Crazy Merger Idea

[De-Legro]

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!).

M&F has had a free account level for months now.

[Gabanus family]

In all honesty, I have not even tried M&F yet. I simply didn't have the time lately to play another game and real-time aspect would be discouraging for me as well. I actually do put in a lot of time in BM, when I can. But I also love the option of logging in quickly on my phone for like 5 mins for a few days in a row, if I hardly have time. So I would share that concern definately as well.

Other than that, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you for the next few weeks, but maybe after that I'll give it a try just to see.

[GundamMerc]

In all honesty, I have not even tried M&F yet. I simply didn't have the time lately to play another game and real-time aspect would be discouraging for me as well. I actually do put in a lot of time in BM, when I can. But I also love the option of logging in quickly on my phone for like 5 mins for a few days in a row, if I hardly have time. So I would share that concern definately as well.

Other than that, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you for the next few weeks, but maybe after that I'll give it a try just to see.

It's hardly "real-time". Starcraft is real-time. The current version is merely a faster turn-based game. The battlemaster version would obviously be much slower in pace, something that is very easily done.

[Constantine]

It's hardly "real-time". Starcraft is real-time. The current version is merely a faster turn-based game.

And that's exactly what everyone meant. Don't nitpick the terms, mate.

[GundamMerc]

And that's exactly what everyone meant. Don't nitpick the terms, mate.

It doesn't change the fact that if BM were moved over to the M&F game, the BM server would be using slower turns than the existing M&F server.

[Constantine]

The problem is, M&F doesn't have turns in the same sense BM does.

[De-Legro]

The problem is, M&F doesn't have turns in the same sense BM does.

It does actually, they happen every hour.

[JDodger]

tom, you've built a great game here.

I know its frustrating to see less players and less activity over time, but this is part of every game's life cycle.

considering the extremely niche nature of what you've built, the fact that there's no advertisement, and that the game is about ten years old now, the fact that its still going and still engaging to so many people is a testament to the quality and originality of the product, as well as your dedication and that of your volunteers.

take a lesson from other online games of the past, games which were way more mainstream with way more money behind them. almost all of them face a shrinking player base over time. what they do about it is what determines if they survive or not.

radical changes never work out. it doesn't bring in new players, it doesn't bring back old players (long term anyway) and it alienates the players you already have.

sticking with the program, as boring as that sounds, is usually the best way to go when you have a product that actually works. which bm absolutely does. you might add in a few features here and there to keep things fresh, take wow for example, but the overall product remains the same. and bm even has the advantage of being almost 100% player made content anyway, so your efforts in that regard can be relatively minimal.

I discovered bm 7 years ago, thought it was brilliant. played it for a while, then my lifestyle changed and I had no time for games period. about a year ago I found myself in a much slower pace of life and picked it back up. yes a lot has changed, there are much fewer active players, etc. (I came back right after the glacier/dwilight monster thing) but the game is still brilliant and engaging and I have a lot of fun with it.

mnf, though I'm sure its brilliant as well, has never appealed to me even from a cursory examination of the features and reading player experiences on forums. its not bm, and bm is the only text based game that has ever appealed to me, so its not surprising. and I was really interested to see what you had cooked up, I did a lot of reading about it.

ill close with this. one of the great curses of genius and talent is that so often the rest of the world just isn't on the same wavelength. think about how many geniuses and talented people went crazy because their efforts went unrecognized. think about how many of them self sabotaged and self destructed in the quest to get recognition for their work. now consider the pretty unlikely success of this game, to whatever degree. its something to be thankful for.

when davinci painted the mona lisa he probably didn't think much of it. some chick with a rich husband got a portrait done, some florins or whatever in his pocket, on to the next. yet hundreds of years later its his best known work and has captured the imagination of millions.I highly doubt he ever believed that painting would be the cornerstone of his legacy or even wanted it to be. but that's how it went.

 its always the same for any creative endeavor. you put your idea out into the world with no guarantees,  and people either like it or they don't. but when you go back and try to force people to like it by changing it to an extent that the original vision is gone, it loses its soul and its audience entirely.

[Tom]

Thanks for all the warm words and for explaining to me what I can't see for myself - that BM and M&F are very much different, much more than I thought they would be.

To me, they are very similar because they are incorporations of the same idea. Like brothers. But brothers can be completely different persons.


I would very much love to update the BM codebase from 1999 style to 2015 style. But it basically means a complete rework and that is nothing that any sane person can do. Over the past years, Tim, me and others have already updated a lot of the code to use Doctrine at least, but we are still extremely far away from any modern coding paradigm.

The main problem, however, is that the BM world is static. It is ideal for a certain number of players, and fairly good in a nice range around it, but when there are too many or too few players, many of the systems just fall apart. And for that problem, we've never found a solution. The much more dynamic and editable map of M&F is such a solution.


And yes, decline is part of the lifecycle. As is a waning of interest both from players and developers. You all know I've long left BM more or less behind. My current interests in game development are in a completely different direction: I'm working on a game right now where I provide only the backend and an API and other people can implement the client, be it a web-based client or an iPad client or a Desktop game. Nothing like that is possible in BM without a huge amount of effort.

But there is 15 years of history in this game, and I just don't want to see it end. I can barely remember a time in my life without Perdan and Sirion.

[Anaris]

The main problem, however, is that the BM world is static. It is ideal for a certain number of players, and fairly good in a nice range around it, but when there are too many or too few players, many of the systems just fall apart. And for that problem, we've never found a solution. The much more dynamic and editable map of M&F is such a solution.

I believe we can find other solutions for BattleMaster. I've got some ideas in mind, though they aren't yet at a stage where I can clearly articulate them, beyond a general sense of a flexible frontier area that can be pushed back by aggressive expansion, but only with enough actual noble population to sustain it.

And yes, decline is part of the lifecycle. As is a waning of interest both from players and developers. You all know I've long left BM more or less behind. My current interests in game development are in a completely different direction: I'm working on a game right now where I provide only the backend and an API and other people can implement the client, be it a web-based client or an iPad client or a Desktop game. Nothing like that is possible in BM without a huge amount of effort.

That sounds pretty cool

But there is 15 years of history in this game, and I just don't want to see it end. I can barely remember a time in my life without Perdan and Sirion.

Then perhaps what we really need is to take the East Continent back to the drawing board: don't throw away the history, or the continent itself, but remake it so that it can survive in a new age.

Retain the existing realms and general concept of the island, but give it a new shape, and maybe make it not so much of an island anymore, so as to gain that flexible frontier. Redesign it in a purposeful way, so that the placement of important features makes them actually feel important, not just narratively, but strategically. Make sure that, at least to a first approximation, no realm has a clear advantage over any of its neighbours, no matter how you draw the borders.

[Vita`]

Anaris,

I am all for improvements to the maps and some of the other novel ideas you have had for BM. But I also know the extent of our volunteer ability and the state of the game. I firmly believe we need to significantly reduce player landmass (sink AT and FEI, at minimum) and adjust character limits before attempting anything else, especially something with as much effort as redoing maps.

[Bedwyr]

The main issue I had with M&F was indeed the time.  Twice a day with BM works well, and there are times when I could totally see myself plonking down in front of the computer for a few hours to play, but turns running every hour?  That's a little rough.

That said, I thought M&F looked very cool, and if there were an alternate with slower turns (no idea how difficult that would be) I would be happy to join.

[Tom]

The main issue I had with M&F was indeed the time.  Twice a day with BM works well, and there are times when I could totally see myself plonking down in front of the computer for a few hours to play, but turns running every hour?  That's a little rough.

That said, I thought M&F looked very cool, and if there were an alternate with slower turns (no idea how difficult that would be) I would be happy to join.

I think there is a massive misunderstanding regarding the speed of M&F.

It doesn't have the same rigid turn structure as BM. What runs once an hour is an update to travel and other actions, so that movement and general activity is more smooth and not so focussed on specific times. This is a lesson learned from the BM problem of generals ordering everyone to log in 10 minutes after the turn change.

M&F does have a day cycle of 4 in-game days every real-world day, which is the closest equivalent to BM turns. This is when construction, recruitment and other major data gets updated.

But getting from A to B in M&F takes about the same time as in BM.

[De-Legro]

I think there is a massive misunderstanding regarding the speed of M&F.

It doesn't have the same rigid turn structure as BM. What runs once an hour is an update to travel and other actions, so that movement and general activity is more smooth and not so focussed on specific times. This is a lesson learned from the BM problem of generals ordering everyone to log in 10 minutes after the turn change.

M&F does have a day cycle of 4 in-game days every real-world day, which is the closest equivalent to BM turns. This is when construction, recruitment and other major data gets updated.

But getting from A to B in M&F takes about the same time as in BM.

No, the problem is people are thinking of different aspect to you. In BM if you check the status of your enemy at the beginning of the turn, little changes until the next. Sure you have things like misdirection and late turn moves, but you know the WORLD won't update till the next turn. In M&F enemy troops can appear within your visible range on any hourly tick, they can arrive and change a battle situation while you are away for 3 hours. For many people that introduces a compulsion to check the game frequently in order to stay on top of what is happening and start a response to enemy movement or other player actions as soon as possible.

This is especially true when coordinating armies. As you say movement is still slow, thus as a "general" or "marshal" you need to know enemy movements as soon as is possible in order to get orders out, have people read the orders and start to follow them in time. I have so far found that just doesn't work and the only way coordinating armies works for me is to ensure that we have the initiative and are forcing the enemy to react to us, not the other way round. Single players running 25-50 characters whom are online 13+ hours a day have a massive advantage here as they can not only spot changing situations quickly, but react to them in force at the same time.

[JDodger]

Anaris,

I am all for improvements to the maps and some of the other novel ideas you have had for BM. But I also know the extent of our volunteer ability and the state of the game. I firmly believe we need to significantly reduce player landmass (sink AT and FEI, at minimum) and adjust character limits before attempting anything else, especially something with as much effort as redoing maps.

yeah I wholeheartedly disagree here. sinking islands is the exact type of heavy handed dev reactionism that kills games, the exact thing I cautioned against in my previous post.  from what I heard regarding the reaction to western dwilight/far east glacier, I would figure the devs would have learned a lesson from that.

what are the problems you're trying to solve by this? I'm sure there are proactive solutions rather than reactive, solutions that can be fun for players instead of taking away years of history and time building realms and relationships.