Perdan vs Caligus and Company

[Zakilevo]

During the last war, Sirion didn't have problem crushing Perdan. The problem was they were keep bringing allies while Sirion's ally Nivemus wasn't really useful.

If you really want challenge, just fight 1v1 all out war. Unfortunately, Perdan can no longer afford to do that cause their noble size shrunk too much.

We will continue to lose players in the coming months and by this time around next year, we will probably be seeing some empty spaces on the map.

[Blue Star]

During the last war, Sirion didn't have problem crushing Perdan. The problem was they were keep bringing allies while Sirion's ally Nivemus wasn't really useful.

If you really want challenge, just fight 1v1 all out war. Unfortunately, Perdan can no longer afford to do that cause their noble size shrunk too much.

We will continue to lose players in the coming months and by this time around next year, we will probably be seeing some empty spaces on the map.

I mean it's inevitable, I prefer not to have this effect my characters as I personally believe other should not as well. Yes, I as a player realize this and have made my own observation and comments regarding it. However, the fact is were dwindling and have been for some times. Many of us who have been around remember the #s that once were in this game. 100 nobles per realm wasn't un heard of probably closer to the norm for big realms, well that's just not the case since Dwilight came to be from my reckoning.

maybe just maybe their will be a growth in our numbers!


Note* Warring Sirion is my goal only because I miss being a Orc plus I still remember Avamar in it's dark days when it was corrupted. mm plus I want to steal a elf women!

[Atanamir]

And in the process forced them to turn and attack the only realm that has been a steadfast ally to them for how long now? This is a perfect example of providing a perfect example of a treaty that is so unpalatable that the defeated realm would rather die than agree, Think of how it would be right now if Perdan got beaten so bad by Sirion that the peace treaty Perdan was given was "Give half your land to Eponllyn, then join  us in destroying Westmoor and Perleone. And you have only 2 days to give us your answer." Do you think that Perdan would agree, or would they refuse and choose to die first?

Irrelevant to the matter and I am quite sure you didn't see the treaty offered before Perdan attacked Caligus (and why should you anyway).
Perdan has the RP to act like this on Caligus, your argumentation is theoretical and has nothing to do with the essence of the issue.
Caligus has backstabbed Perdan now already three times in the last 7 years, despite Perdan having saved Caligus once completely in this time.
Every patience has an end.
If Caligus chooses to die, fine.
The continents' RP can evolve then, power structures can shift.

And maybe that's not what they want to be?
And do you think that anyone on Caligus remembers that time? Maybe one player? Two, tops?

Many more than you think, your assumptions are wrong.
Caligus has the problem of lacking proper leadership since Dobromir left and has been proven incompetent to choose which way they continue.
Continue the elf way? Returning to the southern human side?
They are unable to see where they are and none cared to hand on their history so they know what role their realm plays.
Hell, I still have to laugh loud when I see on the Caligan realm description saying "we have yet to see defeat in battle for 6 years now".
That statement is now about 2 years severely outdated and no ruler since then even cared to replace it.
It attracts probably many players and when they join - well, welcome to hell lol.
To sum it up, Caligus is like a chicken without head that is still running around and now gets butchered for it - and that is good so.

Humiliating is whatever the offended party says it is. As a player of a game, you have to realize that, and make some allowances for it. If not, then the other party is free to just up and leave. And then the game has less players.
Have you looked at our player count lately?
Have you been listening to anything that anyone has been saying on the forums?

Assumptions again as far as this situation is concerned.
If you think that killing a realm means that players leave a game, then BM would be dead by now.
Players of dead realms move mostly to other realms and/or continents.
To sum it up, player and char account on EC drops every time there is a peace period.
Which could have been observed again after the Perdan vs Caligus&Friends war.
Most players went to DWI and BT, but did not leave the game.
The only way to have these numbers raise again is to have wars on EC like just every other continent needs to do.
Honestly, I make my own opinion through observation of the game, not what others say.

Were you on the ruler's channel when all the rulers on EC were complaining about this very thing happening? Oh and look, here it is happening again.
We past the point where simply destroying a realm and replacing it with a client state was a viable option, a long, long time ago.
That is really the way that the powerful realms are operating these days. Doubled-up characters.

I have been forwarded the messages by Nightmare.
I disagree with you.
Creating new or replacing realms through war and giving people own quests is the way to give people back the interest in BM.
Perdan has killed Ubent, DoA, Ibladesh since I am there but also created or indirectly created through its actions Eponllyn, Armonia, Fallangard, Perleone.
Add to that Obsidian Islands and Westmoor.
We have attracted this way many players and have brought a lot of RP to the game.

Sirion for example is the opposite, they have just created Nivemus.
The rest of the lands they take through war are becoming duchies of Sirion and this is what causes stagnation to the game on EC.
Or look at Atamara's big realms, same story.

To sum it up:

Humiliating terms are to put a realm in the corner and leave it abandoned from the rest of the continent.
Caligus had the freedom of choice and now we have a good war for almost everyone (I am sorry Eponllyn).
So it is funny that only the player of the Eponllyn ruler burps his opinion into a for him unknown situation and finds it oocly a bad attitude.
Which again is for me bad player behaviour. Go solve it IC if you don't like it what others do.
Or give Armonia Itorunt back if you feel so bad about humiliation of realms.
I am sure you didn't feel this way when you gangbanged them together with Fallangard.
You "humiliated" them so much that they rather surrendered to Perleone instead of getting butchered by you.
So don't preach water when drinking wine yourself as well.

Wars and creation through destruction is the driving force in Battlemaster.
Calling this the direct or indirect reason for dropping player count is absolutely ridiculous.
This war and future wars resulting of this will give EC again some more years of life, I quite am sure about it.
And if you don't like it, then change it. IC.
Instead of coming here and making publically OOC assumptions about things, insulting other players of realms to play the game in an unfriendly way and accusing them for being responsible that players leave the game without even knowing all facts.
And yes, just like humiliation, insults & co are whatever the offended party says it is.
That is a shame.

[Zakilevo]

Uh no. If we had a good influx of new players, sure killing realms would have made some room to accommodate people.

The problem is, our player base are mostly old players who will quit the game as soon as they lose their realm which they care.

Of course, many of these old players are silent zombies these days but that is what BM is like these days.

Once Caligus dies, we will probably see at least a few people leaving the game which isn't that big of a deal. The problem is how on earth is Perdan going to fill that vacuum?

This process of complete annihilation was nice when we had enough people but now we don't. To be honest, I doubt anything we do at this point will change the inevitability of the game's death.

[Atanamir]

The problem is, our player base are mostly old players who will quit the game as soon as they lose their realm which they care.
Of course, many of these old players are silent zombies these days but that is what BM is like these days.

Again, these are assumptions (about the nobility of Caligus).

Once Caligus dies, we will probably see at least a few people leaving the game which isn't that big of a deal. The problem is how on earth is Perdan going to fill that vacuum?

And again these are random assumptions.
And let this be Perdan's & their allies' problem.

This process of complete annihilation was nice when we had enough people but now we don't. To be honest, I doubt anything we do at this point will change the inevitability of the game's death.

Why did you then return and have created new two chars in Caligus and Eponllyn?
Proves the opposite for me.
But don't worry, the game was here before you (and me) played it and will be most probably be here after we have played our last turn.
No point in losing yourself about fatalistic visions of the future.

[Indirik]

Irrelevant to the matter and I am quite sure you didn't see the treaty offered before Perdan attacked Caligus (and why should you anyway).

You can't be sure of anything of the sort. I see all kinds of things because my character asks, as do other characters in my realm. If you're polite and ask nicely, you'd be surprised how much stuff people will pass around.

Many more than you think, your assumptions are wrong.

I am not making assumptions about how many old-time characters/players are left in Caligus. I checked. You're describing things that happened before I started playing. There are only four players currently in Caligus that have accounts older than me. One by only two months, so he doesn't count. One of them didn't play on EC that long ago. One didn't play in Caligus that far back. So, only one person currently playing in Caligus was in Caligus during the time period you are describing. And the character they currently play isn't anywhere near old enough to remember that time. That is why your insistence that Caligus return to their old ways is ridiculous. You're demanding that they be something that the people in the realm simply never were.

Assumptions again as far as this situation is concerned.

We are both making assumptions. That's the nature of discussing things on the forum, especially when we're talking about the motivations and behaviors of other people.

If you think that killing a realm means that players leave a game, then BM would be dead by now.

Are you even paying attention to the current state of the game?

Wars and creation through destruction is the driving force in Battlemaster.
Calling this the direct or indirect reason for dropping player count is absolutely ridiculous.
This war and future wars resulting of this will give EC again some more years of life, I quite am sure about it.
And if you don't like it, then change it. IC.
Instead of coming here and making publically OOC assumptions about things, insulting other players of realms to play the game in an unfriendly way and accusing them for being responsible that players leave the game without even knowing all facts.

Wars are great. We need more of them. Destroying realms happens. I've caused the death of my share of realms over the years. (Even as ruler of Perdan during some of those wars you've cited.) I'm not going to start crying over another dead realm.

It's not the fact that realms get destroyed that's the problem. You want to fight Caligus? Help yourself. I don't mind seeing Caligus get beat up, either IC or OOC. My characters, both past and present, have had plenty of reason to enjoy seeing Caligus get mauled. And if in the course of the war Caligus gets wiped out, then it gets wiped out. I'll be a little sad to see another realm as old as Caligus get destroyed, just as I was a little sad to see Fontan finally die.

It's the manner in which these things happen that can cause problems. The insistence on harsh, humiliating terms with no alternatives and no negotiations. Even back in those couple times that Perdan was beaten back to a tiny little realm and forced to surrender, we had the opportunity to negotiate and provide our input, and conduct actual negotiations. and *never* did tell us to switch sides in the war and betray your allies or be destroyed.

Which is the point I'm trying to make. If you really *want* someone to surrender, you need to provide them with terms that are something to which they can actually agree.

And yes, just like humiliation, insults & co are whatever the offended party says it is.
That is a shame.

No, that's human nature. When you say something, you don't get to control how the other person feels about it, and reacts to it.

[trying]

It was quite obvious Caligus would lose to Perdan. Caligus has mountains and wastelands. Perdan has townslands and rurals.

Well that's a bit of an overgeneralization but close enough.

[Bhranthan]

It was quite obvious Caligus would lose to Perdan. Caligus has mountains and wastelands. Perdan has townslands and rurals.

Well that's a bit of an overgeneralization but close enough.

I think there many other factors that have allot more influence, like good leadership, a decent number of good active nobles and geographical position of the capitals of the parties involved.
Just rich regions brings you nowhere without nobles that can take estates there, actually recruit and fight battles.

[Atanamir]

I am not making assumptions about how many old-time characters/players are left in Caligus. I checked. You're describing things that happened before I started playing. There are only four players currently in Caligus that have accounts older than me. One by only two months, so he doesn't count. One of them didn't play on EC that long ago. One didn't play in Caligus that far back. So, only one person currently playing in Caligus was in Caligus during the time period you are describing. And the character they currently play isn't anywhere near old enough to remember that time. That is why your insistence that Caligus return to their old ways is ridiculous. You're demanding that they be something that the people in the realm simply never were.

Well, you are still wrong. But I will not reveal you here any IC info that I have on Caligus. I will just tell you that you are wrong.

It's the manner in which these things happen that can cause problems. The insistence on harsh, humiliating terms with no alternatives and no negotiations.

And again, as I said, you have not seen everything that has been negotiated with Caligus.
You have no idea what Perdan originally had offered Caligus.

[Anaris]

Well, you are still wrong. But I will not reveal you here any IC info that I have on Caligus. I will just tell you that you are wrong.

Atanamir, everything about this particular issue is OOC, not IC. Anything you know that we don't that is IC doesn't change how many people in Caligus actually remember the time period you were describing.

If you have information that changes the equation, then just say it. There's absolutely no reason for you not to.

[Atanamir]

Atanamir, everything about this particular issue is OOC, not IC. Anything you know that we don't that is IC doesn't change how many people in Caligus actually remember the time period you were describing.

If you have information that changes the equation, then just say it. There's absolutely no reason for you not to.

Ok I will put it this way: it is actually no matter of who was there or not.
It is about if the information was passed on over the generations.
And I know this has happened to some extent, but obviously not to enough people to elect a King who would return to the old policy.
But there are some who'd liked the old Caligus again, and some belong now to Fallangard. Hint, hint.
And there is more to come, but as I said, this would reveal IC info.

[Zakilevo]

Ok I will put it this way: it is actually no matter of who was there or not.
It is about if the information was passed on over the generations.
And I know this has happened to some extent, but obviously not to enough people to elect a King who would return to the old policy.
But there are some who'd liked the old Caligus again, and some belong now to Fallangard. Hint, hint.
And there is more to come, but as I said, this would reveal IC info.

I'd like to give you a hint who destroyed Caligus' leadership as well.

Jokes aside, you seem to have a hard time grasping the idea that not all of us have all the information.

Also, you seem want to enforce your way to others. Do try to respect how others play the game. Then again, people don't change over a few months do they?

[Atanamir]

I'd like to give you a hint who destroyed Caligus' leadership as well.

Jokes aside, you seem to have a hard time grasping the idea that not all of us have all the information.

Also, you seem want to enforce your way to others. Do try to respect how others play the game. Then again, people don't change over a few months do they?

Um no, I actually want to point out that not everyone has the same information and due to that I find it a shame that obviously random people come on the forum slandering others and how they play the game and talk about humiliation etc. No respect there so no respect given in return.

[Foxglove]

It's the manner in which these things happen that can cause problems. The insistence on harsh, humiliating terms with no alternatives and no negotiations. Even back in those couple times that Perdan was beaten back to a tiny little realm and forced to surrender, we had the opportunity to negotiate and provide our input, and conduct actual negotiations. and *never* did tell us to switch sides in the war and betray your allies or be destroyed.

Which is the point I'm trying to make. If you really *want* someone to surrender, you need to provide them with terms that are something to which they can actually agree.
No, that's human nature. When you say something, you don't get to control how the other person feels about it, and reacts to it.

I'm not going to comment on the particular terms offered to Caligus (although, from what I've seen, they stood to gain as much land as they'd lost), but I agree with you about surrender terms needing to be an incentive to give in and the negative impact realm destruction can have on our numbers of players. However, this is a problem of established patterns of behaviour that have been set up over the years, and they're not likely to change now unless there's a significant shift in player behaviour across the board. Setting aside the EC, a similar thing is happening right now on FEI with unacceptable surrender terms, little-to-no negotiations, and potential negative impact on the player base of the island. It's a game-wide problem.

What I mean about the established patterns of behaviour is that the players have been conditioned to think in this way by years of such play in the game. Sirion wanted the SOA gone, so they destroyed it. Perdan and Caligus wanted Ibladesh gone, so they destroyed it. Hell, Caligus wanted Fontan gone, so they destroyed it. I remember back during the last Fontanese war, the Perdanese and Westmoorian armies were in Krimml and Fontan was offered pretty reasonable surrender terms considering they'd been virtually knocked out (I was actually there when the surrender was offered, so I know it happened). But Caligus wanted Fontan's remaining lands to create Dunnera, so they besieged Krimml and destroyed Fontan. Then they later destroyed Dunnera.

Realms/players have been acting in this way for years - destroy the target realm without offering surrender. It'll be a monumental task to now get everyone to change the way they play. And it would have to be everyone. It couldn't be a case "Oh, we can't destroy Caligus", and then a few months later, another realm decides they're going to destroy OI, Perleone, Fallangard, etc. I use the newer realms as examples because I've noticed a strong bias in the past that people seem to be much more inclined to raise objection when it's an older realm threatened with destruction that they do when one of the younger realms is threatened.

[vonGenf]

I'm not going to comment on the particular terms offered to Caligus (although, from what I've seen, they stood to gain as much land as they'd lost),

In defence of the terms that were offered, they ensured that whether Caligus accepted them or not, warfare would continue on the East Continent, which is a good thing. It would have been easy to design terms that would have been both acceptable and lead to peace, but it wouldn't have been fun.