Messages

16

BM General Discussion / Re: Famous Old Characters

« on: August 10, 2020, 08:27:50 PM »

wrong thread I think. This thread is about famous old chars not fame points.

17

BM General Discussion / Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement

« on: August 09, 2020, 04:18:19 PM »

Having an option that doesn't limit much is fine I think. But what putting limits do is that those limits will also limit the size or duration a bit. There are too many wars in BM where it starts over a region then becomes a total annihilation after.

18

BM General Discussion / Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement

« on: August 09, 2020, 03:26:53 PM »

I agree but with a bit of difference. I think instead of just being allowed to gain more after refusal of peace offer, you should re-declare/update your war declaration.

Let's look at it from an UI perspective
Name :: Type :: Status :: Length :: Options
War for 3 regions :: Conquest :: Won(Peace offer refused) :: 110 days :: <Declare Victory> <Surrender>
War for 3 more regions :: Conquest :: On-going :: 5 days ::

Declare Victory will send a message to the opposing party. If they accept, the one who initiated the declaration wins. Surrender will do the same.

Maybe down the road, we can have different types like pillage(ends when x amount of gold/resources were looted?), banishment(will end the war when the noble selected gets banished) and humiliate(upon surrendering, ruler will lose a big chunk of honour/prestige - could extend it to the entire realm but with different ratio of honour/prestige - ex: ruler 25%, dukes 20%, lords: 15%, knights: 10%)

19

BM General Discussion / Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement

« on: August 09, 2020, 12:25:41 PM »

...

I am against regions actually being connected to attackers and defenders. On Testing islands, you don't have to be directly connected to run a TO since coastal regions can be taken over.

Now having a duration is an interesting concept but not sure how practical that would be. I tried it once against Perdan, and it was fun and we fought over 1 region. Since we actually had an end date, despite losing first few battles, Vix still managed to keep their region by pushing hard at the end.

I think destroying a realm is perfectly fine as long as you are not looking to destroy a giant realm. If a realm is left with only their capital + some other non fortified regions, then there isn't much to take from that realm but their capital.

As for White Peace, I wouldn't bother returning regions. It would just end the war right away, leaving the region under the current owners.

20

BM General Discussion / Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement

« on: August 08, 2020, 11:16:31 PM »

"constructively criticizing"

Let me try to provide feedback on the current war declaration. I am not sure how hard it is to implement this but hopefully not too hard.

I think some war declarations are too vague right now. Also, doesn't really show what the one being declared one can demand.

I think war declarations need to be more structured and be more specific. Plus the one being declared on should have their own win condition in response as well.

So let's take Perdan's recent war declaration that is available on this page right now.

Perdan has too many demands I feel. I think they need to narrow it down to as little as possible.

Win condition:
-Secure passage to Nivemus to be able to war them(need 3 regions to achieve this. List them)
Demands:
-If Eponllyn loses the war, Eponllyn will surrender the 3 regions listed.

Perdan should also have some kind of a condition where they will stop attacking Eponllyn.
Defeat condition:
-Lose Bescannon

Maybe we can also add White Peace condition as well.

-Both realms agree to end the war
OR
-Nivemus loses Kalmar, which opens up another route to Nivemus thus removing the need to attack Eponllyn.

Eponllyn should be able to write some win conditions as well in response but it should be something more achievable as well.
Win condition:
-Take Bescannon
Demands:
-Monetary compensation(x amount of gold)

Defeat condition:
-Perdan takes the three regions listed

So when a realm gets war declared on, the game will ask the defender's ruler to write the win condition, demands and defeat condition.

I feel we need to teach people how to limit their wars by making them learn to narrow down their demands.

21

BM General Discussion / Re: Discord, the realities of the BM community, inclusion

« on: August 08, 2020, 10:34:01 PM »

Got to agree with Anaris here.

Even if you get rid of Discord, people will still form something to talk to each other. IRC, Forum and Discord... all of them were criticized at one point. You can't just get rid of them. There will always be a replacement somewhere. At least with Discord, Anaris and Vita + moderators can control things a bit so it doesn't get out of control.

As for this `highly active tier` argument, many of us were at that tier at some point. Old timers are not as active as they once were. It is good that these newer players bring their passion and energy. What are we going to do with just a game full of `low active tier` players? The game will just turn into a graveyard. Let the active people have fun. They are driving the game and revitalizing it. It is not like they are forming a clan and pushing people away. That would be a problem. But they seem to let anyone interested join. So I don't see any serious issues.

22

BM General Discussion / Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement

« on: August 07, 2020, 05:28:38 PM »

...

Yssrgard not helping Caligus is entirely their choice. Why do you expect them to do so?

Nivemus is allied to Sirion. Sirion decided to help. That is fine. Nobody is criticizing that.

Perdan is attacking Eponllyn to get to Nivemus. That is also fine. Since Perdan is the aggressor, Nivemus and Eponllyn are fighting together.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "show someone how to steal from my home now".

Perdan could have taken a different route but why do that when there is an easier road?

Delvin Anaris already made it clear.

You can still destroy a realm.

You can still help your allies.

You can still bully another realm.

But you can't dog pile unless there is a really good justification like the realm getting dog piled provoking every realm that is attacking them.

Also you can't try to circumvent the diplomatic limit through a guild. If you are not allied to a certain realm then you are not allied. Yssrgard can't come help Nivemus since Yssrgard isn't Nivemus or Eponllyn's friend.

23

BM General Discussion / Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement

« on: August 07, 2020, 05:01:27 PM »

...

What Anaris means by "unbreakable alliance" is what North had or something like what CE formed on AT. He doesn't want a large mega alliance that goes on forever. You can still have an unbreakable alliance but only under your alliance limit. He doesn't want you to circumvent that by establishing a guild like Alliance of Free Nations on Dwilight. If you want a certain realm to be your ally, then ally them. All realms that are not allied to you are not your allies. It is as simple as that.

If realm A + B are fight realm C + D, instead of jumping in to attack either AB or CD, you should go for realm E or F or others.

If you introduce number sand tangible in game consequences, people will just find a way to circumvent them. It doesn't matter how well things are coded. You cannot block every hole. That is why things are kept somewhat vague.

24

BM General Discussion / Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement

« on: August 07, 2020, 04:55:25 PM »

If you really want to correct an unbalanced war as you say.

Why the most nobles realm can declare war on the most lesser nobles realm? Should lesser nobles realm get help from another realm to balance the scale of war?

Because Nivemus has a lot of cities but not enough people. Perdan has a lot of nobles and want to carve out a colony. Why not war Nivemus? Nivemus also has friends. They can help Nivemus if they wish.

Even when you limit it by alliance. Even when you limit the war on one realm in this Caligus, Yssgard the supposedly ally of Caligus showed up nowhere in Eponllyn and Nivemus lands and got beaten and send back home.

Why would Yssgard, friend of Caligus, show up in Eponllyn and Nivemus side to help them when Caligus is burning? Also, allies don't have to help each other if they feel helping them will cause more damage.

Right now you say you include another "dont want old conflict". Yet Perdan want to travel to Nivemus lands via Eponllyn lands. After that long staring contest at Kalmar city with scouts sent here and there without any breakthrough. Eponllyn being ally of Caligus want to help Caligus, but then Perdan declared war on them. Yes, for passage right. Shadowdale is already beating Caligus to Fontan city. Then Perleone joins against Caligus. Yssgard wasted their golden chance to make thing right to balance the war by Yssgard attacking Eponllyn and Nivemus lands instead.

You want Perdan to go through a choke point. Perdan doesn't want to. It is as simple as that. Perdan's war has nothing to do with SD and Caligus. I don't know why you are keep bringing them up.

Why not you limit the war as well? Say "you can't fight that realm A because you at your limit density for war." Since we already doing nobles density for region and realm alliance density limit, why not nobles density for war?

What? Why do you want the noble density to affect wars? If your realm is dense, then you usually get people who want to form their own realm. Who do you war? One with low density and lots of regions. Nivemus has 4 cities and 13 nobles. Nivemus will be fine with 2 cities and 3 less regions.

25

BM General Discussion / Re: A serious and constructive discussion on recent change in staff involvement

« on: August 07, 2020, 01:24:22 PM »

I think people are overlooking the fact that what unlimited freedom has brought to the game.

Continental wars that last way too long. Constant dogpiling that seem to never end. Every war trying to end with another realm's destruction. And players straight up leaving after seeing their realms die.

It doesn't matter if it was a feature of the game before. It was badly implemented. The current system despite its imperfectness, is a way to train ruler players on what kind of wars are justified.

The biggest problem is the dogpiling issue where rulers who have nothing better to do get involved in their ally's wars so they get something to do. If you are a ruler, you have the responsibility to create something to do for your realm. If you can only do so by joining your ally realm which is already winning, then you have a problem.

Wars are fun when both sides are evenly matched and at least as close to it as possible. As you all know, they are often not despite having the same # of nobles or gold since there isn't really an indicator telling you how many active people are in the realm.

Also, let's not lie about how long this has been a thing. The new war declaration is a relatively new feature. Some are calling it a form of censorship but it is more of oversight. Once people get used to the new system, you will most likely see less of admin/titan involvements.

What they want is quite simple. Make wars enjoyable for both sides which people have failed to do so for many years. We've been seeing cases of people antagonizing other players oocly due to IC grudges. Hopefully this new direction will reduce that and make the game more healthy.

But yes, it would be better if we get more stuff to war over and more stuff seem to be coming to the game in maybe 2~3 years.

26

BM General Discussion / Re: Prophet Fame Points

« on: July 13, 2020, 09:50:57 PM »

Maybe 75%?

27

BM General Discussion / Re: Prophet Fame Points

« on: July 12, 2020, 11:11:46 PM »

I wonder if it is something to do with where your religion was found.

28

Feature Requests / Re: Unit Payment Warning in Red after 5 days.

« on: June 23, 2020, 12:24:33 AM »

Approved. I have some other ideas for how to make this kind of information more easily visible, too, but I don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and this one seems pretty simple.

I think you can perfect it overtime but since this way is simple, I'd suggest implementing this way(or a simpler version if you have one) first then come back to it if you want to perfect it later.

29

Feature Requests / Unit Payment Warning in Red after 5 days.

« on: June 22, 2020, 09:52:46 PM »

Summary: At the moment, you get your unit payment warning in black which is same as your normal letters. Also, you get them too often. Instead, make it more meaningful by emphasizing it by changing its background color to read once it does become quite worrying.

Details:  I believe your unit payment color changes to red on your unit status page after not paying them for 5 days so why not do the same for the report as well? Maybe if possible, you can make it something interesting by intensifying the background red color as you get near 10~11 days when your men really start to desert you. Starting at pink around day 5 to red by day 10 or so.

Benefits: Provides more meaning to the unit payment report. Also you can visually notice it better.

Possible Downsides/Exploits: Another red letter.

30

BM General Discussion / Re: Overarching alliance blocs, pile in and risk aversion

« on: June 22, 2020, 02:15:38 AM »

From battlemaster to banditmaster!