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 - Chenier

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 502
East Island / Re: The New Xavax
« on: Yesterday at 11:42:49 PM »
Highmarch is very much alive from what I can tell. The battle for Fontan can begin.

If you want to become part of creating a new and dynamic realm where you will be able to have an impact and play alongside great roleplayers and seasoned players who will take you along for the ride? Don't hesitate to join in!

A Chénier can spice any realm. ;)

East Island / Re: Perlerone
« on: Yesterday at 04:17:17 PM »
I'm all for the three of them invading each other as long as they all also send half their gold to Highmarch. :)

East Island / Re: Which realm to join?
« on: December 09, 2017, 04:02:03 PM »
I created a "Little Enweil" estate in Scio (Highmarch), so that's totally the "in" place to be right now.

Gotta spread democracy!

I should go back to Scio and rename the RCs, too. :P

Feature Requests / Re: Different levels of imprisonment
« on: December 09, 2017, 02:13:59 AM »
Downside: All judges will probably move prisoners to the hole (the oubliette thing you describe), making it harder to escape than already is.

I think few Judges will opt to move them to the 'House Arrest' kind of thing, to be honest.

Depends on the honor cost. Honestly, I think house arrest would become relatively common, and offer a good substitute to the "immediate release" agreements many governments sign with each other.

East Island / Re: Greater Xavax Imperium
« on: December 09, 2017, 02:05:26 AM »
I actually think this is an example of a terrible recreation.
The realm was finished off in a bloody seccesion war against the seceeded Aurvandil which was plagued by serious multi cheating(same people as Thulsoma, Averorth etc they used multis to harvest gold and sent it all to one place raising massive armies between 20 and 40 K CS at certain points in regions like Valkyrja which made about 200/300 gold ).
It was actually a vary sad moment in BM, or atleast for me as (co) founder of Madina.

The new Madina was founded by some old members (atleast two if i recall correctly), but didnt have anything to do with Madina.
It didnt share culture or the way the realm was designed, they actually went for the complete opposite.
The founders of the new Madina wherent creative enough to come up with their own name and flag and thus used that of the old Madina.
Wiki pages all kept refering to the old Madina and the new Madina became an empty husk of a relam build around a single ruler/Duke with no background, code of law or anything which it still is.
In contrast, the old Madina was put allot of work into and had a very unique style of governance that isnt like anything else in BM.
The new Madina didnt adopt all that because it was a very decentralized system and wouldnt allow for a single character to have all the power like now.

And as it often is. New Fronen has only the name in common with the old. Different lands, different people, different culture, even different flag. Unlike Madina, that was mostly used to piggy back on sympathy capital the name generated for certain people in BT, which helped legitimize and support the creation of this new realm ("we'll recreate Fronen!" had more traction than "we'll create a new realm!").

Xinhai became Morek (or Morek Empire?), but I think that one was at least much closer than the Fronen and Madina examples.

Honestly, I think the cases where realms are reborn true to their original identity is rare, if it ever happens. Death transforms a realm.

East Island / Re: Greater Xavax Imperium
« on: December 07, 2017, 09:34:20 PM »
That depends on the context imo. Xavax wanting to reform their realm or Oligarch make sense. Recreating Tuchanon VII makes sense ^^ But doing Fontan now for instance no longer makes sense.


Development / Re: Rethinking the rules
« on: December 07, 2017, 09:29:03 PM »
Eh, details. That sort of thing can easily be adjusted to achieve the desired effect, once the basic mechanic is in place.

As to the rest...I dunno, I'd like to see colony TOs return, but I think they might need some reworking to make a bit more sense. And if you're suggesting that we shouldn't allow secessions when the realm is below a certain nobles:regions ratio...well, I might well be persuadable that that should be a thing.  ;)

Takeover and secede honestly seems like the best way to simulate the old colony takeover. Secessions create a ton of penalties across the realm, so they aren't free. Gives the invading realm the time it needs to organize the colony, too.

As for a ratio, I don't really think it's *needed*, and noble count alone can't really guarantee how many of those people are capable leaders. A noble:realm ratio could be used to restrict the creation of new realms, but it kinda seems pointless and seems to me like it could have unforseen consequences. If we want to mechanically disfavor small empty realms, imo we'd be better off focusing on granting realms the means to field a mobile army more comparable to what they used to have back in the days with the old tax system.

Development / Re: Rethinking the rules
« on: December 07, 2017, 09:05:58 PM »
The point is that only being able to recruit in the capital is a gameplay balance decision, and as such, circumventing it by moving your capital (or seceding) specifically for that reason has no IC justification. It is purely an attempt to circumvent a deliberate balance decision.

If we change the decision on balance, then there's no longer a reason to restrict secessions and capital moves, because there's no longer a recruitment benefit to doing them.

Well, you mentioned that having the recruitment fair anywhere else than the capital would be very costly in upkeep, so the incentive to move the capital to the front would remain the same.

Strategic secessions and strategic capital moves are both risky for their own reasons.

I consider the secession of Iato to form IVF to have greatly precipitated Enweil's death, despite being a friendly secession. In theory, both realms had higher tax tolerance, had two capitals to recruit from, and thus were better off. But Enweil was at that point as almost all realms are now: devoid of enough both capable and active players to run two realms efficiently, if it even has enough for one.

Let's just think of generals and marshals here, since it's the most blatant example. How many realms have enough competent people to run multiple armies efficiently? Barely any. Heck, I'm sure we can all think of a ton of realms that can't even run a single army efficiently. So what happens if you split them up? They'd crumble. Two poorly run splinter realms would have no clue as to what the other is doing or enduring, would not react in a timely fashion to any invasion, would not be ableto coordinate joint attacks, would have much longer refit cycles, etc.

In almost all cases, strategic secessions are an unstrategic option.

But what about the few that would be strategic... so what? Wars have become too rare for many parts of the game world. Are colony takeovers even a thing anymore? Do they still exist? What's the difference between a normal takeover of an enemy city and then seceding it to form a new realm at the front, and a colony takeover? They both allow to continue a war where distance might have otherwise rendered it impossible to continue, or would have caused extremely long and boring refit cycles.

Development / Re: Rethinking the rules
« on: December 07, 2017, 08:39:39 PM »
For the merger thing, well, a king can't unilaterally destroy his realm. Destroying one's realm takes time and (foreign) resources. A ruler can't just click a button to delete the realm. And I'm not against the mechanic that prevents a realm's last city to switch out (go fix that bug, btw ;) ).

So if a ruler wants to destroy the realm in order to merge with another, you need to 1) declare war, 2) empty the capital of all militia and troops, and 3) have the other realm come take it over.

If the realm's nobles don't want to merge... it'll be hard to do so. The ruler has no power to sack militia, he needs the capital's lord or the general's support. And none of them have any power over the mobile forces. So every noble who opposes the fusion can recruit to the max and sit in the capital. With those lvl 5 walls (or greater), even without militia a mobile army is usually strong enough to repel an invader. And in the case of friendly takeovers, the assimilating realm usually isn't ready to accept heavy losses for the move. Not to mention that this gives plenty of time for dissenters to protest or rebel against the pro-merger government.

As for the recruitment fair idea, I don't really see it tied to the cited capital issues. Those are interesting mechanics idea, but it's on the whole mostly a tweak on the current system, where a capital on the border helps reduce the refit cycle but intentionally placing it there is against the rules.

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?

Dwilight / Re: The Shmaeless Swordfell Recruitment Thread
« on: December 07, 2017, 01:33:11 AM »
Right. That is why Astrum signed a treaty giving up lands. Nice try Gabanus Family. In my book, giving up regions and getting nothing back means losing.

Astrum is overstretched, it's doubtful they even ever wanted all that land.

Zakky, you have been talking in this thread as if you know how Titans operate. You would not have that knowledge without having been a Titan at some point in the past. Over the last many months, while you are often in the general ballpark of accuracy, you were not a dev yourself, and have often explained mechanics misleadingly based upon your own understanding, which may be more than the average player, but not as much as anyone whose read the code. Please think about what you are saying. And yes, as Samboji points out, that includes the tone of your explanations and not talking down to other players. You can be very helpful in explaining to players, indeed, but sometimes its slightly off the mark, or can get aggressive. Just slow down and think before you hit reply. Sometimes, when I do that, I realize I should reword or even just not reply.

In his defense, most of what he said, if not all, is "common knowledge" to any of us old timers.

I can get that it can give the impression to a newbie that he is authoritorial in the matter, but I neither think that posing as a titan was his intent, nor that whatever experience he may have previously had as a dev/coder/mod/titan/magistrate/whatever is the sole source of his knowledge.

Every time a case like this shows up, it's always the same scenario. Those who backed the cheaters whine, threaten to quit, talk as if the rules are for everyone but them, and that somehow, in the grand scheme of things, those people who backed the cheaters are the true victims of it all. And each time, explanations about how titan decisions are made are shared, to help ease any feeling of arbitrary persecution.

MTYL... The line you are referring to is

The titans didn't invalidate your progress, Crixus, the guy you supported, did. He betrayed you, the titan's reaction was neither arbitrary nor unpredictable.

If you truly do not understand what was said here, allow me to reformulate:

The titans' judgement is not an independent act. It is not a cause. It does not spring out of nothingness. Titan sanctions appear when, and only when, rules are broken (beyond reasonable doubt). Yes, they have the authority to use their judgement when it comes to the severity, but they don't use it arbitrarily, the decision is perfectly in line with previous examples. So if your complaint is that your realm is filled with empty positions, then what caused that? The titan judgement it would seem, by the complain, but that's just a symptom. The root cause of the positions being empty is Crixus breaking the rules. And he should have known that breaking the rules in this way would have exactly this effect. He's not a newbie. So with full knowledge of the risks, he chose to take actions that would lead to the current situation.

If you are angry about the amount of positions left empty, don't be angry with the titans for doing their job, be angry 1) with Crixus for blatantly breaking the rules, and 2) with yourselves for giving so damn many titles to him. The hell guys, concentrating power this much is stupid. Where would you be now if Crixus had been captured in battle, or had taken a serious wound that wouldn't heal? No better off. Swordfell's players in this regard have no one to blame but themselves.

Crixus has been hailed as a problematic player for a very long time. Yet the players of Swordfell gave him free reign to continue this and to keep hoarding more and more.

Now he overtly broke the rules. And he got punished for it.

And people are protesting... what exactly? What on earth do you see that is worth protesting, worth threatening to quit over?

Your parents didn't raise you, Bill Gates, the guy you know in person, did. He birthed you, your parents' reaction was neither peaceful nor calm.

What now? Those sentences make zero sense. None of it makes sense. I can't even agree or disagree with the statement because I'm utterly clueless as to what its meaning is intended to be.

And to get it straight, no one's cheering over anyone quitting. But that doesn't mean we should sympathize. As far as I can tell from what has been said so far, those players complaining have zero legitimate grievances.

Helpline / Re: Unique item bonus question - Swordfighting
« on: December 05, 2017, 03:10:59 AM »
A unique item can indeed increase a character's effective skill beyond 100%.

However, adventurers will always be limited by their gear, and that can't (AFAIK) go over 100%.

Does this restriction apply to all gameplay (hunting, duels, infiltrator attacks, etc.), or just hunting?

Nah, I don't have any issue with how matters are IC. I understand that it's natural for people to extrapolate their (IC) hatred for Crixus to entire Swordfell. And having overwhelmingly superior powers against me and my realm... honestly I enjoy the "hard-mode". Makes the eventual victory that much more tasty. And the character I play there thrives in navigating impossible situations. So honestly IC on dwi is almost perfect if you don't count the titan decision practically undoing last ten months of my gameplay there even though I never broke any rules... ;)

The only thing that aches me is that enmity seeps through to the OOC. It's the first time I've noticed it too, cause in all the other IC conflicts I partook in (weren't that many - year old guy here) OOC between the sides was entirely jovial, with occasional friendly banter here and there. But then again perhaps I'm naming an elephant in the room now because I'm just a green "new guy", perhaps that's the standard in battlemaster I was oblivious too for all this time. I don't know. I know that when someone carries the grudge for in-game stuff it puts me off, and I imagine it's one of the things that would put off most of the people.

The titans didn't invalidate your progress, Crixus, the guy you supported, did. He betrayed you, the titan's reaction was neither arbitrary nor unpredictable.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 502