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 - Zakky

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
1
Development / Re: Alliance Size Restrictions Discussion
« on: May 23, 2019, 05:22:18 AM »
As someone that doesn't play powerful characters, how much of a change is this making? How many power blocs need to be rearranged? How much smaller must they be to fit within the new criteria?

I believe it is 1/3 of human owned lands? For the Lurian Bloc, they are 7 regions over the limit.

On EC, the northern alliance I think is over 29 regions or something.

2
Development / Re: Alliance Size Restrictions Discussion
« on: May 22, 2019, 06:07:04 PM »
It will also put a limit to how many realms you can be at peace with.

3
Development / Re: Alliance Size Restrictions Discussion
« on: May 22, 2019, 06:28:31 AM »
How about a point system then?

Every realm having the same max points. Like 10 for example.

When you have one realm at peace with yours, each realm is using 1 point out of 10 they are given.

Forming an alliance = 3 points per realm. Federation = 5 points per realm etc.

4
Development / Re: Rebalancing regions
« on: May 22, 2019, 01:58:35 AM »
I am surprised that devs are willing to go through the numbers. They didn't want to do it for a long time. Guess even they recognize the need finally. That is a good thing.

This game only uses 3 indicators for what each region is worth. Population, Gold and Food. Of course there is another indicator outside of just pure numbers like 'strategic importance' but we will leave it out for now since we got three numbers to discuss first.

When Tom originally worked on the region rebalance, he made cities extremely rich while making them very food dependent. So cities couldn't survive without food. Rurals produced mainly food and little gold. I think he did it to encourage region lords to actually trade with cities. Townslands were somewhat balanced. They still produced quite a bit of gold but had just enough to feed themselves.  Badlands and Mountains produced a lot of gold while very little food.  Woodlands were probably the worst under his system since they just didn't have neither gold nor food.

Then Anaris rebalanced the regions again after Tom's departure which made cities produce a bit less gold but also much more food. Rural regions in general either got buffed or nerfed. But the regions that suffered the most were badlands. They went from producing a lot of gold to producing nothing which made them completely worthless. Of course not all of badlands were good under Tom's revision but under the current one, they are mostly worthless. Not to mention most of badlands are located in remote parts of the maps, making them strategically useless as well.

There are few things we should consider.

1) During BM's time line, most people lived in non-city regions. Only 10~15% of people lived in cities while the rest lived outside. BM should perhaps follow this as well. If you look at War Island for example, over 50% of the population are living in cities, townslands and strongholds. Less than 50% of the population are living outside of fortified regions.

-Reduce fortified region pop overall. So at most only 20% of total pop live in fortified regions. (for example, only 120k pop should live in fortified regions on SI not 310k)
-Reduce gold of Fortified Regions. No FR should produce more than 1500 gold.
-Increase pop of all non-FR (for example, on SI, non-FR pop will be roughly around 480k)
-Increase gold and food of all non-FR. (like by a lot. Will see regions where they produce over 1k gold and 1k food even. Probably want to avoid regions that have both high gold and high food except for few exceptions which will be mentioned below)

2) Well connected regions should probably get more gold and perhaps more food than other regions. Meuse on EI is probably a good example.  Well connected regions can be attacked from many sides, making them a good target which may encourage people to fight over a region like that.

3) Perhaps addition to the above, maybe geography should be considered a bit as well. Regions that border rivers and sea zones should have slightly higher distribution of gold or food?

5
Development / Re: Rebalancing regions
« on: May 21, 2019, 05:38:23 AM »
I believe this was denied multiple times.

6
Feature Requests / Different Colored Numbers for Region/Noble Limit
« on: May 18, 2019, 01:27:22 AM »
Title: Different Colored Numbers for Region/Noble Limit

Summary: If a realm on the realm list is above the current region/noble limit, then the realm's region count number shows up in green. If it is at the max number then white, but if it is under the limit then red.

Details: With the limit number changing every few months, it would help people understand what position their realm is in in terms of region/noble limit.

Benefits: Don't have to look up to see what the current limit is for those who don't bother checking announcements.

Possible Downsides/Exploits: None.

7
Development / Re: Angry Peasants - Remove, Keep, or Change?
« on: May 11, 2019, 01:58:52 AM »
I think you are underestimating how heavily guarded army supplies are.

But if it is only affecting provisions, I doubt people will care much about this. Just a minor annoyance which you can deal with by looting for food.

As for looting, I think there should be some big difference between lenient, normal and strict.

Lenient granting a huge morale boost + doing unwanted damage.

Maybe there should be an option for TLs to decide how they want to punish their own men as well. Execute arsonists or something XD.

8
Development / Re: Angry Peasants - Remove, Keep, or Change?
« on: May 10, 2019, 11:19:03 PM »
I dislike auto popping angry peasants from entering a region. You can literally just walk across your enemy region without looting and devastate those regions automatically. Don't even need to loot.

instead of angry peasants as a combat unit fighting them have angry peasants slow unit travel - This will make defenders who are already advantageous even better at defending. Remember, BM is a game where defenders already have an easy time defending. Not sure making it even more difficult want people to fight more often.

reduce unit morale - It is already annoying enough to fight outside of your own realm. I am against this idea. If this gets implemented, looting should increase your morale in return.

maybe even steal supplies - This implies that peasants are even allowed to be near any army. Have you ever approached an army base before?

9
East Island / Re: Sydgard
« on: April 29, 2019, 12:28:31 AM »
Really? Interesting. If Redhaven stays boring, I might travel south to join this Sydgard.

10
Feature Requests / Embark Simplification
« on: April 17, 2019, 04:53:19 AM »
Title: Embark Simplification

Summary: At the moment, the embark feature is somewhat inconsistent. It allows you to embark with low morale and no provision in some cases while you can't in other cases.

Details: Simplify it so you only need gold and hours to embark. It already lowers morale and damages your equipment every time you embark. Not to mention possible loss of men when you land due to defenders. Not to mention the fact that the definition of low morale is really vague. Won't allow units to embark even at 80% morale.

Benefits: More straightforward and easier to use. Also, it will make the feature more consistent. BM already has enough features that have weird and unseen restrictions.

Possible Downsides/Exploits: None.

11
Feature Requests / Forage Battlefield Improvement
« on: April 06, 2019, 11:25:10 PM »
Title: Forage Battlefield Improvement

Summary: Forage Battlefield is a pretty underwhelming feature. Improving it a bit should make it worth it. At the moment, it only repairs around a couple percentage points of damaged equipment.

Details: Foraging the field can result you in three outcomes.
1) Repair damaged equipment. It is determined by three factors.
-How damaged your equipment is
-How big the battle was (Bigger the battle, more stuff you can find)
-Unit Size (Smaller the unit, easier to find stuff to repair your whole unit with, thus more % being repaired)
Result: If you survived a huge battle with a small unit with high equipment damage, you may even be able to replace most of your damaged equipment with something better. In some cases, you may even reduce 80% equipment damage to 10%.

**Special: Maybe when your unit equipment stat is too low, they can find better equipment which leads to increase in stat increase for equipment.

2) Men get paid. Your men go around to search dead corpses. They find enough gold to pay themselves. It could result in few outcomes.
-Your men get paid and maybe even more which leads to morale+cohesion increase
-Your men found enemies who were pretending to be dead. A fight follows which results in your men coming out unscathed/injured/killed. Depending on the outcome they gain morale/lose morale/lose morale and men

3) Your men find a cart full of food. It leads to two outcomes.
-Your men fill their provisions
-If your provision is already full, your men fill their stomach full of food which leads to morale+cohesion boost.

Benefits: Making Forage more interesting and worthwhile. Increases generally staying power for an army since they can sustain themselves longer.

Possible Downsides/Exploits: This could potentially allow an army that was already winning to steamroll as they will be less affected by usual issues that plague armies from staying on the field longer than a week or two.

12
Feature Requests / Simplification of Guild/Religion Titles
« on: April 04, 2019, 12:42:12 AM »
Title: Simplification of Guild/Religion Titles

Summary: Display titles that are relevant.

Details: When you are talking to your other guild members, hide all but the guild title. When you are talking to your other faithfuls, hide all but the religious title.

Benefits: Less titles. People will address more around your guild/religious title than your other titles

Possible Downsides/Exploits: Some may want to know if they are talking to a king, a duke, or a lord etc.

13
BM General Discussion / Re: Influence
« on: April 03, 2019, 09:55:31 AM »
BM is not civilization. Culture is something players will have to create themselves not game mechanics.

However, I feel there should be something to encourage people to create more unique cultures in the game. The game used to have many unique cultures but it feels like for the past 5 years or so, many realms in the game are pretty much the same except a couple.

To allow this, I think the game should really integrate how religions work. The game should allow religious holidays which are chosen by different religions. Allowing different religions to choose different days as their holidays will change how each realm celebrate their culture. The game even has a system that tracks seasons. We can use that to implement this. If there are two religions called "Sun Lovers" and "Moon Lovers", they can choose up to 7 days (BM days) to be their holidays. They can even choose if those days will be separated or be combined to form a long festival.

Each lord can either allow religious holidays in three levels.
1st - Allow all religious holidays. This option will make the region celebrate religious holidays of all religions that influence the region. Depending on the ratio of people in each religion, region production will fall but morale will be boosted.

ex) Region X has 10,000 pop. 2000 are Sun Lovers and 6000 are Moon lovers. The remaining 2000 are pagans. Pagans don't have holidays so they don't celebrate anything. on Sun Lovers' holidays, X's production falls to 80% but morale and loyalty will rise by 20%. While production returns to 100% after the holidays end, morale and loyalty will stay for a few days. They will decrease over time. Same goes for Moon Lovers. 60% production will fall while 60% morale and loyalty will rise.

2nd - Allow the Lord's religion's holidays. The lord is a Sun Lover and only Sun Lovers' holidays are celebrated. This will make Moon Lovers rather unhappy. Pagans of course don't care.

ex) On Sun Lovers' holidays(SLH), Moon Lovers will be displeased. Depending on luck, anywhere from 0~25% of them will be unhappy. Since there are 6,000/1,0000 Moon Lovers in the region, on SLHs, instead of gaining 20% morale and loyalty boost, the region will gain anywhere from 5~20%. When 25% of Moon Lovers are unhappy, the region will only gain 5% while when 0% are  unhappy, the region will gain full 20% boost.

3rd - Disallow holidays. If the region is majorly pagan, this won't affect anything. However, if the people mostly believe in one religion, this will make them quite unhappy.

On holidays, filling kegs is free if it is being held in a region with a marketplace.

Maybe religions can declare saints from a list of dead characters to name their holidays after.

Wouldn't mind seeing something akin to wonders. I think each realm should build something that represents them or differentiates them from other realms. Also, to show off to other realms what they can build. But this should be a long term project which requires combined efforts of all its members. Once built, you get an announcement across the continent with some realm wide stat boost to celebrate.

14
Feature Requests / Re: Training Center Militias
« on: March 26, 2019, 08:27:31 PM »
I think the problem with that idea is that in BattleMaster terms, that is what militias are. They're perfectly ordinary units, of regularly-trained soldiers, that happen to have been left in the region (or originally recruited into the region) as guards.

I'm definitely interested in the idea of having militia in the game that are more like what we would actually refer to as "militia" in the real world during the period, but I don't have anything very specific in mind yet.

Well if you want something more complicated, we could utilize that regional economy page we used to have.

When you call militias, rural regions will mostly gather peasant militias who are melee with very little training. badlands, woodlands, and mountains can used hunters as militias so they'd get nice archer militias but due to those regions mostly lacking population, you won't get many militias.

Finding the fine line between making militias matter and making people less reliant on militias as their primary defense is hard. For years, people mainly used militias as the primary defense against their enemies but how do you design a system which can account for BM's overall lack of players? Can you make a militia system that can react to the number of nobles on each continent so when there are less players there will also be less militias? While grows back up when we get more nobles?

15
Title: Make max number of purchasable paraphernalia available

Summary: At the moment, this information is hidden. No harm in showing this information while showing the information can be very useful.

Details: Just like RCs, make max purchasable number available. ex) 30/60 healers,scouts,SEs etc

Benefits: You know how many paraphernalia each city can hold.

Possible Downsides/Exploits: None.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35