Responses to things people would change

[Perth]

Suggestion 1 100% agree.

Suggestion 2 I disagree simply because having two character adds a certain dynamic to some continents. I do agree some people horde titles to their family, seen it and well I personally blame the realm for allowing such, though I know full well some people earn those titles and strive for them and some (2% of bm) actually can separate their character and actively play them as two separate entities, even fewer when in same realm.

I do hate though when people place two char in the same realm to ensure if one drops dead or gets to old the other can replace them as if nothing happened... Character development is everything though to me, so of course I get angry at such.

I don't think it's title hoarding so much as one character is usually the "main" character and the other is a drone.

[Indirik]

Actually, neither of those concern me at all. If you want two characters in one realm so you can hold all the titles, then more power to you. And if the other characters in the realm allow it, then they only have themselves to blame if they can't get the titles they want. Also, drone characters don't bother me. I've run my share of drones over the years.

My main concern is when you have two influential characters in allied realms. They usually serve as information conduits between the realms. "My cousin in Keplerstan says their army is moving to attack Eviltown at sunset, we should follow!" They also act as the glue that holds certain alliances together, with no chance of breaking them apart. It's an OOC connection between the two realms that simply can't exist if the doubled-up characters weren't there. You only have to look at the political landscape of Dwilight to see how things can evolve when everyone is limited to one noble on the island.

[Tom]

I just want to say that egamma clearly said no arguing and only one reply per person yet it seems like the jetset of this forum chose to entirely ignore this rule.

Guilty as charged, and not apologizing.

If someone makes up an arbitrary rule in an open communication, other parties are under no obligation to honour it. It takes consent and consensus for that to happen. Obviously, there was no such consensus.

Please post your reply without using the letter "e".

[Tom]

Not a God, no, but what about raging barbarian hordes? How many times have invaders from outside redrawn the map of Europe?

Depends on the time period. During the middle ages - uh... actually... I think never. The mongols and the turks were the only invaders from outside that are worth mentioning, I think, and after they left the borders were largely unchanged. I know what you're getting at, but here is why rogues and monsters don't solve our issues: They turn the game into a PvE game, making players even LESS inclined to fight each other. We would make the exact thing we want to strengthen even less appealing.

[Tom]

Rather than try and start killing characters off, perhaps we should just return to an old system. There was a time when any wounding or imprisonment would remove characters from their positions.

We changed that for a reason. 90% of the times, the wounded/imprisoned character would have a placeholder keep the seat warm and get it back as soon as he was healed/released. It really didn't give us as much change as you think. There was a LOT of complaining about this placeholder thing, but everyone and their dog still practiced it.

[Sacha]

Please post your reply without using the letter "e".

I'm... a good... forum... guy...

[Geronus]

Depends on the time period. During the middle ages - uh... actually... I think never. The mongols and the turks were the only invaders from outside that are worth mentioning, I think, and after they left the borders were largely unchanged. I know what you're getting at, but here is why rogues and monsters don't solve our issues: They turn the game into a PvE game, making players even LESS inclined to fight each other. We would make the exact thing we want to strengthen even less appealing.

The problem, as I see it, is that without a certain element of randomness an island will eventually develop a stable power structure, and these structures are bad for the game by limiting possibility, discouraging turnover in positions of power, and becoming ultimately exclusionary over the long-term. Without some sort of something to occasionally upset existing power structures and keep things from getting too settled they, well, get too settled.

When there are no (or few) established power structures and anything seems possible (post-Invasion, at the opening of Dwilight, etc.), the game is fresh and fun and engaging and everyone is inspired and excited. When opportunities appear limited and many realms are dominated by cliques of old-guard players who aren't interested in fresh perspectives from young upstarts, the game gets stale and boring and often feels exclusionary to players who aren't in the old guard.

I understand your hesitation to introduce PvE elements. Maybe there's another way to keep things from getting too settled? Or maybe we can experiment with whether your fear will be born out. Beluaterra would be a great place to test the rogue-spawn theory. If we do it, and Beluaterra experiences a surge of interest and an uptick in interaction, you'll have your answer.

[Vellos]

The map of real-life Europe has been redrawn many, many times over the centuries. Borders have changed constantly, nations came into being and ceased to exist. None of that happened because a god reached down from the heavens with a big pen. It happened because the "player" actions made it happen.

BM is very much like that. You CAN completely redraw the map of every island. Wait, there's a mistake there. The stress is on the wrong word. It should be YOU can completely redraw the map. You, the players can do this. If things are stagnant then they are so because people who enjoy stagnation have ascended to the dominant positions. Why do you keep electing and supporting them?

There's a massive disconnect between what people complain about and what happens in-game, does anyone notice?

I'm sorry Tom, do European armies today put on armies and ride bigass horses into battles?

Tell me about the growing season: is it the same as it was in 1400?

Are the same crops grown?

What's the population size?

Do you communicate the same way they did in the medieval period?

No, God didn't reach down from heaven and redraw the borders of Europe. But the God from the Machine did exactly that. Changing technologies and demographics, altered ways of living, these were all huge. Now BM can't have tech growth, that'd mess up the game atmosphere. And I'm sure that fully dynamic demography would be an enormous pain to code. So we're not asking those things. But an occasional exogenous factor entering into our closed system is not an outrageous request.

Also: maybe you don't realize it Tom but... you don't elect lordships regularly. They're for life. Lords run realms, not rulers. Rulers are the puppets into whose arse the dukes stick their hand.

[Tom]

Beluaterra would be a great place to test the rogue-spawn theory. If we do it, and Beluaterra experiences a surge of interest and an uptick in interaction, you'll have your answer.

Go ahead. There are quite a few summoning spells in player hands.

I agree with change. I disagree with that it is the job of the GMs to provide it.

[Vellos]

Depends on the time period. During the middle ages - uh... actually... I think never. The mongols and the turks were the only invaders from outside that are worth mentioning, I think, and after they left the borders were largely unchanged. I know what you're getting at, but here is why rogues and monsters don't solve our issues: They turn the game into a PvE game, making players even LESS inclined to fight each other. We would make the exact thing we want to strengthen even less appealing.

Um, uh, no. Bulgars and Magyars. They're kind of a big deal. And the Mongols. Also kind of a big deal. Saying borders were unchanged is just ignorance speaking. Just because Kievan Rus isn't important to you doesn't mean it's not important.

[SaDiablo]

You don't need undead/monsters to change thing, you just need to find the right people, have the right funds and skill set to accomplish a task.  Also having allies early can make things easier short term even if you have to give up some ideals you were going for.   Granted you can't expect to join a large realm and just bully your way into things.  You have to play smart and build.   Revan and I did a heck of a job in Giblot then the Highland Empire, Sara was evil haha.

Secondly I brought up the idea of retirement as an option,  you can have a lot of fun with that mechanic by allowing a festival celebrating the successes of that character, you can set up how long the festival lasts by how long they were a member of the realm and the age they retired.  Someone that makes it to 90 years or more and was in a realm for 3 years should have a heck of a good bye bash compared to someone that tried to retire at 40 with only 200 days played in realm.  This could allow people who don't want to see there character die or pause have an option that says  GOODBYE.  Granted at some point your character should die so you give them a choice, keep pushing forward or retire and know that your character will live in peace and be able to use them in general roleplays within your families roleplay.

[Zakilevo]

1) Random influential factors

e.g) Natural disasters

Great Famine, Disease, etc

Something to destabilize stable hierarchy or realm of BM

[Vita`]

Depends on the time period. During the middle ages - uh... actually... I think never. The mongols and the turks were the only invaders from outside that are worth mentioning, I think, and after they left the borders were largely unchanged. I know what you're getting at, but here is why rogues and monsters don't solve our issues: They turn the game into a PvE game, making players even LESS inclined to fight each other. We would make the exact thing we want to strengthen even less appealing.

I'd consider the Umayyid invasion of what is now Spain/France rather significant.

[pcw27]

The map of real-life Europe has been redrawn many, many times over the centuries. Borders have changed constantly, nations came into being and ceased to exist. None of that happened because a god reached down from the heavens with a big pen.

No one suggested you should manually redraw the maps, but in the past you have injected environmental pressures to break stagnation. It would be nice to have cataclysms of one type or another that make it increasingly difficult to maintain control of your regions. Plagues, famines, monster and undead swarms.

If things are stagnant then they are so because people who enjoy stagnation have ascended to the dominant positions. Why do you keep electing and supporting them?

Howard Zinn has a book about the elements of a successful revolution. One of them is "severe state crisis" which can include wars and natural disasters.

I don't really understand your opposition considering you've done this in the past and it's the basis of an entire game world. Why's it different if people suggest things like this should be able to happen randomly?

I know what you're getting at, but here is why rogues and monsters don't solve our issues: They turn the game into a PvE game, making players even LESS inclined to fight each other. We would make the exact thing we want to strengthen even less appealing.

The key to avoiding that is keeping the environmental factors low enough that they're unlikely to destroy whole realms on their own but strong enough that they put a strain on a realm's resources making them more vulnerable to internal or external attack. A lot of wars started that way with one power either trying to seize resources to make up its deficit or exploiting the weakness of their neighbor after a disaster. In fact more often then not this was the primary motivation for war with nationalistic hatred of the enemy nations being more a matter of PR.

[jaune]

I'm still thinking that realms should be limited with 1 city. Basicly every duke would be king. There would be a lot more people participating "world politics". Every duchy had its own military structure, RC's, economy etc.

There would be a lot federations, but federation isnt as tight as one realm. Become ultimate Emperor of federation would be hard task to achieve and even harder to keep up. Battles would be smaller and it would be hard to control huge armies roaming around...

-jaune