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 ... 381
1
Development / Re: NewReader/NewWriter feedback
« on: June 12, 2019, 02:29:05 PM »
Wait, we can now reply to custom lists?

Try out the links at in the first post. See for yourself.

2
Feature Requests / Re: Allow Traders to Carry Food
« on: June 12, 2019, 02:28:22 PM »
Realms were suffering because very few people wanted to play traders and travel around hauling food.

And ultimately, this has been the problem with the trader class all along: it can't be made too powerful, because too few people are interested in playing it. But if it's made too weak, there's no point in playing it.

It's an incredibly difficult balancing act, particularly given that the food system itself has been changing to attempt to alleviate various frustrations and provide a better experience over the years.

3
Development / Re: Alliance Size Restrictions Discussion
« on: June 07, 2019, 09:36:37 PM »
I know that it is unlikely to ever happen, but what if one realm manages to hold over the 1/3rd limit?
They could have no allies for starters, but would they be expected to hand off or rogue some of their regions?

By itself, that would not be sufficient to result in any admin measures against them. If they were actively using their size to stifle interesting interaction or conflict on the continent—or we saw (either through explicit reports or our own investigation) a very clear pattern of other interaction being stifled simply through fear of them, even if they weren't doing it deliberately—then we would probably start trying to talk to their leadership about what could be done to make things more interesting and dynamic. Giving up regions certainly would not be the only thing on the table in such a discussion.

4
Development / Re: Alliance Size Restrictions Discussion
« on: June 07, 2019, 02:07:56 PM »
I apologize; what I said before was unclear.

Growing over the limit through TO, unless it becomes truly egregious, will never result in GM intervention. The only reason we are doing this now is because there are grandfathered alliance blocs hugely over the limit.

5
Development / Re: Alliance Size Restrictions Discussion
« on: June 06, 2019, 02:19:26 PM »
Did the limits change again?

The limits are, and have been from the beginning, dynamic. They are not a specific number of regions: the limit is 1/3 of the currently human-owned regions on the continent.

So if you just let a few regions go rogue, chances are, you'll still be (roughly) the same amount above the limit, because you will have reduced the number of human-owned regions too.

It can be a reasonable thing to do if you're just a few regions over the limit (though since this is a specific intervention due to grandfathered alliances, that will be effectively irrelevant in the future), but it's never going to get you anywhere if your bloc owns 2/3 of the continent already.

6
BM General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands?
« on: May 23, 2019, 04:56:32 PM »
Same as with any other new feature: when I can finish coding them.

7
Development / Re: Alliance Size Restrictions Discussion
« on: May 23, 2019, 04:26:54 PM »
Since all this information would be easy to compile from public data given some time and math, here are the alliance blocs that existed at the time the warnings were sent (roughly, at least):

EC:

Alliance bloc above limit: Sirion, Caligus, Nivemus, Eponllyn, Shadowdale, and Redhaven
Regions: 69
Over by: 30

BT:

Alliance bloc above limit: Thalmarkin, Ar Agyr, Gotland, Grehkia, Shattered Vales, and Obia'Syela
Regions: 68
Over by: 35

Colonies:

Alliance bloc above limit: Lukon, Oritolon, Halcyon, and Portion
Regions: 23
Over by: 4

Dwilight:

Alliance bloc above limit: Madina, D'Hara, Astrum, Morek Empire, Arnor, Westgard, and Avernus
Regions: 64
Over by: 28

Alliance bloc above limit: Luria Nova, Swordfell, Sol, Luria Ferrata, and Tol Goldora
Regions: 42
Over by: 6

8
Development / Re: Alliance Size Restrictions Discussion
« on: May 22, 2019, 05:52:52 AM »
I would be interested to know what it's hoped this change will achieve. The EC has been thriving for a long time now on the continental war between the southern and northern blocs. Dwilight was stagnant for years before its 'bloc war' kicked off. I'm genuinely interested in what the perceived problem is with wars between large alliance blocs, and why it's thought it would be better to encourage wars between smaller alliances.

The problem is more with peace with a large alliance bloc.

If there is a group of realms, that together make up enough of the continent that no possible coalition of the rest of the continent could hope to match them in strength, that creates a chilling effect on continental politics. Everyone else is essentially existing at the sufferance of the behemoth.

They may never exercise that power. Indeed, a given instance of this alliance situation may not necessarily give rise to the political situation I describe. But the possibility for it is completely unavoidable, in much the same way and for much the same reason that the threat of harsh punishment is implied when a ruler says, "I hope everyone logs in 10 minutes after turn change tonight to move to the battle."

Thus, for the same reason that the Inalienable Rights specify that even mentioning them can be treated the same as if you explicitly stated "everyone who doesn't log in 10 minutes after turn change will be banished, and executed if caught," it was decided that the best way to deal with this problem was to create a hard limit in the code.

Unfortunately, that does create a necessary transition period, where things that are going on will get disrupted. That's completely unavoidable with a change of this nature.

Quote
Also, I wonder how the planned introduction of Hinterlands is going to work with this change. I thought the whole point of Hinterlands was to allow realms to control a larger number of outer regions and not be as bothered by the loss of hinterlands as opposed to fully productive regions. To me, it seems like Hinterlands and region-based restrictions on alliance blocs are going to work against each other.

Because the alliance restriction is based on percentage of human-owned regions on the continent, Hinterlands should not have any significant effect on it. None of these changes will in themselves change the proportional military strength of realms relative to each other, so after Hinterlands goes live, I expect that there will be a brief period of expansion into rogue areas, with the overall proportions of the continent controlled by each realm holding roughly constant.

9
Announcements / Spring 2019 Supplemental Changes
« on: May 16, 2019, 08:25:34 PM »
Major Changes
  • Density Minimum raised to 1.8 from 1.7
  • Indications of alliance bloc size added to some diplomatic pages

Minor Changes
  • Add Donator role for Discord
  • Reduce tournament cooldown
  • Adjust display of buttons for mobile users

Bugfixes
  • Fix creating new estate
  • Fix banker's tax overview
  • Fix LostPay calculation
  • Fix autopayment text bug
  • Correctly permit alliance within existing alliance bloc, even if it's above the continent limit

10
Development / Re: Angry Peasants - Remove, Keep, or Change?
« on: May 11, 2019, 12:38:17 AM »
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.

Hinterlands, by itself, should hugely shift things toward attackers. When you can "take over" a region in a turn or two, with a fraction of your army, that makes you much more able to strike at will. I have some other thoughts about things that can improve life for attackers, too (for instance, I'm strongly considering reducing equipment damage, especially that suffered outside combat, by a lot).

Quote
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.

Looting probably should raise morale more than it does now, in general.

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

No one's talking about army bases. This is a unit on the move, through hostile territory. Depending on the terrain, you might not even know the peasants were there.

But you would know your dinner was missing when you went to camp for the night.

11
Helpline / Re: Commoner Questions
« on: May 04, 2019, 03:21:44 PM »
Maybe in this game churches different, but real life, church never make noble into common person.

And if you will actually go back and read all the posts in this thread, you will see that no one has made the slightest claim that that is what happened.

Please do catch up on all the posts in a thread before posting, especially if you feel upset or wish to correct errors you see in the early posts.

To save you a little bit of time here, I reproduce the most relevant message below, with the most relevant text therein bolded for your convenience.

Quote
Letter from Antonia Fitz Roberts
Message sent to all nobles of Obia'Syela (35 recipients)
It is clear to me that the Oracle's will has been misinterpreted. He has not been declared a commoner, simply demoted to a position of dishonour in the faith as a punishment for his gross and flagrant attacks on the sanctity of our Oracle.

Declaring him a commoner would be another thing entirely. He is still a noble, yet in the eyes of the faith a noble so disgraced that he should not hold positions in the faith reserved for the nobility

Antonia Fitz Roberts
Dame of Rines
Marshal of the Farseers of the Oracle

12
Helpline / Re: Noble being declared a commoner
« on: May 03, 2019, 11:26:50 PM »
Also, doesn't having a commoner declared a noble and your heir circumvent the 1 noble rule? 

Obviously not, because there is no "1 noble rule"—there's a game-mechanic restriction preventing you from actually having more than one active noble on a continent.

Quote
She was declared a noble and Ranias Heir.  Several other nobles participated.   Not just her daughter.

Then that was probably going a little far, and if I'd known about it, I would have advised JeVondair against it.

But it's hardly an egregious violation of any rule.

Treating a commoner as if they were a noble—particularly in the specific circumstances that pertained to Stheno—may technically violate the RP guidelines for commoners, but declaring and treating a noble as if they were a commoner is a much more serious violation. The former merely creates the possibility for certain kinds of inconsistency and frustration, while the latter is not only something that cannot, in BattleMaster's world, ever happen (not since we did away with the "question nobility" option over a decade ago), its purpose is to exclude and cut off a player character. If someone has done something bad enough that a realm would ever agree to consider them no longer a noble, the correct course of action would simply be to ban them.

I hope this clarifies why I would treat this case very differently if Zebidiah genuinely was being declared and treated as no longer a noble.

13
Helpline / Re: Noble being declared a commoner
« on: May 03, 2019, 11:01:42 PM »
A commoner is a commoner and not a noble.  RPing that they are a noble seems like it should be against the rules.

But what you came here asking about was your noble being declared and treated as a commoner.

Furthermore, while I only know bits and pieces of Stheno's story (primarily the end of it), from what I understand, she wasn't really treated as a noble. She was simply treated as Rania's daughter. An acknowledged bastard doesn't necessarily become noble automatically. (Some may have, in some systems of nobility, but it wasn't at all a universal trait of aristocracies.) And I don't care what Tom's guidelines say: the idea that absolutely every commoner must be treated like less than an animal by absolutely every noble is utterly ludicrous. Treating another human being with a modicum of respect and dignity does not have to mean recognizing them as your social equal.

So please calm yourself, and open yourself to alternative interpretations to the ones that paint people as rotten, and you will probably have a more fun time in BattleMaster. And in life.

14
Helpline / Re: Noble being declared a commoner
« on: May 03, 2019, 09:56:40 PM »
From Rania's letter, this seems like the relevant bit.

"The faith already has a word for that, written down in the earliest days. Literally by his own hand, Zebidaih Kabrinski has chosen the path of the Infidel: One of those who bear false witness against Obeah, her priesthood, or the teachings of the Faith. For this as well as his bitter, vile disrespect, the grace of my favor is utterly withdrawn. I will no longer protect him from those that mean him ill. I've shielded him too often from the rod, and it seems the child's mind has spoiled. Henceforward, he will be stripped of the title of Lord Templar and busted down to scholar adept, the initiate rank reserved for commoners. However, due to his longstanding debt with the church, he will be afforded one day to return the gold he has taken from the temples otherwise his entry will be entirely stricken from the Book of Names, meaning he will be removed from the faith. If removed, he will be stripped of all his titles, including command of the army as Marshal, and forbidden from holding any lands or offices beyond simple estates. For as long as he remains in disfavor, claiming him as a friend or ally will only tarnish. For now, this is sufficient, and in my opinion mercifully fair, chastisement."

And if that is the passage you are referring to, dustole, nowhere does that state that you are disallowed from being those things because you are a commoner.

You were told that you were being stripped of those privileges due to your political clashes with the powerful in the realm, and being demoted to a church rank normally reserved for commoners due to your clashes with the powerful in the church.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but if you want me to be on your side in this, you need to a) stop wilfully misinterpreting things other people say/do into the worst possible forms, and b) don't make every attempt of mine to get the full story be like pulling teeth. I get it, you feel like you were treated badly and like they're abusing RP rules. But if you're right, then giving me the whole story, clearly and straightforwardly, from the beginning, is the best way to get something done about it. Just posting one more quote as if that's the pièce de résistance that will, by itself, prove your entire point and make everything come completely clear is both ineffective and extremely frustrating from my poiint of view.

So if you disagree with D'Espana here, please post specific quotes, along with the specific reasons they are relevant, to support every one of your points, or admit that, just possibly, you might have overreacted here.

15
Helpline / Re: Noble being declared a commoner
« on: May 03, 2019, 09:28:27 PM »
Convenient ass covering by antonia...  I was told I was not allowed to be Marshal or lord because I'm a 'commoner'

Can you please cite this?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 381