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
1
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?

2
Feature Requests / 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.

3
Helpline / Lost family home
« on: October 26, 2017, 02:39:40 AM »
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

4
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:

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

5
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.

6
Dwilight / Darfix Portal
« on: September 18, 2017, 01:24:54 PM »
Guess it's gone?

7
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.

8
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?

9
Helpline / Delay Arrival restrictions
« on: July 17, 2017, 02:53:54 AM »
I thought we could delay multiple times, but I'm not seeing the option. What are the restrictions? Can't delay twice in a row? Can't delay when 1 hour away?

10
Feature Requests / Share scout reports with whole realm
« on: June 23, 2017, 02:59:11 PM »
    Title: Share scout reports with whole realm

    Summary/Details: Either make it so that scout reports are no longer just shared with one's army, but with all armies or the whole realm, or at least give the option to the scouter to share it with either whole realm or just his army.

    Benefits: The point of sharing the scout reports only with the army was, I believe, to reduce the ability of the general to overmeddle in the armies' affairs, making marshals rubber stampers. I think those days are long gone, and that this mechanic discourages devolution more than it encourages it, since only a one-army force (typically led by a general/marshal) will have access to all of the realm's scout reports, while realms that spread the military leadership over multiple armies will be faced with the dilemma of either partial information, or sending scout reports to the whole realm by linking them manually. I don't really think there's any reason to limit the scout report sharing to just one army anymore, but if there's desire to keep that, having the option to share to the whole realm would be appreciated. Armies often operate in the same general area, and I don't really see a reason to force people to scout the same regions twice for two armies to have the big picture (or to force them to spam the "to realm" channel, barely any better).

    Possible Downsides or Exploits: The potential return of meddler generals, I guess? But I really don't think we are "there" any more. With the declined player base, most realms don't really have the nobles for multiple armies anyways, and I don't feel like this behavior has been a problem in quite some time. Besides, such people could already order people to spam the "to realm" channel anyways.

11
Helpline / Distance from the capital and anarchists
« on: May 15, 2017, 12:45:54 PM »
How is it calculated? Bird's eye? Hours to travel? Miles to travel? If travel distance, using only the realm's region, or the shortest route? Number of regions?

In Westgard, Gaston Farms and Gaston seemingly have this problem, which leaves me perplex. Is this because of the doughnuts? I've seen realms way bigger than this, and more stretched than this, without anarchist issues. Are these things that are variable through time or through realms? Because just on Dwilight today, most realms are at least this stretched if not more; are they all plagued with anarchists?

Quote
Duchy Report for Gelene   (6 hours, 26 minutes ago)
message to the duke and nobles of Gelene

Gaston

        With food distribution at its lowest level, the population's only consolation is that they're not yet starving.
        The distance to the capital causes anarchists to prosper, and the people not to feel like part of the realm.
        Production is very low and in desperate need of aid.

Gaston Farms

        Though food distribution has returned to normal, the peasants don't quickly forget having their rations decreased.
        The distance to the capital causes anarchists to prosper, and the people not to feel like part of the realm.

When we had anarchists in Crotona, now that wasn't much of a surprise. But Gaston? It's but a few regions away from the capital: Gelene, Gelene Outskirts, Sabadell, Forguthrie, Gaston Farms, Gaston.

12
Helpline / Army Icons
« on: May 12, 2017, 01:37:52 PM »
Am I the only one who only sees them with my cellphone, and not my browser? Gets a bit confusing.

13
Dwilight / The North-East Ablaze
« on: May 01, 2017, 06:41:57 PM »
Do it, Jonn Dodger! Do it!  ;D

14
BM General Discussion / Looting regions rogue
« on: April 05, 2017, 01:43:45 PM »
Is it still feasible, or even possible, to loot a region so much that it revolts?

I believe there has been many tweaks done over the last several years with the intent of making looting damage less permanent, but I'm unsure of the result on control. Regions do seem to revolt a lot less than they used to, especially to declare anarchy.

With the increasing focus on density, though, seems like some realms could legitimately want to shrink another without actually taking the region for themselves. Do they have any means to do so?

Would a new takeover type be considered, which works just the same as a normal takeover, but makes the region rogue instead?

15
Feature Requests / Under Debate: Statistics on nobles and density
« on: April 01, 2017, 03:42:29 PM »
Title: Improving available statistics on nobles and density

Summary: The suggestion is two-fold. Firstly, to remove adventurers from the counts of "characters" and "active characters" on the realm statistics. Since their addition, these stats have become utterly worthless. Secondly, add a new "noble density" statistics to the page, since it is an increasingly used metric.

Details: It's not a very complicated proposal that needs further elaboration.

Benefits: First of all, it would make the data more reflective of what it used to be, and what one might expect it to be. Adventurers don't participate in normal realm activities. They aren't included in the messages, they don't lead units, they don't have estates, they don't vote, etc. The number of (active) adventurers has really no bearing on what life in that realm is like. Furthermore, many adventurers never even operate in their own realms, so it's not like it even has much of an impact on anything at all. Secondly, density has been made more and more relevant over time. We think about it for estate efficiencies, it gives an idea of military recruiting power, of internal social dynamics, and now of potential for being targeted by rogue hordes. Present densities can be calculated from the realm list page, but the evolution is not available, and we can't calculate them ourselves due to the above issue of adventurers being included in the character counts.

Possible Downsides/Exploits:

No exploits, most of that info is readily available for "today", having the data reach further back wouldn't break anything. The only downside is if people for some reason like having advies in those tallies, which I wouldn't understand, but could be addressed by simply adding one or two entries for "nobles" apart from those of "characters".

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9