I urge you reconsider, Ratharing, from what I know of you, you are a very responsible Ruler, exactly the kind the game needs.
See my post on the other thread, where I mention that we need more players. Without that, the density of IC is just too low, which affects RP. I get the feeling that for some reason, right now, a lot of Realms are becoming more RP centric, with lots of events happening all over.
I thank you for your words, but I disagree on how the game mechanics work, have suggested changes, and see that they do not match Tom's vision of the game. Thus, we respectfully part ways.
Here is a question for those who are not finding the game enjoyable.
Is it the game... or is it the way you want to play.
I honestly mean no offense and have been guilty of the "i want to win always" attitude. But if you stop trying to win and instead focus on interactions... the game changes perspective.
Instead of trying to have the best army, try having a unique army. Instead of being honorable be dastardly. Instead of trying to win a war, try to pit two enemies against each other.
That is where the fun was in battlemaster and that is where the fun COULD be here. But it takes the top players having a change of attitude.
I know I know, I am sure the majority of top players would say they DO these things... um except they dont or they only do it until war starts then its squish them all!
Instead of a destroy the world in war, try rescuing a captive from a noble or try capturing an artifact from a realm. Talk to the realm first and make sure they understand the limits of the war so that no boarders change hands, just a great RP war not about land or food or wealth but about fun things.
You would not play DnD to rule the world, you would play it to finish a cool quest. Do that.
I very much enjoy tabletop RPGs and unbalanced parties. That is why I'm not a fan of D&D (in where everything is combat-oriented). You need a good game master for a campaign with unbalanced characters to provide satisfactory entertainment, and the game system may help or hinder those efforts. There is no GM in M&F, and its mechanics appear to me as hindering those efforts more than helping them.
If you want me to follow that analogy, it's as if we had a game session with a large amount of players each with several characters of different levels, some wanting a serious medieval atmosphere, others wanting it steampunk/high-fantasy, others low-level horror, others anarchic slapstick, others storytelling, others wanting swashbuckling dungeon-crawling, and so on. And that doesn't work because most people tend to get pissed off.
M&F does have a setting, but in its sandbox design it allows for several styles of play, some of which not compatible with the others. Now that I have a clearer picture of Tom's vision I notice it does not match mine. I feel like a storyteller in a dungeon-crawling setting killing NPCs for loot, back on the analogy.
There is also the unbalance not only of regions (which would be very good if the game was more RP-oriented, instead of PvP combat), but also of accounts. I can have 50 characters and unlimited land. Many great players can only have 4 and limited land.
This might be appealing to many people, but to me it's not. In the end it's just a matter of personal preference.
High activity is not required, you do need be active for battles yes, but you can also park your characters in cities and go on a 10 day trip never looking back until you have time to play again.
To be fair, if you went around with that attitude in the Civil War of the Imperium, border between Rathgar and the Lowlands, or the conflict between the Archonian Dominate, Hawks and Tetsuyama you'd either find you lost most or all your army to starvation or to enemies (or to a combination of both).