1
Helpline / Rebellion Fame
« on: March 13, 2013, 12:37:06 AM »
I probably picked a wrong impression about this, but isn't there a fame point for a successful rebellion?
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.
Pages: [1]
2
BM General Discussion / Manually changing realm name
« on: March 12, 2013, 12:21:30 AM »
Greetings all. I have approached Tom with a plea for manually changing a realm name. Since realm names can only be chosen when seceding, it is impossible to change the name after certain interesting in game events happen. Tom has requested a forum topic to be opened in regards to this. I quote: I'm not sure if I've ever done a manual realm rename. I am very, very reluctant to do it. At the very least, I'd like to have a forum topic where more than one voice can be heard.
So, here's a long story short. Few years back a realm named Niselur has been founded on Dwilight. Boreal Arrakis was the founder and the first King of this realm. The realm was short-lived though, for the monsters tore it apart after the King died. Fast forwarding to present: the legacy of Niselur has been resurrected, although under a name of Iashalur and by a different monarch. Now, the heir of King Boreal has returned, and he overthrew the usurper and declared himself a King. But what good is a kingdom that doesn't bear the name of his forefather's legacy?
We have a very unique role-playing setting here: two royal houses that battled for a right to rule. Old royalists of Niselur won, and the heir of the first King has been crowned as King. The lands he now controls are the exact lands Niselur once possessed. I personally feel that there is no great harm to be made in accepting to manually change the name, while it simultaneously it would make a perfect in game sense. I am aware it might become a precedent, however, the reasons for name change are heavily rp-driven and real, in-game history supports this request.
What do you think?
So, here's a long story short. Few years back a realm named Niselur has been founded on Dwilight. Boreal Arrakis was the founder and the first King of this realm. The realm was short-lived though, for the monsters tore it apart after the King died. Fast forwarding to present: the legacy of Niselur has been resurrected, although under a name of Iashalur and by a different monarch. Now, the heir of King Boreal has returned, and he overthrew the usurper and declared himself a King. But what good is a kingdom that doesn't bear the name of his forefather's legacy?
We have a very unique role-playing setting here: two royal houses that battled for a right to rule. Old royalists of Niselur won, and the heir of the first King has been crowned as King. The lands he now controls are the exact lands Niselur once possessed. I personally feel that there is no great harm to be made in accepting to manually change the name, while it simultaneously it would make a perfect in game sense. I am aware it might become a precedent, however, the reasons for name change are heavily rp-driven and real, in-game history supports this request.
What do you think?
3
Questions & Answers / Militia increase in Mt. Black Nastrond
« on: April 18, 2012, 02:21:07 PM »
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but not only that militia wasn't disbanded in Mt. Black Nastrond as was the Magistrates decision, but they just added another unit. The character named Veles Sobczek just put his unit as militia, therefore increasing the total amount. I have two scout reports to prove it.
I mean really...
I mean really...
4
Feature Requests / More options for Guilds
« on: April 12, 2012, 11:06:39 AM »
Title:
More options for Guilds
Summary:
Add more options to existing guild: specialization in either the field of medicine (gives better healers), military field (gives better trained troops) or field of logistics (gives better trained scouts).
Details:
(names are made up and subject to change)
Basically, the region Lords would have an option to improve all guilds in his region by building more facilities within the guildhouse, which would then directly effect the quality of the troops and paraphernalia than can be recruited from that region.
He would need to *choose* the field of specialization and stick to it, no way to turn back once you've chosen, so to speak. Of course, the entire guild should then have a certain roleplay behind it; for example, Warders of the Temple - Military Guild, Order of the Palm - Medicine guild.
Example:
1. Option to build Medicine Hall. This in return produces healers in that region that are more effective in healing wounded troops.
2. Option to build Training Grounds or something. This would then make that regions troops better. I wouldn't meddle with their armor/weapons, but instead a bonus would be something like "every unit recruited from that region starts with better training".
3. Option to build Ranger Facilities. This would then allow the scouts from that region to be much more effective in pathfinding, which would mean you could travel faster - a lot. This could be used well especially on Dwilight.
Benefits:
Guilds have so much room to expand to, so I figure it would be good to provide that room for them. I don't think this sort of feature would harm the balance of the game as they are minor changes, but still changes that would add quite some material to the depth of the game.
Possible Exploits:
None I can think of.
More options for Guilds
Summary:
Add more options to existing guild: specialization in either the field of medicine (gives better healers), military field (gives better trained troops) or field of logistics (gives better trained scouts).
Details:
(names are made up and subject to change)
Basically, the region Lords would have an option to improve all guilds in his region by building more facilities within the guildhouse, which would then directly effect the quality of the troops and paraphernalia than can be recruited from that region.
He would need to *choose* the field of specialization and stick to it, no way to turn back once you've chosen, so to speak. Of course, the entire guild should then have a certain roleplay behind it; for example, Warders of the Temple - Military Guild, Order of the Palm - Medicine guild.
Example:
1. Option to build Medicine Hall. This in return produces healers in that region that are more effective in healing wounded troops.
2. Option to build Training Grounds or something. This would then make that regions troops better. I wouldn't meddle with their armor/weapons, but instead a bonus would be something like "every unit recruited from that region starts with better training".
3. Option to build Ranger Facilities. This would then allow the scouts from that region to be much more effective in pathfinding, which would mean you could travel faster - a lot. This could be used well especially on Dwilight.
Benefits:
Guilds have so much room to expand to, so I figure it would be good to provide that room for them. I don't think this sort of feature would harm the balance of the game as they are minor changes, but still changes that would add quite some material to the depth of the game.
Possible Exploits:
None I can think of.
5
Feature Requests / Add more council positions for military leaders - everyone goes up one spot
« on: April 12, 2012, 10:26:40 AM »
Title:
Add more council positions for military leaders - everyone goes up one spot
Summary:
Marshals become Generals and Generals answer to the King. Generals become a part of the council and are appointed/elected. Every army that exists is lead by a General, and has a second in command (Marshal or w/e name that fits).
Details:
The idea would be to get rid of the "armies are lead by Marshals", and would be replaced by "armies are lead by Generals". Also, we toss the mentality "all Marshals answer to the General" and replace it with "all Generals answer to the King".
Something like this:
Current General becomes the King (not suggesting that the general overthrows the King or something, just that the authority that generals currently have are transferred to the king)
Current Marshal --> General
Current Vice Marshal --> Second in command of every specific army
Simultaneously, the Generals would be added to the council of the realm, which would mean more repute and recognition for this incredibly difficult position to play, but more responsibilities too, as they could be protested out if they don't do their part right.
Benefits:
Adds to the realism I think. From what I know the armies were usually under the direct authority of the King, and although the King could delegate his authority to someone else (the Senate or his most trusted military advisor) what we usually get in BM is the attitude that puts Generals above the Kings in this field. While it is usually understood that the King can overrule his Generals orders, I have often seen mentality that goes like "Zip it, my King! As long as I am the General, I am in charge of the armies!". Under this sort of system it would be perfectly clear to anyone that King is in charge of his armies, and Generals are assigned to lead their specific army, but it would still be possible for the King to delegate his authority over the entire armies should he want that.
Adds more fun and perception of self importance to more players. With this feature we would have more council positions which would mean more players/characters will feel greater accomplishment. More players would now have a greater say in deciding as their titles would be much more grand (no more poor little Marshal running things from the shadows - he would now be a General of the third of the King's armies playing master of puppets).
System like this would really allow the military part of the game to be played like Tom envisioned it: as in, you would have a military figure (the King) who'd be able to give directions (the most basic ones) to his Generals and say "conquer that city for me!", and the General would go and do it. Currently, the guy that does that is the General which makes his position rather easy to play and very few actually play Generals like that. They usually go around and micromanage.
I don't think it should be too hard to make these changes 'cause they are more cosmetic rather than fundamental.
Possible Exploits:
Don't know what to do with the "current Generals" if this is accepted. They will probably always lose as the best deal they can get is to lead an army and that's it. They can't go up in the hierarchy, but only remain where they are and have less power as they lose their ability to order all armies.
The sponsors position is also questionable as if there is a council position for the above mentioned feature then the sponsors probably don't get to choose who leads their armies. But hey, it's not like the sponsors really care who leads their armies right now anyway.
While this would give even more power to the ruler (which may not be a good thing, although it would be realistic) it may also free up some space for diplomats to fit into their role. The ruler would not be able to do diplomacy *and* direct the armies due to the time constraints, so he would have to give more power to others. If you play a warlike King he would want to have his hands on the military, and would then delegate his diplomacy authorities more to the diplomats (i've rarely seen diplomats being that important as they should). If you play a King who is a perfect politician then you choose your favorite General to lead all your armies and sit back to enjoy seeing him devour your enemies.
Add more council positions for military leaders - everyone goes up one spot
Summary:
Marshals become Generals and Generals answer to the King. Generals become a part of the council and are appointed/elected. Every army that exists is lead by a General, and has a second in command (Marshal or w/e name that fits).
Details:
The idea would be to get rid of the "armies are lead by Marshals", and would be replaced by "armies are lead by Generals". Also, we toss the mentality "all Marshals answer to the General" and replace it with "all Generals answer to the King".
Something like this:
Current General becomes the King (not suggesting that the general overthrows the King or something, just that the authority that generals currently have are transferred to the king)
Current Marshal --> General
Current Vice Marshal --> Second in command of every specific army
Simultaneously, the Generals would be added to the council of the realm, which would mean more repute and recognition for this incredibly difficult position to play, but more responsibilities too, as they could be protested out if they don't do their part right.
Benefits:
Adds to the realism I think. From what I know the armies were usually under the direct authority of the King, and although the King could delegate his authority to someone else (the Senate or his most trusted military advisor) what we usually get in BM is the attitude that puts Generals above the Kings in this field. While it is usually understood that the King can overrule his Generals orders, I have often seen mentality that goes like "Zip it, my King! As long as I am the General, I am in charge of the armies!". Under this sort of system it would be perfectly clear to anyone that King is in charge of his armies, and Generals are assigned to lead their specific army, but it would still be possible for the King to delegate his authority over the entire armies should he want that.
Adds more fun and perception of self importance to more players. With this feature we would have more council positions which would mean more players/characters will feel greater accomplishment. More players would now have a greater say in deciding as their titles would be much more grand (no more poor little Marshal running things from the shadows - he would now be a General of the third of the King's armies playing master of puppets).
System like this would really allow the military part of the game to be played like Tom envisioned it: as in, you would have a military figure (the King) who'd be able to give directions (the most basic ones) to his Generals and say "conquer that city for me!", and the General would go and do it. Currently, the guy that does that is the General which makes his position rather easy to play and very few actually play Generals like that. They usually go around and micromanage.
I don't think it should be too hard to make these changes 'cause they are more cosmetic rather than fundamental.
Possible Exploits:
Don't know what to do with the "current Generals" if this is accepted. They will probably always lose as the best deal they can get is to lead an army and that's it. They can't go up in the hierarchy, but only remain where they are and have less power as they lose their ability to order all armies.
The sponsors position is also questionable as if there is a council position for the above mentioned feature then the sponsors probably don't get to choose who leads their armies. But hey, it's not like the sponsors really care who leads their armies right now anyway.
While this would give even more power to the ruler (which may not be a good thing, although it would be realistic) it may also free up some space for diplomats to fit into their role. The ruler would not be able to do diplomacy *and* direct the armies due to the time constraints, so he would have to give more power to others. If you play a warlike King he would want to have his hands on the military, and would then delegate his diplomacy authorities more to the diplomats (i've rarely seen diplomats being that important as they should). If you play a King who is a perfect politician then you choose your favorite General to lead all your armies and sit back to enjoy seeing him devour your enemies.
6
Development / Realm Ratings
« on: March 25, 2012, 02:03:31 PM »
How acceptable would be the idea for players to start rating realms? It would be an OOC rating of course, which should include:
1. How active the community of players is in that realm. This can generally be rated based on the amount of letters that go around.
2. Roleplaying rating (a realm with too much OOC letters, and mixing of OOC with IC wouldn't get a decent rating here).
3. How fun the realm is. This depends on IC factors (wars etc etc).
Not sure whether the player would be required to answer all three of these questions, or just one which would be simple "How would you rate this realm"?
Such a system would give better guidance to people joining new realms, and would sort of rewards those realms that play properly and are trying hard to make players have fun as I assume a good rating would attract more players to such realms.
1. How active the community of players is in that realm. This can generally be rated based on the amount of letters that go around.
2. Roleplaying rating (a realm with too much OOC letters, and mixing of OOC with IC wouldn't get a decent rating here).
3. How fun the realm is. This depends on IC factors (wars etc etc).
Not sure whether the player would be required to answer all three of these questions, or just one which would be simple "How would you rate this realm"?
Such a system would give better guidance to people joining new realms, and would sort of rewards those realms that play properly and are trying hard to make players have fun as I assume a good rating would attract more players to such realms.
7
East Island / Demigods in Ibladesh
« on: August 08, 2011, 12:25:42 AM »
Wouldn't that be cool...real characters embodying the virtues of the gods. 
8
Dwilight / Lurian Empire
« on: August 03, 2011, 02:11:52 PM »
This topic is mostly for those who play in either Pian en Luries or Luria Nova, although anyone is more than welcome to comment.
Us who play there know that there is a third realm in plans (Shinnen), which would then mean that there will be 3 realms that are very closely culturally tied to each other. Those realms would then be allied or federated, and thusly form the Lurian Empire (at least that's how I understood it). I would like to say that at first I was against this idea, but the more I think of it the more I am liking it. So, this post is mostly about trying to explore that idea.
So at first point we would have a set of 3 realms that should work as one. That means we would have 3 different Kings. As every King probably thinks he is the smartest one, the need to pick a King above Kings (in this case: an Emperor) is naturally asked; someone who would be 'in charge' of this set of realms. I am against voting method for this opportunity, and since Lurian culture is proud of its martial skills and boast to be great warriors, the best way (and a very cool way) in my opinion would be to choose the Emperor via tournaments, who would then rule the Empire for a set period of time (say 3 months). Basically, a King would need to choose the best fighter among his nobles, a champion, who would then fight for his kingdoms right to rule an Empire, on a tournament. Of course, a specifically Lurian tournament would need to be held for this opportunity, which would then need to be organized every 3 months in any of Lurian cities, and I would personally name such an event "Lurian Royal Games", which would eventually become a popular thing.
Can you imagine the list of opportunities a good swordmaster would have in that kind of culture? Every King would push to train one noble of his choice in the academy for the Lurian Royal Games, as investing gold in him would allow him to become an Emperor. Such a swordmaster could truly become a valuable asset for his realm, which in a way opens a completely new position in a realm for simple nobles that are outside of the government (since council members can't tourney; very fitting game mechanic for this situation
). He could then ask a region for his skills, or what not. It would add a lot of depth for courtly intrigues. Having that Path of the Sword guild also fits nicely with this idea. I assume there would be more nobles who would then wanna spend their goldies in the academy, which is more realistic if you ask me. Usually the majority of nobles spend their money on units and stuff, while only infils really train in the academy. I assume that every medieval noble would wanna be a good and renowned fighter in one on one.
In a way, this entire Empire idea is similar to that what SA is. They're a set of realms bonded by religion, why Lurian Empire would be a set of realms bonded by the same culture and a way of thinking. SA realms are communicating via religious message groups, but we don't have that, so the need for the usage of guilds is pretty obvious. Since we already have the "Halls of Luria" guild I find that to be a perfect channel where nobles across Lurian Empire could communicate. In general, if you want a set of realms to work as one, you would need several guilds, which I like cause it adds to the depth of medieval simulation.
Another thought to make Lurian Empire unique is to have every King change his title to "Lurian King". So you would have say, Malus Solari, Lurian King of Pian en Luries, and Amaury Capet, Lurian King of Luria Nova. This would really be just something for realms of the empire to be more distinctive in the white word. Eventually, when a King becomes an Emperor, he could literally change his title to "Emperor", I guess.
I really see this as a great chance to have something greater than just "a good, effective or what not" realm(s); something to make a very different BM experience. A LOT would depend on players and how they would roleplay it out. Since Dwilight is an SMA island I think the idea is even more attractive and ambitious in the same time.
Any feedback or new ideas would be very welcome.
Us who play there know that there is a third realm in plans (Shinnen), which would then mean that there will be 3 realms that are very closely culturally tied to each other. Those realms would then be allied or federated, and thusly form the Lurian Empire (at least that's how I understood it). I would like to say that at first I was against this idea, but the more I think of it the more I am liking it. So, this post is mostly about trying to explore that idea.
So at first point we would have a set of 3 realms that should work as one. That means we would have 3 different Kings. As every King probably thinks he is the smartest one, the need to pick a King above Kings (in this case: an Emperor) is naturally asked; someone who would be 'in charge' of this set of realms. I am against voting method for this opportunity, and since Lurian culture is proud of its martial skills and boast to be great warriors, the best way (and a very cool way) in my opinion would be to choose the Emperor via tournaments, who would then rule the Empire for a set period of time (say 3 months). Basically, a King would need to choose the best fighter among his nobles, a champion, who would then fight for his kingdoms right to rule an Empire, on a tournament. Of course, a specifically Lurian tournament would need to be held for this opportunity, which would then need to be organized every 3 months in any of Lurian cities, and I would personally name such an event "Lurian Royal Games", which would eventually become a popular thing.
Can you imagine the list of opportunities a good swordmaster would have in that kind of culture? Every King would push to train one noble of his choice in the academy for the Lurian Royal Games, as investing gold in him would allow him to become an Emperor. Such a swordmaster could truly become a valuable asset for his realm, which in a way opens a completely new position in a realm for simple nobles that are outside of the government (since council members can't tourney; very fitting game mechanic for this situation
). He could then ask a region for his skills, or what not. It would add a lot of depth for courtly intrigues. Having that Path of the Sword guild also fits nicely with this idea. I assume there would be more nobles who would then wanna spend their goldies in the academy, which is more realistic if you ask me. Usually the majority of nobles spend their money on units and stuff, while only infils really train in the academy. I assume that every medieval noble would wanna be a good and renowned fighter in one on one.In a way, this entire Empire idea is similar to that what SA is. They're a set of realms bonded by religion, why Lurian Empire would be a set of realms bonded by the same culture and a way of thinking. SA realms are communicating via religious message groups, but we don't have that, so the need for the usage of guilds is pretty obvious. Since we already have the "Halls of Luria" guild I find that to be a perfect channel where nobles across Lurian Empire could communicate. In general, if you want a set of realms to work as one, you would need several guilds, which I like cause it adds to the depth of medieval simulation.
Another thought to make Lurian Empire unique is to have every King change his title to "Lurian King". So you would have say, Malus Solari, Lurian King of Pian en Luries, and Amaury Capet, Lurian King of Luria Nova. This would really be just something for realms of the empire to be more distinctive in the white word. Eventually, when a King becomes an Emperor, he could literally change his title to "Emperor", I guess.
I really see this as a great chance to have something greater than just "a good, effective or what not" realm(s); something to make a very different BM experience. A LOT would depend on players and how they would roleplay it out. Since Dwilight is an SMA island I think the idea is even more attractive and ambitious in the same time.
Any feedback or new ideas would be very welcome.
Pages: [1]