Author Topic: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?  (Read 106404 times)

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #240: April 25, 2014, 01:28:48 PM »
Swordfell was attacked by Asylon's ally, Niselur. Why would they help Asylon? And how could they? They were also overrun by monsters, just like everyone else.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

D`Este

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #241: April 25, 2014, 03:05:27 PM »
Swordfell was attacked by Asylon's ally, Niselur. Why would they help Asylon? And how could they? They were also overrun by monsters, just like everyone else.

Huh what? Really, what?

Graeth

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #242: April 25, 2014, 04:01:01 PM »
I thought a bunch of Niselurians just joined Swordfell?  The only attacks on Swordfell lately have been from Wildcard Wassiley.
Geg Family: Elshon (Bel)

Indirik

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 10849
  • No pressure, no diamonds.
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #243: April 25, 2014, 06:27:34 PM »
Actually i do not understand what's in the mind of the players especially the rulers. Swordfell could had made it very fun by helping out Asylon, but they chose to go about their own business. Astrum and Morek probably have their own IC agenda and not suitable to help Asylon out. That's understandable. But even that can be turned around. Morek can always choose to wipe out Astrum and suddenly Astrum helping out Asylon.
The things you choose to do still need to make sense for your character, and the situation in which they find themselves. How would it make sense for Morek to attack Astrum? How would it make sense for Astrum to ally with Asylon against Morek?

And don't just blame the rulers. Yes, rulers may be the one to actually click the "Declare war!" button, but they have to answer to the nobles in their realms. If the nobles don't go along with it, then the realm will crumble and fail. Then the net result of the swapped alliance will be that the ruler loses his position, and the realm goes right on doing what it did before. Or the realm completely fails, and disintegrates, getting gobble up by everything around it. Take, for example, the recent situation on EC with Eponllyn being surrounded by the Southern Alliance realms. When the ice hit, Eponllyn was offered an opportunity to join the SA and carve a new realm out of Sirion. As ruler of Eponllyn I could have said "Sure, let's go for it!". But if I had, then probably at least 80% of my realm would have either rebelled or walked away.  Assuming I kept my throne, I would have an ineffectual realm of about 5 or 6 nobles left, and three of those would have been newbies who had just joined.

You have to take actions which make sense for your character, and which the other characters in your realm will go along with. Face-Heel turns with no warning/justification are no fun for anyone.
If at first you don't succeed, don't take up skydiving.

CyberGenesis

  • Knight
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #244: April 25, 2014, 07:21:37 PM »
Swordfell was attacked by Asylon's ally, Niselur. Why would they help Asylon? And how could they? They were also overrun by monsters, just like everyone else.

Pretty sure this never happened - in fact, when it was brought up in Ruler it was mysteriously swept under the rug and the war declaration was still never recinded

Disturbedyang

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #245: April 25, 2014, 08:58:46 PM »
The things you choose to do still need to make sense for your character, and the situation in which they find themselves. How would it make sense for Morek to attack Astrum? How would it make sense for Astrum to ally with Asylon against Morek?

And don't just blame the rulers. Yes, rulers may be the one to actually click the "Declare war!" button, but they have to answer to the nobles in their realms. If the nobles don't go along with it, then the realm will crumble and fail. Then the net result of the swapped alliance will be that the ruler loses his position, and the realm goes right on doing what it did before. Or the realm completely fails, and disintegrates, getting gobble up by everything around it. Take, for example, the recent situation on EC with Eponllyn being surrounded by the Southern Alliance realms. When the ice hit, Eponllyn was offered an opportunity to join the SA and carve a new realm out of Sirion. As ruler of Eponllyn I could have said "Sure, let's go for it!". But if I had, then probably at least 80% of my realm would have either rebelled or walked away.  Assuming I kept my throne, I would have an ineffectual realm of about 5 or 6 nobles left, and three of those would have been newbies who had just joined.

You have to take actions which make sense for your character, and which the other characters in your realm will go along with. Face-Heel turns with no warning/justification are no fun for anyone.

Firstly, rulers are the one 'guiding' their people. It's how and what you tell them that actually in a way help them make a decision. Epollyn made a better decision by helping Sirion instead of joining the rest of the pack and destroy Sirion. By joining them, you are only making the war that little bit more fair. What's the use of a ruler that do not lead? I made a lot of decisions that non of my people liked, but eventually accepted and in the end, they actually think i made the right decision. I am not quite sure what was the diplomatic situation in Far East as i just joined recently, but i somehow would like to assume that it is just an assumption you made that people will leave when you make a certain decision. I am sure a lot of the nobles want something interesting to happen.

A lot of the things don't have to make sense. Tell me if any of these migrations are making any sense, please? Reasons and excuses can be made out of thin air. That is what a ruler should do. In Beluaterra, I, in away created a rumour for the destruction of Sint. I then used a very vague excuse to fight Fronen. There are lots of reason or excuse that can be created. And i am sure there are surely that little bit grudges between Morek and Astrum. That can be used. I am not blaming just the ruler of course. I blame those with powers. Everyone including the dukes and duchess. But ruler is there for a reason. They are there to make things fun for people. A person that push away responsibilities to make that happen should not be a ruler because then, no amount of regions destroyed by glacier or infestation will help. Being afraid of losing is also something a ruler should not have. Go and carve new opportunities and challenges is the way to play it, not stick with an old character and reluctant to move away.

Dishman

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #246: April 25, 2014, 09:33:00 PM »
When Asylon first took lands in the east, Swordfell had just about half of their regions (and about 3/4 of the nobles). Despite the Alliance with Morek, Swordfell has offered amnesty to the migrants and has sat on the sidelines because it has always had a tenuous grip on its lands because of rogues (even before the event spawns). Plus, have you ever tried to get a bunch of nobles to betray their large mother realm? Not even I could stir that pot enough.

Density might help change that, but I know the war package will. Swordfell has been PvsE for too long, and it needs to join the PvP game. The thing is, it was Niselur (Asylon's ally) who left Asylon high and dry.

The "cards" just didn't seem to land right here. I think there was a reasonable chance, but coordination broke down. Mixed with entrenched powers, it might have not been capable even if more of the cards had landed right.

Eoric the Dim (Perdan), Enoch the Bright (Asylon), Emeric the Dark (Obsidian Islands)

Orobos, The Insatiable Snake (Sandalak)

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #247: April 25, 2014, 10:22:34 PM »
Pretty sure this never happened - in fact, when it was brought up in Ruler it was mysteriously swept under the rug and the war declaration was still never recinded

The fear was real enough in the end for the fact that whether it actually happened or not didn't matter.

Rogues were real, though, as was starvation. The realm was in shambles when Machiavel went there.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

D`Este

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #248: April 26, 2014, 12:22:11 PM »
So because you fear a war, you start one?

Buffalkill

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #249: April 26, 2014, 05:11:44 PM »
I thought a bunch of Niselurians just joined Swordfell?  The only attacks on Swordfell lately have been from Wildcard Wassiley.
Only one Niselurian joined Swordfell recently. The rest took their swords and left.

Buffalkill

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #250: April 26, 2014, 05:26:51 PM »
There must be something in the water on East Continent because they've gained about 20 characters while every other continent has lost characters.

trying

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #251: April 26, 2014, 05:40:05 PM »
Maybe it's because we have a war here.

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #252: April 26, 2014, 11:23:12 PM »
So because you fear a war, you start one?

Swordfell feared war, and thus did not, to my knowledge, start any itself.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Dishman

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #253: April 27, 2014, 01:03:48 AM »
Swordfell feared war, and thus did not, to my knowledge, start any itself.

There's more to the story, which I'll probably tell later. Wheels are still vaguely turning, even though most plans have went FUBAR.
Eoric the Dim (Perdan), Enoch the Bright (Asylon), Emeric the Dark (Obsidian Islands)

Orobos, The Insatiable Snake (Sandalak)

jaune

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
  • Suck my socks!
    • View Profile
Re: Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?
« Reply #254: April 28, 2014, 07:43:04 AM »
Atamara is about to lose serious amount of characters. Not sure if that effects game char account, but Atamara is messed up.
~Violence is always an option!~