Messages

1

Feature Requests / Re: Feature request: Unpause and move continents

« on: February 16, 2022, 02:56:36 AM »

I believe that many people have come across the problem of wanting paused characters "unpaused" in a different location.
Most often, this leads to needing to pause an active character (loosing all progress) and then unpausing and moving the desired character before being able to resume play with the "original" character.

A possible fix to this might be to have all paused characters sent to a "LIMBO" that allows them to be unpaused to any location that a player has a free open slot for a character.

ie:  a character is paused on BT and replaced with a new one. 
Several months later that player looses a noble on Dwi and rather than start a new one, decides that the paused noble from BT would do well as a replacement on Dwi.
Current mechanics require that the player must do a lot of pausing/unpausing/emigrating to accomplish this.  Much time is lost for both characters (also reducing the fun for the player who is unable to play either for a period of time).

With a "LIMBO", this could be accomplished with no disruption of play for either character, allowing the player to continue with no interruption to their game. 

2

Feature Requests / Re: Feature request: Unpause and move continents

« on: February 12, 2022, 05:05:58 AM »

If you are looking for this as a feature request, It may be better stated as a request to be able to "move a paused character to a different island" without having to unpause.

(And SI is a separate/special island that does NOT allow characters to transfer to or from it from/to other islands.)

3

Feature Requests / Re: Feature request: Unpause and move continents

« on: February 12, 2022, 04:56:41 AM »

Matthew,

What you want may be possible, but you would have to ask Devlin(Tim) directly to see if he would be willing to do a "manual" character transfer for you. 

4

Feature Requests / Re: More options for Stewards

« on: October 07, 2020, 11:27:58 AM »

Maybe the Steward could get extra gold (directly from the Lords share) for each thing that the Lord enables him to do.
eg.  3% per tax for holding courts (if toggled on)
eg.  2.5% per tax for keeping the food stores in order (if toggled on)
etc.

5

Helpline / Re: Religion Est. Followers?

« on: July 13, 2020, 08:25:53 PM »

I am not too up to date on religions, but here is my GUESS.

The first number is available to all members of the religion, while the "show spread" is only available to elders/priests?

This being the case (if it is actually the case), the second set of numbers that is reserved for the "higher-ups" would more likely be more accurate.

If the first set of numbers is available to any that join the religion, it is likely that they are more skewed to prevent specific knowledge from leaking to other sources.

6

BM General Discussion / Re: Overarching alliance blocs, pile in and risk aversion

« on: June 08, 2020, 11:47:13 PM »

Two comments as I thought of as I read these comments:

I) Make negative density more harmful rather than an inconvenience, make realm tax decrease for example or increased rogues etc.

Sadly density restrictions have different drawbacks for larger realms and smaller realms.
In a larger realm where there are many players, it is fairly easy to keep "inter-action/action" going to keep players engaged in one way or another.
In a smaller realm, the density restriction severely hinders the "inter-action/action" choices.
Forty people in the same realm are much more likely to find ways to interact, while a realm of ten people will have much less opportunity for interacting. 

I understand that many of the players feel that the smaller, less active realms deserve to die off because they are "boring".
Consider this:
The game is fickle.  Realms rise and fall.  Activity increases and dwindles.

Lets look at some history.
Luria Nova (Dwi) formerly a great power on the continent that was large enough to split off a new realm (which has since been absorbed back into Luria Nova), is now but a shadow of its former self.
D'Hara (Dwi) on the other hand was one of the smallest realms on the continent not so long ago, but now boasts the most nobles on the continent.

Thalmarkin (BT) was recently up to near 50 nobles, but not so long ago, they too were very low on nobles.  Things changed and they got much larger.  (not sure where they are at now, no noble on BT). 
Obeah Syela a former powerhouse on BT is now greatly reduced in nobles.
Irondale (BT), a group of smaller realms that were "forced" to band together to continue their existence.  Now a powerhouse on the continent.

The density restrictions affect the smaller realms much more than the larger realms.  Are the smaller realms really so bad that they should be punished for being small. 
Do we really want only two or three larger realms on each continent? 
This could certainly be better for interaction "within the realm" as more people would be in each realm.
Sadly, with only two or three Rulers on each continent there would not likely be much friction between the realms as it is much easier to come to an agreement with only two or three people involved.

On the other hand, if each continent had 10-15 rulers trying to sort things out, there is a lot more likelyhood that there would be disagreements and friction among the group.  The more people there are in the decision making, the harder it will be to come to an agreement.

The real question is larger vs smaller.
The Devs have sent conflicting messages with their actions.
We want bigger realms (less smaller realms), but smaller alliance blocks (and sadly these blocks are determined by region count, NOT noble count)?  Confusing to say the least. 

How much war would we see on the War Islands if alliances were allowed?
(I haven't played WI for a while either, so my info there is limited as well.)
Though there are no set alliances, there has been "co-operation" of sorts, at times, there.
The two "smaller" realms avoiding fighting with each other to concentrate on reducing the size of the "larger" realm.
An "unspoken agreement" that benefits both smaller realms while increasing pressure on the lager realm.  This dynamic changes of course as the sides and advantages change from one realm to another over time.

7

Development / Holy/Guild Wars

« on: June 08, 2020, 10:03:10 PM »

The current system for war is "realm vs realm".  There is nothing in place that would allow for something like a religious/guild type war. 
I suspect that my idea would be a "coding nightmare" but I will bring it up anyway as it may lead to something that could be possible.

Under the current system, we have:
nobles join a realm
are placed in an army of that realm
are told that "*** (realm)" is their enemy
are sent to war to defend their realm or to defeat the other realms army(s).

The only real choice given to the player here is which realm they will join.

I will use Daishi/Mordok as an example.
What I see as being optimal here would be a choice of whether or not to join in a given war, regardless of realm. 
Daishi has many followers in many realms, but currently there is no way for these "religious nobles" to band together to pursue any given goal.
It would be great if a "Priest of Daishi" (or a guild leader/member) could gather followers from various realms to band together in a common cause. 
Not every noble of every realm that has Daishi followers, just the religious members that desire to see the "Priests" goals to fruition. 

Great leader's gathering like minded followers from around the continent for a specific purpose.
Find a suitable cause with a suitable goal/enemy, gather warriors that believe in your cause, and go to war for a "just cause" that you believe in. 
I think this could be much more satisfying than your ruler deciding what war(s) you will be involved in.

8

BM General Discussion / Re: Overarching alliance blocs, pile in and risk aversion

« on: June 08, 2020, 08:54:22 PM »

Where is BattleMaster headed???
Firstly, I would invite everyone to look through the "ANNOUNCEMENTS" section of this forum.
It is the area where the Devs announce changes to the game.  Where they define the recent changes that are being/have been implemented.

From MY point of view;
We have seen many features added to the game that have been restrictive to the "wargame" aspect of BattleMaster.
Increasing density restrictions, alliance bloc size restrictions, increased costs of funding both militia and normal fighting units, more stringent requirements for declaring war, nearly impossible restrictions for allowing secessions of a duchy to name those that come readily to my mind.

On the other hand, we have seen many new features added that seem to cater to the RP writing aspect of the game.
Discord was added as a medium to allow  better communications as a "community".  There have been constant "improvements" to Discord to better facilitate the actions of this "community".  We have seen several improvements to the in-game messaging system.  We now have "graphic content warnings" to allow more involved/graphic roleplays to be written while not offending those who would prefer NOT to see such content.

What reason does the average realm have to want to go to war?
The vast majority of wars over the years have been fought in an effort to see some "gain" by the victors, land gains being the foremost on the list.  With the density restrictions land gain is no longer possible for most realms.
A disgruntled Duke used to be able to secede which would often lead to a war.
A religious war is currently not a possibility within BattleMaster.  Alliance bloc restrictions would prevent any chance of a Daishi vs Mordok war for example.  Daishi has many followers spread throughout various realms, which would prevent them from forming a "religious bloc" due to the alliance bloc limitations.
The alliance bloc limit also discourages the need of "diplomacy" when dealing with other realms.  I understand the need to prevent "dogpiling" any given realm, but if that realm makes no attempt to maintain civil relations with those realms not currently involved in the fighting, why should the (non-involved) disrespected realm(s) remain uninvolved?  (ie."We are fighting a war here, and I don't really care if you don't like us traveling through your lands to get to the front")

"The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend."

We have heard the idea of "HINTERLANDS" for a while now.  Sadly, from the little I have heard about hinterlands, I suspect that it will fall short of what many people are hoping for.  We will see how it pans out once it is implemented, we can only hope for improvement.

The war aspect of BattleMaster needs "more carrot and a lot less stick".
The Devs have done well in boosting the RP aspect of the game in recent times, maybe now it is time to do the same for the war aspect as well? 

9

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???

« on: May 20, 2020, 07:09:07 AM »

Maybe You misunderstood what I was trying to say.

You seem to want to blame anyone and everyone for the circumstances that led to the failure of what you have tried to set up/plan out.
Irondale should not have invited others into your war.  (except of course Nothoi, because you planned for their inclusion in your plans)
Your former allies should not have become involved in your war.  (You disrespected them so as to not have your side over powered for the upcoming war, though you failed to consider that your actions against them may have actually pushed them to the "other" side.)
People from your own realm are at fault because they obviously ignored your posts.  (no, I do not need to see them.  For one reason or another, your reasoning/plans were not clear enough to those members in your own realm.)

Have you considered that maybe some of the fault is your own in this situation?
Would your former allies have become involved if you had clearly explained your motives behind your actions?
Would Irondale have gone seeking support from other friendly realms if they had actually been given a clear picture of the plan you were trying to implement?
Do you truly believe that the members of Thal deliberately ignored your plans for this particular war?

Have you considered that maybe some of the fault could be yours in how this situation arose?
Instead of blaming everyone else, it may be time to consider that your plan was not clearly explained to those that needed to be involved in making such huge continent-wide decisions. 

Maybe consider a re-read the govt rules:
Make failures your responsibility
If things do not work out the way you planned them, ask which mistakes you may have made first, before you flame other players for being dimwits.
If your orders were not followed, check if you posted them early enough, taking timezones into account, and if they were clear and easy to understand, especially to people whose native language is not english.
You should question your own abilities first, before you question others.

I don't believe that we have seen anything from you that would show you have accepted any responsibility for the recent troubles on BT. 
Rather, you have blamed everyone else for willingly and knowingly joining in on a bash Thalmarkin in a dogpile situation as though they all got together and INTENTIONALLY broke the rules of fair conduct to subvert the alliance bloc limits. 
Also implying that this is, and will continue to be, an ongoing breach of the rules by those players who will continue to perpetrate this poor behavior in an effort to "further their own gains" illegally.

Look around, not everybody is a cheater/opportunist waiting for a chance to get ahead by breaking the rules. 
Circumstances that Thalmarkin, and yourself most recently, created are what led to this confusing situation.
Accept some ownership for your own actions that likely led to this current misunderstanding.

10

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???

« on: May 19, 2020, 09:39:13 PM »

"You made an OOC decision to prioritise continent health over personal strength, Irondale chose themselves."

It seems to me that Tiberius did what he could to garner support from whereever he could.  Maybe this is was wrong of him, but look at the history of recent events.  Thalmarkin has impacted pretty much every noble of Irondale in a negative way.  Each of the realms that joined Irondale were defeated by Thalmarkin in recent times and were forced to move together by the actions of Thalmarkin.

Of course he would garner support from outside his realm, considering Thalmarkin had been the one to decimate every realm that merged into Irondale.

The one thing that stands out in your various posts is that YOU decided.
YOU decided who should be involved.
YOU decided how it should be done.
YOU felt it would be good for the continent.
...

If you felt that your actions were done for the betterment of the entire continent, I would have thought that you should have included more of the continent in YOUR decision making.  From the conversations I have seen (OOC) there was not much "sharing" on your part when you were planning this all out.  It seems that most of the rulers of BT were unaware of your plan.  I have heard from people in Thal that they knew nothing of your plan. 
I offer this thought, when YOU are making plans for the entire continent, maybe YOU should include more people in your plan making process.  You can not just make up a plan and expect everyone else to just fall into line with your idea. 
You have made too many assumptions in your plans without speaking to those involved (or who may become involved).

It has been pointed out to other players about assuming being a big part of the problem.

11

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???

« on: May 18, 2020, 08:48:49 AM »

The block as far as I knew was always SV, Nothoi and Caelint/Irondale.

I am not sure about what happened in Caelint after I left (ie when Tiberius took over as ruler), but I can assure that there was never any formal agreement between SV and Caelint while I was ruler.
SV and Nothoi have always had close ties, as far back as I can remember, but not Caelint and SV.

I don't believe SV ever once participated in the Gotland/Caelint war while I was there.

12

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???

« on: May 17, 2020, 11:24:47 PM »

Quote

    I don't mean to be picky here, but it was actually the "GOTLAND vs. CAELINT" war.


I agree with you there, but not that it was evenly matched. Caelint had Nothoi. Caelint however didn't die or disband, it changed it's name when it took in the other realms. Caelint by far won that war. They went from a tiny realm to a power of the North, that's a win, and a huge plus point for both the realm and the continent. Lots of small 6 man realms is really no good for anyone, but Irondale as it is now is a lot better.

So that I don't re-quote myself quoting myself, I would ask that you read the very first post in this thread. 
A one on one war with no allies involved.  (the quoted message was copied from an in game message, no interpretation needed)

Caelint NO longer exists. 
They were merged with other realms to form a NEW realm. 
I suspect the name change was made to accommodate the various realms coming together as "equals". 
It is NOT the same realm any more.  Yes, I suspect that Irondale is a much better realm, but it is no longer Caelint. 
Were I to return as the former "King of Caelint", I suspect that there would be major difficulties in "reclaiming" the throne. 
One of the first arguments that I would expect to see is: "This is no longer Caelint and you have no claim to Irondale's throne." 
There may be a few that might accept the claim as valid, but I suspect that most of the current nobles would balk at the idea.

13

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???

« on: May 17, 2020, 07:16:12 PM »

For the similarities to the Thal Caelint war, we actually weren't strong at the start of that. We got strong during it as we used it as a plus point for our realm.

I don't mean to be picky here, but it was actually the "GOTLAND vs. CAELINT" war.  A very evenly matched war between two boring little realms that may have helped either or both with recruitment and or fun for their tiny realms.  Unitl Thal forced its way in. 
If I recall correctly, at (at  least) one point both Gotland and Caelint wanted out of the war due to the actual battles being fought on their lands and both realms were suffering.  The war, of course, did not end until the largest realm (Thalmarkin) decided that it had had its fill of the war.  And since there is no longer a Gotland or a Caelint, the only real winner in that war was Thalmarkin. 

Thal did not grow in numbers due to real world recruitment, we grew in numbers because we accepted everyone and we accommodated everyone. Mordok was refused by every realm, we took them in. VS was banned en masse by Nova, we took them in. Thal accepts everyone and allows them to be the characters they want to be and works with that, rather than against it.

OK, Thal was accepting of anyone regardless of their previous history, I will give you that point.  But, at that time, anyone who asked on DISCORD about advice for joining a realm on BT, Obeah realm(s) and Thalmarkin were the "goto" advice that was given.  I have not seen this so much in recent times, but it was the case then.

You mention the "unofficial alliance block" of SV and Nothoi (and now include Irondale), as being a problem to prevent/influence war on the continent.  This was not the case when the Gotland/Caelint conflict was ongoing.  For whatever reason(s) SV was not there during that conflict.  It was more likely Thal's continuing actions of "bullying" that drew them into this most recent conflict.  After seeing Thal essentially destroy/damage "inflict their will" over the entire northern part of BT, maybe SV decided enough was enough and decided to intervene?  I can not say for sure, but seems quite likely to me.  OR maybe they just "used it as a plus point for their realm to help it grow and get strong".

For the comparison to the Grehkia attack, I can see the issues you have with it, but there is a distinction to be made here. That was multiple realms vs Thal. At the time, we could handle that. But the realm had 6 nobles, there isn't a war on the continent they could have gotten in that wouldn't have been one sided. We actually pushed for them to make the merge into Caelint and the whole war took place without a major battle.

I was not there for this, but I ask you this "what choice did they have?"  I would think they really had no choice.  Thal had, by that time, practically decimated every realm in the area that could have offered Gerhkia any type of assistance.

I never believed Thal would be destroyed, that isn't what I was worried about.
I was worried that Thal was the "mixer upper" of the continent. If Thal is pushed into that top right corner again, and weakened to a point that it can't start wars, can't do it's pushing... what will actually happen? When I joint Thal initially, the entire continent was at peace and every realm but OS was silent. You may not like Thal pushing it's weight around, but Irondale is a much better realm (game health wise) than Angmar, Grehkia, Gotland and Caelint were. Would that have occurred if a realm didn't push it?

If Thal is to either die, or be weakened to a point where it cannot be the antagonist anymore, then all that is left is a group of realms that are federated unofficially and have proven that they can and will attack in a large group and are capable of downing any foe. No one will declare war on any of you. Any war you declare you will win. That is not healthy from a game point of view.

SELF IMPORTANCE.  Without the actions of Thalmarkin's players the entire continent of BT would not be any fun for anyone?
We (Thal) made the continent fun for everyone.  Without us (Thal) you would all be bored.  "That is not healthy from a game point of view."
If the players in Thal think so much of themselves (and I do agree that there are many "good/exciting/engaging" players in Thal), would it not be "more healthy" to have disbanded Thalmarkin and spread those players throughout the other realms on the continent so as to drive more activity throughout the entire continent?

One of the first things I did when I noticed how strong Thal was, was to start offending allies. Ultimately detrimental if we wanted to try win the game, but a realm that had at the time 50 nobles, having an ally always backing us up bringing our total count to like 70... just wouldn't be fun. Thal has a fair few players that like the war game, they want wars to fight, not stomps. I am sure your realms are similar.

You are right, it was not any fun, but there were those in Thal during the Gotland vs Caelint war that seemed to be having fun from what I recall of the letters that came out at the time.  So in an effort to help "equalize" the sides, you pushed your allies away by offending them.  Knowing full well that you had already meddled and aggravated pretty much every other realm on the continent.
And then you are surprised when suddenly most of the continent wants a piece of Thal and you now have no allies to help back you up???  What did you really expect?  Maybe it would have been a better idea to keep your allies close and ask them to not interfere unless needed their help to defend your realm... This is what I did in Caelint.  I asked my allies to not interfere in our Gotland incident until it became clear that both Thalmarkin and AA were not willing to stay out of the conflict.

And finally, this isn't just a BT thing.
The Northern alliance on EC is an issue too.

I agree.  Consider this though:
I have not played a noble on EC for a while now either, but when I was there, I know for a fact that the war could have been ended at the time by the "south" admitting defeat and giving up ONE city (Perdan) to end the war. 
War over. 
What has held the north together for so long?  I suspect that the biggest factor holding the north together is the war with the south.
Without this war to solidify relations, I suspect that the north would quickly turn on each other for any number of reasons.
Sometimes, the best way to "win" is to admit defeat. 

Realms like Sirion, who actually do have the fighting nobles, are unchallenged because they have a 3 realm thick buffer state... that's an issue for both the southern players who are opposed by them, and for the actual enjoyment of the Sirion nobles. They have to play for weeks of just movement to be able to get a battle. No battle ever carries any risk whatsoever. Their regions are never at risk. That's... boring for everyone involved.

Until recently, you could have replaced the name "Sirion" with the name "Thalmarkin". 
The only real difference being the side that you have chosen for your characters.

I hope this helps give you a clearer picture of the other side.

14

BM General Discussion / Re: BattleMaster Front page.

« on: May 15, 2020, 11:29:02 PM »

Sorry for the delay.

Maybe it is time to consider changing the front page announcement for the game?
When I first started playing the game (over 10 years now) this was a very accurate description of the game and how it worked.
It seems, in recent years, that the "vision" of the developers has changed from a ten minute a day "war game" with some RP to a very involved (more than 10 minutes a day) roleplay type game with less opportunity (more restrictions) for warfare. 

I understand the need for player interaction to help "move" the game along and create a fun environment for fellow players.
With increased restrictions in recent years, it seems like the "vision" is now more geared towards roleplay features of the game rather than the actual war features.  I understand that we have lost MANY more players than we have gained in recent years, so certain changes need to be made.  The front page should also be updated to take this new "vision" into account.

So, lets look at two equal, though different, types of realms consisting of two different types of playstyles.
Each realm consists of (say) 15 players.

Realm "A":
These people are in it for the "10 minute" a day war game as described on the front page of the game.
They log in and do their few clicks and send out any letters that must be sent.
A very boring realm in the eyes of many players, but obviously still a VIABLE realm because people are still actively playing in this realm.

Realm "B":
Now, these people are in the game to share their "stories" through their roleplays, which generally involve much more than 10 minutes a day. 
This drives roleplay activity/interaction, but does not always contribute to the war/battle aspect of the game.

Which of these two "realms" best fit the "vision" of the developers?
From the code changes and what I have read in the forums and seen on Discord, it would seem to me that the current "vision" of the game is headed to a much more RP heavy atmosphere (realm "B") with much less consideration given to those players who are less interested in telling their story (realm "A") and want to fight in wars without having to spend hours every week trying to keep up with the stories that others want to share.

Nivemus is a prime example of realm "A" players.  Constantly "picked on" and described as a DEAD realm that should not exist...
Perdan, on the other hand, is an "exciting" realm where roleplay abounds and actual war is often frowned upon because it "interferes" with the fun of their players wanting to spend more time interacting through their RP stories (realm "B" players).

Though the front page of BattleMaster clearly states that both types of "realms" would be acceptable to play, much of what I have seen in recent times would imply that this is NOT the case anymore. 
And this is fine, but the front page of the game should be changed to reflect the current VISION of what the developers are trying to accomplish. 


[on a side note, my comments here are based on my skills of the english language as well.  My english skills are pretty good and I could/can participate in RP's if and when I choose to.  As is pointed out in many places, we also have younger players and many players to whom english is a second language.  This COULD certainly affect their enjoyment of the game if they would be expected to join in on "english based" roleplays.]

15

BM General Discussion / Re: BattleMaster Front page.

« on: May 15, 2020, 10:35:00 PM »

YUP. 
It's coming.
I am just taking the time to try to WORD my ideas/concepts properly to avoid any confusion or upset as some of my recent posts have done.
Sorry the I am a little slow.