Knight/Region Density/Efficiency

[Indirik]

Also, FWIW, the effects of adding a new region to your realm are highly variable. You cannot authoritatively say that adding a region will tank your economy. That is possible. But it is also possible that nothing will change at all. The smaller your realm, the more likely it is that adding a region will not affect your other regions in any way. The realms that are likely to have problems are the already large realms, especially if they are already disproportionately large compared to the other realms on the island. I.e. Sirion will be a lot more heavily affected by adding a region than Eponllyn would.

However, i would almost always prefer adding a region than not, assuming you have a noble willing to be the lord of the region. Rewarding nobles with lordship is a great way to build loyalty.

[Buffalkill]

You guys are focusing on Morek, but all realms gravitate towards a 1:1 ratio over time, even if they don't all achieve it.

Let's simplify: Realm Tinystan, 5 nobes, a city producing 2000 gold as capital and sole region. Estates split 5-way, 100% efficiency. Realm income: 2000 gold.
Tinystan expands, takes a rural and a badland. Rural produces 300 gold, badland produces 150 gold. Two city knights get promoted to lordships, all else remains the same. Total income potential: 2450 (+450). However, 40% of the city's income is now at 50% efficiency. Both new regions are at 50% efficiency. Capital thus collects 1600 gold. Rural collects 150 gold. Badland collects 75 gold. Realm income: 1825 gold (-175). Net result: realm Tinystan is poorer.

The realm might bring in a few pennies less, but the lords, dukes and rulers get more gold, and they're the ones that are likely to invest it in things the realm needs, e.g. recruitment centres, fortifications, workshops, militia, and distributing it to those who need it to recruit. So gold is worth more in the hands of the realm leadership. Also, estates in cities tend not to stay vacant.

[Indirik]

all realms gravitate towards a 1:1 ratio over time, even if they don't all achieve it.

That happens for one of two reasons:
First, they are successful and expand as far as they can.

Second, they are boring and pretty much everyone leaves, except for the lords that have something invested in it.

It is NEVER because there is some conspiracy for people to drive away nobles so that they personally can make a couple more coins. People don't optimize their realms for personal income.

[De-Legro]

You guys are focusing on Morek, but all realms gravitate towards a 1:1 ratio over time, even if they don't all achieve it.

The realm might bring in a few pennies less, but the lords, dukes and rulers get more gold, and they're the ones that are likely to invest it in things the realm needs, e.g. recruitment centres, fortifications, workshops, militia, and distributing it to those who need it to recruit. So gold is worth more in the hands of the realm leadership. Also, estates in cities tend not to stay vacant.

Did you ever think that is a consequence of player density and the desire to be Lords rather then something wrong with underlying mechanics? Like I said you need to prove the difference between causative and correlation. Outside of the War Islands for example the realms I visit rarely desire to improve infrastructure with any sort of urgency that would result in a push to maximise Lord incomes. Lords maximise their personal incomes mostly because people like to hoard things, you only need look at how fast people reached the increased family gold limits to see that.

So it is not that we do not see the forest for the trees, its quite clear what realm density gravitates towards. Simply we are not convinced that the hypothesis you set forward as to why that occurs is the dominate cause.

[Constantine]

The reason why this trend exists is much less important than the fact that we've got no working recipe to change it.
War is one of the most fun parts of this game and landgrabs are the only persistent measure of military success. Realms successful in war are destined to become bloated. I wish we had other ways to measure domination and more incentives to not crave to enter the ranks of landed nobility and stay as knights for a longer while.

[Buffalkill]

That happens for one of two reasons:
First, they are successful and expand as far as they can.

Second, they are boring and pretty much everyone leaves, except for the lords that have something invested in it.

It is NEVER because there is some conspiracy for people to drive away nobles so that they personally can make a couple more coins. People don't optimize their realms for personal income.

Did you ever think that is a consequence of player density and the desire to be Lords rather then something wrong with underlying mechanics? Like I said you need to prove the difference between causative and correlation. Outside of the War Islands for example the realms I visit rarely desire to improve infrastructure with any sort of urgency that would result in a push to maximise Lord incomes. Lords maximise their personal incomes mostly because people like to hoard things, you only need look at how fast people reached the increased family gold limits to see that.

So it is not that we do not see the forest for the trees, its quite clear what realm density gravitates towards. Simply we are not convinced that the hypothesis you set forward as to why that occurs is the dominate cause.

Yes, I made both of those arguments repeatedly back in April. I'm not sure why you keep saying I need to prove causation vs. correlation. The fact that density rates trend towards 1:1 even after you force the numbers up by cutting out half the regions, clearly some force of nature is nudging them in that direction. The fact that successful realms are able to spread their nobles that thinly and still maintain stability is a design flaw. I said back in April that the glacier would not solve the density problem because (1) economics and (2) the boringness of the knight game. There may well be other reasons, but I believe I identified 2 important ones. You guys seem to think you have a firmer grasp on things, so then why don't you solve the problem? I've made several suggestions and they were scoffed at. So please dazzle us with your superior understanding.

[De-Legro]

The reason why this trend exists is much less important than the fact that we've got no working recipe to change it.
War is one of the most fun parts of this game and landgrabs are the only persistent measure of military success. Realms successful in war are destined to become bloated. I wish we had other ways to measure domination and more incentives to not crave to enter the ranks of landed nobility and stay as knights for a longer while.

No its not, because you cannot develop solution to correct a problem without understanding the cause of the problem. Dev time is limited, we all know that. Spending it on implementing a system that will not actually address the problem is hardly going to improve the game. For example there is no point making the knight game more exciting, if current player density means people will still be pushed to become Lords due to a lack of nobles, so no one really gets the benefit from the improved system.

A concrete example of this in game was the not enough war mechanic. We knew what the problem was to address, to many realms spending too long at peace. The reasons for this, and the knock on effects were not properly analysed, leading to a system that didn't actually address the reasons realms weren't going to war as well as creating a system which actually made it more difficult for many realms to correct the "undesired" behaviour.

[Indirik]

The fact that successful realms are able to spread their nobles that thinly and still maintain stability is a design flaw.

There is some truth in that. There are several factors, though, that affect things, specifically in the Morek area. If there were high density realms *around* Morek, or if it were at all interesting to a large portion of players to play in that area, then you wouldn't be seeing the situation that has developed there. Players seem to have decided that the south is where it's at, and so they move there. In order to attract players, the north has to do something to attract them. Splitting the region up into city-states would help. Then you could have some interesting conflicts, and perhaps a few wars there.

Anyway, the point is that there are game mechanics that are intended to prevent extremely large realms from being able to maintain themselves. Most of these incentives, though, are designed to affect their economic viability in relation to the other realms on the island. We may have hit a situation where a combination of factors may have broken that.

I said back in April that the glacier would not solve the density problem because (1) economics and (2) the boringness of the knight game. There may well be other reasons, but I believe I identified 2 important ones.

Anything that a knight can do, a lord can do. Adding a lordship onto an existing character should never be a bad thing.

You guys seem to think you have a firmer grasp on things, so then why don't you solve the problem? I've made several suggestions and they were scoffed at. So please dazzle us with your superior understanding.

IIRC - Your specific suggestions were things that have been tried before, and didn't help, or would have made the situation worse.

[GundamMerc]

No its not, because you cannot develop solution to correct a problem without understanding the cause of the problem. Dev time is limited, we all know that. Spending it on implementing a system that will not actually address the problem is hardly going to improve the game. For example there is no point making the knight game more exciting, if current player density means people will still be pushed to become Lords due to a lack of nobles, so no one really gets the benefit from the improved system.

A concrete example of this in game was the not enough war mechanic. We knew what the problem was to address, to many realms spending too long at peace. The reasons for this, and the knock on effects were not properly analysed, leading to a system that didn't actually address the reasons realms weren't going to war as well as creating a system which actually made it more difficult for many realms to correct the "undesired" behaviour.

Barca had enough people (before the monster invasion) that the excitement (or lack thereof) of the knight game was a legitimate problem.

[Indirik]

So give your knights something to do: Start a war.

BattleMaster simply cannot provide enough "excitement" to being a plain old knight to keep players interested in being a knight. Oh sure, we can provide a few buildings on their estate that they can build, or maybe implement the "hunt" thing that seems to have gathered so much interest. But estates are a short-term thing. Once you build your three or four buildings, then that three days of fun is over and done with, and it's time to move on. Hunts may provide an alternate means of gaining some h/p to people who don't have a war available.

But none of that will provide long term excitement and engagement for  the players. The only way that players can have engagement in the game is through interaction with other players. The best and most important way for that to happen is through player-drive conflict. If the leaders in realms are content to sit at peace and do nothing, secure in their alliances and friendships, then there is nothing that the game can do to keep those players engaged.

The players must provide the engagement and entertainment for other players.

[Chenier]

I have to agree, lordship grants very little additional game mechanics, and most of what sets it apart is more of a chore than privilege (holding courts?).

[Sacha]

This topic underlines one of the fundamental problems with the game today, IMO. It's always gotta be about 'efficiency' and 'maxed stats'. I can't remember this being any sort of serious issue when I started playing some 9 years ago. The only times we brought out calculators is to tally up troops strengths before a battle. Now, you're almost expected to carry a degree in economics to keep your regions running in peace time. And slowly, BattleMaster seems to be getting repleced by Sim Medieval Kingdom, Extreme Economics Edition.

And yes, I exaggerate, but nobody can deny that the focus of the game seems to have largely shifted to "How do I keep my region at 100% stats".

[GundamMerc]

So give your knights something to do: Start a war.

BattleMaster simply cannot provide enough "excitement" to being a plain old knight to keep players interested in being a knight. Oh sure, we can provide a few buildings on their estate that they can build, or maybe implement the "hunt" thing that seems to have gathered so much interest. But estates are a short-term thing. Once you build your three or four buildings, then that three days of fun is over and done with, and it's time to move on. Hunts may provide an alternate means of gaining some h/p to people who don't have a war available.

But none of that will provide long term excitement and engagement for  the players. The only way that players can have engagement in the game is through interaction with other players. The best and most important way for that to happen is through player-drive conflict. If the leaders in realms are content to sit at peace and do nothing, secure in their alliances and friendships, then there is nothing that the game can do to keep those players engaged.

The players must provide the engagement and entertainment for other players.

I didn't say we did nothing to solve that problem, just that it was there to solve. We were getting ready to support our allies in the war after expanding to a few more regions, but then the monster invasion happened. *shrugs*

[Antonine]

Well with the new region buffs no one can get 100% region stats without huge amounts of effort which make them unable to fight.

It might be different on Dwilight but Beluaterra is also testing and there I've never known anyone to obsess over region stats - all people seem to care about is getting them good enough so they can go out and fight.

Personally, I like the region system though - it makes wars far more fun when you might not have the strength and time to annex all your enemy's regions but when you can launch raids to ravage their regions and leave them unable to fight back.

[Indirik]

This topic underlines one of the fundamental problems with the game today, IMO. It's always gotta be about 'efficiency' and 'maxed stats'. I can't remember this being any sort of serious issue when I started playing some 9 years ago. The only times we brought out calculators is to tally up troops strengths before a battle. Now, you're almost expected to carry a degree in economics to keep your regions running in peace time. And slowly, BattleMaster seems to be getting repleced by Sim Medieval Kingdom, Extreme Economics Edition.

In a way, I agree with this. We have been trying to make changes to simplify a lot of the game systems. However...

And yes, I exaggerate, but nobody can deny that the focus of the game seems to have largely shifted to "How do I keep my region at 100% stats".

I completely disagree with this. People are a LOT more relaxed about stats these days, thanks mostly to the change that hides the exact stats from everyone but the lord and knights of a region. No one knows that production is down by 2%, so no one cares.

What may be happening, though, are two things:
First, we don't have the armies of buros to take care of regions, like we used to have. There are fewer players overall to handle the load. So each individual person is probably more aware of the maintenance.

Second, I think that the estate tax system makes region stats more personal to each noble. Lords get a LOT more benefit when their production goes up by 10%. They are, therefore, more likely to obsess about it.

Having said that, I don't see a lot of focus or obsession about perfect stats, min/maxing, or perfecting the generation/distribution system. Region maintenance has been greatly reduced with the removal of estate points, and food distribution can be returned to centralization.