1
Helpline / Re: Was my account deleted?
« on: September 24, 2016, 06:35:56 PM »
Must have all went to spam or something. Oh well.
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.
2
Helpline / Was my account deleted?
« on: September 24, 2016, 06:23:51 PM »
Can't login and forgot password says it doesn't know me.
3
South Island / Re: Siege of Toren Stronghold
« on: May 16, 2015, 10:18:37 AM »
Nah I left Taselak cause the lords were neo capitalist libertarian gold hoarders who would use RP to deny the existence of game mechanics.
4
South Island / Re: Siege of Toren Stronghold
« on: May 16, 2015, 07:17:02 AM »Kai, why do you have to be such a negative person? It was a good fight all around, in my opinion. From start to finish, both teams played excelently. I'm really honored to have been 'foes' of such an excellent group of people, and I'm really looking forward to the next map! Please add Toren back, this 2v1 thing has been so unfair.
Nah I'm referring to the ridiculous agreements which let realms survive when they should have died. It makes the whole WI a joke because the result is manipulated by some old players OOC. Even now, Taselak is being carved up OOC in order to ensure a "gud fite" between Sandalak and Ikalak.
5
BM General Discussion / Re: Roleplaying Discussion
« on: May 15, 2015, 01:37:47 PM »
People just make RP excuses to be dicks in game.
6
South Island / Re: Siege of Toren Stronghold
« on: May 10, 2015, 05:00:51 AM »
god no more ooc 'gud fite' nonsense please
7
BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« on: April 06, 2015, 05:02:43 AM »
RIP, better extract the players to a game that has a subscription while you still can.
8
South Island / city knight incomes
« on: February 08, 2015, 02:10:13 AM »
Currently knights of cities get about 200 gold per week with 100% estate efficiency in a completely safe region. Knights of other regions average 100 gold per week or less and may have their regions looted or TOed. I think this is too much of a difference for war islands.
9
Feature Requests / Re: Per Vassal Taxes and Stipends
« on: January 30, 2015, 10:30:55 PM »TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
10
Feature Requests / Re: Per Vassal Taxes and Stipends
« on: January 30, 2015, 10:27:04 AM »
sum(region taxes)/noblbes
11
Feature Requests / Re: Per Vassal Taxes and Stipends
« on: January 26, 2015, 09:23:01 AM »
I think giving people buttons which arbitrarily give/take away gold with very little counterplay or interaction is bad. The only reason this is an improvement over the current systems is that it adds the 'give' button, which is better than only having 'take' but still worse than having neither.
12
Development / Re: Estate/Tax Revamp Proposal Take 2
« on: January 17, 2015, 06:55:13 AM »
It seems like you are trying to make a situation where a knight with 10% and the lord with 20% makes the lord more money than just taking 30% for himself. But this makes no sense if all you do is divide the land. If you want to make estates and stuff a big part of the game you have to make regions deteriorate without knights. However, if you make sheer numbers of nobles have significant enough benefits that lords actually care about them, then, as we saw in the policing/production estate system, drops in population are ruinous. If you don't want to make estates a big part of the game, then you have to go back to full realm communism.
I don't think middle of the road systems can work very well at all. In the current system, the lord hands out largesse unilaterally and receives only lip service in turn.
The root of the issue is that systems which give large production bonuses for knights result in a large value purely for character numbers, whereas in the battle part of the game, a single character can command a widely varying amount of force depending mostly on gold. Two characters with 20 men each are given only a small bonus compared to 1 commanding 40. The estate system has to follow suit and therefore lords are given almost unilateral power. Therefore, the gold producing and gold destroying parts of the game are contradictory.
I have always supported the return of communism. Without gold the number of fun decisions in the game, especially for new players, is very small. Making the gold supply dependent on a few guys who have open estates who may all be giant dicks has been terrible.
I don't think middle of the road systems can work very well at all. In the current system, the lord hands out largesse unilaterally and receives only lip service in turn.
The root of the issue is that systems which give large production bonuses for knights result in a large value purely for character numbers, whereas in the battle part of the game, a single character can command a widely varying amount of force depending mostly on gold. Two characters with 20 men each are given only a small bonus compared to 1 commanding 40. The estate system has to follow suit and therefore lords are given almost unilateral power. Therefore, the gold producing and gold destroying parts of the game are contradictory.
I have always supported the return of communism. Without gold the number of fun decisions in the game, especially for new players, is very small. Making the gold supply dependent on a few guys who have open estates who may all be giant dicks has been terrible.
13
Helpline / Re: Melee Formations
« on: January 10, 2015, 07:35:28 AM »Depending on the level of the fortification, the reduction in defence once boosted by the fortification could well be offset by the damage bonus. It would largely depend on the situation, the opposing forces etc. The problem with any statement like this is really the extent of the bonus and penalties is not known. Is it percentage based? If so it would affect low armour units more then high armour units. A unit with 90% weapon and 30% armour may well see a significant increase in its attack, but a much lower decrease in its armour. Conversely if it is a fixed penalty, high armour units might not see much of an effect to the reduction at all. I much prefer to make selections based on what is logical to my character based on the situation they are faced with.
I don't think it's a good idea to overlook the fact that there is an actual numbers simulated war game you know, and not just MessageMaster with random battles.
14
BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« on: January 10, 2015, 03:08:47 AM »
I forgot what we were even arguing about.
I think inter-realm conflict is much more fun than intra-realm conflict
I think inter-realm conflict is much more fun than intra-realm conflict
15
BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« on: January 09, 2015, 09:29:18 AM »
That might be true when you increase the number of players while holding number of regions constant, but what has been done in practice is decreasing number of regions while holding player numbers constant. I don't think the latter case can logically lead to more realms.