Crazy Merger Idea

[Tom]

Here's a crazy thought I had and I would like to discuss it. This really is a 100% open-ended discussion.


How about merging BattleMaster and Might & Fealty ?


BattleMaster has been dwindling lately, and many of the reasons are in the age of the game. Technology has advanced and player expectations have advanced, and frankly speaking a lot of the code is so ancient you could put it into a museum. Tim has done a great job updating it, but the project is simply huge.

I've taken a different route and instead of trying to update BattleMaster, I re-made it the way I would have made it if I started now. Most of you know about my other game Might & Fealty, of course, so I won't even set a link.

The games are dissimilar in some aspects, but very similar in the core concepts. I believe M&F avoids many of the original mistakes in the BM game design that are only still around because everyone is used to them now. At the same time, it is nowhere near as mature.


So I have this idea in my mind of merging the games. Not forcing people into another game, but really transporting the BM world into the M&F codebase. The continents I can copy pretty well, and you would get travel between them for free. You could play the same or more characters. Realms can be copied. Wiki data can be updated. Character data can be copied over to some extent. As much of the history as possible needs to be preserved.

Some things would get lost. There are no guilds in M&F and no classes, so the adventurer and priest and infiltrator gameplay would disappear. All of this wants to be considered.


Let me know your thoughts. Whether your are totally against it, or like it, or think "maybe, but firstly this, this and that feature which I love so much need to be available in M&F".

At the same time I might consider opening the codebase of M&F to attract more developers. The game relies much less than BM on hidden features and details being unknown. I even has a simple API and I've started work on a 3D client. It is built on a very modern architecture (Symfony/Doctrine, PostGIS, etc.)

So let me know your thoughts, no matter what they are. Even if you're indifferent, I would like to know that, too. No matter what you think, please post it below.

[Vonyx]

I have nothing against the idea itself.

But, if it meant that players could play more nobles on the same continent, (which I assume it means) then I would quit without second thoughts.
I think having two nobles on the same continent is to much as it is.

Just my two cents.

[Vita`]

Mixed feelings. I played M&F earlier on (so much might have changed). M&F seemed to move too fast for my playstyle though.

The codebase in BM *is* quite legacy. I do like the ability to adjust maps in M&F. BM development isn't in the best shape, and documentation even worse. I've been trying to informally share how different BM components influence each other without giving up algorithms. So the sound of M&F's APIs and improved structure sounds nice.

Advies, priests, and infils aren't really the core of BM, so while I absolutely love the priest/ambassador combo, I'd understand. Features I'd be concerned for missing in M&F are the government systems. Not just republic/monarchy/theocracy, but all the individual settings, the existence of council positions and their respective buttons, the various secession, rebellion, change allegiance etc. buttons. In essence, the political side. Another aspect i don't recall in M&F (which very well could exist now) are the battle nuances of unit settings, marshal settings, and such.

I realize many of the things, largely unmentioned here, I prefer in BM are aesthetic so I feel those are less important in the big picture, but it does incline me to a preference for BM.

My general, overall thought is that there *is* a dedicated group of BM players (probably ranging between 50-100 players) that wishes to continue BM and not M&F (or they'd have joined already). I strongly believe we have too many islands and realms for the current playerbase and this results in whatever new players *do* join predominately finding boring, inactive realms. And, until a recent movement by various players across EI, BT, DWI, wars were primarily between large behemoths with large marching times. These are only worsened by having reduced noble character limits to two characters from three, meaning less opportunity to get a good realm. And then again, by allowing advies to be played from the beginning, confusing the poor new player away from the main core of the social game and into a quiet, deserted corner. Thus, I think reducing the playable landmass and adjusting character limits is important. However, while I think this paragraph is relevant for consideration in Tom's suggestion, I strongly encourage further replies to not focus upon island-sinking in this thread, as it would detract from the core of his suggestion. To continue, even if a merger is done, I think that dedicated group of BM players will strongly desire/pine/yearn for a level of 'oldschool' BM, even if its only 1-2 smaller-sized continents.

EDIT/ADDENDUM: Also, in copying continents I would worry if there is enough playerbase in both M&F and BM (and there's likely significant player overlap) to cover all the regions. Would continental regions be reshaped or continents shrunk in square mileage?

[Zakilevo]

I am actually not that fan of M&F. Sure, BM is old but for now, I feel it is somewhat more stable than M&F or maybe I am used to BM more. I absolutely despite M&F's message system as it was way too confusing for me and it felt like I was writing a forum post rather than messaging others.

It would be nice to have a fluid map, however, where cities and strongholds appear and disappear over time unlike BM's static map where strongholds are located in the middle of nowhere.

To me, M&F is too complicated - or maybe I am unwilling to go in depth or discouraged for some reason. Micomanaging every soldier tired me out pretty quickly.

I am not sure how much of BM's system will be transported over to M&F but if it is more M&F than BM, I am very against it.

*Additional thoughts

I think what I do not like about MF's system is how it has too many turns and how buildings take time to be built. I like the simpler concept of BM over MF.

For me, the best solution is to change the current static map to MF's fluid map with quicker and easier ways to construct buildings and so on. Of course, you don't want cities and strongholds everywhere.

[De-Legro]

It simply would not work. As someone that plays and enjoys both, the style of play of M&F just doesn't gel well for most BM players. Out of the 20 something BM players I convined to give M&F a go, none have remained in the game. Now if you were to take the M&F code and tailor it to make something closer to BM pacing perhaps, but then you are just adding more work.

[The Red Foliot]

I prefer Battlemaster's dark color scheme and its Age of Wonders map layout over what I've seen in M&F. Sometimes people try to discount aesthetics, saying that what matters is gameplay, but I think that's a mistake, like saying music is unimportant to film.

The subscription fee to M&F is also off putting.

[Constantine]

I actually tried M&F and played for a few months.
Among the things that made me quit:

- M&F is more realtime. Which is not a bad thing, just does not sit well with my personal playstyle. BM pretty much lets you log in twice a day for 5 minutes at set times to be 100% effective, while M&F requires much more attention and maintenance which I can not always afford.

- Messaging system in M&F is honestly a disaster. BM is much more convenient and allows for easier interaction.

- As a free player you are pretty much irrelevant, while paid account just forces you to play a host of characters 90% of which are drones that add to your mechanical power but not to roleplay. The realm I played in had dozens of nobles but really had like four people behind them and needless to say roleplay was non-existant. Then we got steamrolled by a single veteran player leading hordes of high level soldiers. No fun.

I really appreciated personalization of soldiers and economy model was kind of fun, but aforementioned issues just ruined it for me (especially the out of proportion multicharacter thing).
All in all, M&F is not a bad game, but it is not my cup of tea and BM definitely is. So I just can't see myself switching over to M&F as it is now.

[Indirik]

I'm personally not interested in a more real-time game. I do all i can to keep up now. I played the alpha/beta for m&f. It was fun, but seemed to take a lot more time. I just can't see myself switching.

[Hyral]

I played during the earlier testing periods, and there were a lot of parts that I liked, but they're actually really different games. I might play both, but I wouldn't give up BM's structure and premise for M&F's.

Foremost, communication was a hassle and a half compared to BM. No other mechanic matters to me more than that one. While there might not be anything inherently wrong with M&F's system, in terms of a merger there's a huge gap.

The more real-time focus of the game made it hard for me to play when I didn't have a lot of time to obsess. It was enjoyable enough, during the testing, but could I do it every day for ten years like BM? Probably not.

I'm not a super fan of the number of characters you can play if you're highly invested. It's the opposite of BM's premise, where moderately active, moderately invested players can be just as successful as crazy active, highly invested players. Ten players can get bowled over by one player, and it's kind of...eh. I prefer a social game with actual teams.

I guess I'm alone on this one, but the adventurer game is kind of my favorite hobby.  Unique items and scrolls may not be important in the overall scheme of things, but making/trading/using/wanting them fleshes out the game. They grow stories like fertilizer, and stories are the reason I play. It's fun to walk up to someone and hand them a fancy item. It's fun to hand someone a scroll that allows them to affect current events in some way. It's fun to use a scroll to affect current events in some way. It's fun to go through unique items until you get just the right name for whoever requested it and whatever story they want to tell. It can make your day. And every day you log back in is a win for the game. Items and the advies who deal with them are RP and good times in a goddamn can that you can crack open regardless of what is or isn't happening in the main game (I'm just really in love with this class, okay?!) If there must be a merger, please please please add the adventurer mini-game ; A ;

[Penchant]

I will try and post more tomorrow, but I do not think the games are truly compatible. They both are part role playing, part military game but they just vary way too much and I am rather sure I would end up quitting BM if it happened because Might and Fealty is way too real time for me as well as several other issues already raised.

What I would like to do is steal MaF's design. It is very modern looking in stark contrast to BM and is something I would be interested in volunteering on BM to do.

[Sacha]

I tried M&F, wasn't for me. Too high-pace, and a bulky message system that makes it hard to catch up on things if you're gone for a week or so.

[Anaris]

When Tom first suggested this idea to me—several months ago—I created an account in M&F and tried it out briefly.

I wasn't in it long enough to get a complete picture of how the game runs (RL stuff intervened), but I saw enough to feel a resounding "meh".

Based on that, and the comments I've seen on this thread, I can say with some confidence that if BattleMaster in early 2004, when I joined, had been what M&F is now, I wouldn't have been as avid a player of it. I certainly wouldn't have stayed long enough, and cared enough about it, to become a developer.

Its aesthetics are definitely better (though I think trying to lift them wholesale for BattleMaster would be a bad mistake; a modern design is good, but I think BM should keep its overall darker feel), and it has some features that are well worth emulating.

But overall, I think that we'd retain more of the playerbase—and a more active, dedicated segment of the playerbase—if we reset BattleMaster on a single, completely new map, than if we tried to bring it all over to Might and Fealty.

[Foxglove]

As a player of both games, I don't think a merger would work too well. The speed of the gameplay is too different, and so is the complexity. At it's core, BM's gameplay is relatively simple and easy to pick up, but with hidden depths that people who choose to look into them can enjoy. In contrast, M&F is complex and requires a lot of understanding to really enjoy.

I'm also not keen to see the existing BM world transplanted into the M&F world, which already has it's own cultures, mythologies, and developing history. I wouldn't like to see that, almost inevitably, overwritten by the more mature BM history and cultures.

Additionally, a merger would likely also transplant some of BM's playing habits into M&F (i.e. pile on wars, for example), which parts of the M&F player base have, and are, trying hard to keep out of that game.

Having said that, it might be possible to use the M&F code to update BM's presentation while leaving them as two distinct games with their own worlds.

[De-Legro]

The speed issue of M&F is only a factor if we are talking a it migrating BM into the current M&F world. In the early testing M&F was slower, with only four updates at RL day. Technically there is little reason that couldn't be reduced to a 2 turn day for a BM world. Likewise character limits and settlement control limits are already in M&F so if we talk a seperate server, they can also be set to be more BM like.

However battles in M&F have none of the charm of BM with line positions and watching troops advance. It has extra levels of abstraction which to me makes the time leading up to a battle more fun then the result in M&F (that is watching to see what reinforcements arrive in time)

Also M&F has nothing to replicate the power of the council in BM. Rulers are mechanically weak in M&F relying in emgerent power, judges, bankers and generals simply do not have any eqvalient. The council is to me a core part of the atmosphere for BM, I simply don't see how the game can succeed in a new form without it.

[Fleugs]

The paid subscription for M&F would probably cause me to stop playing (even though I donated to BM and enjoy goodies). I'd much prefer a donation system rather than making it pay-to-play. It is, after all, a browser game.

In addition I'm in the "if this and that changes, perhaps I might be interested". I'm very attached to the way BM works, looks, etc. though. I have tried M&F twice, but neither times did it appeal to me. It either felt too empty or there was too much lack of social contact, which is all BM revolves around really. That being said, I don't know enough about M&F to know which features are compatible or lacking between BM and M&F, so I'm in no real position to judge. Some aspects are things I like (e.g. rulers have limited, relative power compared to their vassals) and have wanted to see in BM for a long time. I understand BM is no longer in development and Tom has moved on to M&F, which is kinda sad, but it's his full right to do as he pleases - and we might consider ourselves happy he hasn't simply pulled the plug on BM (I will scour all of Germany to find you!).