The Realm as a Team

[Vellos]

Recent discussions here:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,519.0.html

Have led me to think the player count decline we've seen in the last year or two are probably in some way related to the declining role of team play in BM.

Personally, I don't like team play. I like intra-realm conflict, and find wars between realms extremely dull compared to religious feuds, political scheming, tax evasion, guilds, colonizing Dwilight, etc.

I thought we might use this thread to brainstorm how we could revitalize the sense of the realm as a team. However, for the purpose of this specific thread, I'd love to see us brainstorm ways of achieving that goal that are not simple reversions to previous systems. Rather than removing part of the game as it presently stands, what new thing could we do? Is there a new "button" we could give to a council member? A new addition to the travel code? A new function for religion? A systematic way we could inculcate team-playing even among players who like their independence and sovereignty, such as the powerful dukes?

I'll start the discussion with three proposals:
1. State religion- Make a game function to declare a "state religion." Regions with a majority of that religion get bonuses. However, any peasants present of another religion will become "evil" (even pagans!). Meaning that declaring a state religion will create riots, and an enemy priest could comparatively easily cause havoc simply by preaching. Maybe even allow some "tax share" for the religion? Not sure how that would work? This would make religious diversity more difficult, but also help inculcate a stronger sense of the realm as a cohesive unit (think "Christendom").

2. Royal levy- Ruler can exercise a special tax directly on a region while in that region. Meaning that a royal sitting in a rich city could take money directly. This would strengthen the ruler.

3. Simple color map- I know that "pretty" maps are being worked on. I would ask for something different: a simplified map. Each realm is represented on a gray background of the map, just coasts, rivers, but NOT region borders, with the realm colored in as its color (same as on the graphs). This would only slightly help, but could serve as a stronger (color-coded!) visual reminder of "teams." Better yet if you could click a "Color-code for diplomacy" feature that would recolor the map based on diplomatic settings.

I do not include this in the Feature Requests forum because these are generalized ideas I haven't given a great deal of thought to, and I'd much rather we came up with a few good proposals we've deliberated on for how the sense of being a team in a realm could be restored.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

In regards to giving the ruler more power, I think that the most likely cause of intra-realm conflicts is envy at those who have positions by those who don't. There's no need to fan the flames that way.

But there should be some incentive for people to actually get their act together and try to win as a team, rather than try slitting each others' throats. Like, that "Too Much Peace"? It doesn't go away if you fight amongst yourselves...That has to do with actual battles, yes.

Ok, so how do other games do it? I haven't been active in many browser-based MMOs, nor really those team-based strategy games. I do have some experience with competitive guilds/clans in games like...WoW...yes...

I've also been a part of competitive SCBW, although that's not exactly the same. But the point of maintaining cohesion in such groups was strong leadership, clear objectives, and clear ways to get to that objective.

I remember faintly how in SC the clanleader would review our records and give us a win loss ratio goal, as well as a target total games played. In BM, the council has primary responsibility to set objectives to send out to the dukes, lords, marshals, and knights. What would these be?

For the ruler, it could be as simple as: I want to expand to X more regions"

Judge: I want to see more regions at Core control (Yeah, I guess that is part of his job description)

General: I want to see everyone in the armies with full cohesion units.

Banker: I want to see more efficient food spread.

It doesn't need to be something that big, but I think a lot of the time, it really helps to know just what you're supposed to do, even if it's not the big picture, end goal, ultimate plan. For my SC days, we never thought about how we had to win out TSL or get everyone up to at least A- rank. It was the small things, like improving mechanics, getting a build order imprinted, and playing against equal or higher ranked opponents to hopefully gain wins.

In much the same way, leaders of a realm should definitely be more involved with setting goals for the realm, such that everyone knows what they have to do. They should also be more attentive, because if you recognize someone who might not be that talkative, but might yet harbor a hidden darkness in his heart, you may yet dispel potential seditious thoughts and actions by being observant and saying "Good job" to someone you see doing the right thing. Send a personal message to some people who are doing well, saying how you appreciate their efforts. It shouldn't only be them seeking you out. As a leader, you are responsible for keeping your followers happy. Among the most effective ways to do so is to acknowledge their existence.

Next, what about the realm itself? It's good and all to have goals, but what good is a few more regions anyway? To many knights, there can only be one lord for each region, and if they're not chosen, what of it? That's where I think there should be something tangible, of some sort, for being a successful realm. I know, I know, realistically, there are no such "prizes" for winning wars, and BM isn't a game you can win. But you can certainly gain things in it, and I have a feeling that such intangible and distant things as "glory" and "victory", "pride", "honor", "influence", don't resonate strongly with the majority of characters in a realm, who are at most knights. Keep the dukes, lords, marshals, council happy too, of course. But the bigger challenge I think is to keep the knights in line, and to be careful selecting who to promote to positions. A rotten duke/lord/marshal/council member will be an even greater threat to the realm than any stray knight, usually. Make sure all who would pursue to become leaders of the realm, be it on the council, as a region lord, or a marshal, understand that, as cheesy as it sounds, with power does come responsibility. More specifically, the responsibility to make the rest of the realm feel that spirit of teamwork.

But now there's some difficulties. I would suggest a sort of tally of wins/losses in battles and such, but that hardly sounds good, not to mention it can be cluttered quickly. I don't have any ideas right now, but really, something at least, to make it feel actually real, that fighting in a war for my realm actually means something. Otherwise, to me it feels like a lot of words, which is exactly what they are, literally speaking. That shouldn't happen though. I should feel connected to my realm and teammates. Without that feeling, there is nothing but a bunch of cold unfeeling text, and that makes it all the more easier to be selfish and uncaring about what other characters I must hurt to satisfy my own desires.

[Vellos]

I like the idea of a goals-focus.

I played the game eRepublik for a while, and it has "formal" goals that candidates select around election time: goals like "conquer (list of regions)" or "population increase to X." Always tangible, measurable things. The game gave tangible rewards if they were accomplished.

BM couldn't work like that. We don't want to give random tangible rewards, and such formal goals seem difficult.

However, maybe a more structured bulletin.

What if, in automated elections, a candidate would be asked to "Post a bulletin" that would serve as a replacement for the current banker bulletin if elected, and be viewable during the referendum. And, when elected, the bulletin would auto-update.

Moreover, what if the game subdivided the bulletin into "Goals" and then "Other." Goals could only be changed at elections. So they get set, and stay the same. The rest of the bulletin as is.

The goals field could be either free-form, or maybe tangible? For the banker, maybe, "Realm tax revenue exceeds X" or "No more than X regions starve before the next election." Simple goals that don't require lots of new code would be best, of course, but might not be meaningful. Goals for a general could be "War chests exceed X" or "CS exceeds X."

If freeform, it'd be simpler, but less powerful a motivator, I think. If formal, it'd be trickier to code, but might be a good team motivator. An info page could be made with "Realm Objectives."

[Foundation]

If freeform, it'd be simpler, but less powerful a motivator, I think. If formal, it'd be trickier to code, but might be a good team motivator. An info page could be made with "Realm Objectives."

I like this, though it would only work for republics and democracies.  A separation between electorate approved agenda (goals) and the bulletin can be easily made one editable and one not.  As long as Tom approves and makes the db changes.

[MaleMaldives]

I like this, though it would only work for republics and democracies.  A separation between electorate approved agenda (goals) and the bulletin can be easily made one editable and one not.  As long as Tom approves and makes the db changes.

Maybe for other types of governments it would say like the King's goals for the realm.

[vonGenf]

Have led me to think the player count decline we've seen in the last year or two are probably in some way related to the declining role of team play in BM.

Personally, I don't like team play. I like intra-realm conflict, and find wars between realms extremely dull compared to religious feuds, political scheming, tax evasion, guilds, colonizing Dwilight, etc.

I thought we might use this thread to brainstorm how we could revitalize the sense of the realm as a team.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, I think intra-realm warfare and more scope-limited wars would help to bring more team play spirit.

Part of the problems is that through the years, it seems the concept of "team" has become more varied. While it used to be that the realm was the only meaningful team you could associate yourself with, there are now a large variety of choices: duchy, religion, guild, etc. I think this is a good change, it adds a lot of depth to the game.

However, warfare has remained at the level of the realms only because the diplomacy settings, looting options and army structure have remained bound to the realm.

This lead to the situation where people have adjusted their team-playing paradigm and do not want to be sent back to the old days, but keep being forced there if they want to enjoy the military strategy and tactics part of the game. So rather than help revitalize the realm as a team, I think we should consider adding more options to what effectively constitutes the team, when it is not the realm.

(NB Please do not take this as yet another feature request for intra-realm warfare, I am really just brainstorming here.)

[songqu88@gmail.com]

The pressing problem with intra-realm conflict is that, in the end, you need to be part of some realm. If you have some group that acts for its own interests that are separate from the realm, then either your group ends up gaining control over the realm, or you fail. More often for many more groups than not, failure is the only result.

What then? That leads to migration to another realm, to attempt the same thing. It's happened more times than i can remember. We all know this to be true. When a group loses in their bid to become dominant, they either disband or try again in another realm, or, if their original realm doesn't banish them all for their insolence, try again in the same realm a while later.

All the while this weakens not only the realm as a whole, but in fact weakens the very structure that allows such groups to function in the first place. Unless the factions' goals are complete anarchy, which would overtly go against what BM is supposed to be, then the factions really do need a stable realm structure, or they would fall against some moderately powerful but much more united realm.

I think there are some leaders of these factions who are veterans to this game, but have grown myopic in their goals, failing to realize that having a more unified realm will allow them to actually have something to attempt to influence. Most times being a manipulative chessmaster results in you manipulating some smoldering ruins. If that's your cup of tea, then all the more power to you. But who ever really thinks about the effects on people who came into this game expecting to, you know...battle against other forces?

[Peri]

The pressing problem with intra-realm conflict is that, in the end, you need to be part of some realm. If you have some group that acts for its own interests that are separate from the realm, then either your group ends up gaining control over the realm, or you fail. More often for many more groups than not, failure is the only result.

What then? That leads to migration to another realm, to attempt the same thing. It's happened more times than i can remember. We all know this to be true. When a group loses in their bid to become dominant, they either disband or try again in another realm, or, if their original realm doesn't banish them all for their insolence, try again in the same realm a while later.

All the while this weakens not only the realm as a whole, but in fact weakens the very structure that allows such groups to function in the first place. Unless the factions' goals are complete anarchy, which would overtly go against what BM is supposed to be, then the factions really do need a stable realm structure, or they would fall against some moderately powerful but much more united realm.

I think there are some leaders of these factions who are veterans to this game, but have grown myopic in their goals, failing to realize that having a more unified realm will allow them to actually have something to attempt to influence. Most times being a manipulative chessmaster results in you manipulating some smoldering ruins. If that's your cup of tea, then all the more power to you. But who ever really thinks about the effects on people who came into this game expecting to, you know...battle against other forces?

Yes yes yes. Exactly. The number of times plots, backstabbing and generalized subversion brought to a new stable and better situation are really really few. This means that in the majority of cases the "plotters" and those risking to lose their position to the plotters may have fun in the political ballet involved, but everyone else in the realm will just be irritated, annoyed or bored. Those new to the game are highly likely to fall into the second category, as they are probably clueless of what's going on.

Just to bring up one example: Pian en Luries. For those who know it, that realm has been haunted by a never ending series of schemes and various attempts to overthrow the rule, including a full fledged secession followed by war. Asking around on the one hand some people would say "hell it's fun cause it's realistic and entertaining to try and find new ways to plot against the crown without being discovered", and the crown itself didn't really bend to be conciliating but keep ruling with an iron fist (or that's what I heard). On the other hand, some other people would just say "hell PeL is so boring. they can't achieve anything they just spend their time arguing", and in fact as far as I can remember PeL failed to become the empire many desired it to be for lack of cohesion.

The war that followed the secession has been very fun apparently, but again not so often a plot would end up in an open confrontation. So my opinion is that yes, a realm torn apart by intra-realm behind-the-curtain fights can be less interesting for new players, damaging player retention. Without mentioning that such a realm is going to be hopelessly defeated if attacked by a cohesive enemy.

Of course all this does not mean one should actually refrain from plotting if one wants to.

[vonGenf]

The pressing problem with intra-realm conflict is that, in the end, you need to be part of some realm. If you have some group that acts for its own interests that are separate from the realm, then either your group ends up gaining control over the realm, or you fail. More often for many more groups than not, failure is the only result.

That's not uniformly my experience, but yes, it often happens. That's normal, I think.

I think there are some leaders of these factions who are veterans to this game, but have grown myopic in their goals, failing to realize that having a more unified realm will allow them to actually have something to attempt to influence. Most times being a manipulative chessmaster results in you manipulating some smoldering ruins. If that's your cup of tea, then all the more power to you. But who ever really thinks about the effects on people who came into this game expecting to, you know...battle against other forces?

You can incarnate these forces that people battle against?

[Foundation]

The point is, people come into BM expecting to play as a team with their realm as the "teamplay" on the front page would indicate.  Their expectations may be very wrong depending on the level of intra-realm conflict, and then they are turned away as their expectations were not met.

Either we cultivate more realm-team spirit, or acknowledge to new players before they join that there is a lot of politics and whatnot that sometimes create teams apart from the realm-team.

[vonGenf]

Either we cultivate more realm-team spirit, or acknowledge to new players before they join that there is a lot of politics and whatnot that sometimes create teams apart from the realm-team.

Something could be done in that direction, yes.

[Indirik]

Have led me to think the player count decline we've seen in the last year or two are probably in some way related to the declining role of team play in BM.

I agree.

Personally, I don't like team play. I like intra-realm conflict, and find wars between realms extremely dull compared to religious feuds, political scheming, tax evasion, guilds, colonizing Dwilight, etc.

It takes all kinds to keep things interesting. It's people like you that create those interesting wars that people like me get to fight.

Not to say that the *only* thing I like is realm-v-realm warfare. I enjoy delving into the religion game as well. And scheming for world domination with like minds in a secret society is quite interesting, too. But I think that the team-based aspect of the game is one of the prime attractions for me. If the game were completely "every man for himself" I don't think I would enjoy it as much, and probably wouldn't still be playing.

I thought we might use this thread to brainstorm how we could revitalize the sense of the realm as a team. However, for the purpose of this specific thread, I'd love to see us brainstorm ways of achieving that goal that are not simple reversions to previous systems. Rather than removing part of the game as it presently stands, what new thing could we do? Is there a new "button" we could give to a council member? A new addition to the travel code? A new function for religion? A systematic way we could inculcate team-playing even among players who like their independence and sovereignty, such as the powerful dukes?

I fully agree. I don't want to remove the ability for people to play for individual power, or plot treason and revolutions. But, IMHO, we need to have some way to strengthen the attraction to be maintaining the realm as the core team.

I'll start the discussion with three proposals:
1. State religion- Make a game function to declare a "state religion." Regions with a majority of that religion get bonuses. However, any peasants present of another religion will become "evil" (even pagans!). Meaning that declaring a state religion will create riots, and an enemy priest could comparatively easily cause havoc simply by preaching. Maybe even allow some "tax share" for the religion? Not sure how that would work? This would make religious diversity more difficult, but also help inculcate a stronger sense of the realm as a cohesive unit (think "Christendom").

I think a state religion should be *required* for theocracies, and unchangeable for them in any way short of revolution or anarchy. For other government types it should be optional, but difficult, and damaging, to change.

Tim and I played around with analyzing the various religion spreads, religious views, and realm political alliances at one time. (Well, I brought up the idea and commented, while Tim did the magical SQL invocations to make it happen.) Basically, we wanted to see what the peasants in a region would think of their realm's political alliances, based on the religious concentrations of the other realms. The idea would be that a realm would have more trouble with a region who had a lot of people that viewed their allies as Evil, or who viewed their enemies as fellow faithful.

For example, there was a time when Westmoor, who was heavily Church of Humanity, was federated with Ibladesh/Diocese, who were almost exclusively Church of Ibladesh. But both CoH and CoI had viewed each other as Evil for years. And the leaders of the realms were the leaders of the respective faiths. This situation is not one that should be sustainable, long-term. You have the leadership of the realm telling the peasantry on one hand that CoI is the embodiment of all that is Evil, but then telling them that they are our federated allies.

The basic idea would be that the greater the difference between the religious views and the diplomatic views, the greater the trouble the peasants cause. If a region is part of a realm that is federated with someone they consider the root of all evil, then they should be rioting in the streets. Perhaps a similar, but weaker, effect for being at war with the fellow faithful. Political differences, after all, can still exist with people who follow the same god as you.

Adding this type of an effect could help create a more "us vs them" attitude. It would definitely give more power to religion, as declaring faiths as Evil could have some real effects on a realm, even passively.

2. Royal levy- Ruler can exercise a special tax directly on a region while in that region. Meaning that a royal sitting in a rich city could take money directly. This would strengthen the ruler.

Yes, it could strengthen the ruler. But I don't see how this would promote a team aspect to the realm.

3. Simple color map- I know that "pretty" maps are being worked on. I would ask for something different: a simplified map. Each realm is represented on a gray background of the map, just coasts, rivers, but NOT region borders, with the realm colored in as its color (same as on the graphs). This would only slightly help, but could serve as a stronger (color-coded!) visual reminder of "teams." Better yet if you could click a "Color-code for diplomacy" feature that would recolor the map based on diplomatic settings.

I am a very big advocate of all kinds of map overlays to provide the players more information. If only we could work out the bugs required to get it to work. There's a lot of information that could be made available to the players this way. An "us vs them" alliance map should be possible. Tim might even be able to come up with something if he could get his hands on actual SVG maps of the islands. Even an SVG file of an island that has nothing more than each region as an individual closed path would be nice. I did one for EC, but it's a lot of work. I couldn't find any way to get an autotrace to work, so it's a lot of very time-consuming hand work. Maybe some graphics guru could get it to work easier?

[Kai]

Either we cultivate more realm-team spirit, or acknowledge to new players before they join that there is a lot of politics and whatnot that sometimes create teams apart from the realm-team.

My problem is that if I were a new player, nothing is meaningful to me, and I wouldn't have any interest in teams within realms. Killing other people with your team has a more of universal appeal.

From a slightly different direction, these politics are generally irritating asides to those not involved and with no stake, and new players by definition have no investment.

[vonGenf]

My problem is that if I were a new player, nothing is meaningful to me, and I wouldn't have any interest in teams within realms. Killing other people with your team has a more of universal appeal.

But that's because everything we tell new players is about the realms, and everything else is seen as a add-on. And that's normal because, historically, that is what has happened.

There was a discussion sometime ago about the possibility to add an option to choose a religion at character creation, instead of always starting pagan. This is the kind of thing that would allow a larger slice of the team play in the game to be seen as my team by new players.

[cjnodell]

I kind of feel that from the perspective of a new player that game does still have a fairly realm=team feel. I get sworn to a Lord and he assigns me to an army that, generally, serves the realm. At the least most new players are a part of the army team. As they grow they might realize that there factions within factions and many layers. This realization might not even make much of an impact. For a new player it is all really straight forward. Serve your army and liege well. They are your team.

I can defiantly frustration arising when nothing seems to be happening. At the same time I do not see how it is possible for every realm, especially on an established continent, being able to collect regions and build empires just because that is what the players want. The whole point of the game is that other also have goals that will conflict with yours.

I do like a few suggestions though:
Some kind of goal setting mechanism for realms, religions and maybe even duchies.
Enhancing the influence religion has on diplomatic relations.