1
BM General Discussion / Re: The Humanity
« on: March 28, 2014, 08:58:09 PM »And this is just a game.
Like I said, it's a metaphor.
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.
Like I said, it's a metaphor.
2
BM General Discussion / Re: The Humanity
« on: March 26, 2014, 02:06:31 AM »Replace amputation with haircut. Problem solved.
A haircut is a purely superficial issue, so the metaphor doesn't carry over. We're talking about the health of the game, not it's personal styling decisions.
But yeah, I do get the logic of it: measure twice, cut once, and all.
3
BM General Discussion / Re: The Humanity
« on: March 25, 2014, 08:48:43 PM »The advantage of erring on this side is that if you're right and we are wrong, we can cut off more. If we were to err on the other side and it turns out we are right and you are wrong, we can't put back what we've cut off.
That is not how an amputation works. At least not in a hospital with mentally stable doctors who went to med school.
4
BM General Discussion / Re: Atanamir's grievances
« on: March 25, 2014, 01:35:35 AM »
Well, what did you guys expect from Atanamir? I mean, the rebalance basically pissed EVERYONE off, so it's no stretch of the imagination that Atanamir would go a little more nuts than usual.
Sheesh, develop a thicker skin and don't waste the time arguing with him.
Blatantly insulting material removed.
Sheesh, develop a thicker skin and don't waste the time arguing with him.
Blatantly insulting material removed.
5
BM General Discussion / Re: The Humanity
« on: March 03, 2014, 10:17:46 PM »
Right, I believe I made the exact same amputation analogy in the main thread, only my opinion is that you didn't cut off enough.
6
BM General Discussion / The Humanity
« on: March 03, 2014, 03:45:21 AM »
Since the freezing events have begun, there has been a deluge of discussion and argumentation over the merits of the events, the motivations behind them, and what effects the changes will have on the game as we know it.
Thesis: The most pertinent problems Battlemaster is having stem from an identity crisis: namely, that it has lost some of its humanity.
What do I mean when I say 'Battlemaster'? Do I mean, the players, or the devs, or Tom, or the game itself (even though it is not a living being)? Well, this being a social game, I mean the people. All of the people, including me. Because that's what it is: it is people interacting with people, and through the dehumanizing buffer of the internet, it is easy to forget that. It is easy to treat people as just facets of the game, but they aren't.
I have spoken often about the fact that players don't all play for the same reasons, and that that should be tolerated (even powergaming). I think this is a central part of the problem: you play the game a certain way, for a certain reason, and invest a certain amount of time and emotional stake in it, and then assume that everyone else plays it the same way. But that is a logical assumption- you never see the other players or devs, and, unless some of you know each other IRL, you never meet them, interact with them; you have no stake in their existence whatsoever. Therefore, we need to remind ourselves often that everything in this game happens because of your humanity; our differences and similarities, our virtues and flaws are all expressed in a sum total of worldbuilding.
Tom said something I found really interesting (and which obviously sparked a lot of comments from other players):
What's interesting to me here is that Tom seems to be assuming that there is no real life component to Battlemaster. No, I don't mean to say the game is "real" in any way, but that the players are real people that make decisions to play the game a certain way. People will play the game the way they want to play it- I'm not saying it's good or bad, or even that I understand it, but it is, by definition, human. And that is pretty real to me.
To sum it up:
-the devs seem to have forgotten that the players are humans, and rolled out a fixer event that, while it may be mathematically and technically sound, is demoralizing and psychologically jarring to players.
-the players seem to have forgotten that the devs are humans, and that any "fix" they come up with will not be anywhere near perfect. A lot of players were expecting some kind of neat, tidy solution that would be fine with everyone. But development is not part of the program; it's not going to compile in the most efficient way possible, because it's people. People making a guess at what will be best, and then having the balls to go for it.
I've given my reasons why I don't agree with the way this was done, but I'm still glad they did it. Now we all just need to remember that we're humans, and that the game is about humanity, and that it will succeed or fail depending on that principle.
Thesis: The most pertinent problems Battlemaster is having stem from an identity crisis: namely, that it has lost some of its humanity.
What do I mean when I say 'Battlemaster'? Do I mean, the players, or the devs, or Tom, or the game itself (even though it is not a living being)? Well, this being a social game, I mean the people. All of the people, including me. Because that's what it is: it is people interacting with people, and through the dehumanizing buffer of the internet, it is easy to forget that. It is easy to treat people as just facets of the game, but they aren't.
I have spoken often about the fact that players don't all play for the same reasons, and that that should be tolerated (even powergaming). I think this is a central part of the problem: you play the game a certain way, for a certain reason, and invest a certain amount of time and emotional stake in it, and then assume that everyone else plays it the same way. But that is a logical assumption- you never see the other players or devs, and, unless some of you know each other IRL, you never meet them, interact with them; you have no stake in their existence whatsoever. Therefore, we need to remind ourselves often that everything in this game happens because of your humanity; our differences and similarities, our virtues and flaws are all expressed in a sum total of worldbuilding.
Tom said something I found really interesting (and which obviously sparked a lot of comments from other players):
Quote
This is the part of the community I don't get. As soon as something - anything - happens, everything suddenly becomes all peacenik. Why? Why stop fighting and do some peaceful migration? Why not throw everything at them now that you have nothing to lose?
This is the one area where BM could never match real life. In real life, when the going gets tough, people get more aggressive, not less.
What's interesting to me here is that Tom seems to be assuming that there is no real life component to Battlemaster. No, I don't mean to say the game is "real" in any way, but that the players are real people that make decisions to play the game a certain way. People will play the game the way they want to play it- I'm not saying it's good or bad, or even that I understand it, but it is, by definition, human. And that is pretty real to me.
To sum it up:
-the devs seem to have forgotten that the players are humans, and rolled out a fixer event that, while it may be mathematically and technically sound, is demoralizing and psychologically jarring to players.
-the players seem to have forgotten that the devs are humans, and that any "fix" they come up with will not be anywhere near perfect. A lot of players were expecting some kind of neat, tidy solution that would be fine with everyone. But development is not part of the program; it's not going to compile in the most efficient way possible, because it's people. People making a guess at what will be best, and then having the balls to go for it.
I've given my reasons why I don't agree with the way this was done, but I'm still glad they did it. Now we all just need to remember that we're humans, and that the game is about humanity, and that it will succeed or fail depending on that principle.
7
BM General Discussion / Re: T Minus 28 Days
« on: March 03, 2014, 12:14:20 AM »I am 100% certain that this is false.
If we closed an entire island, many people whose "main" characters are on that island would quit the game. Not only would everything they have worked for be destroyed, there wouldn't even be an island around anymore to remember it by, or a chance of getting it back.
Closing an entire island doesn't give us the freedom to open it up again until and unless we see a huge boost in player numbers.
Glaciating parts of several islands lets us monitor the player density numbers on those islands, and if one of them gets above certain thresholds and remains there for a while, we can begin moving the glaciers back. Land can be returned bit by bit, rather than all or nothing.
You talk as if closing an island would have had people saying, "Well, gosh darn it, I lost everything that made BattleMaster fun for me—but so did my character's enemies, so I guess it's OK! I'll keep playing!" That's obviously unrealistic. I am still convinced that we made the right call by not closing any of our continents, and doing this instead.
Again: There was absolutely no solution to the problems at hand that could be implemented without pissing anybody off.
I cannot help but disagree entirely (except with the last part; you're right- there was no perfect way to do this).
The entire idea of sinking a whole island comes with the obvious caveat that you would tell people which one it is, so they can emigrate if they so choose, thus bolstering the numbers on other islands and allowing players to bring with them their own personal history; the tales of a lost world, etc. I know it's more fun to be secretive and mysterious about these things, but at some point pragmatism has to play a role. If players can simply move their favorite characters, your entire dilemma is avoided.
And I think you're overplaying that dilemma, by the way: for the most part, players tend to spread over multiple islands. I have seen very few family pages where all the characters inhabit a single continent. I don't think people would quit as long as a thorough explanation is given as to why the island was sunk (just tack it right up there above the player's Family in big, yellow letters). That doesn't leave any room to interpret favoritism on the part of the devs, whereas now we are all left to deviously speculate behind your backs.
Yes, people would be pissed, but it's a different kind of pissed. Picture two companies: one is destroyed by a natural disaster, and the other one is destroyed by an inept CFO: either way, the employees are going to be pissed, but at least with a natural disaster there is no one to be angry at. Eventually you just accept your fate and find a new job, instead of going all mental, tracking down that inept CFO, and force-feeding him a tire-iron.
Removing certain parts of certain islands appears to show favoritism, and that does a lot more damage to the players' trust than the original idea of just sinking an island. When people do not feel they are being treated fair, they tend to fight back. If you've had an opportunity to read Malcolm Gladwell's latest, "David and Goliath", you'll know what I'm talking about, and how huge the difference is, sociologically speaking.
Also, hoping that the player base expands back up to levels where islands can be re-opened is unrealistic (in my opinion, at least). With the remarkable advances in gaming graphics coupled with the exponentially expanding field of free-to-play online games, text-only games like Battlemaster will slowly continue to dwindle as game-seeking youth gravitates more and more toward the "modern" gaming experience. It's an uncomfortable inevitability. I don't even like saying it. You're hoping we can save the limb, when we clearly need to amputate.
Anyway, I've always been skeptical of "middle-ground" solutions, especially when it comes to conflict resolution, which is my forte. You would think that compromise would be the best solution for most interpersonal conflicts, but the reality is that everyone just feels like the losing party, and resentment builds, which creates more problems than you had in the first place. That's just humanity, I guess.
8
BM General Discussion / Re: T Minus 28 Days
« on: March 02, 2014, 11:14:33 PM »Speaking from the perspective of a player who has all his characters affected, I think considering the circumstances the devs made the right decision. I see in most affected people a short-sightedness and a selfishness that quite surprised me. Whatever island that'd be sunk, there'd always be a lot of angry people. Even those players I talked about the devs decisions of this I found red-handed on saying 'sink any island but mine' in one way or another.
Remember that in a good compromise noone is happy. Instead of nuking a single continent and erasing a giant chunk of history and culture and whatnot created on that continent, the devs decided to let some 'natural disasters' strike every continent. This way you are allowed to RP it out and still keep your continet's history. Entire realms being wiped because of it is true, but that happened in history too.
Now, imagine that in the real world this would be happening and you'd be forced to move or die. What would you do? What would your characters do? Just erase the devs from this image, and use that in thegame to write and play your characters through this time.
Thumbs up for the devs.
I have mixed feelings about this perspective, so I'm going to give my rebuttal to this:
Yes, we would all like to believe that all everyone wants is a game filled with rich roleplay, politics and cultural intrigue, and let the dice fall where they may. But on the other hand, we are humans, and humans usually like to succeed at things. They also usually dislike failing. Not everyone plays for the same reasons, and when your developing a game you have to take into account the fact that humanity is a vast kaleidoscope of personalities, all with a myriad of differing goals and complex desires.
You can't choose the type of people that play the game, or there wouldn't be a game at all. I think it is a bit arrogant to pretend that everyone in the game is a perfectly virtuous player with only good intentions, who are all playing the game "the right way". There is no wrong way to play the game (unless you're cheating). If a player truly has a stake in their character's success or failure, it is a sign that the game was well craft, and shouldn't be held against them. That's just a natural part of humanity. It's like veganism: perfectly fine if someone wants to take an ethical approach to their eating habits, but completely inappropriate to try and force them on others. You just can't ignore the human element.
But I think the biggest problem is that this idea seems too unfair. They were talking about sinking an entire island, but instead they went for the middle ground, which was what I was afraid of. If they had done away with a whole island, no one would end up with an advantage or disadvantage. Yes, some people would be angry, but not enough to want to quit, because if their island sinks, all their enemies sink with it, so no one "wins" due to dumb luck. It's all about perceived fairness.
And by the way, this also isn't really fair to the "winners"- the people who just happen come out on top due to these new circumstances. For instance, I have a character on Far East Island who benefits IMMENSELY from the ice age in the South. This character has been working for years to fight against his enemies down in Kindara, and now I don't even feel like playing this character because the game is making his job too easy. I feel like all the hard work I put into fighting the war was a complete waste of time. I could have just as easily got drunk and watched Monty Python. Hell, I wish I had. It's like if you spent a year working on a project for work, only to have the company decide to scrap the project in favor of contracting it out to someone else. It's like "Sure, I'm still getting paid, and the project is still getting done, but now I have nothing to be proud of". You can't be proud of a victory you didn't earn.
Finally, the fact that this is an event that is happening over time is possibly the worst decision of the entire process. Players are going to be stuck in limbo wondering when the laws of reality are going to return, so they can continue to play on an even field. It would have been much better to enact the changes all at once, like ripping off a band-aid. Slow = excruciating.
Something needed to be done, and so they did something. At least we can say that. I think it is worth mentioning that the dev team are unpaid volunteer hobbyists, as opposed to a team of paid, trained professionals with a 40-hour work week. And for what it's worth, this event is both more interesting and (relatively) more realistic that just simply sinking an entire island.
I think the devs did the best they could, and even if every decision they made was wrong we need to give it a chance.
9
BM General Discussion / Re: "today we fight back" banner
« on: February 24, 2014, 12:05:29 AM »
Wait- that thing was sanctioned for use on the BM site? I went totally nuts going through all my antivirus software trying to figure out what got turned off! That was seriously freaking me out!
That being said, way to go standing up for internet privacy (even if it is a hopelessly idealistic cause).
That being said, way to go standing up for internet privacy (even if it is a hopelessly idealistic cause).
11
Feature Requests / Re: Declare "Enemy of the Realm"
« on: January 30, 2014, 03:56:34 AM »
My intent here is just to brainstorm and see what sticks. Really, I just feel its a missing component of international relations- there should be a way for a ruler/government to say "We don't like this person. They cannot seek refuge in our lands."
12
Feature Requests / Declare "Enemy of the Realm"
« on: January 24, 2014, 01:55:27 AM »
The idea is simple enough: grant either the Ruler or Judge the ability to name a foreign Noble as an "Enemy of the Realm", and therefore prevent them from joining said realm. Instead of having to ban Nobles that join the realms of their enemies with malicious purpose, it would prevent them from doing so at all.
A few possible caveats that would make it interesting:
-Could only be done once per day (every two turns), or have some time-based restriction.
-The Noble invoking the ban loses points of honor and/or prestige by doing so. The higher the honor and/or prestige of the Noble being declared as an enemy, the greater the loss on the Ruler/Judge who does so.
-Could only be done against Nobles of foreign realms that are 'Peace' or lower in diplomacy, or some other diplomacy-based restriction.
-Could not be done against Diplomats.
A few possible caveats that would make it interesting:
-Could only be done once per day (every two turns), or have some time-based restriction.
-The Noble invoking the ban loses points of honor and/or prestige by doing so. The higher the honor and/or prestige of the Noble being declared as an enemy, the greater the loss on the Ruler/Judge who does so.
-Could only be done against Nobles of foreign realms that are 'Peace' or lower in diplomacy, or some other diplomacy-based restriction.
-Could not be done against Diplomats.
13
BM General Discussion / Re: Intercontinental commerce, is this allowed?
« on: January 11, 2014, 07:02:25 AM »
Having done a lot of emigrating, I can say it would be cost-prohibitive. Which is unfortunate, because this is a really great idea.
I wish there was at least some form of intercontinental exchange in BM. And you'd think there would be, considering that you have some Noble families spread over multiple continents.
I wish there was at least some form of intercontinental exchange in BM. And you'd think there would be, considering that you have some Noble families spread over multiple continents.
14
BM General Discussion / Re: Wounds worsening or mechanics harassing players.
« on: January 11, 2014, 06:57:05 AM »
I think it's an attempt at some level of realism. I mean, realistically speaking, even a healthy, young human being suffering a wound could be put out of commission for months or years, or suffer from permanent injury. You never hear about Nobles losing limbs. In most respects, characters in BM have it comparatively easy, except when it comes to the slow torment of worsening wounds.
That being said, I've always thought that mortality in this game was not common enough, and that time spent suffering wounds was too common. Wounds just become an annoyance; death has actual meaning. It's hard to argue about whether or not one is brave when the stakes are so low.
I say, more death, less injury. Especially from assassins. I don't think I've ever seen an actual successful assassination attempt in the entire game. I'd prefer not to imagine a fantasy world where every assassin is spectacularly incompetent.
That being said, I've always thought that mortality in this game was not common enough, and that time spent suffering wounds was too common. Wounds just become an annoyance; death has actual meaning. It's hard to argue about whether or not one is brave when the stakes are so low.
I say, more death, less injury. Especially from assassins. I don't think I've ever seen an actual successful assassination attempt in the entire game. I'd prefer not to imagine a fantasy world where every assassin is spectacularly incompetent.
15
Feature Requests / Re: Naming schemes for armies
« on: January 10, 2014, 03:45:38 AM »What about real life military symbols. Star for a general, Chevron with one bar for a Marshal, Chevron with no bar for a vice Marshal.
Also the message section could be made to clear it up. When you're in an army instead of saying "Marshal of Army X" it could say "Your Commanding Officer", just like for lords it says "your liege".
As much as I love that idea, you have to remember that this isn't a modern military. It's a collection of landed nobles who hire their own private armies. It's up to the characters to bring any sense uniformity on themselves- its part of the challenge of working with others.