Messages

Where do you get 133 regions from? Shouldn't it be 125? (or 124, I don't recall when Smokey Hills was recovered from the Rogues).

Just from my own counting. Here's a spreadsheet that I used: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B85AasBw9ZoxYndMVXpUOWMwdWc/view?usp=sharing

This seems more like a sinuous function than an exponential one to me. Having more data would likely show a seasonal trend. Interestingly, it starts and finishes with the same value.

Yes this one is the most interesting to me. It's per capita, so it's not effected by changes in the number of registered players. I think you're right that it shows seasonal trends, such as increased activity in cold months (if you live in the northern hemisphere) and vice versa. It also shows that the diehards haven't been discouraged by the year long exodus.

[Date]

Date	Nobles	Regions	Density
5 May 2013	383	238	1.61
1 March 2014	281	133	2.11
16 August 2014	205	133	1.54
1 January 2015	175	133	1.32

Have another migration west, now that everyone's settled in on the east island. The single most exciting time of the last year was the migration, then it went quickly downhill. Flip it again!

Yes Asylon. Apparently I can send messages but I can't read my received messages, and I can't do anything else until a choose a new realm.

Is this a new feature?

Your realm has lost its capital, and you are now without a home. However, you can start a new career, joining any realm that has not banned you.

Making knights more valuable to their Lords and their realm is a good thing, but its not going to fix the issues with knight density on its own. For that we need to actually increase the number of players/characters relative to the land that is available

Indeed, that's why I also think improvements should be made to make the knight game more interesting.

You can't give an advantage to Realm A without giving a disadvantage to Realm B. Likewise, you can't make it advantageous to have knights without penalizing not having knights. Besides, if a realm has too few knights, that's just another way of saying they have too many regions. Make it so that regions with a full complement of lords and knights have an advantage over those that don't, and the issue will be self-correcting. As it stands, it's advantageous for realms to have a 1:1 nobles-to-regions ratio (or close to that) compared to a 3:1 ratio. The reverse should be true.

Food and gold production should be depend on how many nobles live in the region. Make it so that regions need a full complement of nobles to reach their full potential. Let's say 1 lord and 2 knights for most regions, 3-4 knights for larger regions and cities, and for badlands 1 knight, or maybe none. If they have less than a full complement, they can still hold onto the region but it won't yield as much food and gold because there are fewer "managers" running the business. In the real world a one-man operation doesn't normally produce as much as a 3-man operation if all other things are equal. Realms will then have to make strategic decisions about whether it's better to hold as many regions as possible, or to consolidate their manpower into fewer regions in order to maximise productivity. Every time they consider taking a new region, they'll have to weigh the cost and benefits.

how game would be hurt if some realms would lose some regions for not having enough knights to support regions? in my opinion there are many, many possibilities for playing game and have fun for everyone other than controlling as many regions as possible

This is why the nobles-to-region ratio tends to move toward 1:1 over time. Extraneous factors can increase the ratio temporarily, but the most stable realms are typically close to 1:1. Fewer knights means more gold for the ruling class, and the ruling class tend to use their gold for things like recruitment centres, militia, workshops, etc. so it's no wonder the biggest most stable realms have the fewest knights.