BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: PolarRaven on May 09, 2020, 09:21:13 PM
-
I'm not even sure where to start with this one, as it such a volatile subject.
I understand that BattleMaster is a work in progress game and we will certainly find things within that do need changing.
Firstly, this is MY opinion from MY point of view and not everyone expected to agree with me.
In my opinion, this is where the supposed OOC problem we now face started:
Letter from Glynkar Plaraveen
Message sent to the rulers of Beluaterra (7 recipients) - just in
Queen Aibhlidhn,
***
Thank you Eldest Wilhelm. All very good points.
***
I gave up Baqua willingly as you asked, you need not bother the rulers channel in an effort to buy time to finish the TO of Baqua.
There are currently no forces on the way to interfere with the TO in Baqua. You are not taking the region, it was given freely.
So, is this to be as you suggest an existential war in which case all allies must become enmeshed?
That choice is not mine to make, it is the choice of you and your allies.
I will repeat what I explained earlier, which I thought was quite clear:
Goatseer Quartz wants a nice clean and polite war, well I offer this:
Send your allies home so Caelint and Gotland can go toe to toe, one on one.
Capitals (only) will be spared the destruction of battle, but all else is fair game.
There you have it, a nice clean and polite war with terms that will see neither realm utterly destroyed.
Northern Alliance Members,
I offer you basically the same.
Go home now and leave Gotland to the war that it has pushed for and earned.
A one on one war with limits.
If any member of the NA (other than Gotland) enters Caelint lands, I will settle for nothing less than an all out war that will certainly see the end of Caelint or Gotland.
So, the question goes to you - Is this to be an existential war in which case all allies must become enmeshed?
We have not yet invited our allies into our lands. Should I send word to them?
On a separate note, we have just received our first prisoner of war.
New Prisoner
message to the realm's council - 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
Patrols in Djembe have captured the enemy adventurer Vladmir, Commoner. He is now on his way into your dungeons.
Though he is a commoner of very little importance, he is a bastard son of Gotland.
Since I have previously warned Gotland about sending their people into my lands, his execution is already on the books, so time is of the essence.
Will this be an existential war where he will be the first to die, or will my offer of a one on one limited war with Gotland be accepted and this poor wretch be set free? A timely response is required for me to be able to intervene if necessary.
Glynkar Plaraveen
King of Caelint
Royal of Caelint
A ONE on ONE war between two realms that were basically equal in resources and nobles.
The players in Thal (and AA for that matter) CHOSE to pursue the war.
I will also note, that at that time, Thalmarkin alone had more nobles than the entire Caelint/Angmar/Nothoi alliance block combined (I do not recall the specific numbers).
Around this time (or shortly after), I recall reports of members of Thalmarkin moving to the south to interfere there as well. Many infil attacks and scroll use that produced hoards of rogues for the southerners to deal with (not sure of more specific details as I was more concerned with the happenings in the north at that time.). I believe that the southerners were trying to sort through troubles of their own at the time and did not really need the added excitement of Thal's "meddling".
Since that time, many things happened/changed continent-wide that can be attributed directly to the actions of Thal and its members.
Enhancing fun in the game for many players.
Time rolls by and things change. Realms fall, realms merge, old problems are sorted out new problems crop up... Life goes on.
Thalmarkin grows to the point that it becomes "unwieldy/unmanageable" as a single realm and the nobles choose to split and form a new realm from the resources they have.
All is still wonderful.
The downfall of Thalmarkin is at hand.
Thalmarkin, still quite powerful (but only half a strong as they were previously), decides to declare war on Irondale (the remnants of the remaining smaller realms in the north that have merged into one realm) figuring that it will be a fairly even war from what they can see of the current layout and happenings of the continent.
They may loose, they may win, but with the back-up of VS close at hand and many of their possible enemies far to the south, they are in no real danger from this war.
And then things start to go bad (for Thalmarkin).
Irondale has grown strong due to the need to band together into one realm for their survival. (certainly due to Thal's actions)
Their allies in AA are no longer there to assist them due to strife between their two realms. (likely due to Thal's actions)
The southern realms contemplate "meddling" in Thal's current happenings. (Again, likely Thal's previous actions in the south brought this on)
Then, the final straw, their former realm-mates (and back-up) in the new realm of Vordul Sanguinis decide that not only will they not help defend Thal, but they will join the other side to help "punish?" Thalmarkin. (I am not sure of the reasoning behind this turn of events, but as members of both realms are originally from Thalmarkin, I suspect that we can say Thal's actions also caused this turn of events).
So why is everyone, all of a sudden, out to get Thalmarkin and ganging up on them?
It must certainly be OOC powergaming that is to blame.
All Thalmarkin ever did was to try to enhance the continent and bring fun to all.
I will also note that being on the winning side of a conflict is normally MUCH more fun than being the ones who are getting their asses kicked.
-
So why is everyone, all of a sudden, out to get Thalmarkin and ganging up on them?
It must certainly be OOC powergaming that is to blame.
Please....please, please, please.
Don't do this.
Don't ever do this.
The other players on Beluaterra are people too. They're just trying to figure things out, the same as you are. They make mistakes, the same as you do.
I get that the situation is very frustrating. I get that Thalmarkin feels very alone in this, and very betrayed. I will be making an important announcement later today that will, I hope, address some of Thalmarkin's concerns.
But the conclusion you are jumping to here—which is an extremely common problem in BattleMaster—is that the only way this could possibly have happened is that the entire rest of the continent is full of dirty rotten people who don't care about anyone's fun.
That's what destroys the ability to work together as players to find a mutually beneficial solution. (Note: not a solution that benefits both sides in a war. A solution that benefits all the players. The players are not here to win wars, because the wars are all fake. Only the players, their feelings and desires, are real. The players are here to have fun creating a story together.)
Instead, I want you to stop and remember that each and every one of them is coming at this from the same perspective as you, relatively speaking: How do I make things best for my realm? How do I find fun the easiest way? How do I maintain my character's, my realm's, my religion's, characterization and roleplay? How do I avoid having to interrupt the story I want to tell because everyone got bored and left/the realm was destroyed/I got banned?
Almost no one is a powergamer.
Almost everyone in the game cares, at least to some extent, about other people's fun.
They just don't know what's going on for those other people. Just like you don't know what's going on in their heads.
Instead of assuming they're Bad People, assume they're Confused Good People, and try to help them.
Please. Please, please, please.
-
Devlin,
I am sorry.
To be clear, I am not a member of Thalmarkin and do not even have a noble on the continent at this time.
I was a former ruler of Caelint but left the continent due to the actions of Thalmarkin and their (then) allies.
I think I must not have expressed my point clearly enough.
The point you have quoted was meant to be sarcastic.
Let me rephrase the part you have quoted without sarcasm:
So why is everyone, all of a sudden, out to get Thalmarkin and ganging up on them?
It must certainly be OOC powergaming that is to blame.
The real answer to that question is this:
Thalmarkin has "bullied" most of the continent for quite some time now and it is not hard to believe that many people/most realms have an understandable dislike for the realm.
This is the first time, in quite a while, that Thalmarkin has been vulnerable so why wouldn't realms with a past grudge not take advantage of that?
There was no sympathy or concern for the fun of players in Caelint when Thalmarkin decided to "support their ally Gotland".
Although they were only one realm, they far outmatched Caelint in all aspects, but decided to join and skew what would have been a fairly evenly matched one on one war.
Even after Caelint's allies joined the fray, Thalmarkin (being only one realm) still outmatched our side in resources and nobles.
Those people that actually feel like this is OOC powergaming are only looking at the current state of events where we see many realms "ganging up" on Thalmarkin for "no reason".
What I am saying is by looking at the history of Thalmarkin's actions, it is not hard to see that the current situation has arrived.
The bully has tripped and all of the smaller guys have decided to rush in and get a poke at them while they are down.
And now they cry fowl and threaten to leave the game because everyone else has decided to pick on them for "no reason".
I think that if you re-read my post without my bit of sarcasm, you will see that I do NOT believe that this is a case of "power-gaming", but an unavoidable consequence of the actions of those players in Thalmarkin.
*****THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT THEM TO THIS POINT.*****
^ = MY conclusion when properly and thouroughly read.
And Devlin, I would ask that if you are going to comment on one or two sentences from what I have written, please take the time to read the entire message before doing so. Again, I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I believe that anyone who read the entire message would likely see that the part you refer to was being sarcastic.
(I understand that you have likely been waiting for this to hit the forums so that you could catch it before it blew up, but I don't think you gave my letter the attention it deserved because you only commented on such a small part of it.)
______________________________
The unsportsmanlike conduct here was (in MY opinion) when the former ruler of Thalmarkin publicly accused basically every player on the continent of POWER GAMING and then quit the game.
That single event has ruined this particular war and discouraged many players from wanting to be involved.
It has also ensured that Thalmarkin will survive, likely with little damage done to it, to avoid further accusations of "power-gaming".
-
The new rules are to prevent realms that are not allied from acting together.
If one alliance is going after Thalmarkin that is fine. But when that alliance + realms that are at peace or neutral with are joining forces to bash on one realm, then no.
-
The fact that you share a common enemy does not make you allies.
Walk into a room with 10 strangers and smack each of them in the mouth on your way by.
All of a sudden 10 strangers who don't know each other and have nothing in common (other than the smack in the mouth that you just gave them) have a common goal.
Are ANY of them in the wrong for wanting to return your smack in the mouth?
-
The fact that you share a common enemy does not make you allies.
Walk into a room with 10 strangers and smack each of them in the mouth on your way by.
All of a sudden 10 strangers who don't know each other and have nothing in common (other than the smack in the mouth that you just gave them) have a common goal.
Are ANY of them in the wrong for wanting to return your smack in the mouth?
It is an OOC restriction for game balance. Attempting to make sense of it by real-world analogy will fail.
It is exactly as real and logical as only being able to move one region per turn (even if it only takes 6 hours to get from region A->B->C), or only being able to recruit troops in the capital (even if the recruitment centers are out in the rural regions).
-
And yet you ignore the previous post that was directed to you specifically.
I can't say that I am surprised.
Push your agenda and rest assured that I have nothing further to add on this subject.
-
This change is not specifically in regards to what happened on Beluaterra, but a response to what the developers of BattleMaster have collectively witnessed over sixteen (16) plus years of playing and watching and trying to improve the game.
If you believe you can make a better game, I encourage you to do so. The browser-based and strategy game ecosystems could use some more variety.
If you believe the admins and developers are pushing a hidden agenda, it's because we don't say often enough that we do these things because want people to enjoy the game. I apologize that we're not clearer on that.
-
And yet you ignore the previous post that was directed to you specifically.
I can't say that I am surprised.
Push your agenda and rest assured that I have nothing further to add on this subject.
I've been making and eating supper, and didn't have time yet to address the significantly longer post.
I'll try and do so within the next few hours, but I can't promise.
-
And yet you ignore the previous post that was directed to you specifically.
I can't say that I am surprised.
Push your agenda and rest assured that I have nothing further to add on this subject.
First of all, this is in no way constructive. The Devs and Admins have volunteered their time to work on the game. The only "agenda" is an effort to make the game fun. The idea that there is favour staked to certain players or realms is ridiculous. 99% of players don't know each other IRL, and the realms are fictitous. I don't understand why people take this low-road when they don't get the answers they like, but it is incredibly immature and I personally have no problem calling it out as garbage behavior.
There was no sympathy or concern for the fun of players in Caelint when Thalmarkin decided to "support their ally Gotland".
There is always concern for the fun of any player. That is literally what we try to do. Make the game fun and fair. That being said, the Titans and Admins do not actively police the game. It would be impossible. We rely on the community and player reports. So I ask you, was the alliance bloc system in place when this happened? If so, was Thalmarkin outside the bloc? If so, did you submit a Titan report? I can't stress this enough. If something breaks the rules, actively ruins someone's fun in a malicious way, or just seems wrong, then submit a Titan report. Don't just mention things to people. People forget, we are all fallible. Even if you don't know if it is a Titan worthy offense, submit it and let us decide. It does zero harm, but not letting us know can and usually does cause problems.
It has already been stated that this concept that was introduced today has been a long time work in progress. The fact that it is coming to fruition now and not during your particular conflict is coincidental.
*****THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT THEM TO THIS POINT.*****
So? A landslide victory is boring and no fun for anyone involved. Remember that this is a game. Believe it or not, you were not actually a citizen of Caelint who was wronged. Think about the game for a moment instead of personal vendetta. You can easily stack the deck in a war like that to have an 80% chance of victory, where the other side at least has a chance to struggle and things are still up for grabs. But outnumbering your opponent 4 nobles to 1 obliterates any chance those players have to have fun, and quite honestly is no fun for your own players.
So why do it? Because it happened to you? Grow up.
Again, I am sorry for the sarcasm, but I believe that anyone who read the entire message would likely see that the part you refer to was being sarcastic.
Don't be sarcastic. You are typing to an audience from many countries and cultures. If you try to convey a point in this environment using sarcasm, it is your fault for any miscommunication. Completely ridiculous and inappropriate. Be clear and concise if you want to be taken seriously. When I read your first post, I had zero doubt that you were defending Thalmarkin. Once you explained it, I could kind of see the sarcasm upon re-reading, but the cost is you having to explain it and we have all wasted time.
-
First of all, this is in no way constructive. The Devs and Admins have volunteered their time to work on the game.
You're right, that was rude of me to say. I apologize.
Though, it is also rude of Devlin to ignore my response (addressed to him specifically) to his inquiries and skip to commenting on the next comment/post.
I have said this many times in the past, but will say it again,
Thanks to all the Devs and other people that make it possible for us to play this game.
With that said, I understand we get what they are willing to give (have to play the game as they offer it), but I do not have to agree with everything they implement.
I don't understand why people take this low-road when they don't get the answers they like, but it is incredibly immature and I personally have no problem calling it out as garbage behavior.
It has nothing to do with the answer I received, it was the lack of an answer while he moved on to the next part, skipping over the part that was directed specifically to his earlier mentioned concerns. Rude will often elicit rude in return.
Again I apologize, I should have kept it civil even though I felt he was being rude.
There is always concern for the fun of any player. That is literally what we try to do. Make the game fun and fair. That being said, the Titans and Admins do not actively police the game. It would be impossible. We rely on the community and player reports. So I ask you, was the alliance bloc system in place when this happened? If so, was Thalmarkin outside the bloc? If so, did you submit a Titan report? I can't stress this enough. If something breaks the rules, actively ruins someone's fun in a malicious way, or just seems wrong, then submit a Titan report. Don't just mention things to people. People forget, we are all fallible. Even if you don't know if it is a Titan worthy offense, submit it and let us decide. It does zero harm, but not letting us know can and usually does cause problems.
Yes, the alliance bloc system was in place at the time and no they were not outside the block limit. Lets talk about the possible flaw in that system.
The system uses REGIONS as the measuring factor of how strong an alliance bloc is. Regions give you resources, but it is the NOBLE count that wins a war. At that time Thal was receiving many new players (being directed there from DISCORD as a good realm to start in). Thal had very few regions at that time (don't recall specifically), and about 40+ nobles. Thal had great density at that time, so it was considered a good thing and nothing to worry about. So a Titan report was not "warranted" because no one was really abusing the system, it was the system that was flawed (in MY opinion). Anyway, the bloc system is what it is and it's obviously here to stay. In the end it should work for all, but there will likely be "legitimate" ways around it.
It has already been stated that this concept that was introduced today has been a long time work in progress. The fact that it is coming to fruition now and not during your particular conflict is coincidental.
Purely co-incidental. OK, I am willing to take your word on that.
BUT, here is how it looked to me before you cleared it up:
A) This ideal is in the works (for years), on the back-burner.
B) Several months ago there was a big upset on the East Island about the ongoing "North vs South" war.
C) This ideal is now pushed to the forefront
D) The members of Thalmarkin (close to 20 on discord and about 30 in realm) complain about being gangbanged (in a war they declared/started) and threaten to quit when their own actions have finally caught up with them
E) Within a few days, the ideal is completed enough to go live.
Hate to loose so many players that are active both on discord and in game.
But since I have your word that the timing was purely co-incidental we can move on from this.
So? A landslide victory is boring and no fun for anyone involved. Remember that this is a game. Believe it or not, you were not actually a citizen of Caelint who was wronged. Think about the game for a moment instead of personal vendetta.
I can't say, I don't recall ever being part of a landslide victory, though I can assure you it was not much fun on the loosing side.
Now that I think back though, I seem to recall an awful lot of enjoyment being posted in the letters that I seen from the Thal alliance bloc players at the time both IG and on discord. Your theory about no one enjoying a landslide victory may not be entirely accurate.
I am thinking of the game. I have not had a noble on BT for quite a while now so I have NO personal stake in this situation.
You can easily stack the deck in a war like that to have an 80% chance of victory, where the other side at least has a chance to struggle and things are still up for grabs. But outnumbering your opponent 4 nobles to 1 obliterates any chance those players have to have fun, and quite honestly is no fun for your own players.
So why do it? Because it happened to you? Grow up.
But, the alliance bloc does not take this into account. It is measured by REGIONS held, not nobles.
When I was in Caelint, I believe we actually were facing close to 4 to 1 (nobles) odds. And you are right, it was not so much fun. But as I said above, the other side seemed to be enjoying themselves.
Your statement seems to imply that this particular situation (Thal being on "the other side" of a lopsided conflict) was orchestrated by players from various other realms. I could be wrong, but I really doubt that the rest of the continent got together and said "Hey, lets gang up on Thalmarkin and destroy that realm".
If I understand correctly, it was Thalmarkin who declared War on Caelint once again this time round. So, really, how can this even be considered OOC powergaming as the former, missing ruler of Thalmarkin complained before he rage quit? I can not speak for others as to why they decided to join in on the war, but as I have said previously, Thalmarkin has meddled in just about every other realms' affairs at one point or another in recent history. Some may have questionable reasons, but some seem to have very valid reasons for wanting in on the war.
Why do it? There are many VALID IG reasons for certain realms/nobles on BT to want a piece of Thalmarkin. If you need specific reasons, you will need to ask them as I have not had a noble on BT for quite a while now and my current information comes from other sources (discord, forums, OOC ruler channel...)
Don't be sarcastic. You are typing to an audience from many countries and cultures. If you try to convey a point in this environment using sarcasm, it is your fault for any miscommunication. Completely ridiculous and inappropriate. Be clear and concise if you want to be taken seriously. When I read your first post, I had zero doubt that you were defending Thalmarkin. Once you explained it, I could kind of see the sarcasm upon re-reading, but the cost is you having to explain it and we have all wasted time.
Got it. Which should be fairly obvious though since the part of my message that you have quoted also includes my apology for doing so.
"Completely ridiculous and inappropriate" ? Well, where I come from, telling one to "Grow up" is seen in quite the same light as sarcasm. Please keep this in mind for your future writings to this multi-cultural forum.
I am sorry that I am not perfect at conveying my point at all times on all things.
We do the best we can when sharing ideals and sometimes things need further explanation to get a point across.
I am also sorry for wasting both your time and Devlins while trying to share my thoughts and opinions on this matter.
The funny part here, is that it seems like you are more interested in HOW the opinion is presented rather than what the actual opinion is trying to convey.
-
Apologies, but I am going to start at the end of your post right quick.
The funny part here, is that it seems like you are more interested in HOW the opinion is presented rather than what the actual opinion is trying to convey.
100%. That is my role in this community. I am not a Dev or an Admin. Don't get me wrong, I am interested in your actual opinions, that just isn't what drew me into this.
Though, it is also rude of Devlin to ignore my response (addressed to him specifically) to his inquiries and skip to commenting on the next comment/post.
He mentioned he didn't have a lot of time and touched on the simpler subject while he could. Getting into the hockey sock of this Thal situation takes time. There are so many factors, perceptions, misconceptions, and opinions flying around that it just isn't practical to fire off a couple of opinions from the hip. I am like 97.68% sure being rude was not his intent at all.
In the end it should work for all, but there will likely be "legitimate" ways around it.
Absolutely. No one can foresee every possible avenue. If the system is circumvented, it needs to be reported. That way, if it was malicious the person can be punished, or if it was a mistake it can be fixed on the Dev side. In no way is anyone meaning to drop these update bombs and just walk away. We want to work with all the players to make the game run the best it can.
E) Within a few days, the ideal is completed enough to go live.
The issues have been global. EC, Colonies, and now BT have suffered from it. With the issues coming to a head, it definitely jumped it up the priority list, but it is in no way an effort to save Thalmarkin in any way.
In fact, there is nothing in the update that will actively prevent Thal, or any realm, from being destroyed.
Your theory about no one enjoying a landslide victory may not be entirely accurate.
Of course, you are correct. However, most players would agree that even if they are on the winning side, they would rather have more even battles that are fun and epic and wager a little risk than blindly smash an enemy without any effort. I wouldn't go around looting regions just to raise a Peasant Militia to fight. Ineffective enemies are boring.
But, the alliance bloc does not take this into account. It is measured by REGIONS held, not nobles.
You bring up a very good point that I am going to think about.
Your statement seems to imply that this particular situation (Thal being on "the other side" of a lopsided conflict) was orchestrated by players from various other realms.
Sorry, that is not what I meant. Absolutely, all the other realms probably have their own valid reasons for wanting to fight Thal. However, the war started between Thal and Nothoi/Irondale already looked like a losing war for Thal, and then three more realms dogpiled on. Some of these realms have been sitting on their "valid" war reasons for RL years, and now they choose to claim the pound of flesh? This is just starting the engine of that steamroller that really isn't fun. Irondale and Nothoi are already getting theirs, the other realms could easily find other places to sate their appetites so that Thal/Noth/Iron can host a fun and exciting conflict.
I am not trying to defend Thal in any way, I am just pointing out opportunist actions that are detrimental to fun.
Well, where I come from, telling one to "Grow up" is seen in quite the same light as sarcasm.
I won't be apologizing for this. You have employed a very "it happened to me, so it should happen to them" attitude, all the while saying "when it happened to me it wasn't fun at all". Perhaps it would be more appropriate to lead with that and say "Hey guys, when this happened to me it REALLY sucked. Can we try to figure out something that is more healthy for the game?"
In that light, I stand by my statement.
We do the best we can when sharing ideals and sometimes things need further explanation to get a point across.
I am also sorry for wasting both your time and Devlins while trying to share my thoughts and opinions on this matter.
Please do not refrain from sharing your opinions. They are valid. We want the community to be an open and sharing place.
-
This change is not specifically in regards to what happened on Beluaterra, but a response to what the developers of BattleMaster have collectively witnessed over sixteen (16) plus years of playing and watching and trying to improve the game.
If you believe you can make a better game, I encourage you to do so. The browser-based and strategy game ecosystems could use some more variety.
If you believe the admins and developers are pushing a hidden agenda, it's because we don't say often enough that we do these things because want people to enjoy the game. I apologize that we're not clearer on that.
Sorry to have put you on the "back burner" Andrew, but Gildre's reply was more in line with the ongoing conversation, so I felt it more appropriate to respond to his post first.
I haven't been around for the entire sixteen plus years, but I have been watching and playing BM for over ten years now.
I certainly could not make a better game, mostly because I lack the programming skills required to make ANY game.
If I had those skills, I would have certainly volunteered long ago to help with the programming and development of BM.
To be clear, I did not specify "hidden" agenda. My point was that he will do as he wishes (what he feels is best for the game) regardless of my opinion.
I understand that there can not be a game without those that are able (and willing) to program said game.
BUT, without some form of feedback from the players, it is hard to say whether or not your programming efforts are being effective.
You could program the most perfect game in the world, but if no players are interested in playing your perfect game, how good is the game you have made?
Player feedback is almost as important as the actual programming of the game itself.
Programmers who have the attitude of "this is how I programmed it so this is what you get" tend to not produce great games.
Even those programmers with the attitude of "if you can do better then make your own" tend to produce nothing more than mediocre games.
BattleMaster is a very complex game trying to meet the needs of various types of play styles.
There are anything from the warmongering tyrants who would prefer to only write "orders" for their realm to those that would rather sit in a city rolling out stories of "pretty flowers" without ever seeing a battle.
A developer must weigh the opinions of ALL the players and gear their programming to meet the needs of as many of the different play styles as possible.
OR
The developer can concentrate on what the developer wants to see in their game and explain to some of the players that they are playing the wrong game if that is how they want to play.
I believe that BattleMaster falls under the first description, though on occasion, the latter seems more prevalent in the decision making process.
-
20 out of 30 Thalmarkin members are active on Discord?
Mate, you need me to point out where they are. Because I've been talking to the same 5-6 people this entire time..
Don't make things up please.
For the rest, I don't mind you having your opinion. Some things must be said, I agree with that. And I'm not further going to comment on that because I have not been around (paused) when all of this bullying happened in the first place.
-
Sorry for the confusion Wimpie.
I didn't think that I said "active", but "listed" as members of Thal on discord.
(actually, I just checked and I did say active. SORRY yet again)
I am sorry for the improper wording of my post.
I actually have no idea how active they actually are on discord (or IG for that matter).
I am still learning the bot commands of Discord and was impressed that I actually figured out how to list the Thal members that are on Discord.
So let me re-write it as it was meant:
From the bot command on Discord there are close to 20 members of Thal "listed" as having a Discord account.
(technically they are "active" on discord because they "activated" their discord account, but maybe they do not participate regularly)
The 30 number was garnered from the stats page which does not give exact numbers on the graph presented, so there are about 30 players "listed" as members of Thal. Their characters are there whether they actively participate in the realm or not.
So once again, I apologize for the specific wording of my posts on the forums and would like to thank all of you have taken the time to help me correct the wording of the concepts that I have tried to share.
Honestly though, I have been posting to the forums to try to help improve the game with ideas and concepts, not to have my writing style picked apart. I believe that this will likely be my last post to the forums, because I have no desire to keep apologizing to people for the wording of the concepts I am trying to convey.
I can see why so few people bother with the forums in recent times. It is not really a welcoming environment here.
-
I have appreciated some of the points you have raise Polar. I think particularly the imbalance between just basing on regions in the alliance block and the number of players (especially active skilled ones in an established well resourced realm) vs a more sprawling disorganised, new and less well resourced bloc of realms is a very important distinction. I think others have picked that crucial point out so it was worthwhile from that point of view alone.
The other questionable benefit is it has played a part in provoking a rare bit of input from me. As will follow.
I think looking for agreement on opinions in forums is generally futile, so if there are a couple of positives/points made you have done alright.
-
Mate, you need me to point out where they are.
Actually, no I do not need you to point out where they are.
I only add this because we are so concerned about HOW things are written here.
My previous post to Wimpie was an answer to the "concept" that I believed he was trying to share, while this post is an answer to the question he "actually" asked.
I wonder which of my two responses to Wimpie is the more correct response for this forum...
-
Hello I play a character in The Shattered Vales.
I should start by saying I do appreciate the effort made by volunteers to dev, operate, mod and titan patrol the game. (And sorry to Polar if I am perceived by Polar to be sidetracking his thread).
I would like to do 3 things in my post. Over and above the 3rd point is the only thing that really matters to me. I would prefer something informed on the questions section as it could serve as answers for people in the future to avoid my unhappy experience. My other points offer context or at least something of my account, just finding fault with my experience will not interest me or benefit those that follow.
1) Introduction. I play the Emperor of the Vales. I think many of the things that have been said and inferred about my realm recently have been unfair and plain wrong in a lot of instances. In varying degrees quite a few of us feel like second class citizens in the Vales. I find the titan intervention insulting. As this is subjective there is little point arguing with me about it. I am insulted frequently for my (fairly uninteresting job) so I can compartmentalise that fairly well. It is not what I look for first in an escapism game, but I can handle it. I will be taking active steps to remove myself from that environment IG.
2) Points already raised. I am struggling with the point earlier in the thread.
"The fact that you share a common enemy does not make you allies." seems very valid and appropriate to the situation to me.
Walk into a room with 10 strangers and smack each of them in the mouth on your way by.
All of a sudden 10 strangers who don't know each other and have nothing in common (other than the smack in the mouth that you just gave them) have a common goal.
Are ANY of them in the wrong for wanting to return your smack in the mouth?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an OOC restriction for game balance. Attempting to make sense of it by real-world analogy will fail.
It is exactly as real and logical as only being able to move one region per turn (even if it only takes 6 hours to get from region A->B->C), or only being able to recruit troops in the capital (even if the recruitment centers are out in the rural regions).
The examples can be explained at least partially logically so there is no comparison to just ignore diplomacy unless it fits a prescribed box. We move through regions with a unit, each region is a distinct governed region. For a small contingent it does not move just as the crow flies or even hare runs. There is only enough time per turn to navigate the difference between one different region. Gauging the politics and base provisioning along the way. Not until the corps. unit system were armies able to move rapidly through areas at only the rate of hours travel alone. The recruitment centres in the capital is imperfect, but you can argue mobile units of noble guards need recruiting at the royal/imperial capital where the finest troops need to be sworn in by ceremony. You can recruit local bound troops in the form of militia. Noble troops come from the capital. Both examples also benefit from being physical things with physical effects. You cannot believe your way into another region nor can you have the concept of having 50 cavalry if you don't. A friendly realm and an ally are concepts along a scale eg acquaintances>mates>friends, different value weighting but similar concepts. Indeed the Alliance Bloc could sensibly be meant to be seen as the practical extent of what your diplomats can manage in a formal arrangement. Outside that you suffer the not insignificant consequences of maybe being friendly or having shared enemies without a formal effective structure. This is the point my many questions arise from because otherwise it makes no sense, was never clearly presented as such and creates loads of problems that have never been addressed any where I can find access. Just to say "real world analogies will fail" is self evidently weak, a bit like saying you can argue anything with facts - to do away with those pesky facts.
I have touched on the valuable point Raven made in my earlier brief post. Yes very much, there should be other things considered when assessing what makes evenly matched sides in a conflict. I simply do not buy the argument made that Thal entered the war expecting to lose. (If nothing else its ruler was spectacularly unprepared to deal with being anything other than the alpha dog). By attacking Irondale so soon there was no chance for them to build unity or preparedness. The political effect of losing one of your merged parties cities (and be unable to retake it) threatened the very real risk that Irondale might not recover from that early shock. They began cultivating people who shared that hatred for Thal's past and current tyrannies. In your own "Thunderclap" intervention you state, "While a realm that botches its diplomacy should certainly expect to find itself on the wrong end of a beating.." but you never indicate how, if we were not allowed to oppose them with interests short of formal alliance. Sitting watching a realm you respect getting turned over for the 2nd time after its predecessors were destroyed or broken up = diplomatic failure and a lack of consequence for ignoring diplomacy if you can keep a core hard hitting momentum going. No dictator would ever be resisted in that scenario. IG or RL. And don't forget we have been witnessing that very occurrence without the slightest intervention til now as it was someone else's fun being ground under the heel.
Any way, that is all too subjective to go anywhere but at least I have voiced an aspect of the counter points that have been raging amongst realm members and other rulers, And I haven't even touched on the fact everything we thought we knew led us to think Vordul would join Thal making an even contest all in all. But again the supposed consequence of Thal's lack of any diplomatic consideration meant Vordul had to have the agency to reject the assumption they would just do as bid.
3) Finally to my questions:
Where on the forum were the interpretations and implications of the Alliance Bloc outlined? Is there anything on the wiki? If so, please would you point them out. If not would this not be a desirable feature before starting to describe supposed players you believe the best of, of being abusive?
What practically happens if you are in an alliance bloc within size limits, but which then outgrows it?
Are treaties and embassies and diplomatic pledges not captured by an alliance all illegal now?
Despite a very complicated background 5 rulers from 3 realms, Vales, Nova and OS (2 realms switched rulers during the drawn out negotiations) worked strenuously to form a treaty to stop a war going to destruction/leaving a beaten realm in-viable. Ironically Thal bragged about trying to derail this at least twice, the second as Polar alludes to with scrolls, with zero consideration for OS's fun. Our treaty basically was a mutual protection pact to allow OS to recover. NOT accepting this responsibility to help OS back on its feet after the conflicted feelings arising from the war would have been OOC unfair IMHO. We outgrew the alliance bloc limits while OS was recovering and us still negotiating, but adjusted it to mutual defence against an attacker which is not a full alliance. Any post war settlement relies on some diplomatic support being lent to the defeated or else someone else will just follow up a 1st successful invasion with a 2nd by a different realm.
How exactly are we supposed to make any sense of favourable relations/histories we cannot fit in an alliance bloc based on this new harsh interpretation? For my realm we owe existence to Nothoi granting us a city, and built strong Daishi ties. To ignore their plight a second time would piss on that friendship/history but at various stages we were too big to ally. Similarly my realm owe a debt to Ar Agyr, if there are no circumstances that is allowed to be repayed through even defensive action how is that anything other than cutting diplomacy out of the game?
If all these scenarios are simply, well you just have to accept it as a price for the supposed interests of fun that seems to lose a whole dimension from the game for a flawed attempt at balance (as already pointed out an elite aggressive realm can dominate damaged/disunited recovering ones. In this war Thal managed 100% movement at key moments. This is not normal nor should it have to be, other armies move as more of an oscillating blob. But these are players too and you seem to be ignoring or placing a lesser worth on their experiences.) It does pose a fairly obvious solution. No one has any allies, simply informal friends/favourites and just reacts diplomacy up when trouble or opportunity presents. You could even see allies roll in and out to keep pressure on while an enemy got no chance to recover. Are you saying that is acceptable? It makes more sense despite obvious flaws/exploits.
The final sickening irony is that after being reached out to in semi reasonable terms (rather than harangued and implied to be cheating) we had been bending over backwards to find workable solutions. This trusting the players was non existent then and has destroyed my interest in the game. Rather than pass a !@#$ sandwich with just a bite taken out to my successor I would appreciate some considered answers on the questions posed. I can do without snide or condescending input. Thanks for your time.
-
I believe that the following (found in the "Announcements" section of this forum) answers 1 of your questions.
December 2018 Recent Changes
« Reply #1: December 22, 2018, 11:34:19 PM »
Fix unit highlighting in battle
Disabled access to food distribution on stable islands (was never intended to be on stable)
Include duke in recipients when writing 'all nobles of duchy'
Update dynamic map
Mark old hunts as inactive every turn
Send message to realm when property/wealth taxes are updated
Only allow building harbours and shipyards in 'coast' regions; update Beluaterra's 'lake' regions surrounding Lake Salaman to 'coast' regions
Limit alliances/federation chains to one-third of human-held regions on an island
Fix minimap
Temporarily disable Citizen Militia
There may be a more descriptive answer somewhere else, but this is all that I came up with.
-
PolarRaven shared the only "official" page for it that I could find. I don't think there is anything on the Wiki. I don't think it is meant to be anything other than a simple size restriction, so that you can't team up with more than 1/3rd of the continent.
What practically happens if you are in an alliance bloc within size limits, but which then outgrows it?
Anaris mentioned that there would be no GM intervention if an alliance "outgrows" it's bloc unless it becomes huge. So if you are at your alliance bloc limit and you take over another region, I do not believe you need to worry about giving up another region for it. If you get a huge influx of players, however, and your realm triples in size so that your alliance bloc is now half the continent, it might warrant investigation.
I think Anaris said he was going to try to make an appearance here today, so I will let him clarify that point if I am incorrect.
Are treaties and embassies and diplomatic pledges not captured by an alliance all illegal now?
Can you rephrase this question? I am not sure exactly what you are asking.
Are you asking if alliances trump treaties? They already do. If you sign a Mutual Defense Pact with a realm, but you are just a peace with them, you won't be able to do much to defend them anyway. Only one of you would participate in battles anyway, the other would just observe.
It is much more efficient to just keep your diplomacy in line with your treaties.
EDIT: There was also a discussion here that has some good information on the hows and whys of the alliance bloc system: https://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,8753.0.html
-
If you sign a Mutual Defense Pact with a realm, but you are just a peace with them, you won't be able to do much to defend them anyway. Only one of you would participate in battles anyway, the other would just observe.
Just to clarify the game mechanics: non-allies can participate on the same side in battle if they are attacking someone they are both at war with. They won't fight together if they would be the defender in the battle.
You can see more information on how sides are determined on the wiki:
https://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Battle/Diplomacy_Effects
-
Ah! Thank you Abstract! I didn't actually know that.
-
To be clear, I am not a member of Thalmarkin and do not even have a noble on the continent at this time.
I was a former ruler of Caelint but left the continent due to the actions of Thalmarkin and their (then) allies.
PolarRaven,
My apologies; I did only skim your earlier message, and thus ended up with the wrong impression. The point I made was still important, but apparently you were not the right one to address it to! :-[
The real answer to that question is this:
Thalmarkin has "bullied" most of the continent for quite some time now and it is not hard to believe that many people/most realms have an understandable dislike for the realm.
This is the first time, in quite a while, that Thalmarkin has been vulnerable so why wouldn't realms with a past grudge not take advantage of that?
And I fully support realms in banding together to give a bully a good hard knocking. I will repeat to you (paraphrased) what was said in an earlier conversation I had with Vita on this subject, as we were working on hashing out what our positions and official policy should be:
We need to be very careful in our approach to shutting down unfair play, making sure that by doing so we're not also shutting down legitimate IC consequences for realms' actions.
That said, there is a very real ceiling to "IC consequences"—that is, a level of consequences above which anything more is meaningless. A realm that is at war with enough other realms that it is guaranteed to lose has found that ceiling.
I would never even try to suggest that a realm that pisses off other realms should be immune to getting beat down for that—but that beatdown should never be so utterly hopeless that it destroys the interest of the people in the realm getting beat such that they stop having fun, and stop caring about the game.
There was no sympathy or concern for the fun of players in Caelint when Thalmarkin decided to "support their ally Gotland".
Although they were only one realm, they far outmatched Caelint in all aspects, but decided to join and skew what would have been a fairly evenly matched one on one war.
Even after Caelint's allies joined the fray, Thalmarkin (being only one realm) still outmatched our side in resources and nobles.
Now, I'm going to have to step out onto a limb, because I'm not 100% sure of your intent in saying this, so first let me qualify my words by saying how I'm interpreting yours:
It seems like you're upset that Thalmarkin, as a huge and dangerous realm, is able to throw that weight around and, simply by joining a conflict that's otherwise pretty ordinary, turn it into one that's hopeless and demoralizing.
If that is what you mean here, then I completely agree, and that's why I have, for over a decade now, advocated for restrictions on realms being able to get so much larger than other realms that they distort continental politics.
And now they cry fowl and threaten to leave the game because everyone else has decided to pick on them for "no reason".
Yep. And that kind of behaviour, frankly, pisses me off. It means that they're not even interested in considering the possibility that being in a situation where you lose something IC could still be fun OOC—or, to turn that around, that they've gotten so used to being the "big dog" IC that they think they can only have fun when they're able to dictate the terms of everything that happens around them.
The unsportsmanlike conduct here was (in MY opinion) when the former ruler of Thalmarkin publicly accused basically every player on the continent of POWER GAMING and then quit the game.
Apart from one word ("The unsportsmanlike conduct"—because I saw people on both sides being unsportsmanlike in the Ruler/Admin channel), I agree.
I think Zatirri overreacted seriously to this, and I hope that he'll come back after he cools down and be open to being shown another side of what happened. I would much rather have someone who's frustrated with IC situations and wants to see them change come to the players with an open mind, looking for solutions, rather than angrily, just looking for people to blame. I don't want to sound like a self-help book, but the concept of being "above the line"—open, curious, willing to put one's own ego aside for the sake of finding a solution—versus "below the line"—closed, stubborn, seeking to prove that one is right—has been one that I've really come to see as having a lot of use in cases like this. If you're at all interested, I would urge you to listen to this podcast: https://fs.blog/knowledge-project/jim-dethmer/ (https://fs.blog/knowledge-project/jim-dethmer/)
That single event has ruined this particular war and discouraged many players from wanting to be involved.
It has also ensured that Thalmarkin will survive, likely with little damage done to it, to avoid further accusations of "power-gaming".
From what everyone was saying, I'm pretty sure Thalmarkin was going to survive either way—that was, in fact, one of the ways in which Zatirri seriously overreacted, assuming that Thalmarkin was going to be destroyed. I understand why he felt that way, but assuming that that's the case and ignoring people telling him OOC that it was not is counterproductive.
I hope that this has clarified where I stand on this subject, and shows that I bear you no ill will.
-
Any way, that is all too subjective to go anywhere but at least I have voiced an aspect of the counter points that have been raging amongst realm members and other rulers, And I haven't even touched on the fact everything we thought we knew led us to think Vordul would join Thal making an even contest all in all. But again the supposed consequence of Thal's lack of any diplomatic consideration meant Vordul had to have the agency to reject the assumption they would just do as bid.
And I want to be clear in this that I do not hold the rulers of the realms of Beluaterra responsible for what happened—if I had thought that anyone had engaged in conduct that was worthy of punishment, I would have either put forward a case to the Titans, or leveled that punishment myself.
The standards I have articulated are things that I had hoped people would adhere to previously, but which were not in any way explicitly articulated, and the only ones to blame for that are me and Vita. Now they are stated openly, and I will be doing my best to help guide and teach people—and, if necessary, update the wording and clarify or even adjust the expectations if I find that what I have said thus far is too ambiguous, doesn't edge cases, or is even unrealistic in places.
3) Finally to my questions:
Where on the forum were the interpretations and implications of the Alliance Bloc outlined? Is there anything on the wiki? If so, please would you point them out. If not would this not be a desirable feature before starting to describe supposed players you believe the best of, of being abusive?
What practically happens if you are in an alliance bloc within size limits, but which then outgrows it?
I believe Gildre answered these two well.
Are treaties and embassies and diplomatic pledges not captured by an alliance all illegal now?
No, they are not illegal. However, if Realm A has a treaty with Realm B saying "We will ally if either of us is attacked," and Realm B gets themselves into an alliance bloc that reaches the limit and is then attacked, they will not be able to ally with Realm A. (And I realize that that was a bit confusingly stated, so if it doesn't make sense, let me know.)
How exactly are we supposed to make any sense of favourable relations/histories we cannot fit in an alliance bloc based on this new harsh interpretation? For my realm we owe existence to Nothoi granting us a city, and built strong Daishi ties. To ignore their plight a second time would piss on that friendship/history but at various stages we were too big to ally. Similarly my realm owe a debt to Ar Agyr, if there are no circumstances that is allowed to be repayed through even defensive action how is that anything other than cutting diplomacy out of the game?
Can you clarify this for me? It sounds like you're saying that SV was unable to make an alliance with just Nothoi—with neither realm having any other alliances active—due to the restrictions.
If that's the case—that there are multiple realms on BT that can't (or can barely) form any alliances—then we may indeed need to re-examine the specific limits involved with the alliance bloc limits.
However, if I'm misunderstanding, and what you're saying is that one or more of these realms had other alliances, and adding an alliance with another realm would have pushed you over the limit...then what I would strongly advocate for is a shift in how Alliance is seen (which might be what you're saying in your next paragraph? I'm afraid I'm a bit unclear on your intent there, too). And I recognize that this is asking a lot, but it is something that we've been quietly pushing for for years, due to exactly the kinds of shenanigans that led to the alliance bloc restrictions in the first place (and, earlier, led to the sinking of Atamara):
"Friends" and "allies" don't have to mean the same thing. "Friends" is more of a cultural tie, something that might imply you would ally with them, but more importantly speaks to a deeper bond with another realm. "Allies" means something very specific and 100% military: "If my realm and my ally's realm have troops in a region, and one of us takes the battlefield as the defender, the other will join in."
And I would be more than happy to start a discussion as to whether there should be a completely-non-military set of "cultural relations" between realms that the game keeps track of, so that you could retain that information and make it easily available for new players and people across the continent—or even across the game—without having it be bound up in specific military terminology and mechanical benefits and detriments.
I hope that this answers your questions, and shows you something of my position on the issues raised.
-
PolarRaven,
My apologies; I did only skim your earlier message, and thus ended up with the wrong impression. The point I made was still important, but apparently you were not the right one to address it to! :-[
Thank you. And again I am sorry for any confusion that I may have caused.
-
Thank you Gildre for your answers and then thanks to Anaris for the answers and both constructive and informative over all reply. I appreciate the constructive engagement and tone at a time you have been handling a mechanical game change at the same time.
My sincere thanks for the considerable efforts that must go into this, and for picking out the more constructive elements of what must have seemed in parts a rambling expression of my concerns built up over a period of time.
The answers given already have shifted my understanding on most of the points you had asked for clarity on but I will revisit them tomorrow when I have a bit more time to see if I have useful questions remaining. My doubts about everything diplomatic had been shaken by some of the harsher criticisms that had been directed at me by others previously. All the best.
-
I think one of the big concerns I have with this whole situation is this:
The "Coalition" on Beluaterra had to plan for the possibility of Vordul Sanguinius and, potentially, Ar Agyr joining Thalmarkin. And our characters did that. The fact that neither of those realms joined was an unexpected diplomatic victory, at least from Saoirse's perspective. So at what point does gathering five geographically dispersed and in two cases fairly weakened realms against three geographically tight realms, including the strongest realm on the continent, become unfair enough to warrant an intervention? When one of those realms badly screws up their IC diplomacy, in ways that none of our characters predicted? And particularly given that so much of this was related to one character's screwups, when do we decide that those two realms might not hop back in the war with a conciliatory Ruler in Thalmarkin? I'm not trying to make this a slippery slope argument, I'm literally asking, in this specific situation, where the line is? Because I'm not sure I see it, and when I can't see it on a specific situation that just happened, that concerns me, because I don't know how I'm going to see it next time.
When does it become an improper circumvention of the alliance bloc mechanics, when there were at least two, I would argue three, distinct sets of reasons the realms involved were fighting, that had some overlap but not a ton? There were those who wanted Thalmarkin's size reduced so they would be less of a threat. There were those that wanted the Cult of Mordok destroyed. And there was Vordul Sanguinius, playing a Lawful Evil Tyranny of a realm, who had their territory violated and their Ruler blatantly insulted. Any of those three reasons could have been dealt with, and at least one realm would have immediately dropped out of the war. Obia'Syela certainly doesn't care about Nothoi's territorial concerns, much less Vordul Sanguinius's pique at being insulted. Irondale was not overly concerned about the Cult of Mordok, and if Thalmarkin had backed off on the territory they almost certainly would have dropped fighting. So where's the line on the alliance bloc circumvention? Again, how are we going to know where that line is?
And I know this isn't germane to the larger discussion, but I also think it's, frankly, fairly offensive to say that the southern realms were sitting on their reasons and engaged opportunistically when there had been active work toward that fight before the northern war broke out. Saoirse and others were working, IC, before Thalmarkin declared their surprise war, to arrange a Crusade. This is after Ruler turnover in all three of the southern realms, which produced an entirely new diplomatic alignment, flipping Obia'Syela from seeking an alliance with Thalmarkin under Marcus to wanting to attack them under Saoirse. The situation was complex, and predated the northern war. Indeed, one of Saoirse's letters to Tiberius talking about the possibility of moving to Keffa specifically mentioned the idea of having Obia'Syela as a buffer between Irondale and Thalmarkin in case of this sort of attack. I'm more than a little tired of the idea that just because people were being cautious and quiet about planning a war against the most powerful realm on the continent, that somehow means there was OOC or even IC opportunism at play.
I'm willing to see how this plays out, and maybe I will be able to see the lines on these things soon, but I'm concerned.
-
This change is not specifically in regards to what happened on Beluaterra
Sure looks like it. Not even a bad thing, it had to be done in some manner so better now than never.
So? A landslide victory is boring and no fun for anyone involved.
Where were you when Thalmarkin declared war on Grehkia, which was five times smaller?
I know that you were in Thalmarkin. But you get what I mean.
So why do it? Because it happened to you? Grow up.
Yes, everyone who asks for fair treatment is a baby. Well done, Gildre.
Will you also go and call certain Thal players babies because they were perfectly fine inflicting something on others but are now crying foul when it happened to them?
From a titan spokesperson, I'd expect more impartial and civil discourse.
Yep. And that kind of behaviour, frankly, pisses me off. It means that they're not even interested in considering the possibility that being in a situation where you lose something IC could still be fun OOC—or, to turn that around, that they've gotten so used to being the "big dog" IC that they think they can only have fun when they're able to dictate the terms of everything that happens around them.
My thoughts exactly. At least something good came out of it - we did need a more nuanced system for war declarations and setting war goals. It can be improved but at least we have a framework for improvements now.
What worries me, is having a human third party in the equation. Titans can now decide which war declaration is excessive, thus potentially saving certain realms from a resounding defeat. Even if we can absolutely trust our anonimous titans, there's no reason to give this outstanding power to people who also play the game.
-
I'm willing to see how this plays out, and maybe I will be able to see the lines on these things soon, but I'm concerned.
I think the key in a complex situation like this is communication. OOC communication.
Yes, you assumed that other realms would join in on Thalmarkin's side, which would have made it a more even conflict. Zatirri assumed that when he declared war on Irondale, he'd get Irondale and maybe one or two other realms involved in a war, and probably VS on his side.
What I would like to ask of "you" (in quotes because it's not "you, Matt" or even "you, the realms arrayed against Thalmarkin now", but "any rulers who are in the situation in the future of preparing to be one of several realms declaring war on one realm") in the future is that you first talk to the realm about to get its butt kicked, preferably on the Ruler/Admin OOC channel so that we can be present to help mediate, and make sure there's a good enough understanding on both sides of what you're all getting into that the players involved aren't faced with nasty surprises.
And to be clear, if you're concerned about such OOC communications being taken IC and ruining the situation, I still expect there to be some communication, even if it's private with the ruler in question, or even just with the Titans or Admins so that we can try to work on it from our end. (Which, I would have to say, would usually involve communicating with the ruler anyway, but at least that way it comes a bit more anonymously, and can potentially be done in such a way as to obscure the details of who might declare war when.)
In general, the cultural change I'm trying to advocate for (well, one of them) is for players, especially the players of ruler characters, to stop treating the continent as being full of "nobles who are my friend" and "nobles who are my enemy", and start treating it as being full of "players who are my friend, who might be playing alongside me or against me, but whose fun matters to me either way."
-
So why do it? Because it happened to you? Grow up.
Yes, everyone who asks for fair treatment is a baby. Well done, Gildre.
Having talked to Gildre separately, I know that this was not what he meant by this.
The line you quote is expressing a frustration with the attitude, "Well, we had a terrible thing happen to us, so if the same (or a similar) terrible thing happens to you, that's just fine! Maybe you even deserve it!"
That kind of attitude perpetuates cycles of abuse. The attitude we want to cultivate is, "We had a terrible thing happen to us. How do we make sure it never happens to anyone else?"
-
I'm all for making sure the game is fair for everyone. And I really like and value Gildre as a player.
But I really think reacting to a comment with "grow up" is not appropriate for a member of the Titans team. Even if the commentor acted immaturely, which in my opinion he did not.
That's all.
-
Will you also go and call certain Thal players babies because they were perfectly fine inflicting something on others but are now crying foul when it happened to them?
From a titan spokesperson, I'd expect more impartial and civil discourse.
I have talked to Thal players and told them that saving realms from destruction is not something the Titans actively engage in. However, I have listened to their complaints that the war they have fallen into is so one-sided that they can do nothing other than lay down and die. The issue is much more multifaceted than simply "Thal getting what it deserves".
Regarding this issue though, I had no intention of calling anyone a "baby", nor belittling or humiliating anyone. I in no way think PolarRaven is a baby. He has brought good points to the table. However, he has clung stubbornly to a concept that is directly detrimental to fun in the game, and needs to grow up from that idea.
Is that impartial? Not at all. I pride myself on being a person that anyone from any realm can talk to and have me listen to their concerns objectively. I have in no way tarnished that.
Was it not overly civil? Sure. That being said, I hardly think it was aggressive and my conscience is not weighed down by it in the least.
As Anaris mentioned, treating players fairly was not my point. Breaking a bad cycle is my point, as articulated in the next reply I had.
I won't be apologizing for this. You have employed a very "it happened to me, so it should happen to them" attitude, all the while saying "when it happened to me it wasn't fun at all". Perhaps it would be more appropriate to lead with that and say "Hey guys, when this happened to me it REALLY sucked. Can we try to figure out something that is more healthy for the game?"
On a separate note, you mentioned:
Where were you when Thalmarkin declared war on Grehkia, which was five times smaller?
I know that you were in Thalmarkin. But you get what I mean.
I believe I was either paused, in Nova, or in OS whenever that happened. When I created a character in Thal it was to join the folks creating VS, and we were just fighting rogues IIRC. I have no knowledge or details of the Grehkia pummeling.
I have said it before, and will keep saying it: We do not actively police Battle Master. It is too big, there is too much going on, and there are too few of us. Of course, if we see something wrong we will do something, but the vast majority of the time we rely on the community to submit reports. I don't know what happened with Grehkia, and I don't remember getting any Titan reports for anything that happened. I don't even really remember when it happened.
My point: If we don't know about something, we can't do anything about it.
-
If we don't know about something, we can't do anything about it.
Just wanted to emphasize this, because it's something a lot of people seem to miss.
-
Quote from: Gildre on Today at 05:59:11 PM
If we don't know about something, we can't do anything about it.
I think that what this really means is:
If nobody submits a complaint through the proper channels, we can/will not deal with it.
______
I find it very hard to believe that:
A) There would have been no discussion about this (being the Grehkia conflict) on discord.
B) There are no Titans on Discord to see the above mention.
I know that I complained at least a bit about Thal and other allies becoming involved in the Caelint/Gotland incident, on both Discord and the Forum as well as OOC in the game.
But OK, that's on me because I did not submit a report to the Titans.
On a separate note:
Have you (addressed to everyone, not any particular person) never sat around the table playing a game with your friends and thought to yourself, "You bastards. I am going to get you next time."
My question comes from years of playing a board-game called RISK.
I remember many times when MY FRIENDS would all gather together at some point or another and gang up on the player (also a friend and sometimes me) that was currently "winning" the game. Did they come together to punish a specific player? No. They combined their strengths to deal with the player currently running "rough-shod" over all the other players. Is this fair? HELL NO, it is not.
Occasionally things did get a little heated and people said mean things or threatened to quit playing or not come back for next time...
In the end we were all buddies and happily joined in the next time the game came up. REGARDLESS of how "bad" the previous experience was.
LIFE IS NOT ALWAYS FAIR
PLAYING A BOARD-GAME WITH FRIENDS IS NOT ALWAYS FAIR.
Why should BattleMaster be any different?
If you feel so secure in your position that you do not take the time to worry about what other people are thinking of your choices and actions, then it is no surprise that you will have them "knocking at your door" with various concerns and complaints (quite possibly all at the same time).
Are they "conspiring against you" or merely RESPONDING to YOUR actions?
I think Gildre said it best:
Grow up.
Sorry, one more thought to consider:
The Devs have, for quite a while now, been pushing towards larger realms for all the islands. (known fact)
Larger realms have more room and opportunity for "fun" while smaller realms can be much quieter and often (though not always) less fun.
Caelint/Angmar/Gotland/Grehkia were all smaller realms when they were on the wrong side of a "dogpile" type situation and eventually fell to be ultimately merged into Irondale.
No big deal because the end result is one of the goals that the Devs have been pushing for for quite a while now, one large realm instead of four smaller ones.
Thalmarkin, a larger, more engaging/active realm comes under fire for its previous actions and it is time to step in and make the game more fair.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
-
I think the key in a complex situation like this is communication. OOC communication.
Yes, you assumed that other realms would join in on Thalmarkin's side, which would have made it a more even conflict. Zatirri assumed that when he declared war on Irondale, he'd get Irondale and maybe one or two other realms involved in a war, and probably VS on his side.
Our characters didn't assume anything. They planned for multiple possibilities, one of which included allies joining Thalmarkin. Zat's character did not plan for any other eventualities, clearly. When a character rolls into Rulership swinging, they often get sucker punched, and I think that is generally a good thing, because I as a player am not terribly interested in dealing with yet another megalomaniacal Ruler, and having the ones that do show up get sucker punched lowers the incidences of that.
What I would like to ask of "you" (in quotes because it's not "you, Matt" or even "you, the realms arrayed against Thalmarkin now", but "any rulers who are in the situation in the future of preparing to be one of several realms declaring war on one realm") in the future is that you first talk to the realm about to get its butt kicked, preferably on the Ruler/Admin OOC channel so that we can be present to help mediate, and make sure there's a good enough understanding on both sides of what you're all getting into that the players involved aren't faced with nasty surprises.
My problem with this has been and continues to be that I don't know where the line is. Do we do that every time we think there's even a chance of a war becoming one-sided? Because, again, initial projections on this didn't anticipate it being that one-sided. Do we do that the moment we see it turning toward that path? Even if that isn't obvious to everyone involved?
Do we do that with every war?
We're now talking about fundamentally changing the nature of the game, to something closer to some D&D games where all the character drama is discussed OOC first and arranged for fun, rather than the actual competitive nature that Battlemaster conflicts have frequently actually had.
I'm not necessarily opposed to that, to be clear. But that is a change. That's a big change. And I think that's a change that needs to be discussed, not one that we can pretend was always how the game was and we just collectively forgot about for a while.
Because right now, the players of every single Ruler in the "Coalition" on Beluaterra have mentioned the possibility of abdicating or pausing or leaving, or have actually abdicated. I was the only exception, and I'm saying now that I've been considering it. Now it's possible Eugenica abdicating didn't have anything specifically to do with this, there was some other stuff going on there, but clearly a decision was made that playing a Duke was going to be better than playing a Ruler. And that says a lot right there, because I, Matthew, thought Eugenica was doing some good stuff.
I won't speak for anyone else, but for me, I'm considering it because what I'm hearing now is concerning, and draining, and I don't know if I want to deal with it anymore. I don't think I'm going to, but my reasons for that are a lot more of various obligations than they are anything to do with "fun".
So, let's see how this plays out. But let's also be clear about what we're trying collectively to do here, and talk about it before we jump into major new changes, if at all possible.
-
What I would like to ask of "you" (in quotes because it's not "you, Matt" or even "you, the realms arrayed against Thalmarkin now", but "any rulers who are in the situation in the future of preparing to be one of several realms declaring war on one realm") in the future is that you first talk to the realm about to get its butt kicked, preferably on the Ruler/Admin OOC channel so that we can be present to help mediate, and make sure there's a good enough understanding on both sides of what you're all getting into that the players involved aren't faced with nasty surprises.
WOW!!! Really???
"Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I will be moving my Character to your realm in the next few days to cause as much havoc as possible and to try to undermine your realm. I hope that now is not an inconvenient time for you, but now is when it is best for me.
I have over 100 scrolls and will be using most of them to disrupt our realm to the best of my ability while our army is away fighting a war. If this will be too big an inconvenience now, just let me know when will be a good time for you and we can work out a time that will be more convenient to both of us."
"Hello, we are planning to attack your western border as soon as we get reports of you fighting on your eastern border."
"Hi, we four guys that just joined your realm have a specific purpose in mind. We are expecting to gather support from among your realm-mates to over-throw your government in a rebellion. If it is not too inconvenient, we were hoping to have this support by the end of the week, so please prepare for this by pretending not to know and being unprepared when it happens."
"Just a heads up for you, once we see that your entire army has arrived in OS on the other end of the continent from your realm (Thalmarkin), we who are your quiet neutral neighbors plan to take advantage of the fact that you have no mobile troops close to home and will be raiding your lands for gold and food while your troops are away in the south."
Knowing this OOC will cause MOST people to at least consider their actions twice before actually acting.
I know that we would like to think ourselves above this sort of gameplay, but it is human nature to protect oneself.
I understand that OOC information is not "allowed" to be used IG, but if you KNOW that some form of trouble is coming your way most people will take or avoid actions in an effort to reduce their losses. You may not act directly to the available OOC information, but you more likely to take more precautions and less likely to risk reckless actions with this OCC information in the back of your mind.
-
I find it very hard to believe that:
A) There would have been no discussion about this (being the Grehkia conflict) on discord.
B) There are no Titans on Discord to see the above mention.
If there was, I certainly didn't see it or notice it.
Lots of stuff gets talked about on Discord—well more than any one person can realistically keep track of—and if you're not specifically looking for stuff, it can very easily scroll away by the time you come back to that channel.
We don't police Discord any more than we police the game.
If you want something acted on, you need to report it. Period.
LIFE IS NOT ALWAYS FAIR
PLAYING A BOARD-GAME WITH FRIENDS IS NOT ALWAYS FAIR.
Why should BattleMaster be any different?
There's a big difference between the game leading to unfair situations, and players engaging in unfair play. We're not trying to ensure equal outcomes for everyone—that would, obviously, be absurd. We're trying to ensure that everyone feels that the overall game environment, the rules, and the atmosphere are fair, and not stacked against them such that no matter how they played, they would have no chance to succeed.
And again, since it seems like I need to repeat this: We have no problem with Thalmarkin ending up in a war it's clearly going to lose. What we have a problem with is Thalmarkin ending up in a war it's clearly going to lose, and then other realms piling on, particularly if their primary reason is simply to drive activity within their realm.
The Devs have, for quite a while now, been pushing towards larger realms for all the islands. (known fact)
Possibly known, but incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete.
What we're pushing for is fewer very small realms.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
And now you are being insulting to me and to the Titans, and I will not tolerate that. And don't try to bull!@#$ me by trying to say you never said anything insulting: there is no possible meaning to what you said there other than to insinuate that we are favouring Thalmarkin over other realms because of a hidden agenda.
We are open about our intentions. We do not have an ulterior motive. I take accusations that we do—however weasel-worded they may be—very seriously, and very, very negatively.
And my response to them is the same as usual: If you really believe that I'm the kind of person who would do that, hiding behind false intentions, why the hell are you still playing the game I'm in charge of?
-
Our characters didn't assume anything. They planned for multiple possibilities, one of which included allies joining Thalmarkin.
[...]
Do we do that every time we think there's even a chance of a war becoming one-sided? Because, again, initial projections on this didn't anticipate it being that one-sided.
Please go back and consider this, because this is exactly why I said you made assumptions.
Do we do that the moment we see it turning toward that path? Even if that isn't obvious to everyone involved?
Do we do that with every war?
No, no, and no.
Again, since I apparently wasn't clear before: I would expect this to happen in the event you find yourself in a situation where you are among a large number of realms that is or will be declaring war on one or a very small number of realms, such that if they do not have realms join in to help them, they will be massively, hopelessly, demoralizingly outnumbered.
Yes, you may have had many contingency plans, but you made an assumption that led to your "initial projections" that had the war not being one-sided.
Those assumptions, not to put too fine a point on it, were wrong.
That was one of the factors that led to where we are now. (Another of them was Zatirri rolling into rulership swinging, and yes, he deserved to get sucker-punched for his arrogance in this matter. That doesn't mean every player in his realm deserved to be put in a position where they were forced into a war they could not win, and had no way of knowing how they could end without destruction, for an indeterminate amount of time.)
So, let's see how this plays out. But let's also be clear about what we're trying collectively to do here, and talk about it before we jump into major new changes, if at all possible.
What I'm trying to do here—and I recognize that I'm flailing a bit at it, but please try to bear with me—is not to change everything to being pre-planned and risk-free, but to change the culture so that rulers, at the very least, start trying to take some responsibility for the fun of the whole continent rather than the every-realm-for-itself model we have operated under up to now. To stop and take stock every once in a while, question your assumptions, and check in with your fellow players, "Hey, how are things going? Are you having fun? If not, what can we as a continent do to make that better?" Never expecting to be turning relations and RPs around on a dime, but just starting to take into account the other people sitting at the table.
If John Read-Jones had had a relationship with Matthew Runyon, and the other players of BT rulers, such that they all not only already saw each other as players, but had corresponded OOC—not about what their realms were planning, but about the general mood and what they felt like they needed—then I think it extremely unlikely that the setup for this situation would ever have happened. And this is emphatically not me saying I think you're to blame for that lack—I think this is a lack in BattleMaster's culture that I myself have only started to really see within the last few months to a year.
It's the same kind of disregard for other players' feelings as human beings that led Alexandros Stavrou to conduct his campaign of harassment and bullying. The same, frankly, that has led to every single major incident of OOC hostility and every single major controversial Titan case. I'm trying to attack that problem at its source and I do not claim to have a good idea of what I'm doing, but I'll be damned if I stop trying.
I hope you can see me in that light as you continue to bring critiques of my performance as I move through this effort.
-
If you want something acted on, you need to report it. Period.
Yep, I got it, which should be apparent when just a couple of lines later I take responsibility for my lack of action at that time.
But OK, that's on me because I did not submit a report to the Titans.
Quote
The Devs have, for quite a while now, been pushing towards larger realms for all the islands. (known fact)
Possibly known, but incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete.
What we're pushing for is fewer very small realms.
Really? What is the significant difference between the two statements?
Fewer very small realms (essentially =) larger realms?
Please try to quit picking on the wording of my comments, it will only bring on toxicity which I am truly trying to avoid.
Quote
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
And now you are being insulting to me and to the Titans, and I will not tolerate that. And don't try to bull!@#$ me by trying to say you never said anything insulting: there is no possible meaning to what you said there other than to insinuate that we are favouring Thalmarkin over other realms because of a hidden agenda.
Leaving others to draw their own conclusions is insulting to you and the Titans?
Lets be very clear here then. I really don't care if Thal lives or dies.
I AM NOT CURRENTLY PLAYING A CHARACTER ON BT SO REALLY HAVE NO PERSONAL VESTED INTEREST EITHER WAY.
I am sharing MY opinions and concerns, as a player, for the entire game of BattleMaster.
We are open about our intentions. We do not have an ulterior motive. I take accusations that we do—however weasel-worded they may be—very seriously, and very, very negatively.
And my response to them is the same as usual: If you really believe that I'm the kind of person who would do that, hiding behind false intentions, why the hell are you still playing the game I'm in charge of?
YES, you are open about your intentions and NO, I do not suspect ulterior motives.
The game you are in charge of. Thank you again for all of your hard work. It may not always seem so, but we (I) appreciate all the time and energy that you invest into our having fun.
I suspect that you, as a programmer/developer have a "VISION" of what YOU would like to see as an end result of your hard and dedicated work to a project that you are overseeing/creating. And this is your prerogative of course, because you are the one putting in the hard, time consuming work to try to make the game fun for all of us.
When circumstances within the game go towards YOUR VISION of how the game should be, all is good and some small inconsistencies may be overlooked for the overall betterment of the game that is headed towards YOUR VISION of the game.
But when circumstances go against this "vision", say a larger realm that has many happy/fun players in it who are enjoying themselves so much that that realm becomes a "go to realm" for new players to be directed to so they will have a good experience and hopefully remain in the game... things start to change.
My own personal conclusions/observations. Right or wrong, they are MY conclusions. You need not agree.
Why do I still play the game you are in charge of?
Well, I have been playing for over 10 years now and enjoy many of the facets of the game.
If I must enjoy EVERY facet of the game to be allowed to play, then it may be time for me to move on.
Bear in mind, that there are probably many people like me that enjoy many, but not ALL, facets of the game.
Where would the game be without people like me?
If it would be a better place without my contributions, PLEASE just say so, and I will move along to allow the remaining players the opportunity to get the full enjoyment of the game without my input.
I won't quote it here because I already said it earlier in this thread, but you may want to refer back to an earlier response that I made to Andrew's earlier comment. What is more important to you, player fun or your vision?
-
Again, since I apparently wasn't clear before: I would expect this to happen in the event you find yourself in a situation where you are among a large number of realms that is or will be declaring war on one or a very small number of realms, such that if they do not have realms join in to help them, they will be massively, hopelessly, demoralizingly outnumbered.
Yes, you may have had many contingency plans, but you made an assumption that led to your "initial projections" that had the war not being one-sided.
Those assumptions, not to put too fine a point on it, were wrong.
And, again, our characters did not assume anything. We made plans based around multiple possibilities. And starting from the presumption that the most powerful realm on the continent, with a historical ally and a newly formed colony, would be fighting alone seems, to me, problematic on the face of it. That's not a sensible plan, and the characters making these plans are at least somewhat sensible.
That was one of the factors that led to where we are now. (Another of them was Zatirri rolling into rulership swinging, and yes, he deserved to get sucker-punched for his arrogance in this matter. That doesn't mean every player in his realm deserved to be put in a position where they were forced into a war they could not win, and had no way of knowing how they could end without destruction, for an indeterminate amount of time.)
They had several ways of knowing. Their Ruler could have, but didn't, tell them. They could have reached out, to literally anyone, and gotten the story, none of which ever involved destruction of the realm. The "indeterminate amount of time" is completely related to failures of communication, which would have been rectified in several ways. And had any of us known that any of the players in Thalmarkin were having issues, we would have happily talked OOC about it.
What I'm trying to do here—and I recognize that I'm flailing a bit at it, but please try to bear with me—is not to change everything to being pre-planned and risk-free, but to change the culture so that rulers, at the very least, start trying to take some responsibility for the fun of the whole continent rather than the every-realm-for-itself model we have operated under up to now. To stop and take stock every once in a while, question your assumptions, and check in with your fellow players, "Hey, how are things going? Are you having fun? If not, what can we as a continent do to make that better?" Never expecting to be turning relations and RPs around on a dime, but just starting to take into account the other people sitting at the table.
If John Read-Jones had had a relationship with Matthew Runyon, and the other players of BT rulers, such that they all not only already saw each other as players, but had corresponded OOC—not about what their realms were planning, but about the general mood and what they felt like they needed—then I think it extremely unlikely that the setup for this situation would ever have happened. And this is emphatically not me saying I think you're to blame for that lack—I think this is a lack in BattleMaster's culture that I myself have only started to really see within the last few months to a year.
I regularly talk with other players, both in game and on Discord. I have pretty good relationships with several players in Thalmarkin. Including a couple of people in the upper echelons. And I have, in point of fact, talked about Obia'Syela, general ideas about it, how the realm is faring, etc. Rea, Luitolf, and I have talked repeatedly about the Heralds religion. Rogos and I talk all the time about Perdan and the problems the EC has faced. You're right, I didn't have a particular relationship with John Read-Jones, but if your goal is to get everyone to have a relationship with everyone else, that's going to be a difficult task.
For me, the number one problem here is not talking, absolutely. But putting that all on the Rulers is an issue, for the same reason that putting everything on the Devs and Titans is an issue. If no one says anything, I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to know this. I talked with all of these people, repeatedly, during the time when they were apparently feeling upset. I will admit that I'm often oblivious to things, as Kel can attest, but at no point did I get the sense that there was anything more than the usual "oh crap, that didn't work" until Zat sent his message to the ruler/admin channel.
I completely agree that if we were all playing as friends around the table, this would have been avoided. But I'm failing to see, in concrete terms, what we could have done differently. Yes, at the point when Vordul Sanguinius and Ar Agyr didn't join the war, should we have stopped and thought for a moment, of course. I've admitted that multiple times previously. But I'm still not sure what I would have done differently. And adding more burdens onto Ruler just makes me think, again, that settling down as a nice rich Duke is a better plan all around.
It's the same kind of disregard for other players' feelings as human beings that led Alexandros Stavrou to conduct his campaign of harassment and bullying. The same, frankly, that has led to every single major incident of OOC hostility and every single major controversial Titan case. I'm trying to attack that problem at its source and I do not claim to have a good idea of what I'm doing, but I'll be damned if I stop trying.
I hope you can see me in that light as you continue to bring critiques of my performance as I move through this effort.
I get that. I really do. And I'm trying to bring constructive criticism to this. I'm trying to point out that I agree with the goal and idea, I just disagree with some points of the implementation of it. And I'm trying really, really, really hard not to take this personally, but that's difficult when you and others are linking what I and others did with continued examples of some of the worst things that have happened in the game.
I am guilty of something in this. I am guilty of sticking too much in character, and not stopping and thinking OOC when the war allies broke out differently. Absolutely. But the continued comparisons of negligence that could easily have been corrected with one conversation, with active, hostile, malignant, intentional behaviour makes it really difficult for me to remain calm about this.
-
Seems like a good time for a daimon invasion
-
Seems like a good time for a daimon invasion
Sadly, those are the single biggest sink for admin/dev time and energy. (If you're curious about why, start another thread or ask about it on Discord, so we don't hijack this thread ;D )
-
I will also add that these issues plague more than just BT, and an Invasion, while fun, would be a bandaid fix.
For all the pain and frustration, it is better to hash it out so that we can move on as friends.
-
Hey guys,
As I am less peeved now, I can perhaps offer an explanation from my point of view in a much more coherent manner.
My issue was never one of Thal being destroyed, but the lack of options as both a realm and as the players in the realm. We declared a losing war, offering Irondale, a realm formed by realms Thal has bullied (I totally accept the Thal is a bully points, it is and was) their opportunity at retribution. We knew Nothoi would join in, and the pair of them were winning the war as is. This was fine, no complaints here. But then SV was requested to join Irondale due to the unofficial federation between the realms. This is where the issue was. Those federations mean you have an alliance block that goes far over what the balancing requirements allow, and means all 3 of your realms combined will always win a war against realms following the balancing mechanics. This is the only point of reference I used for the power gaming accusation. As far as I can see it, bypassing a game mechanic designed to balance in order to get an advantage is power gaming. I am however willing to accept you may not have seen it that way and I am hoping you now can at see what I meant by that.
For the comparison to the Grehkia attack, I can see the issues you have with it, but there is a distinction to be made here. That was multiple realms vs Thal. At the time, we could handle that. But the realm had 6 nobles, there isn't a war on the continent they could have gotten in that wouldn't have been one sided. We actually pushed for them to make the merge into Caelint and the whole war took place without a major battle.
For the similarities to the Thal Caelint war, we actually weren't strong at the start of that. We got strong during it as we used it as a plus point for our realm. Thal did not grow in numbers due to real world recruitment, we grew in numbers because we accepted everyone and we accommodated everyone. Mordok was refused by every realm, we took them in. VS was banned en masse by Nova, we took them in. Thal accepts everyone and allows them to be the characters they want to be and works with that, rather than against it.
I never believed Thal would be destroyed, that isn't what I was worried about.
I was worried that Thal was the "mixer upper" of the continent. If Thal is pushed into that top right corner again, and weakened to a point that it can't start wars, can't do it's pushing... what will actually happen? When I joint Thal initially, the entire continent was at peace and every realm but OS was silent. You may not like Thal pushing it's weight around, but Irondale is a much better realm (game health wise) than Angmar, Grehkia, Gotland and Caelint were. Would that have occurred if a realm didn't push it?
If Thal is to either die, or be weakened to a point where it cannot be the antagonist anymore, then all that is left is a group of realms that are federated unofficially and have proven that they can and will attack in a large group and are capable of downing any foe. No one will declare war on any of you. Any war you declare you will win. That is not healthy from a game point of view.
One of the first things I did when I noticed how strong Thal was, was to start offending allies. Ultimately detrimental if we wanted to try win the game, but a realm that had at the time 50 nobles, having an ally always backing us up bringing our total count to like 70... just wouldn't be fun. Thal has a fair few players that like the war game, they want wars to fight, not stomps. I am sure your realms are similar.
And finally, this isn't just a BT thing.
The Northern alliance on EC is an issue too. It's a whole half the continent that ensures realms such as Nivemus, that have more regions than nobles, are untouchable due to unofficial alliances that shouldn't be there. Realms like Sirion, who actually do have the fighting nobles, are unchallenged because they have a 3 realm thick buffer state... that's an issue for both the southern players who are opposed by them, and for the actual enjoyment of the Sirion nobles. They have to play for weeks of just movement to be able to get a battle. No battle ever carries any risk whatsoever. Their regions are never at risk. That's... boring for everyone involved.
I hope this clears up that this is nothing to do with "boohoo thal is losing" and is something that I have pushed for, as I see it as a genuine issue, both IC and OOC sinse alliance restrictions were a thing.
-
For the similarities to the Thal Caelint war, we actually weren't strong at the start of that. We got strong during it as we used it as a plus point for our realm.
I don't mean to be picky here, but it was actually the "GOTLAND vs. CAELINT" war. A very evenly matched war between two boring little realms that may have helped either or both with recruitment and or fun for their tiny realms. Unitl Thal forced its way in.
If I recall correctly, at (at least) one point both Gotland and Caelint wanted out of the war due to the actual battles being fought on their lands and both realms were suffering. The war, of course, did not end until the largest realm (Thalmarkin) decided that it had had its fill of the war. And since there is no longer a Gotland or a Caelint, the only real winner in that war was Thalmarkin.
Thal did not grow in numbers due to real world recruitment, we grew in numbers because we accepted everyone and we accommodated everyone. Mordok was refused by every realm, we took them in. VS was banned en masse by Nova, we took them in. Thal accepts everyone and allows them to be the characters they want to be and works with that, rather than against it.
OK, Thal was accepting of anyone regardless of their previous history, I will give you that point. But, at that time, anyone who asked on DISCORD about advice for joining a realm on BT, Obeah realm(s) and Thalmarkin were the "goto" advice that was given. I have not seen this so much in recent times, but it was the case then.
You mention the "unofficial alliance block" of SV and Nothoi (and now include Irondale), as being a problem to prevent/influence war on the continent. This was not the case when the Gotland/Caelint conflict was ongoing. For whatever reason(s) SV was not there during that conflict. It was more likely Thal's continuing actions of "bullying" that drew them into this most recent conflict. After seeing Thal essentially destroy/damage "inflict their will" over the entire northern part of BT, maybe SV decided enough was enough and decided to intervene? I can not say for sure, but seems quite likely to me. OR maybe they just "used it as a plus point for their realm to help it grow and get strong".
For the comparison to the Grehkia attack, I can see the issues you have with it, but there is a distinction to be made here. That was multiple realms vs Thal. At the time, we could handle that. But the realm had 6 nobles, there isn't a war on the continent they could have gotten in that wouldn't have been one sided. We actually pushed for them to make the merge into Caelint and the whole war took place without a major battle.
I was not there for this, but I ask you this "what choice did they have?" I would think they really had no choice. Thal had, by that time, practically decimated every realm in the area that could have offered Gerhkia any type of assistance.
I never believed Thal would be destroyed, that isn't what I was worried about.
I was worried that Thal was the "mixer upper" of the continent. If Thal is pushed into that top right corner again, and weakened to a point that it can't start wars, can't do it's pushing... what will actually happen? When I joint Thal initially, the entire continent was at peace and every realm but OS was silent. You may not like Thal pushing it's weight around, but Irondale is a much better realm (game health wise) than Angmar, Grehkia, Gotland and Caelint were. Would that have occurred if a realm didn't push it?
If Thal is to either die, or be weakened to a point where it cannot be the antagonist anymore, then all that is left is a group of realms that are federated unofficially and have proven that they can and will attack in a large group and are capable of downing any foe. No one will declare war on any of you. Any war you declare you will win. That is not healthy from a game point of view.
SELF IMPORTANCE. Without the actions of Thalmarkin's players the entire continent of BT would not be any fun for anyone?
We (Thal) made the continent fun for everyone. Without us (Thal) you would all be bored. "That is not healthy from a game point of view."
If the players in Thal think so much of themselves (and I do agree that there are many "good/exciting/engaging" players in Thal), would it not be "more healthy" to have disbanded Thalmarkin and spread those players throughout the other realms on the continent so as to drive more activity throughout the entire continent?
One of the first things I did when I noticed how strong Thal was, was to start offending allies. Ultimately detrimental if we wanted to try win the game, but a realm that had at the time 50 nobles, having an ally always backing us up bringing our total count to like 70... just wouldn't be fun. Thal has a fair few players that like the war game, they want wars to fight, not stomps. I am sure your realms are similar.
You are right, it was not any fun, but there were those in Thal during the Gotland vs Caelint war that seemed to be having fun from what I recall of the letters that came out at the time. So in an effort to help "equalize" the sides, you pushed your allies away by offending them. Knowing full well that you had already meddled and aggravated pretty much every other realm on the continent.
And then you are surprised when suddenly most of the continent wants a piece of Thal and you now have no allies to help back you up??? What did you really expect? Maybe it would have been a better idea to keep your allies close and ask them to not interfere unless needed their help to defend your realm... This is what I did in Caelint. I asked my allies to not interfere in our Gotland incident until it became clear that both Thalmarkin and AA were not willing to stay out of the conflict.
And finally, this isn't just a BT thing.
The Northern alliance on EC is an issue too.
I agree. Consider this though:
I have not played a noble on EC for a while now either, but when I was there, I know for a fact that the war could have been ended at the time by the "south" admitting defeat and giving up ONE city (Perdan) to end the war.
War over.
What has held the north together for so long? I suspect that the biggest factor holding the north together is the war with the south.
Without this war to solidify relations, I suspect that the north would quickly turn on each other for any number of reasons.
Sometimes, the best way to "win" is to admit defeat.
Realms like Sirion, who actually do have the fighting nobles, are unchallenged because they have a 3 realm thick buffer state... that's an issue for both the southern players who are opposed by them, and for the actual enjoyment of the Sirion nobles. They have to play for weeks of just movement to be able to get a battle. No battle ever carries any risk whatsoever. Their regions are never at risk. That's... boring for everyone involved.
Until recently, you could have replaced the name "Sirion" with the name "Thalmarkin".
The only real difference being the side that you have chosen for your characters.
I hope this helps give you a clearer picture of the other side.
-
I don't mean to be picky here, but it was actually the "GOTLAND vs. CAELINT" war.
I agree with you there, but not that it was evenly matched. Caelint had Nothoi. Caelint however didn't die or disband, it changed it's name when it took in the other realms. Caelint by far won that war. They went from a tiny realm to a power of the North, that's a win, and a huge plus point for both the realm and the continent. Lots of small 6 man realms is really no good for anyone, but Irondale as it is now is a lot better.
But, at that time, anyone who asked on DISCORD about advice for joining a realm on BT, Obeah realm(s) and Thalmarkin were the "goto" advice that was given.
The reason Thalmarkin was recommended was because joining Thal would get them interaction. Many realms, on all continents, are silent. There are no prospects, and they are content with what they have. This might be good for the people there, but new players aren't looking to commit to a long term game of no interaction and idly sitting in capital. OS was recommended for the exact same reason despite being an enemy of Thalmarkin, so the IC bias was not there. It was purely recommended due to activity levels in the same way Perdan would be on EC. If your realm isn't being recommended, ask why, and try to see what you can do to make you realm more inviting.
You mention the "unofficial alliance block" of SV and Nothoi (and now include Irondale),
The quotation marks are disingenuous. This isn't speculation, there is one confirmed both IC and OOC. I haven't now included Irondale, it carried over from Caelint, as it is the same realm. In addition, SV was there during that conflict, they declared war on Thalmarkin quite early on.
I was not there for this, but I ask you this "what choice did they have?" I would think they really had no choice. Thal had, by that time, practically decimated every realm in the area that could have offered Gerhkia any type of assistance.
A realm of 6 people or less like Grehkia was, is going to die in any war. They could be against anyone, they're going to lose the war because they're just too small to really do anything. Merging was their best option and I am glad they took it and those players are doing much better in their new realm.
SELF IMPORTANCE.
Not so much importance, but responsibility. The players in Thal that you mention take their roles as community members seriously, and consider all sides fun when engaging with people. The OS war was fought almost entirely by 2 nobles doing role plays with them. The murder of their head priest was done entirely through roleplay. It was fun, it got people involved, and no one actually lost out. When people join the rebellion, the fun of those rebels is consider in action we take against them. When people protest, they are given a platform.
My point here, is that it doesn't matter if they are friend of foe IC, they are community members and we treated them like that to engage them where we could, through any medium we had available. It's not that no other realm could do that, they all could. But only Thal actually did.
You could spread all the players out, sure. But no. It isn't their job to all abandon their realms to go and put effort and time into your realm so you don't have too. Everyone should be putting in that same effort that they were. I am going to name and shame here, the players of Rea and Luitolf were especially positive. They have engaged more players on their own than many realms on BT have nobles, total. The idea that they should abandon everything they've set up to do that to come go make other realms more engaging so their nobles don't have too is a bit insulting.
And then you are surprised when suddenly most of the continent wants a piece of Thal
I made an active effort to balance things. Yes, I was surprised that the other realms on the continent, as players, chose to look at a realm that had administrated its own balance and see that as a weakness to be exploited. I don't expect everyone to care about everyone else's experience, as nice as that would be. But I do expect rulers too.
I have not played a noble on EC for a while now either, but when I was there, I know for a fact that the war could have been ended at the time by the "south" admitting defeat and giving up ONE city (Perdan) to end the war.
War over.
This is the exact issue. the North aren't winning, they are not gaining ground. Perdan is holding them without any issue and could go aggressive if they wanted, they don't want too. Perdan is a good realm irrelevant of that war. The fact you say the north would turn agaisnt eachother if this war ends is funny, because that's the point... half the continent should not be in eternal peace with eachother and doing nothing else.
If their entire identity revolves around a single war, that is a huge failure by those rulers and councilors and the lower down nobles should look to replace them.
Thalmarkin was quiet when I got there. It took work and time to grow it and make it into what it became. Same as with Perdan. It doesn't happen for free or because of OOC inviting. It happens because we created an environment that keeps people logging in. I absolutely agree that Thal and Sirion were similar. Both Northern realms, surrounded by allies doing nothing. But Thal turnt it around. Sirion refuses to do so.
I already had a clear picture of the other side, for I started OOC talks with Irondale's ruler the second I declared war. I sought to ensure we got on OOC so that we could make sure everyone's enjoying themselves and I also read EVERYTHING. Every IC letter, OOC letter, and discord message.
The vast majority of them trying to label it crying 'cause my realm lost a war, which is a strawman, and at this point has been explained so extensively how incorrect that is, that continuing to use that strawman is just embarrassingly transparent that they are trying to cover themselves.
-
OK, Thal was accepting of anyone regardless of their previous history, I will give you that point. But, at that time, anyone who asked on DISCORD about advice for joining a realm on BT, Obeah realm(s) and Thalmarkin were the "goto" advice that was given. I have not seen this so much in recent times, but it was the case then.
Just to clarify, other realms were recommended on discord. I know this because I personally recommended Gotland and Caelint as realms to join during that war. Seeing as I have been a pretty active member on discord, I'd say most new comers that looked for recommendations would get a message from me with recommendations.
The reasoning for recommending Gotland and Caelint was quite simple: they were at war and neighbors. Having short travel times helps make war more interesting because you don't have to spend a week or two travelling to get to the front. Though the message counts were lacking I was perfectly happy to recommend a realm that could be interesting for the war focused players.
In addition, SV was there during that conflict, they declared war on Thalmarkin quite early on.
SV against Thalmarkin at the time was a separate conflict. SV declared war in response to Thalmarkin declaring war on OS. Thalmarkin declared war on OS because OS was sending infiltrators up to Thalmarkin and attacking nobles. So, it isn't really like Thalmarkin started that war or anything. The war between Thalmarkin & the southern realms (OS & SV at the time) was going to come regardless of what Thalmarmin did.
Now the reason for war was because of Mordok (surprise, it is still the reason.) As the ruler of OS at the time my thoughts of the war were as follows: we try to kill Mordok even though we almost certainly can't. Though the distance between realms are large the reason for war is interesting. When the forces met there would be the chance for interesting interaction (RP & messages). After a couple trips hopefully the birth of the Jidington realm (Lux Nova as it would be called) would have happened. Then a potential war in the south could be conceived. The war with Thal was never meant to be effective. (Edit: to clarify, at the beginning it was never meant to be effective. Later there was a desire to be effective because it was decided that it was possible to move OS, and maybe even Nova, to the north. That is a different story though.)
As far as I remember, other than infiltrators, OS and SV never acted against Thalmarkin during that time. (My character also went up to Thalmarkin with scrolls but this was just before the OS-Nova war started.) Thalmarkin also never really acted against OS. One Thal noble made a trip down there with a unit and a couple minor skirmishes happened but nothing actually important. Another went down with scrolls but the impact of that is debatable.
I bring up the points in that last paragraph in part because it seems that Thalmarkin getting "involved" in southern affairs was used to prove that Thalmarkin were "bullies". If the references to scrolls in the past parts of this thread are the scroll events I am thinking of then the interpretation is completely wrong. OS and Nova were not at war at the time and just negotiating. More importantly, it will be blaming Thalmarkin for a war that was essentially declared upon them.
-
Quote
I don't mean to be picky here, but it was actually the "GOTLAND vs. CAELINT" war.
I agree with you there, but not that it was evenly matched. Caelint had Nothoi. Caelint however didn't die or disband, it changed it's name when it took in the other realms. Caelint by far won that war. They went from a tiny realm to a power of the North, that's a win, and a huge plus point for both the realm and the continent. Lots of small 6 man realms is really no good for anyone, but Irondale as it is now is a lot better.
So that I don't re-quote myself quoting myself, I would ask that you read the very first post in this thread.
A one on one war with no allies involved. (the quoted message was copied from an in game message, no interpretation needed)
Caelint NO longer exists.
They were merged with other realms to form a NEW realm.
I suspect the name change was made to accommodate the various realms coming together as "equals".
It is NOT the same realm any more. Yes, I suspect that Irondale is a much better realm, but it is no longer Caelint.
Were I to return as the former "King of Caelint", I suspect that there would be major difficulties in "reclaiming" the throne.
One of the first arguments that I would expect to see is: "This is no longer Caelint and you have no claim to Irondale's throne."
There may be a few that might accept the claim as valid, but I suspect that most of the current nobles would balk at the idea.
-
The quotation marks are disingenuous. This isn't speculation, there is one confirmed both IC and OOC.
I think a point that I and others take issue with here is the description of the coalition as an alliance bloc. Our characters all had different reasons for wanting to fight Thalmarkin, the fact that everything lined up all at once does not, in any way, indicate that those realms would have ended up at peace with each other afterwards. There is a substantial segment of Obia'Syela that wants to fight the Vales and Nova again, as soon as is practical. Saoirse is very leery of the Sanguine Order, and conflict there is almost inevitable if she stays in power (which is by no means guaranteed). And that's just the stuff that I personally know about that could cause the whole thing to come tumbling down.
The fact that Thalmarkin gave reasons to so many realms, in my view, renders the argument about the alliance limitations moot. I think it would be extremely poor form to, for example, insult literally every other realm on the continent, and then go "nyah, only one alliance bloc gets to attack me!", which is obviously an extreme example but in this particular case, not all that far off from what happened. I recognize there is an ongoing disagreement about how to handle the intersection of IC justifications and OOC fun considerations, however.
I made an active effort to balance things. Yes, I was surprised that the other realms on the continent, as players, chose to look at a realm that had administrated its own balance and see that as a weakness to be exploited. I don't expect everyone to care about everyone else's experience, as nice as that would be. But I do expect rulers too.
This, to me, is a really big problem. Thalmarkins characters took actions, IC, that resulted in various situations. We heard after the fact that this was all part of an OOC plan to help balance out the fun of the continent. Which, even if true, was not discussed with people OOC. I've talked to a few people who play in Thalmarkin who had never heard of this idea. No one outside of Thalmarkin that I've ever talked to has indicated that they had any idea this was the plan.
So, some number of the players in Thalmarkin, which was not all the players, decided that for the good of the continent OOC they would take actions that impacted almost every other realm on the continent IC, never said why they were doing this except IC, and then were surprised when people did not respond their hidden OOC planning, and instead responded to the IC actions. To the outside perspective, this all looked like Thalmarkin's leadership had gone mad with power.
If you're going to take actions OOC for the fun of others, it's a good plan to tell those others what you're doing. As a for-instance, when Jenred was in charge of Arcaea after the Sunset Crusade finished, I similarly felt like we needed to stir some stuff up. So I talked with people OOC, made it clear why I was making the decisions I made, and when Jenred declared war on Zonasa over an old insult to his wife, everyone understood what was happening, and responded accordingly. I'm not the only one who has done this, to be clear, I've seen it happen before which is what inspired me to do it.
It's also a good plan to not go from handling everything in character to immediately attacking everyone OOC, insulting all of the players involved, and demanding that they take action.
The number one problem with all of this, as far as I can tell from beginning to end, was a lack of player-to-player communication.
-
Hey Mathew,
I don't actually count OS as part of that alliance block. The block as far as I knew was always SV, Nothoi and Caelint/Irondale. OS has always been somewhat it's own thing, and has both aided and been opposed by the other realms at varying stages. I have no issue with OS, sinse the second they started the war on Thal it was nothing but entertaining.
As for speaking to no one, that isn't entirely true. The same turn I declared war on Irondale, I opened a dialogue OOC with Tiberius where I underlined what I was hoping for the war OOC, and offered what I could to ensure his realm could enjoy it too. I like Irondale, the smaller realms merging together to make a bigger more sustainable realm was always something I wanted to see and I very much wanted that merge to succeed. I believe Tiberius would even agree with me on this. This was done from day 1.
You are correct I didn't discuss it with everyone, but not everyone is accessible to be discussed with, and I was unaware at the time that declaring a war on one border would result in the entire continent turning against us. I expected Nothoi, and they joint as expected. I didn't insult the whole continent, though, I didn't speak to anyone beyond Nothoi and Irondale and the Daishi leaders. The chat with the Daishi leaders (IC) was not insulting either, it was requesting them to not weaponise the faith, as Daishi is a protected faith in Thal, but if it became a weapon that would no longer be viable.
-
Hey John,
This thread is the first time I've heard about an OOC dialogue started with Tiberius' player, which I definitely think was a good step to take, but the fact that it hasn't come up in any of the other discussions I think speaks volumes. Some if it about him, to be clear, but that goes back to what I see as the central point. People who aren't involved on the OOC side of things are going to respond to the IC side, and if that starts causing OOC fun issues, then talking about it OOC is a good plan.
And if we're excluding OS from this, then what I'm hearing is that the issue was the Shattered Vales. So we're down to talking about one realm joining that you weren't anticipating, who again was not in the loop on the OOC discussions. Going back to Tim's comments that made me start talking on this forum thread, I'm failing to see how one realm jumping on outside of what was expected turns something from being a perfectly fine IC conflict to an OOC fun-killing conflict, which is again where I come back to having reservations about the entire approach on this.
I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who agrees we should have looked at the OOC side a little further, but even with hindsight I'm not clear where the line between the IC and OOC aspects of this starts. And if I can't figure it out, in hindsight, with the kind of diplomatic experience I have, then I don't think it's likely we're going to have broad agreement on this, and we're going to end up with Titan intervention on all kinds of stuff, just because people have different interpretations of things.
-
The block as far as I knew was always SV, Nothoi and Caelint/Irondale.
I am not sure about what happened in Caelint after I left (ie when Tiberius took over as ruler), but I can assure that there was never any formal agreement between SV and Caelint while I was ruler.
SV and Nothoi have always had close ties, as far back as I can remember, but not Caelint and SV.
I don't believe SV ever once participated in the Gotland/Caelint war while I was there.
-
There was indeed an OOC conversation between myself and Tiberius, it wasn't addressed much publicly though which may have been an issue. But as a testament to the fact I really did want Irondale to succeed, and the war really was declared to allow their nobles that retribution and to spur some activity in both realms, as Thalmarkin was in a lull in activity at the time, I even assisted with the Irondale realm icon. To reiterate, I really do like Irondale, I want them to succeed and I want their merge to go well so that other small realms can look at their success through merges and see that as a viable option themselves.
I'm not so much excluding OS from it, but they aren't part of the unofficial alliance issue, but a separate one. They still saw a situation that was clearly not going to be fun, a complete stomp, and thought to add to the stomping. This situation was reversed a few months ago, where OS was at war with Nova, a fairly balanced war, and SV joint in to turn it into a stomp. Thalmarkin could have joint in as we were at war already, but we did not. We saw a stomp, and we began negotiations with the then ruler for Thalmarkin to actually come down and assist OS with their defence. We saw a crappy situation and looked for a way to make it more enjoyable, rather than a way to get an easy victory. It saddened me as a player to see so few other people thinking about anything other than their own success.
The line between IC and OOC, at least for me, is wherever the fun is. That's going to vary for different people. But if you're playing a Tyrant King, you can't play it fully IC... because a tyrant by their very nature is controlling and oppressive, which isn't fun for anyone, so you have to spread it out a bit, create vulnerabilities, sometimes you have to let some things go or pretend you didn't see something that you did. When it comes to wars, no war is going to be perfectly balanced and there will always be some people unhappy. This gets harder as realms get smaller, as I mentioned with Grehkia, because no war they can possibly get in would be balanced as they were that small. But a realm that small is really at fault themselves for not doing anything for so long that they lost noble support. But in general, if there are no options for remaining players, to the point that 30 nobles were just afk waiting to die because they couldn't move anywhere, something is seriously wrong.
-
The quotation marks are disingenuous. This isn't speculation, there is one confirmed both IC and OOC.
I don't accept this characterisation at all. Polar Raven's use of inverted commas is perfectly reasonable. This was very much the case of realms finding common cause/enemy on a singular issue.
Matthew R's characterisation is much more accurate:
I think a point that I and others take issue with here is the description of the coalition as an alliance bloc. Our characters all had different reasons for wanting to fight Thalmarkin, the fact that everything lined up all at once does not, in any way, indicate that those realms would have ended up at peace with each other afterwards. There is a substantial segment of Obia'Syela that wants to fight the Vales and Nova again, as soon as is practical. Saoirse is very leery of the Sanguine Order, and conflict there is almost inevitable if she stays in power (which is by no means guaranteed). And that's just the stuff that I personally know about that could cause the whole thing to come tumbling down.
Yet you respond to this by saying you didn't regard OS as being in the same block/behaviour? What determines that other than your arbitrary say so - or your desire to court favour with players you deem superior? (which is a problematic mindset in itself). SV's connections with OS despite being complicated as Matt R observes, are closer than with Nothoi or Irondale but by no means fixed.
The problem comes in that you made an OOC decision to forsake diplomacy, Irondale made a decision to go heavy on generating common cause diplomacy around the same time; having the potential to negate VS and draw common cause with SV. It isn't for you OOC to tell them they cannot do that when they had already been making those connections prior to your declaration. You seem to feel entitled to determine not only your dominant realms actions but everyone else's too. If this war was going to be so much in Irondale's interests "fun" wise or otherwise, you failed to even make that case to them.
Irondale/Nothoi's dominance as supposed inevitable victors in determining the terms on which the conflict ends seems something you failed to factor in also, even if as you tenuously argue, there would ever only be one outcome from even that more limited conflict. You didn't let the losers in previous wars set the outcome for the end of those wars. How were you planning to bring this war to an end after you lost some ground? But the truth is that it would more accurately only be presented as posing a greater challenge for your realm rather than being a selfless war you were bound to lose, it was something Irondale clearly did not welcome with the risks it brought to the fragile bonds of a new realm. Were you guaranteeing not to take any regions from them? Irondale was already vulnerable on food and with trying to bring disparate players together who were already at a low morale from previous defeats. It would have been better to seek agreement before setting that in motion rather than arrogantly to tell everyone how you have decided things should be - not only for your own realm but everyone else's too. Thalmarkin's day of reckoning was always likely to come eventually, again it is not for you to be the sole decider in how that might come about. As this thread lays out from different players, there were already plenty of IC stories building towards settling those scores.
As Matt R points out there are headaches regarding when and how to go OOC on these matters. When we have been contacted OOC in a semi adult manner we have reacted promptly to mitigate the imbalance concerns. There is still the counter balancing real sentiment that this takes advantage of our better nature in the process given your flimsy dismissal of hardships you inflicted on both characters and players through past events, which you justify only in retrospect and not with engagement with those players' concerns. Hardships you have not shown willing to face up to for your own realm which you imply deserves some special status. For ourselves going OOC too soon with VS would have removed the IC tension from the situation. There was great uncertainty when our forces rounded the point of no return at Reeds leaving our homelands exposed. If we had gone OOC too soon it would have stifled that tension and limited VS's agency to react in what turned out to be a very unexpected manner (but again justifiable IC).
Issues regarding imbalance could have been and ultimately were, addressed promptly when we were contacted in a mature manner OOC rather than an escalating mix of IC/OOC arguments culminating in you inferring we/I was borderline cheating. We shared a good natured enough brief OOC exchange where the only point I made was if you wanted to look at OOC resolutions message me directly rather than playing to the crowd as you had been with your mixed IC/OOC arguments. You chose to do the opposite to that.
Other than the difficulty of determining when to go OOC, and the need for that to be consultative where possible rather than telling people how you expect them to behave, it does also reveal a common likely problem. Players will inevitably disagree on interpretations of past and present events. Your attempt to present yourself as IC bully, OOC teachers pet with "special" insight or presumed (by you) approval from the mods is problematic for me when different interpretations are inevitable. If we are working towards a good protocol outline with the declarations that could be positive, but if there is sufficient grey areas around the OOC side then debates seem more likely to be inflamed rather than mitigated.
-
I don't accept this characterisation at all. Polar Raven's use of inverted commas is perfectly reasonable. This was very much the case of realms finding common cause/enemy on a singular issue.
Are you saying you do not refer to it as a federation or coalition? If I were to link in evidence of you doing so, would that make you change your story? Are you also claiming you did not join because you were requested too?
Yet you respond to this by saying you didn't regard OS as being in the same block/behaviour?
OS has fought against people in that alliance block. SV has not. Having common ground in one war makes sense, having an unofficial alliance so that you side with them on all, does not. OS fighting against people in the block aswell shows dynamic relations. Always siding with the same people shows the inverse.
The problem comes in that you made an OOC decision to forsake diplomacy, Irondale made a decision to go heavy on generating common cause diplomacy
"You made an OOC decision to prioritise continent health over personal strength, Irondale chose themselves."
If this war was going to be so much in Irondale's interests "fun" wise or otherwise, you failed to even make that case to them.
It was made very clear. You just weren't in the discussion as I was not aware a neutral realm leader would have to be involved in all talks.
The rest of your comment is just personal attacks against me so I wont bother with that.
-
Federation and a coalition have different meanings, so it is you who are changing your story from my perspective by trying to switch those terms. There may have been some expressions of IC solidarity in response to what were at the time your IC complaints, but these are understandable responses to you trying to drive an IC wedge between those opposing you. You left it very late in the day to make any OOC points at all to us when we were clearly involved and they were made in pretty bad temper.
A coalition is a more temporary arrangement by definition. In this case a shared IC common cause against Thalmarkin aggression, something that for us has roots beyond this event.
A coalition is < than an alliance. A federation as the word meaning and the game set up will tell you is > than an alliance.
Switching those words about as though the same would be disingenuous, a word you deployed against someone who was quite aptly reflecting their scepticism on your own claim of us all being in an ““"unofficial alliance block.â€â€â€
If you think there is an agreement between Irondale/Nothoi/SV to fight on the same side in any conflict you are incorrect. There is a treaty involving OS and SV, called the “Southern Coalition†that is also more complicated than it might seem based on IC and maybe even some OOC resentment remaining from our preceding war.
OS have not fought Irondale or Nothoi in the past. They only fought us. By that logic we would equally be eligible to be excluded from what you wish to present as a "uniform alliance" for the sake of your own argument. But that does not fit with your previously stated dislike for my realm.
Making something “clear†to Irondale and reaching agreement with them are also very different things. You only get to police who and how Irondale can talk to other parties if they agreed to your idea for a specially defined war. They obviously didn’t agree thus you failed at the first hurdle.
It is not a personal attack to criticise a flawed argument. If you want to be more sensitive about criticism maybe throw less of it around. Policing people's use of inverted commas and now criticising Irondale for not agreeing with you with for what you say was in their best interests, ergo their decision was selfish etc.
Someone else is probably better placed to communicate these concepts to you so I am not looking for an ongoing flame war OOC. I did not engage with your own posts on your personal interpretation of events as that is your subjective view and good luck with it. If you are going to object to other players taking even "mildly" different views on events though, then I am entitled to set the record straight.
-
"You made an OOC decision to prioritise continent health over personal strength, Irondale chose themselves."
It seems to me that Tiberius did what he could to garner support from whereever he could. Maybe this is was wrong of him, but look at the history of recent events. Thalmarkin has impacted pretty much every noble of Irondale in a negative way. Each of the realms that joined Irondale were defeated by Thalmarkin in recent times and were forced to move together by the actions of Thalmarkin.
Of course he would garner support from outside his realm, considering Thalmarkin had been the one to decimate every realm that merged into Irondale.
The one thing that stands out in your various posts is that YOU decided.
YOU decided who should be involved.
YOU decided how it should be done.
YOU felt it would be good for the continent.
...
If you felt that your actions were done for the betterment of the entire continent, I would have thought that you should have included more of the continent in YOUR decision making. From the conversations I have seen (OOC) there was not much "sharing" on your part when you were planning this all out. It seems that most of the rulers of BT were unaware of your plan. I have heard from people in Thal that they knew nothing of your plan.
I offer this thought, when YOU are making plans for the entire continent, maybe YOU should include more people in your plan making process. You can not just make up a plan and expect everyone else to just fall into line with your idea.
You have made too many assumptions in your plans without speaking to those involved (or who may become involved).
It has been pointed out to other players about assuming being a big part of the problem.
-
It was discussed publicly. Anyone in Thal that was not aware, were people who actively choose to not read their letters. I can put the letters out, I can't force them to be read.
I've explained all this already so I am not going to go into a circular arguement.
This has nothing to do with Thal losing a war no matter how much you want to spin it as such. This was an issue on all continents. This was an issue ruining fun on all continents. This was an issue that was already meant to have been addressed. There was a resolution that a few players tried to bispass for an in character advantage.
-
Maybe You misunderstood what I was trying to say.
You seem to want to blame anyone and everyone for the circumstances that led to the failure of what you have tried to set up/plan out.
Irondale should not have invited others into your war. (except of course Nothoi, because you planned for their inclusion in your plans)
Your former allies should not have become involved in your war. (You disrespected them so as to not have your side over powered for the upcoming war, though you failed to consider that your actions against them may have actually pushed them to the "other" side.)
People from your own realm are at fault because they obviously ignored your posts. (no, I do not need to see them. For one reason or another, your reasoning/plans were not clear enough to those members in your own realm.)
Have you considered that maybe some of the fault is your own in this situation?
Would your former allies have become involved if you had clearly explained your motives behind your actions?
Would Irondale have gone seeking support from other friendly realms if they had actually been given a clear picture of the plan you were trying to implement?
Do you truly believe that the members of Thal deliberately ignored your plans for this particular war?
Have you considered that maybe some of the fault could be yours in how this situation arose?
Instead of blaming everyone else, it may be time to consider that your plan was not clearly explained to those that needed to be involved in making such huge continent-wide decisions.
Maybe consider a re-read the govt rules:
Make failures your responsibility
If things do not work out the way you planned them, ask which mistakes you may have made first, before you flame other players for being dimwits.
If your orders were not followed, check if you posted them early enough, taking timezones into account, and if they were clear and easy to understand, especially to people whose native language is not english.
You should question your own abilities first, before you question others.
I don't believe that we have seen anything from you that would show you have accepted any responsibility for the recent troubles on BT.
Rather, you have blamed everyone else for willingly and knowingly joining in on a bash Thalmarkin in a dogpile situation as though they all got together and INTENTIONALLY broke the rules of fair conduct to subvert the alliance bloc limits.
Also implying that this is, and will continue to be, an ongoing breach of the rules by those players who will continue to perpetrate this poor behavior in an effort to "further their own gains" illegally.
Look around, not everybody is a cheater/opportunist waiting for a chance to get ahead by breaking the rules.
Circumstances that Thalmarkin, and yourself most recently, created are what led to this confusing situation.
Accept some ownership for your own actions that likely led to this current misunderstanding.
-
PolarRaven,
I do not misunderstand your point. Your point is irrelevent. You want to contain this to being me having an issue purely with Thalmarkin. It is not. It is a widespread issue, Thalmarkin was just one individual circumstance. You are also very clearly unaware of what actually happened.
I did not insult VS. They declared war before I spoke poorly of them. Prior to that, I worked with them in an attempt to maintain the neutrality. Neutrality became less worth it to them as time went on. Nothing from myself was going to change that.
I did not insult SV. The only interaction I had with SV was their priest, Yao Ling Pride or something like that, where I tried to stress the importance of stopping Daishi being used as a weapon for the faith was protected.
No, none of the fault for some people bipassing game mechanics for an advantage is my fault. That is my only complaint.
Stop trying to spin it to being abut me being annoyed Thalmarkin lost.
It's not working.
You can keep trying, but it false, and everytime you try to do it, it becomes very clear that you are trying to strawman to push your agenda.