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 ... 511
1
East Island / Re: Magical Events in Bescanon & Surrounding Regions
« on: May 26, 2018, 02:52:45 PM »
I find it incredibly hypocritical that those who whine the most about this event seem to also be those that take the most pleasure in RPing about their use of magic whenever it's to their own advantage. Also people who have benefited from portal stones in the past, and who have never shied away from using magic under any form whatsoever. These effects weren't even unprecedented.

I agree with reducing magic on EC, but I wholeheartedly disagree with catering to the whining and undoing what was done. I will be very mad if another set of portal stones are used to simply undo what was just done, regardless of how much more RP or scrolls are poured into it. Portal stones aren't a wishing well, whining on the forum shouldn't be either. Using more stones to undo SOME of the effects that occurred can be justified, but not to surgically undo all that was done. Actions which were not surgical to begin with, but random.

So maybe tone down what occurs in the future, and reduce the stone spawn rate. Maybe add IG reports "there are rumors of an adventurer running around with portal stones nearby" to facilitate witch hunts against them. But do not just return things to how they were. No matter how much whining, RPing, or scrolls are given.

I will also add, however, that I'm also greatly annoyed that the Bescanon portal was resolved pretty much immediately, before I even noticed it on the map. The Darfix portal, on the other hand, has been there for as long as I remember. We've had characters parked there for months to see if anything happens. We've had to adjust Westgard's military expeditions out of fear of what it might do. We've asked countless times for a resolution to that portal event. Why were we unworthy there? Just shut it down in a fizzle if you don't care to do anything about it.

2
Development / Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
« on: May 18, 2018, 02:15:08 AM »
I think I've stated it already, but I'm of the opinion that the solution to armies completely killing a region's full population is, instead of having that population all rise up to get slaughtered even faster, they instead flee to neighboring regions which will then overcrowded and, gradually, migrate back to the original location. If massive devastation merely moved population instead of killing it, it'd be harder to have zones uninhabitable for ages. While still allowing players to cause somewhat lasting harm instead of something that's auto-fixed within a refit cycle.

3
East Island / Re: Wanted: Secessionist Northern Duke
« on: May 15, 2018, 07:14:07 PM »
You get a Perdan! You get a Perdan! Everybody gets a Perdan!

4
Feature Requests / Re: Reply to List for Realm Council
« on: May 14, 2018, 05:19:26 PM »
yes PLEASE

5
Development / Re: Complete mechanical immunity hurts the game
« on: May 14, 2018, 05:15:16 PM »
The key element is: don't let untrustworthy people gain the royal status.

Rulership is huge. It's easier to forget this now that titles are a buck a dozen, but you really, really, really need to consider your rulers carefully.

6
Development / Re: Fortifications
« on: May 14, 2018, 05:13:44 PM »
BM demographics make no sense. Don't try to figure it out, the math will just never add up. ;)

7
Dwilight / Re: Lurian Resurgence
« on: April 01, 2018, 07:32:18 PM »
But didn't we just sign a treaty?

8
Dwilight / Re: Lurian Resurgence
« on: March 31, 2018, 01:44:43 AM »
So... are you going to war yet?

9
East Island / Re: Wanted: Secessionist Northern Duke
« on: March 31, 2018, 01:44:23 AM »
Seeing the North completely oblivious to the fact Garas was long gone was always something pretty amusing that nobody felt a need to correct.

10
BM General Discussion / Re: Extended Family - The Renodins
« on: March 26, 2018, 04:09:42 AM »
Hey guys, so I figured I'll clarify a thing or two.

We (me and Renodin's player) have decided to take it one step further and not only create a character that has ties to Renodin family, but entire family branch steming from House Renodin. And that's how Arnickles Renodin came to be. It's not multiaccounting, there are two different players playing two different Renodin families (one the original and one the new one), I found nothing against it in the rules and player of the original family greenlit it all (not only that, we both kind of liked the idea). I for one am excited about all the different possibilities that come from having two families so closely related, especially since both me and original Renodin are intensive roleplayers.

Cheers.

I'm not sure I understand what you did.

Can you link family IDs?

11
Beluaterra / Re: A change is coming.
« on: March 23, 2018, 01:28:59 AM »
And Handkor returns!

12
Development / Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
« on: March 16, 2018, 04:49:26 AM »
Just to point out: wealth tax used to be a thing. Bankers could set between 5-20% (or so?) on gold and bonds, past X limit. RTOs on rogue regions is no longer possible, it was quickly removed after how easy it was seen to be.

I'm also very reticent with all mechanics that inhibit growth. Growth comes from success, first and foremost. I see no reason to arbitrarily limit success. The solution to having both the "discourage or prevent realms where 100% of the nobles have titles" and the "encourage wars by allowing realms to grow as much as their military will allow it" is to make it so that something can allow for a realm to grow much larger without it automatically meaning that every region taken adds 1 title to attribute. Essentially, a new lordless status. But not as it is now, but one that incites realms to grow as much as possible while also inciting realms to not have more than half of its nobles as lords. This can potentially mean having some of the lordless regions fall more under the purview of dukes or rulers, that, while less effective than if it had an actual lord, is still beneficial enough to encourage realms to go to war for.

13
Development / Re: Family Homes
« on: March 15, 2018, 11:53:53 PM »
...I mean, I guess. Doesn't make much sense IC, it's true, but it does get them a family home, which...is generally a good thing.

But with advies you don't pick where.

14
Development / Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
« on: March 09, 2018, 08:04:27 PM »
A point I've made on the IRC I feel the need to bring up here:

Large hollowed out realms are bad. But splitting large hollowed our realms into multiple small hollowed out realms is not any better. Arguably, it is worse.

The argument around capital radius shrinkage (and by capital radius, I mean the region mechanic, not the troop mechanic, which afaik does not work off the capital) was that it would force smaller realms, which would be more dense, and thus more dynamic. And largely, this is accurate. At least, in places where all realms basically just grow into rogue lands, without competition except from the monster spawns when people grow too much. Namely, Dwilight.

That's not the effect, though, in more dynamic continents, where land is mostly taken from other realms, and significant player migrations between realms have been seen. The effect is actually the opposite there.

Because if you take one large 21 region realm with 21 nobles, and you then tinker the capital distance allowance to force realms to be even smaller, you then end up with, say, three 7 region realms with 7 nobles each. Congratulations, you've made the realm full of smaller realms! But each realm just maintains the same low 1:1 density, so you've done nothing about all about everyone already being a lord and having no reason to expand. Not only that, but if you consider government positions, and duchies, the 21 region realm with 1 duchy had 26 titles to share around. The broken down version? 36 titles to spread around. For the same 21 nobles. So you've got even less competition going on, and even more titles where only 1 candidate runs or, worse, none at all. All while taking that pool of people that could interact with each other and breaking them down into small parts with very few people to interact with.

Small is not always better. And I say this despite historically always having been a fan of small realms, and having had many of my fondest memories in them. But the community isn't what it used to be. And promoting small realms was never about preventing successful dynamic realms from becoming sizable, or at least shouldn't have been.

To Gabanus,

On point 7, I haven't seen an RTO as of late. But it's in the same spirit of things than the rest. Would rather not wait for it to become a problem before dealing with it.

On point 8, because I feel player actions should stop player actions. If you want an army to stop looting you, attack it. If peasant militias due to looting must remain (those due to travel should absolutely be utterly removed), then they should spawn in lower numbers (maximum 4k CS in the best of cases, more typically 2k CS), and they should spawn with the scattered condition, rallying only on the following turn, so that when an army decides on whether to loot or not, they already know ahead of time what forces they will fight. This would eliminate the risk of having a 7k army loot, and after the 14th noble does it, 10k militia spawns: "SURPRISE!". It's dumb, and it seriously limits tactics.

On 9, I wouldn't have them return. I mean, I'd love for realms to have an option to actively move population around, but I'm not counting on it. Looting is supposed to hurt, reduced population is one way to achieve that. The kill count could be lowered to compensate, though. After all, looting many regions in a row would mean population moves back and forth, they aren't all lost. I think it would be too much hassle to script something for a return mechanic, but the natural migration of high pop regions to depopulated regions could certainly be increased.

15
Feature Requests / Re: Rejected: Assassinate Rulers
« on: March 02, 2018, 03:00:43 PM »
Yeah but that is pretty much already possible, no? If you schwack a ruler with a serious enough wound they will lose their title. I wanted to add more danger and excitement to being a ruler, rather than being fat and unconcerned.

Danger is my middle name after all.

The odds that a wound will cause a ruler to lose his position are pretty damn slim. The odds that the wound will then prevent him from getting re-elected are just about nil.

A "kidnap and fake death" option, that has a higher fail rate, but that automatically triggers new elections, would be a much more viable compromise to force a leadership change without going so far as to kill characters.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 511