LancasterLast Thursday at 10:33 PM
yeah, I don't think people will do that though
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Thursday at 10:46 PM
Well there are some problems with moving.
A) They have spent a lot of time in the area. The area becomes part of their identity. (this mostly applies to SV & OS but Nova feels this too.)
B) The places to move to will be a decrease in gold and difficulty with food.
C) Moving away from allies and towards a large enemy means death could come swiftly. Notably because it will take time to stabilize in the new area. Even with stabilization, without your allies moving too your chances are not good.
Personally, I don't care about those three issues. Others do however so that prevents them from agreeing to the move. Regardless, an attempt should still be made.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."
Vita`Last Thursday at 11:07 PM
Does nomad need faster-stabilization effects?
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Thursday at 11:28 PM
I don't know. Never used nomad so I can't make a real judgement on it.
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 11:28 PM
What if you removed some swaths of rogue land and loosened the distance from realm limits for armies. With a continent surrounded by sea zones it'd be fun to fight those battles further away.
As for the map.. if we can gather the volunteers to do it on our own?
Just a thought
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Thursday at 11:29 PM
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 11:30 PM
Or just loosen the limits? Admittedly this is just a small thing that lets a few larger realms make war, and doesn't really address (not head on, at least) retention or smaller/dead realms.
Interesting. Fixing the map how? Just curious.
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Thursday at 11:31 PM
Don't know.
This isn't from my conversation with Delvin. I was having a conversation with a player who then went to Delvin which resulted in the above screenshot. I want to say the question he asked Delvin was based on loosening the distance penalties.
(The reason I shared it was based on the map change comment you made.)
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 11:36 PM
Oh, cool. That's very relevant. Thanks! The easiest fix, requiring little in the way of map editing (but possibly a bitch in coding) might be to black out those regions, RP some magic insanity, barriers going up, that instantly transport you across them to the other side of the swath. Maybe a sea zone, that doesn't look like a sea zone.
Going off the deep end here. But in the spirit of ideas, there it is.
I don't know. Shrinking the map without removing realms is the basic concept though. Maybe there's a different way to get that done
Vita`Last Thursday at 11:55 PM
Loosening distance....no
Marching far distances for a battle and turning around isn't fun.
There will be changes when hinterlands comes on, as part of the core realm benefits, which will improve travel speed.
Which is a key reason I'm willing to try hinterlands.
We could reuse blight but do you really think that would make a difference and not get just as many complaints as having rogue regions?
I thought it better to leave regions rogue so realms can have choice of where to exist
Versus choose to remove regions from play and player choice and flexibility...
jitney | BlueLast Thursday at 11:59 PM
But with distance caps we can't fight the wars we want to. Infils come up, stab around, we declare war, yet can't comfortably, or viably fight the war
Idk. It's a small thing. Hinterlands could fix some of that maybe
Vita`Last Friday at 12:00 AM
Why can't you move closer to your enemies?
jitney | BlueLast Friday at 12:01 AM
Move the realm?
We spend tons of time on RCs, development. You carve out a good space
To build up a force capable of fighting those wars
Vita`Last Friday at 12:04 AM
sigh
jitney | BlueLast Friday at 12:04 AM
There's history in it. And on BT with the invasion we carve out bastion of defense
Bananas to up and move with that looming, no?
Vita`Last Friday at 12:04 AM
Which was done after how many statements about the need to move realms closer?
jitney | BlueLast Friday at 12:05 AM
I don't understand
What do you mean?
Vita`Last Friday at 12:05 AM
There's no invasion coming anytime soon
PlaraveenLast Friday at 12:05 AM
Jit is Thal I think, not Obeah
jitney | BlueLast Friday at 12:05 AM
I'm for moving them closer. Or removing the distance limit. Or anything that increases fun
Tossing out ideas
Yeah I'm in Thal
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Friday at 12:06 AM
I'm all for OS & Nova moving up north too but I can't make all the players move.
Vita`Last Friday at 12:07 AM
We've been saying this is an issue and trying to patiently work with rulers to move realms, merge realms, abandonn realms anything for almost four years.....in that time the choice is made to build infrastructure rather than migrate. Then when war is distant one can't move because of the cost to abandon the built-up infrastructure...
So it's a bit...."well that's the choice you made"
I can't fix choices you make when there were options available.
O can only give tools and point to them
But if folks don't use them ...or offer suggestions on how to improve them....
jitney | BlueLast Friday at 12:08 AM
Fair enough. I don't see why we couldn't conquer and migrate down into Grehkia and wudenkin area. That'd make us more central.
Though I missed that talk about merge and move
Vita`Last Friday at 12:09 AM
Then yes, you find yourselves far away from wars with infrastructure that is too costly to abandon....
jitney | BlueLast Friday at 12:09 AM
Well I'm trying to offer some now! I'm newer than most here in this particular channel. Missed the memo
Vita`Last Friday at 12:09 AM
And yes I understand you weren't personally there
But that is the thalmarkin you represent.
jitney | BlueLast Friday at 12:10 AM
This is very difficult to do. Why does this feel like an argument, when I thought it was more of a think tank. Now I'm defending myself..
Vita`Last Friday at 12:11 AM
So do you think we need changes to nomad to allow some transition of infrastructure?
PlaraveenLast Friday at 12:11 AM
I am not sure how Nomad works, but might it be possible to allow Obeah to "swap out" a bunch of regions say maybe in the Wudenkin area? Maybe allow some "transfer of some of their infrastructure to speed the process of settling in? ie. RC's and other buildings in their capital moved to Wudenkin?
Vita`Last Friday at 12:12 AM
There an announcement from sometime in last year that lists nomad benefits
-
PAGE 4
jitney | BlueLast Friday at 12:12 AM
Infrastructure period is very expensive, anywhere. If you want to be an effective realm it takes months to develop something viable
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Friday at 12:12 AM
The idea I had was for OS to get Keffa and Nova Wudenkin. Which is why you got letter about a hypothetical situation Plaraveen.
Nova doesn't want to move though and the push in OS is likely to fail.
PlaraveenLast Friday at 12:14 AM
If an attractive enough offer can be made to the players it may be more palatable to more people?
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Friday at 12:14 AM
Maybe. People are resistant to change though.
When I initially brought up the idea of OS moving back in about December I was told that this is a PVE island. This type of mentality presents a BT unique issue. You see it in Grehkia as well.
Nomad:
"As some may recall, nomad status was given to realms during the Freeze and Close of Western Dwilight events to migrate to new homes. As a reminder, nomad status grants the following bonuses:
*No distance from realm penalty for troops
*Troop payment costs 10% of normal and no troop payment after the capital is lost
*Can take over regions without bordering them
*Can be given regions by other rulers without bordering their realms
*A special drafting option for more soldiers being drafted in exchange for higher morale cost to the region
*Takeovers complete twice as fast as other realms
*Takeovers require a third of what other realms require to start a takeover"
https://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,8569.0.html
PlaraveenLast Friday at 12:23 AM
Considering that this (to my knowledge) is a feature that has been mostly unused, I think it may need to be adjusted to make it more appealing. We all know that something must be done on BT, so I think it may be worthwhile to adjust the Nomad feature for this case to make it more appealing for the players to do "what is best" for the Island?
Abstract | Foote FamilyLast Friday at 12:27 AM
This feature hasn't been used since it was reintroduced. I'm not sure if giving additional benefits to the feature would result in it being used but it might.
Vita: "So do you think we need changes to nomad to allow some transition of infrastructure?"
Maybe. I think it would help make moving less costly but not sure it would be enough to get people to move. I see the infrastructure as just one factor in people not wanting to move.
PlaraveenLast Friday at 1:17 AM
Might it be possible to raise some of the lands se of former Fronen, at the cost of sinking some of the OS lands to the south? I don't recall the area specifically, but I amfairly sure there was a fair chunk of land there before it sunk. It could help to concentrate the players and still make the area appealing to more players.
GreybrookLast Friday at 3:06 AM
Last year when @Abstract | Foote Family brought up the OS move up north, I was against it. However, wiser with BM age, it isn't good for the island to have such a large part of the player base so far away.
It seems that the difficulty is that without changing the map, what can be done? Like Rines is one of the richest cities in game. So moving to a X<1500 city is hard to swallow
I have always been prepared to do what needs to be done for the better of the game but there is alot of heritage in the OS realm which people need to be sure that it isn't worth nothing.
HarteYesterday at 10:23 AM
Fronen is in a terrible spot. Middle of everything. Absolutely need Tindle because of the food supply but it borders so many regions and is one of the main regions to travel from the north to south and vice versa. So many rogues. Wudenkin isn't all that wealthy and has near 50k? peasants. The Rines is located on a little island away from the major wars because it's a very nice city. Just like Eno was in the Kingdom of Alluran. I think Eno was better than the Rines and even easier to defend since it was located at the very southern tip.
I have always supported a map-changed on BT. Ever since the blight happened, I've highly disliked playing on Beluaterra.
But that would need an invasion to happen cause map changes only happen during continental-wide events
PeregrineYesterday at 3:16 PM
@Plaraveen I have a character in Hrehkia because said character has a mission to check out every realm on BT. Caelint is a graveyard, btw.
PlaraveenYesterday at 4:29 PM
@Peregrine Is Grehkia in any better shape than Caelint? Caelint, at least is actively involved in a war. I understand that many players enjoy RP's, but not everyone is playing BattleMaster for the RP interaction. RP's is only one element of the game, but many people seem to feel it is a requirement to enjoy the game. I have been playing for about 10 years now and have quite thoroughly enjoyed myself without actively participating in the many RP opportunities that have been shared. Fried Chicken??? Really??? I am not saying that this has no place in the game, but I believe that there is more to be gained from fighting an active war than discussing a fried chicken restaurant chain. (I do not mean to pick on whomever is involved in the fried chicken discussion, it was just the first notable example that came to my mind.)
jitney | BlueYesterday at 4:37 PM
We have had little RP in Thal. A few battle RPs. Nothing big or frequent. Just more conversation. More activities, side quests, etc. And I involve everyone with as much of everything as possible. Lot of work, lot of reward.
PlaraveenYesterday at 4:42 PM
I think it boils down to WHY are people playing the game? For me, the war aspect is far more exciting than sitting in a realm sending stories back and forth. For many others, it seems, they would be happy to sit in an isolated realm on the edge of humanity just sending RP's back and forth. Before Obeah split, what was there really available for the players there to do other than send RP's back and forth? So, that version of OS worked for many of the players who enjoy the RP aspect, but what action was available for those players that would prefer "action" to "story telling"?
RakaaroxYesterday at 4:44 PM
Ideally you have both
PlaraveenYesterday at 4:47 PM
It seems in recent times, the measurement of FUN has been measured by the amount of messaging that occurs in a realm. To measure "RP fun" in this matter would seem acceptable, but I believe that it is a poor way to measure the fun that all people are having. A realm is deemed as not fun when the players there are not actively sending letters on a regular basis.
I agree @Rakaarox but lately it seems that a realm with few nobles and little communication is considered bad for the game and no fun for the players. Yet, these small realms that are not flooded with tons of messages every day still exist. People still join and/or stay in these realms. If these realms are so bad, WHY are there still players that have nobles in these realms? No one is forcing these players to have nobles in a small non-talkative realm, they choose to be there.
RakaaroxYesterday at 4:54 PM
Little communication is different to almost zero communication
And that is the bigger issue
jitney | BlueYesterday at 5:03 PM
Agreed. And you CAN have communication with no action, per se. And I think that is where the ruler and council come in
Creating that kind of fun, wars, things to RP. That's on us to a degree
We are literally starting a war over a unique item.
PlaraveenYesterday at 5:03 PM
I am not sure what actually happens in Madina, but it is often a realm that is "picked on" and considered "bad". My question is, why do people bother to stay there/ move there?
jitney | BlueYesterday at 5:04 PM
Yeah idk... Can't answer that one
PlaraveenYesterday at 5:04 PM
There is obviously some sort of appeal to some players that keeps Madina alive.
RakaaroxYesterday at 5:06 PM
Stuck in their ways
Like the income and power without having to do anything
They are bad because if new players join the game in realms like that, they won’t stay, they won’t bring new players
I got rid of Fissoa for that reason
PeregrineYesterday at 5:13 PM
@Plaraveen Grehkia is also terrible. Caelint still worse though. You don't even get orders in time in Caelint. There's no way a new player will have a decent experience in a small realm. You do you though.
PlaraveenYesterday at 5:16 PM
Income and power. I can't say for the income, but what power does the ruler of Madina really wield? Only one person, the ruler, is on the wealth list (and 15K gold is not much compared to others). Madina has (in my opinion) no real affect on the overall situation/politics of Dwi. So, no real power or income to make it worthwhile. I can't say why Madina still exists, but I doubt it is for the income or power.
RakaaroxYesterday at 5:17 PM
Nostalgia (misplaced)
It’s not the original Madina
jitney | BlueYesterday at 5:18 PM
Wealth farming perhaps
And occasional rogue fights
Albeit minimal wealth
But it's enough to keep the family from going broke
If you're investing elsewhere
RakaaroxYesterday at 5:18 PM
Not going to be around for much longer though, has voted to merge with D’Hara
jitney | BlueYesterday at 5:19 PM
That's good
PlaraveenYesterday at 5:22 PM
My character on Dwi has a comparable amount of gold as Madina's ruler. He only recently took on a Lordship more to help the realm than to be a lord (which is actually an inconvenience to him). So I really doubt that gold farming is the reason that Madina still exists.
RakaaroxYesterday at 5:23 PM
Misplaced nostalgia... as I said
PlaraveenYesterday at 5:41 PM
I understand the need to retain new players for the game. But at what cost? I have played for almost 10 years and have finally managed to form a realm of my own design (I was a ruler previously, but was elected into the position of a realm that already existed). I have no problem with my realm failing due to a military defeat, but I feel it is sad that I may loose my realm/investment because others feel that it is too small and not "chatty" enough. It is not like we get 50 new players joining every month and then deciding not to play because the realm is too quiet. I believe that "rogueing" smaller realms because of the shortage of nobles/messages in them is more likely to cost more in long-term players than the benefit of not having them will give to retaining new players.
Even if I decided to leave Caelint and join Thal or Obeah, there would be no overall change in my messaging habits. Just because the players of the smaller realms join a larger more chatty realm, does not imply that they will be more actively involved in messaging. There are players that are more active (regardless of the realm they are in) and there are players that are not as active.
From the BattleMaster Home Page:
"Depending on your desires and your characters' tasks, you can spend as little as 10 minutes per day on your characters, or over an hour based on what you want to do, roleplay, and achieve each day."
There are those who will often spend hours each day with their involvement in the game, while there are those who may not even spend the minimum 10 minutes each day. Who is to say which one is having more "fun" in their gameplaying style?
jitney | BlueYesterday at 6:37 PM
A fair point at the end there... Though the declining player count seems to indicate there's less fun being had all around
Delvin AnarisYesterday at 9:06 PM
@Plaraveen actually, what we do get is just about 50 players joining the game each month
and about half leave
jitney | BlueYesterday at 9:19 PM
Hmmm. Do you know if the ones who leave end up in realms with low activity? Is there a trend? Just curious.
PlaraveenYesterday at 10:33 PM
Well, it is good to know that I do get lucky with throwing out random numbers once in a while. :smiley:
Thinking about it, your statement would imply that our player base is growing at about 25 players per month minus the old guys that fade away...?
-
Sorry everyone. The information is there, but it looks a little tough to read.
Everything since the start of the discussion in the Rulers channel on Discord is included.
Some of it may be less relevant, but I have included it all to allow no bias by me selecting parts of the discussion to include.
-
PAGE 5
Rowan1364Today at 4:42 AM
I think we should brainstorm about coming up with a way to entice new players to stay
Adventurers have a sort of mini game going on within the game itself. Battlemaster emphasizes team game and strategy so we can't really affect the turn change way of things, and we can't really do much that would affect the outcome of battles perse. But maybe some kind of way to affect skill growth in between turns?
Or perhaps some kind of political mini game
You know how Diplomats are always going on about minor nobility and such like that
Could do a sort of contact related mini game that would give bonuses to Diplomacy actions or higher skill raise chance or something.
I know it's kind of a fundamental core change in philosophy but don't we kind of do that already? You just have to be a Courtier or Diplomat or Priest subclass
And is trader still a thing?
Basically I'm saying, sure, there's battles and such, but in between battles is a sore lacking of traditional RPG elements. We have to entertain ourselves with RP and that seems to be the lifeline the game clings to. If we can spice the character development side of it up a bit maybe we can incentivize in game leveling so to speak. Give players a solo reason to stick around and then develop a bond with the people around them and naturally want to go into more RP side of things
Sure we have Courtier, Diplomat, Priest, Infiltrator, Cavalier, but no one is hit with that when they log in
Present it like Class mechanics like it's a MMORPG or tabletop RPG except the "way to level" is getting into battles with your realm.
Maybe that will incentivize this Touch Phone AFK Arena Generation
Maybe even add bonuses for certain positions
So people try and aspire to them for selfish reasons
Like a... Idk. Discount for paying troops for bankers? Judge bonuses for Courtiers? Though that's kind of a thing since they can hold courts
So then people learn positions in retrospect
Right now there really isn't anything like that for players to hold on to or aspire to. I think that's part of the reason we have such a high early drop rate
Without shiny graphics, or anime tiddies, lol,
We should get something that's kind of a hook for newbies so they learn to stick around
It won't work for everyone but I think it might be enough to get another generation of players started
But anyway that's enough solo brain storming
Honestly, Tom isn't around anymore. I think it's time we scrap some of his ideals
Fame needs to be implemented in a way that at least some of it is transparent and listed. Like achievements to aspire to.
Skills need to be present and more readily attainable. Going to an academy/tournament/occasionally earning them in battle isn't enough
Needs to be something you can earn solo in addition to battles
Adventurers won't be phased out because they will always have the artifact game and undead/monster hunting
-
Honestly, Tom isn't around anymore. I think it's time we scrap some of his ideals
This bothers me big time. BattleMaster is still legally and in reality Tom's game. It goes how he wants/instructed. Suggest changes/improvements, but it is an ugly idea to wantonly change someone's property for our own selfish reasons, ignoring their desires.
Additionally, thank you for posting three pages of Discord chatter, but is there any chance you could paraphrase the main points into a tl;dr. The vast majority of people do not want to wade through that thicket of words and ramblings.
-
It doesn't matter Tom isn't here. The whole game is built on his idea. I remember when there was a discussion on which continent to sink. Tom actually heard about this and stated EC was a big no no. If EC goes, so will the game. Rules he made for the game is still being upheld. Like many said before, BM is still his game.
-
Thx for sharing this PolarRaven.
I think small realms still play the role. Right out rogueing them isn't the way to go. I thought Vita has learned a thing or two from forcing people to do things they don't want to no matter how much he thinks those are good for the game. How many people does he want to drive away this time around?
I think small realms should get gentle reminders every day instead. Once you fall below 10 nobles, the game should once a day tell the whole realm to either get more people or merge with another realm that has less than 20 nobles.
-
A reminder each day sounds a bit excessive. A week or month would be a more reasonable time frame for automated reminders if such a thing was implemented.
-
if the problem is just for new players, just restrict the joining options (to join realm with low player count) only for them at the start. let older players do what they want as it is right now. if the realm count in a continent is lower i think you will face another problem. conflict in BT is caused by 2 small realms because there are only few people in them, its easier to convince/make decision for the realm with 10 people than 20 people. smaller realms are more flexible. just giving out some ideas :)
-
if the problem is just for new players, just restrict the joining options (to join realm with low player count) only for them at the start. let older players do what they want as it is right now. if the realm count in a continent is lower i think you will face another problem. conflict in BT is caused by 2 small realms because there are only few people in them, its easier to convince/make decision for the realm with 10 people than 20 people. smaller realms are more flexible. just giving out some ideas :)
This is actually a great solution. Simply don't let new accounts with less than, say 60 days of game time, join realms with less than 11 nobles.
Although I am for roguing realms with less than 10 players if they maintain that state for 60 days too.
-
That is actually a great idea.
-
I do like the idea of limiting new players to realm of over 10 nobles.
And checking total messages sent in a realm may be a good idea too. Realms that don't talk much may go off the list of realms that can accept new players.
It would focus new players into realms with more nobles and more activity.
As for the rest...I find it ironic that Nothoi formed two of the realms now considered too small. Caelint and Angmar both came out of Nothoi back when we all had more players and more ability to expand. The the banning of Angmar's leader messed them up rather badly. And Caelint never did expand much beyond being a border realm. Though they and the equally small Gotland and have certainly created their fair share of chaos for everybody around them. Hehehe.
I'm not in favoring of roguing nations with other under 10 nobles, but I could be convinced that those of 5 nobles and under should be rogued. I don't know. Maybe 10 works too. I dislike seeing people's hard work go away, but at the same time, I am in favor of getting some focus in players.
Just remember that we don't want to focus everything so tightly that we end up in another situation like the Cagilan/Taran alliance where each nation held sway over massive sections of the continent with no one in a position to deal with them.
-
I like the idea of an activity gauge. Perhaps though, it should be letters per capita? A large realm might send more letters, but be less active, just due to number of nobles.
-
Trying to force people to do things through code changes that punish them for not going in the 'right' direction never works in this game. Punishing small realms will only create more disgruntled and unhappy players, just like things such as the ice age and Too Much Peace did in the past.
If you want more active, engaged, realms where people interact more, it comes down to a rather simple logistics problem. Generally speaking, the more players you have in a realm, the more likely it is for the realm to have more interactions and be interesting (although this isn't always true).
But, let's assume we think big realms are good and small realms are bad (which is the main thrust of what's said here). If this is the case, the realm merger rules are sending out mixed messages. Realms can merge, but only if the end-result merged realm doesn't end up being too big. The theory being that a large merged realm could come to dominate an island. The reason this is the wrong approach is because if two realms merge to create a large realm that can dominate an island, it would then actually encourage other realms to merge to create further merged realms to rival the size of the dominant merged realm. You can't say, on the one hand, we want big realms with more players in them. But then, on the other hand, say we don't want people to create big realms through the 'wrong sized' mergers.
If you want to see an end to small realms, just allow realms to merge regardless of their existing size and then let nature take its course. Fears of all islands being dominated by two or three monolithic realms are probably unfounded because it doesn't take in to account internal conflicts creating splits. However, even if most islands did end up with (let's say) four realms, why is that a problem? As long as they're roughly equal in size, wars will still happen. Frankly, based on the current player numbers, most islands could only really sustain about 5 or 6 realms (at the very most) with a decent number of nobles in each realm. Four realms on an island with 50 nobles in each of those four realms would probably be a decent result.
Equally, if you want to reduce the number of small realms, you have to ease the pain players in those realms experience in letting them go. People become hugely emotionally attached to their realms, which is both a beautiful thing about BM, but also its curse. Again, instead of hitting small realms with penalties for being small, give them incentives to encourage them to merge. On a simple level, introduce Duchy banners so that if a small realm merges with a larger realm, they can keep the banner of their lost realm as a Duchy banner. This may just be cosmetic fluff, but most of the things about realms are cosmetic. Also, when they merge, allow them to take a certain number of recruitment centers with them to be rebuilt in the new merged realm (i.e. a Dev manually moves an existing recruitment centers in a region that's going to be lost over to a region that will be in the merged realm). Basically, allow them to take as much with them from their old realm to the new merged realm as possible. Nothing can be done about the sentimental attachments to specific locations on the maps, but things can be done to preserve other things associated with the 'vanishing' realm. Let them take everything they possibly can to the new merged realm so they feel their lost realm is just relocating and not dying.
At any rate, encouragement and incentives are the way to go. Not punishments and penalties.
-
Yeah. Remove the size limit. More people will merge for sure. I think that is actually the best solution.
When your neighbour turns into a behemoth, you might be more interested in turning yourself into a behemoth as well by merging with your close neighbours.
-
Another point to note, is maybe many players do not prefer to be in larger realms.
On Dwi, BT, and EC more than half the realms are under 15 nobles.
Myself, i prefer to play in smaller realms.
There is more likelyhood of moving up through the ranks.
Your input can carry more weight within a smaller realm.
There are less people to convince when you want to direct your nobles towards a specific goal.
Certainly, a realm can be too small to be effective, but I don't think setting an arbitrary number of "10" is truly the way to go.
We always hear about the advantages of a larger realm, but there are also advantages to a smaller realm as well.
Personally, I think that the real problem is that there is too much "map" for the current number of players.
-
Is hard for reading, so sorry if no understand everything. But my opinion:
Realm *size* no so much important for is fun, is not fun. More important, What can I do?
Be in realm with 40 nobles, but only one General saying all things must do, one Judge no thinking only making fines and bans for what General say, no much fun. Big realm okay if conflict okay. Only all mens puppets, very boring.
No think size most important for is fun, not fun.
-
Y'know, nuance is still a thing.
"Very small realms are a problem" doesn't automatically mean "the larger your realm, the better."
I don't think that encouraging already-large realms to merge into behemoths is in any way, shape, or form the answer. Having a continent dominated by one or more behemoth realms is toxic to dynamic relationships on that continent—we saw that on Atamara. That's why we sank Atamara.
No, we want realms to be of moderate size: not too big, not too small, and with a reasonable amount of variability in sizes.
-
I don't like the idea of removing the option for new accounts to join the realm they want nor the removing the limits on mergers completely. I think Delvin covered the merger part well enough so I was reiterate what he said.
As for the removing the option to join small realms on new accounts, there are a few issues.
1) What if it is a returning player to the game? They know what to do and might even be willing to help being more activity to the realm. When I rejoined the game last year my realm of choice was Morek Empire because I wanted to craft a story. Under this limit I wouldn't have been able to do that. While I did fail to follow through completely on the story and ended up leaving, I did have some fun engagements with the players in that realm. I can't say for certain that I helped generate fun for those other players but I prefer to think that I did.
2) What if the small realm is engaged in a local war? Maybe the war side of the game is what the new player is looking for. A local war would be good for those type of players and arbitrarily cutting them off from that would not help.
3) What if someone recruited a friend and they want to play together in that small realm?
4) What if there is an active player or two in the small realm that only need another player, maybe even a new player, to engage with to spice things up?
Ultimately, the issue boils down to the fact that this would make it even harder for small realms to get larger or more active. I agree that generally speaking new players joining small realms means, at least in theory, that they are less likely to stay in the game. What I disagree with is denying the small realms even a chance to retain those players and removing player choice.
Edit: I should add that I do think it would be a well intentioned change. (Just like the majority, if not all, proposed/implemented changes.) But as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Maybe the benefits would outweigh the cost but I personally do not believe it would.
-
Y'know, nuance is still a thing.
"Very small realms are a problem" doesn't automatically mean "the larger your realm, the better."
I don't think that encouraging already-large realms to merge into behemoths is in any way, shape, or form the answer. Having a continent dominated by one or more behemoth realms is toxic to dynamic relationships on that continent—we saw that on Atamara. That's why we sank Atamara.
No, we want realms to be of moderate size: not too big, not too small, and with a reasonable amount of variability in sizes.
Maybe a better way to go about this is to limit the size of the larger realms.
If the larger realms are full, then players would have to join the smaller realms and thereby give more moderate sized realms over-all.
There is currently a limit on alliances to prevent "behemoth" alliances so that no one group can dictate the happenings on any given island.
Could this not apply to realms getting too large as well?
I believe that something of this sort already exists for the War Island? (haven't played there for a while, so not sure of the current specifics)
-
I would favour this over the alliance bloc system we currently have. Typically, alliances with several realms have lots of drama and and are susceptible to backstabbing, double crosses, falling out, etc... all things that add good things to the game.
If realms are only allowed to grow to a specific it does force other players into smaller realms to help them grow.
Scrapping the alliance bloc and putting a limit on realm size seems like a good idea to me.
-
We can adjust the idea proposed here.
Remove the size limit on merge. Even devs get confused with the number of nobles they set. Better remove the restriction so nobody has to remember the arbitrary number. Plus when the realms become too populated and too large to the point people can't stand each other, they can simply form a new realm since they will have more than enough nobles to do so.
As for disabling the option to join realms with under 10 nobles, we can also disable the option to join realms with more than 40 nobles so realms in between can get the full benefit of new players.
-
Those are "back in the day" numbers. There aren't any realms currently that break 40 people. I would put the limit at 25. The seems to be the average that the "larger" realms have currently.
Also, what if all the realms are either above 25 and below 10 nobles? New players can't join? I think only one limit can be applied. Let new nobles join small realms. Maybe they get bored by not much going on, or maybe they breath some life into the realm. Who knows.
Definitely should keep the size limit on the merges. Huge behemoths, as stated earlier, do nothing for the game. Mergers aren't even supposed to be allowed, they were introduced as a way to amicably increase the size of two small realms. I don't think we should go throwing more freedoms at it.
-
I think limiting the size of large realms is riskly. Particularly a limit set at 25, which I believe would be too low. In most cases, there's a reason why the large realms are large. Players in them work hard to create welcoming atmospheres and help new arrivals - which is exactly the sort of environment you want new players to be entering to help with retention. The large realms are the realms that are doing something right. Blocking players out of them would be totally counter intuitive as they're the successful realms. In particular, forcing brand new players to join tiny realms that might be as dull as ditch water isn't a great idea.
Also, if you put a cap on the total number of nobles in a realm, before very long you'll see an epidemic of non-warrior classes disappearing. If you can only have 'X' number of nobles in your realm, warrior will become the essential class, because only warriors can secure the future of a realm. As far as I picked up from general chat, the introduction of the one character per island rule led to many people abandoning playing as courtiers, diplomats, and priests. Introducing another factor that encourages people even more to ditch these classes wouldn't be great.
The thing about the 'behemoths are negative for the game' argument is that Atamara is always held up as the disaster story. However, the Cagilan Empire has always been atypical. There have been many huge realms in the history of the game, and only the Cagilan Empire was really so dominant that it fatally damaged an island (although there is also an argument to be made that the Arcean Empire did the same in the Far East, there were exceptional circumstances around the Ice Age that influenced their dominance). This sort of behavior is the exception rather than the rule.
That being said, I wasn't ever advocating massive realms being created through untamed mergers. What I actually said is that if you think that around 25 to 30 nobles in a realm is a healthy number to try to encourage reasonable levels of interaction, every island can only really support in the region of 5 to 6 realms as a maximum. There just aren't enough players to support more realms than that and avoid having loads of realms with fewer than 15 nobles (which is apparently the level at which a realm is deemed too small to exist).
-
I think people are overestimating the impact of behemoths. You can no longer take too many regions even with 40~50 nobles. The larger your realm gets, lesser the base tax rate. You will end up with a realm about 20 regions large at most with a lot of nobles. You won't get that much gold since your base tax rate would be 5~6% anyway.
The game already forces realms to be under a certain size in a way. I don't see the point of setting a limit on how large realms can grow.
-
Because it is a subtle restriction. Many players don't understand that is how the mechanics work.
What about a hard density restriction? If your realm has less than 3 nobles per region, you just simply cannot initiate a TO. That would make more competition for positions and make moving to less dense realms more attractive.
-
Because it is a subtle restriction. Many players don't understand that is how the mechanics work.
What about a hard density restriction? If your realm has less than 3 nobles per region, you just simply cannot initiate a TO. That would make more competition for positions and make moving to less dense realms more attractive.
We already have the hard density restriction. it is at 1.8 at the moment.
I don't know why you want to push for hard restrictions. We have more than one subtle restriction. Forming a super large realm is not efficient. It is not just gold. You have to constantly manage your regions. Not many people like running around spamming courtier work.
-
Forming a super large realm is not efficient. It is not just gold. You have to constantly manage your regions. Not many people like running around spamming courtier work.
Yet people keep trying to do it, over and over. They accept the gold loss, they accept the constant region maintenance.
A big problem, at least on Dwi and BT, is the map is too big for the player base. Realms have rogue buffer zones between them. The maps need to be scaled back so they work with the player base we have.
-
Yet people keep trying to do it, over and over. They accept the gold loss, they accept the constant region maintenance.
A big problem, at least on Dwi and BT, is the map is too big for the player base. Realms have rogue buffer zones between them. The maps need to be scaled back so they work with the player base we have.
Yes only on Dwi and BT where they can fund themselves by looting rogue regions. When you have another source of income, the penalty becomes somewhat meaningless. There are a lot of infiltrators on Dwi and BT dedicated to stealing gold from rogue regions. Realms on EC would be a better example. Realms that do not have enough reserve gold will suffer. Unfortunately the ones that should suffer are too rich at the moment.
There is no solid solution for Dwi and BT map problem. It is quite hard to close the gap when cities are far apart themselves. Not to mention people not wanting to leave their historical homelands.
-
There's also the issue that not everybody agrees on what the "right way of playing" is.
Every time you place a hard restraint in, some people will like it, and some people will hate.
I'm always proud of what we did in Atamara for instance, breaking up the Cagilan-Taran alliance and starting a continent-spanning civil war to drag in every nation.
Then the Devs then announced that they were going to sink the island because they didn't like the Cagilan-Taran alliance. ::)
To this day, some people like that decision, and some people hate it. I hate it because we never got to see how the civil war shook out. That's more of a roleplaying or storytelling issue, though. I dislike it when a story is halted in mid-chapter.
On the other hand, with the dwindling player base, it was the right decision to close down some islands. So...your mileage may vary.
And now we have Sirion doing exactly what Cagil and Tara did in the old days, and they have the benefit of our handsight on the issue.
On the issue of noble counts, I would greatly wish that priests and perhaps other "support" nobles not count towards the 1 noble per island limit. Granted, I am an example of somebody who would benefit, since all three of my noble characters run in that area. I have taken those roles because the realm or religion NEEDS people to do it. Somebody had to do it, so I chose in the end to do it. Because most people want to run around and shoot stuff with their archer or infantry buddies. Honestly, I would love to do that to, and wish I could. But because the game still requires support nobles to keep the realms and religions working, I choose to help keep them running so the other players can...well...play.
-
Then the Devs then announced that they were going to sink the island because they didn't like the Cagilan-Taran alliance. ::)
That is a very disingenuous interpretation of what happened. No decision was made because anyone didn't like the alliance. The issue was that what you did in Atamara came too late and should've happened years earlier. Our decision to sink Atamara was made before the any Continental civil war happened.
-
Ok. The right way to say it would be that the dev or admins didn't like what the Cagil-Taran Alliance had DONE to Atamara in years past.
Which was...namely...WIN. Previous generations of players forged an alliance of brothers between the two realms so strong that that they were inseparable and had done so well in war and politics that they'd done what we all thought was unthinkable outside the war islands. Win.
I've long maintained that the admins should have congratulated the winners, exactly what is done on the war islands, and reset the island back to its beginning state. But neither that nor anything else was ever done to force a reset on the island.
So the players decided to create our own reset by breaking up the alliance for the betterment of the island. We put together an awesome roleplaying reason to do it, kicked it off, and sent the entire island into a rapidly escalating civil war that had already engulfed most of the realms.
And THEN the admins announced they were sinking the island before anybody found out how everything shook out.
I have no idea when they DECIDED to sink the island, but I do when the admins made their intentions to sink the island known to players. And it was a long, LONG time after we'd put a massive amount of work into FIXING the problem with the island on our own.
Which was...a bit of a kick in the teeth to the players that had worked so hard to fix everything.
-
We've heard your opinion on this many times now, Medron. I get that, from some points of view, it was an impressive achievement.
What it was not is any good for BattleMaster.
Which was...namely...WIN.
Say it with me, people.
You cannot win BattleMaster.
One group of people managed to be so laser-focused on military prowess that they managed to oppress the continent for years, driving away anyone who wanted to play in a different realm or a different way, beating them down until they finally surrendered and joined the behemoth, because what the hell else were they going to do?
So, yeah, by the time we sank Atamara, there was some movement afoot towards something more healthy. But it was much too little, much too late.
If you had decided to do that two years previously, then we might, in fact, have congratulated you. As it stands, your "achievement" was built on the backs of many players' destroyed fun and enjoyment of the game.
-
And that's the problem.
We've heard your opinion on this many times now. I get that, from your point of view, it was a laser-focused military prowess that managed to oppress the continent for years.
But seeing it only as that is NOT any good for BattleMaster.
Say it with me.
Cagil and Tara were brothers.
Period. !@#$ing. Dot.
It wasn't a mere military alliance. It never was. It was two federated brother nations that had fought to defend the other for over a decade of real life time. When I started playing in 2006, Tara was down to 3 regions and only the fact that Cagil garrisoned Foda kept the realm alive at all. It was with Cagilan aid that Tara expanded and took over the nations intent on destroying us, and a decade later their federation still stood when I was Tyrant of Tara. If there is a single federation in all of BattleMaster that lasted as long as the Cagil-Taran Federation, I'd love to hear about it. The characters and players who spent all that time fighting at each others' backs, often against alliances three or four times our size, had never known a time when Cagil and Tara were not brothers. Literally. Fight to the death to protect the other because we knew the other would do the same for us. Fighting each other wasn't just unthinkable. It was unimaginable. I actually would have kicked off a civil war in Tara to remain brothers with Cagil if anyone had suggested breaking our federation. I'm not joking. This was roleplaying, pure and simple, exactly what we are supposed to do in BattleMaster.
I get that you don't like it, because in the end it led to a static situation in Atamara. But stop blaming the players for playing their characters and the game exactly the way they were supposed to. I don't think anybody expected us to actually WIN the bloody continent the way we did, and we had no clue how to undo it once we did. On the war continents, we just reset it so the losers get another go at winning, but it wasn't suppose to be possible on a continent the size of Atamara, so there was no PLAN to reset it. And I totally get that when that didn't happen on Atamara, it DID affect the enjoyment and fun of other people on the continent. No one wants to lose and to know they never have a chance of winning.
Something should have been done to shake things up when it became clear what had happened on Atamara. I totally agree with you. The difference is that I don't blame the players that didn't know how to fix it for not fixing it at the time. I get that the admins tried to shake things up with their ice ages and other stuff, but it was much too little, much too late. If you (admins) had decided to do something drastic years previously, we almost certainly would not have congratulated you at the time. But breaking up the Cagil-Tara Federation (like the admins have now broken up other large alliances) could have shaken things up. Doing something drastic like an ice age (call it a volcanic eruption) that separated Cagil and Tara and erased their border areas also could have shaken things up.
But since you didn't do anything drastic to force a change, it came down to the players to muddle our way into finding a way to do it ourselves. Which we did. We players chose to sacrifice the one defining trait of our nations over more than a decade of gameplay, and even figured out how to do it in a way that made sense for our characters. All for the good of the continent so we could revitalize the game and kick off the biggest war in years.
And then the admins thanked us by telling us they were going to sink the continent.
I remember one of the players from Cagil I think saying something after the announcement came down. It was to the effect of "If we'd know this was going to happen, we wouldn't have betrayed our oaths and just remained brothers to the end." It's a bittersweet statement that holds true now just as much as it did then.
Years later, people like you continue to blame us for the problem that we went WAY out of our way as players to FIX.
If we'd known you were going to do that, we would have happily remained brothers to the end and given you the collective middle finger as you sank our island around us. Because that's the kind of brothers Cagil and Foda were to the very end. The kind of brothers that took no guff from anyone and were always ready to rumble. Brothers like that made the game FUN, and I will always miss them in these modern days of wishy-washy friends and acquaintances whose words aren't worth the electrons they are printed on...
-
Medron, I want to make a couple of things quite clear: First, I applaud you most sincerely for the efforts you made at the end. It's exactly that sort of thing—finding a way, in-character and without just having someone turn around and say, "A-ha! I was actually evil all along!" or something like that, to change longstanding character- and realm-defining characteristics that are creating an unfun environment—that we need to encourage much, much more of. That was really good, and I want to find ways to incentivize and reward that type of behaviour. I truly do regret the necessity of sinking Atamara, especially since you were starting to pull it out of the death spiral it was in.
Second, there was absolutely more we devs/admins could have done to fix the situation back then. We had never been faced with this kind of problem, and our "player-driven content" ethos really hamstrung us in figuring out how we could make things better. Even without breaking that, there's no reason we couldn't have implemented back then what I'm working on now (an in-game OOC message channel for rulers and admins to connect, with all messages publicly visible).
But as far as Atamara itself goes, basically everyone who was not already part of the Cagil bloc had been telling you guys for many years before the sinking—years before the island had become totally stagnant—that the bloc's dominance was a problem, it was hurting the game, it was leading to stagnation, etc, etc. And the players within the bloc always just dismissed that as whiners whining because they weren't winning. That is what was not OK then and is not OK now: Deciding that just because you're winning at the war part of the game, that necessarily means you must be doing things "right," and you don't have to listen to any criticisms. And frankly, all I'm hoping for from you is an acknowledgement that yeah, maybe you should've listened earlier, and maybe you didn't do everything perfectly—maybe you could have stopped and looked ahead at the consequences of what you were doing, and seen that it could be a problem.
-
I've seen three types of reaction from sinking of Atamara.
1) People who were angry about getting their favourite island destroyed.
2) People who were glad Atamara was deleted
3) People who were upset that they did not get to enjoy the war that was happening there before Atamara was deleted.
I personally think devs should have let that CE bloc vs Rest sort out before sinking the island but it is too late now. I don't know why CE bloc did not act sooner. Devs could have warned them better I guess. Like literally threatening to sink the island before just telling them they were going to sink AT. It is hard to tell sinking the island did anything positive. The game lost a decent chunk of players from it. We are still seeing large alliance blocs despite having limits. They just won't be all in one group but won't fight each other. Not sure it is something mechanics can solve. Can discourage people by disincentivizing it further maybe.
-
I'm strongly in camp three. Granted, I would have preferred the island not be sunk at all, but I do generally agree that some islands had to be sunk due to the dropping player base.
As for the timing, I agree that somebody should have done something to fix the issue before we did. What I will say is this. I had no idea what it was like on the continent when I was just a player. All I saw was us playing around with the Cagilans and marching around from time to time to do things. Was it super active compared to other continents? No. But we'd built something good and could have fun if we looked for something to do. Which I did. I became the Duke of Foda and did stuff. I think I held tournaments and arranged stuff and...you know...did the stuff players do when they aren't in the middle of a continent-spanning war. As a player in Tara, I didn't see a problem, because things looked pretty good. If other people complained that it wasn't fun, it didn't match my experience so I kinda brushed it off.
Then several Tyrants in a row got elected and disappeared, and I could tell that Tara was....in trouble. So I decided to buckle up and see what I could do stabilize things. I don't know if anybody ran against me, but I won pretty easy, and then I had access to all the reports of a ruler. And access to the ruler channels. And everything else that goes with that. I started looking first at the entire federation, then the entire alliance the federation was part of, and THEN the nations outside the alliance and I started realizing for the first time that something really was rotten in Atamara. For one thing, it was almost impossible to really start a war because every nation had allied up with at least one member of the central alliance. That was just one little thing and there were many others.
As a character, Regstav was still utterly devoted to Cagil, but as a ruling player I could see that the Cagil-Tara federation had to die to shake things up. The trick was figuring out how to do it. So I started talking with other rulers who wanted to kill it, and did everything I could to shake things up. And at the same time, the other rulers who could see the same thing I did started to realize the same thing. We were literally talking in the main alliance group that had something like a third of the island's population in it about how we were going to kill this thing. ALL OOC of course. IC, we were arguing about which one of us was loyal to Cagil and which one was betraying Cagil. ;) Which ended up being the stick we used to break it in the end. Hehehe.
Absolutely, something should have been done earlier. But it wasn't. So it ended up being my generation of rulers and governmental leaders who did it.
The main sticking point for me in the end, is that we didn't get to see how things turned out. It would have been awesome to have seen that one, last glorious war go down and see who fell. I was privately giving Tara a fifty-fifty chance of surviving, though I was doing everything in my power to tweak those percentages. I will note that when I became Tyrant, I privately gave Tara a zero chance of surviving a fight with a wet noodle bag due to that succession of Tyrants who got elected, popped up, saw the state of Atamara, and logged out until their characters paused because they did NOT want to deal with THAT crap.
As for what to do now in our current setting to keep Atamara from repeating? I don't know. We players got things shaken up in Dwilight and got some nice wars going on, split across the entire continent. They may have all been one war originally, but they were effectively two or three smaller regional wars from the beginning, which they still are to this day even after the alliances were forced to split up. I'm rather proud of having helped start up that little rumble in my time as ruler there. And then Regstav finally found a battle that could kill him after facing battles on three continents that always seemed to miss the mark. :)
But the East Continent hasn't changed at all with the new alliance rules. The Sirion alliance or community or whatever still goes all over, blasted anybody it wants to into dustbunnies. And half the time we can't even engage them in combat because of battle rules that stop us from fighting. I don't know how to fix that continent. Granted, I don't have access to the ruler information, but I see enough as a banker to have a good idea of what is up. And I'm really at a loss as to how to fix it. I'm on the verge of just voting for "giant meteor" hitting....oh...maybe Evora and wiping out everything within two or three regions of it. Erase the populations. Destroy every guild hall, recruitment center, or other city building. Level the walls. Put roads straight to worst case. Maybe even make the regions entirely impassable to force the north and the south to stop fighting each other and let the various simmering local disagreements kick off into smaller wars without the worry of some massive juggernaut crossing the wastes and blasting them while their back is turned.
-
AT was selected because it was the least enjoyable continent and little to offer compared to other continents.
Dwilight was too many people's favourite. EC was Tom's baby (he literally stated he'd rather end BM than to see EC gone), Colonies for less active players, and BT offering unique invasions (not anymore but at the time of choosing it was). So AT and FEI were the ones to be destroyed.
-
Played on Dwilight for near a decade now? And the Astroists realms do not interact or RP with you if you are outside of their realms, ive been on silence with them for years, quite sad on their part, all of our communications are on the forum. IG its very cliquey and tribal without concern for RP or development, if you are outcast its done, the game is you interacting with your realm and that is it.