Messages

1

BM General Discussion / Re: Large flaws in estate and tax system

« on: September 09, 2014, 12:38:13 AM »

You guys do realize that your suggestions would worsen the problems you want to address? Realms with extra regions would refuse to appoint lords to them, because losing the city knights would result in much too great wealth loss. Realms with 15 regions, but 15 nobles spread over only 10, would be stronger than realms with 15 nobles spread over 15 regions.

Also, Indirik, I fail to see how it's legitimate to dismiss cases to the contrary when trying to prove a point. Even without the dramatic tax tolerance reduction, tax efficiency alone, in its current form, is enough to remove all monetary incentive to expand.

If dukes cannot be punished some way for gluing their knights to city estates rather than appointing them as lords, than it's something wrong with game atmosphere in such realm, not in game mechanics.

What you describe would be great scenario to motivate nobles to get rid of such duke. To me, this is exactly how game mechanics would work best: game mechanics would provide some "medieval common sense", those who go against it would go against what is deemed by most as reasonable.

in any case, penalties for not having lords should be larger than for not having knights.

i intentionally use term penalty out of my personal belief that there is nothing wrong if those who have too little nobles be small.

i think focusing on concept that best gaming experience is to offer easy expansion for the realms is wrong. this game has already shown to be deeper than that, and if most of current rulers tend to be oriented to the very same stereotype manner, that's another subject i would title "problems with diplomacy"

let me offer number of ways how it can be interesting in realm though possibilities for expansion are somewhat reduced:
- creating a feud with other realm and fighting for mere honor and glory rather than stereotype grabbing the lands
- focus on open plundering of other realms and sharing the plunder among realm mates
- act as mercenaries for other realms
- focus on tournaments, permanent competition, even having realms where nobles are overly proud and tend to duel to death for every minor justification (yet always with in-game justification, not just "for sport")

i proposed number of opportunities which are allowed by current mechanics, while its number could be tripled by minor tweaks. my point is that focusing on taking regions as ultimate fun in bm is degradation of bm.

2

BM General Discussion / Re: Large flaws in estate and tax system

« on: September 07, 2014, 10:53:22 PM »

Also, the estate coverage system was one of the things the players disliked most. Almost no one ever liked it. And many of the players that claimed they did like it were basing their opinions on a complete misunderstanding of how the system actually worked.

... than something is likely needed at the same moment when coverage system is removed to:
- give some incentive to interaction between lords and knights
- give knights something to play with, at least some influence on the estate they run

something, anything... but not nothing. i retained habit to welcome any knight in my region, but i rarely if ever hear any response currently, and it's almost impossible that some knight will feel courteous obligation to say goodbye when leaving the estate. for new players estate is nothing but one simple click, and they cannot be blamed for that in current estate system, but it is some step in large degradation of game interaction. if oath itself means nothing, almost everything in medieval-based game world becomes tasteless.

3

BM General Discussion / Re: Large flaws in estate and tax system

« on: September 07, 2014, 10:46:29 PM »

As estate coverage is no more, region almost never falls into trouble

This is by design. We don't want region maintenance to be the focus of a player's game experience.

Also, the estate coverage system was one of the things the players disliked most. Almost no one ever liked it. And many of the players that claimed they did like it were basing their opinions on a complete misunderstanding of how the system actually worked.

I am probably among the last ones who would like too much micromanagement, but I feel "focus of game experience" has become straightforward, mono-dimensional "recruit troop as large as possible, go to region A as quickly as possible, and be ready to strictly follow attack order"

courtiership game is removed, trade game is removed, religion game is completely castrated. things have become narrow and simple. did that improve gaming experience?

every realm had players who have just time to do courtier work, and as long as courtier work was needed, they were part of game, dimension of game. statistics means very little here, let's say 5% of the realm were courtiers, and that was completely sufficient to cover realm needs, while giving gaming diversity. the same applies for traders, even very few traders could bring lot of benefit to the realm, and there were always enough people to be traders as long as it was giving sensible outcome. that is were statistical polls will not give right answers.

how gaming experience is improved if nobles only recruit troops and travel while most of other things is resolved automatically or very easily? i personally feel it as a degradation of game, but i understand that i possibly don't fit into statistics...

4

BM General Discussion / Re: Large flaws in estate and tax system

« on: September 07, 2014, 01:27:45 AM »

ups, i noticed that already, but just now noticed that threat title can be edited.

5

BM General Discussion / Re: Large flows in estate and tax system

« on: September 06, 2014, 11:45:09 PM »

Drastically cutting the income of most realms will not incite wars.

certainly not drastically, but sensibly would be more appropriate. making things too easy degrades incentive and creates apathy. i am really not in favor of button-efforts like diplomatic ones, but if interaction efforts are not rewarded, than we have what we have now - bunch of overly powerful players who earn great benefits with little efforts and actually do not need many by themselves.

why should not realm with 10 regions and great estate coverage earn sensibly more than realm with 20 regions and bad coverage, with comparable region stats?

personally i don't see any problem with continent where all realms are separated from each other with three rows of rouge regions. if leaders want to make some stories, they will make it,;if they prefer only to sit tightly and avoid any action, than at least those who do not care for anyone but themselves should not be rewarded.

6

BM General Discussion / Re: Large flows in estate and tax system

« on: September 06, 2014, 08:42:08 PM »

This is why the nobles-to-region ratio tends to move toward 1:1 over time. Extraneous factors can increase the ratio temporarily, but the most stable realms are typically close to 1:1. Fewer knights means more gold for the ruling class, and the ruling class tend to use their gold for things like recruitment centres, militia, workshops, etc. so it's no wonder the biggest most stable realms have the fewest knights.

yep, your resume emphasizes even more that knights are not needed.

7

BM General Discussion / Large flaws in estate and tax system

« on: September 06, 2014, 05:49:01 PM »

While at-that-time large reconstruction of the estate system did give some, in my opinion, improvements, I would note visible flaws which directly degrade gaming interaction:

- More than once I checked, and lord of the region earns more gold from wild lands than from having knight with estate. for those who want to grab money by all means this is likely great opportunity, while i think it makes no sense game-wise.
I can clearly say that I have never seen any use of having knight in a region. They just draw money which would otherwise come to you, and even ask for more funds while you are always short of funds. begone, knights! we don't want new knights, no new players as well 

- I cannot check it myself, but I see that so many regions have no lords, while dukes don't care though there are enough knights around. Again, no need even for lords: food is produced smoothly (that i can see as a banker), wild lands probably bring more (as for lords), so begone, lords    I see that dukes don't appoint lords for many rl months.

- As estate coverage is no more, region almost never falls into trouble except when acquired by brutal force or heavily looted (both occasions being incredibly rare as there is so little speed difference between friendly and brutal takeover that almost noone ever attempts brutal takeover. So all these slow old guys who worked as courtiers and were sensibly useful for the realm are absolutely not needed any more. You can play game at slow pace as inalienable rights still (formally) exist, but noone needs you for anything other than quick moving troops, meaning if you don't log in often enough you are nobody. Begone slow guys, nobody wants you 

to not just make sarcastic complaints, but to try to be constructive, I will point that i really don't understand why estate coverage is removed.
- that was main motivation for interaction between lord and knight. now lords and knights almost never talk.
- gave much more importance to every single noble in the realm, making game more funny for everyone
- small-level politics could even be played by switching estate to control, production or even to nothing
- leaders had to care for all knights much more. now leaders still care, but only in strictly narrow sense - care for having troop-holding slots that would blindly follow control-freak leader

how game would be hurt if some realms would lose some regions for not having enough knights to support regions? in my opinion there are many, many possibilities for playing game and have fun for everyone other than controlling as many regions as possible

8

Development / Re: Giving back in-game mentors

« on: July 11, 2014, 08:27:53 PM »

i see usefulness of island-wide communication only to allow mentors for students who have no mentors in their own realm, but relationship should stay one-on-one.

i always saw idea of mentor to coach player's introduction, to allow some specific question, but not to give answer to each and every specific button-level question.

most of my time at mentorship i was encouraging players to browse wiki manuals rather than ask each and every question. of course, there are some more complex question that need good explanation, but it was rarely seen that player unwilling to learn some basic stuff by reading manual is the one who will be hooked by the game.

9

Development / Re: Giving back in-game mentors

« on: July 09, 2014, 07:22:12 PM »

i believe if ic mentors would turn back, some natural relationship could be developed between ic and ooc help.

ooc help could still retain domination in all "how to" questions on micro-level. ic mentors would likely prevail in general advice on how to approach the game and develop in-game career.

ic mentors cannot be wrong in that whatever their advice is if it is not intention of developers to completely suppress all alternative aspects of gameplay away from "rally-in-region-a-go-back-to-refit" mode.

moreover, having both system in place allows player to choose rather than be tied to one option.

10

BM General Discussion / Re: Spying (was: Re: An Open Letter to the BM Community)

« on: July 09, 2014, 07:12:39 PM »

this thread's subject is not ooc spying. where are the moderators?

11

Development / Re: Giving back in-game mentors

« on: July 05, 2014, 12:37:15 PM »

indeed, any kind of multi-realm mentors channel would likely improve things as it is not predictable how many mentors would exist within particular realm, but on continent level that would possibly smooth out.

if will exists, it could be even something like diplomatic activity - rulers sign mentors agreement between realms that would open common mentors channel. that could give sort of additional in-game flavor to mentors activities.

12

Development / Giving back in-game mentors

« on: July 05, 2014, 12:45:55 AM »

Rare new players are condemned to forums from the very beginning, they are not given opportunity to choose path where they will be dedicated to in-game play as they can hardly overcome basics without hanging on forum help.

Bringing back in-game mentors would give more alternatives to new players, current circumstances just fuel forum-master.

13

BM General Discussion / Re: An Open Letter to the BM Community

« on: June 29, 2014, 09:15:30 PM »

I think the reason, the blame in a sense, lies with all of us. For not being proactive members of a community, for not playing fair. I include myself in this. That many of our players seem to see the game as a private clubhouse, or a way to carry out personal vendettas, or else use untoward or outside methods in an attempt to 'win'. I see this as the most pressing affliction of our community.

in my opinion, being "constructively proactive" means playing in-game and stay away from other means. as you will be ignored most of time as almost all important communication went ooc, you can be "proactive" in different way - to fight for forums shutdown and to push titans to fight against ooc clans. that "proactivity is hopeless, though as after some considerations forums stayed alive and ooc clans are the most protected bm asset...

14

Development / Re: Improved army chest

« on: June 13, 2014, 11:09:47 PM »

well, the idea was not to depersonalize gold distribution, but to just automatize the most annoying part of it.

army chest has to be filled manually, by army sponsor, and the level of gold he would manage to put in marks level of influence such chest would have. it could not be expected that such funding replaces whole distribution system, ever.

and - if it would be allowed that army sponsor has right to decide on distribution key - for instance key should be honor, prestige, noble's age, time spent in the army... that could even give some flavor to armies.

15

Development / Re: Improved army chest

« on: June 05, 2014, 08:23:05 PM »

is this a discussion board or it is just a means to put "get-off-my-neck" message" forward without presenting any arguments at all? 

in what is described, it is clearly not transfer of gold at all as it isn't in current army chest working.

it should work as recruitment that would be charged to army chest instead to character's valet - to the extent of total chest's funds and only in some proportion of available funds. for instance character's honor or prestige percentage of overall army's prestige - which would give at some meaning to honor/prestige concept that, as many other original game concepts are seemingly rendered useless without any clear understanding how that improved the game.

distribution of extra funds for recruitment is for long typical strategy in any tighter war campaign, and that is only proposal how to make it less cumbersome than it is now, without changing anything substantially.