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 - Zatirri

Pages: [1] 2
BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???
« on: May 20, 2020, 12:43:26 PM »

I do not misunderstand your point. Your point is irrelevent. You want to contain this to being me having an issue purely with Thalmarkin. It is not. It is a widespread issue, Thalmarkin was just one individual circumstance. You are also very clearly unaware of what actually happened.
I did not insult VS. They declared war before I spoke poorly of them. Prior to that, I worked with them in an attempt to maintain the neutrality. Neutrality became less worth it to them as time went on. Nothing from myself was going to change that.
I did not insult SV. The only interaction I had with SV was their priest, Yao Ling Pride or something like that, where I tried to stress the importance of stopping Daishi being used as a weapon for the faith was protected.

No, none of the fault for some people bipassing game mechanics for an advantage is my fault. That is my only complaint.
Stop trying to spin it to being abut me being annoyed Thalmarkin lost.
It's not working.
You can keep trying, but it false, and everytime you try to do it, it becomes very clear that you are trying to strawman to push your agenda.

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???
« on: May 19, 2020, 10:28:42 PM »
It was discussed publicly. Anyone in Thal that was not aware, were people who actively choose to not read their letters. I can put the letters out, I can't force them to be read.

I've explained all this already so I am not going to go into a circular arguement.

This has nothing to do with Thal losing a war no matter how much you want to spin it as such. This was an issue on all continents. This was an issue ruining fun on all continents. This was an issue that was already meant to have been addressed. There was a resolution that a few players tried to bispass for an in character advantage.

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???
« on: May 19, 2020, 03:50:13 PM »
I don't accept this characterisation at all.  Polar Raven's use of inverted commas is perfectly reasonable.  This was very much the case of realms finding common cause/enemy on a singular issue.

Are you saying you do not refer to it as a federation or coalition? If I were to link in evidence of you doing so, would that make you change your story? Are you also claiming you did not join because you were requested too?

Yet you respond to this by saying you didn't regard OS as being in the same block/behaviour?

OS has fought against people in that alliance block. SV has not. Having common ground in one war makes sense, having an unofficial alliance so that you side with them on all, does not. OS fighting against people in the block aswell shows dynamic relations. Always siding with the same people shows the inverse.

The problem comes in that you made an OOC decision to forsake diplomacy, Irondale made a decision to go heavy on generating common cause diplomacy

"You made an OOC decision to prioritise continent health over personal strength, Irondale chose themselves."

If this war was going to be so much in Irondale's interests "fun" wise or otherwise, you failed to even make that case to them.

It was made very clear. You just weren't in the discussion as I was not aware a neutral realm leader would have to be involved in all talks.

The rest of your comment is just personal attacks against me so I wont bother with that.

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???
« on: May 18, 2020, 11:14:06 AM »
There was indeed an OOC conversation between myself and Tiberius, it wasn't addressed much publicly though which may have been an issue. But as a testament to the fact I really did want Irondale to succeed, and the war really was declared to allow their nobles that retribution and to spur some activity in both realms, as Thalmarkin was in a lull in activity at the time, I even assisted with the Irondale realm icon. To reiterate, I really do like Irondale, I want them to succeed and I want their merge to go well so that other small realms can look at their success through merges and see that as a viable option themselves.

I'm not so much excluding OS from it, but they aren't part of the unofficial alliance issue, but a separate one. They still saw a situation that was clearly not going to be fun, a complete stomp, and thought to add to the stomping. This situation was reversed a few months ago, where OS was at war with Nova, a fairly balanced war, and SV joint in to turn it into a stomp. Thalmarkin could have joint in as we were at war already, but we did not. We saw a stomp, and we began negotiations with the then ruler for Thalmarkin to actually come down and assist OS with their defence. We saw a crappy situation and looked for a way to make it more enjoyable, rather than a way to get an easy victory. It saddened me as a player to see so few other people thinking about anything other than their own success.

The line between IC and OOC, at least for me, is wherever the fun is. That's going to vary for different people. But if you're playing a Tyrant King, you can't play it fully IC... because a tyrant by their very nature is controlling and oppressive, which isn't fun for anyone, so you have to spread it out a bit, create vulnerabilities, sometimes you have to let some things go or pretend you didn't see something that you did. When it comes to wars, no war is going to be perfectly balanced and there will always be some people unhappy. This gets harder as realms get smaller, as I mentioned with Grehkia, because no war they can possibly get in would be balanced as they were that small. But a realm that small is really at fault themselves for not doing anything for so long that they lost noble support. But in general, if there are no options for remaining players, to the point that 30 nobles were just afk waiting to die because they couldn't move anywhere, something is seriously wrong.

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???
« on: May 18, 2020, 02:17:31 AM »
Hey Mathew,

I don't actually count OS as part of that alliance block. The block as far as I knew was always SV, Nothoi and Caelint/Irondale. OS has always been somewhat it's own thing, and has both aided and been opposed by the other realms at varying stages. I have no issue with OS, sinse the second they started the war on Thal it was nothing but entertaining.

As for speaking to no one, that isn't entirely true. The same turn I declared war on Irondale, I opened a dialogue OOC with Tiberius where I underlined what I was hoping for the war OOC, and offered what I could to ensure his realm could enjoy it too. I like Irondale, the smaller realms merging together to make a bigger more sustainable realm was always something I wanted to see and I very much wanted that merge to succeed. I believe Tiberius would even agree with me on this. This was done from day 1.

You are correct I didn't discuss it with everyone, but not everyone is accessible to be discussed with, and I was unaware at the time that declaring a war on one border would result in the entire continent turning against us. I expected Nothoi, and they joint as expected. I didn't insult the whole continent, though, I didn't speak to anyone beyond Nothoi and Irondale and the Daishi leaders. The chat with the Daishi leaders (IC) was not insulting either, it was requesting them to not weaponise the faith, as Daishi is a protected faith in Thal, but if it became a weapon that would no longer be viable.

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???
« on: May 17, 2020, 08:02:22 PM »
I don't mean to be picky here, but it was actually the "GOTLAND vs. CAELINT" war.

I agree with you there, but not that it was evenly matched. Caelint had Nothoi. Caelint however didn't die or disband, it changed it's name when it took in the other realms. Caelint by far won that war. They went from a tiny realm to a power of the North, that's a win, and a huge plus point for both the realm and the continent. Lots of small 6 man realms is really no good for anyone, but Irondale as it is now is a lot better.

But, at that time, anyone who asked on DISCORD about advice for joining a realm on BT, Obeah realm(s) and Thalmarkin were the "goto" advice that was given.

The reason Thalmarkin was recommended was because joining Thal would get them interaction. Many realms, on all continents, are silent. There are no prospects, and they are content with what they have. This might be good for the people there, but new players aren't looking to commit to a long term game of no interaction and idly sitting in capital. OS was recommended for the exact same reason despite being an enemy of Thalmarkin, so the IC bias was not there. It was purely recommended due to activity levels in the same way Perdan would be on EC. If your realm isn't being recommended, ask why, and try to see what you can do to make you realm more inviting.

You mention the "unofficial alliance block" of SV and Nothoi (and now include Irondale),

The quotation marks are disingenuous. This isn't speculation, there is one confirmed both IC and OOC. I haven't now included Irondale, it carried over from Caelint, as it is the same realm. In addition, SV was there during that conflict, they declared war on Thalmarkin quite early on.

I was not there for this, but I ask you this "what choice did they have?"  I would think they really had no choice.  Thal had, by that time, practically decimated every realm in the area that could have offered Gerhkia any type of assistance.

A realm of 6 people or less like Grehkia was, is going to die in any war. They could be against anyone, they're going to lose the war because they're just too small to really do anything. Merging was their best option and I am glad they took it and those players are doing much better in their new realm.


Not so much importance, but responsibility. The players in Thal that you mention take their roles as community members seriously, and consider all sides fun when engaging with people. The OS war was fought almost entirely by 2 nobles doing role plays with them. The murder of their head priest was done entirely through roleplay. It was fun, it got people involved, and no one actually lost out. When people join the rebellion, the fun of those rebels is consider in action we take against them. When people protest, they are given a platform.

My point here, is that it doesn't matter if they are friend of foe IC, they are community members and we treated them like that to engage them where we could, through any medium we had available. It's not that no other realm could do that, they all could. But only Thal actually did.

You could spread all the players out, sure. But no. It isn't their job to all abandon their realms to go and put effort and time into your realm so you don't have too. Everyone should be putting in that same effort that they were. I am going to name and shame here, the players of Rea and Luitolf were especially positive. They have engaged more players on their own than many realms on BT have nobles, total. The idea that they should abandon everything they've set up to do that to come go make other realms more engaging so their nobles don't have too is a bit insulting.

And then you are surprised when suddenly most of the continent wants a piece of Thal

I made an active effort to balance things. Yes, I was surprised that the other realms on the continent, as players, chose to look at a realm that had administrated its own balance and see that as a weakness to be exploited. I don't expect everyone to care about everyone else's experience, as nice as that would be. But I do expect rulers too.

I have not played a noble on EC for a while now either, but when I was there, I know for a fact that the war could have been ended at the time by the "south" admitting defeat and giving up ONE city (Perdan) to end the war.
War over.

This is the exact issue. the North aren't winning, they are not gaining ground. Perdan is holding them without any issue and could go aggressive if they wanted, they don't want too. Perdan is a good realm irrelevant of that war. The fact you say the north would turn agaisnt eachother if this war ends is funny, because that's the point... half the continent should not be in eternal peace with eachother and doing nothing else.

If their entire identity revolves around a single war, that is a huge failure by those rulers and councilors and the lower down nobles should look to replace them.

Thalmarkin was quiet when I got there. It took work and time to grow it and make it into what it became. Same as with Perdan. It doesn't happen for free or because of OOC inviting. It happens because we created an environment that keeps people logging in. I absolutely agree that Thal and Sirion were similar. Both Northern realms, surrounded by allies doing nothing. But Thal turnt it around. Sirion refuses to do so.

I already had a clear picture of the other side, for I started OOC talks with Irondale's ruler the second I declared war. I sought to ensure we got on OOC so that we could make sure everyone's enjoying themselves and I also read EVERYTHING. Every IC letter, OOC letter, and discord message.
The vast majority of them trying to label it crying 'cause my realm lost a war, which is a strawman, and at this point has been explained so extensively how incorrect that is, that continuing to use that strawman is just embarrassingly transparent that they are trying to cover themselves.

BM General Discussion / Re: OOC power-gaming???
« on: May 17, 2020, 02:15:53 AM »
Hey guys,

As I am less peeved now, I can perhaps offer an explanation from my point of view in a much more coherent manner.

My issue was never one of Thal being destroyed, but the lack of options as both a realm and as the players in the realm. We declared a losing war, offering Irondale, a realm formed by realms Thal has bullied (I totally accept the Thal is a bully points, it is and was) their opportunity at retribution. We knew Nothoi would join in, and the pair of them were winning the war as is. This was fine, no complaints here. But then SV was requested to join Irondale due to the unofficial federation between the realms. This is where the issue was. Those federations mean you have an alliance block that goes far over what the balancing requirements allow, and means all 3 of your realms combined will always win a war against realms following the balancing mechanics. This is the only point of reference I used for the power gaming accusation. As far as I can see it, bypassing a game mechanic designed to balance in order to get an advantage is power gaming. I am however willing to accept you may not have seen it that way and I am hoping you now can at see what I meant by that.

For the comparison to the Grehkia attack, I can see the issues you have with it, but there is a distinction to be made here. That was multiple realms vs Thal. At the time, we could handle that. But the realm had 6 nobles, there isn't a war on the continent they could have gotten in that wouldn't have been one sided. We actually pushed for them to make the merge into Caelint and the whole war took place without a major battle.

For the similarities to the Thal Caelint war, we actually weren't strong at the start of that. We got strong during it as we used it as a plus point for our realm. Thal did not grow in numbers due to real world recruitment, we grew in numbers because we accepted everyone and we accommodated everyone. Mordok was refused by every realm, we took them in. VS was banned en masse by Nova, we took them in. Thal accepts everyone and allows them to be the characters they want to be and works with that, rather than against it.

I never believed Thal would be destroyed, that isn't what I was worried about.
I was worried that Thal was the "mixer upper" of the continent. If Thal is pushed into that top right corner again, and weakened to a point that it can't start wars, can't do it's pushing... what will actually happen? When I joint Thal initially, the entire continent was at peace and every realm but OS was silent. You may not like Thal pushing it's weight around, but Irondale is a much better realm (game health wise) than Angmar, Grehkia, Gotland and Caelint were. Would that have occurred if a realm didn't push it?

If Thal is to either die, or be weakened to a point where it cannot be the antagonist anymore, then all that is left is a group of realms that are federated unofficially and have proven that they can and will attack in a large group and are capable of downing any foe. No one will declare war on any of you. Any war you declare you will win. That is not healthy from a game point of view.

One of the first things I did when I noticed how strong Thal was, was to start offending allies. Ultimately detrimental if we wanted to try win the game, but a realm that had at the time 50 nobles, having an ally always backing us up bringing our total count to like 70... just wouldn't be fun. Thal has a fair few players that like the war game, they want wars to fight, not stomps. I am sure your realms are similar.

And finally, this isn't just a BT thing.
The Northern alliance on EC is an issue too. It's a whole half the continent that ensures realms such as Nivemus, that have more regions than nobles, are untouchable due to unofficial alliances that shouldn't be there. Realms like Sirion, who actually do have the fighting nobles, are unchallenged because they have a 3 realm thick buffer state... that's an issue for both the southern players who are opposed by them, and for the actual enjoyment of the Sirion nobles. They have to play for weeks of just movement to be able to get a battle. No battle ever carries any risk whatsoever. Their regions are never at risk. That's... boring for everyone involved.

I hope this clears up that this is nothing to do with "boohoo thal is losing" and is something that I have pushed for, as I see it as a genuine issue, both IC and OOC sinse alliance restrictions were a thing.

Other Games / Re: Tabletop RPG via the Net (roll20) - GM Tom
« on: December 04, 2019, 06:35:47 AM »
I'd be totally up for taking part if there are still spots open.

I am free during the week evenings on your time zone on every day except Monday.

BM General Discussion / Re: 1 Ruler Per account
« on: March 14, 2019, 12:58:35 AM »
I personally think what's important s that players are honest with themselves.

If you're a ruler, and you notice your realm isn't doing well, or it's completely silent, or that all new players that join leave within a week; are you what is best for the realm at this time?
There are some realms that are large, keep a constant ruler, and are doing well. No issue with that at all, clearly what they're doing is working for them.
My issue is with the realms that bleed players, particularly new players. If you can't retain nobles, something is wrong and needs to be fixed.

But from a more subjective view, I think rulers need to be willing to take risks. They need to be trying to create a story.
As a ruler, they're like the directors of the realm's story and all the nobles below them are characters in it.
If everyone's sat idle, you should find something for the realm to do.
Be that a war, aiding an ally, a pilgrimage, or a roleplay event.
If you can't, then be willing to step aside and let someone else try.

BM General Discussion / 1 Ruler Per account
« on: March 13, 2019, 02:44:30 PM »
In Taselak I have observed an OOC conversation about implementing a limit on the number of ruler positions that can be held per person.

In order to take the conversation publicly, and to spare spamming in game, I've opened a thread for it.

Feature Requests / Re: Declare Support
« on: June 27, 2018, 01:40:33 PM »
I agree with Vita.
It should be something used to counteract protesting, but when done by itself not provide too much, as that would be abused.

Feature Requests / Re: Declare Support
« on: June 24, 2018, 04:40:57 AM »
I actually quite like this.
A couple of people can really screw with a council member, would be nice if people can also work with the council and help them.

Feature Requests / Under Debate: Infiltrator Prison Rescue
« on: May 27, 2018, 10:46:43 AM »
Infiltrator Prison Rescue

The ability for infiltrators to attempt to rescue a captured noble from prison, this would be performed in the capital of the realm that holds them. As with all infiltrator actions, this would be possible against both your own realm and against foreign realms. It would, of course, also carry considerable risk of just landing you in a less than comfortable spot beside the chap you were there to save. If you pull it off perfectly, all would go well, your both free. If you fail horrifically, you'd end up in prison, and if you get somewhere in between then you get away but were spotted, making further attempts harder, similar to other infiltrator actions.

Pros: More uses for Infiltrators that can have meaningful impacts, specifically in high risk high reward situations.

Cons: Potentially hard to code. If Balanced poorly on skill requirements, could be over powered?

Feature Requests / Re: Remove magic from EC (Stable)
« on: May 25, 2018, 11:54:50 AM »
Stated on the discord ( ) but shall repeat it here too.

Although I think the way the magic was dealt with was unbias and fairly done (By dice roll apparently) it is quite annoying to see the only real active PvP realm be dominated by magic that requires little to no player input.

I agree with Kethcum, that the other the continents have a high magic content already, and the EC would benefit more from separating it from the fantasy and allowing it to be player action directed.

Feature Requests / Re: Oaths Tokens
« on: May 02, 2018, 04:12:09 AM »
A potential fix for this, would be that if your lord will not release you, the duke can go over his head to do it.
If the duke wont do it, the King/ruler can.

Also, it shouldn't prevent you turning to a new realm, only changing within yours.
Turn coats happened, they could take a hit to their honour, but if they're willing to turn their back on a realm then the oath means very little.

Pages: [1] 2