Noble density per realm - Dwilight

[Indirik]

The point of increased player density is to increase competition and conflict. Scarce resources leads to competition. The more scarce the resource, the tougher the competition. Players will be forced to maybe take more extreme actions to get The positions they want. This leads to more wars as people demand more opportunities for advancement. More fun and excitement for everyone.

[Glaumring the Fox]

So basically my idea for smaller kingdoms was answered in a odd round about way? I can deal with that...

[Buffalkill]

A simpler way to increase player density might have been to set minimum number of nobles to keep a region, let's say 3. Any region with fewer than 3 nobles goes rogue. As a result, you achieve smaller, more compact realms, but instead of corralling everyone like farm animals who are pissed off because they have no choice in the matter, you would empower them to collaborate and strategise to decide which regions are worth keeping and which ones will go rogue. Things like fealty, honour & teamwork become more important, and peer recruitment would go up because it directly supports expansion. Best of all, it would be player-driven and not sky-hook-driven.

[Graeth]

A simpler way to increase player density might have been to set minimum number of nobles to keep a region, let's say 3. Any region with fewer than 3 nobles goes rogue. As a result, you achieve smaller, more compact realms, but instead of corralling everyone like farm animals who are pissed off because they have no choice in the matter, you would empower them to collaborate and strategise to decide which regions are worth keeping and which ones will go rogue. Things like fealty, honour & teamwork become more important, and peer recruitment would go up because it directly supports expansion. Best of all, it would be player-driven and not sky-hook-driven.

Dwilight already had a problem with isolation and reduced conflicts, this would have made things much worse IMO.

[Buffalkill]

Dwilight already had a problem with isolation and reduced conflicts, this would have made things much worse IMO.

It's not in players' nature to sit around polishing their swords. Eventually they find an excuse to use them.

[Penchant]

It's not in players' nature to sit around polishing their swords. Eventually they find an excuse to use them.

They can't though if the regions are gone. Random pockets of regions disappearing would not have been good IMO.

[Anaris]

A simpler way to increase player density might have been to set minimum number of nobles to keep a region, let's say 3. Any region with fewer than 3 nobles goes rogue. As a result, you achieve smaller, more compact realms, but instead of corralling everyone like farm animals who are pissed off because they have no choice in the matter, you would empower them to collaborate and strategise to decide which regions are worth keeping and which ones will go rogue. Things like fealty, honour & teamwork become more important, and peer recruitment would go up because it directly supports expansion. Best of all, it would be player-driven and not sky-hook-driven.

This would have led, especially on Dwilight, to small realms surrounded by rogue regions, with very little incentive to make war, or ability to do so, given the distances they'd have to march through the wilderness.

[Buffalkill]

You're both assuming that realms would be distributed evenly, but there would be clusters, especially when a realms split up. Moreover, in my year on Dwilight we never once went to war with any of the realms that we shared a border with. Instead we were in a perennial state of war with Astrum, despite being separated by about 10 rogue badlands, and Corsanctum, despite being on the far side of the continent with an ocean in between.


Not that your point doesn't have merit, I agree that my idea could change the way wars happen, but if some realms were so insulated from others, I think you would see more intra-realm conflicts leading to successions, and you would see ambitiously bellicose realms shifting to get closer to their enemies. Capitals might be located near the frontier rather than in the centre. And if that still wasn't enough, you could allow out-of-capital recruitment, and the option to refit in allied realms. You might see more infils and traders too. And my idea has a built-in incentive for players to recruit their friends, because they need more people if they want to conquer more territories. Finally, it puts the players in control of their destiny.

[Graeth]

You're both assuming that realms would be distributed evenly, but there would be clusters, especially when a realms split up. Moreover, in my year on Dwilight we never once went to war with any of the realms that we shared a border with. Instead we were in a perennial state of war with Astrum, despite being separated by about 10 rogue badlands, and Corsanctum, despite being on the far side of the continent with an ocean in between.


Not that your point doesn't have merit, I agree that my idea could change the way wars happen, but if some realms were so insulated from others, I think you would see more intra-realm conflicts leading to successions, and you would see ambitiously bellicose realms shifting to get closer to their enemies. Capitals might be located near the frontier rather than in the centre. And if that still wasn't enough, you could allow out-of-capital recruitment, and the option to refit in allied realms. You might see more infils and traders too. And my idea has a built-in incentive for players to recruit their friends, because they need more people if they want to conquer more territories. Finally, it puts the players in control of their destiny.

What?  We traded regions back and forth with Astrum for years.  We shared an eastern and a western border in the north.  The only other realm Asylon ever attack directly was Itauland, which barely counts (but who we also shared a border with). 

[Buffalkill]

What?  We traded regions back and forth with Astrum for years.  We shared an eastern and a western border in the north.  The only other realm Asylon ever attack directly was Itauland, which barely counts (but who we also shared a border with).

Itauland was before my time, but my point was that there are smarter ways to increase player density than the one that is being tried. None of them will likely be tried because there are too many hyenas waiting to !@#$ all over any constructive feedback that challenges the party line.

[OFaolain]

Instead we were in a perennial state of war with ... Corsanctum, despite being on the far side of the continent with an ocean in between.

And but for the monster invasion and being told "you are screwed, migrate" you would likely never have attacked us in our homeland; it would have been a paper war.

[Graeth]

And but for the monster invasion and being told "you are screwed, migrate" you would likely never have attacked us in our homeland; it would have been a paper war.

This isn't true, we were already planning invasions by the Inner Sea.  We wouldn't have been able to take over your regions, but we could have looted and plundered you away into oblivion.  Based on what we have seen it looks like the drought and subsequent  rebalance hit Corsantum hard.  I don't think it beyond the possibility that you could have lost your realm, or have been forced to turn it over to Astrum or Morek at the very least.

[Graeth]

Itauland was before my time, but my point was that there are smarter ways to increase player density than the one that is being tried. None of them will likely be tried because there are too many hyenas waiting to !@#$ all over any constructive feedback that challenges the party line.

What's done is done.  I'm not sure what discussing it more will accomplish.  I'm afraid any more changes will just make things worse for realms already trying to adapt to the radical new maps.  I've been with Asylon since the beginning and suffered for years through being the least powerful and least respected realm on the island, only to have everything taken away the moment we reached the top spot.  It's incredibly aggravating.

However, these turn of events give us some good opportunity.  We are once again pitted against the theocracies, which I think is good for SA and for Asylon (and the CoB).  I think we may be the only realm left that isn't dominated by SA puppets.  We finally have the opportunity to destroy Corsantum and Asturm properly and we can actually do real damage to Morek.  Once we take a bit more land the game will start to pick up again for Asylonians.  Can only go up from here.

Although I gotta say, starting a new character and immediately getting captured by rogues because the only empty estates were in the West and having to sit in silence for a week on my only noble really blows.

[Indirik]

Constructive criticism is great. It often leads to some out of the box ideas that really help. They may not get used verbatim, but they help.

Unfortunately, a lot of the ideas you have come up with will lead to situations that we have already seen won't work. Dwilight was a lot like the situation that would have evolved from your 3 nobles per region idea. The situation that you hoped would develop, never happened. Dwilight was widely regarded as the most boring island in the entire game. It wasn't until the realms expanded enough to actually come into contact with each other, and the free land disappeared, that the island really started picking up.

The game had gone through a lot of changes overt the years. We've tried a lot of different things. Although a suggestion may seem new to you, we may have tried it before. At least some version of it. It's not that we're ignoring your suggestions, but we've spent a lot of time discussing things, and formulating a plan. We've considered a lot of the stuff people are suggesting. You just haven't seen the discussions.

[Buffalkill]

Constructive criticism is great. It often leads to some out of the box ideas that really help. They may not get used verbatim, but they help.

Unfortunately, a lot of the ideas you have come up with will lead to situations that we have already seen won't work. Dwilight was a lot like the situation that would have evolved from your 3 nobles per region idea. The situation that you hoped would develop, never happened. Dwilight was widely regarded as the most boring island in the entire game. It wasn't until the realms expanded enough to actually come into contact with each other, and the free land disappeared, that the island really started picking up.

The game had gone through a lot of changes overt the years. We've tried a lot of different things. Although a suggestion may seem new to you, we may have tried it before. At least some version of it. It's not that we're ignoring your suggestions, but we've spent a lot of time discussing things, and formulating a plan. We've considered a lot of the stuff people are suggesting. You just haven't seen the discussions.

Points well taken. But even if something doesn't work exactly how you want it, that's not always a reason to reject it completely. There's no question that any plan will have unintended consequences. For example, if you implement the 3 nobles per region rule and you find that it is in fact too sparse, you can tweak things to make it better, rather than making huge sweeping changes. You could, for instance, allow players to have 2 nobles on Dwilight, speed up travel times, slow down equipment damage, reduce overall food production so that realms need to loot other realms in order to survive.


Slightly off-topic: I read an article in which Warren Buffet gives advice for achieving success, and one of his recommendations was banning the phrase "we tried that and it didn't work," because it kills constructive thinking.