Messages

46

BM General Discussion / Re: Lemon Fame 3

« on: August 23, 2020, 06:45:50 PM »

Hm.

I have long thought it was only the "combat" skills that would get you individual Fame Points,

Nope.

47

BM General Discussion / Re: Lemon Fame 3

« on: August 23, 2020, 06:41:11 PM »

Sorry, allow me to clarify. I was asking if there is a point for a single exceptional skill, and a separate point for the triple skill? Or is it just one point for the triple skill?

Ah, whoops; missed that Tideweaver had already gotten that one confirmed.

What you have posited is partially true, but incomplete.

48

BM General Discussion / Re: Lemon Fame 3

« on: August 23, 2020, 06:29:52 PM »

I'm guessing the bounty fame is for a bounty in excess of 1000 gold, making the minimum threshold... 1050 gold!

This is correct! Congratulations!

then the "Well Rounded" point for having three skills above 50%?

This is also correct!

49

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

« on: August 16, 2020, 06:58:42 PM »

Shadowdale has picked fights with Nivemus, Caligus, Eppy, and Sirion but Eppy needs to 1v1 them....?

Please stop putting words into our mouths. No one has said that Eponllyn cannot or should not call in support from allies.

The recent punishments were very explicitly, very clearly for doing so without an alliance and thus circumventing the alliance bloc restrictions.

50

Feature Requests / Re: Jousting Duels, Ignore Character Confirmation

« on: August 15, 2020, 07:39:44 PM »

While I'm fully in favour of making there be a bit more space between "ignore" and other buttons on the bottom of messages, I completely share Tom's philosophy on confirmation dialog boxes: They should be used only when absolutely necessary. Otherwise, they simply provide an extra layer of frustration for people and train them to automatically click "yes" on everything.

I would also be willing to consider adding some slightly more prominent indicator of how many characters you have ignored.

51

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

« on: August 12, 2020, 06:19:03 PM »

I get that too. But I don't see why a standing alliance in your mind is the only reason to get involved into someone else's business. Sometimes you're not allied with either side but you're pursuing your own interests. In this instance - making sure Shadowdale does not get too powerful and dominate the region. I think it's legit. I also liked that they coordinated a pincer sneak attack instead of just mass-declaring/dogpiling on SD.

It just seems to me that controlling how alliances are shaped and then absolutely confining all group conflict strictly along the alliances lines will lead to stagnation. We have war island for that sort of gameplay, where politics are decided by game mechanics. I don't play on war island and I don't want to.
I don't know, maybe you did not enjoy that aspect of the game when you actively played BM. But you can't deny it's important for many here.

While there may be cases that fit what you are describing here, this was not one of those.

We have messages from well before the actual intervention with the three realms talking to and about each other as if they were allied, and the whole thing was very deliberately coordinated.

52

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

« on: August 12, 2020, 05:46:51 PM »

Wait, no. "you have nothing to do with someone" just because he's not your mechanical ally any more? This is not human. This is Age of Empires level of diplomacy.

In BattleMaster, there are a number of things that are controlled by game mechanics.

One of those is who your allies are.

Claiming that you won a duel when the game says you lost is forbidden.
Claiming that your character is a Duke when the game says you are not is forbidden.

Claiming that someone is your ally, or treating them as your de facto ally even when the game mechanics say you are neutral or at peace, especially when the reason they are not your ally is because making them your ally would put you over the alliance bloc limit, is forbidden, and is a circumvention of game mechanics.

Yes, this is new. This is not the way things have always been done.
No, I do not expect this to be the way things work forever.
But right now, when the alliance bloc restrictions are still new enough that we still have realms acting like they are part of a massive more-than-half-the-continent bloc despite not being allied, extraordinary measures are required to ensure that people understand that the restrictions are serious, they are real, and breaking them has real consequences.

53

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

« on: August 12, 2020, 05:00:18 PM »

Both Sirion and Nivemus have a clear geopolitical interest to see Oligarch safely in Eppy's hands. I would probably want to do the same to get Shadowdale out of Commonyr. I am sure other nobles in Sirion share the same sentiment and nothing will change if you keep banning their leadership. They will just grow bitter, fearful and more passive aggressive. Or leave.

A geopolitical interest is why you sign alliances. Not why you show up to random battles to help people you have nothing to do with.

I understand the problems with the alliance restrictions' conflict with human nature, and as I have said repeatedly, I would be overjoyed to have an alternative system to put in place that achieves the same goal, and also works alongside human motivations, rather than against them. However, until those alternatives actually exist, the alliance restrictions are the law of the land, and circumventing that law carries with it a harsh punishment, especially after all the many other things Kinsey and the three rulers in question have done—or, as the case may be, utterly refused to do.

54

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

« on: August 12, 2020, 04:02:15 PM »

Guys. What Sirion, Eppy and Nivemus did should not be illegal. Coordinating a sneak attack to stop a takeover they all didn't want to happen should not be a wrong way to play the game. It was good intrigue.

Just as they did, you are completely ignoring the alliance bloc restrictions.

Neither Sirion nor Nivemus is allied to Eponllyn, or has any other particular reason to aid them in their war against Shadowdale.

If we allowed this sort of thing, they would be nothing more than tissue paper.

Sirion, Nivemus, Eponllyn, Caligus, and Yssrgard need to figure out who their actual allies are, and who is just a friend who they enjoy hanging out with, but do not aid in military matters. Because together, they are an alliance bloc that controls over half the human-owned regions of the continent. "But they should be allowed to—" no, because that's blatant circumvention of the rules.

Is it new? Yes.
Does it take time to develop new cultural background, especially in a place like the EC? Yes.
Does that mean it's OK for them to be allies-in-all-but-name now, six months from now, a year from now? No, no, and no.

This is exactly the same issue that was being dealt with recently on Dwilight, and they were (with one notable exception) able to deal with it in a mature manner.

55

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

« on: August 12, 2020, 02:01:43 PM »

Wait, what? I don't recognize the username, my apologies. Which missive is this in reference to?

GoldPanda is the player of the Kinsey family.

56

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

« on: August 11, 2020, 02:25:07 PM »

Hey, I don't think it's cool to share cherry-picked in-realm IC messages on the public forum, even if some of them are fairly old.

What did I even do to you?

This is why so many sensitive discussions these days happen among a few trusted nobles, while most new players get cut out of the fun. Too many players think "to everyone in the realm" = public.

This is 100% completely out of line, on several levels.

First of all, they were directly and specifically accused of OOC misconduct, and every post they shared was clearly chosen to refute those accusations.

Second of all, how can you possibly read what they wrote and ask "what you did"? You accused the Titans of IC bias, you implied that recruiting and keeping new players was somehow against the rules, and you belittled and condescended to Sigrid. The posts chosen were not an attack on you; they were very clearly chosen to demonstrate why Sigrid felt disaffected in Eponllyn. The fact that they made you look bad can be lain at your own feet.

And finally, I want to end that horribly toxic idea right now and forever. Every player who advocates for keeping discussions locked behind closed doors is personally responsible for driving away new players.

I don't care how you feel, how much it matters to you: Winning wars and gaining personal glory in-game is never more important than giving new players a vibrant, fun, and interesting realm to play in, where they can feel included and understand not only what's going on, but why.

I strongly urge you to take some time to examine why you think your right to "win" a game that cannot be won is more important than the right of the people around you to enjoy playing it.

57

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

« on: August 10, 2020, 10:26:31 PM »

I will put this as simply as possible - you are saying the discord and the zeitgeist it presents has zero effects on the game?

Of course not, that would be absurd.

I'm saying that Discord and the zeitgeist it presents has a positive effect on the game.

In the case of Sigrid, that I didn't read on discord "someone talk to Sigrid so she can flip Bruck"?

I don't know if you read that, but that's not what happened.

I am curious what the official directive is on the limits of this. As long as the note is written in BM proper, anything is justifiable?

If two or more people discuss on Discord an RP situation they want to play out in-game, then play it out in-game, that is fine.

If two or more people discuss on Discord a battle plan they want to enact in-game, then they lay it out in-game and give the orders, that is fine.

If two or more people discuss on Discord a betrayal of a realm, then have the situations that lead up to it play out in-game, that is fine.

If two or more people discuss something on Discord and then have that trigger in-game events with zero in-game justification, that is, at best, not fine. But that's not what happens in 99% of cases—and, again, you not knowing about the in-game justifications does not mean they do not exist. (Though I would very, very strongly encourage players to make at least the barest hints of in-game justifications for events like major betrayals ahead of time—which, in the cases at hand, did happen, so, no problem!)

For the entire life of BM, people have planned certain events outside the game. Some of these plans have been healthy, some have not, but if we banned planning in-game events on Discord, those who genuinely want to create unrest by doing so would have no problem taking it to Discord PMs, email, IRC, WhatsApp, or (as some groups have in the past) just talking to each other in person, if they're in close physical proximity—while those who just want to plan something fun and interesting without having to go through the much-more-cumbersome in-game message system to do so would be punished for it.

The second point also concerns the devs so I will present it - I have never claimed you are at the beck and call of a tier of players.

You may not have. Some have, and there have been enough similar discussions in the recent past that it is possible I inadvertently mixed you up with some of those who did. If so, I apologize; I have no desire to put words in anyone's mouth.

I will say when the devs can put a "give feedback" button on the account pages to get a broad perspective, why wouldn't they? The question is not an attack.

We have invited feedback over every medium available to us, and here you are, giving feedback over one of those media. I suppose we could add a "feedback" subforum or something, and link to it...? But that wouldn't really give any more options than currently exist...

I have never said you are opinion less and totally manipulated. I've asked are you infallible and immune to persuasion?

Infallible? No.
Immune to persuasion? Well, maybe you could convince me I am...

Of course no one's immune to persuasion, but 99% of the time, when Player X is complaining that I've been influenced to do things a certain way, either a) I was already planning to do the thing before Player X's in-game enemies suggested it, b) the thing they wanted me to do made sense and was the right thing to do regardless of its impact on a particular in-game situation (which I was fully aware of), or c) the incident in question was a Titan case or other matter of rulebreaking, where, y'know, the person had actually broken the rules.

My final point was elaborated on by Gildre. I urge everyone to take a moment and think about it. What has been written on discord already about this?

Gildre and I—and the Titans, more generally—have begun discussing this, and I have asked for specific examples, because personally, I cannot recall specific instances of this happening, but I am genuinely concerned about it—not just that it has been happening without my realizing it, but that I could have been among those leading people to feel unheard and invalidated. That is definitely not the atmosphere I want to create here.

I want to be clear, though: While I want to ensure people feel accepted and heard in the Discord as in the game, I still will not tolerate blatant disrespect for other players, volunteers, or Vita and me. Conspiracy theories, casual accusations of bias, and other forms of insulting behaviour are and will remain completely unacceptable.

58

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

« on: August 10, 2020, 02:31:46 PM »

So, BarticaBoat, I hope that this can put an end to the idea that the colony itself, and the departure of Sigrid with Bruck, were in any way planned or motivated by out-of-character interactions, on Discord or elsewhere.

I hope that it will also serve as an object lesson that just because you, personally, cannot think of a good in-character reason for something someone else did, that doesn't mean it was motivated by out-of-character concerns.

I further hope that it will remind everyone here that when you make those kinds of accusations, you are making them about real people, whose feelings are as real and valid as yours, and make you all think twice before voicing such insults in the future.

59

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

« on: August 09, 2020, 03:09:36 PM »

I'm extremely reluctant to limit the possible gains by the attacking realm to the regions originally specified. That significantly increases the incentive on the part of the defending realm to drag out the fight, even if they're losing region after region.

I think it's much healthier overall for the attacker to be required to offer peace after taking those regions, but allowed to take more if the defender refuses to accept their loss.

I am definitely considering a system that would mechanically track the regions specified, and whether there were non-territorial goals, and if the war was entirely about territory, automatically offer peace to the defender upon successful conquest of the last specified region. (And, of course, I already have on my list making all of these aspects of goals mutual, so that the defender has to declare their own intentions, even if those are just "don't lose our own regions, and get them to stop attacking us.") I didn't want to do that at first, because it seemed like it elevated territorial gains over other kinds of goals, but it's certainly true that they're the most common goal & desire in war (and once Hinterlands comes out, it will be much easier to go for them).

60

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

« on: August 08, 2020, 06:06:42 PM »

And I'm working on Hinterlands as fast as I reasonably can, given the other demands on my time.

But you know what one of those demands on my time is?

Constantly dealing with all this bull!@#$. And it's really frustrating, and not only does it take up the actual time I spend responding to people angry that their status-quo-derived power in a browser game is being reduced, it means that for hours or days afterwards I just don't feel like working on it, because dealing with the people !@#$ting on everything I try to do—not "constructively criticizing", no, that would be much more reasonable, just telling me constantly how everything I'm doing is wrong and bad—drains my mental energy vastly more than writing code does.

And thanks, yes, I know perfectly well that hard restrictions are a bad way to operate, but they're something I can put into place now to prevent the game getting into worse and worse situations while I work on long-term fixes that take a lot of time and thought to develop even before I can write a single line of code. (I even said this rather loudly in the Dwilight Ruler/Admin OOC Channel recently, but I recognize you may not be on Dwilight to have seen that.)