Whew. That is quite the exposé Constantine.
First, I just want to say I appreciate your constructive arguments.
Second, I will be completely honest, I agree with a fair amount of what you said.
The staff has been actively trying to influence the course of the game for the longest time.
This is actually the one big thing I don't agree with, and I think it is important to note. The Titans and Admins are not wanting to interfere or influence the game. I want to assure you, or anyone else, of that.
Those incentives proved to not be very effective. Because the overwhelming majority of players do not want to play the game this way.
The is the other point I disagree with. Not because I think you are wrong, but because I don't think there is an accurate way to gauge this. I certainly haven't been in communication with the majority of players playing this game. Vocal majority does not necessarily equal the game majority. This is a project I have been undertaking personally, as I personally believe that it is incredibly easy for any of us to accept what the majority of people on Discord say, and the opinions of players not on Discord is not heard. I have been trying to reach out to players in positions of power throughout the game to seek out their opinions and open dialogue with them.
On to the things I agree with:
Now we are increasingly witnessing admins directly taking the steering wheel out of players' hands. I believe that this godmoding is absolutely terrible for a social/political game no matter how noble the motives are. And I will argue that motives may also be misguided.
There are certainly problems, and I am unsure whether it is growing pains we are experiencing or whether the system might straighten out as it moves forward. I do think it is a little to early to tell though.
With admins basically dictating to players which wars they are allowed or not allowed to fight, which part of the political game is now actually left to players' own agency?
Very little in that instance. However, players are allowed to choose which wars they fight or don't. It is only the extreme left and right that we are seeking to influence
I like BM because it is a simulator of both politics and military strategy. Where diplomatic blunders may have devastating consequences or bad things just happen out of the blue and you need to try and recover or take the L. That's how great stories are forged.
I never wanted to play a "fair play" simulator. Who wants that in BM? Why?
This resonated with me deeply. I have often called BattleMaster a political sandbox. It is what pulled me in, filled me with intrigue, and kept me interested for years. It is honestly insane how (personally) torn I am on this subject. On one hand I love the cut-throat, no safety net, every pirate for themselves sandbox that BM can be. On the other hand, I understand that it is in no way an uncontaminated system. There is meta-gaming, OOC motivations, and things of that nature. These are an ever growing concern as OOC communication systems continue to evolve. Last, I also feel for players who are on the recieving end of horribly overbalanced conflicts. That being said, we are in no way preventing realms from losing wars or from being destroyed. We just want it to be worked for, rather than being a steam roller. Not perfectly realistic in a political setting, but I do strongly believe this is the best way to spread fun to the most people.
The real problem of BM was never unfair wars. It was always stagnation. It is realms and alliance blocks potentially staying the same way forever once an equilibrium is reached.
I couldn't agree more.
I can confidently say that the Admins/Devs are completely open to discussion, contribution, and suggestions.
So that leads me to ask:
What exactly can we do about it? What can we do to fix it?
