Getting the population to procreate faster (or move there or whatever)

[Chenier]

I think people don't destroy their enemies often enough. The most recent one that got me slightly scratching my head with a big question mark popping up over it was Sirion letting Fontan go. Remember when Arcaea was down to like Akanos in the summer of 2008? Yeah...Now it's the one dominating FEI while Soliferum is dead (Good work). Falasan was allowed to continue its cursed existence as a fate worse than death more or less before they finally got wiped.

But then again, I'm also someone who, given the opportunity on a smaller continent like maybe Colonies, would seek to have my realm conquer as many regions as it can support, then wipe all other regions on the continent rogue, thus effectively declaring sole inhabitant of the island before rebellions and/or secessions occur. Just for, you know, the rights to claim that "achievement". So maybe my destruction > disarmament is biased. meh.

I've got plenty of reasons to seek it myself. If others don't wish to destroy their enemies as much as I do, then they must have their reasons.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Sometimes those reasons are a bit dumb. Many times it's called "thinking for the future" or something, when it couldn't be clearer the realm just doesn't have the guts to make that enemy realm's characters/players hate them for a long time. Of course it's sometimes interesting to wonder just how long term some players think. BM's been going on for what, 8 years? That's already a pretty long time, but just how long do they want their plans to take? I wouldn't place any bets on any 10 year plans because you're probably better off investing in some stocks in the hopes that the economy gets better in 10 years. Maybe 5 year plans are a bit more credible, but even then, BM would be 13 years or so. That's a pretty long time for a specialty online game.

[Chenier]

Sometimes those reasons are a bit dumb. Many times it's called "thinking for the future" or something, when it couldn't be clearer the realm just doesn't have the guts to make that enemy realm's characters/players hate them for a long time. Of course it's sometimes interesting to wonder just how long term some players think. BM's been going on for what, 8 years? That's already a pretty long time, but just how long do they want their plans to take? I wouldn't place any bets on any 10 year plans because you're probably better off investing in some stocks in the hopes that the economy gets better in 10 years. Maybe 5 year plans are a bit more credible, but even then, BM would be 13 years or so. That's a pretty long time for a specialty online game.

Just for the humiliation of the beating, that realm's nobles are likely to hate them for a very long time. And in a lot of cases, it's not the first time war broke out. Take Riombara and Enweil, for example. I don't think the old blood in Enweil really were out for Riombara's extermination, but due to Riombara's historical hostility against Riombara, a significant portion of Enweil wanted to do away with her once and for all, to finally be able to "move on to other things". People tire of fighting the same enemy over and over, I would assume. Pity can only go so far before the patience that supports it crumbles.

[De-Legro]

Sometimes those reasons are a bit dumb. Many times it's called "thinking for the future" or something, when it couldn't be clearer the realm just doesn't have the guts to make that enemy realm's characters/players hate them for a long time. Of course it's sometimes interesting to wonder just how long term some players think. BM's been going on for what, 8 years? That's already a pretty long time, but just how long do they want their plans to take? I wouldn't place any bets on any 10 year plans because you're probably better off investing in some stocks in the hopes that the economy gets better in 10 years. Maybe 5 year plans are a bit more credible, but even then, BM would be 13 years or so. That's a pretty long time for a specialty online game.

The other factor is always fun. As a player I have some responsibility to other players in terms of providing fun. This counts for my enemies as well as my realm mates. Not saying that means I won't destroy realms, I'm certainly all for it, just that I do consider the OOC aspect of such things as well.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I see...So some people do allow OOC decisions, which I guess is in fact unavoidable for possibly everyone to some extent in this game, no exceptions.

[De-Legro]

I see...So some people do allow OOC decisions, which I guess is in fact unavoidable for possibly everyone to some extent in this game, no exceptions.

Of course. We are playing a game for fun. The Definition of fun is going to vary from player to player. Eventually some OOC consideration needs to be given to try and ensure that the fun is as universally available as possible to everyone your characters have some sort of influence over. Perhaps it is just my upbringing, but when Tom says "play like you are playing a board game with friends" well I sure as hell don't try and dominate and destroy my friends when playing board games, cause soon enough they will simply not bother to play since they aren't having fun.

[GoldPanda]

You can destroy enemy realms, but then your subsequent conquests would get increasingly harder, as you would be fighting nobles from all the previously destroyed realms as well.

So it's better to defeat and pacify enemy realms. Better yet, force your enemies to fight on your side.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Well, there are different board games too. For example in Chess (Yes, I consider Chess a board game. You play it on a board, don't you? lol) the goal is very clear: Win against your opponent. Of course that's just one opponent, so fine, let's up the ante. Chinese Checkers. You're still trying to get all your pieces to your opposite point before everyone else. Clear victory conditions.

BM is supposedly not like that, at least on the large scale. People insist that you can't "win", though what exactly do they mean by that? Obviously you can win against enemy realms in-game, but there is no overarching victory condition. In that case it's somewhat like Scrabble, depending on how you play, where sure, you can tally points, but any "victory condition" such as "Get to X points" would be arbitrary and not a feature of the game itself. That, I believe, is more or less where BM fits. You just keep battling it out, or something...Not sure. I don't recall ever seeing pity moves in any board games I've played though.

Chess? Get mercilessly destroyed. Ok, sometimes depending on opponent he'd toy around with me before the final blow. Monopoly? One does not stop to let his competitors breathe when he attempts to fulfill his destiny by achieving the game's namesake status. Risk? Strategic allowance of existence before you take everything.

Maybe that's where BM also fits in terms of mercy play. It's like Risk, where it would be of benefit to you to let the realm live. But in Risk, the victory condition is most often "Conquer Everything". In BM, I'm pretty sure you can't conquer everything. But if the goal is just to survive, well, that's actually not so hard. Just be so insignificant no one would care to fight you. But if it's to have a future ally, well, ok, that could work. Things like that are complicated, sure. I understand that. I'm not against those. Though there are some cases that at first don't make sense. Yeah, sure, there's always a story behind that stuff.

Now let's pose the hypothetical and consider exactly how much benefit would arise from keeping the realm alive versus the consequences of destroying it. Sometimes the skew is not that extreme, in which case, well, destruction does let you fight a new enemy, sort of. You get to fight a realm with a different name (Or in Tuchanon's case, the next Roman numeral appended to the name). Maybe they're the same guys, but eh, whatever, new faces, new enemies to defeat and all.

[De-Legro]

Well, there are different board games too. For example in Chess (Yes, I consider Chess a board game. You play it on a board, don't you? lol) the goal is very clear: Win against your opponent. Of course that's just one opponent, so fine, let's up the ante. Chinese Checkers. You're still trying to get all your pieces to your opposite point before everyone else. Clear victory conditions.

BM is supposedly not like that, at least on the large scale. People insist that you can't "win", though what exactly do they mean by that? Obviously you can win against enemy realms in-game, but there is no overarching victory condition. In that case it's somewhat like Scrabble, depending on how you play, where sure, you can tally points, but any "victory condition" such as "Get to X points" would be arbitrary and not a feature of the game itself. That, I believe, is more or less where BM fits. You just keep battling it out, or something...Not sure. I don't recall ever seeing pity moves in any board games I've played though.

Chess? Get mercilessly destroyed. Ok, sometimes depending on opponent he'd toy around with me before the final blow. Monopoly? One does not stop to let his competitors breathe when he attempts to fulfill his destiny by achieving the game's namesake status. Risk? Strategic allowance of existence before you take everything.

Maybe that's where BM also fits in terms of mercy play. It's like Risk, where it would be of benefit to you to let the realm live. But in Risk, the victory condition is most often "Conquer Everything". In BM, I'm pretty sure you can't conquer everything. But if the goal is just to survive, well, that's actually not so hard. Just be so insignificant no one would care to fight you. But if it's to have a future ally, well, ok, that could work. Things like that are complicated, sure. I understand that. I'm not against those. Though there are some cases that at first don't make sense. Yeah, sure, there's always a story behind that stuff.

Now let's pose the hypothetical and consider exactly how much benefit would arise from keeping the realm alive versus the consequences of destroying it. Sometimes the skew is not that extreme, in which case, well, destruction does let you fight a new enemy, sort of. You get to fight a realm with a different name (Or in Tuchanon's case, the next Roman numeral appended to the name). Maybe they're the same guys, but eh, whatever, new faces, new enemies to defeat and all.

When you play those games do you insufferably gloat when you are winning? Depending on the context that is generally the feeling players will get while you absolutely destroy the realm. If things are well handled, then destroying a realm can be fun for all, otherwise the fallout, the OOC bad feelings, the claims of cheating etc that are generally associated with this just aren't worth the result. Hetland is a great example of this, since the whole thing got taken into OOC whines, which only gave the attackers OOC resolve to destroy the entire realm.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Hetland is dumb anyway.

As for those board games, among actual friends, there's an implicit understanding that all the banter and trashtalking and gloating and insults are not done with any serious ill-will. In BM, we're not all friends, obviously, and so there will inevitably be people crying out over things that might actually be no big deal.

[De-Legro]

Hetland is dumb anyway.

As for those board games, among actual friends, there's an implicit understanding that all the banter and trashtalking and gloating and insults are not done with any serious ill-will. In BM, we're not all friends, obviously, and so there will inevitably be people crying out over things that might actually be no big deal.

I guess therein lies the difference, among my friends we don't trash talk or gloat, it is simply not an aspect of how we relate to each other. We commiserate when somebody has a bad roll of the dice, congratulate those who are having uncommonly good luck or simply playing well and share stories about whatever new thing our young children have recently discovered. The closest we come to gloating is when I take all their money playing poker, but then I'm generally the only one not enjoying some alcoholic beverages, so I have a distinct advantage.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

It definitely matters what age group you play in too I believe. Maturity varies usually depending on that factor.

[De-Legro]

It definitely matters what age group you play in too I believe. Maturity varies usually depending on that factor.

I'm only 29, not over the hill just yet.

[Shizzle]

I'm only 29, not over the hill just yet.

Based on the other post I would have said 39

I feel board games tend to be more fun with a little atmosphere. Nothing cooler than to be full of hybris, and to pull off your insane move. Or lose trying and have a good laugh

[Fleugs]

Isn't the point of Battlemaste fighting battles, to put it so crude? Sure, there's lots of extra aspects to the game, but the core idea is to fight battles. And preferably win them, of course.