Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Medron Pryde

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
Interesting.  So not quite the bug I thought it was.

I myself have never seen it, and it was still amazing to play through it.

The look of consternation on some of the players' faces as they realized that yes we did actually still have a capital was a wonder to behold.  It just wasn't in our realm.  It's one of those leaps of logic that make brains crack.  And was honestly one of the more funny things to see as we went through that.

BM General Discussion / Re: Discussion on Monsters
« on: Today at 08:28:15 AM »
East Continent is the only one doing PVP right now that I know of.

Though I don't have anyone in the Far East.  I couldn't maintain interest at only one turn per day.  I'd forget to check it and just...finally walked away rather than let down the nation I was in.

BT and Dwilight are currently only doing monster fighting because of the new code, with no opportunity to fight each other.

East Island / Re: Magical Events in Bescanon & Surrounding Regions
« on: Yesterday at 04:43:17 PM »
My assumption of a "bug" would more properly stated as "not anticipated."

It is impossible for a capital city to leave a realm.  And in the past, the duchy and city were the same.

It used to be that putting a fractious duke in charge of the capital duchy was the safest choice you could make because they literally could not defect.  It anchored them to the realm with their only way to leave being to resign first.

We now have duchies separate from cities, and in this case the duchy left, taking the capital with it.

This was simply not anticipated in the original code so the game never thought to strip "capital" status from the city.  And it never thought to stop the secession of the capital city because it was the DUCHY leaving...that happened to have the capital in it.

We would have had to purposefully change it because the game did not do it.  It is an interesting shift in what is possible and how things go when certain small changes result in shifts that nobody expected.

BM General Discussion / Re: Discussion on Monsters
« on: Yesterday at 04:35:19 PM »
Dwilight was the roleplaying island.

East Island / Re: Magical Events in Bescanon & Surrounding Regions
« on: July 18, 2018, 12:53:06 PM »
It's one of those very ironic things.

Perdan City was the capital of Perdan.

When the former Perdan king took Perdan Duchy out of Perdan, Perdan City remained the capital of Perdan even though it was in Vix.

And when the Vix leader took Perdan City to Highmarch, Perdan City was still the capital of Perdan.  Even though it was in Highmarch.

Seriously.  No joke.  If you looked at the realm summary, the capital was still Perdan City.

So for a month or two, Perdan was unable to recruit any soldiers since the only place you can do that is in the capital.  But since the capital was not in the realm, we couldn't recruit there.

So after Chenier lost the vote to keep Perdan City in Highmarch and the new lord of Perdan City brought it back to Perdan, we did not need to change the capital back to Perdan City.  Because we had never changed it AWAY from Perdan City.

I honestly don't know how the game's code kept all of that straight, and I'm figuring there was probably a bug in there somewhere, but that's how it worked out.  It was a rather mind altering experience to see from the inside, let me tell you.

East Island / Re: Highmarch's Betrayal ---- What next???
« on: July 18, 2018, 12:43:21 PM »
Chenier had always been...iffy on the alliance with Vix in my memory.  I remember multiple times when he pushed "issues" with working with the Vix and tried to get us riled up against them.  Those of us who came from Oligarch and Xavax were...shall we say...strong in our wishes to work with the Vix.

When Perdan's royalty had "problems" and the realm began to collapse, the former Oligarchians and Xavax who helped the South moved to shore up Perdan so it wouldn't fall.

With us no longer pushing to stay loyal to the South, Chenier had some of the remaining Highmarchians banished and then managed to score a majority of those remaining to decide to abandon the alliance with Vix and look to the North for aid.

They refused to send representatives to the Southern Council which was organizing to seek peace with the North, negotiated their own separate individual peace with the North in secret, and then announced they were abandoning the South.

So they were kicked out of the Southern Coalition and are now fighting with the North.  After MORE Highmarchians left for various Southern realms.

This is of course from the perspective of an Oligarchian who is rather devoted to the idea of fighting the Elven Masters of Sirion.  ;)

Feature Requests / Re: Unit Disipline
« on: July 16, 2018, 08:54:56 PM »
I actually think something like this could work with the existing stats we have right now.

Training and Cohesion.

Imagine a unit with low cohesion and low training would be more...ahem...wanton in their walking around a region.

As training and cohesion increases, their chances of randomly doing this go down until a 100% on both would make them generally unwilling to do it without orders.

Then maybe have the chances go up and down based on the allegiance of the region they are in.  They would be least likely to do it in a region of your own duchy.  A bit more likely to do it in another duchy of your realm.  It would be more pronounced in foreign regions.  Less pronounced in federated regions.  A little more in allied regions.  More in peaceful, or neutral regions.  And they'd be downright enthusiastic in their attempts to find fun and sun in regions they are at war with.

What might be even MORE interesting would be to modify all the current "looting" reports so they only happen during turn change.  Handle them like "hunting" commands, where you can command them anytime during the turn, and then they activate during the turn change.  That way every looter in the region gets a chance to get a little bit out of the region rather than having a militia form and stop them from trying part way through the turn.  AND it would mask whether or not the looting was done via orders or this random mechanic based on troop discipline.

A player could send his unit out to loot a region and then claim "I didn't order them.  They did it on their own.  I will surely discipline them."  And nobody could tell for certain.  It would make for an interesting complication to gameplay.


BM General Discussion / Re: I think he's gonna make it...
« on: July 16, 2018, 08:41:13 PM »
He's only mostly dead...


BM General Discussion / Re: Discussion on Monsters
« on: July 16, 2018, 08:40:17 PM »
That was the feeling I had as well.

But I still really like the idea.  ;)

BM General Discussion / Re: Discussion on Monsters
« on: July 14, 2018, 11:25:43 AM »
My idea of making takeovers take longer and having regions lose control and go rogue easier was based on the idea that this is a game where lords and nobles are supposed to be powerful.

And visible.  If there are too few nobles in a realm, compared to its size, the realm simply would not look "good" to the peasants.  They would resist being part of the realm.

That might encourage players to band together to make stronger realms.  Or it might not.  Players are notoriously unwilling to give up their small kingdoms and kingships for the greater good.  ;)

I do love Chenier's idea of the Imperial or Protectorate regions.  To make that work, I would suggest that when a region is taken over it become an Imperial region rather than joining a duchy.  And if a region loses its lord and is not given a new lord within...say...a become an Imperial region by default.  The ruler should have the right to hand those out to nobles if he wants, or to keep them as Imperial regions.

I honestly don't know how that would work with the idea of trying to concentrate nobles in a smaller number of closer realms, but I love the idea and think it would be awesome.

BM General Discussion / Re: Discussion on Monsters
« on: July 11, 2018, 05:21:44 PM »
I like the idea.

Though maybe instead of making it a really hard "can't TO" thing, maybe we could make some kind of "resist TO" code where nations with a low Noble to land ratio would just find it harder to TO a region.  Say either the TO options don't do as much, or that there is a "TO LOSS" rating running at each turn change with a higher loss for low density realms.  Would that be easy to code?

Another idea would be to have an increased loss of region control for low density realms with the loss increasing drastically the farther the region is away from the capital.

Basically between the two it would drastically increase the regions that go rogue while making it harder to TO until the noble to region density increases to the target amount you wish to promote.

That would be a code that, once implemented, would be self regulating to the level you want it to be.  You would never have to change it manually, once the bugs are worked out of it of course.  ;)

Because we can only have one noble on an island now...and if we already have a noble on the island, we're going to have to pause one of them immediately after doing this.


BM General Discussion / Re: Discussion on Monsters
« on: June 29, 2018, 05:36:02 AM »
That's a very true issue right there.

This game was designed back when people could run two characters on a continent, and that loss has greatly reduced the numbers of characters available.

Especially when combined with the reduction in players over the years.

Even sinking islands has only masked the dropping population.

That doesn't mean I think the right answer to the issue is what is happening now.  There have been some interesting ideas that would be cool.  What is happening now is not one of them.  Or so it appears.

Now Dwilight had an interesting idea where the West Continent was overrrun.  I didn't live through it, and have heard horror stories of what it was like, especially since the devs didn't say what they were doing until after the fact, but I think it was a very good idea.  Pick an area and say "here there be monsters.  don't go there."  It forced the human realms to contract into a tighter area to survive.

Perhaps something like that is called for on BT.

BM General Discussion / Re: Discussion on Monsters
« on: June 28, 2018, 07:48:59 AM »
Let's put it this way.

I joined this game to play war against other thinking foes.  AKA people.  It's called BattleMaster for a reason.

Losing realms to monster swarms and droughts is not the kind of AccountingMaster I enjoy playing.

If you want BT to be an interesting game to play, let us get back to our inter-realm politicking and the wars that were just starting to build after the recovering from the last invasion.

BM General Discussion / Re: Discussion on Monsters
« on: June 26, 2018, 09:03:42 AM »
I prefer realms die due to the actions of players.

It makes for far more interesting stories than "death by monster swarms."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11