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.


Messages - Buffalkill

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34
1
Dwilight / Re: Knight/Region Density/Efficiency
« on: January 08, 2015, 06:24:26 AM »
Quote from: Sypher on January 08, 2015, 06:09:08 AM
Where do you get 133 regions from? Shouldn't it be 125? (or 124, I don't recall when Smokey Hills was recovered from the Rogues).
Just from my own counting. Here's a spreadsheet that I used: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B85AasBw9ZoxYndMVXpUOWMwdWc/view?usp=sharing

2
BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« on: January 08, 2015, 06:14:56 AM »
Quote from: Chénier on January 08, 2015, 05:49:09 AM
This seems more like a sinuous function than an exponential one to me. Having more data would likely show a seasonal trend. Interestingly, it starts and finishes with the same value.
Yes this one is the most interesting to me. It's per capita, so it's not effected by changes in the number of registered players. I think you're right that it shows seasonal trends, such as increased activity in cold months (if you live in the northern hemisphere) and vice versa. It also shows that the diehards haven't been discouraged by the year long exodus.

3
Dwilight / Re: Knight/Region Density/Efficiency
« on: January 08, 2015, 05:56:16 AM »
DateNoblesRegionsDensity
5 May 20133832381.61
1 March 20142811332.11
16 August 20142051331.54
1 January 20151751331.32

4
BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« on: January 08, 2015, 05:39:28 AM »

5
BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« on: January 08, 2015, 05:26:34 AM »

6
BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« on: January 08, 2015, 05:22:39 AM »

7
BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« on: January 08, 2015, 05:21:39 AM »

8
BM General Discussion / Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« on: January 08, 2015, 05:20:49 AM »

9
Dwilight / Re: How to help Dwilight.
« on: January 07, 2015, 06:16:46 AM »
Have another migration west, now that everyone's settled in on the east island. The single most exciting time of the last year was the migration, then it went quickly downhill. Flip it again!

10
Helpline / Re: So I can't send messages or do anything?
« on: September 11, 2014, 12:38:57 PM »
Yes Asylon. Apparently I can send messages but I can't read my received messages, and I can't do anything else until a choose a new realm.

11
Helpline / So I can't send messages or do anything?
« on: September 10, 2014, 06:46:36 AM »
Is this a new feature?
Quote
Your realm has lost its capital, and you are now without a home. However, you can start a new career, joining any realm that has not banned you.

12
BM General Discussion / Re: Large flaws in estate and tax system
« on: September 09, 2014, 01:52:26 PM »
Quote from: De-Legro on September 09, 2014, 04:59:56 AM

Making knights more valuable to their Lords and their realm is a good thing, but its not going to fix the issues with knight density on its own. For that we need to actually increase the number of players/characters relative to the land that is available
Indeed, that's why I also think improvements should be made to make the knight game more interesting.

13
BM General Discussion / Re: Large flaws in estate and tax system
« on: September 09, 2014, 04:37:44 AM »

You can't give an advantage to Realm A without giving a disadvantage to Realm B. Likewise, you can't make it advantageous to have knights without penalizing not having knights. Besides, if a realm has too few knights, that's just another way of saying they have too many regions. Make it so that regions with a full complement of lords and knights have an advantage over those that don't, and the issue will be self-correcting. As it stands, it's advantageous for realms to have a 1:1 nobles-to-regions ratio (or close to that) compared to a 3:1 ratio. The reverse should be true.

14
BM General Discussion / Re: Large flaws in estate and tax system
« on: September 07, 2014, 06:09:42 PM »
Food and gold production should be depend on how many nobles live in the region. Make it so that regions need a full complement of nobles to reach their full potential. Let's say 1 lord and 2 knights for most regions, 3-4 knights for larger regions and cities, and for badlands 1 knight, or maybe none. If they have less than a full complement, they can still hold onto the region but it won't yield as much food and gold because there are fewer "managers" running the business. In the real world a one-man operation doesn't normally produce as much as a 3-man operation if all other things are equal. Realms will then have to make strategic decisions about whether it's better to hold as many regions as possible, or to consolidate their manpower into fewer regions in order to maximise productivity. Every time they consider taking a new region, they'll have to weigh the cost and benefits.

15
BM General Discussion / Re: Large flows in estate and tax system
« on: September 06, 2014, 07:55:24 PM »
Quote from: Stue (DC) on September 06, 2014, 05:49:01 PM
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
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34