Author Topic: Settlement "snakes"  (Read 945 times)

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Settlement "snakes"
« on: April 20, 2017, 09:06:12 AM »
I'm starting to see this more and more with some of the large realms, where they will expand in a long and thin manner, forcing themselves into areas of the map that are the last instances of independent mid-sized realms. You can see one in the North with Ascalon, and Eldamar is doing the same in the South.

Come on guys, try fighting the people next to you instead of crowding everyone out.

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2017, 09:19:18 AM »
The same as with other exploits, the game doesn't properly model distance and lines of supply / communication. So people avoid consolidating nearby and look out for opportunistic conquests, which causes realms to consist of many "filaments" and isolated pockets, as they grab a few slumbered or carved-off settlements here and there. In the real world there are such odd-shaped realms but they tend to follow along natural formations such as mountain ranges or rivers. One thing in this game is that crossing mountains with an army is less costly than it probably should be.

Something that I'd really like to see (it's been discussed before) is that each character chooses a "capital" which is the seat from which that character rules all his/her towns (assume they have advisors running things from this location when they are away). Then, the further away a settlement is from your capital, there would be a much higher corruption level. Sure a player could use multiple of their own characters as governors, but this would still be a constraint on unbridled expansion: you want 10 disparate regions controlled by your one paid account? ok, but you need to allocate all 10 of your knights to ruling those regions lest you be hit with massive inefficiency.

Periodic rebellions also sounds like a great thing to implement. A basic way to implement it would be any settlement far off from the holder's capital or weak in troops has an increased chance of rebellion, and has a desertion rate, so if you don't maintain troops there, they decline and you face rebellions. That could be as simple the town just reverting to having no lord in a "rebelling event" or modeling generic peasant armies that repeated attack and try to take control of the town. Peasant army uprisings would be much more of a fun addition.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 09:48:30 AM by Cipheron »

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2017, 09:40:35 AM »
I'm starting to see this more and more with some of the large realms, where they will expand in a long and thin manner, forcing themselves into areas of the map that are the last instances of independent mid-sized realms. You can see one in the North with Ascalon, and Eldamar is doing the same in the South.

Come on guys, try fighting the people next to you instead of crowding everyone out.

As I understand it Ascalon is fighting to regain land they previously lost. Other then that people are opportunistic so appealing to them to take a risk vs a sure think is not going to work in most cases. Perhaps we need something like BM where large realms had control issues on their border territories, though that would require being able to declare the seat of governance.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2017, 04:57:46 PM »
As I understand it Ascalon is fighting to regain land they previously lost. Other then that people are opportunistic so appealing to them to take a risk vs a sure think is not going to work in most cases. Perhaps we need something like BM where large realms had control issues on their border territories, though that would require being able to declare the seat of governance.

Previously lost? Back when I was a part of Ascalon I don't think much of that territory even existed, and Ascalon was still plenty big enough.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2017, 05:06:08 PM »
Previously lost? Back when I was a part of Ascalon I don't think much of that territory even existed, and Ascalon was still plenty big enough.


And that changes the fact that they expanded and then lost the land how?
He who was once known as Blackfyre

willy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +1/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2017, 05:07:17 PM »
Something that I'd really like to see (it's been discussed before) is that each character chooses a "capital" which is the seat from which that character rules all his/her towns (assume they have advisors running things from this location when they are away).


Would be nice to see a proper city going, maybe start seeing spys/scribes. Capitals would probably help start to point focus to a city; incentive for people to build one up. The small town conquests are messy, but it is all a matter of who can really control what. Sure, Ascalon looks big....but is their character density/map presence enough to sustain dem borders?

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2017, 05:12:26 PM »

Would be nice to see a proper city going, maybe start seeing spys/scribes. Capitals would probably help start to point focus to a city; incentive for people to build one up. The small town conquests are messy, but it is all a matter of who can really control what. Sure, Ascalon looks big....but is their character density/map presence enough to sustain dem borders?


I could make spies in Hawks Hold, but why bother seeing as they don't have any functionality implemented.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

willy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +1/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2017, 07:11:51 PM »
I could make spies in Hawks Hold, but why bother seeing as they don't have any functionality implemented.


I haven't seen either spy nor scribe....or anything near a 9k pop. Good to know some are somewhere.


I'm sure production/training was nice for a city like that. If you had the metal, I can imagine it really could pump out the broadsword/plate. Cheap recruits by the scores, too? If so, seems reason enough to capital build and centralize...if you can out-recruit a handful of small towns. Dunno exactly where the tradeoffs are yet.

Andre

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
  • Karma: +2/-2
  • Constant boredom
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2017, 07:51:57 PM »
From my small info they could easily pump out about a hundred broadsword, plate, warhorse troops in 35 days per group non-stop. I might be wrong but I think something like that is accurate.


And I think currently there are atleast 2 cities above 10k pop or close to it. One is Hawks Hold on the isles ofcourse, another is Dubh Dún in the north. There might be a third one somewhere in Ascalon or EI but I havent seen it. Down south there are quite a few 3-5k pop settlements aswell.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2017, 03:36:39 AM »

I haven't seen either spy nor scribe....or anything near a 9k pop. Good to know some are somewhere.


I'm sure production/training was nice for a city like that. If you had the metal, I can imagine it really could pump out the broadsword/plate. Cheap recruits by the scores, too? If so, seems reason enough to capital build and centralize...if you can out-recruit a handful of small towns. Dunno exactly where the tradeoffs are yet.

If you have the metal, it is actually more viable to pump out troops in several smaller towns. The only reason to centralise is to achieve high end stuff like warhorses
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Weaver

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +53/-42
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2017, 02:41:38 PM »
"lines of supply, communication, blah blah"


Ok, first of all. Supply exists. Soldiers starve. When they feel like it. Second of all, communication? Really? In a world where a dude drops a stone, and a letter appears in another person's hands immediately? Snide aside, if you can convince anyone to attack Erstes Imperium, I'll give you props. And it's not just EI. Why should Eldamar risk it's hide to fight someone big, when it can beat the cripples and babies for whatever it wants? Is it Eldamar's, or Ascalon's fault, that no one asked them for a Non-Aggression Pact-- or that they did not recognize or accept one? Absolutely not. You are greatly mistaken if you think that large, powerful and successful Realms have any obligation to let any idiot with a wish abscond with some nearby land and try to 'strike out on my own'. Neither did these Realms become what they are by being 'buddy buddy' with their Neighbors. They are where they are cause those neighbors are annexed or forced to join the Realm.


Fucking hell. Are we done with whining about 'Big Realms too big'?

Constantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +19/-10
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2017, 04:12:28 PM »
Did you just call Ascalon a powerful and successful realm? :D
Actually the sides are evenly matched if you consider that Ascalon fights against the entire coalition behind the reformed lowlands.
Of course up to this moment we've seen those guys to only pick fights with realms they could overpower and engulf. And now when the outcome is uncertain they start whining.

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2017, 09:03:06 PM »
"lines of supply, communication, blah blah"


Ok, first of all. Supply exists. Soldiers starve. When they feel like it. Second of all, communication? Really? In a world where a dude drops a stone, and a letter appears in another person's hands immediately? Snide aside, if you can convince anyone to attack Erstes Imperium, I'll give you props. And it's not just EI. Why should Eldamar risk it's hide to fight someone big, when it can beat the cripples and babies for whatever it wants? Is it Eldamar's, or Ascalon's fault, that no one asked them for a Non-Aggression Pact-- or that they did not recognize or accept one? Absolutely not. You are greatly mistaken if you think that large, powerful and successful Realms have any obligation to let any idiot with a wish abscond with some nearby land and try to 'strike out on my own'. Neither did these Realms become what they are by being 'buddy buddy' with their Neighbors. They are where they are cause those neighbors are annexed or forced to join the Realm.


Fucking hell. Are we done with whining about 'Big Realms too big'?

Did someone hit a nerve? Large they are, yes. If by successful you mean driving large numbers of players from the game by their very presence, you are also correct. Your hypocrisy of whining about other people "whining" is hilarious. You seem to have this weird idea that this game is about winning. If it were, then yes, beating on the weaker realms would make sense IF there were an endgame to this. But guess what? There isn't. The realms Eldamar, Ascalan aren't just attacking competing realms, they are creating a barrier to the creation of new realms which would provide badly needed activity boosts.

Dorian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: +26/-11
  • Playing since 2015.
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2017, 10:03:17 PM »
New, player-populated realms can't be created with the current rate of player retention. Unless we want small one-player realms across the board, but these eventually always dwindle down once the player quits. Which was how big realms are created, by the way. I don't think Ascalon or Eldamar were systemically picking up on smaller realms to expand. They merely expanded into the slumbered lands that bordered them.


With the current number and retention rate of new players the small realms you envision are not self sustainable in terms of interaction and fun, since it is very difficult to get players to stick around in them.

Weaver

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +53/-42
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2017, 10:48:47 PM »
Did someone hit a nerve? Large they are, yes. If by successful you mean driving large numbers of players from the game by their very presence, you are also correct. Your hypocrisy of whining about other people "whining" is hilarious. You seem to have this weird idea that this game is about winning. If it were, then yes, beating on the weaker realms would make sense IF there were an endgame to this. But guess what? There isn't. The realms Eldamar, Ascalan aren't just attacking competing realms, they are creating a barrier to the creation of new realms which would provide badly needed activity boosts.


What. The. Fuck. I am sorry, I must have accidentally been speaking in espanol, cause I didn't say any of the shit you say I did. So either I am lying, or you are lying. And I don't like it when liars think I am a liar. I haven't moved more than two characters in 2017, but oh hey, I MUST WIN. This belligerent bullshit you are spouting is exactly why I banned you from the Discord. You have been hounding De-Legro's posts day and night, boarding every single train going to 'this sucks' and 'exploits' ville. Truth is, there are successful independent realms, and there are, GASP, new players who actually fit well into the game. Because we definitely do not have a thread on the forum that goes like 'Good new player experience'. A PLAYER IN MY REALM. I think he is at least.


But hey, guess what. I am still winning. Even while doing nothing.


You know what, as pointless as it is to argue with you, since the next thing you'll reply is along the lines of 'completely unrelated to what I said' or you being psychologist again and telling me all the dark secrets I locked away in my heart cause the truth is too brilliant and it hurts-- I will actually reply to what you said:


No, creating new Realms will not create activity. Point of the matter is, no one gives a damn. There are dozens of new Realms, and no one gave damn about them for several months, and only recently has Eldamar actually started expanding again... for no reason whatsoever since they don't really have the players. But even so, it's better to be part of Eldamar, than to be alone, and run a stupid Realm, in a game-state, where literally no one gives a shit about you, and if they do, they conquer you. If you wanted activity, you should have joined the bigger Realms. It is exactly as Dorian said in the post before this one.