Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

PvP and PvE Options · View
King of Men
Posted: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 7:44:38 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,390
Location: Nowhere
Here's a possible way we could arrange our next CK campaign, to give the expansion players something to do while not forcing everyone to blob: Split the map into PvE and PvP areas. In the PvE area we enforce a realm size limit, as now. In the PvP area, anything goes, but:

  • A PvP player may not use a CB for any title in the PvE area, and must spin off such titles if he acquires one.
  • Upon conversion, PvP realms will be split into an AI part and a playable part, the latter obeying the realm-size rule. Alternatively, the player may move to the ROTW.
  • If one player wins the PvP area, they will get an achievement, and the area will be reset into multiple about-equal realms that can fight again.

    Some thought about the achievements might be required. The PvP players can more easily acquire auction points, since they can expand without limit and put their dynasty in everywhere; on the other hand they also take more risk of being eliminated.

    Thoughts?

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
  • The Professor
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:32:00 AM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,413
    Location: Time
    I just feel like there's a massive gulf between Players Who Know How to Play and Players Who Kinda Know How To Play And Only Like Sandcastles and Players Who Know How to Play But Get Screwed by RNG and Players Who Get Screwed By RNG and Don't Know How to Play.

    Like add in player machinations on top of RNG shenanigans and you have a recipe for frustration.

    Maybe there are more mods we can stack on to add some more clicks for Feudal players who got nothing to do instead of trying to finangle more rules that might not work as intended.

    Like PvP as is is fine, we've had James trying to fuck with Hoonter which would've been fine in a vacuum and it was only for a province or two and it made things Suitably Exciting for all observers and popcorn was passed around; and then there's the viking players and raids and the Scandinavia-England dynamic which I Haven't Paid Attention To But I Am Sure Is Interesting For Those Involved.

    There was something Clone-Vaniver related which I don't know what happened and is a shame Clone decided to probably quit over reasons I'm not sure what exactly happened?


    I think ultimately the problem lies in it really takes a certain dedicated kind of player to play a Greater HRE feudal when things get quiet and find it fun and we've had bad luck in that regard but I don't think the gaps are too bad yet. It feels like we have enough players for Western/Central Europe; it's Eastern Europe I'm starting to get nervous about.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    James Craig
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:22:48 AM
     2nd Lieutenant


    Joined: 2/1/2013
    Posts: 144
    Location: Scotland
    The lesson to be learned is that offensive war without overwhelming U.S. levels of superiority is a pointless waste of resources. Better to always be defensive and fight on your terms in this game. Im not sure I like the pvp regions. Maybe a better idea would be to select pvp or not at game start if you want to be involved, with an accelerated score value based on that choice. This would act sort of like picking a harder difficulty on a score based game, and would leave people who want no part in it out of the fighting. Should you actively participate in pvp you could benefit from a wider range of achievements as well as greater opportunities to place dynasts on the throne. I feel like this would create an easier way for you as a GM to keep track of the pvp rather than assigning it to arbitrary zones. A flat boost to score by marking yourself as a pvp participant would be far easier to track and settle disputes with. If they aren't marked, they are off-limits. easy peasy..

    Also, as a fix for the kingdom cb, I suggest we make clear that an edit request can be made to give a family member a strong (or weak) claim on a specific title with intent to spin it off after the war. this uses base game mechanics and may prove more stable and predictable than what we have been using.

    Vae Victis!
    King of Men
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:36:22 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,390
    Location: Nowhere
    Quote:
    Im not sure I like the pvp regions. Maybe a better idea would be to select pvp or not at game start if you want to be involved, with an accelerated score value based on that choice.


    The problem with this is that the PvPs will scoop up all the territory, leaving nowhere for the PvEs to expand.



    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 1:36:46 PM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,123
    That and it's far more efficient to pick PVE and encircle other players with a hug of death than pick pvp and actually be worried about being declared on.

    Also the kingdom cb is fixed, I used it to great affect last session.
    oddman
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:18:12 PM
     Admiral

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 3/16/2007
    Posts: 2,826
    Location: Netherlands
    dragoon9105 wrote:
    That and it's far more efficient to pick PVE and encircle other players with a hug of death than pick pvp and actually be worried about being declared on.

    Also the kingdom cb is fixed, I used it to great affect last session.


    *effect

    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
    -Bertrand Russell
    The Professor
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:23:37 PM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,413
    Location: Time
    James Craig wrote:
    The lesson to be learned is that offensive war without overwhelming U.S. levels of superiority is a pointless waste of resources. Better to always be defensive and fight on your terms in this game.


    Not at all, you got screwed because of outside meddling; you would've won after wiping his stack after the first battle otherwise and just siege'd your way to victory.

    It's actually far better to go on the offencive in this game, because winning a defencive war confers you no territory if you manage to win; it's better to go on the offencive and pre-emptively strike; win or lose its a better result.


    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    James Craig
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 6:43:03 PM
     2nd Lieutenant


    Joined: 2/1/2013
    Posts: 144
    Location: Scotland
    Maybe that would be the case, but we also should remember that players tend to play co-cooperatively more than anything, so I dont necessarily believe that all the PVE players would make a death coil around the PvP guys. Plus there is non contiguous expansion through crusades and claims. When you add a realm size limit onto that (I dont think we were advocating its removal but I might be wrong) I feel like it would be harder to do what you are talking about than the initial reaction would point.

    As to blaynes comment about war, perhaps. But every conflict I have seen thus far has been loaded with outside meddling from direct monetary contribution to excommunication and aid by raiding and fighting. That is why I mentioned massive superiority. But with realm-size like it is I don't necessarily see the gain compared to resources lost for minor territorial concessions. Its just too costly IMHO

    Vae Victis!
    Ranger9000
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:10:20 PM
     Captain

    Joined: 4/11/2013
    Posts: 296
    I don't really think trying to split the players involved would be a good idea, its a set of rules that I think people will just end up abusing for various reasons. Honestly I don't find the system we have to be that much of an issue, we technically have only had two people move due to believing their position is untenniable, the others have just dropped off the map for whatever reason. As for offensive wars, the war between Scandinavia and the British Isles I think went along mostly uninfluenced from the outside. In general one thing you should do when your doing the attacking is you need to avoid looking like the bad guy, as that is usually what causes the money to flow into the other side. Though being up for panhandling to get some funds of your own could help.
    James Craig
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 8:11:41 PM
     2nd Lieutenant


    Joined: 2/1/2013
    Posts: 144
    Location: Scotland
    Yea, i'm certainly no bismark. however, he didnt have to watch decades pass in mere hours waiting for his opportunities. =P

    Vae Victis!
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:23:41 PM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,123
    Right so Looking at the current situation, How the last two games played out and of course this game I've got some thoughts on how to handle this.

    Segregating the Player base is a terrible Idea, Nobody will pick Pvp becuase there will be large player shapes Islands on the map they are not allowed to touch. Which means keeping things like achievements and such suddenly become impossible. Nevermind theres nothing stopping someone like myself from declaring myself a PVE player, Blobbing my dynasty over half the map and then saying "Nope, Im PVE you cant attack me Nanananana Na"

    Khan proposed a system that was ultimately dismissed but I liked and I think could work.

    Simply put Pvp in Ck2 has a few major problems we've been over quite in detail, Wars are all or nothing, If say, Zirotron and Golle were to fight they would be Kingdom Cb's on their primary Kingdoms, and once one of them was successful, they would have effectively killed the other person and thus the slot. A fairly major oversight of our player balance was that nobody is going to want to be a punching back, rising back up to power in their Kingdom only to be beaten down again by someone more skilled than they are.

    Meanwhile the skilled players still spread thier dynasty over much of the map. Take the current situation in France for Instance. I control all of Italy, Bavaria and Burgundy, Vaniver controls France, Aquitaine and Austrasia, Together we have eliminated 3 Player Spots that were intended, Netherlands, Aquitaine, Bavaria, With 2 Slots (Venice and Italy) being pushed into obscurity and a final 6th slot, Catalonia dieing indirectly from this balance. Now of course a Seventh is on the way, a Scandinavian Slot, And I'm sitting at 2800 Prestige meaning if I wanted to add an eight I could very well try.

    Khan's idea, the original one anyway was that players that get eliminated become cadets of the house that eliminated them. Using this game as an example James would become Vaniver's Cadet house, and have to either eliminate Vaniver to get back the right to convert as aquitaine or to get score or something.



    I want to expand on this idea with what I'm going to call a "Say uncle" Rule.

    Instead of some right to convert or something a bit more abstract heres how it would work.

    If One player completly eliminates another player from thier primary holding the defeated player is given the option of surrendering IE 'saying Uncle' at that point the defeated player becomes a cadet to the winning dynasty and at conversion 1/3-1/4 (Something significant but not overly huge) of their Score is added to the Eliminator's.

    From this point The Eliminator is no longer allowed to pursue hostile action against the Player directly, IE declaring war, assassinating them or their close family etc. The Eliminated Player's realm is reconstructed for the next session and he will be allowed to continue playing as he was or move to a currently open slot, No new slot opening. So James under this scenario can be reconstructed in Aquitaine or Play Catalonia/Bavaria/Netherlands. Regardless of what he chooses he is still a Cadet and his dynasty counts as Vaniver's for Regional Achievement Sets (things like Hapsburg).

    James can get the score he will lose to Vaniver back by making Vaniver 'say uncle in turn' Though there is a catch, once James declares a direct war against Vaniver he loses his protections and Vaniver can freely try and kill him again though he will not gain further chucks of James' score by eliminating him a second time. If Vaniver has eliminated multiple players, Then only the player that makes Vaniver submit gets to turn the tables, all the other ones are simply 'released' and wont have anyone shaving score off the top.

    Now there would need to be some considerations for the rule. First off, not being allowed to surrender to someone who is less powerful than you. If Ranger declares war on Blayne thats roughly equal strength. If Ranger declared war and Scandinavia surrendered that wouldn't be allowed. until Scandinavia is considered weaker.

    This sort of fixes the Pvp vs Pve Issue in my eyes. Pvp Players can force more passive players around them to submit but will be barred from hostile actions in exchange for some score. Pve Players no longer need worry about a big bad empire coming for them in the middle of the night since they can buy thier lives for conversion points and have an opportunity later on to get revenge. Which also doubles for providing PVP players from going after too many people becuase then there will be a de-facto coalition of angry players that will all want them dead.



    In theory we can also extend this rule to EU4 since its far too late to implement it in Ck2. With the Eu4 version of the Say Uncle Rule, The Eliminator can demand borders clean up and some essential war goals still be filled but otherwise will simply receive a bonus equal to some percentage of a subjugated nations score and points they would have had for any victory cards the Subjugated is sitting on. So, Yami from last game for example could have surrendered to both me and Mark, Giving him time to breath and find outside Aid or play his new masters against each other in hopes to eventually struggle free. So the power dynamics of regions like Italy and Germany can be recreated more naturally.

    One flaw I can see at least in Eu4 is abusing the system a bit with preplanned subjugations and such, but there are ways to get around that, IE making surrendering being fairly punitive, prohibiting alliances/province trading between Subjugated and Subjugator ect. Theres also an issue with multiple players taking a piece of quitting. In the circumstances of Quitting we can simply extend a limited amount of protection to the AI(Which can in theory allow for God forbid, AI Minors while people go to the rotw to fill slots), In the instances of Multiplayer players allowing multiple surrenders (Provided the strength rule is followed) is enough, As we can always say all surrenders after the first cannot result in territory loss for the surrenderee after they are reduced to a certain level of development.

    I do thing despite any flaws it has it may be a good change to make since it'll ensure minors actually survive into V2 (Novel Concept) and it'll prevent things like the #1 Power eating the #2 power completly unopposed. Since now the #2 power has actual ingame enforcement that they will be allowed to continue to live by going "Screw it I surrender, take some development and score and go the hell away". It also means that in situations like Hoonter's in china, he could have been given some of his lands back and surrendered to blayne becuase of his sub royally dropping the ball.
    The Professor
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:38:24 PM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,413
    Location: Time
    I'm concerned on what this means in regards to a large aspect of largely unused mechanics for player interactions, such as plots, assasinations etc; are those still allowed? Can a Uncled player try to at least prepare things via plots, intrigues, and the uncolder be able to plot back and use feudal mechanics to deal with an unruly vassal?

    CK2 isn't EU, and there's a large amount of room for interaction that isn't just "War" and "Not at war".

    Also what does this rules do in regards to Republics/Tribals/Muslims/Etc.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:59:35 PM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,123
    If someone get subjugated they can plot and assassinate and take hostile actions, but if they are caught that violates that.

    Once a Hostile action has been performed intentionally by a subjugated player the target is free to exact vengeance. You get the one strike so to speak, so its better to Plot in the style of ck2 and choose your moment.

    Government type wouldn't matter. Everyone earns score and performs diplomacy the same way ultimately.

    The Professor
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:05:15 PM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,413
    Location: Time
    I dunno, it feels like "round 2" of the Uncle Wars should only really happen in the case of a dow.

    Because plotting against the Uncolder gives him the imprisonment CB, so he tries to imprison you, if you meekly let yourself be imprisoned that should continue to protect you.

    Game mechanics exist and shouldn't be ignored.

    RIP my dynasty score since I've only ever landed one count from my family and then revoked it from the ungrateful ingrate.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:26:10 PM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,123
    Your not actually being subjugated. You retain your independence.

    When you 'surrender' you as a Player are conceding a percentage of your dynasty score to your attacker so you have a GM enforced NAP until you break it.
    King of Men
    Posted: Friday, November 17, 2017 6:18:18 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,390
    Location: Nowhere
    Looks like nobody is much in favour of the PvP regions idea.

    Quote:
    Nevermind theres nothing stopping someone like myself from declaring myself a PVE player, Blobbing my dynasty over half the map and then saying "Nope, Im PVE you cant attack me Nanananana Na"


    Well yes, it would then be up to the other PvE players to stop you. Perhaps my terminology was confusing - the PvEs are still allowed to attack players, they just have the realm-size limit to prevent them from blobbing. Maybe "size limit" and "blobbing" regions would be better nomenclature.

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
    The Professor
    Posted: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:01:31 PM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,413
    Location: Time
    I'm of the opinion that the size limits have largely been successful in their stated goal; and that the main issue now as a result of it is that being Feudal in the middle of Europe with limited expansion options is a little 'UnFun'.

    Maybe instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and changing up rules that do work; we should focus on suggestions and mods that could make Feudals More Fun.

    Ideas, I haven't searched the Workshop but at a glance:
    -Building Mods, give Feudals more stuff to build, possibly with prestige; like the family palace.
    -More options for borrowing gold.
    -War mods: like Warrior Kings, so you have more options in combat, to make CompStomps more interesting.
    -More CBs, maybe instead of just pure expansions we can have 'tournament' wars, just for a chance to earn prestige and artifacts.
    -commerce mods? Maybe there's a way to let Feudals have some trading mechanics so that less people maybe tempted to swap to Feudal.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:05:44 PM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,123
    I've played plenty of mods blayne, the only way you make Ck2 more exciting is actual conquest. Putting dynasty members on foreign thrones is the equivalent of Splenda which you can get by on but serious players don't want to sit in a session for 4 hours clicking buildings and fighting pointless wars. This doesnt just applies to feudals either, If I was playing a Republic I was be just as aggressive as I am now.
    The Professor
    Posted: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:07:18 PM
     General of the Army

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/17/2007
    Posts: 8,413
    Location: Time
    I dunno, I'm playing a Republic and having fun; a bit overwhelming at times with the sheer number of things to do; so if someone is in my position and is bored then the problem is them; and we're clearly just not going to please everyone.

    e: "Serious" Players won't get stuck in the middle of Europe but will find a way to make things interesting for themselves; they aren't the target audience.

    Their game can only exist to be won.
    Then so be it who else can see it done.
    Vaniver
    Posted: Saturday, November 18, 2017 4:58:14 AM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    I find the 'say uncle' suggestion mostly unsatisfying. Several points:

    1. In-game solutions should be used whenever possible, and it's not clear to me what this provides over the normal CK2 vassal system. (Or the permanent tributary added in Jade Dragon; one can easily imagine making a decision such that you can end a war against a more powerful player by becoming their tributary.)

    2. As stated, it only benefits the subjugator at conversion. Suppose I take out James session 2, set him up as a cadet and invest in him, and then in session 9 he rebels with support and in session 10 we convert. I end up considerably worse off than if he had been regular AI. It seems better to siphon score based on the amount of time that someone has said uncle--which is bothersome to track, unless it's in-game somehow or done session-by-session.

    3. There being no serious loss to the underling for rebelling (since you can respawn in the same spot again) and only avoided loss for the overlord from winning a rebellion seems like it encourages a bunch of wars that have a similar flavor to independence league revolts in mid-game CKII, which is my least favorite part of the game.

    4. It seems like this general class of solution pushes us closer to a faction game for the CKII phase, which seems like something that should be either embraced directly or pushed against harder.
    James Craig
    Posted: Saturday, November 18, 2017 6:28:31 AM
     2nd Lieutenant


    Joined: 2/1/2013
    Posts: 144
    Location: Scotland
    Honestly, the more I think about it, the more confusing these ideas and rules become. The main problem i'm having with this is understanding exactly what the goal of a rule change would be, as well as the exact perceived problem. Are we trying to encourage certain behavior, maintain longevity in player slots after they have been "destroyed" or are we trying to create a more fun experience in the ck2 phase in general. I feel like if the end goal and overall problem was better defined we might be able to more clearly come to a solution In simplest terms, what is the undesirable behavior/issue and what behavior/result are you looking for. I feel like this being unclear is what trips up my suggestions more often than not. They are coming from a position of ignorance, and I would rather not operate in that kind of environment. Sorry if the question seems condescending or otherwise offensive, but know that this is not the intention. I would honestly like to put my mind to a solution and help the group as a whole, but it is rather hard with so many dissonant voices offering such radically different solutions to an unclear problem.

    Vae Victis!
    King of Men
    Posted: Saturday, November 18, 2017 6:50:04 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,390
    Location: Nowhere
    Quote:
    The main problem i'm having with this is understanding exactly what the goal of a rule change would be, as well as the exact perceived problem.


    Fair question. The problem I was trying to solve was the complaints from several people about having nothing to do once they reached their realm-size limit. Setting up a PvP zone gives such players a chance to blob to their hearts' content (although, to be honest, if you don't find CK's excellent management, character, and story dynamics interesting then it's beyond me how you can enjoy the biggest-stack no-interaction warfare, but ok, diversity of interests), and setting up a PvE zone gives roleplayers a chance to play without being forced into the blobbing playstyle just to survive.

    I should note that I also have considerable sympathy for Blayne's suggestion that the realm size limit is working as intended to enforce a lack of blobbing, and that blob players should just suck it up and enjoy making Glitterhoof Pope. Big Grin

    That said, to the extent that we're "enforcing" a roleplaying style, or at least a non-blobbing style, maybe we should embrace that a little harder? For example, Ranger has said that in the next CK game he wants to play the Avars and reproduce their historical migration across Europe, eating kingdoms and spitting them out behind him. Maybe we could find a dozen storylines like this, and have those be the goals? And we can give achievement points for completing them, or for major milestones.

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
    King of Men
    Posted: Saturday, November 18, 2017 6:50:53 AM
     Legatus legionis

    One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

    Joined: 11/23/2007
    Posts: 8,390
    Location: Nowhere
    Quote:
    The main problem i'm having with this is understanding exactly what the goal of a rule change would be, as well as the exact perceived problem.


    Fair question. The problem I was trying to solve was the complaints from several people about having nothing to do once they reached their realm-size limit. Setting up a PvP zone gives such players a chance to blob to their hearts' content (although, to be honest, if you don't find CK's excellent management, character, and story dynamics interesting then it's beyond me how you can enjoy the biggest-stack no-interaction warfare, but ok, diversity of interests), and setting up a PvE zone gives roleplayers a chance to play without being forced into the blobbing playstyle just to survive.

    I should note that I also have considerable sympathy for Blayne's suggestion that the realm size limit is working as intended to enforce a lack of blobbing, and that blob players should just suck it up and enjoy making Glitterhoof Pope. Big Grin

    That said, to the extent that we're "enforcing" a roleplaying style, or at least a non-blobbing style, maybe we should embrace that a little harder? For example, Ranger has said that in the next CK game he wants to play the Avars and reproduce their historical migration across Europe, eating kingdoms and spitting them out behind him. Maybe we could find a dozen storylines like this, and have those be the goals? And we can give achievement points for completing them, or for major milestones.

    Read my blog.
    Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
    dragoon9105
    Posted: Saturday, November 18, 2017 6:54:02 AM
     Lieutenant General


    Joined: 8/25/2014
    Posts: 2,123
    I should point out I have no problems with the Size limits as they are currently working. Though I think nerfing the Kingdom CB even more next time might be needed. I just think weve been doing a poor job of refilling slots.

    The only reason we have two british islanders for example is becuase you guys insist on beating your heads against holy orders while refusing to embrace the true word of the Cannibal Pope
    Vaniver
    Posted: Sunday, November 19, 2017 2:01:00 AM
     Lieutenant Colonel


    Joined: 1/19/2014
    Posts: 662
    dragoon9105 wrote:
    I just think weve been doing a poor job of refilling slots.
    What's the mechanism for refilling slots, tho?

    It seems to me like we have difficulty filling slots at any time besides starting a new game, and the dropout rate is pretty high. (Not just people getting knocked out and deciding to not come back, but also people deciding the time slot isn't to their liking, or getting fed up with the game, or so on.) It's hard to convince people to join a game if they'll be below average, and it's hard to convince people currently in the game to accept newcomers joining at above average strength.

    Which says to me that we need to balance games around assuming a decline in the number of players, not that it'll stay steady (or increase).
    Users browsing this topic
    Guest


    Forum Jump
    You cannot post new topics in this forum.
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
    You cannot create polls in this forum.
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

    Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
    Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
    Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.