BattleMaster Community

BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Constantine on August 07, 2020, 12:50:29 AM

Title: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Constantine on August 07, 2020, 12:50:29 AM
This message is written not to bash anyone but to voice real and legitimate concerns of mine.

The staff has been actively trying to influence the course of the game for the longest time.
And for the longest time it was done through introducing new rules (or rather restrictions) as indirect incentives to nudge the playerbase in the direction admins (not the majority of players) envisioned.
Those incentives proved to not be very effective. Because the overwhelming majority of players do not want to play the game this way. And restrictions can not influence human behaviour outside the very specific facets of gameplay they pertain to.

Now we are increasingly witnessing admins directly taking the steering wheel out of players' hands. I believe that this godmoding is absolutely terrible for a social/political game no matter how noble the motives are. And I will argue that motives may also be misguided.

With admins basically dictating to players which wars they are allowed or not allowed to fight, which part of the political game is now actually left to players' own agency?

Please give this question serious consideration.

And now to discuss the motivation behind these latest actions performed by the staff as I understand it.

People hate losing. People get upset when they're backstabbed. Or when the fight feels unfair (due to overwhelming odds). When opportunists flock to the battle, like birds of prey. I get upset about that too as a player.
Still I'd never ask admins to forbid other players play the game the way they want to play as long as it is within the rules.

I like BM because it is a simulator of both politics and military strategy. Where diplomatic blunders may have devastating consequences or bad things just happen out of the blue and you need to try and recover or take the L. That's how great stories are forged.
I never wanted to play a "fair play" simulator. Who wants that in BM? Why?

I hated so much when the entire North pummeled on Perdan, while former allies betrayed it one by one. Prevailing in that conflict was the experince of my entire time here. Even if we lost there, it would be sad but still a crazy ride.
If Northern realms were just told to stop fighting Perdan by the admins, what would that story be like? There would be no story, just punting the ball across the river with Eppy and maybe Sirion. It is simply painful to think how this could rob everyone of incredible amounts of suspence, fun and community building opportunities.

The real problem of BM was never unfair wars. It was always stagnation. It is realms and alliance blocks potentially staying the same way forever once an equilibrium is reached.
To bring up once again my previous example, I was really bitter at the time when everyone piled up on Perdan. But I never thought it was bad for the game overall. What I thought was bad for the game was the stalemate we have found ourselves in for 2 consequtive rl years. The North was fighting a war that could go on forever and that they could neither win nor lose. That was my only problem. It made everything boring as it left no place for new opportunity and conflict.
 
Now admins are artificially doing exactly the same thing.

The war declaration system is great. It makes wars dynamic and does not allow the continent to fall back into stagnation. This is the best change in a long time. When you can wage and conclude a war in a clean and relatively quick fashion, you can then go to the next thing, shift alliances, change the map, etc.
Alliance limit idea is also good, although not very efficient, because game mechanics-wise alliances are not as important as personal connections between characters, specifically leaders. 
But When wars have clear and modest goals, why mess with the diplomacy manually? Why allow an agressor to steamroll a weaker realm if he has three times as much nobles, but make it harder for the agressor if he has a similar advantage due to diplomacy and smart foreign policy?

What is being done is not a feasible answer. You can forbid a realm to participate in a war and coerce into allying with someone admins want instead. But what problem does it solve? Weak realms or realms without allies get to not lose as hard? Why is it preferable?
This takes real politics out of a political simulator. This takes real political agency out of players' hands. This makes political game non-existing really because it ends up being beholden to ooc considerations where no one has to feel bitter or lose really hard.

This can ultimately make BM no longer appealing to people most interested in intrigue and political aspect of the game.

Thank you for your attention and looking forward to hearing more constructive opinions.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Gildre on August 07, 2020, 05:19:37 AM
Whew. That is quite the exposé Constantine.

First, I just want to say I appreciate your constructive arguments.

Second, I will be completely honest, I agree with a fair amount of what you said.

The staff has been actively trying to influence the course of the game for the longest time.

This is actually the one big thing I don't agree with, and I think it is important to note. The Titans and Admins are not wanting to interfere or influence the game. I want to assure you, or anyone else, of that.

Those incentives proved to not be very effective. Because the overwhelming majority of players do not want to play the game this way.

The is the other point I disagree with. Not because I think you are wrong, but because I don't think there is an accurate way to gauge this. I certainly haven't been in communication with the majority of players playing this game. Vocal majority does not necessarily equal the game majority. This is a project I have been undertaking personally, as I personally believe that it is incredibly easy for any of us to accept what the majority of people on Discord say, and the opinions of players not on Discord is not heard. I have been trying to reach out to players in positions of power throughout the game to seek out their opinions and open dialogue with them.

On to the things I agree with:

Now we are increasingly witnessing admins directly taking the steering wheel out of players' hands. I believe that this godmoding is absolutely terrible for a social/political game no matter how noble the motives are. And I will argue that motives may also be misguided.

There are certainly problems, and I am unsure whether it is growing pains we are experiencing or whether the system might straighten out as it moves forward. I do think it is a little to early to tell though.

With admins basically dictating to players which wars they are allowed or not allowed to fight, which part of the political game is now actually left to players' own agency?

Very little in that instance. However, players are allowed to choose which wars they fight or don't. It is only the extreme left and right that we are seeking to influence

I like BM because it is a simulator of both politics and military strategy. Where diplomatic blunders may have devastating consequences or bad things just happen out of the blue and you need to try and recover or take the L. That's how great stories are forged.
I never wanted to play a "fair play" simulator. Who wants that in BM? Why?

This resonated with me deeply. I have often called BattleMaster a political sandbox. It is what pulled me in, filled me with intrigue, and kept me interested for years. It is honestly insane how (personally) torn I am on this subject. On one hand I love the cut-throat, no safety net, every pirate for themselves sandbox that BM can be. On the other hand, I understand that it is in no way an uncontaminated system. There is meta-gaming, OOC motivations, and things of that nature. These are an ever growing concern as OOC communication systems continue to evolve. Last, I also feel for players who are on the recieving end of horribly overbalanced conflicts. That being said, we are in no way preventing realms from losing wars or from being destroyed. We just want it to be worked for, rather than being a steam roller. Not perfectly realistic in a political setting, but I do strongly believe this is the best way to spread fun to the most people.

The real problem of BM was never unfair wars. It was always stagnation. It is realms and alliance blocks potentially staying the same way forever once an equilibrium is reached.

I couldn't agree more.

I can confidently say that the Admins/Devs are completely open to discussion, contribution, and suggestions.

So that leads me to ask:What exactly can we do about it? What can we do to fix it?
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Ketchum on August 07, 2020, 10:15:08 AM
I happen to share same experience with Constantine here. Granted in the past we can see realms rise and fall. Now we seen realms fall not because of war, but because of density issue imposed. So realm merge into another realm, become even bigger realm.

I used to be in Fontan where we faced outnumbered odds against Perdan, Sirion and Westmoor. Then Caligus joined in and thumbed their mighty noses at Fontan by holding Fontan city. I still recalled with giggles that our Prime Minister of Fontan begged Caligus King Dobromir blessed his player, for return of Fontan city. Those were the good times.

So Thalmarkin got a little help on Belu not to die by admin and then Caligus got the same help albeit different one on East Continent not to die. Other players got eyes see these events you know?  ::)

Nivemus faced outnumbered odds against Shadowdale. No admin help coming. Nivemis faced outnumbered odds against Perdan. No admin help coming.

Playing outnumbered war is a good experience for players in the past. Why change now?
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Herland on August 07, 2020, 11:14:25 AM
It has been a long time since I visited the forum, but I think this occasion warrants it.

A couple of my characters have been part of some annihilated realms, and each one was a unique experience. A realm could be destroyed by many realms at once, by great calamities, or by a single powerful empire, as long as its enemies have a valid casus belli. The annihilated realms are fertilizer for new ones, or potentiometer for small realms that become powerful by feeding on the noble refugees. It can be said that I have lost more times than I have won in BM. However, it does not seem unfair to me, these adversities are what create good RP material.

This was a feature of BM for a long time, and is now being censored. An important path of the game is being lost.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Zakky on August 07, 2020, 01:24:22 PM
I think people are overlooking the fact that what unlimited freedom has brought to the game.

Continental wars that last way too long. Constant dogpiling that seem to never end. Every war trying to end with another realm's destruction. And players straight up leaving after seeing their realms die.

It doesn't matter if it was a feature of the game before. It was badly implemented. The current system despite its imperfectness, is a way to train ruler players on what kind of wars are justified.

The biggest problem is the dogpiling issue where rulers who have nothing better to do get involved in their ally's wars so they get something to do. If you are a ruler, you have the responsibility to create something to do for your realm. If you can only do so by joining your ally realm which is already winning, then you have a problem.

Wars are fun when both sides are evenly matched and at least as close to it as possible. As you all know, they are often not despite having the same # of nobles or gold since there isn't really an indicator telling you how many active people are in the realm.

Also, let's not lie about how long this has been a thing. The new war declaration is a relatively new feature. Some are calling it a form of censorship but it is more of oversight. Once people get used to the new system, you will most likely see less of admin/titan involvements.

What they want is quite simple. Make wars enjoyable for both sides which people have failed to do so for many years. We've been seeing cases of people antagonizing other players oocly due to IC grudges. Hopefully this new direction will reduce that and make the game more healthy.

But yes, it would be better if we get more stuff to war over and more stuff seem to be coming to the game in maybe 2~3 years.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 07, 2020, 02:49:15 PM
It has been a long time since I visited the forum, but I think this occasion warrants it.

A couple of my characters have been part of some annihilated realms, and each one was a unique experience. A realm could be destroyed by many realms at once, by great calamities, or by a single powerful empire, as long as its enemies have a valid casus belli. The annihilated realms are fertilizer for new ones, or potentiometer for small realms that become powerful by feeding on the noble refugees. It can be said that I have lost more times than I have won in BM. However, it does not seem unfair to me, these adversities are what create good RP material.

This was a feature of BM for a long time, and is now being censored. An important path of the game is being lost.

There is no prohibition on destroying realms.

There is no prohibition on uneven wars.

There is no desire to remove adversity from the game.

For any war to be won, someone must lose.

All we are trying to do is remove the pointless gangbangs and unbreakable island-controlling alliances that destroy people's fun—as they destroyed Atamara.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Ketchum on August 07, 2020, 04:22:28 PM
Stuff
If you really want to correct an unbalanced war as you say.

Why the most nobles realm can declare war on the most lesser nobles realm? Should lesser nobles realm get help from another realm to balance the scale of war?

Even when you limit it by alliance. Even when you limit the war on one realm in this Caligus, Yssgard the supposedly ally of Caligus showed up nowhere in Eponllyn and Nivemus lands and got beaten and send back home.

Right now you say you include another "dont want old conflict". Yet Perdan want to travel to Nivemus lands via Eponllyn lands. After that long staring contest at Kalmar city with scouts sent here and there without any breakthrough. Eponllyn being ally of Caligus want to help Caligus, but then Perdan declared war on them. Yes, for passage right. Shadowdale is already beating Caligus to Fontan city. Then Perleone joins against Caligus. Yssgard wasted their golden chance to make thing right to balance the war by Yssgard attacking Eponllyn and Nivemus lands instead.

Why not you limit the war as well? Say "you can't fight that realm A because you at your limit density for war." Since we already doing nobles density for region and realm alliance density limit, why not nobles density for war?

Then there will not be continental war that last long time or many years.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Constantine on August 07, 2020, 04:28:04 PM
Anaris, I get that. But I think it must be absolutely excrutiating for players when the game plays a certain way and incentivises certain behaviours and then oocly players are ordered to play against their best interest.
The issue is a huge discrepancy between how the game plays and how admins want people to play it.

For example, I am absolutely convinced that Sirion and Nivemus have an unbreakable alliance not because they are all huge frends ooc, are powergamers or whatnot. But because the density rules made all conflict between them meaningless, as they were both very large realms with poor density.
You can tell them to break up their "unbrekable alliance". But it won't mean anything, because the in-game circumstances stay the same. They are still incentivised to stick together and have absolutely no motivation to be hostile to each other.
Does it makes sense?

How it seems to be happening now: It is lucrative to play a certain way, but people are pressured ooc to not play that way.

How it is in my opinion supposed to be: It is lucrative game mechanics-wise to be opportunistic. But it is also equally lucrative to stay out of a war or to aid the udnerdog. Importantly, it has to rely more on incentives than on restrictions. How exactly? I dunno. Realms collecting an equivalent of "honour" which boosts their gold production or whatnot when joining a weaker side and losing honour when joining a gangbang. Whatever. Same with alliances, larger alliances taking a toll on the economy. Etc., etc. It has to be a part of the game, not metagame.

I understand that you guys are coders, not professional game designers. But that's not how political simulators can be tampered with. When perfectly legal political decisions are slashed because Delvin and Vita said so in an ooc channel, in my opinion thats more dangerous for the game's health than all the bad decisions themselves.
Personally, I think we're fine at this point with war declarations. But even if further "fine tuning" had to be made, it can not be "manual". You need to introduce real numbers, tangible in-game consequences which players can quantify and take into consideration when doing diplomacy.  Decisions have only to be made because players actually see they have merit according to the game's own internal logic.


Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Zakky on August 07, 2020, 04:55:25 PM
If you really want to correct an unbalanced war as you say.

Why the most nobles realm can declare war on the most lesser nobles realm? Should lesser nobles realm get help from another realm to balance the scale of war?

Because Nivemus has a lot of cities but not enough people. Perdan has a lot of nobles and want to carve out a colony. Why not war Nivemus? Nivemus also has friends. They can help Nivemus if they wish.

Quote
Even when you limit it by alliance. Even when you limit the war on one realm in this Caligus, Yssgard the supposedly ally of Caligus showed up nowhere in Eponllyn and Nivemus lands and got beaten and send back home.

Why would Yssgard, friend of Caligus, show up in Eponllyn and Nivemus side to help them when Caligus is burning? Also, allies don't have to help each other if they feel helping them will cause more damage.

Quote
Right now you say you include another "dont want old conflict". Yet Perdan want to travel to Nivemus lands via Eponllyn lands. After that long staring contest at Kalmar city with scouts sent here and there without any breakthrough. Eponllyn being ally of Caligus want to help Caligus, but then Perdan declared war on them. Yes, for passage right. Shadowdale is already beating Caligus to Fontan city. Then Perleone joins against Caligus. Yssgard wasted their golden chance to make thing right to balance the war by Yssgard attacking Eponllyn and Nivemus lands instead.

You want Perdan to go through a choke point. Perdan doesn't want to. It is as simple as that. Perdan's war has nothing to do with SD and Caligus. I don't know why you are keep bringing them up.

Quote
Why not you limit the war as well? Say "you can't fight that realm A because you at your limit density for war." Since we already doing nobles density for region and realm alliance density limit, why not nobles density for war?

What? Why do you want the noble density to affect wars? If your realm is dense, then you usually get people who want to form their own realm. Who do you war? One with low density and lots of regions. Nivemus has 4 cities and 13 nobles. Nivemus will be fine with 2 cities and 3 less regions.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Zakky on August 07, 2020, 05:01:27 PM
...

What Anaris means by "unbreakable alliance" is what North had or something like what CE formed on AT. He doesn't want a large mega alliance that goes on forever. You can still have an unbreakable alliance but only under your alliance limit. He doesn't want you to circumvent that by establishing a guild like Alliance of Free Nations on Dwilight. If you want a certain realm to be your ally, then ally them. All realms that are not allied to you are not your allies. It is as simple as that.

If realm A + B are fight realm C + D, instead of jumping in to attack either AB or CD, you should go for realm E or F or others.

If you introduce number sand tangible in game consequences, people will just find a way to circumvent them. It doesn't matter how well things are coded. You cannot block every hole. That is why things are kept somewhat vague.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Ketchum on August 07, 2020, 05:04:55 PM
I read Constantine latest post and I have some ideas want to throw out.

I have throw out my two cents OOC at a Rulers channel in East Continent.

Constantine, I understand you get that Nivemus and Sirion are unbreakable alliance. Coming from Nivemus, our players there also kept calling Perdan evil for years and this latest war just proved that, not only to Nivemus, Sirion, Eponllyn and Caligus.

Personally I attempted to shake things up. I even appointed new characters as lord in Nivemus. I not sure why I need to provide a book called "How to beat Nivemus in 30 ways and form your own Colony" here. You can take a leaf out of a Perdan character named Zelgius. He should know what are the weaknesses of Nivemus. He was in Nivemus for sometime and he was Duke of Nivemus capital, Banker to boot. If your colony team can go in Nivemus and have enough nobles number to form colony, why not? My character at one point considered two possibilities left: Merger with Eponllyn before your war declaration postponed it indefinitely. And another to give Shadowdale a place to form a colony. Nivemus need noble number, what's better way than to shake the realm from within? Zelgius did rebel against Brock no? He did not have number to form a new colony. Perdan now has.

Also you need to take into consideration. Perdan is fighting as you say IC against the vast resources of Nivemus. How that vast resources come from? From peace time and not fighting. So in some character progragranda you all pointed to wealthy Brock. We do have infiltrator class aye? Why not use infiltrator take Brock out? Brock the so called leader of military cobbled up last minute to fight is out wounded cold. Then nobody can transfer gold. Wait, why am I showing you?  8)

Also have you ever considered breaking down the alliance between Nivemus and Sirion? Influence Nivemus to join your side. Perdan Ruler never talk to Brock, I recall this clearly well. My character Brock word of congratulations is ignored. So how you can convince someone you not talking to abandon Sirion?  :(

Brock had good relations with previous Perdan King Kay, that why Nivemus not join North versus South war at later stage of the war. So why not make full use of this relations and build upon it? Not by saying to Brock Dukes privately that you want their lands straightaway? Then when privately fail, try Brock next 😜

If yes, then we have reached characters relationship. You have to realize by now why Duke Malius of Kalmar duchy stood by Brock all these time in Nivemus. Not because he is current Nivemus Judge. He was not even a Judge in Nivemus when he first joined. He was former Obsidian Islanders Emperor and he chose to join Nivemus. Brock charisma then. Of course Brock charisma could go wrong way as in Zelgius case who was Duke of Nivemus capital.

Also Nivemus alliance is not made with Sirion before Perdan declared War. We did not even discuss this matter within Nivemus. So how your war declaration make this thing happen? Simply put, Perdan has highest nobles count compared to Nivemus. Of course we feel like we are being bully by big kid at school, excuse the pun. So we have to find an almost similar size built kid to balance the scale ???

All in all. I think we may have to emulate Colonies island example where Colonial Senate had restricted each realm to one city each before the change recently. If one realm hold more than one city, everyone else attack them. We need to do our players reset ourselves.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Ketchum on August 07, 2020, 05:11:58 PM
Stuff
Unfortunately I don't think you get the points made. I say Yssgard helps Caligus, not Yssgard help Eponllyn or Nivemus.

Also if you attack someone weak, as I say being bully by big kid example, then you have to expect one day that small kid stand up or that small kid find his bigger brother. The point here you made just show us all why Nivemus ran to ally with Sirion in the first place. Why it is North versus South again? Precisely because of this.

The developers have helped to develop the game, I am thankful. They even limit "something I cannot say here", hello I am talking to wall now? So I need show someone how to steal from my home now. The point is chokepoint can be beaten. If you dont know how to beat it, then obviously there are some factors you haven't counted on when assaulting a strong point. And I am not going to destroy current Nivemus players fun for the sake of showing you. Sorry.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Zakky on August 07, 2020, 05:28:38 PM
...

Yssrgard not helping Caligus is entirely their choice. Why do you expect them to do so?

Nivemus is allied to Sirion. Sirion decided to help. That is fine. Nobody is criticizing that.

Perdan is attacking Eponllyn to get to Nivemus. That is also fine. Since Perdan is the aggressor, Nivemus and Eponllyn are fighting together.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "show someone how to steal from my home now".

Perdan could have taken a different route but why do that when there is an easier road?

Delvin Anaris already made it clear.

You can still destroy a realm.

You can still help your allies.

You can still bully another realm.

But you can't dog pile unless there is a really good justification like the realm getting dog piled provoking every realm that is attacking them.

Also you can't try to circumvent the diplomatic limit through a guild. If you are not allied to a certain realm then you are not allied. Yssrgard can't come help Nivemus since Yssrgard isn't Nivemus or Eponllyn's friend.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 07, 2020, 06:35:18 PM
For most of its
How it seems to be happening now: It is lucrative to play a certain way, but people are pressured ooc to not play that way.

It is lucrative for a store to secretly charge your credit card an extra $100 every time you visit.

It is lucrative to invite people to invest with you and promise them a huge return on their investment, then run off with the money.

But we have rules against these things, because they are not good for society as a whole.

Similarly, based on our own observations of player behaviour, we have decided that certain things are not good for the BattleMaster game and community as a whole, and are, through various means, including but not limited to new rules, working on preventing, disincentivizing, and banning them.

I would love to find more good ways to mechanically incentivize these things, and I'm working on some in the background. But there's no simple way for the game to detect, for instance, that a realm declared war with a goal of making their target ban a Royal Duke—an impossibility, and it carries a massive risk of an open-ended war where the targeted realm has no way to say "look, we give up, you win, we just want out" beyond dissolving the realm entirely.

Throughout BattleMaster's history, there has been a tension between two basic forces among its players: the desire for strong roleplaying, and the desire for strong strategic combat.

Over the past few years, Vita and I have been coming to the conclusion that we really need a third force, that stands above both of those. You speak of BattleMaster as a "political and strategic simulator", and to some extent it is; it is a number of different things, in varying degrees, but the one thing it absolutely is, 100%, to all the people involved, is a game, and the one thing a game must have to succeed is fun for all the people playing it.

The changes we've been making have been aimed at that goal, and we know we've been far from perfect about it. Even designing a brand-new game from scratch, it's hard to make things fun for such different groups of players, and when we're changing things on the fly, that's 100% guaranteed to make some people mad—mostly the people who have benefited most from the status quo. We appreciate and invite constructive criticism and, especially, more ideas on how to actually create incentives that lead to the goals we've articulated (smaller wars; smaller, more temporary alliances, etc) without hard rules.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Matthew Runyon on August 07, 2020, 09:56:46 PM
I've weighed in on my feeling that it's not large alliances that are the problem, as much as it is stagnation that is the problem, and I think there are some ideas about a new alliances system that will help fix that.

But I have to say that I share the concerns about the political/intrigue side of the game getting devalued, and let me illustrate that with an example.

Let us say that I am the Ruler of a realm, and I am planning on fighting another realm.  They are larger than my realm, and have more CS and an ally.  So I spend months wheeling and dealing, working out favour trades, building up relationships, and get several realms together that have promised to back my efforts.  This involves a great deal of engagement, and is all something the other realm could have been doing as well.  But either they did not, or tried and failed, or maybe I've got better Ambassadors, or a couple of key connections to Council members, who knows?  But when push comes to shove, all of my friends show up to the fight, and they and their ally are outclassed from the moment the first sword is drawn, and the war would be short and utterly one-sided.

Under the current rules, this would not be allowed.

However, let us say that instead, I keep my realm from fighting.  I build up gold.  The one ally I have also doesn't fight, and they build up gold.  We can build up a massive pile of gold, and expand all our recruitment centers, so we have enough and troops to fund a campaign of all of our nobles at max recruitment for a couple of months on end, while the realm I want to fight is instead constantly fighting.  Sometimes winning, sometimes losing, but they don't build up much of a gold reserve, and their nobles have to get by with just their estate income.  I carefully wait for them to finish their latest war, so that I'm not dogpiling, but their regions are not in a great place, they have no gold, and their army is scattered.  We recruit up using our massive gold hoard, declare war, and immediately seize the city on our border and stuff it full of militia because we don't actually need the gold from the city.  Without their largest gold producer, and exhausted from the last war, suddenly we're creaming a realm half again our size because of superior preparation.

Under the current rules, this would be allowed.

To me, the only difference I see here is what type of preparation was done, and how much fun it was for different playstyles.

I would vastly prefer a setup where two things happened:

First, the density rules were either not enforced, or much more stringently enforced.  If they weren't enforced, then people would have pretty strong incentives to keep expanding.  If they were more stringently enforced, then realms would end up losing regions over time if they could not create fun for their nobles or attract new characters, and would start going out of their way to make sure they kept or enticed characters.

Second, I would rather focus the rules or mechanics on preventing the same characters (or families) from being in the same positions.  It is difficult to work on new conflicts when the characters and people are all the same, and right now, in most continents there is no real way to end that.  Even if you could destroy a realm, the density rules mean that the people in charge of that realm could move to another realm, bide their time, and launch a colonization effort.  Realms can be reborn all the time, and since there are no longer any age penalties and no effective way to kill almost all nobles, very rarely does anyone ever get removed from the playing field except by the player getting bored to (the character's) death.  This, to me, is the biggest problem.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: GoldPanda on August 08, 2020, 01:17:09 AM
We could have had some fun, relatively balanced wars going in EC. Sirion and Nivemus fighting Perdan. Caligus and Eponllyn fighting Shadowdale (after the Titans tell Perleone to withdraw). But then Perdan just had to declare war on Eponllyn. Now Eponllyn is forced to cooperate with Nivemus just to defend its lands, even though Eponllyn's leadership's every intention was to respect the alliance system restrictions and not interfere in the Perdan-Nivemus war.

If Perdan didn't want to attack Nivemus through the choke-point, then Perdan should have declared war on Eponllyn first. Declare Troyes and Poitiers as your war goal. Heck, declare the entire Westmoor duchy as your war goal. Then it would have been Perdan fighting Eponllyn and Caligus, still a relatively balanced war. Perdan would have more nobles. Eponllyn and Caligus can attack from two fronts but also have more regions to defend. If any other realm tried to interfere, players from one side or the other would be asking the Titans to stop the interference.

Quote
But you can't dog pile unless there is a really good justification like the realm getting dog piled provoking every realm that is attacking them.

Every realm attacking Thalmarkin had perfectly valid IC reasons to do so. The Admins put a stop to it anyway.

Quote
If realm A + B are fight realm C + D, instead of jumping in to attack either AB or CD, you should go for realm E or F or others.

And Perdan is in the wrong for interfering in the Shadowdale-Caligus war. Had Perdan declared war on Eponllyn first, it would have been Shadowdale that was in the wrong, but that's not what happened.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 08, 2020, 01:19:27 AM
Based on the best information I have, Perdan doesn't even care about Eponllyn, let alone Caligus. They just want to found a colony, and one of the regions either slated to be in it or on the way flipped from Nivemus to Eponllyn partway through.

Perdan is not interfering in the Shadowdale/Caligus war. Eponllyn is choosing to be distracted by Perdan from aiding Caligus.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: GoldPanda on August 08, 2020, 01:30:59 AM
Quote
Rulers of the East Continent,

The Kingdom of Perdan hereby commits to a war of passage against the Kingdom of Eponllyn.

Accordingly, Perdan will:

- achieve and fortify a land-bridge to Nivemus, denying these lands to the Eponllyn war machine

- capture Eponllyn assets in order to restrict their capacity to retaliate and force capitulation


- pledge to conduct only goodly takeovers, attack only war assets and denounce unwholesome looting options.

- consider the war completed in their favor when Eponllyn concedes defeat and requisite treaty conditions are signed (which must include a mandatory safe period for the Alexandrian colony).

- agree to consider provisional return of Eponllyn assets;

            - once the colony has been safely established

            - on the condition that Eponllyn and its allies conduct themselves with nobility and

            - neither betray this agreement or impede the establishment of the colony.

- consider the war lost when Perdan concedes defeat and signs to mutually agreeable conditions for ceasefire.

Perdan has no interest in permanently diminishing Eponllyn unless they continue to block access for the colonial effort.

So Eponllyn is just supposed to continue fighting Shadowdale while Perdan "borrows" our regions?

Gadlock flipped to Eponllyn today. It was not a consideration in any of the war declarations.

And instead of running a TO on Troyes, Perdan's armies literally parked themselves in Eponllyn's capital. If there is some trick to this where Eponllyn can continue to fight Shadowdale without being "distracted" by Perdan, please tell me. :(
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: GoldPanda on August 08, 2020, 01:56:53 AM
Anyway, I'm sorry if I'm being too negative.

I guess I'm just still put off by that war declaration. I would have preferred it if Perdan just said, "Yeah, we're taking some of your lands because we can. What are you going to do about it?" This "We're going to borrow some of your lands, and maybe give them back to you later, if you're good little boys" just completely rubs me the wrong way, as if our regions are not even good enough to be worth conquering.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: BarticaBoat on August 08, 2020, 04:32:37 PM
I will speak broadly - I have observed that the devs think very much like programmers and are trying to change the pieces of BM to work together for a certain outcome.

That doesn't work with games. The environment must be altered to incentivize playstyles, not discourage playstyles. Too often restrictions are placed which, while well-intentioned, are restrictions and make BM feel less like a game and more like a process that is performed.

For example, hinterlands is not a restriction, density caps are. I think there can be more done to incentivize realm shapes and sizes and how realms interact on their edges, but I think the dev team really needs to ask someone with experience in behaviour change techniques or similar experience how to go about making these changes.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 08, 2020, 06:06:42 PM
And I'm working on Hinterlands as fast as I reasonably can, given the other demands on my time.

But you know what one of those demands on my time is?

Constantly dealing with all this bull!@#$. And it's really frustrating, and not only does it take up the actual time I spend responding to people angry that their status-quo-derived power in a browser game is being reduced, it means that for hours or days afterwards I just don't feel like working on it, because dealing with the people !@#$ting on everything I try to do—not "constructively criticizing", no, that would be much more reasonable, just telling me constantly how everything I'm doing is wrong and bad—drains my mental energy vastly more than writing code does.

And thanks, yes, I know perfectly well that hard restrictions are a bad way to operate, but they're something I can put into place now to prevent the game getting into worse and worse situations while I work on long-term fixes that take a lot of time and thought to develop even before I can write a single line of code. (I even said this rather loudly in the Dwilight Ruler/Admin OOC Channel recently, but I recognize you may not be on Dwilight to have seen that.)
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Victor C on August 08, 2020, 10:42:23 PM
Hello,

I understand that we all have very strong feelings about this, but please do not turn this into a wild brawl.
This thread should be about CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION.

Please remember that we ALL love this game, some love it in different ways than others, but nevertheless, we all love it. We all want this game to thrive, and I'm sure we all understand that it has been doing the exact opposite for some time.
Sometimes when our position is challenged, we will feel wronged and frustrated. That is just a proof of how passionate we are about the topic we are discussing. Please remember that, and take a breathe when you send your next message. When is one at the best in decision making: When they are flustered and a bit angry? or When they are calm and comfortable?

Overall, Tom has entrusted the game to Anaris, and there was good reason for that. For a lot of you old-timers, I am certain that you remember that Tom actually interfered much more frequently and harshly than Anaris and the Dev team. He smited an entire continent's Rulers at one point. (For what reason? Ask around, I think you'll find the problem is something that came back up eventually  ;) )

Please, respect each other, and STOP ARGUING ABOUT THE EC WARS.

It's irrelevant
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Zakky on August 08, 2020, 11:16:31 PM
"constructively criticizing"

Let me try to provide feedback on the current war declaration. I am not sure how hard it is to implement this but hopefully not too hard.

I think some war declarations are too vague right now. Also, doesn't really show what the one being declared one can demand.

I think war declarations need to be more structured and be more specific. Plus the one being declared on should have their own win condition in response as well.

So let's take Perdan's recent war declaration that is available on this page right now.

Perdan has too many demands I feel. I think they need to narrow it down to as little as possible.
Quote
Win condition:
-Secure passage to Nivemus to be able to war them(need 3 regions to achieve this. List them)
Demands:
-If Eponllyn loses the war, Eponllyn will surrender the 3 regions listed.

Perdan should also have some kind of a condition where they will stop attacking Eponllyn.
Defeat condition:
-Lose Bescannon

Maybe we can also add White Peace condition as well.
Quote
-Both realms agree to end the war
OR
-Nivemus loses Kalmar, which opens up another route to Nivemus thus removing the need to attack Eponllyn.

Eponllyn should be able to write some win conditions as well in response but it should be something more achievable as well.
Win condition:
-Take Bescannon
Demands:
-Monetary compensation(x amount of gold)

Defeat condition:
-Perdan takes the three regions listed

So when a realm gets war declared on, the game will ask the defender's ruler to write the win condition, demands and defeat condition.

I feel we need to teach people how to limit their wars by making them learn to narrow down their demands.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Constantine on August 09, 2020, 02:14:47 AM
Well said, Victor C.
I would like to remind everyone that this is not a venting thread, but a constructive feedback thread.

It was never my intention to suggest that everything admins are doing hurts the game. I do support changes that help players make the game more dynamic (war declaration redux comes to mind). Still I think it is important to voice the concerns as they arise.

I only started this thread because I do love this game.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: GoldPanda on August 09, 2020, 07:40:41 AM
How about something more standardized?

The attacker has to specify which of the defender's regions are the war goal. War goal regions must collectively be connected to the attacking realm.

The defender may counter-declare their own war goal regions that are owned by the attacker. These regions must collectively be connected to the defending realm.

Duration of the war should be N months for N war goal regions.

Each side can claim at most 1 city / stronghold, so at most 2 cities / strongholds can be contested per war.

Cannot claim an entire realm (and possibly destroy said realm) unless it's down to its last city / stronghold.

At the end of the N months, the war automatically ends. War goal regions are retained by their current owner, non-war goal regions are returned to their original owner. Note that regions are not guaranteed to be returned in their original state. The other side can and probably will strip a region of anything useful before returning it.

War declarations in response to another war declaration may just state that the realm is joining an existing war. May be rolled back by the Titans at their discretion, to prevent one-sided slaughters. I would personally consider wars where one side has more than twice the nobles of the other side as badly imbalanced.

Realms joining in as co-belligerents do not stand to gain or risk losing any regions by the end of the war. At the end of the war, war goal regions that they have taken are given to the side they supported, and non-war goal regions are returned to their original owner. They may still temporarily lose regions during the war, of course.

After the war is declared, war goals can only be changed by mutual agreement between the initial attacker and the initial defender.

Either side can end the war at any time by surrendering, in which case, the winner gets all war goal regions.

The war can also end in white peace, by mutual agreement between the initial attacker and the initial defender. In that case, all regions are returned to their original owners.

After the war is ended, enforce a ceasefire period of 1 month, between all realms involved in the war.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Zakky on August 09, 2020, 12:25:41 PM
...

I am against regions actually being connected to attackers and defenders. On Testing islands, you don't have to be directly connected to run a TO since coastal regions can be taken over.

Now having a duration is an interesting concept but not sure how practical that would be. I tried it once against Perdan, and it was fun and we fought over 1 region. Since we actually had an end date, despite losing first few battles, Vix still managed to keep their region by pushing hard at the end.

I think destroying a realm is perfectly fine as long as you are not looking to destroy a giant realm. If a realm is left with only their capital + some other non fortified regions, then there isn't much to take from that realm but their capital.

As for White Peace, I wouldn't bother returning regions. It would just end the war right away, leaving the region under the current owners.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 09, 2020, 03:09:36 PM
I'm extremely reluctant to limit the possible gains by the attacking realm to the regions originally specified. That significantly increases the incentive on the part of the defending realm to drag out the fight, even if they're losing region after region.

I think it's much healthier overall for the attacker to be required to offer peace after taking those regions, but allowed to take more if the defender refuses to accept their loss.

I am definitely considering a system that would mechanically track the regions specified, and whether there were non-territorial goals, and if the war was entirely about territory, automatically offer peace to the defender upon successful conquest of the last specified region. (And, of course, I already have on my list making all of these aspects of goals mutual, so that the defender has to declare their own intentions, even if those are just "don't lose our own regions, and get them to stop attacking us.") I didn't want to do that at first, because it seemed like it elevated territorial gains over other kinds of goals, but it's certainly true that they're the most common goal & desire in war (and once Hinterlands comes out, it will be much easier to go for them).
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Constantine on August 09, 2020, 03:21:57 PM
Quote
After the war is ended, enforce a ceasefire period of 1 month, between all realms involved in the war.
Such hard restrictions are bad in a political game because they are easily abused. I.e. the loser can break the peace terms without fear of retaliation.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Zakky on August 09, 2020, 03:26:53 PM
I agree but with a bit of difference. I think instead of just being allowed to gain more after refusal of peace offer, you should re-declare/update your war declaration.

Let's look at it from an UI perspective
Name :: Type :: Status :: Length :: Options
War for 3 regions :: Conquest :: Won(Peace offer refused) :: 110 days :: <Declare Victory> <Surrender>
War for 3 more regions :: Conquest :: On-going :: 5 days ::

Declare Victory will send a message to the opposing party. If they accept, the one who initiated the declaration wins. Surrender will do the same.

Maybe down the road, we can have different types like pillage(ends when x amount of gold/resources were looted?), banishment(will end the war when the noble selected gets banished) and humiliate(upon surrendering, ruler will lose a big chunk of honour/prestige - could extend it to the entire realm but with different ratio of honour/prestige - ex: ruler 25%, dukes 20%, lords: 15%, knights: 10%)
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Constantine on August 09, 2020, 03:37:20 PM
Please let us not make this system too automatized. We need flexibility there because wars can go for some time and circumstances may change.
Maybe you managed to conquer three enemy regions but they conquered four of yours. And then bam - you automatically offer peace.

Quote
And, of course, I already have on my list making all of these aspects of goals mutual, so that the defender has to declare their own intentions
Good idea.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Zakky on August 09, 2020, 04:18:19 PM
Having an option that doesn't limit much is fine I think. But what putting limits do is that those limits will also limit the size or duration a bit. There are too many wars in BM where it starts over a region then becomes a total annihilation after.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: GoldPanda on August 10, 2020, 06:02:51 AM
Such hard restrictions are bad in a political game because they are easily abused. I.e. the loser can break the peace terms without fear of retaliation.

We can have them be rules rather than enforced game mechanics.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Constantine on August 12, 2020, 03:55:57 PM
Guys. What Sirion, Eppy and Nivemus did should not be illegal. Coordinating a sneak attack to stop a takeover they all didn't want to happen should not be a wrong way to play the game. It was good intrigue.
Please stop making up rules that go against the legit ways to play the game and only serve to antagonize and confuse the playerbase.

I'm seeing players IC suggesting to consult the Titans before making this or that political decision. This is just breeding confusion, toxic fear and metagame approach within the community. Reconsider your methods.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 12, 2020, 04:02:15 PM
Guys. What Sirion, Eppy and Nivemus did should not be illegal. Coordinating a sneak attack to stop a takeover they all didn't want to happen should not be a wrong way to play the game. It was good intrigue.

Just as they did, you are completely ignoring the alliance bloc restrictions.

Neither Sirion nor Nivemus is allied to Eponllyn, or has any other particular reason to aid them in their war against Shadowdale.

If we allowed this sort of thing, they would be nothing more than tissue paper.

Sirion, Nivemus, Eponllyn, Caligus, and Yssrgard need to figure out who their actual allies are, and who is just a friend who they enjoy hanging out with, but do not aid in military matters. Because together, they are an alliance bloc that controls over half the human-owned regions of the continent. "But they should be allowed to—" no, because that's blatant circumvention of the rules.

Is it new? Yes.
Does it take time to develop new cultural background, especially in a place like the EC? Yes.
Does that mean it's OK for them to be allies-in-all-but-name now, six months from now, a year from now? No, no, and no.

This is exactly the same issue that was being dealt with recently on Dwilight, and they were (with one notable exception) able to deal with it in a mature manner.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Constantine on August 12, 2020, 04:47:34 PM
Both Sirion and Nivemus have a clear geopolitical interest to see Oligarch safely in Eppy's hands. I would probably want to do the same to get Shadowdale out of Commonyr. I am sure other nobles in Sirion share the same sentiment and nothing will change if you keep banning their leadership. They will just grow bitter, fearful and more passive aggressive. Or leave.

Stating that someone didn't have a reason to make an underhanded move, to sucker punch or betray someone, just because he is not mechanically allied with someone else, is exactly what I outlined as destroying the political fabric of the game. 

You are sort of substituting the living and breathing politics of BM, built on geopolitics, internal political agenda and even personal relations between leaders, for an alliance system akin to Civilization, where you just toggle alliances with NPCs and forget about it until you retoggle.
I really hope you can see this at some point.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Zakky on August 12, 2020, 04:59:49 PM
Both Sirion and Nivemus have a clear geopolitical interest to see Oligarch safely in Eppy's hands. I would probably want to do the same to get Shadowdale out of Commonyr. I am sure other nobles in Sirion share the same sentiment and nothing will change if you keep banning their leadership. They will just grow bitter, fearful and more passive aggressive. Or leave.

Stating that someone didn't have a reason to make an underhanded move, to sucker punch or betray someone, just because he is not mechanically allied with someone else, is exactly what I outlined as destroying the political fabric of the game. 

You are sort of substituting the living and breathing politics of BM, built on geopolitics, internal political agenda and even personal relations between leaders, for an alliance system akin to Civilization, where you just toggle alliances with NPCs and forget about it until you retoggle.
I really hope you can see this at some point.

I am sorry. I don't think you understand the problem here. The alliance bloc limit was implemented to stop people like you from doing what you've been doing for years. Dog piling.

1) Before the alliance bloc limit, people like you built mega alliances. Causing stagnation since some were too afraid to get themselves into continental wars.
2) When the alliance bloc was implemented, people like you circumvented the limits through guilds. I forgot the name of the northern guild name but I vaguely remember it starting with circle of something. For Dwilight, there was Alliance of Free Nations.
3) You were all warned about circumventing it. You ignored and continued to the same old ways despite the warnings.

The admins are asking for a very simple thing. If you want to help someone, become allies. You can have as many allies as you want under 30 or so region limit. If you want to have more allies, then make your allies drop some regions they don't need. Or your realm could do that.

Now what does this new war declaration provide? It is telling you, you need a proper justification to start a war. Stop piggybacking on someone else's war.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 12, 2020, 05:00:18 PM
Both Sirion and Nivemus have a clear geopolitical interest to see Oligarch safely in Eppy's hands. I would probably want to do the same to get Shadowdale out of Commonyr. I am sure other nobles in Sirion share the same sentiment and nothing will change if you keep banning their leadership. They will just grow bitter, fearful and more passive aggressive. Or leave.

A geopolitical interest is why you sign alliances. Not why you show up to random battles to help people you have nothing to do with.

I understand the problems with the alliance restrictions' conflict with human nature, and as I have said repeatedly, I would be overjoyed to have an alternative system to put in place that achieves the same goal, and also works alongside human motivations, rather than against them. However, until those alternatives actually exist, the alliance restrictions are the law of the land, and circumventing that law carries with it a harsh punishment, especially after all the many other things Kinsey and the three rulers in question have done—or, as the case may be, utterly refused to do.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Constantine on August 12, 2020, 05:17:50 PM
The alliance bloc limit was implemented to stop people like you from doing what you've been doing for years. Dog piling
Do you have any idea who I am?
A geopolitical interest is why you sign alliances. Not why you show up to random battles to help people you have nothing to do with.
Wait, no. "you have nothing to do with someone" just because he's not your mechanical ally any more? This is not human. This is Age of Empires level of diplomacy.
I understand the problems with the alliance restrictions' conflict with human nature, and as I have said repeatedly, I would be overjoyed to have an alternative system to put in place that achieves the same goal, and also works alongside human motivations, rather than against them. However, until those alternatives actually exist, the alliance restrictions are the law of the land, and circumventing that law carries with it a harsh punishment, especially after all the many other things Kinsey and the three rulers in question have done—or, as the case may be, utterly refused to do.
I get the concerns. And I get that the solution is not readily available and it's a placeholder solution to strongarm the playerbase into.. I dunno.. playing the game by mechanics and not by personal whims?
But I seriously fear that the cure for the issue may be way worse than the issue itself. That is honestly the only reason I spoke up.

Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 12, 2020, 05:46:51 PM
Wait, no. "you have nothing to do with someone" just because he's not your mechanical ally any more? This is not human. This is Age of Empires level of diplomacy.

In BattleMaster, there are a number of things that are controlled by game mechanics.

One of those is who your allies are.

Claiming that you won a duel when the game says you lost is forbidden.
Claiming that your character is a Duke when the game says you are not is forbidden.

Claiming that someone is your ally, or treating them as your de facto ally even when the game mechanics say you are neutral or at peace, especially when the reason they are not your ally is because making them your ally would put you over the alliance bloc limit, is forbidden, and is a circumvention of game mechanics.

Yes, this is new. This is not the way things have always been done.
No, I do not expect this to be the way things work forever.
But right now, when the alliance bloc restrictions are still new enough that we still have realms acting like they are part of a massive more-than-half-the-continent bloc despite not being allied, extraordinary measures are required to ensure that people understand that the restrictions are serious, they are real, and breaking them has real consequences.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Constantine on August 12, 2020, 06:07:21 PM
I get that too. But I don't see why a standing alliance in your mind is the only reason to get involved into someone else's business. Sometimes you're not allied with either side but you're pursuing your own interests. In this instance - making sure Shadowdale does not get too powerful and dominate the region. I think it's legit. I also liked that they coordinated a pincer sneak attack instead of just mass-declaring/dogpiling on SD.

It just seems to me that controlling how alliances are shaped and then absolutely confining all group conflict strictly along the alliances lines will lead to stagnation. We have war island for that sort of gameplay, where politics are decided by game mechanics. I don't play on war island and I don't want to.
I don't know, maybe you did not enjoy that aspect of the game when you actively played BM. But you can't deny it's important for many here.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 12, 2020, 06:19:03 PM
I get that too. But I don't see why a standing alliance in your mind is the only reason to get involved into someone else's business. Sometimes you're not allied with either side but you're pursuing your own interests. In this instance - making sure Shadowdale does not get too powerful and dominate the region. I think it's legit. I also liked that they coordinated a pincer sneak attack instead of just mass-declaring/dogpiling on SD.

It just seems to me that controlling how alliances are shaped and then absolutely confining all group conflict strictly along the alliances lines will lead to stagnation. We have war island for that sort of gameplay, where politics are decided by game mechanics. I don't play on war island and I don't want to.
I don't know, maybe you did not enjoy that aspect of the game when you actively played BM. But you can't deny it's important for many here.

While there may be cases that fit what you are describing here, this was not one of those.

We have messages from well before the actual intervention with the three realms talking to and about each other as if they were allied, and the whole thing was very deliberately coordinated.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Zakky on August 12, 2020, 10:57:30 PM
I think you need to differentiate characters and realms.

Characters can have allies in other realms.

Realms cannot be allied when they are not allied.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: BarticaBoat on August 16, 2020, 06:54:50 PM
Shadowdale has picked fights with Nivemus, Caligus, Eppy, and Sirion but Eppy needs to 1v1 them....?
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 16, 2020, 06:58:42 PM
Shadowdale has picked fights with Nivemus, Caligus, Eppy, and Sirion but Eppy needs to 1v1 them....?

Please stop putting words into our mouths. No one has said that Eponllyn cannot or should not call in support from allies.

The recent punishments were very explicitly, very clearly for doing so without an alliance and thus circumventing the alliance bloc restrictions.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: BarticaBoat on August 16, 2020, 07:01:38 PM
Affirmative.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Chamberlain on August 25, 2020, 07:43:04 PM
Okay.... so I have a question.

Having been the Ruler of Oligarch during one of the most ridiculous gang situations ever I fully get the idea of trying to restrict this sort of thing happening again.

I get how alliance restrictions work and how secret sects and societies shouldn't be used as defacto alliances. However how does that wash with religions. Particularly active religions can be somewhat aggressive in their pursuit of their religious adversaries, this easily could be a strong reason for a war of annihilation and incorporate many not necessarily allied states who share that dogma... eg. Tnink of the twelfth century crusades, Italian principalities who had fought one another, English, Germanic states, Austria, French, Spanish, all natural enemies at the time unite in the name of the church.
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Anaris on August 25, 2020, 08:14:35 PM
It's not an all-or-nothing question, and it basically comes down to the same thing as if it was any other force in the game.

It's fine if a religion is the force behind some wars.

It's not fine if a religion gets realms totalling more than 1/3 of the continent to all act like allies.

There's gray area in between those two, in which it would depend more on the particular situation.

The general rules I hope people are taking to heart are

1) Controlling most of a continent is not a "win condition" for BattleMaster, however much it might feel so from the inside. In fact, it's almost the opposite.
2) When in doubt, put yourself—as honestly as you can—in the shoes of the people on the other side. Would a reasonable, average player find what you are doing to them fun? Do they have any opportunity to interact with it, or is it just a way to destroy them without them having a chance to react meaningfully?
Title: Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement
Post by: Medron Pryde on September 11, 2020, 09:56:50 AM
As usual, the truth is that the Alliance of Free Nations was developed before the alliance limits came into being.  It was a way for all of the people involved to easily talk to each other and share information.  After the limits went in place, and the continental war came to an end, the Free Nations changed their entire mission.  The Free Nations mission had become about helping the realms cooperate against the rogues long before the recent name change.  The Free Nations were explicitly NOT AT ALL geared towards getting everybody together for fighting other human realms.  Direct policies against that in fact.  Any portrayals of the Free Nations that do not include that fact are dishonest portrayals.

I say this being greatly in favor of working to deconstruct mega-alliances.  I helped to break the great Taran-Cagilan Alliance that had dominated Atamara because I agreed with that idea.  And I've fostered several rival religions to the one I inherited on Beluaterra.  Granted, most of that has been by me taking certain annoying stances to others, waiting for others to form their own religions, and then sitting back and doing nothing about them until they feel their oats enough to start attacking my religion.  At which point, I really can't help but slap back in some way.  ;)  I love having actual competition in the religion game again over there, and have so far managed to tread that line of OOC support for them while IC rhetoric preaches about their evils.  And also a whole lot of "I as a player know what they are up to, but the character I play has not figured it out yet.  SHE can't read wikis like I can."  Hehehe.

One issue to stopping mega-alliances, is obviously our human wish to join others.  We are herd creatures.  We like to join together in groups before we go out to beat up other people.  And the larger our group is, the better for us.  That can lead to some severe mega-alliances when in a game like this.  And it truly is a natural impulse we all have.  Trust me.  I've been there.  I've helped build some pretty mega-alliances in my time.  Just as I've helped bring them down.  A time or two I've helped bring down an alliance I helped build.  That is a surreal experience, let me tell you.