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 - Anaris

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 364
1
I completely agree with the above.

Is this something you could live with?

I suggested it, didn't I? ;D

If you want to start working on implementing this, be my guest.

2
Thaaaat's....a really good idea.

I don't know why they're not flaggable. Frankly, every message should be.

I approve this feature request, though I can't check into it just at the second. I'll try and work it into the message system update I've been working on for a while.

3
I am not at all happy about the idea of changing how autopausing works. Fundamentally, it is based on the character itself: if you're not playing them, they shouldn't sit around making other people think they're active.

However, one thing that might be worthwhile is an indication on the family page that your character is close to autopausing, for both nobles and adventurers. That should solve this problem, as well as helping with some other ones.

4
Development / Re: HTTPS security standard
« on: February 16, 2018, 12:39:26 AM »
If done right, not in the slightest.

However, it's out of my hands; server configuration stuff like this is still 100% Tom.

5
Development / Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
« on: February 13, 2018, 08:10:11 PM »
1) Maybe. They were always awkwards, though. A city in the middle of enemy lands is hard to make a viable realm in off the bat. No RCs, no economy, right next door to the rest of the enemies...

Yeah; something different needs to be done, and perhaps some of my other ideas about changes in region ownership should play into them—with the basic idea be that you essentially half-take-over the city and some surrounding regions, then declare them en masse to be a new colony.

Quote
2) Maybe simpler, less-gamey, and more hybrid form. Ex: allow rulers to give to all troop leaders half of their realm share taxes, which when selected, also allows them to double the max tax rate they can impose on their dukes (and so on down the line).

Yeah, something along those lines—optional, like Vita says, and working with the new system, not trying to replace it.

Quote
4) Gold past the new lowered cap need not be completely removed. You could have a decay of maybe 10% of the excess per week, during which time half of the decayed gold is shared between the active characters of the family. Gotta remember, though, people with 20k gold are people who horded key positions in their realm, and instead of helping their realms do stuff, they were parasites that funneled funds elsewhere. BM would probably have seen a lot more wars if the super rich had nowhere to send their gold other than in-realm (especially if wealth taxes were back).

I'd still rather not just make the excess gold decay away.

Frankly, it sounds to me like what you really want isn't so much the removal of family gold, but the removal of the "buy region" option, and that's something I am open to, though I'd like something to replace it with—not necessarily another way to take a region, but something that's sneaky and highly disruptive.

Quote
6) Yea, I think it does need discussion. An alternative to buying regions would be to bribe referendum results, but I'm not sure if undermining elections is something we really want to do. In any case, my general feeling is that one-player gimmicks should not easily undermine the collective actions of a large number of players.

No, I definitely don't want to start undermining referenda. But yes, I tend to agree with your general feeling.

However, I would also say this: If the one-player gimmick required a lot of time and effort to set up, its payoff should be proportional to that. So if there were an infiltrator option that required several days or even a week or two of RL time for setup, but that allowed you to, say, wound all or most of the troops in a region (simulating poisoning a water supply or something similar), that is something that I would consider as probably viable.

Quote
8 ) I am referring to two things: peasant militias that spring up in reaction of looting, and peasant militias that spring up for the mere presence of enemy nobles from realms they hate. On EC, one priest/ambassador in particular has gone to a few regions and made them utterly hate every single SA realm, and utterly love every single northern realm. Just entering those regions causes 10k of militia to appear, and holding them after a TO is practically impossible due to the insane amount of protest debuffs. We are starting to counter with out own ambassador work, but it's super gimmicky that one noble can build an impenetrable trench line that even one of the largest armies of the continent sitting in the region doing police work and civil work cannot stabilize it and prevent it from revolting.

There are a few different things going on here, and yes, I think all of them need some kind of overhaul.

One thing that would help a lot is to increase the game's memory further—not as in RAM, but its ability to remember what happened when. Then we wouldn't be working with simple numbers like loyalty and morale all on their own quite so much.

Quote
12) and 13) These points are actually intertwined. I'm still in favor of density, in some form, but just not for the sake of it. Density is a tool, not an end in itself. Thus the idea is to allow realms to continue expanding into each other, otherwise once the density sweet spot is reached all incentives to fight a neighbor are almost gone, without necessarily giving a title to everyone for it. In other words, realms could keep expanding to 10, 20, 30 regions, even if they only have 15 nobles, but they would either be dissuaded or prevented from appointing all 15 nobles to the various lordships. And that even when all nobles have the titles they can have, the realm still has incentives to acquire new regions, because these would feed the communal taxes, and thus make everyone richer. Remember, the goal of increased density is, among other things, make sure that realms don't become filled with people that have nothing more to gain. But the current density mechanics kind of still do this in an indirect way (on Dwi).

So I have the first outline of a way to strongly encourage, without mandating, dense realms. The basic gist is this: A fully-controlled (non-city; cities should be handled at least slightly differently) region is one that has at least a Lord and one knight. If the capital has even one non-fully-controlled region (of those belonging to the realm) adjacent to it, all non-capital regions suffer a certain amount of penalty. If the capital is fully surrounded, then check if all those regions have fully-controlled regions around them. If not, then all regions beyond that first ring suffer similar penalties, and so on.

Essentially, it puts strong pressure on a realm to concentrate its Lords and knights in the regions around the capital.

However, as I said, in addition to adding this higher control state, I would also like to add a lower control state, like demesne or crown lands, or possibly call it hinterlands, that more or less consists of regions that your realm claims, and can extract a small amount of benefit from, but doesn't really own in any very meaningful sense. As soon as someone else comes in and stakes a claim with a military presence, the region becomes part of their demesne.

So if you can only really hold regions with a Lord and a knight, and those have to be concentrated around the capital or you risk unrest and red tape, but you can extend your realm's influence with very little limit, that makes warfare a much more dynamic experience, not measured in weeks spent taking over each border region as you tediously push through your enemy's outer regions, but in days marching across them, planting your flag and briefly intimidating the peasants, and moving on toward the lands they are actually willing and able to hold onto in the face of an army...

I think that makes it much more about the knights and the fun.

Edit:

Had another idea about family gold (or remembered an idea I had some time ago): Right now, once gold goes to the family, it is essentially removed from the game until it is spent.

What if it existed just the way gold getting ready for taxes did?

It shouldn't be anywhere near as easy to steal, but families need to have a home (and if they don't have one, we can force them to pick one, or just pick one for them, if they're dragging their feet about it), so shouldn't their gold be there?

Perhaps we should even let families have estates, that exist as regular estates within a region, help with efficiency, and generate gold (at a vastly reduced rate, due to expenses) for the family, but don't confer the same benefits that having a knight there does (like my fully-controlled regions above). Then the family gold is divided between all the various family estates, and if you happen across one when you're looting, you have the opportunity to try to rob its vault.

6
Development / Re: Make Battlemaster Great Again - War Overhault
« on: February 13, 2018, 06:49:10 PM »
1) Make it possible to TO cities with which you don't share a border, possibly automatically creating a new duchy for them, as a new version of the old CTOs

Ehhh...maybe. I'd rather just reimplement CTOs.

Quote
2) Bring back (the option of) communal taxes.

In some form, maybe. The way they used to be, no.

Quote
3) Bring back wealth tax

Strongly supported.

Quote
4) Lower the family wealth cap to 5000

Nope. I'm not going to do anything that's just going to take thousands of gold from mostly long-running families.

I might well put in some things that act differently when your family gold is high, though. Like increasing ransom dramatically, having bandits sometimes actually capture you and try to ransom you from your family, that sort of thing.

Quote
5) Make any action that uses family gold for military purposes instead use personal gold

...Which military actions use family gold now? I can't recall offhand. I'd rather have them use army gold.

Quote
6) Make buying regions only possible in your own realm or in realms you are allied with.

That's the opposite of the direction we went a while ago, and though I won't say "no," I certainly won't say "yes" either. This, I think, needs a detailed explanation & discussion.

Quote
7) Make religious takeovers factor in realm sympathy and a bunch of new factors to make it almost impossible to pull off, at least when done on human-held lands. Enable it anew in rogue lands.

I would say not almost impossible, but a lot harder than it's been. Otherwise, yes, I support this.

Quote
8) Remove peasant militias completely: only player actions should stop player actions.

I presume you mean the automatic type that pops up on looting? Yeah, I'm still not happy with those, or with the consequences of looting generally. I might open a topic about this for general discussion and brainstorming.

Quote
9) When too much looting is done, instead of peasant militias, locals should run away to nearby regions.

See, like that. That's a fantastic idea! ;D

Quote
10) Convert 15% of all militia units to local population every week. Reduce this decay by 2% per fortification level.

Mmm, no, I think not, though I do have some Thoughts on changes to how militia work that would, at least in a geographic sense, drastically reduce their prominence.

Quote
11) Add a looting option that specifically targets loyalty and control.

I don't think that's looting. I think that's some kind of propaganda engine. Which I have some ideas for, too.

Quote
12) Return the distance from capital radius to what it used to be, if not larger.

So we can have huge hollowed-out realms again? I lean toward "no," but I also lean toward "I have ideas for making that restriction much more nuanced."

Quote
13) Add a "Demesne" alternative to lordships, where a region goes lordless without penalties other than a tax penalty or 100% of it going to the communal pot. Referendums don't run for it in democracies. The game has too many regions like Wasteland and the Desert of Silhouettes that don't deserve putting any nobles to them, but which in some cases must be taken for a number of other reasons.

I have a plan in mind that's very similar to this—and if you can tell me why you call it "Demesne", I might even use that name for it, because I didn't have a good name yet.

Quote
In short, make wars about the knights again, and not about the gimmicks.

That's great to say, but always hard to actually implement.

7
Helpline / Re: Buying region, region was poached?
« on: February 12, 2018, 04:26:50 AM »
We don't generally give back money that was lost for an actual bug, let alone a text that could use clarification.

8
Helpline / Re: Prison Ransom
« on: February 12, 2018, 04:24:34 AM »
Doesn't it allow you to have your family pay twice the ransom? Meaning that first day with a too high ransom for you to pay, would actually allow you to pledge double of that with your family?

I think that starts a day later, but I'm not 100% sure. I haven't looked at that code in a long time.

9
Helpline / Re: Buying region, region was poached?
« on: February 11, 2018, 08:07:31 PM »
Nope, if you want to be sure of getting it to go off, you need to buy it now.

Buying at the turn is for if you want some plausible deniability, but it has extra risks.

10
Helpline / Re: Prison Ransom
« on: February 11, 2018, 06:34:34 PM »
Honestly, I've never entirely understood the rationale behind the ransom calculations. Without looking at the relevant code, I think that there are certain cases where you can end up with a ransom that's payable the first day, but it's rare.

They are, however, entirely set by the game; judges have no say whatsoever in how high they are.

We've talked a few times about changing how they work, allowing for more important prisoners to be kept for longer and held for higher ransoms, but it's never been a high priority.

11
So, BM turned into a world of commoners? Everyone is using archers now... but I'm happy and pleased to call them cowards while leading the infantry charge!

You're leading archers. You're not shooting arrows with them.

12
Heroes don't really fight at the front though.

How do you know that? I don't even know that, and I probably know the BM code better than anyone right now.

Quote
Also the price they pay is probably not that worth it when there is a better subclass that won't get your character killed.

Well, now, that's a separate issue. One that probably needs addressing at some point, but...not today.

13
My interpretation has always been that while most nobles participate in combat, they are either surrounded and protected by their unit, or at its back. Thus, they only personally engage the enemy when the unit is fully embroiled in a melee.

Heroes, however, fight at the front of their unit, rallying them forward with their own courage—and potentially paying a high price for it.

14
I certainly haven't made any decision yet as to whether a public achievements system would replace or supplement the existing fame system.

15
Already planned, just not trivial to implement.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 364