Messages

31

BM General Discussion / Re: Character limit changes

« on: October 31, 2015, 02:16:56 AM »

I think what character limit does is you actually have to commit a character instead of your filler. You can't play one good guy and one bad guy at the same time on the same continent anymore.

It also forces you to suffer the consequences of not having people interested enough in filling positions. Other realms aren't having a problem. So it should be possible. If not, try and figure out how to attract more nobles. Go to war more, or RP everyday in the realm.

32

Atamara / Re: Dear Atamara...

« on: October 30, 2015, 07:51:54 PM »

The problem is that is just totally against the rules by my understanding. The whole point is that you always play your characters with an OOC perspective of keeping things fun for everyone (euro game style) while interacting IC.

By doing it OOC you just remove the risk. It's like the least interesting way of solving the problem.

33

BM General Discussion / Re: Character limit changes

« on: October 30, 2015, 07:49:41 PM »

I think it's obvious that rulers should always look at things with at least a small bit of OOC intention to keep things fun for other players. I'm pretty sure the game tells you this when you become ruler. It's in your job description. I just think a lot of people have failed at that over the years.

At this point, while it sounds like maybe you're promoting some interaction on AT, I have zero interest in it. There is no change that I would rather see than just the whole island sinking into the abyss. And I had some of my most fun moments there. While the island has been won, the only ones left are those who hadn't seen this problem for years. Now they've kicked everyone else out of the sandbox and have to play a new game without the others. That's fine, but I know I'm not alone in that the continent has been soured permanently for me.

34

Atamara / Re: Dear Atamara...

« on: October 30, 2015, 05:28:23 PM »

Am I the only one who sees a problem with the fact that these diplomatic changes on Atamara can from OOC discussion instead of IC discussion? Does no one else see the irony of how bad the situation is when people choose to talk OOC about making changes instead of just leaving it IC like it should be?

35

BM General Discussion / Re: Character limit changes

« on: October 30, 2015, 05:22:03 PM »

Medron,

There are many reasons that the League won Atamara. Good diplomacy, Strong military leadership (Enri Kinsey is one of the top 5 generals of all BM history in my opinion), and strong loyalty. But, a huge component of that is multiple characters per player. Even with a good military and good diplomacy, the CE bloc would have lost the war to end all Atamaran wars when the entire island teamed up against them, if it weren't for double characters.

Also, it is completely disingenuous to act like the League has only just won Atamara. He League won Atamara the day Falasan fell. Everything since then has been inevitable assuming the CE bloc continued to push the toxic agenda of forcing everyone else out. You've won once you control more than 50-60% of the island. After that, it should have been changed. Not wait another 5 years to make sure everyone leaves Atamara.

36

BM General Discussion / Re: Character limit changes

« on: October 30, 2015, 01:20:54 PM »

I'm sorry but this whole idea that the League of the Eagle having won a continent in a game not intended for a continent to ever be won is the best example of the problem we have. It would not have been possible for the League of the Eagle to have "Won" without two characters per player within the league for most players. This is one of their core advantages that they have had forever. The number of players with multiple characters within the league is huge compared to any other example. (Without concrete data on the subject. Although, I think Tim looked at this years ago.)

The League is also the pinnacle example of having created a toxic game atmosphere on an island. You say the league was seeking to win for many years and careful planning got you there but that's not a good thing. That systematic approach of killing off all enemies without any internal conflict has caused many people to leave Atamara and the game. And ALL of that is built upon double characters. One in CE, one in Tara. Two in CE, Two in Tara. One in CE, one in Talerium. And all sorts of combos. I know it was almost like an unofficial policy years ago when I played in CE. It made the armies ridiculously powerful.

37

BM General Discussion / Re: Anyone here a modder? A Battlemaster Crusader Kings II mod discussion

« on: October 30, 2015, 02:44:24 AM »

I would play it, but the problem is you are talking about a total conversion mod. Those are much more difficult to create than a normal mod.

38

BM General Discussion / Re: Character limit changes

« on: October 30, 2015, 02:42:21 AM »

I think there is a misconception about this change. Some people are indicating that realms might collapse if two nobles are not Llowed in the same realm or continent. They then say this is a bad thing. In my opinion, it would be a great thing if realms collapsed after losing the ability to have two nobles from the same player. All that means is it reveals a severe weakness and problem with that realm. If a realm can't exist with enough interesting interaction with only one noble per player it deserves to fail.

Simple Darwinism I'm the game. This failing of bad realms will allow for the rise of more good realms.

39

BM General Discussion / Re: Character limit changes

« on: October 28, 2015, 10:49:57 PM »

The prime example of two character on the same continent problem mainly comes from CE federation. For years, they haven't gone to war with each other. AT became the very definition of stagnation and boredom. EC was like that for awhile but somehow overcame that. Then again EC never became an issue as AT.

I can attest to that, and I wasn't even in the federation. (For most of my time there.) We were simply an ally of CE. I was the Ruler of a realm, but I also had a second character as a troop leader, and eventually region lord then Duke. The Duke, I quickly stepped down though, because that was just too much consolidated power.

The problem is that no matter the intention, usually two characters are played together so that their realm is stronger. That's not a good situation.

40

BM General Discussion / Re: Closing Continents

« on: October 28, 2015, 09:50:01 PM »

Fwiw: colonies will also remain. It is a special purpose, one turn a day island. People play there for the slow turn rate. Because it is low population, nothing we do to it, leaving it or closing it, will really have any effect.

So, if I'm understanding everything correctly, we are looking at two possible cases.

1. Atamara, Far East Island, and Beluaterra are closing.
Or
2. Atamara, Far East Island, Beluaterra, and Dwilight are closing.

Case #1 seems more likely with the need to keep a testing island.

Please note, I'm not a dev so this is only guesswork on my part.

It seems that

41

BM General Discussion / Re: Closing Continents

« on: October 28, 2015, 09:44:23 PM »

Since we can't close EC and people don't want Dwilight to go, we probably should just close the rest.

War Island is here to stay as well anyway. That is three in total. Why not just allow 1 noble and 2 advies instead?

Honestly, I agree completely. Supporting three continents with full nobles would be hard enough anyway. That's probably as barebones as we can go.

42

BM General Discussion / Re: Closing Continents

« on: October 28, 2015, 08:06:39 PM »

Anaris,

I am curious if a middle of road solution has been considered. I am making the following assumptions:

1. EC will never be reset or closed.
2. We need to close at least one island
3. We need at least 1 testing island and 1 stable island for ease of development and testing new features.

Based upon the assumptions above, could you not close all islands except EC and Dwilight and then create a third island as an exact copy of EC. This would allow EC and it's history to remain, while allowing those who have lost an island to not feel forced into joining the existing current status quo.

I realize this is not a trivial action but none of the options are. I am mainly wondering if this has even been considered or would be considered. I think it offers a happy compromise.

43

BM General Discussion / Re: Character limit changes

« on: October 28, 2015, 05:33:59 PM »

One character per island is a concept which Dwilight had been testing for a long time. The results of that test have proven wildly positive. Interactions are better. Every single character can be expected to respond to people and have its own view on things. There are no placeholder characters. There is no "filling out" of realms. The characters you have are your realm. This allows you to know you're interacting directly with a character a player cares about each time.

Finally, the main benefit is that it removes blank slate characters. It seems you don't see this as a problem. Which is fine. My question would be: Do you dedicate he same amount of time and planning for both of your characters when they share a continent or do you have a primary and a support character? If you are like most people you have a primary and support character. I have done it myself. However, the evidence has shown that in the vast majority of cases (not all) this dynamic hurts the game instead of helps it.

44

BM General Discussion / Re: Character limit changes

« on: October 28, 2015, 02:05:26 PM »

This change won't have anything to do with player density, but it will affect character density. The point from what I understand is to get rid of characters that are just blank slate troop leaders and placeholders.

I personally don't think two nobles per continent adds anything to the game but allow realms which shouldn't be able to function to function.

This will likely further reveal where problems exist that were simply covered up beforehand. It will also encourage people to use their noble slots to actually contribute new characters to realms on different continents. Providing an overall boost to interaction.

45

BM General Discussion / Re: Closing Continents

« on: October 28, 2015, 03:21:09 AM »

Pretty sure the Dev said no. Because if they want to make a new island, they need to close the game for a year.

That's not strictly true from my understanding. Designing a new island would take a year. Creating a new island, using a current island map as a template and exact copy could be much easier.