Author Topic: Settlement "snakes"  (Read 952 times)

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2017, 11:26:19 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.

I do not envision "small" realms like you speak of. I am speaking more along the lines of realms the size of Children of Armok, Arrakesh, Western Confederation, Tel'Ajin, and other such regional powers that are large enough to have a good playerbase but are not expanding outside of their region.

The issue with retention is less to do with small powers (again, I was talking about medium sized powers such as I listed above), and more to do with many of the large realms being rather boring to be in, and expanding that boring nature in such a way that they take areas that are well outside their normal zones of control. A particular offender in this category is Ascalon. Whether or not the territory is supposedly a reconquest, the limb they are creating to expand into those lands effectively shuts down any ability of the regional powers such as Children of Armok and Western Confederation to expand their own influence, as well as taking up area where another medium/large power could have formed. They are effectively acting as the Cagilan Empire/Tara of Battlemaster did, creating a huge area of no conflict whatsoever.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 12:36:15 AM by Gustav Kuriga »

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2017, 12:20:40 AM »

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.

Once again you exaggerate, falsely accuse, and belittle in your response. You accuse me of hounding De-Legro "day and night" on every single thread he is a part of. I haven't even replied to one of his posts in a month barring a response in this thread, and my reply wasn't even hostile. That's hardly "hounding" him considering how much activity De-Legro has on here. Furthermore, my issue isn't with general expansion. It is when these large realms contort themselves well beyond their home region with small, snaking limbs to grab settlements.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 01:02:17 AM by Gustav Kuriga »

Weaver

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +53/-42
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2017, 12:45:30 AM »
Oh, I am sorry. You are right. My bad. I forgot that one time in 1469 when I, along with the Rulers of all the other large Realms, solemnly swore that we will not expand out of our 'home regions' wherever they may be and whatever someone decides they are. Yes, how terrible of me. I am truly ashamed and repent. No really, I apologize. Won't happen again. Promise.


Please, Gustav, educate me more on how to properly play Might and Fealty. Cause, you see, I am a new player, and have not been playing for a few years without stopping- not at all-- unlike some people who show up for a month to bitch and moan and then quit again.


Has it ever occurred to you that the reason I am so belittling in my posts is because you started it- or is that also a false accusation? And not only that, but because your posts are so fundamentally wrong, that even if I wanted to, I could not reply straight-- especially knowing that my character will immediately come under attack from you?


You are whining about Realms who put together don't make up a quarter of the entire world. They grab a few settlements and suddenly it's the apocalypse? 'Snake Realms'? Are you for serious, mate?


Quendor, Strenvale, Karameikos, Turindie, Tel'ajin, Tel'hithr, Taarkiin, Totaria. They all started as independent Realms, consolidated power, and now have land. No one touches them. If you can't repel Ascalon from taking land so far from home, with mechanics in play that lower their morale, then you have no right to complain. You should bend the knee and swear fealty, or be destroyed, because you are too incompetent to lead a Realm- and in fact, are doing you a favor by crushing your dreams early, instead of when you are fully invested and committed.

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2017, 01:23:12 AM »
How did I "start" it? Everyone in here was having a reasonable discussion up until the moment you took offense and thought it was some kind of personal grudge. I have no clue what players are even in which realm, I don't have some vendetta against you or De-Legro. YOU came in here, flaming about people whining, how they were stupid for "such and such action", how any player who lost to a large realm like these was somehow inherently incompetent, etc etc. You came in here on some crusade to prove me wrong, on an issue that isn't some binary "right/wrong" issue.

If you read De-Legro's post, you'll see that he is in partial agreement about certain aspects and suggested possibly having a mechanic that causes control issues on border regions of large realms, though as he said it would require a seat of governance.

Those realms in the South and the North have formed because Hawks and Grand Fate allow them to (either Elysium or Hawks even gave a declaration of protection from external powers), and because there were previously other realms serving as buffers. For example, Tetsuyama used to control most of those settlements that were just taken by Eldamar, providing a significant buffer to the South.

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2017, 03:59:57 AM »
However, some of the mid-sized realms you mention vary wildly in terms of player activity.

Children of Armok is largely defunct, while Western Confederation almost entirely consists of newly-recruited knights from knight's offers, with a small amount of older players with small holdings. WC and CoA therefore are completely different.

W.C. is a good example of what you're talking about. There are a few veteran players, and they've limited their internal holdings to ensure there's as much room for new knights inside the kingdom as possible. And that's paying off, they have a high growth rate of new players who are happily gobbling up slumbered lands inside the kingdom. When your knights also start pumping out knight's offers enthusiastically, you know it's working. A small number of paid-account players could in fact have gobbled up those settlements much faster, and turned W.C. into a major military power overnight, but that would not foster the creation of a vibrant realm with high levels of player activity.

My suggestion on the fix for this would be to limit the bottom-tier paid accounts. If you want to be Harald Dunbhaine with 100 settlements spanning the globe, then you should be expected to be paying out for the top-tier 5EU per month account, at least.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 05:10:55 AM by Cipheron »

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2017, 04:58:27 AM »
However, some of the mid-sized realms you mention vary wildly in terms of player activity.

Children of Armok is largely defunct, while Western Confederation almost entirely consists of newly-recruited knights from knight's offers, with a small amount of older players with small holdings. WC and CoA therefore are completely different.

W.C. is a good example of what you're talking about. There are a few veteran players, and they've limited their internal holdings to ensure there's as much room for new knights inside the kingdom as possible. And that's paying off, they have a high growth rate of new players who are happily gobbling up slumbered lands inside the kingdom. When your knights also start pumping out knight's offers enthusiastically, you know it's working. A small number of paid-account players could in fact have gobbled up those settlements much faster, and turned W.C. into a major military power overnight, but that would not foster the creation of a vibrant realm with high levels of player activity.

My suggestion on the fix for this would be to limit the bottom-tier paid accounts. If you want to be Harald Dunbhaine with 100 settlements spanning the globe, then you should be expected to be paying out for the top-tier 5EU per month account, at least.


Honestly I would like to simply have two accounts, paid or not and the character limit put somewhere between 10-20 for paid accounts. Or do away with paid accounts entirely and offer other things to spend credits on. However as I understand it that is not our call, since the proceeds from the game are paid to Tom.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2017, 05:16:20 AM »
I was really thinking about something that limits the number of settlements for a bottom-rung paid account.

And also, patch any exploit that lets you keep more towns than an account is allowed to. If you don't pay your account costs and have 5+ characters the game restricts you until you do, but I believe it doesn't take any action on settlements at all.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2017, 05:23:39 AM »
I was really thinking about something that limits the number of settlements for a bottom-rung paid account.

And also, patch any exploit that lets you keep more towns than an account is allowed to. If you don't pay your account costs and have 5+ characters the game restricts you until you do, but I believe it doesn't take any action on settlements at all.


Yes, I have some code to prevent free accounts from claiming more then 3 settlements, and am working on ways to address those instances that already exist. The step after that is having a graceful to handle settlement inheritance when the heir can have no more settlements. As to limiting settlements on paid accounts I believe my corruption changes which are calculated on a character basis as well as an account basis should help in that regard without having a hard limit. I personally would be willing to consider removing the hard limit on free accounts as well once we have corruption changed.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Dorian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: +26/-11
  • Playing since 2015.
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2017, 09:46:23 AM »
Those realms in the South and the North have formed because Hawks and Grand Fate allow them to (either Elysium or Hawks even gave a declaration of protection from external powers), and because there were previously other realms serving as buffers. For example, Tetsuyama used to control most of those settlements that were just taken by Eldamar, providing a significant buffer to the South.


The settlements that were just taken by Eldamar have been slumbering (or have been under control of the Harald guy who owned large areas of the map) for a long time. Tetsuyama as a realm has been broken and was not functioning for a long time as well. I don't think we need slumbered ghost lands to provide a buffer zone between realms, cause we want higher interaction and reaching out to your neighbor, right?


The fact that, coincidentally, Cuhibana (which you are a ruler of) was eyeing these lands but was either too slow or had no players to take them, is an entirely different thing.  ;D

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2017, 07:57:22 PM »

The settlements that were just taken by Eldamar have been slumbering (or have been under control of the Harald guy who owned large areas of the map) for a long time. Tetsuyama as a realm has been broken and was not functioning for a long time as well. I don't think we need slumbered ghost lands to provide a buffer zone between realms, cause we want higher interaction and reaching out to your neighbor, right?


The fact that, coincidentally, Cuhibana (which you are a ruler of) was eyeing these lands but was either too slow or had no players to take them, is an entirely different thing.  ;D

You realize that I am talking long before the time you are speaking of, right? Back when Cuhibana was still a part of Tetsuyama, and that realm as a whole was more active. That was the time period when it formed the buffer.

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2017, 08:07:06 PM »
Hey I was thinking it would actually be possible to do distance-based corruption even without a seat of governance declared.

e.g. you have your formula for distance-based corruption, and the game tests each city for the "center" that minimizes total corruption costs (in some absolute term). So basically you'd be rewarded for keeping your towns clumped close, and penalized if they're spread out, all without needing to add in any UI code for that. Proper seats of government could come later however.

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2017, 08:10:35 PM »
Hey I was thinking it would actually be possible to do distance-based corruption even without a seat of governance declared.

e.g. you have your formula for distance-based corruption, and the game tests each city for the "center" that minimizes total corruption costs (in some absolute term). So basically you'd be rewarded for keeping your towns clumped close, and penalized if they're spread out, all without needing to add in any UI code for that. Proper seats of government could come later however.

That's a good point you make there, though it might be tricky for realms with lots of island areas like Grand Fate and Hawks.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2017, 11:14:00 PM »
That's a good point you make there, though it might be tricky for realms with lots of island areas like Grand Fate and Hawks.


If you recall from BM island nations are nearly always badly affected by distance based corruption.


Hey I was thinking it would actually be possible to do distance-based corruption even without a seat of governance declared.

e.g. you have your formula for distance-based corruption, and the game tests each city for the "center" that minimizes total corruption costs (in some absolute term). So basically you'd be rewarded for keeping your towns clumped close, and penalized if they're spread out, all without needing to add in any UI code for that. Proper seats of government could come later however.


Yes it is possible, my problem with distances based corruption in general is it encourages the entire map to be a series of bland shaped blob realms. The only exception are tiny realms too small to feel the effect.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Andre

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
  • Karma: +2/-2
  • Constant boredom
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2017, 12:22:13 AM »
What about some form of "issues" game? As in settlements will have issues such as monsters from ruins and dungeons and such coming out (good reason to explore them and try to get rid of them), (NPC) bandits, too high taxes (outgoing trade, gold tax sent to lord/realm ruler if that is ever implemented), armies marching trough (whether friendly or not doesn't matter), lack of supplies (any resource), lack of militia, recently conquered (smaller penalty if from a slumbered lord), possibly even the distance penalty aswell.


Ofcourse one of these being slightly in the negative wouldnt do anything, you would probably have to have a lot of problems for it to remove the lord and realm allegiance.


I think we could also add something like trade variety and goods bonuses, as in, if the settlement has a lot of trade from distant places coming in, then they are happier. And maybe a thing similar to building focus, where you set how many goods you use, whether that be 100%, 150%, 200% or 300%. And the higher it is the higher the bonus is, with 100% being 0 bonus.
We could also do some kind of fear thing, where you can for example set troops to activly disuade people from trying to secede, but this would also reduce opinion, and so they are that much more likely to secede some time after the troops leave. And troops present that aren't disuading would also slightly reduce chance of secession when they are present, but wouldn't leave an opinion effect other than the one for troops marching trough. (Which I think should depend on how often troops march trough, one warband marching trough every few weeks likely wont do anything and might even make the mortals excited for seeing an army.)
Similarly, troops from a foreign realm being present in a dissatisfied town would make it likely that they secede to them, or just speed up TO's, as long as the troops aren't causing trouble. 


Additionaly, we might be able to both increase fear and excitment with executions of First Ones. Fear as in they fear someone who could just execute another First One just like that. And excitment because it isn't often you see a First One die, especially fun for the citizens if they are allowed to humiliate the First One maybe, a new execution or punishment? Humiliation? And maybe more effect if that First One is one who was recently causing trouble there, or from a realm from which someone was recently causing trouble.
We might also be able to construct a colloseum or similar thing, where we let thralls fight, and possibly also trained soldiers. This would increase happiness and also generate gold income I guess. Slave armies anyone?




Anything that might get added from this?

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Settlement "snakes"
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2017, 07:45:11 AM »

If you recall from BM island nations are nearly always badly affected by distance based corruption.



Yes it is possible, my problem with distances based corruption in general is it encourages the entire map to be a series of bland shaped blob realms. The only exception are tiny realms too small to feel the effect.

If it's per character then the characters will have the blobs, not the realms.

Also, instead of linear you could use something like the popular sigmoid style functions or tanh, where under a certain threshold, it's negligible, then it ramps up high after some point. You can customize those functions for where they start spiking up and how quickly it hits the peak.

That way, you can make it so that distance corruption doesn't kick in to some specified threshold, then ramps up nearly linearly to some cap point, then flattens out again, and all those values can be set as parameters of a single function.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2017, 07:46:52 AM by Cipheron »