Author Topic: Responses to things people would change  (Read 7097 times)

Dante Silverfire

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1786
  • Merlin (AT), Brom(DWI), Proslyn(DWI)
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #15: August 07, 2013, 06:10:02 PM »
If you go individually against a power block, it's not a surprise. But if there truly are so many people who dislike the status quo, it should be easy to oppose the alliance with an alliance. I'm not saying everyone is stupid to not have thought of that. I'm saying that you might be underestimating the amount of people who are actually in favour of the current status. That you demean them as sheeple is a good indicator that you don't take that opinion seriously.

I'm sorry Tom, but that is simply not what is happening. As Geronus said it was already tried to oppose an alliance with an allaince of every other realm. That battle was lost.

As to the "sheeple" point. I think it is fair to call people that. Is it demeaning? Sure. Does that make it any less true? Absolutely not.

The fact is that a lot of people enjoy simply making a character and being a yes-man. They hate playing with people that upset the status quo because it forces them to be more active. This creates a cycle in which anyone trying to change things away from the status quo fight an immeasureably more difficult uphill battle. Is it reasonable for them to have to put in effort? Sure. But it shouldn't be impossible. Right now it is 100% impossible to change things on Atamara.

I've spent more time than I care to think on that goal and failed. I was getting close, but frankly having to spend 5 hours a day on BM to simply not get gangbanged into eternity because people have what amounts to essentially an OOC shafting of me for trying to change things, is not how I want to play a game. If you want change on Atamara, you either need to sink the island, or lightning bolt every single ruler. Because nothing except extreme action will change things. And its action by GM's because the players are creating a toxic atmosphere, simply because it benefits them.
"This is the face of the man who has worked long and hard for the good of the people without caring much for any of them."

Revan

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #16: August 07, 2013, 06:11:27 PM »
Quote
Game wide mortality/perma-death for everyone

I wrote something about mortality on the wiki about three years ago when it got trialled on Beluaterra. It seems back then I was in favour of it because, as has been mentioned in this thread, it can shake things up. But the effects of mortality on Beluaterra turned out to be something no-one was particularly happy with. It was too arbitrary. And although there is an idea that mortality will remove older characters past their prime who are just sitting on positions, it cannot be targeted like that. Mainly mortality removed a lot of characters that were still young and in their prime and overall it had a negative effect. I recall Chenier talking about how it basically gutted Enweil of its most active characters and surely this is the opposite of what most want mortality to do?

I think we have to be careful as well because you do form an attachment with your characters. I've had a character going since December 2004. Albeit, he has been a hero since 2005 and by rights should have perished a long, long time ago. Perhaps atypically, he doesn't hold any positions of power these days. Any realms he was once prominent in are all gone. Still, that's a heck of a commitment to lose suddenly and arbitrarily because some people feel older characters, perhaps older players even, are clogging up positions and keeping realms in inertia. I might not be as vocal or interactive with Malice I once was, but I faithfully roleplay him as an older man now, past his best and longing for the past. Just because a character is old does not necessarily preclude them from having meaningful interactions with the game.

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. You could see a single battle go bad and between woundings and imprisonments have to replace your entire council come the morning. It certainly made life interesting and assassinations were much more worth the risk. I'd wager just reintroducing loss of positions in that fashion would do a lot to see positions change hands more often and cause a lot more instability around BattleMaster.

Geronus

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2332
  • Dum dee dum dee dum
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #17: August 07, 2013, 06:16:26 PM »
stuff

I have been playing for 5 years, and the dominance of the Cagilan bloc has been status quo for that entire time. When the island was younger, I'm sure it was much more fluid. That seems to be how it goes in Battlemaster. Dwilight, as the youngest island, is the most dynamic five years after its opening, but even Dwilight is beginning to show signs of calcification. The outcome of the current war could upset that (which would probably be a good thing, really), but it could just as easily go the other way and serve to further entrench the status quo in the north.

If Atamara gets shaken up in the future I'll gladly admit I was wrong, but I think what you're channeling here is a dynamism that once was (and precedes my time in the game), but no longer exists. (Example:  If you think Suville is going to become a serious rival to Tara or the Empire any time soon, I want some of what you're smoking).

jaune

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
  • Suck my socks!
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #18: August 07, 2013, 06:17:41 PM »
I agree Revan 100%. Atamara is not dead! There is still few wars going, not very hectic ones, but still.

And i agree with Tom, there is a lot realms which are getting advantage of the situation, they dont directly support CE & boys, but they leech other realms sucky situation... ML, Rielston to name few.

They dont want to see CE destroyed, atleast not yet.

Oh, and Fleugs, sorry... got carried away...

-Jaune
~Violence is always an option!~

Geronus

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2332
  • Dum dee dum dee dum
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #19: August 07, 2013, 06:20:46 PM »
But nobody previously decided it was worth doing so and you wonder why some people think this forum is a festering pool of nothing good? Each of you should have known better. Each of you come here everyday. Don't toss excuses now, Geronus. Just admit guilt. Have some respect for the rules of a topic.

It was a clear example of how a handful of people get to monopolize a thread and then derail it so no regular can follow it. Worst part is, it's all people who you would assume would have known better. Starting with Tom himself, even if this is his own damn forum.

I don't have the ability to split threads, or I would have done it on my very first reply to Tom. I knew what I was doing. I just thought it was too important of a subject to let Tom get away with saying "Never going to happen" without push-back. It bears on the entire future of the game, which in case you haven't noticed, appears to be dying.

Indirik

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 10849
  • No pressure, no diamonds.
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #20: August 07, 2013, 06:49:13 PM »
At the very least, Rob and I have disliked this idea for some time now. If realms with 100+ nobles were the norm, it might be something to consider. Without that, though, all it does is destroy the realm structure without adding anything that most people in the game really want. Duchies are just too small to be a viable "us" unit, in the "us vs them" of the world.
Yep. I completely agree with Anaris here. Duchy-v-Duchy warfare internal to a realm would be a horrible addition to the game. There are several reasons why, and the number of nobles in the typical duchy these days simply won't support it. Even 5 years ago, many duchies were just too small to support it. There are other reasons as well, such as the loss of the team identity.

In order to really make it work, you'd have to have realm-sized duchies. And then the massively complex options of adding realm-to-duchy relations to handle external interference in the war, etc. Just imagine how incomprehensible setting up the sides on a battle would be.
If at first you don't succeed, don't take up skydiving.

Ender

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
  • Neill Family
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #21: August 07, 2013, 06:53:06 PM »
Quote
It happened because the "player" actions made it happen.

Europe has, historically, also not been populated by a race of immortals with dynasties that are controlled by a single immortal being with a solid agenda that can span generations i.e the player. As Anaris said, there were barbarian invasions. There were also plagues that formed within or came from beyond, other foreign invaders, natural disasters, and plenty of other complicated reasons that resulted in drastic power fluctuations that cannot be replicated in BM. BM, or Atamara in this case, is not Europe and is not subject to the same conditions real life Europe is subject too.

I'm not arguing for or against any change at this point, but while I agree that players can force some change, if you are going to claim BM history is like real history, then you can't ignore that there was plenty of outside change that influenced how Europe's map was drawn over the centuries.

Revan

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #22: August 07, 2013, 06:54:13 PM »
I have been playing for 5 years, and the dominance of the Cagilan bloc has been status quo for that entire time. When the island was younger, I'm sure it was much more fluid. That seems to be how it goes in Battlemaster. Dwilight, as the youngest island, is the most dynamic five years after its opening, but even Dwilight is beginning to show signs of calcification. The outcome of the current war could upset that (which would probably be a good thing, really), but it could just as easily go the other way and serve to further entrench the status quo in the north.

If Atamara gets shaken up in the future I'll gladly admit I was wrong, but I think what you're channeling here is a dynamism that once was (and precedes my time in the game), but no longer exists. (Example:  If you think Suville is going to become a serious rival to Tara or the Empire any time soon, I want some of what you're smoking).

That isn't exceptional to Atamara though. Sirion and Perdan have always been big powers in EC. Enweil in Beluterra. Lukon in Colonies. It can make politics harder on a continent but it does not halt war. It does not completely calcify a continent. The Cagilan bloc has always been strong in Atamara, but it has had missteps and its strength has ebbed and flowed. That most recent big war isn't a good thing for them long term. Never before have they stirred up such an unprecedented hornets nest of opposition. Likewise with the change of sides of Darka it has lost one of the realms that everyone used to say would always, always be on Cagil's side in the same way as Talerium or Tara.

There might not always be a dramatic standard-bearing loss of territory that will mark out any difficulties the Sirions, Lukons or Cagils of BattleMaster may be having at any particular moment. But it doesn't mean that continents are static and unchanging. And who's to say that Tara or Talerium won't one day 'pull a Darka'? Or that Cagil won't just pick a fight with one of their allies? This is BattleMaster after all and Atamara's big realms won't hang on to all those many nobles of theirs if they let peace settle in.

Even if the pace and state of things isn't to everyone's taste, I really do think there's still plenty of life in Atamara yet. (And Suville might be low on nobles, but I reckon she has riches enough to do anything she likes. They're deffo going to be a dark horse in the future.)

Geronus

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2332
  • Dum dee dum dee dum
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #23: August 07, 2013, 07:03:45 PM »
And who's to say that Tara or Talerium won't one day 'pull a Darka'? Or that Cagil won't just pick a fight with one of their allies? This is BattleMaster after all and Atamara's big realms won't hang on to all those many nobles of theirs if they let peace settle in.

A year or more ago I heard the same argument from Silverfire, to whom I made a promise to eat my hat if anything like this ever happens. You can see how his opinion has changed in that time.

Again, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong if it happens, but count me a skeptic.

Dante Silverfire

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1786
  • Merlin (AT), Brom(DWI), Proslyn(DWI)
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #24: August 07, 2013, 07:13:01 PM »
Tara and Talerium will NEVER change sides so long as they are led by the same player. Period.

They have been ruler of their realms for a combined 10+ years. Do the math on how much time they've maintained the same stance and tell me how likely it is that they simply throw that away.
"This is the face of the man who has worked long and hard for the good of the people without caring much for any of them."

Revan

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #25: August 07, 2013, 07:35:37 PM »
Tara and Talerium will NEVER change sides so long as they are led by the same player. Period.

They have been ruler of their realms for a combined 10+ years. Do the math on how much time they've maintained the same stance and tell me how likely it is that they simply throw that away.

Change in BattleMaster is an organic thing. It's not going to happen according to a timetable or because we're all certain things would be so much better if 'X' suddenly happened. Sordnaz was a man pushing near 10 unbroken years in charge of a single Atamaran realm all by himself. But the sun set on his reign in the end. Things can change in an instant, no matter what the past might tell us. And heck, what does it matter even if the Cagilan bloc doesn't break up? Things are still happening and will continue to happen on Atamara with or without them just as it always has.

jaune

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
  • Suck my socks!
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #26: August 07, 2013, 07:51:21 PM »
Tara and Talerium will NEVER change sides so long as they are led by the same player. Period.

They have been ruler of their realms for a combined 10+ years. Do the math on how much time they've maintained the same stance and tell me how likely it is that they simply throw that away.

Few years ago, you could have added Darka on that list as well. I was best buddies with Ottar... but now i think Ottar hates me almost as much he hate Merlin :)

-Jaune
~Violence is always an option!~

Perth

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
  • Current Character: Kemen
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #27: August 07, 2013, 08:30:30 PM »
A year or more ago I heard the same argument from Silverfire, to whom I made a promise to eat my hat if anything like this ever happens. You can see how his opinion has changed in that time.

Again, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong if it happens, but count me a skeptic.

We need a club. "The Disillusioned Ex-Rulers of Atamara."
"A tale is but half told when only one person tells it." - The Saga of Grettir the Strong
- Current: Kemen (D'hara) - Past: Kerwin (Eston), Kale (Phantaria, Terran, Melodia)

Kwanstein

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #28: August 07, 2013, 08:41:37 PM »
If you go individually against a power block, it's not a surprise. But if there truly are so many people who dislike the status quo, it should be easy to oppose the alliance with an alliance. I'm not saying everyone is stupid to not have thought of that. I'm saying that you might be underestimating the amount of people who are actually in favour of the current status. That you demean them as sheeple is a good indicator that you don't take that opinion seriously.

People who don't like the status quo leave the game. Players started leaving en masse around the time the status quos set in. That is why there is a problem with player retention that we are discussing right now.

Blue Star

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
Re: Responses to things people would change
« Reply #29: August 07, 2013, 09:03:19 PM »
My "one thing" is actually two things that others have mentioned:

1) Forced mortality once your character has reached a certain age. Keep things the way they currently are, until yor character hits, say, 60. Then they become mortal like a hero. And as they get older and older, the chance to die from wounds gets higher. Eventually, *everyone* should die of old age. Start at 80 or so, and have a small, but growing, chance of dying from old age once every RL month. No more immortal characters who will never, ever have any chance of dying.

2) Start the one-noble-per-island rule on every continent. Don't force-deport anyone, just make it so that if you already have an active noble on an island, you can't start or unpause another. Events over time (deportation, death, retirement, pausing, etc.) will, over time, thin the herd. (Yes, this will mean that if you pause both of your characters, you will only be able to unpause one of them.) Combine this with #1 above, and you will sooner than later get to a situation where everyone has one noble per island.

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 think like a sinner. Curse like a sailor. Smile like a saint. :)