What prevents game to be competitive... i.e. to be a game.

[De-Legro]

There is also a MASSIVE culture of blame in the game right now. While it is good RP for nobles to be called out for bad decisions, I see it being taken to an extreme that means the players behind the characters just aren't willing to put their necks out. The politics in the game, perhaps understandably, have taken on some of the worst characteristics of modern politics were any mistake, absence or "weakness" is constantly attacked and rehashed. Players want team work and camaraderie as we once had, but it seems for a majority of the active players they only want these things if they are at the top of the pyramid.

[Indirik]

Those times were when BM really was team game. At Darka we used irc quite a lot back then... qiuck analyzis with irc people and military council... and orders out quickly. Some of us sit out hours at irc chatting/gaming... Good times

I have at various times tried to bring back some of that "military council gives orders" mentality over the past couple years. It has always failed for one reason or another. Even in Darka, no one really wanted to participate in it. In most realms you either have a hyper-active player to give orders, or you're SOL.

Is there really any realm that still does the whole "anyone in MC can give orders" deal anymore? Does Perdan still do it?

[De-Legro]

But yeah, war needs something. We need somehow make multiple armies > big mass of army.

At Atamara, there is 50kCS army roaming around, there is nobody who could stop that... they come and smash until they run out of gold, then they get back home... refit and get back. I admit, this is more Atamaran politics and diplomatic problem, but it is also game problem. We need more strategic options and variety.

Limit army to consist only 10 players? Only 10 units can use roads at turn to certain direction? I think we need to get riddoff those big blob armies.

Anyway, prolly got carried away from the the topic

Would love to be able to do this, however in terms of mechanics it is hard/impossible to balance without in the end giving too much power to small armies. Part of the reason is you need to look at how smaller armies won in general

• Smaller but better trained and equipped, well we already simulate this, a army with less actual men but higher CS is likely to win
• Better leadership, we do a bit here but again this is hard. In a RTS this is easy via the micro management of your forces and constant movement, redeployment extra. I've not seen an elegant solution to this for the style of combat in BM that remains approachable. However I think it is possible to say that a cohesive well lead smaller army will win out against poorly lead larger armies, if for no other reason then they arrive in force against hopefully scattered troops
• Terrain Advantage, we don't really simulate terrain of the battlefield, and again this might be difficult

We have tried things like the marching times being slowed down when lots of troops are marching between regions to "break" up large forces. If we better simulated the logistics of large armies perhaps that would also make a difference. Since armies rarely carried all the food required with them on the march it was necessary to constantly forage. Large armies in this instance would possibly need to march in separate spread columns in order to ensure they could adequately forage on the march.

It is a catch 22. You want to reward realms that manage to grow and produce impressive military forces for the effort they expended to do so. But you also want to ensure they don't just stomp everyone once critical mass is obtained.

[Stue (DC)]

This is due to a change in philosophy by the players. (...)

maybe you are right, but there might be other reasons as well. the system you described was finely developed in many realms on east continent. i tried to reestablish it more than once, in current times.

what i feel is that too few people bother at all. some wars are too boring, in some realms indolence completely prevailed. what i see is that almost everyone is aware of the fact that sending orders carries large responsibility. why making effort when nothing will be gained?...

there are too few attractive rewards which could be hoped for by long-term effort conducted by eager war council member.

in times when that was real fun, being promoted to war council member meant much. being promoted to vice-marshal marked martial career... being appointed as general meant reaching real heights, which could be brought to its peak by successfully leading army in long-time campaigns.

now very few feel some pleasure in having general or marshal's position. too much responsibility, too little authority. and when some army discipline should be reinforced, than it's 9 out of 10 probability that judge would fear of titans to issue even simplest fine against disobeying warrior... how to accomplish anything, how to strive for anything, how to feel some pleasure of achievement? balance was seemingly lost somewhere...

if general has more options, i would use it to delegate more, instead of micromanaging more.

for instance, if general has option to read orders and standing orders to all armies, he could check now and than whether his strategy is implemented. some generals issue too many direct order only because they don't know how to check whether their directions for marshals are implemented. asking it via letters is very tedious.
he could, for instance, have option to impose standing orders, but that should be noted by steward (via note in standing orders), so everybody would know that he is doing so, and each noble could think whether the reason is incompetent marshals, tyrannical general or there are some special circumstances why general would superimpose orders.
moreover, militia assignment could be relieved a little more.
marshals could, for instance, be able to dismiss (while assignment would stay at lords) incompetent or disobedient warriors from their army besides judge's actions which are more related to general noble conduct.
such things do not make revolution, but could give some more weight to position, and potential for more power clashes.
there are so few clashes now as there are simply too few powerful positions.

[De-Legro]

maybe you are right, but there might be other reasons as well. the system you described was finely developed in many realms on east continent. i tried to reestablish it more than once, in current times.

what i feel is that too few people bother at all. some wars are too boring, in some realms indolence completely prevailed. what i see is that almost everyone is aware of the fact that sending orders carries large responsibility. why making effort when nothing will be gained?...

there are too few attractive rewards which could be hoped for by long-term effort conducted by eager war council member.

in times when that was real fun, being promoted to war council member meant much. being promoted to vice-marshal marked martial career... being appointed as general meant reaching real heights, which could be brought to its peak by successfully leading army in long-time campaigns.

now very few feel some pleasure in having general or marshal's position. too much responsibility, too little authority. and when some army discipline should be reinforced, than it's 9 out of 10 probability that judge would fear of titans to issue even simplest fine against disobeying warrior... how to accomplish anything, how to strive for anything, how to feel some pleasure of achievement? balance was seemingly lost somewhere...

if general has more options, i would use it to delegate more, instead of micromanaging more.

for instance, if general has option to read orders and standing orders to all armies, he could check now and than whether his strategy is implemented. some generals issue too many direct order only because they don't know how to check whether their directions for marshals are implemented. asking it via letters is very tedious.
he could, for instance, have option to impose standing orders, but that should be noted by steward (via note in standing orders), so everybody would know that he is doing so, and each noble could think whether the reason is incompetent marshals, tyrannical general or there are some special circumstances why general would superimpose orders.
moreover, militia assignment could be relieved a little more.
marshals could, for instance, be able to dismiss (while assignment would stay at lords) incompetent or disobedient warriors from their army besides judge's actions which are more related to general noble conduct.
such things do not make revolution, but could give some more weight to position, and potential for more power clashes.
there are so few clashes now as there are simply too few powerful positions.

Instead of requesting new features, cause lets face it the turn around on new features being implemented is not always the best, how about we identify the changes that have resulted in the current problem. Then perhaps we can see about returning the system to something similar to the "golden age". The advantage here also is that we "know" that worked. The game is being bogged down with more and more features and intricate system to correct problems that supposedly we never used to have.

[Anaris]

Instead of requesting new features, cause lets face it the turn around on new features being implemented is not always the best, how about we identify the changes that have resulted in the current problem. Then perhaps we can see about returning the system to something similar to the "golden age". The advantage here also is that we "know" that worked. The game is being bogged down with more and more features and intricate system to correct problems that supposedly we never used to have.

If you're suggesting that code be reverted to some earlier point in BattleMaster history, that's not going to happen. There have just been too many changes to try and turn back the clock like that—and before you suggest trying to just revert parts of it, that's even worse, because the whole codebase is far too interlinked for that to be feasible.

If you want changes that don't require lengthy feature-request-fulfillment coding, then you need to make them at the player-culture level.

[De-Legro]

If you're suggesting that code be reverted to some earlier point in BattleMaster history, that's not going to happen. There have just been too many changes to try and turn back the clock like that—and before you suggest trying to just revert parts of it, that's even worse, because the whole codebase is far too interlinked for that to be feasible.

If you want changes that don't require lengthy feature-request-fulfillment coding, then you need to make them at the player-culture level.

I understand that we can't just press the magic revert button. However what I constantly see is feature creep to fix problems that supposedly we never used to have. So instead of new untested features that may or may not actually address the problem I propose that people examine what was ADDED that has resulted in the undesired state of affairs.

[Anaris]

I understand that we can't just press the magic revert button. However what I constantly see is feature creep to fix problems that supposedly we never used to have. So instead of new untested features that may or may not actually address the problem I propose that people examine what was ADDED that has resulted in the undesired state of affairs.

I've seen a lot of complaints about this, and occasionally, I think it may be justified.

However, besides changes like the first couple of iterations of the estate system, and Too Much Peace, and maybe a couple of others, I really don't see the added features having been major culprits behind the decline in engagement and player numbers. Most of the time, after seriously considering the assertion that this feature or that had contributed to the declines, the primary conclusion I reach is that the people making the assertions are pining for a "Golden Age" that, by and large, didn't exist.

Oh, sure, BattleMaster had more players and more engagement five years ago. But that doesn't mean that the game itself was better—I think that a lot of what it means is that the players were better. (Plus, we had higher player density, which is a problem that the sinking of an island or two is meant to solve. That has nothing directly to do with game features, though.)

I think that there are two big changes that have led the playerbase to be less active and engaged over the 9+ years I have been playing BattleMaster. The first is the state of the world, and the world of online games. When I started playing in January of 2004, World of Warcraft didn't even exist yet. Persistent online games were still a novelty to most. Today, you can't take a walk through the mainstream parts of the online world without stepping on two or three.

The second is related: because of this first change (in part, obviously), we have not retained as many new players as we used to. This means that our core, dedicated userbase is, by and large, made up of those who have been around for a while. And...we're not as young as we used to be. Many of us have graduated from high school and/or college, gotten full-time jobs (hopefully), gotten married, had kids, and in general done all the different kinds of Real Life Stuff that tends to drastically reduce the amount of time we have to spend on an online game.

I think a lot of people spend way too much time trying to assign blame for the decline of the game. This is normal, and human, but it can also be incredibly counterproductive if the real causes are primarily external factors. Deciding that this or that piece of the game that a lot of people actually enjoy is responsible for decreases in player numbers may very well result in more people being angered and the game being made worse, rather than having any beneficial effect.

Looking through everything that was added to the game between 2007 and 2013 (or whichever time period) that might have "resulted in the undesired state of affairs" is a witch hunt that is highly unlikely to produce helpful results.

[De-Legro]

I've seen a lot of complaints about this, and occasionally, I think it may be justified.

However, besides changes like the first couple of iterations of the estate system, and Too Much Peace, and maybe a couple of others, I really don't see the added features having been major culprits behind the decline in engagement and player numbers. Most of the time, after seriously considering the assertion that this feature or that had contributed to the declines, the primary conclusion I reach is that the people making the assertions are pining for a "Golden Age" that, by and large, didn't exist.

Oh, sure, BattleMaster had more players and more engagement five years ago. But that doesn't mean that the game itself was better—I think that a lot of what it means is that the players were better. (Plus, we had higher player density, which is a problem that the sinking of an island or two is meant to solve. That has nothing directly to do with game features, though.)

I think that there are two big changes that have led the playerbase to be less active and engaged over the 9+ years I have been playing BattleMaster. The first is the state of the world, and the world of online games. When I started playing in January of 2004, World of Warcraft didn't even exist yet. Persistent online games were still a novelty to most. Today, you can't take a walk through the mainstream parts of the online world without stepping on two or three.

The second is related: because of this first change (in part, obviously), we have not retained as many new players as we used to. This means that our core, dedicated userbase is, by and large, made up of those who have been around for a while. And...we're not as young as we used to be. Many of us have graduated from high school and/or college, gotten full-time jobs (hopefully), gotten married, had kids, and in general done all the different kinds of Real Life Stuff that tends to drastically reduce the amount of time we have to spend on an online game.

I think a lot of people spend way too much time trying to assign blame for the decline of the game. This is normal, and human, but it can also be incredibly counterproductive if the real causes are primarily external factors. Deciding that this or that piece of the game that a lot of people actually enjoy is responsible for decreases in player numbers may very well result in more people being angered and the game being made worse, rather than having any beneficial effect.

Looking through everything that was added to the game between 2007 and 2013 (or whichever time period) that might have "resulted in the undesired state of affairs" is a witch hunt that is highly unlikely to produce helpful results.

I completely agree. Part of the reason I was suggesting they examine exactly which changes they believe have "ruined" the game is I had hoped if they sat down and carefully examined it, they would come to realise that while there are things that can be improved in the game, they aren't going to "fix" the current issues, since most are unrelated to the game. There is an expectation that more buttons and features will magically re-engage the super active players who find themselves playing less and less. However I think mostly its just people being burnt. Again I use PeL as an example, before I left we had a massive influx of new players that really, really put in effort to the game, and PeL went from being the realm I was in to help out some friends to being the most exciting realm I was in. Arcaea on the other hand which had been my favourite realm suffered from a few key players leaving. While the realm was still active and fighting wars, the charm and interest for me had gone.

BM is a unique game for one major reason in my opinion. Once you sit down and take the game apart and apply some rudimentary game theory to it you see that the feature set is a mere framework. It is the players that make or break it. This is why two people can be in the same realm and have completely different experiences, it all has to do with which players you are largely interacting with.

[Anaris]

BM is a unique game for one major reason in my opinion. Once you sit down and take the game apart and apply some rudimentary game theory to it you see that the feature set is a mere framework. It is the players that make or break it. This is why two people can be in the same realm and have completely different experiences, it all has to do with which players you are largely interacting with.

Exactly.

However, this is not to say that careful design of game features cannot produce incentives which guide players and shape their actions, nudging them in the directions we prefer—but they key there is "careful design," which is a lot harder than most people realize, especially in such a very player-driven, interaction-heavy game like BattleMaster.

[Sacha]

I think this is why not many people want to become a general. They get burned out after a war or two.

Depends on the kind of wars he's fighting. Long, dragged out trench wars take a heavier toll then short, quick wars.

[Indirik]

Looking through everything that was added to the game between 2007 and 2013 (or whichever time period) that might have "resulted in the undesired state of affairs" is a witch hunt that is highly unlikely to produce helpful results.

In at least a couple cases, I have some disagreement with your summation. You even acknowledge that there were, in fact, code changes that "resulted in the undesired state of affairs":

However, besides changes like the first couple of iterations of the estate system, and Too Much Peace, and maybe a couple of others, I really don't see the added features having been major culprits behind the decline in engagement and player numbers.

There were several changes that did, indeed, affect the game. You've started the list: Estates and TMP are definitely right up there. But really, those are the low-hanging fruit. Anyone who's been playing for 6 or more years can easily identify those as landmark moves that really had long-term effects. They should have been rolled back much quicker. (We need to get better at quickly reacting to things like this.)

There are a few other changes that altered the philosophy of the game. The entire Orders experiment was a big one. That change, though rolled back, was a major shift on the way in which players approached the military command element of the game. It almost single-handedly placed the burden of command on Marshals alone, mostly cut generals out of the loop, and overloaded those few players who actively tried to get into the philosophy that was being pushed on them. Instead of cooperative committees, you placed the entire burden of command on one single person: The Marshal of the army. We then reinforced that with things such as taking away red paper, threatening lightening bolts on people that didn't follow the game-enforced command structure, and even completely removing the ability of the general to even see the status of any army of which he was not the marshal/vice-marshal.

This caused a major shift in player philosophy. That changed philosophy exists to this day. It has caused the overload and burnout of uncountable marshals and generals. Players like me, who would be happy to help out on the few turns where I could actually help in real time, are actively cut out of the loop. (Because if you can't do the job practically 24/7, you just can't be a marshal. And let's not try to pretend that's not really the case, because it is.) In fact, I think that experiment was probably one of the major causes of the current fear that people have in regard to lightning bolts and orders.

We have also systematically diffused the concentration of power in the interest of trying to spread it out among more players. We even went so far as to cram it down the throats of people that didn't want it. Food, anyone? We've only recently turned that back around, at least a bit, to let the realms centralize food control again. We've taken away traditional powers, and either spread them out, or outright gotten rid of them. How about generals and rulers that can't sponsor armies? (Unless they happen to be region lords. Or are already an army sponsor, in which case they can sponsor as many more as they want.) Generals that can't see army status. Vice Marshals that couldn't set formations. Bankers that can't set tax rates. Judges that couldn't ban people because of "good marks". Judges that are afraid of punishing people because they think that they'll get bolted for damn near anything they do.

It's not always just one specific feature or change that causes things to radically alter the way that players perceive or play the game. Sometimes it's a whole series of changes that, in aggregate, add up to a significant change.

Anyway, it's getting late, and I really don't have time or energy to devote to thinking up more examples of these kinds of things.

[Ketchum]

Stuff

This. I agree fully with Indirik here especially about the "changed philosophy exists to this day". Quite a number of times I find myself in this situation where I ask myself: Do I break the rule or not? Whether as Mentor, General, Banker, Marshal, there are players asking me questions where they need my advice.

About General/Marshal able to see siege engine, I like that feature. As General/Marshal, I have been messaging nobles just to ask how many siege engines they carry previously. This feature helps to lessen my burden, especially when at times, I found myself lack of time to keep click messaging nobles to ask around.

About Stue post on "some wars are too boring". We can shake things up, give them a few buttons, new functions, etc but ultimately it is left to the players to execute them and play them as they wish. And yes, last time being promoted to war council member meant much. My character who rise up from being adventurer to be noble, got enough conflicts with other characters who do not view him as noble-born. Yet he was promoted to become part of the council, which some nobles disagreed. All those good times.

[Stue (DC)]

(...)

It is a catch 22. You want to reward realms that manage to grow and produce impressive military forces for the effort they expended to do so. But you also want to ensure they don't just stomp everyone once critical mass is obtained.

i think for long that the best marker of good overall game balance would be if overly large realms would naturally tend to split apart. so let realms be rewarded by growth as much as possible, let nobles enjoy in victories and proof of their competence until the moment when too large realm would be simply split by internal grievances.

how to accomplish that? first concept i believe in and repeating it many times is a concept that there should be more power to position, so there would be more players with large power.

for instance, if all council positions would be significantly more powerful, than at least some dukes would develop ambition to rise the rank instead of sitting on his super-comfortable post forever. that also applies for other council position. if many would strive for council positions, there would be much more interest to split large realm and obtain more such position, especially if new  founded realms would still be large enough to self-defend.

giving more power to ranks would mean inciting more ambition.

if we add to that some level of insecurity for any position, for instance lucky infiltrator attack that can remove anyone but ruler from the post, upheavals that enable removing all neutral nobles from their posts, stronger exile function of ruler... all that would force dukes to balance pros and contras of secessions much more often than now. if we say that now in 99% of cases, duke have most comfort when not doing anything, and any risk mostly brings little reward, dukes would be forced to actively follow political affairs if they want to make sure to stay on posts. of course, actively is not related to number of log-ins.

simply said more power to higher positions, and more positions with real power means more clashes. even in such circumstances giant realms could exist, but their existence would be proof of really good play conducted by their ruler and hierarchy, rather than something which stands with little political effort.

[Stue (DC)]

(...)

It's not always just one specific feature or change that causes things to radically alter the way that players perceive or play the game. Sometimes it's a whole series of changes that, in aggregate, add up to a significant change.
(...)

yep, you reinstated some of the previously mentioned examples, and the main point is really worthy in my opinion.

multitude of changes, where none of them is radical, but many point in the same direction... that seemingly affected game much over time.