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.

Topics - Chenier

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
East Island / The Bloody Battle of Evora
« on: February 23, 2018, 04:19:16 AM »
Lady Svetlana Gildre, Duchess of House Highmarch has been wounded by Crimson Blades (15).
Lilith Vermiculus, Dame of Commonyr has been wounded by Dark rain (58).
Feldric II Selemnir, Baron of Gadlock has been wounded by Aephoran Elites (49).
Maximus Arcturius, Knight of Domus has been wounded by Ghosts of Abington (20).
Sandra Jimenez, Duchess of Eleador, Margravine of Ashforth has been wounded by Archival Arrows (52).
Eliza Arial, Dame of Krimml has been wounded by Amphisbaena's Wrath (50).
Flavia Arindal, Margravine of Montijo has been wounded by Archival Arrows (52).
Tsingu Orobar, Knight of Perdan Mines has been wounded by True Xavax Guard (44).
Nympha Raven, Dame of Domus has been wounded by Ranged Crimson Guard (37).
Azreal ap Gaenvan, Knight of Sirion has been wounded by Cor Darei (57).
Smiddich Fontaine, Knight of Aestus has been wounded by Stormwalkers (39).
Greatjon Mormont, Knight of Oligarch has been wounded by Queen's Royal Guard (77).
Barthogan Starck, High Magistrate of Highmarch, Representative of Nascot has been wounded by The Scarlet Sentinels (42).
Hannelore von Lucker, Baroness of Meuse has been wounded by de Wies Guards (16).
Grathe Geg, Representative of Moyale has been wounded by L. Infantry (29).
Serina Kye, Dame of Mulhouse has been wounded by Black Swan Guards (8).
Lachram Kah, Count of Oc Lu Pesh, Marshal of the First Alarian Army has been wounded by His Shadow (25).
Daedalus Dogsbody, Lord Vixir of Vix Tiramora, Royal of Vix Tiramora, Duke of House Ghrest, Representative of Abadan has been wounded by Northern Avengers II (33).
Brock Ketchum, Kronogos of Nivemus, Royal of Nivemus, Duke of Rancagua, Margrave of Oroya has been wounded by [DD]Bathgate Bowman (92).
Aramon Abjur, Xerarch of Redhaven, Royal of Redhaven, Duke of Oligarch, Margrave of Oligarch has been wounded by Zadvar Vestiege (91).
Godric Tórrarin ka Habb, Arbiter of Redhaven has been wounded by Pavus Arrows (75).
Alistair Pavus, Knight of Nascot has been wounded by Eyals (19).
Lucienne Kessler, Countess of Bruck has been wounded by The Raven (88).
Edvard Perfect II, King of Fallangard, Royal of Fallangard, Duke of Leibo has been wounded by The Grey Guard (41).
Ragrick Stoutbone, Knight of Fontan has been wounded by Unchained Bowmen (90).
Rhiannon Archival, Dame of Nascot has been wounded by Eyals (19).
Alistair Pavus, Knight of Nascot has been seriously wounded by Dim Archers (17).
Harrion Karstark, Knight of Hagley has been wounded by Tentil bows (85).
Daedalus Dogsbody, Lord Vixir of Vix Tiramora, Royal of Vix Tiramora, Duke of House Ghrest, Representative of Abadan has been wounded by Nivarchers (32).
Walsh Adam, High Justice of Minas Nova, Count of Jariedma has been wounded by Aurelius Dragons (6).
Christofer III Kane, Earl of Braga has been wounded by Kuda Hitam (72).
Shorloc Soul, Dame of Fontan has been wounded by Queen's Royal Guard (77).
Gloria Wader, High Treasurer of Minas Nova, Duchess of Semall, Margravine of Semall has been wounded by Dragoon Archer (18).
Benjamin Pryde, Knight of Winkamus has been wounded by Dragoon Archer (18).

48 attackers (2118 Inf, 211 MI, 1205 Arch, 154 Cav, 171 SF)
44 defenders (967 Inf, 1924 Arch, 196 Cav, 287 SF)
Total combat strengths: 40705 vs. 37849
Defender Victory!

The battle does some damage to the local infrastructure. Production falls 10 %.
The local roads network has also been damaged.
The battle does 45 % damage to the fortifications.

Feature Requests / Approved: Ability to flag new noble reports
« on: February 19, 2018, 02:59:46 PM »
Title: Ability to flag new noble reports

Summary: Every time a new noble joins a realm, everyone in the realm gets a message alerting them. But unlike a normal message, this can't be flagged (marked).

Often I see those notices when I'm on my cell and just scrolling for important tactical info. I always mean to write them a welcome, but since I can't flag them, sometimes I forget. Allowing players to flag new characters joining would help them remind themselves to greet the new players.

Possible Downsides or Exploits:
Not exploitable.

Development / Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
« on: February 12, 2018, 01:31:40 PM »
Through a large number of changes over the years, demographic as well as mechanic, average knights have become less and less meaningful in the face of increasing passive mechanics and gimmicky tools available to a few.

Wars used to run over a pretty simple premise: get more nobles and organize them better and you will win, or at least make steady progress until the few passive limits came into play.

But now? Realm radius was decreased. Colony takeovers were removed. Family wealth cap was increased, which combined with lowered density and "new" (very old now) tax system make a few easily insanely rich (at the detriment of the majority) and actions like buying regions much easier, peasant militias are widespread and practically automatic, etc. The rank-n-file knight with some men used to be able to achieve significant results. Now? It's some kind of click race where, even with an appointed lord, a single noble can buy a region from under a huge coalition army.

This kind of war is not FUN. Not for everyone outside the tiny minority with access to these gimmicks.

Wars were a lot more fun in 2006.

Beluaterra / Old Map
« on: December 22, 2017, 02:54:51 AM »
The pre-blight BT map seems gone from the servers, which makes it a pain to reconstruct historical events.

So I uploaded it to the wiki. Had it on my HDD.

East Island / Wanted: Secessionist Northern Duke
« on: December 21, 2017, 08:40:14 PM »
Contact me for details


Helpline / Capital Moves
« on: December 14, 2017, 05:09:10 PM »
"Strategic capital moves" are against the rules, but it's also been established that moving a realm's capital to a more central position is not, in itself, against the rules.

I was wondering if some titans could pitch in on the matter of whether moving the capital to a more central location can ever be considered against the rules, and if so, what circumstances would make it illegal (war, etc.).

Development / Rethinking the rules
« on: December 07, 2017, 07:37:50 PM »
To start of, I firmly believe that, as long as the rules stand, they ought to be applied. And that in general, the cases that bothered me the most were not when people were punished for breaking them, but when they were broken by people who weren't stupid enough to admit their reasons for their actions and thus weren't sanctioned, given how many of the rules are based on intent.

So we've just had an umpteenth case of someone blatantly breaking the rules, then being a sore loser about it, and then quitting with a bunch of his adepts. Should things have been handled differently? I have a hard time seeing how. But is this a phenomenon we need to keep, to allow to regularly return? I don't think so.

Many of the rules, like with some of the mechanical aspects of this game, were designed in what is nothing less than a different era. I'm not sure when the game launched, but for the wiki that's 2005... A lot of the players have since become parents, and it's plausible some of our current players were not even born yet when the game started.

In the early and middle days where most of the rules were made, the game had few continents, the realms had lots of nobles, and overall the culture of both online games in general and this one specifically were quite different than they are now. The game also had less built-in mechanics to guide/force players into acting a certain way. But when you compare realms of today with realms of back then, the contrast it stark. The social issues that were rampant back then are now isolated cases, the most damaging tools (OOC bans for example) have been removed, and overall inflicting lasting damage upon anything is much harder to achieve than it once way (ex: automatic half rations on starving regions instead of mass starvation). So all in all, there are few [email protected]#$%^&s, they are more universally shunned, their power to impose upon others is greatly diminished, and, none the less, people have abundant alternatives to just go find better people to play with (no automatic ban for quitting the realm, much more open realm cultures in general, etc.).

So maybe we should take a good long look at the social contract, the rules, and the policies, and think hard at what REALLY needs to be there.

If I'm to start the ball, I'd say the social contract is fine as it, doesn't need a touch up.

As for the IRs, I'm not so sure. I mean, who really cares for the unit types, what does it change? People are often looking for suggestions and guidance, and it's a hassle to address these questions when told not to touch the issue even with 10ft poles. It'd be nice if it were at least clarified/modified to allow people to issue recommendations (as long as sanctions for non-compliance aren't also used). The IRs in general are fine, though.

The core of the problems, in my opinion, lie in the "policies". They are based so much on intent, which cannot be verified, and with the game in its current shape, don't really offer much.
  • What does it matter how people use duels?
  • What's the big deal with strategic secessions? Most realms don't have enough nobles to split. And in most cases, splitting only makes the sum of the parts lesser than the original whole. Yes, the realms get numerical buffs. But the only cases where this is not offset by the human logistical aspects are when the realms were ripe to split anyways, and that this rule therefore only really regulates the context (ok to do so when there's no war, not ok during war). This rule doesn't contribute to anything anymore, we don't have the player counts for it to matter.
  • Why have OOC rules against strategic capital moves? For starters, moving capitals is very costly. Secondly, the distance from capital allowance was greatly reduced over the years. A realm that moves its capital to the front will have an advantage in terms of refit cycle, but a HUGE disadvantage to its economy, as region stats and tax tolerance will drop. Furthermore, many current capitals barely allow for any wars, if they don't make it outright suicide, so why not give people a bit more flexibility if it means that, as a whole, BM gets more war?
  • Why not just make realm mergers legal? This has caused so many scandals in the past, for no gain. What's equal footing? What's friendly? What's hostile? Why does it all even matter? And what's the logic in banning strategic secession if the opposite is also banned? Are small realms the threat or are big realms? Or are any at all? Mergers mean less titles to share around, lower tax tolerance, a lot of people being moved away from their traditional area. There are a LOT of costs to it. And we don't have a ruler who can OOC ban the whole realm to make it happen anymore, either. Players will not willingly give up their realm unless they have strong reasons to do so, why not respect these reasons without threatening sanctions over them?

Feature Requests / Under Debate: Color coding scout reports
« on: November 26, 2017, 02:10:37 AM »
 Title: Color coding scout reports
    Summary: There are currently two color schemes for scout reports, one for realm-mates, one for everyone else.
    Details: The request is to modulate the color codes, by adding new ones, as per diplomacy with said realm.
    Benefits: I'm new to EC, and seeing scout reports with 9+ realms in them confuses the hell out of me. Experienced players may get used to which are allied realms, which are enemy realms, but I don't really remember any other cases in my long career of so many realms being involved in battles so regularly (instead of split on multiple fronts). It's hard to learn about so many realms at once, and to memorize the diplomacy page with so many actors involved. Color coding would make it more easy for newer players especially to decipher scout reports.
    Possible Downsides or Exploits: Esthetics to be considered.

Helpline / Lost family home
« on: October 26, 2017, 02:39:40 AM »
The family currently has no permanent home. The next time a noble is created, the region they start in will determine your family's home region.

Wait, what? I just saw this today. No idea why this would happen.

The Chénier family, originally from Ammando (Dwilight), has a fame of 13 and family wealth of 1115 gold.

Family was started in Ammando, thus there was the family home. Never moved it, never had a hero on this account. Not sure how long this has been the case, but it's the first I notice the message.

Helpline / Name rules
« on: October 21, 2017, 09:50:33 PM »
Are we still applying the rules we had on names? Because crap like this is seriously obnoxious:

Letter from Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe U Ossa Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemu   (1 day, 2 hours ago)

Development / Conversion to dynamic demographics
« on: September 30, 2017, 05:38:45 PM »
More of a brainstorming than a feature request, to see how, if at all possible, such a transition could be possible.

I've said it many times and I still stand by the belief that the maps are largely suboptimal from a gameplay perspective. It didn't matter as much when every continent was overflowing with nobles, but that's just no longer the case, as we have less players who, on average, I suspect play less characters. This results in some completely uninhabited zones between realms (eastern Dwilight) at the extremes, and realms with difficulty to project power to neighbors in the rest.

Some of these problems are caused by the bodies of water. Short of redrawing the maps (an idea which in some cases might be worth considering), there's not much to do about that. But a lot of problems are due to city placement, given how only cities and strongholds can be capitals and cities concentrate the wealth needed to run realms. Dwilight is the worse for this, but it's not the only one. Clusters of cities make it hard for them to be ruled by multiple realms, and in the cases where it happens, it makes war between those realms unthinkable. Look at Madina and Fissoa, it'd be ridiculous for either one to turn on the other, any sign of betrayal would result in both realms being unable to ever leave their capitals ever again, out of fear the other would lunch a sneak attack and destroy their realm. Same in Luria, the two economic powerhouses are tied with a ferry route, they can't afford to not be on the same boat, and while the rest of the cities in the region could theoretically have made other independant realms, they'd just stand no chance before the might of Giask+Askileon.

And then you've got the deserts, figurative when not litteral. Palm Sea and Desert of Silhouettes means there has rarely been any meaninful interaction across them. Add in the mountain ranges in Swordfell, in Westgard, and you've rarely seen any interaction across those either. That was kind of the point, at first, to have a supercontinent that consisted of potentially largely independant subcontinents, and that'd all be fine if all of these subcontinents were filled with realms and lots of players, but that's no longer the case, ain't gonna happen either.

Pre-blight BT had a fairly good geography, but that's no longer the case. EC and FEI are very linear. Colonies barely has any cities at all, it's basically always been one-city realms which have pretty much always had the same borders, more or less.

That's not to mention the problem that have been had, and that are likely to be re-had, with colonizing regions where the population is at 1/1000000, and where production will be at 0% for ages.

So what kind of overhaul would be possible?

We could keep the regions as are. Same region ID, same locations, same connections. Only exception would be to reshape doughnuts out of the game, to have them become townslands next to cities instead of around cities, but that should be done anyways, without regards for any of the rest of this.

But we modify the attributes. Each region gets a "Habitability", "Resources", and "Fertility" score. These can be derived from the current stats, by dividing region max population, gold production, and food production by total area. Preferably, some region borders would be modified so that cities are no longer tiny regions and that the huge regions are somewhat less so (without changing what regions border which). We then also add a "region type" attribute: "Mountain, badlands, forest, plains". With dynamic maps, it'd be fairly easy to make it possible to switch between forests and plains through player actions, but we don't even need to go there, this still works with static maps like we have now. Then, you add a settlement attribute: "rural, townslands, city, stronghold". This requires a simple map change, presuming we finish the redrawing of the maps in the AoW editor: simply delete all of the mills, cities, and strongholds from the map, and render them as icons on top of the map IG (like flags are rendered on the original "dynamic" maps). And finally, add a final "development" attribute, which can either use numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) or descriptors.

With the proper conversion factors, every existing region could be converted to the new system with barely any stat changes, if any. What it would change is the possibility to modify these in the future.

Lords would gain the ability to invest in their regions to make it grow. Or to invest to shrink them, turning a part of the population into something mobile to move elsewhere. Or to loot other realms for different results (ex: slavery, to bring back population to their own realm).

Region outputs would be relative to the interaction of their outputs. For example, max pop would be habitability multiplied by area multiplied by development (which would probably use an exponential growth). Food output would be use production levels multiplied by fertility multiplied by area multiplied by development (using a logarithmic growth), while gold output would use production levels multiplied by resources multiplied by area multiplied by development (using exponential growth). The more population a region has, the more food and gold it would produce, but the more gold/peasant and the less food/peasant it would yield. This would apply to all regions, be it mountains, deserts, or cities. So people could decide to build up rurals to become agricultural power houses, for example, or mountains to develop the mining riches. Then, you have the ability to build mills, which is required to then build a stronghold or a city, if either is desired. Building the mill gives all of the benefits of a townslands currently has, such as building fortifications. But it also costs a lot to build, adds a multiplier to max population in the region, and also a multiplier on the food and gold output. However, to avoid realms spamming them in every single region, it also inflicts a penalty when a townslands is too close to another townsland (including cities), perhaps if there are 2 or more other townslands within 2 region's travel (or using specific bird flight distance), due to competition between them for raw ressources. The same mechanics then also apply for turning townslands into either strongholds or cities, except strongholds would a lower multiplier (or none) while cities would add a much higher multiplier on max pop, gold output, and food penalty. These can be done in any region type, so a city in the mountains will yield very high gold/peasant, but due to low habitability score the total gold output may still remain modest as a whole, depending on the base stats.

On the whole, this means that safe and established realms can choose to invest to increase their economy past their current limits, smaller colonist realms can decide to just use small settlements to progressively carve their way into rogue lands, and all realms have much more say in their food and gold situation, so realms like D'Hara could choose, seeing as how Dwilight no longer has all the breadbasket realms it used to have, to settle with smaller cities that require less food to feed and to heavily invest in their few rurals to maximize the food they can pull out of them.

Change would not be limited to growth, however. By being raided for slaves, by purchasing colonist caravans (very expensive), or by closing down settlements (less expensive, large penalties for region pop being superior to max pop), regions could be intentionally depopulated and forcefully migrated. So say realms like Madina and Fissoa realize their inevitable destruction by the rogues, and decide on their own to pack up before being actually reduced to nothing (one can dream; I know nobody abandons ship on time, the glaciers proved it), or just about any group of colonists sponsored by a realm get their eyes on a new location, well they can shell out the big bucks, carry tens of thousands of peasants with them in colonist caravans, and then when they finally arrive at their target location and do their (colony?) takeover, bang, they deploy their colonists, and their new regions have the necessary backbone to start growing and offering a viable realm. This also applies to human conflicts. Westfold gets defeated? Pick up their colonists, head out elsewhere safer, and bang resettle. The winning realm gets the effect of having killed off the enemy realm (practically), and the losing realm needs not be completely removed from existence (realm destruction often results in player loss).

Above just giving realms more say in their economies, there's the huge gameplay gain from the geostrategic change. Capitals can only be in cities, and their current placement makes for natural realm capitals and natural realm borders. Look at Arnor, it has two choices for a capital, either a very remote city or a somewhat central stronghold. If that stronghold was ever taken by another, they'd be forced to Springdale, and thus insignificance. Fissoa? Stuck into a corner by Madina, if they could settle a city further East, then they could finally have had meaningful interactions with Luria. The North-West? There's only the excentric Darfix that's too far from everyone to be meaningful, and Gaston, which has a RURAL DOUGHNUT, which is the worst thing in the game, the city itself being poorer than many townslands. Especially with the newer lower distance from capital restrictions, it means many realms have a hard time holding onto more than one city at a time; Gaston ain't that far from Gelene, and yet it causes anarchists to prosper. In the maroccidens, the cities are all in a straight line, forming a circle, with only rurals and a river in the middle, it's fairly ridiculous.

If realms could settle literally anywhere, then at least realms that are currently in dead-end locations could choose to try to migrate to somewhere more fun, and realms that want war but find themselves surrounded by friends could choose to go develop elsewhere.

Dwilight / Darfix Portal
« on: September 18, 2017, 01:24:54 PM »
Guess it's gone?

Development / Delaying Travel
« on: September 05, 2017, 01:10:33 PM »
Just a note that it's not a very clear mechanic right now. When delaying the status remains "travelling", switching it to "delaying" would allow people to visually see much clearer that they are delaying (or not). Even on the travel page, when delaying, the link to delay is still there, as if you are not delaying at all.

There are often screw-ups with delaying and I think some of those things probably contribute to it.

Helpline / Digging In
« on: July 26, 2017, 10:40:39 PM »
How does digging in work in relation to fortifications?

You can't dig in in cities or strongholds, even if they don't have any fortifications.

But you can dig in in, for example, townslands, even if they do have fortifications.

So if you dig in in a region that has a palisade, for example, do the bonuses stack?

Wouldn't it make more sense for digging in to be restricted to regions without fortifications, even cities and strongholds?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9