Author Topic: So TMP is gone. Are you enjoying all the new wars?  (Read 58136 times)

squirrel

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
But the ways of earning fame are not devised to encourage war, are they?
Easy enough to make up new ones.

Quote
Also, when giving bonuses to one realm, you're basically still punishing the realm not going to war.
TMP punished realms by increasing unrest and making players put in more busywork on realm control. Simply letting moribund realms stay moribund wouldn't feel like the same level of "punishment".
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.

Sacha

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
    • View Profile
A problem is this as well, for a war you need active nobles, good marshal and an infrastructure. Okay, you can fight a war without those but you will probably lose. Times of peace are great for building up infrastructure, but it sucks for the first two requirements. To get those you need war, but you dont have war because you dont have them.

circle..

Bullplop. Every realm is bound to have at least one person in it who is skilled at BM warfare. If you have just one guy who knows his warfare, then you can use him to teach others. !@#$, if the Capets were still around I'd make one of my characters a tactician-for-hire.

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Don't forget, the dev team has come up with some pretty far-reaching ideas for implementing a new system, part of whose aim would be to replace Too Much Peace.

The gist of the system is that every realm would, at any given time, be either on a war footing or a peace footing.  No realm could stay on either footing indefinitely without certain consequences.

These consequences (though the details haven't all been ironed out, and won't be until after the Doctrine transition is over) would follow logically from the nature of peace and war footings, and would be designed in such a way as to avoid making it harder for a peaceful realm to go back to war.

I don't really see the need to experiment with other systems, or (even more so) attempts at quick patches, before we've done some more serious work on the one we've already partially planned out.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Sounds reasonable; the idea would be to make penalties for peace that do not fundamentally cripple the ability to prepare for war, and make penalties for war that do not fundamentally cripple a realm's ability to seek peace. It's a tricky balance, but not inherently disequilibriated.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Bedwyr

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1762
  • House Bedwyr
    • View Profile
FEI is nearly dead. The only war taking place now is Arcaea v. Arcachon. And I hear that one is pretty darn boring.

 :-[

Ah...That's...more or less my fault.  I had anticipated the Arcaean/Arcachonian war would be over far sooner than this (most recently, I wasn't anticipating that the TO attempts of Enlod would fail completely when the stats were rock bottom for Arcachon and at 100% sympathy to Arcaea, and there have been several other points where I thought "this must be it!").  If/when (please god soon) that finishes, I can promise lots and lots of fighting, though possibly not of a kind anyone anticipates.  Even if Arcachon somehow manages to survive (though, for the obvious reasons, I hope they don't).

I know that's...pretty weak...and kinda pathetic...But I think I may have figured out a way to crack several systemic BM problems.
"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here!"

De-Legro

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
A problem is this as well, for a war you need active nobles, good marshal and an infrastructure. Okay, you can fight a war without those but you will probably lose. Times of peace are great for building up infrastructure, but it sucks for the first two requirements. To get those you need war, but you dont have war because you dont have them.

circle..

Which as was posted before is half the problem. People need to get over the fear of losing. Perhaps the whole combat mechanics need to be changed so that there is some fun in losing?
Previously of the De-Legro Family
Now of representation unknown.

Tom

  • BM Dev Team
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8228
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Which as was posted before is half the problem. People need to get over the fear of losing. Perhaps the whole combat mechanics need to be changed so that there is some fun in losing?

Why should there be fun in losing? There should be more reward for taking risks, then losing is just part of the process.

De-Legro

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
Why should there be fun in losing? There should be more reward for taking risks, then losing is just part of the process.

Generally cause losing is part of the game, and people like to have fun while playing a game. So long as losing is not fun, you will need massive rewards to make risk adverse people consider war. I'm not suggesting that losing be as much fun as destroying your enemy, just that it has some element to ensure it just doesn't suck.

What that could be I don't know. I already enjoy losing, plenty of scope for RP's about Heroic last stands. And vengeance, plenty of material for some serious plans of vengeance. Mmm wonder if a game mechanic could be created around vengeance.
Previously of the De-Legro Family
Now of representation unknown.

Peri

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Which as was posted before is half the problem. People need to get over the fear of losing. Perhaps the whole combat mechanics need to be changed so that there is some fun in losing?

I don't think it's just fear of losing. In several cases, it's mostly due to the lack of advantages. And I am not speaking here about noble-based advantages because that's not the point. I am just saying that once a realm wins and reduces his neighbors to tiny puppet, there will be stagnation. The large realm will have little point to pursue in further war activities: it's already large and it's already powerful. What's the point of pushing it further? Yes, the small realms should plan revenge and somehow try to actively plan for a future war and things like these, but their chances of success are so slim that no one does that and contents itself with sitting down.

all in all the main reason is that players lack the will (and perhaps the incentive) to change things, or that is my impression. Normally one would think that the strive for power will fuel enough conflicts - internal when external is not an option - yet if you take your time to think about it you'll see that very few dukes would gain that much from seceding and drawing a very likely war upon themselves. The same holds for rebellions. Very few lords would gain from changing allegiance and messing things up. In short: messing things up is almost never useful, the status quo is most of the times the best situation one can reasonably hope to find.

At least that is my experience. Quite often I found myself saying "ok things are getting boring, what can we do to stir them up?" and I have then realised that unless I deliberately do something wrong and possibly stupid, things will never shake up. The most likely answer one would get when asked "ok but why is there not an intra-SA conflict?" or "why is not one of the dukes of sirion seceding since it's so big" or "why is not SA trying to destroy the remaining non-theocratic realm bordering it" is again and again "why would we? what's the point in that?". And so playing reasonably and making your characters behaving rationally and not wildly very often leads to stagnation and boredom.

Unfortunately, I can't think easily of a solution for this. In general players should be more daring, but that's not happening not only because of "the fear of losing" but much more from the little they can gain from it. It's simply much more rewarding (in terms of promotions and ultimately gold gained) to play a noble to be good and loyal than wild and greedy.

songqu88@gmail.com

  • Guest
Make war a game in BM...which itself is a game.

Like in those books about future dystopias where war is just chess except with real humans. Like 1984 (kinda), or Ender's Game (Kinda as well).

Not perfect examples, but should inspire people. If not, then the inspiration is fluttering in the winds like a goat in the river.

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
In general players should be more daring, but that's not happening not only because of "the fear of losing" but much more from the little they can gain from it. It's simply much more rewarding (in terms of promotions and ultimately gold gained) to play a noble to be good and loyal than wild and greedy.

I would suggest even more radically: in many circumstances, the optimal behavior for a wildly greedy character is to be loyal, noncontroversial, moderate, mainline, etc. You make more money and generally have more power as the duke in a large, stable, powerful realm than the duke of a realm with enemies everywhere.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

GoldPanda

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
No realm could stay on either footing indefinitely without certain consequences.

Why should a realm be punished for staying in a war footing for a long time? The solution to too much peace is certainly not punishing realms for fighting all the time. And if a realm is being ganged up on, it may not have any choice but to keep fighting indefinitely.

And how come the Devs almost always reach for the stick first rather than the carrot? I often hear from Devs about how we ought to punish this, and ought to punish that, and almost never about rewarding the players for something.
------
qui audet vincit

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Why should a realm be punished for staying in a war footing for a long time? The solution to too much peace is certainly not punishing realms for fighting all the time. And if a realm is being ganged up on, it may not have any choice but to keep fighting indefinitely.

Well, this is the current version of the discussion. (Note that it is still a discussion, not even a completed design—let alone code.)

The idea is that you need to have cycles of peace and war, so that you can take some time to rebuild after a long period of fighting.

Quote
And how come the Devs almost always reach for the stick first rather than the carrot? I often hear from Devs about how we ought to punish this, and ought to punish that, and almost never about rewarding the players for something.

First: It's impressive that you already know how we're going to implement the incentives for being on one footing or the other, when we don't even know for sure ourselves.

Second: If we give a bonus for being in one mode, that will quickly come to be seen as a penalty for being in the other. It's all a matter of perspective.  The difference between a punishment and the lack of a reward is purely whether or not you're used to getting that reward as a matter of course.

If you're given X, Y, and Z as bonuses all the time (which you never had before), but then get X taken away from you if you do A rather than B...have you been punished for doing A? Or have you been given reward for doing B?
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

egamma

  • Guest
One thing I've noticed is that war is expensive--repeatedly recruiting, losing income to looting, rebuilding walls, etc. Perhaps if recruiting costs were lower, or something along those lines, that would help?

Indirik

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 10849
  • No pressure, no diamonds.
    • View Profile
Lowering recruiting costs affects both sides equally. So lowering them is, in general, a wash. Unless you want to only lower them for the poor side, whatever that may be. But then you're giving yet more bonuses to the smaller realms. (Or is that really punishing large realms by making them pay more for recruiting? :P)
If at first you don't succeed, don't take up skydiving.