Vent Thread

[Chenier]

For you I do my utmost best to ruin all your fun. Special treatment.

I already stated this had nothing to do with my personal fun.

My experience on BT, and elsewhere, has been that unless I rock the boat, nobody will. And sometimes, I need to rock it really hard for anything to happen.

This isn't about the boat rocker's feelings. It's about not having anyone else to rock the boat afterwards.

I took gambles, I took risks to create fun for the people around me. Due to bugs, !@#$ luck, and otherwise overwhelming forces I have no power over, I lost my gambles. I can live with defeat. It just really sucks for the people left behind. I don't recall the last time any other Enweilian ruler strove for anything else than the status quo.

Sure, you can sabotage the negotiations, and provoke war if you want. I'm sure stomping a crippled realm will be ever so amazing. And I'm sure that your 3 refugees will have a blast rebuilding a tiny city for the next year or two, just by themselves.

What annoys me isn't so much what you are doing IG, but that you have the audacity to come to the forums whine and bitch OOC about other players when you are no better yourself. You are perfectly entitled to to whatever you want IC, but if there's one thing I really hate, it's hypocrisy. And I consider you to be a great hypocrit. You judge other players as if you held the absolute truth, as if YOU knew what fun was and what it wasn't, as if we should all play by your standards of what is proper and what isn't, and as if you did everything right and others didn't. Because they are all pussies, and you are such a great player. You make the simple-minded equation that war=fun, when war isn't a requirement for fun and that not all wars are fun. And then come here to enlighten us all about how everyone's a bad player other than you. Except that you admit to responsibility for the problems you attribute to EC. On FEI, you admit to have the potential to do things differently, but don't. On BT, you threaten to revive the same damn old wars who have been done to death and that a ton of people can't stand the thought of doing yet AGAIN. On Dwilight, you made idiotic plans for a far-off colony when your realm had plenty of closer neighbors to could stir trouble with. From what I heard, you participated in the consolidation of power in what used to otherwise be a very tumultuous and exciting place for many. You blame the ruler for not making people care, but you show no signs of having put significant efforts yourself, as if the ruler was the only one able to make things fun for people.

In other words, I think the sole constant in all of the crappy situations you describe is you. And it greatly irritates me that you still have the audacity to come here and lecture other players on how they should play, and scorn them for how bad they've been playing.

[Anaris]

I think, Dominic, that even you must agree that it's something of a conflict of interest to claim that trying to get rid of your character will decrease fun for the continent.

Beyond that, how do you know that what Riombara does once the Chéniers are gone from the continent won't make things much more fun? Delvin's not around anymore, and Riombara's not the cautious, would-be-diplomatic, anti-imperialist realm it once was.

[Chenier]

I think, Dominic, that even you must agree that it's something of a conflict of interest to claim that trying to get rid of your character will decrease fun for the continent.

Do you challenge my claim? Yes, it's my character. But last I checked, my characters had key roles to play in all of the major wars on BT for quite a few years. Conflict of interest doesn't automatically make everything I say false or inaccurate. It just means it deserves scrutiny.

Beyond that, how do you know that what Riombara does once the Chéniers are gone from the continent won't make things much more fun? Delvin's not around anymore, and Riombara's not the cautious, would-be-diplomatic, anti-imperialist realm it once was.

Well, there's the fact that Fleugs stated he was advocating just picking up the easiest and/or overdone wars possible. And that's assuming Riombara was ever the cautious, would-be-diplomatic, anti-imprialist realm you claim it was. Sure, it might have changed. I don't doubt it, considering the power it now wields. But in any case, I'm not judging Riombara, I'm judging Fleugs. Riombara might end up doing things, that may end up being really cool. I'm judging Fleugs because he badmouths other players, and yet when given the power over some of his enemies, he doesn't ask himself "is Beluaterra more fun or less fun with the Chénier family on it?" If Delvin was in power and doing the same thing as Fleugs is, you wouldn't hear me complain about it on the forums. Same if anyone else was trying to do so, really. Because Fleugs did his whiny rant, not you Timothy. And I really can't stand people who whine about things they have power to change, or about others when they do no better themselves.

You could argue that Riombara will do something really cool later, something it couldn't have done was Guillaume around, and that was justifying your choice OOC. But I've heard nothing from him that would even remotely suggest that he even asked himself the question. 'cause heck, while I doubt it it could be true. After all, I'm not the only guy on the continent to shake things up, even if I am perhaps the most notorious one. And I am not trying to convince anyone that BT would suck if I'm not on it. All I'm saying, really, is that Fleugs isn't one to talk, and that he's every bit as bad as the people he slanders.

[Anaris]

I do not directly challenge your claim; however, I cannot deny that something about it doesn't seem to be entirely solid, logically speaking. I can't quite put my finger on it right now, but I'm afraid I'm not at my best (long story; don't ask).

I think it's something along the lines of:

OK, so, Guillaume has been a source of conflict on the continent for a while now (and so have other Chéniers). This, I don't dispute. But a) who says that this guarantees he's creating fun? b) who says that this guarantees he'll continue to create conflict and/or fun? and c) even supposing (a) and (b) are stipulated in your favour, who says that Guillaume gets to continue to be the one who takes this role, rather than letting someone else step up?

Put another way:

I have a problem with the idea that from "we need to create conflict, rather than do all in our power to prevent it, because conflict is the main source of fun in the game" necessarily follows, "any character that is good at creating conflict should get a free pass".

[vonGenf]

Beyond that, how do you know that what Riombara does once the Chéniers are gone from the continent won't make things much more fun?

Forward planning only goes so far. At some point you need not only to think of the future, but of the fun you could have right now. If you always have fun right now, then you never get to the point where you worry at all.

And trying to get rid of Guillaume is inherently a fun thing to do, for a lot of people. Whether it works out or not, I can only see fun in the process. And if it works, you can always have other characters.

[Solari]

I agree with everything Fleugs has said, for the most part. I add that caveat because I didn't read all seven pages of this thread, and I'm sure he said something really offensive or hateful. That part I don't agree with. But the part about a ruler's first (and really only) job being to provide fun for the whole realm, you bet. The game is called BattleMaster. Not TradeMaster, nor PrayMaster, nor even TaxMaster. Every piece of code, every option in the game, is supposed to allow you to bludgeon the !@#$ out of your enemies. Creatively, with style, asymmetrically, however. But conflict is central to the game, and for awhile now it seems like conflict is found almost exclusively within realms, because it's easier to starve your own city or create a civil war than it is to starve or siege another realm. If you have no enemies, you're doing it wrong. If you've got a bunch of allies because you really like certain people in other realms, consider joining the same realm and beating the hell out of everyone else.

[Gabanus family]

I do disagree however that this is solely the part of the Ruler and politics can be great fun as well. On top of that, "praymaster" for instance can be turned into crusades which in turn should provide a lot of fun.

Even without mediate war you can have a lot of fun planning a war or a rebellion even or preparing for a religious war or rise to power.

I do not believe you should go to war because you can, and consider many different people have different characters. A king could in fact only be after more power for himself, screwing his own realm over to get it (could be fun). Another may wish to turn his realm into a religious powerhouse in stead.   Both can be great fun for everyone (what if you don't want to join X religion?). Others may indeed just want their realm to be strong and survive. But even then someone under him (general?) may disagree and prefer to war another realm over safety.

[Chenier]

I do not directly challenge your claim; however, I cannot deny that something about it doesn't seem to be entirely solid, logically speaking. I can't quite put my finger on it right now, but I'm afraid I'm not at my best (long story; don't ask).

I think it's something along the lines of:

OK, so, Guillaume has been a source of conflict on the continent for a while now (and so have other Chéniers). This, I don't dispute. But a) who says that this guarantees he's creating fun? b) who says that this guarantees he'll continue to create conflict and/or fun? and c) even supposing (a) and (b) are stipulated in your favour, who says that Guillaume gets to continue to be the one who takes this role, rather than letting someone else step up?

Valid questions to ask.

Put another way:

I have a problem with the idea that from "we need to create conflict, rather than do all in our power to prevent it, because conflict is the main source of fun in the game" necessarily follows, "any character that is good at creating conflict should get a free pass".

Well, I tend to be a lot more lenient to characters I consider generate fun myself. Doesn't mean they get scotch-free, though, I will scold them and all if they act against my character's interests. But I still will do my best to keep them around.

Forward planning only goes so far. At some point you need not only to think of the future, but of the fun you could have right now. If you always have fun right now, then you never get to the point where you worry at all.

And trying to get rid of Guillaume is inherently a fun thing to do, for a lot of people. Whether it works out or not, I can only see fun in the process. And if it works, you can always have other characters.

Good for them, I guess, if it's creating fun. Not many interactions going on now. I'm mostly waiting for some kind of list to be provided or otherwise have something to reply to.

Because if they are expecting a challenge, it won't happen. I've already made plans for what happens next, and it's not another character on BT. Not yet. I'm just waiting to sign the deal and get it over with. I'm not letting Enweil sink because of me. And heck, even if you decide to break your word and attack it anyhow, I wouldn't really have any reason to come back, given how pointlessly futile the battle would be.

Thinking only short-term is a great way to butt yourself at an impasse. Sure, you can't disregard the present, but if you disregard the future, you are doing it wrong. Because some actions can have consequences for years, and you better consider them.

As for Solari, I think there's a general consensus that invoking the name of the game is an extremely weak argument for anything. Yea, there are battles. But the game is more than just battles. The name reflects the days where the government controlled EVERYTHING that EVERYONE did. You were managed like pawns. Sure, we lost a lot to the game since, but we also won a lot. The game has evolved. It's not just a big chess game anymore. And focusing on just one things means disregarding the things that make the game fun for a whole lot of players.

[Vellos]

Not to toot my own horn, but I'd like to point to Terran and the Moot's conflict with Aurvandil as an example of how you can have all the fancy-shmansy priest game and trademastering and politicking... and use them as components of a war.

OOCly, I can think of many ways the Moot could have made peace with Aurvandil (and probably a fairly reasonable peace). The problem is that I, the player, know where that leads. The Moot isn't going to have a civil war (especially with powerful neighbors next door). The Moot won't plausibly be able to crush/colonize the Lurias. The peace settlement with Kabrinskia was ridiculously friendly and it's difficult to conceive of motive for war.

Bashing Asylon could be amusing, but, again, seems like a dead end in any long-term thinking.

So I exerted all my IC efforts at war with Aurvandil: and a big, bloody, nasty, religio-politically significant one, where we can all play our seperate NounMaster games towards the common end of tossing Mendicant naked and bloody into the Strait of Candiels. And I've exerted my OOC efforts explaining to people how completely boring it will be for Terran and the Moot if we don't have a big war with at least semi-epic aims. Now, Hireshmont is no longer ruler, but he's still influential (and was ruler at a formative time in all this).

In sum– Fleugs, come play in Terran, or Barca, or D'hara. We don't have constant battle just due to seasons and travel times, but we do have fighting, we do have a sense of "playing for the team," and we do have players in power who think it's their OOC job to make sure fun things keep happening. I can't guarantee you're going to always have fun, but I can guarantee it's a place where folks are trying.

[Kwanstein]

We don't have constant battle

That's an understatement...

[Vellos]

That's an understatement...

We've had a slow patch around the holidays, sure, but that's normal.

[Chenier]

We've had a slow patch around the holidays, sure, but that's normal.

Depends on your realm, too. D'Hara's been seeing a lot more battles than... ever, though.

However, if we do care for the fun of our nobles, I've always considered that D'Hara was not for everyone. D'Hara's a jewel, a rare gem created by its geography and it's eternal dependance on others.

[Penchant]

Depends on your realm, too. D'Hara's been seeing a lot more battles than... ever, though.

However, if we do care for the fun of our nobles, I've always considered that D'Hara was not for everyone. D'Hara's a jewel, a rare gem created by its geography and it's eternal dependance on others.

The moot I would say is perfect funwise as depending in what you like, is what would determine which realm you should join.Military-Terran, Food-D'hara, Quiet-Barca, though that blends some, like Barca use to be a major food seller, Terran helps with food, and D'hara has a two front war going on compared to the others only having one front though really D'hara three fronts which is quite a pain.

[Vellos]

The moot I would say is perfect funwise as depending in what you like, is what would determine which realm you should join.Military-Terran, Food-D'hara, Quiet-Barca, though that blends some, like Barca use to be a major food seller, Terran helps with food, and D'hara has a two front war going on compared to the others only having one front though really D'hara three fronts which is quite a pain.

D'Hara and Barca are seeing a fair amount of fighting these days too– Terran's military is actually fairly quiet right now.

[Penchant]

D'Hara and Barca are seeing a fair amount of fighting these days too– Terran's military is actually fairly quiet right now.

Barca is kind of isolationist as I never see them work with D'hara and Terran, though I do see their military doing things military occasionally, but yes D'hara is seeing a fair amount of fighting for sure as they participate in most  of the battles in the both of its wars now.