Noble density per realm - Dwilight

[Eldargard]

Such positions are sort of advantageous if they were real countries.
Gameplay wise they are a dead end.

So you guy's think that realms like Luria and Rio have such geographically advantageous positions that it is now impossible for other realms to deprive them of that advantage?

[Constantine]

So you guy's think that realms like Luria and Rio have such geographically advantageous positions that it is now impossible for other realms to deprive them of that advantage?

I never said it was impossible with Rio. I said it was worthless. That territory is geopolitical backwater because it is so remote and behind a bottleneck. There will never be action there.
Luria, on the other hand, is on the contrary in a very lucrative place. Hence the abundance of conflict around it and intrigue inside it.

Basically, it would be ideal for the maps to be designed in such a way that rich provinces/cities were few and far between and always in very open and vulnerable positions (hence my FFA sentiment). So the stronger a realm gets, the more vulnerable from all sides it also becomes.

[Chenier]

Has anyone considered trying to implement mutable regions?

For example:
* All regions start as Mountain or Other.
* Mountains can not change and have set stats like today.
* All other regions have six sets of base stats, one each for Badlands, Rural, Woodland, Townsland, Stronghold, and City
* The climate, location and "wetness" of a region as well as some potential random factor create it's base type
* A region, without player effort will slowly revert to it's base type
* The further a region is taken from it's base type the more effort it required to maintain it at it's new type.
* All regions start as their base type but can be changed by player action
* This way a Bad Land or Wood Land can be made Rural and Rural could become Badland or Woodland
* A Rural can also be converted to a Townsland or Stronghold and a Townsland can become a City.
* Likewise a City can become a Townsland and a Townsland or Stronghold can revert to Rural which can then become Badlands or Woodland.
* Actions could be introduced that players can use to change region types but some changes might be secondary in nature (overpopulate a Rural while not importing enough food will cause it to become Badlands for example)

I think that the main benefit to such a system is that players can then combat and create geographically advantageous positions without much dev intervention. Also, the dev's can make adjustments if needed in a fairly unobtrusive way: Too many cities in one ares? Don't blast the city off the face of the planet, just change that regions base type. The player can still keep their city if they are willing to put the work into it and even if they choose not to the city will slowly change to it's new base type giving them time to adjust.

Of course, this would be a major change and would require a library of "maps" to create the entire map and a single content's region information database would become five times as large as it is now. Just thought I would throw the idea out there though!

That's impossible with the current maps, but I think it would be possible with a few changes.

Here's an example of using textured polygons: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Ja4LBEKg-8Y3Bod3p2d20zVG8/view?usp=sharing

Some textures would need improving, but still. That looks a lot like what we have (I didn't bother uploading an ice texture because these regions are lost).

If we were to switch to textured polygons maps, changing the maps (adding regions, removing them, enlarging them, merging continents) would become much, much simpler, and it would become possible to accomplish one of M&M's dreams, player-driven landscape. Regions could all start as mountains, hills, badlands, and forests, and players would have the option to chop down the forests, turn them into rurals, then into towns, and install settlements on them. Cities would essentially become icons added on top of the map, instead of being the region "type". Then, it'd be up to the players to manage their realm: too many cities and getting a really large one would be difficult, keeping too few rurals and feeding the cities would become difficult, and so on.

[Eldargard]

I would actually be totally possible with a series of png images. Each image is the same size XXXX by XXXX and the entire image is transparent except for one region. Each region has five such images - one for each potential region type. These are layers. To create the full map just pick one image of each region and merge them together. Now you have a single image of a full map. If a region changes type, throw the picture of that region of that type on top and merge again and you have a new world map. Then just change that region's stats in the database.

Of course, this is not saying it would be easy or even worthwhile. Just an idea I had...

[Eldargard]

Just wanted to point out two things:

1. I do not assume that the idea I proposed as I proposed it is a GOOD idea. It might be, and it might also be a BAD idea.
2. A scaled down version might also be worth considering. Each region can have a township, stronghold or city built on it or torn down. nothing more or less.

[vonGenf]

* A Rural can also be converted to a Townsland or Stronghold and a Townsland can become a City.
* Likewise a City can become a Townsland and a Townsland or Stronghold can revert to Rural which can then become Badlands or Woodland.
* Actions could be introduced that players can use to change region types but some changes might be secondary in nature (overpopulate a Rural while not importing enough food will cause it to become Badlands for example)

So that a realm can increase its tax base by signing peace with everyone and micromanaging its regions? No thanks - if a realm wants more cities, it should have to grab them from its neighbour. I like that the map is fixed - it's the politics that is not fixed, and that's where the fun is.

[Chenier]

So that a realm can increase its tax base by signing peace with everyone and micromanaging its regions? No thanks - if a realm wants more cities, it should have to grab them from its neighbour. I like that the map is fixed - it's the politics that is not fixed, and that's where the fun is.

Too many cities, not enough rurals, and they'll starve. Realms that want to be wealthy need to be big, I don't think dynamic terrain would change this one way or another.

[Eldargard]

So that a realm can increase its tax base by signing peace with everyone and micromanaging its regions? No thanks - if a realm wants more cities, it should have to grab them from its neighbour. I like that the map is fixed - it's the politics that is not fixed, and that's where the fun is.

I totally get this. I would point out that such enhancements could be built and destroyed. If you do not want your neighbor to have a 4th city, get in there ans stop him! I also never specified that it should be easy either. Creation should, in my mind, be challenging and time consuming and destruction should be easier than construction.

Also, to tie this in to the whole "the existing geography makes fun gameplay and we should change it" discussion, the entire point is to make balancing such things possible by players and  alleviate the need for devs to go in and make changes to static maps that will certainly piss a lot of people off.

That being said, I like things more or less as they are. I am still unconvinced that it is beyond the ability of players to make this game fun. Even with places like Rio reportedly is... Imagination and the willingness to take risks will take the more competent of our players a long ways (I am not including myself in that group).

[Chenier]

So that a realm can increase its tax base by signing peace with everyone and micromanaging its regions? No thanks - if a realm wants more cities, it should have to grab them from its neighbour. I like that the map is fixed - it's the politics that is not fixed, and that's where the fun is.

Furthermore, the current maps have a ton of faults that it'd be hard to make worse. The cities are often clustered, which means that after an unstable colonization phase, they are usually always held by the same powers, save for short transition periods during secessions. Luria Nova is a good example, it's a ton of super rich cities all clustered together, with vast plains, deserts, mountains, and sees to separate from everyone else. This kind of geography is overpowering, and you see this pattern repeated everywhere.

Dwi: Luria Nova, cluster of cities with great geographic barriers around, can take on the whole continent. If you think of Fissoa, though, it's only got one tiny cluster, basically no capital choice. Taking another city is impossible, because they are way too far. Politics don't matter much, they'll never become a superpower.
FEI: Arcaea, cluster of cities, took over the continent. If you think of Coralynth, the sole city is far off in a remote island. They have no alternative capitals. The other cities are so far away, that they can never aspire to become a superpower, even if they were filled with nobles and super active.
Colonies: much more balanced geography, cities are generally equidistant, realms are generally the same size.
BT: Rines, Grehk, and Athol Margos have, for almost all of BT, been in the hands of the same realm, Riombara. Invasions aside, of course. The map changes !@#$ed things even further, though. BT had generally rather good geography, but by taking Fengen and Enweilieos out (and completely depopulating Ete), it made it completely impossible to install a viable neighbor.  With the destruction of its neighbors, and the screwing of the geography, the full South-East cluster could be complete, with the addition of Irombro, Jidington, and Eylmon. This creates an unstoppable behemoth, Rio's economic indicators are off the chart. But Grehk is the only viable capital. They are surrounded by vast barriers as well, and so the limits between them and their neighbors are somewhat fixed and independant of politics, much like Luria Nova.
AT: The fact that AT and BT use the same base map is really a great determination of how deterministic geography can be. Current AT and pre-invasion BT share almost the same realm borders. Except with fewer realms.
FEI: Also follows the major trends, most realm borders follow geographic barriers.


As it is, what realms are powerful and what realms aren't isn't firstly a factor of politics, it's a factor of geography. The way the continents were made, some spots are MADE to host superpowers, and others are INCAPABLE of holding them.

[Eldargard]

Well, isn't it likely that players will find good positions on any map you make? Are you guys confident that a map can be made that will be truly, utterly and perfectly fair?

[Chenier]

Well, isn't it likely that players will find good positions on any map you make? Are you guys confident that a map can be made that will be truly, utterly and perfectly fair?

Utterly and perfectly? Perhaps not. But these trends are not as strong on Colonies, AT, and SI as they are on the new BT, EC, FEI, and Dwi.

A larger (and rounder) map, with less major geographic barriers, and a possibility to set up cities anywhere, would greatly lessen the deterministic effect of geography.

My previous suggestion, a few posts above, of portal regions would also be a good element to counter the impact of geography, by partly nullifying the edge effect.

[vonGenf]

As it is, what realms are powerful and what realms aren't isn't firstly a factor of politics, it's a factor of geography. The way the continents were made, some spots are MADE to host superpowers, and others are INCAPABLE of holding them.

For Beluaterra, I'll agree with you that the deletion basically froze the situation in a bad place. It was mostly a good geography before but a wide swath was deleted right in the middle.

But, hey it could have been worse. It could have been that Ete was deleted but Eno remained. :-)

For the other continents, however, it doesn't follow from your analysis that there is anything unfair. Sure, the Giask-Askileon area is a natural spot for a super power - but why is that that it's Luria that lives there? Because the players in that area have created a culture that, in its current incarnation, calls for a united realm. In the past it's been pretty disunited, and when it was it was a hotspot of warfare that, from what I gathered, has been fun to play for those present and even those outside.

Sure, you'll always get a concentration of power in that area, but that's good. Do you want to play in the heartland of a large culture? Create a knight in Giask. Do you want to play in a place with more of a frontier feeling? Create a knight in Caelum.

Compare it to the realm world. Powers ebbed and flowed, but there were places that have always been centers of power through the ages without much change. Take the Northern France-Flanders-Netherlands area for example - it's always been a cluster of cities. In Charlemagne times it was the center of his empire - an unassailable core. In time it changed, it's been split between different powers and then reunited many times, but the cluster always remained. It's not the map that changes, it's the powers.

[Chenier]

For Beluaterra, I'll agree with you that the deletion basically froze the situation in a bad place. It was mostly a good geography before but a wide swath was deleted right in the middle.

But, hey it could have been worse. It could have been that Ete was deleted but Eno remained. :-)

Eno would have been able to secede and pose a threat to the rest of Riombara, at least, if it took Jidington, Eylmon, and Irombro along with it...

For the other continents, however, it doesn't follow from your analysis that there is anything unfair. Sure, the Giask-Askileon area is a natural spot for a super power - but why is that that it's Luria that lives there? Because the players in that area have created a culture that, in its current incarnation, calls for a united realm. In the past it's been pretty disunited, and when it was it was a hotspot of warfare that, from what I gathered, has been fun to play for those present and even those outside.

Sure, you'll always get a concentration of power in that area, but that's good. Do you want to play in the heartland of a large culture? Create a knight in Giask. Do you want to play in a place with more of a frontier feeling? Create a knight in Caelum.

Compare it to the realm world. Powers ebbed and flowed, but there were places that have always been centers of power through the ages without much change. Take the Northern France-Flanders-Netherlands area for example - it's always been a cluster of cities. In Charlemagne times it was the center of his empire - an unassailable core. In time it changed, it's been split between different powers and then reunited many times, but the cluster always remained. It's not the map that changes, it's the powers.

Yes, Luria has numbers, which helps to its power. It basically makes it a vamped up Riombara.

And it's not just number of cities, it's quality. D'Hara is mostly cities, but nowhere near as wealthy as Luria Nova. Giask is twice as wealthy as Port Raviel. Askileon is also in the wealthiest regions, their townslands are richer than most cities.

Might be fun for Lurians, but for the rest...? Players seem to be getting tired of how pointless it all seems. The whole continent is united against Luria Nova, and no progress can be made. How can you say politics are important if such a huge coalition is meaningless?

[Indirik]

I don't think that dynamic region types are in the cards for BattleMaster. That's really a discussion that's going nowhere.

Luria Nova is a good example, it's a ton of super rich cities all clustered together, with vast plains, deserts, mountains, and sees to separate from everyone else. This kind of geography is overpowering, and you see this pattern repeated everywhere.

Very few maps work with low densities. Low densities create sprawling empires that dominate their neighbors and stagnate politics. High densities drive power struggles, conflicts, and the fracture of realms into smaller ones. Look at how BT was before the third invasion: We had quite a few smaller realms that were effectively city-states, sprinkled among the larger behemoths. We had so many city-states that they banded together in a mutual support group: The Ceded Cities Alliance (CCA). The land Rio is on now was occupied by: Riombara, Kingdom of Alluran, Luz de Bia, Irombrozia, and parts of Enweil. And just outside it we had the Republic of Fwuvoghor.

Luria Nova, in particular, is not just geography. It helps, but I don't think it's even the driving factor here. Luria Nova had several things going for it. In particular: Active, capable characters who are good at politics, know the game, and not afraid to take risks. The "Everyone v. Luria" helps, too. It creates an atmosphere that is fun for the realm at the bottom of the dog pile. This further drives activity and fun, and thus attracts more players to that realm. That's why Luria has, what, 58 characters now? It has the third highest character density in the game, behind Caergoth and Eponllyn. (Discounting one-region/tiny realms.) The very fact that everyone attacked them creates the kind of atmosphere that makes them able to stand against their enemies. It's not just geography. (FWIW: This is what happened in Astrum near the end, too. The three-pronged attack against Astrum caused all kinds of players to join us, swelling our ranks, and allowing us to stand them off. No one joined the rabid pack attacking us, they all joined the underdog.)

Dwi: If you think of Fissoa, though, it's only got one tiny cluster, basically no capital choice. Taking another city is impossible, because they are way too far. Politics don't matter much, they'll never become a superpower.

Mrh?
Fissoa has three cities and a stronghold, doesn't it?

FEI: Arcaea, cluster of cities, took over the continent. If you think of Coralynth, the sole city is far off in a remote island. They have no alternative capitals. The other cities are so far away, that they can never aspire to become a superpower, even if they were filled with nobles and super active.

FEI in general has a lot of cities. You're right about Coralynth. But the rest of the island has plenty of cities able to stand up to external enemies. Arcaea's cities did help. But they also had exceptionally good politics, a successful long-term plan, and more than a bit of opportunism.

BT: Rines, Grehk, and Athol Margos have, for almost all of BT, been in the hands of the same realm, Riombara. Invasions aside, of course. The map changes !@#$ed things even further, though.

No argument here. BT is screwed up, big time. The south is essentially unplayable. That's why all the action is in the north.

...most realm borders follow geographic barriers.

This shouldn't be any kind of shocking revelation. This is what anyone would expect. This is both a political and strategic behavior. It's easy for people to say thing like "We'll take the lands east of the ReallyTall Mountains, and you have the west". Or "We get all the lands this side of Wide River". Terrain like rivers and mountains form natural barriers to travel and the projection of power.

As it is, what realms are powerful and what realms aren't isn't firstly a factor of politics, it's a factor of geography. The way the continents were made, some spots are MADE to host superpowers, and others are INCAPABLE of holding them.

There is some truth in this. All areas of the continents are intentionally not equal. There are spots that are intentionally more gold-producing, and others that are intentionally more food-producing. And some spots that just are not all that desirable all-around. Larger islands like Dwilight have more locations that can concentrate power. Askileon just so happens to be the most favorable for it, but it's not the only spot. Eidulb/Shrine/Gelene was pretty damn good, too.

Might be fun for Lurians, but for the rest...? Players seem to be getting tired of how pointless it all seems.

Then call off the war, and go do something else. No one is forcing you to attack Luria.

The whole continent is united against Luria Nova, and no progress can be made. How can you say politics are important if such a huge coalition is meaningless?

This is a bit disingenuous. Realms like Morek and Astrum can't really make meaningful contributions to the war effort, they're too far away. What you have is Luria Nova v. D'Hara/Fissoa. Swordfell isn't involved (from what I understand), and Barca is mostly pointless.

[vonGenf]

Eno would have been able to secede and pose a threat to the rest of Riombara, at least, if it took Jidington, Eylmon, and Irombro along with it...

Jidington, Eylmon and Irombro would cause a huge threat to a Grehk-based realm, even without Eno.

Might be fun for Lurians, but for the rest...? Players seem to be getting tired of how pointless it all seems. The whole continent is united against Luria Nova, and no progress can be made. How can you say politics are important if such a huge coalition is meaningless?

Clusters of cities will never yield if you attack the entire cluster at once and give them reason to unite. That's what clusters are. It's like mountains: an element of geography. You'll never win if you keep fighting uphill. That's why politics are important.

And I don't mean that your politics are wrong! There can be loads of good reasons to assemble a coalition in the way you did it. Maybe if there wasn't such a cluster of cities in Lurian lands you could have never assembled it, and Barca would have tried to establish themselves somewhere else that did not suit you.