Zuma/Daimons

[Anaris]

You don't get a medal for doing this in your spare time. You agreed to do it. If that's such a burden, stop doing it, or at least stop coming here to talk about it if you're going to dismiss anything that comes across in this forum anyway.

Let me turn this around on you: You don't get a medal for staying in the game. You chose to join, you choose to stay, and if we tell you, "This part isn't going to change, so why are you still arguing about it?" then it just seems silly to me to continue to argue over it.

Most BM players, good or bad, have better things to do than post in the forum -- BM advertises itself as lightweight, after all.  I don't really care if you dismiss what Vellos says or what I say, but you're dismissing the entire platform as beneath you.

No, I'm not. The fact that I disagree with what you're saying here and now does not mean that I, and Tom, and the rest of the dev team, do not regularly take suggestions, feedback, and complaints from the forum to heart.

This is a dangerous kind of trap to fall into, that I have taken to calling "the mayonnaise problem." I'm sure it has a proper logical name, something similar to "confirmation bias."

My wife gets mad at me when I leave the mayonnaise out on the counter after making a sandwich to bring for my lunch. She says, "You always leave the mayonnaise out!" But the problem is, when I don't leave the mayonnaise out, she doesn't even know I've made a sandwich. So even though I only leave the mayonnaise out, say, once out of every ten times, she thinks I leave it out every time.

In this case, you see that I'm dismissing this particular argument (and several from the D-list of old) as a vocal minority, and because this argument means something to you and you believe I'm wrong to dismiss it, that leads you to believe that I dismiss good arguments with the bad. But that's a fallacy, because it just means that in this case, you happen to be part of the minority.

Is a vocal minority always wrong? No. We have taken their suggestions and complaints sometimes, too.

But neither does the fact that you are part of this one mean that it's right.

If you don't even know what the Zuma's purpose is, what on earth are you doing here talking about it as if you do?

I challenge you to find anywhere in this thread (or any other) where I have even suggested that I know what the Zuma's purpose is.  So far as I know, only Tom and the Zuma GM really know what the purpose of the Zuma is.

I don't pretend to know what it is, I just know that Tom put them there for a reason, and until he decides to change that, I don't see them being a serious problem.  Their presence is causing a ruckus, yes. But 99% of that, now, is not because of anything they are doing, saying, or attempting to do. It is because people like Vellos and Gustav Kuriga are fanning the flames of anger against them deliberately. You've seen Vellos admit outright that he's now deliberately provoking the Zuma just to get them to cause more trouble.

I interpreted it literally: that a serious effort would be put forth to build a medieval atmosphere. Instead it's even more fantasy than the other islands and even less medieval because of the low populations and huge travel times. That's a different discussion, though.

That's an understandable, but mistaken interpretation.

All SMA was ever intended to mean was "Your characters need to act as though they are actually medieval nobles, not 12-65 year old Internet users sitting at computers in the early 21st century." It was never intended to indicate anything about the environment they would be put in—just how they were required to react to that environment.

For SMA to 'pan out' I would want to go to the dozen or so players with whom I was most involved five years ago and tell them to give BM another look because it's got that medieval sauce that was always a little bit on the thin side. It's not just RPers, though many are. You don't need to write tons of RP to go for the intrigue, the scheming, the medieval politics. The folks who 'got it' were frustrated by the bugs and they were frustrated by the attitude of the people in charge. You are dearly mistaken if you believe that, merely because BM is free, you can tell people to 'piss off' with no consequence.

And I don't believe that. Nor have I ever told someone to piss off who hadn't degenerated into purely ad hominem-type idiocy in their arguments.

But you are dearly mistaken if you believe that, merely because you play BM, you get to dictate anything about the direction of the game's development. You get to make suggestions, criticisms, and yes, complaints and whines. But we have the right to ignore you completely if we believe that is what is best for the game as a whole.

Obviously not, but it can decide to whom it is catering, whether that is two or nine groups. Every new realm goes through a process that BM needs to go through. New people take over and they kick out or marginalize the people they most associate with the old problems. They then promote and encourage the people they most associate with the kind of realm they want. 

And this is an ongoing process.  The people BattleMaster wanted to appeal to in 2004 is a quite different group than who it wants to appeal to in 2012.  Part of BattleMaster's problem has always been that it's a pretty unique kind of game: it doesn't have the kinds of fancy graphics some games have, it doesn't permit the sort of micromanagement of people's real lives required for super-efficient armies, it doesn't permit you to create 100 accounts to boost your realm like some games do...

We are doing our best, and (and this is the important part) we do not expect every part of BattleMaster to please all of its players. There are six different continents for a reason. And Dwilight is big enough to be two continents all by itself. So there's plenty of room for pretty much every type of player that BattleMaster attracts.

You can make the best structure and write the best code for any game like BM out there, but at the end of the day you've got nothing without dedicated players to make your atmosphere. The kind of players who will put in just as much time as you do writing wiki pages, welcoming new players, and arranging the blobs of text that make up BM into something that feels alive and organic rather than a collection of database queries. 

This is absolutely true, and we are well aware of this, and trying to focus on pleasing our players with the changes we have been making, like the removal of TMP and the simplified food system.

I do recall the bitchfests of yore. The reason I left the d-lists was because of smug, arrogant posts like yours. I put in my time as a titan and a wiki presence and eventually got tired not of the players bitching or the system (which doesn't bother me as much as it bothered some) but of attitudes like yours. Gratitude and accommodation are two way streets. You shrug off input from the handful of big guns BM has left and then you expect them to be grateful that you only suggested rather than outright said that they could piss off. The more time I spend reading posts like yours and reading about the Zuma -- whose summary seems to be 'you have NO IDEA how cool they could be, you are ignorant! oh and so am I, all hail Tom' -- the more I am blown away that the discussion here never got past the kid stuff we had on the d-list.

It sounds like you want a suggestion box, not a discussion forum.

Again, I refer you to the mayonnaise fallacy. You come on here and see me responding in the way that I do in these last few posts (and while I can at least understand where "arrogant" might be coming from, since I am, indeed, speaking from a position of power, I'm really not sure about "smug"...perhaps you're reading my occasional flippancy and humor as smugness?), and you assume that I view all player input with smug, arrogant, contempt.

This could not be farther from the truth.

The truth is that I am a bit jaded, due to the number of players who have come on the forum or the D-list whining about this or that when the consequences were obvious, or demanding that their pet feature be implemented when there is no way it would work well, or moaning about a Titan decision that was obviously correct, or bitching about how another realm is owning theirs, and something has to be done to stop this. It gets frustrating and aggravating, and some days, yes, I'm too harsh on people and I say things that might not be the most diplomatic.

But I have also seen some fantastic ideas come from the players. And, well, I'm a player myself. ("I'm not just the president, I'm also a client!") I see many of the things that go wrong in the game—and I also see how much of it goes right. I can't be everywhere, of course, but I do have four active characters, one each on EC, BT, FEI, and Dwilight. 

I want to know what people think about the game. I want to know what people love about the game. I want to know what people hate about the game.

What I don't want, Scarlett, is for people who have been all but told flat out, "What you have been asking for is not going to happen," to continue to ask for it.

The Zuma are not going to be removed. They are not going to have their CS nerfed. They are not going to be turned into a purely RP group. It is not going to be made possible to turn one against another.

[Anaris]

I personally enjoy the Daimons on Dwilight but I believed they need to be nerfed  some what for example their ability to pretty much fly across the continent so much faster then any of us can move. I think they should be able to move a little bit faster but not to what they can do now.

I don't know where you got the idea that they can do this, but it's completely untrue.

[Scarlett]

I haven't once asked for them to be removed. I've given you my impression as someone who just came into this situation a couple months ago. You chose to disregard it. That's your prerogative.

It would have been nice if you'd spent half as much time talking about the Zuma or responding to the criticisms -- rather than dismissing them -- as you have talking about talking about the Zuma.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I wonder why Tom has not decided to just come in and declare something here.

Here's a little something not many of you know: For the past 1.5 years I have also tried to get Tom to do stuff about the Zuma. Like, possibly making them more interesting for people, possibly changing a few things like how they're portrayed so people get a better idea of them, stuff like that, most of the time. He does respond.

But the thing about this is: Do it yourself. Keep posting on the forums if you must, but the thing that has a small chance of working is sending Tom a private message explaining the following:

1. What you think is wrong.
2. Why you think it deserves to be changed.
3. What changes you propose.

There, easy enough. That at least might have a chance of getting you somewhere. Continuing to post now is probably going to fulfill only one goal: Increase your post count. And if I recall correctly, people often say that such a practice is my specialty. Hm, wonder if this means I'll have competition? LOL

[Scarlett]

So this entire business has been nothing but chest-thumping from involved-but-dismissed parties and uninvolved parties?

I think I preferred when BM didn't have forums. I don't think I'll be back.

[Vellos]

Second: when you say "...what you are doing is not having the desired effect," I'm unsure as to whether you mean what the Zuma are doing in-game, or what all our arguing is doing on the forum. However, in the former case, if what the Zuma are doing was not having the desired effect (whatever that happens to be), I'm reasonably sure Tom would tell them to change it or remove them. And in the latter case, as I've already stated, this is an argument on the Internet. It's not going to go anywhere by its very nature. We're not going to convince Vellos and Gustav Kuriga (and the others), and they're not going to convince us, because we're coming at it from completely different premises.

I could be convinced. I just think you have yet to produce a meaningful counterargument. I have admitted I was wrong on numerous occasions, even after long arguments: just recently, the case I opened against the Zuma GM regarding torture comes to mind, or the vulgarity feature. C'mon Tim, you know me well enough to know that I don't just pick an opinion, then plug my fingers in my ears and go "I'm not listening!"

We know about this, and over the past several months, we have been working to make changes that undo the damage to the game that was caused by the old estate system and TMP.  It is a difficult process, however, because everything needs to be carefully balanced, fun, and reasonably historically accurate (pretty much in that order).

This is actually a great example.

There were some serious bitchfests over TMP (and estates). Many players left. Some who liked them stayed (like myself). We said to ourselves, "We're right, we're right, the complainers are just whining because they're losing..."

But you know what? Those of us who favored old estates and TMP were wrong. And you know what? When that was admitted, and when work began to actually address those issues... lo and behold, things are getting better.

Surprise! If you listen to the complaints being voiced by a significant group of players, and adapt, you can create a better game! Woah!

And you know what we have?

The luxury of telling you to piss off.

Fortunately for you, we are not exercising that luxury. We are telling you why your arguments are useless, incorrect, or irrelevant. We are engaging with you. We are, in fact, trying very hard to make this game better.

No. Your argument has been, "That's not how the Zuma were designed to be, so we shouldn't change them." Your argument has been that the Zuma should not be changed because they were not designed to be changed. It has also been argued that those frustrated with the Zuma are just playing wrong, or not thinking about the issues enough. When we have stated various strategies we have attempted, we have been ignored.

It is not true that leaving the Zuma alone means you will get left alone. It's not true. As in, "It is false." If you seriously think that's an option... then you're ignorant. Because someone out there somewhere will find a way to provoke the Zuma. It gives one or two players the power to control the destiny of dozens, based on the strength of a GM faction.

First, Tim, I'm unsure if you're right about not being able to turn a GM faction against itself. Things I've seen from other people more involved with the Zuma than you, both IC and OOC, indicate they are not so unified as you claim.

Second, even if you are right, that's irrelevant. I'm not arguing about what strategies are possible but about what strategies should be possible.

But making the game better does not—cannot—mean bowing to every loudmouthed whiner on the forums. If we were to adopt a policy of doing that, it would lead within months to the utter ruin of the game.

You're absolutely right. We shouldn't bow to every loudmouthed whiner on the forums. I do hope you're not characterizing me personally as a "loudmouthed whiner." Again, you know me well enough to know that I practically get glee from being on the losing side of things and watching my schemes be evicerated by other players, be it in Oligarch, Irombrozia, MR, Riombara, or elsewhere we've played in proximity to each other.

But because you don't want to bow to every loudmouthed whiner doesn't mean you should write off complaints every time their loud or insistent. You may be right that our arguments as we have stated them are insufficient (I don't think you are, but it's possible). But even if you are right: there's still something seriously wrong that's causing all these players to be unhappy. The vibe I'm getting from you (and from the Zuma GM IG) is that you think the thing that is wrong is basically me, which perplexes me, as I was not the first person to be bothered by the Zuma. I began this whole thing because of complaints from members of Terran. I have continued because I have grown more frustrated with the Zuma.

[Vellos]

You've seen Vellos admit outright that he's now deliberately provoking the Zuma just to get them to cause more trouble.

And I answered my own question as I read further....

And that is total bull!@#$. That is a malicious lie that you have posted because you're frustrated that you can't find a rational argument to counter the anger of players around the Zuma.

I said that Hireshmont is provoking the Zuma, and, even then, it's not even quite true (though the Zuma GM has practically quoted some of my forum messages IG, which is a bit upsetting). I'm not getting the Zuma to try and cause trouble. Hireshmont wants them to go back to being quiet. In several posts, I have noted Terran's current strategy, which is to try and move the Zuma back into their previous isolation. It is a strategy arrived at practically unanimously through IC discussion in Terran. To so mischaracterize what I have said as me the player trying to provoke the Zuma to "get them to cause trouble" is not only a false representation of what my character is doing, but a shameful conflation of IC and OOC motivations.

I am extremely disappointed that you actually decided to take this so personally as to decide that somehow I am the problem player. I want to ignore the Zuma. But it isn't possible. If we ignore them, they will kill us eventually. You cannot put thousands of CS on your borders then just say, "Pretend we're not there." You cannot wander through and kill hundreds of soldiers then say, "Just ignore us." You cannot send an army to a city when only an ambassador was invited, and then say, "We're not here to engage in intimidation." The Zuma's actions are broadly comprehensible to me if and only if I assume that their objective is the subjugation or vassalization of neighboring states. Their behaviors do not make sense under any other hypothesis I have yet seen. I'm not saying there isn't another possibility, just that I haven't seen it.

[Geronus]

That's actually a poor direction to turn your argument in. If the Zuma's purpose was to subjugate their neighbors they could do so easily. I also would be greatly surprised if they destroyed Terran without first being excessively provoked to do so. I'd guess that you'd have to basically force them to destroy you through either willful obstinance or extreme stupidity. It's obvious that conquest and/or hegemony isn't their purpose, simply because if it was they could have already conquered the entire Maroccidens a long time ago. However, that it clearly isn't their purpose makes their recent militarism all the more incomprehensible to me since it only overshadows all the other types of interaction that they engage in and creates fear and prejudice against them. You yourself are an excellent example of how the excessive resort to threats and force recently by the Zuma have poisoned the game environment that they are supposed to be enriching. The Zuma are a plot device. As such they should be generating interest and intrigue. Instead they seem to be engendering ill will and frustration. That says to me that there is a flaw in the way they have been implemented.

They might be better without the overwhelming military. You could always give them some other abilities that they can use to protect themselves. The army they have is really at the heart of the problem here; by its very existence it encourages the behavior we've seen. When you can act with impunity, the temptation is to do so. And hence we have seen the Zuma act repeatedly of late, often based on the smallest of reasons. This behavior is amplified by the fact that from a rational standpoint, it makes sense to use power when you have it, but I wonder whether some of what we've seen recently isn't a bit of a stretch, almost an excuse to use the power. Thus I question whether the power should be taken away and replaced with something more subtle that can serve the same purpose. The Zuma are not supposed to be conquerors or they'd have conquered already. Therefore what do they need an army for? Defense? Ok, I accept that they need to be able to defend themselves. So why don't you design some other way for them to deter invasion? Make them mighty sorcerers or something. Give them the ability to burn trespassing armies to the ground, but limit what they can do outside of their own territory. The Zuma army is showing signs of becoming an end unto itself. It's there, so therefore it must be used. I think that's what's really generating this frustration at the moment.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Make them "Light" dudes, or I guess in this case..."Darkness" dudes...They can shoot out beams of...er...darkness...that destroys all human forces in a region like the Light worked on inhuman forces, humans can't enter regions with a "Temple of Darkness" which would be in Zuma regions (Thereby preventing most interactions), and any human TLs in a region blasted by darkness would get an auto-critically wounded effect lasting...a long time. lololol

By the way: Totally serious here. The temples would be situated in three key regions, like Nightmarch, Dragon Song, and Ruins of Walfurgisnacht. This would probably be enough to reach all regions in the Zuma, thus frying any humans who are dumb enough to invade. As well, because the temples are immobile, that means the Zuma can't go out to fry people, and can only be strictly defensive. This would get rid of complaints about how they are out to conquer !@#$ because they seriously can't.

As well, this would make people who try to forge letters to instigate an attack fail, because the Zuma can't do anything about it anyway, and the guys who are the target certainly won't go into the Zuma lands, unless they really have a deathwish. And if they do, then it really is solely their fault and their stupidity.

Also I'm aware of generally how the Light works. Anaris can provide further insight, and yes, it requires a religion, elder priests, etc etc. Little modification here or there...It doesn't look like it'd be too big of a mod, since the "darkness" temples could even be reduced in its options (You can't sacrifice...wait, nevermind. Zuma...humans...sacrifice. Right, that can be kept in lol)

Unfortunately, this won't work either. It'll be perceived as unjustified for a small gain. I'm just trying to show that I'm not adamantly opposed to change. I also think about some improvements, but by now I've accepted that my ideas are generally crappy and won't be listened to.

[egamma]

And that is total bull!@#$. That is a malicious lie.

I said that Hireshmont is provoking the Zuma,

You're saying that it's 'total' because it's not Vellos, but the character that Vellos plays that's doing the provoking? That's a rather weak argument.

and, even then, it's not even quite true (though the Zuma GM has practically quoted some of my forum messages IG, which is a bit upsetting).

Either make a Magistrate care of that or stop posting Zuma related stuff.

Their behaviors do not make sense under any other hypothesis I have yet seen. I'm not saying there isn't another possibility, just that I haven't seen it.

Think of the Zuma like a present. It's wrapped, you don't know what's inside of it. It's a big box, say 3 feet, by 2 inches by 6 feet (1mx6MMx2m for our metric players). The box is standing up on its edge. You bump into the box, it falls over an smashes your toes. It hurts. You set the present back up next to the wall. Someone else knocks the present over, and it smashes your toes again.

Do you really want to throw away the present without unwrapping it, because it smashed your toes a couple of times? We have no idea what the Zuma are really here for. It could be Tom's most amazing idea ever, and you want to throw it away without even find out what it is?

You're really willing to take that gamble, just to maintain your ridiculous gold income status quo? You know that those peasants and soldiers are just 1's and 0's inside of a server ,right, and you, Vellos, shouldn't actually care about them beyond the fact that they provide us players with some entertainment.

Just play Hireshmont in an SMA fashion, according to whatever you think a medieval noble would do when confronted with an enemy like the Zuma.

[Zuma GM]

What is incredibly frustrating and disappointing is that a fair amount of the things that are being complained about on this forum are things that could easily have been dealt with in character within the game.
Has anyone mentioned the concerns of the army sizes in game? No. How do you know what response you would get? You don't, you just make assumptions on what anything and everything is there for.
The issue with Asylon, the treaty, the two regions - in game they have been told exactly what happened with regard to that treaty (and, as it's been stated on this forum that the Zuma just chose to ignore it I will clarify that is not the case and there is good reason for why they did what they did, as has been explained in game to more than one person.) Asylon also know, in game, what they need to do to have those regions back, so I am confused by some of Glaumring's comments.
Also, as I've now covered it a number of times within the game that enough people should be aware of it, with regard to the forged letter - the Zuma had never experienced such a thing before. They did not know that humans did such a thing. the culture of humans they have been used to (their Zuma) do not do that sort of thing. The Daimons are aware of it now, and would not fall for such a thing again (as has been demonstrated by the fact they haven't acted on other information they have been given - though obviously the players don't see this because nothing happens).
I have an account on the forums here (which I try not to have to use very often) and I am on Dwilight. If people have sensible, constructive ideas or other things to say, you can just send me a message you know.

[vonGenf]

Has anyone mentioned the concerns of the army sizes in game? No. How do you know what response you would get? You don't, you just make assumptions on what anything and everything is there for.

Are you seriously suggesting that my character goes into the lands of the daimons and then flat out state "I think your army is too big. That's not fair.", and that that would elicit a response? That is pretty much the definition of non-SMA behaviour. It is as far from SMA as can be possibly imagined.

You realize we should be treating you as a daimonic force, right?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

One of the dangers of hating me as a player is that you miss out on some things. One of the dangers of having your characters be too proud to swallow that pride and deal with Garret despite his sometimes abrasive language (And believe me, it's YOU, not me. There are those Garret gets along with perfectly well because those players' characters were constructed to be pretty level-headed.) is failing to understand what actual use he has to you.

Perhaps I can make it a little clearer because the way I see it, Terran is really tailspinning into a really deep hole as it is.

Here's the deal: If you want to talk to the daimons, then yes, you do have to see them in their regions. Want to know the one, sole, single known way to get the daimons' attention otherwise? It's not that hard. Whether you choose to do it is your problem. Whether you choose to trust the method is your problem, though you might be reminded that the daimons can always verify that their method is being reliable. They...have ways.

Most importantly, it's your neck on the line if you go into a Zuma region and complain about their army size to a daimon. It's not your neck on the line if you don't enter their region and you choose to transmit the complaint. But hey, I'm not implying anything.

...I still think the Temples of Darkness idea would work...

[egamma]

Are you seriously suggesting that my character goes into the lands of the daimons and then flat out state "I think your army is too big. That's not fair.", and that that would elicit a response? That is pretty much the definition of non-SMA behaviour. It is as far from SMA as can be possibly imagined.

You realize we should be treating you as a daimonic force, right?

You could send an ambassador, explain that humans normally keep armies of sufficient size to control their own borders, and state that the army the size of the Zuma makes you very nervous, and inquire as to why the Zuma keep such large standing armies.

You know, like a real ambassador, not like a 12-year-old.

[vonGenf]

You could send an ambassador, explain that humans normally keep armies of sufficient size to control their own borders, and state that the army the size of the Zuma makes you very nervous, and inquire as to why the Zuma keep such large standing armies.

You know, like a real ambassador, not like a 12-year-old.

Have you met Screamer? I have. My gut reaction was not to ask "My, what big teeth you have!". I know too well what would be coming. All the daimons' RP that I have seen is meant to make my character feel like a 12 year-old.

Maybe you have seen different RP than I have. That's very possible and all the best for you then. However, from what I have seen, asking questions like what you propose would be non-SMA. It wouldn't be madness: my character is a priest, they can't do anything if I don't preach, so I as a player know that my character is safe. But my character doesn't.

That's what SMA is about.