76
Helpline / Re: Road Repair?
« on: July 10, 2020, 02:49:35 PM »
Manually directing some resources to road repair is an approved feature request from some time back.
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.
77
Feature Requests / Re: Unit Payment Warning in Red after 5 days.
« on: June 22, 2020, 10:00:39 PM »
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.
78
BM General Discussion / Re: Overarching alliance blocs, pile in and risk aversion
« on: June 20, 2020, 03:51:33 PM »
BattleMaster is intended at its fundamental level to be a team game, with the realm as that team.
Not only is that very difficult to change, from a code standpoint, I have no interest in doing so. If you want to play Might and Fealty, you are more than welcome to go play Might and Fealty, but BattleMaster is not going to become an every-noble-for-themselves game. We've experimented with smaller team sizes before—back when we actually had the players for it—and even then, it turned out terribly.
If you don't like what your realm is doing, then a) work to change it, b) find a realm that's doing something else, or c) get enough like-minded people together to found your own realm.
If you can't get at least 14 people together who agree with you, you're not going to have enough for a particularly interesting war anyway.
Not only is that very difficult to change, from a code standpoint, I have no interest in doing so. If you want to play Might and Fealty, you are more than welcome to go play Might and Fealty, but BattleMaster is not going to become an every-noble-for-themselves game. We've experimented with smaller team sizes before—back when we actually had the players for it—and even then, it turned out terribly.
If you don't like what your realm is doing, then a) work to change it, b) find a realm that's doing something else, or c) get enough like-minded people together to found your own realm.
If you can't get at least 14 people together who agree with you, you're not going to have enough for a particularly interesting war anyway.
79
Announcements / RP Interaction Preference and Spoilers
« on: June 13, 2020, 07:28:02 PM »
Two new additions to the message interface today:
- RP Interaction Preference: This will only show up when you are writing a Roleplay. It lets you indicate to what extent you are open to outside participants in your roleplay, and has three options:
- private—Please do not interrupt this roleplay. It may be a solo RP, or may be between a group of people who are collaborating on it, but while you are invited to read it, and if it is being roleplayed as happening in public can even roleplay a reaction, you are asked not to interrupt. Please do be respectful of others, and if your roleplay is taking place in the open, please think twice before using this setting.
- public—You may join in this roleplay, but it is polite to ask first. This is the default setting.
- invite—You are invited to join in this roleplay! The roleplayer is actively seeking interaction and engagement! Please remain respectful, and do not attempt to hijack or sabotage other players' roleplays.
- Spoiler warning: This has been added as an option under Content Warnings, by player request. It will simply act as another content warning, in case you wish to roleplay a shocking twist, but avoid having other players accidentally spoil themselves by reading it prematurely.
80
BM General Discussion / Re: Prophet Fame Points
« on: June 13, 2020, 03:09:04 AM »Wouldn't it be funny if there were no Prophet Fame Points? I would laugh and laugh and laugh...
No, it exists. I got it legitimately before I was a dev. (As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I may have even been the first person to get it...)
81
Announcements / Reply to List available for realmwide messages
« on: June 11, 2020, 10:14:40 PM »
A commonly-requested feature, "reply to list" on realmwide messages, has now been enabled gamewide.
Please message responsibly.
Please message responsibly.
82
BM General Discussion / Re: Overarching alliance blocs, pile in and risk aversion
« on: June 11, 2020, 05:35:29 PM »
I've been doing a lot of thinking the last few days, and one of the conclusions I've come to is that I believe we, the devs/admins, have made a mistake in the way we implemented alliance bloc restrictions and war declaration rules. Specifically, those changes don't go far enough—not as in "don't restrict enough," but more like "paint the restrictions on a flat wall," when what we really need is a recognizable tangible thing that helps players to feel more immersed in the milieu, while still encouraging the behaviour we're seeking.
To that end, I've come up with a proposed new feature that takes these ideas and moves them further—and it's along the lines of some things many of you will have heard of or even advocated for yourselves in the past (to some extent, it will look a lot like the scrapped Treaty System). As a whole, I would call it an Entity-Based Diplomacy Overhaul. Please bear in mind that this is all very preliminary, so if there are serious flaws found in it, there's plenty of time to fix them or scrap the whole idea (though the latter would be somewhat disappointing).
Right now, we have what I, as a programmer, would describe as state-based diplomacy. That is, "war" is a status you can have. It doesn't tell you anything except that you and one other realm are at war with each other. We've added a reason to that, but it's still fundamentally just a bandaid on top of the existing system.
The new system would create fully entity-based diplomacy, where every war, alliance, and other kind of diplomatic relationship is represented by a full-fledged database object, with names, start dates, end dates, reasons, participants, etc.
To flesh this out a bit more (again, bearing in mind that all specifics are still open to discussion):
It is my hope that a system such as this would be able to address many of the concerns that currently plague BattleMaster, especially related to the war declarations and alliance restrictions, though I certainly recognize that it would be far from a panacea. In particular, Hinterlands is still desperately needed to create a much safer way to lift the density restrictions and allow realms to take regions without worrying about their noble count.
To that end, I've come up with a proposed new feature that takes these ideas and moves them further—and it's along the lines of some things many of you will have heard of or even advocated for yourselves in the past (to some extent, it will look a lot like the scrapped Treaty System). As a whole, I would call it an Entity-Based Diplomacy Overhaul. Please bear in mind that this is all very preliminary, so if there are serious flaws found in it, there's plenty of time to fix them or scrap the whole idea (though the latter would be somewhat disappointing).
Right now, we have what I, as a programmer, would describe as state-based diplomacy. That is, "war" is a status you can have. It doesn't tell you anything except that you and one other realm are at war with each other. We've added a reason to that, but it's still fundamentally just a bandaid on top of the existing system.
The new system would create fully entity-based diplomacy, where every war, alliance, and other kind of diplomatic relationship is represented by a full-fledged database object, with names, start dates, end dates, reasons, participants, etc.
To flesh this out a bit more (again, bearing in mind that all specifics are still open to discussion):
- All realms start at "neutral" with respect to each other, which, in the new system, essentially means "no relationship."
- If you want to be allied to another realm, you need to form an Alliance.
- Each realm can only be in one alliance.
- An Alliance can contain multiple realms, but defines a strict hierarchy among them, to ensure a clear chain of command on the battlefield.
- Alliances have official names
- If alliances are small enough—under 1/3 of the total nobles on the continent, with buffers for shifting realm sizes—members of the alliance can send messages to each other with a standard option on the Messages page.
- Alliances can specify a variety of levels of support: for instance, whether members will aid each other in combat only in defense within member realms, defending in neutral territory, defending in enemy territory, or even joining in to attack together.
- They also specify how changes to the alliance, including changing the name, adding and removing members, and adjusting the conditions, can be made, with possibilities like "dictated by the top realm in the hierarchy", "majority vote by member realms," "unanimous vote by member realms", etc.
- It will keep track of the complete history of the alliance, with every change remembered and dated.
- If you want to go to war with someone, a realm or alliance can declare a War against a realm or alliance. Wars are mirrors of Alliances in many ways.
- Wars are automatically named by the game while they're underway, but once they're finished, the victor gets to set the name recorded for posterity
- They can specify where the parties involved will fight—only the attacker's regions, only the defender's regions, only neutral regions, or some combination
- They can specify which regions can be taken over, including "all" or "none"
- Unlike alliances, changes to wars happen unilaterally, including joining as an attacker; however, once the war is started, the only way to join as a defender is to join the defender's Alliance
- All attacking parties must give a reason for attacking or joining the war—if an Alliance declares war as a whole, individual member realms don't need to give reasons
- All participants in a war (whether realm or alliance) must clearly state their goals; defenders are automatically given a war goal of "obtain peace terms from the attackers", and can then change that
- Peace Treaties will exist, but be much simpler (they just state "we will not fight each other if we end up in the same region")
- Defensive Pacts will exist, allowing small groups of realms that are not allied to specify conditions for triggering an automatic alliance
- Considering making alliances only able to be active as part of a war—either you found one to declare a war, or to defend against a declaration, and as soon as the war is over, the alliance is automatically dissolved
- Parallel to this, a simple state-based "cultural diplomacy" will be created, to allow realms to unilaterally indicate which realms their nobility likes and dislikes. This will have no mechanical effects, but will be informative both to current and new players.
It is my hope that a system such as this would be able to address many of the concerns that currently plague BattleMaster, especially related to the war declarations and alliance restrictions, though I certainly recognize that it would be far from a panacea. In particular, Hinterlands is still desperately needed to create a much safer way to lift the density restrictions and allow realms to take regions without worrying about their noble count.
83
BM General Discussion / Re: Prophet Fame Points
« on: June 09, 2020, 08:36:59 PM »I am fairly certain there is a follower count that has to be reached.
It's not that simple.
84
Development / Re: Holy/Guild Wars
« on: June 09, 2020, 12:43:32 AM »
I'm not going to say "never ever" to something like this, but it's definitely not something I'm going to be planning to include in the foreseeable future.
BattleMaster is designed around The Realm As Team. I don't see a compelling reason to change that, and I see various compelling reasons not to.
BattleMaster is designed around The Realm As Team. I don't see a compelling reason to change that, and I see various compelling reasons not to.
85
Helpline / Re: Guild foundation character limit?
« on: June 06, 2020, 06:23:32 PM »
....Weird, looks like your name should've fit just fine. It's fixed in the DB now; I'll take a look at the code and see why it's prematurely truncating guild names.
86
Helpline / Re: Guild foundation character limit?
« on: June 06, 2020, 06:21:17 PM »
Wherps.
Yeah, there's no good reason for a limit that short. Lemme see what I can do for you.
Yeah, there's no good reason for a limit that short. Lemme see what I can do for you.
87
Feature Requests / Re: Everyone in this Realm - Message Option
« on: June 04, 2020, 02:15:53 PM »
Cautiously in favour, though with a restriction that it can only be used for the RP and OOC message types, and an admonition that abuse of it (ie, tagging your message as one of those types, but it actually being a different type) is not allowed.
88
Feature Requests / Re: Message Delays
« on: June 04, 2020, 12:11:42 AM »
Absolutely never.
We toyed with this idea for years, and even introduced a limited version of it (delayed scout reports). It was terrible.
BattleMaster is not intended to be a medieval simulator, and its very core mechanic is its message system. Anything that introduces extra friction in that is likely to make the game significantly less fun.
Furthermore, making it hard and frustrating to send messages makes people vastly more likely to start sending messages by out-of-game means.
We toyed with this idea for years, and even introduced a limited version of it (delayed scout reports). It was terrible.
BattleMaster is not intended to be a medieval simulator, and its very core mechanic is its message system. Anything that introduces extra friction in that is likely to make the game significantly less fun.
Furthermore, making it hard and frustrating to send messages makes people vastly more likely to start sending messages by out-of-game means.
89
Announcements / Graphic Content Warning
« on: June 01, 2020, 11:26:51 PM »
As was announced a little over a month ago, we are now introducing the feature to tag roleplays as graphic in nature—with several options for what type of graphic content is included—with such messages automatically being hidden in recipients' message feeds. Instead, below the "Roleplay from Delvin Anaris" header, you'll see a Graphic Content Warning box listing the warning tags, which you can then click to display the message.
If you find that there are tags you would like to use that are not in the provided list, please contact us and let us know (you can reach us on the forum, on Discord, or by email at community@battlemaster.org). This is still a very new feature, and the list is by no means set in stone.
Please note that the Roleplaying Guidelines have also been updated with these in mind, and have been added to the Rules & Policies page. All players are expected to follow these guidelines at all times.
If you find that there are tags you would like to use that are not in the provided list, please contact us and let us know (you can reach us on the forum, on Discord, or by email at community@battlemaster.org). This is still a very new feature, and the list is by no means set in stone.
Please note that the Roleplaying Guidelines have also been updated with these in mind, and have been added to the Rules & Policies page. All players are expected to follow these guidelines at all times.
90
Development / Re: Population overhaul
« on: May 25, 2020, 02:55:14 PM »
...This already happens.
Not when you recruit them into a unit, but when they become available in the recruitment center.
This has been the case for...I don't even know, maybe a decade?
Also, I'm already working on changes that make "going after enemy population" a less viable strategy, because that leads to regions that take RL months to years to become productive, and that's no fun.
I also have some other ideas about how to make keeping your army alive a very important part of your strategy.
Not when you recruit them into a unit, but when they become available in the recruitment center.
This has been the case for...I don't even know, maybe a decade?
Also, I'm already working on changes that make "going after enemy population" a less viable strategy, because that leads to regions that take RL months to years to become productive, and that's no fun.
I also have some other ideas about how to make keeping your army alive a very important part of your strategy.