Might & Fealty Community

Questions, Conduct, & Feedback => Rage Zone => Topic started by: Gustav Kuriga on April 20, 2017, 09:06:12 AM

Title: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Gustav Kuriga 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Cipheron 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: De-Legro 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Gustav Kuriga 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: De-Legro 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?
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: willy 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?
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: De-Legro 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: willy 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Andre 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: De-Legro 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
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Weaver 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'?
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Constantine 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Gustav Kuriga 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Dorian 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Weaver 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Gustav Kuriga 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Gustav Kuriga 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Weaver 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Gustav Kuriga 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Cipheron 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: De-Legro 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Cipheron 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: De-Legro 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Dorian 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
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Gustav Kuriga 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Cipheron 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Gustav Kuriga 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: De-Legro 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Andre 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?
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Cipheron 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.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: De-Legro on April 23, 2017, 12:57:43 PM
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.


I thought I posted about this before. The major change to the corruption system would be to get rid of the linear nature. My current set up allows for a few settlements per character with no corruption and ramps up from there.


I'm not convinced about distance corruption for the reason listed before, but also because it causes wars for mechanical reasons. Hey tiny realm to our east whom we have always been friendly with. Sad story we have expanded west as far as it practical, so guess we are going to have to take your land. No hard feelings though right.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Demivar on April 23, 2017, 01:00:50 PM
It is worth considering that the costs of corruption are already exponential. If we assume there's a 1-player realm, every new estate that you take adds a flat amount of % corruption which affects all other estates.


With 1 1k pop settlement you pay 2 food, for 2 1k pop settlements you pay 4 each, hence 8.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Andre on April 23, 2017, 01:09:57 PM

I thought I posted about this before. The major change to the corruption system would be to get rid of the linear nature. My current set up allows for a few settlements per character with no corruption and ramps up from there.


I'm not convinced about distance corruption for the reason listed before, but also because it causes wars for mechanical reasons. Hey tiny realm to our east whom we have always been friendly with. Sad story we have expanded west as far as it practical, so guess we are going to have to take your land. No hard feelings though right.

What do you think about my ideas though? Not specifically for corruption but for keeping realms in check in general, though you could probably incorporate corruption aswell. Afterall, people who lose stuff because of corruption wont be as happy.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Cipheron on April 23, 2017, 04:31:26 PM

I'm not convinced about distance corruption for the reason listed before, but also because it causes wars for mechanical reasons. Hey tiny realm to our east whom we have always been friendly with. Sad story we have expanded west as far as it practical, so guess we are going to have to take your land. No hard feelings though right.

That wouldn't work with the setup I suggested, because remember I suggested a "closeness" metric for one knight's towns as a whole, rather than a distance from a set point. e.g. if you were required to defined a nominated "seat of governance" and then calculate corruption based on that, you would indeed get the issue of only wanted to spread out in a circle. but that's not what I proposed, my suggestion would work differently. The center shifts based on the geographic heart of your towns.

If you invaded to the east, because invading to the west was too-high corruption, then the "gravitational center" would shift east, meaning you now pay more for corruption as a result of your existing western towns now being further from the "center of gravity".

A fast way to calculate this could in fact be a population-weighted average location, then take the average distance from each city to that point, also weighted by population. So if you take a few low-pop towns it won't matter too much, but if you start capturing mega-cities then the "center" will shift towards them, increasing the corruption rating for your existing towns. The result would be that if you wanted to capture a high-population center you would think twice about keeping it in the same polity as another high-population center you already own, you'd want to make them separate zones to keep the corruption reasonable.

And there's actually a paper on county size, and why counties created at different times are different sizes. It turns out that the deciding factor was transport technology at the time the county was created. Counties tend to be the size that minimizes the travel time for authorities to reach person X, where person X is any typical person in the county. The optimal county size varies based on population density. For more dense counties, the optimal size is smaller, for less dense counties, the optimal size is larger. And historical land divisions do actually adhere to the formula, and in a fractal sense, e.g. up to nation sizes.

So yeah, efficient region structures do actually play a big part in history, because the regions that were closest to the optimal shape outperformed those which were not. It might be mechanical, but that's not necessarily unrealistic.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Demivar on April 23, 2017, 04:53:08 PM
That wouldn't work with the setup I suggested, because remember I suggested a "closeness" metric for one knight's towns as a whole, rather than a distance from a set point. e.g. if you were required to defined a nominated "seat of governance" and then calculate corruption based on that, you would indeed get the issue of only wanted to spread out in a circle. but that's not what I proposed, my suggestion would work differently. The center shifts based on the geographic heart of your towns.

If you invaded to the east, because invading to the west was too-high corruption, then the "gravitational center" would shift east, meaning you now pay more for corruption as a result of your existing western towns now being further from the "center of gravity".

A fast way to calculate this could in fact be a population-weighted average location, then take the average distance from each city to that point, also weighted by population. So if you take a few low-pop towns it won't matter too much, but if you start capturing mega-cities then the "center" will shift towards them, increasing the corruption rating for your existing towns. The result would be that if you wanted to capture a high-population center you would think twice about keeping it in the same polity as another high-population center you already own, you'd want to make them separate zones to keep the corruption reasonable.
I believe that there was a lot of talk and good ideas for the implementation of seats of power, however. Generally speaking, administration and infrastructure sprawls out from courts as centres of power.


I'm actually not a fan of hard coding corruption to be more penalising as it already bites hard enough. It's even worse in regions where land is less valuable, not only are 'bad' settlements lacking in resources, they're already hard to manage as the provinces are a lot larger anyway. Distance based corruption would add to those issues even more.


Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Cipheron on April 23, 2017, 04:58:01 PM
You could scale per-settlement corruption based on a function (e.g. log function) of (population), to ensure it's not a big hit on a small town. The most useful one is the sigmoid type functions. Let me explain that:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Logistic-curve.svg/320px-Logistic-curve.svg.png)

Basicall you'd take the linear amount of corruption and multiply it by the sigmoid function over population, and you'd get a situation where very small cities effective get no corruption, then the multiplier increase to x1 at some arbitrary high level of population and you get the regular linear corruption from that point onwards. You can scale the -6 and +6 points to be equal to any start and end population levels you like, so the sigmoid function is handy for this sort of thing.

Also, corruption wouldn't have to be greater in a distance-based system. The average corruption in the game could be exactly the same, but it's scaled by distance from the court and a function of population size.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Demivar on April 23, 2017, 05:09:42 PM
You could scale per-settlement corruption as log(population) or something however, something to ensure it's not a big hit on a small town.

Also, corruption wouldn't have to be greater in a distance-based system. The average corruption could be exactly the same, but it's scaled by distance from the court and population size (or some log value of pop size). The average amount of corruption in the game could be the same or even lower than now.
Still can't quite agree with that. I'd prefer not to tie population with corruption, else a realm with loads of players and a lots of tax would burden down the liege (I know you suggested a log, but the principle still stands). It'd also be even easier to take swathes of the map, as the population part of the corruption would be negligible for impoverished land.


There's a confusion in a lot of people's minds between corruption and how centralisation should work. Corruption is tied to the player's account, and I don't think it should be tampered with too much. (De-Legro's planned change should fix an exploit with this, but particularly given the state of the game, I'd only bother with fixing exploits rather than any other changes).


As I said, Seats of Power was a thing talked about a lot, and many good things can come from it that would be very healthy for the game. It would promote the things that are good for M&F and is a no-brainer in my mind, really.

Edit: I posted before you included the log graph. Not that it matters, but that's a good thing to include for a lot of people. I've got a personal vendetta against pseudo intellectuals that like to reference parts of Maths that a lot of the world's population doesn't know about, and it kills discussions off. I get it, but it doesn't mean that others do too.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 23, 2017, 07:48:59 PM
Still can't quite agree with that. I'd prefer not to tie population with corruption, else a realm with loads of players and a lots of tax would burden down the liege (I know you suggested a log, but the principle still stands). It'd also be even easier to take swathes of the map, as the population part of the corruption would be negligible for impoverished land.


There's a confusion in a lot of people's minds between corruption and how centralisation should work. Corruption is tied to the player's account, and I don't think it should be tampered with too much. (De-Legro's planned change should fix an exploit with this, but particularly given the state of the game, I'd only bother with fixing exploits rather than any other changes).


As I said, Seats of Power was a thing talked about a lot, and many good things can come from it that would be very healthy for the game. It would promote the things that are good for M&F and is a no-brainer in my mind, really.

Edit: I posted before you included the log graph. Not that it matters, but that's a good thing to include for a lot of people. I've got a personal vendetta against pseudo intellectuals that like to reference parts of Maths that a lot of the world's population doesn't know about, and it kills discussions off. I get it, but it doesn't mean that others do too.

Why do you have a personal vendetta, and why do you call them pseudo-intellectuals?
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Cipheron on April 23, 2017, 07:59:18 PM
I think Demivar meant people who try to cite things just to sound clever, then don't try and explain it, it can come off as a type of elitism.

He was just saying that the visual helps because showing is better than telling. You just have to look at it and you get the feeling for how it would work, no need for the equations etc.

Quote
It'd also be even easier to take swathes of the map, as the population part of the corruption would be negligible for impoverished land.

That's sort of already the case. If you get 10 500-people towns then the total corruption costs (in "hard dollar terms") are 50% of having 10 1000-people towns.

One way that could benefit the current system would be to have "base corruption rate" which is just the normal 0.2% per settlement, and then each settlement gets an "effective corruption rate". The idea would be that it looks at the total account-wide resource burden from corruption, then skews it so that less of the cost is coming from your small towns. A town 50% smaller than average is currently only costing you 50% of the "average" towns corruption, that could be skewed to 25%, and bigger than average towns pay a bit extra to make up for it (but it wouldn't be that much more, proportionately). This could be calculated pretty fast just by knowing your total pop in your account, each town would get a +/- to corruption based on what share of population it represents and the total number of towns.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Demivar on April 23, 2017, 08:09:43 PM
I was going to respond to that, but Cipheron pretty much covered it.


If you look at the average person's education, a lot of people won't know what a log is/what a log graph looks like or even remember. If you want to reference those kinds of things, it's always best to make sure everyone knows what you're talking about so that people aren't excluded from the discussion.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on April 23, 2017, 08:15:21 PM
I was going to respond to that, but Cipheron pretty much covered it.


If you look at the average person's education, a lot of people won't know what a log is/what a log graph looks like or even remember. If you want to reference those kinds of things, it's always best to make sure everyone knows what you're talking about so that people aren't excluded from the discussion.

Ah ok, no problem then.
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: De-Legro on April 24, 2017, 02:27:39 AM
Account and Character corruption is something can be be modified/added quite easily to the current code base and the effects are also reasonably easy to predict. The same is not true of most forms of distanced based corruption. That is not to say it might not be added in the future and may or may not entirely replace the current system, but it is certainly not a priority for me.

If such a system was to be added it would need to address the problems BM always had with the system for example

In my head corruption is generally a function of administration. Administration difficulty is a function of distance, amount and some other factors not yet discussed (cultural differences, independence/rebel groups, corrupt officials etc). Thus we should be able to mitigate some effects by things like de-centralisation,  which in turn I guess bring there own penalties or risks.
I'm not a fan of a "geographical" center. Firstly it is not apparent nor easy to predict for the average player. Secondly is doesn't to me make logical sense. If corruption is the effect of distance from a bureaucratic central location, why would it change unless that central location is changed?
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Andre on April 24, 2017, 09:10:50 AM
Feels bad when your idea for how corruption or control issues could be done are completly ignored. :(
Title: Re: Settlement "snakes"
Post by: Andrew on April 24, 2017, 10:52:27 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 am tempted to have certain things appear and maybe have them interact with settlement stats, but only if I can also make those things, themselves, a fun occurence. Otherwise, any sort of little issue is basically something the character can outright ignore. Things like too high taxes are difficult to define (is it a tax or a trade or a tribute?), and lack of supply is something that already affects people--if anything I'd make that effect harder than it is now, but not as part of this concept.

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.

Until we start tracking the origins of goods, which is impossible without rewriting the trade system, this is impossible. Though I would like to reward diverse settlements down the line.

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. 

Like Tom, I'm not going to limit you from doing something you can actually decide to just do.

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?

Hm.

That wouldn't work with the setup I suggested, because remember I suggested a "closeness" metric for one knight's towns as a whole, rather than a distance from a set point. e.g. if you were required to defined a nominated "seat of governance" and then calculate corruption based on that, you would indeed get the issue of only wanted to spread out in a circle. but that's not what I proposed, my suggestion would work differently. The center shifts based on the geographic heart of your towns.

If you invaded to the east, because invading to the west was too-high corruption, then the "gravitational center" would shift east, meaning you now pay more for corruption as a result of your existing western towns now being further from the "center of gravity".

A fast way to calculate this could in fact be a population-weighted average location, then take the average distance from each city to that point, also weighted by population. So if you take a few low-pop towns it won't matter too much, but if you start capturing mega-cities then the "center" will shift towards them, increasing the corruption rating for your existing towns. The result would be that if you wanted to capture a high-population center you would think twice about keeping it in the same polity as another high-population center you already own, you'd want to make them separate zones to keep the corruption reasonable.

And there's actually a paper on county size, and why counties created at different times are different sizes. It turns out that the deciding factor was transport technology at the time the county was created. Counties tend to be the size that minimizes the travel time for authorities to reach person X, where person X is any typical person in the county. The optimal county size varies based on population density. For more dense counties, the optimal size is smaller, for less dense counties, the optimal size is larger. And historical land divisions do actually adhere to the formula, and in a fractal sense, e.g. up to nation sizes.

So yeah, efficient region structures do actually play a big part in history, because the regions that were closest to the optimal shape outperformed those which were not. It might be mechanical, but that's not necessarily unrealistic.

I like the logic here, but it kills islands, and doesn't take into account that we have instant communication as part of the game lore.

For what it's worth, I don't mind the current system. It's easy to figure out, and it's highly predictable. What I don't like is when I do database queries to find that one guy controls a relatively HUGE portion of the map because all 50 character slots all have like 3 estates on them each. Mind you, I've not done a query like that in a while, but I do sit down to note who does or does not control ridiculous amounts of land.

I'm not against someone having a bunch of land, or a character that controls 15 estates, but that's way more than one character can be reasonably expected to actually manage.