Talk:Dwilight/Timeline

Guidelines for Inclusion of Events

Items to include on the timeline

• Founding/destruction of realms
• Capturing/change of ownership of cities/strongholds
• Tournaments
• War declarations
• Founding/destruction of religions
• Changes of ruler

Things not to include on the timeline

• Capture/change of possession of minor regions (anything not a city or stronghold)
• Minor diplomacy changes
• Non-ruler elections/appointments

If we add too much minor stuff, then the timeline will rapidly fill with all kinds of useless minutia and make the history too ponderous. If a specific series of events, each too minor to include by itself, occurs and makes a significant aggregate event, then add a subpage with a single entry on the timeline, such as was done with the Timeline of East Continent for The Krimml Incident.

Conversion to Dwilight Years

Since Dwilight has seasons, we actually have a concrete reference for IC years on Dwilight. I have converted the timeline over to use years based on 1 year = a four-season cycle. Since Dwilight started in Summer, I have set the year rotation to be the start of summer. I have converted the years back to 2008, and put them in italics. Ideally, they are just for our reference anyway. --Indirik 23:41, 3 September 2008 (CEST)

Great idea. Year 1, Year 2, ect... looks and sounds kinda bland though. Maybe change it to something like "The First year of Colinization" or "The First Year A.C. (After Colinization)."--Athins 08:20, 4 September 2008 (CEST)

I thought about that. (Actually, Arakiss started the idea, we hashed it out, and I did the conversion.) I prefer to not use abbreviations like AC/BC, or stuff like that. Too much like BC/AD (or the new-fangled, politically correct BCE/CE garbage). Naming the years is a good idea, if we can think of enough good names for them. The "Year of Arrival", "Year of Colonization", etc. are good places to start. Perhaps when we start a Second Age, like perhaps if one of the original realms fail, or the netherworld invades, etc., then the Age itself can be named, too. --Indirik 15:02, 4 September 2008 (CEST)

The initial idea was that we use AC, BC (AC for After Civilization) but then the list could go on and on, as every major historical change could be seen by individuals as a need to change the era - which simply needs too many different references. I also thought that it would benefit RP if major realms have their own different calendars, but after consulting with Indirik I changed my mind as probably every realm would wanna have their own calendar then. To name the years is good, but naming ages or eras sounds even better to me. This first age could be called something like the Age of Survival, Age of Infancy, Age of Colonization... But it is clear that it'll be a hard job on agreeing which event marks the beginning or the end of an era, but it has to be something really really big. --Arakiss 20:10, 4 September 2008 (CEST)

I guess that makes sense. I like you idea for the first two as the first year was primarily the original realms and the second year is when the colonies started to spring up. Maybe for the third, something to do with the battling of monsters and undead. As for eras, I like how the EC timeline is done, not really naming the era, but stating the events that begun it and ended it. Figuring out when eras change is fairly hard to do, as some people will have different opinions. It's really something that has to be done way after the fact as well. It will take months to know that an era has actually changed in most cases. --Athins 21:56, 4 September 2008 (CEST)

Well, good luck getting others to adopt it. People have been trying for as long as I've been in the game to get one non-RL dating system or another into widespread use, and all have failed (except for the mostly-RL convention of subtracting 1000 years from the current date, as below). --Anaris 14:18, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

I know. It may never get adopted in any way at all. However, the game itself does give us an actual framework we can use now, so why not? It's not like we're making up some completely artificial reference. We have seasons! The simple convention of four season per year, making the not-unrealistic assumption that we're on a nearly-parallel Earth, is perfectly reasonable. So why not track time as a function of those season? --Indirik 15:36, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

At first I was going to object because we know characters age a year about every 3 to 4 months(can't remember which). But before I ended up looking foolish, I decided to check season lengths(3 weeks). With 12 seasons equaling 3 months, I conclude that it is safe to use this as a year in Dwilight, possibly all of BM. --Vita Family 16:28, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

I believe Tom has stated (something like) that a year in BattleMaster is equal to a year on Earth, it's just that seasons run faster in BattleMaster than they do here. I'll have to go digging to find the quote, though. --Anaris 18:07, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

I'm glad to see positive opinions. Certainly, it'll be hard to get others to adopt it, but the best way to do that would be that as many as possible simply start using it; which should not be a problem as for now there hasn't been any extreme objections. The best thing about the idea is that the years are realistic. It would be hard to imagine that in a year (actually 8 months) since Dwilight exists, so many realms have managed to be born and destroyed, and vast land conquered. Since this is a RP island we should use as much as we can from the game. --Arakiss 18:41, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

12 seasons per "year" is a bit ridiculous. How would you come up with that as a believable measuring of time? And how would that correspond with the fact that when we talk about character age, we say that we age 1 year per four seasons, but 12 seasons make a year? We get three years older every year? I know the difference between the supposed "physical age" and "calendar age", but having a 3x disconnect between the two? At some point you just need to dump the old, contradictory interpretations and just go with what makes the most sense, based on what the game itself is telling you. The fact that the seasons correspond pretty much exactly with the rate the game ages you is pretty much a dead giveaway. --Indirik 20:04, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

Well, I don't know exactly how long Delvin was 49 for, but it was a lot longer than 3 months. I'm pretty sure that in the same D-list thread as the point above, Tom said that our characters do not specifically age at the rate you propose, and that if people were noticing it, it was likely a coincidence. And yes, I do indeed need to dig up that post so I can corroborate my points. --Anaris 20:11, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

My fault mate. I meant 12 weeks, not seasons. Does it make more sense now? --Vita Family 20:07, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

I think I crossed arguments in there, too, and mixed up Vita's and Anaris' comments. Basically, my point is that if you have 22 RL-day seasons, that's just over 16 seasons per RL year. I know Tom says that BM time runs at the same rate as RL time (I can't remember if he specifically said 1 RL year = 1 BattleMaster year), but for the purposes of the timeline it allows us to separate things out a bit better, and add a bit of RP flavor by considering the IG seasons as defining the IG year. (Especially considering the devastating effects of winters!) The fact that the seasonal rotation seems to correspond almost exactly with the rate at which the characters appear to age: 4 IG years per RL year (discounting the effects of wounding), only adds to the appeal of the system. --Indirik 20:29, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

Dates

What's with this 1008 non-sense? The game works with societies that are 1200-1500, really, so the relation really has little relevance, and was never supported by the game, it was just proposed by some players, and besides, it could also be interesting for different realms to have a different calendar, an eventuality, perhaps (like the chinese don't use our western grogorian calendar). I'd say we leave it to 2008, to avoid any possible confusing, not to mention alot of those things are OOC. -Chénier 15:37, 28 March 2008 (CET)

First, we do not need to use our planet earth / western cristian calendar at all, so there is no reason to use 1200-1500 either. However, quite a few people have started using '1008' here, corresponding to '2008' in the real world. It gives you an easy reference frame to how long certain wars for example did last...and it does just look quite a bit more medieval than '2008'. So I guess its a matter of preference...basically anything is better than 2008...grin TanSerrai 18:00, 28 March 2008 (CET)

Chénier, please, dont offend people by saying "this nonsense". As TanSerrai said, there is no reason to use the gregorian calendar or the 1200-1500 range. Some people, me included, began to use it in 2007, to reflect a more "medieval" feellig of that notation. You want to use other notation type in your proyects, good for you, it would be fun to see another calendar in the game, but this is as valid has what you can think. --Baldur Mekorig

Speaking as the person who has done the majority of the work on this project, I see nothing wrong with using 1008. I used 2008 because I was copying the format of the EC timeline, which was not originally started by me. Also to whoever added color, nice touch.--Athins 02:09, 29 March 2008 (CET).

Chenier, The Middle ages were from 900 AD to 1350 AD. After 1350 it was called the Renaissance. So the 1200-1500 timeline wont work. There is nothing confusing, I'm sure everyone can add or subtract 1000 here. Ceorl 14:00, 29 March 2008 (CET)

Officially, 1008 is somewhat in the middle of the Middle Ages, because officially the Middle Ages started in 476 with the fall of Rome and the Western Roman Empire, and lasted until 1453 with the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire). The feudalism that Tom is trying to reach with the oath systems and such things went from the 9th to the 14th century, like Ceorl says here above. So there's nothing wrong with 1008, back then people were waking up early to stand in a line for their Lord's early greeting and food for that day, as was the case in the period of feudalism. Medium 15:54, 29 March 2008 (CET)

"From the 9th to the 14th centuries—the heyday of feudalism—" - Wikipedia. I think this is BM time period. Ceorl 18:11, 29 March 2008 (CET)

I believe I may have been the first person to use the 100X year system. I tried to work out a calendar based on BM seasons and all, failed completely, and so resorted to the simple 100X notation. It allows us to escape the mundanity of 200X (that is to say, the obtrusive presence of obviously modern dates) dating conventions, without doing any complex math. Its a simple system, though I usually reference each RL year as a "cycle," lasting anywhere from 2-4 actual game years. Its just that backdating the cycles would be an extremely difficult task, and it'd warp time to start using 4 yr/1 yr conventions now. I started using the 100X dating conventions in... 2006 I believe? I can't remember seeing it before I used it, but my memory might be failing me. Vellos 06:55, 30 March 2008 (CEST)

seasons

should the date of new seasons be recorded? someone going back in date to add stuff will find it hard to remember what season it is when things happened... all they have is a date

eg 2008-07-21 Margel Founded the religion "Estianism". (in Panabuk)

That's a good point. I have the dates recorded here in an Excel file. They are approximate, as I recalculated them based on the first change from Summer to Autumn (which I know) and the most recent spring/summer transition. I will see if I can find a way to add them unobtrusively. --Indirik 15:23, 16 September 2008 (CEST)

Incidentally, instead of saying year, we might just want to say season... 1st spring, etc. though one might have to think of a term for 1 complete cycle of 4 years. I seem to remember Tom had quite clearly said 1 rl month = 1 bm month or something to that effect, so it only makes sense for that to apply to year. it doesn't matter a jot here because it's fairly obvious what everyone's on about as it's all listed out... but it's really really complicated when people use years meaning different things in the game. I seem to remember saying 1 year.. as in RL year.. then someone else think I merely meant 4 seasons. heh. --Fodder 21:49, 16 September 2008 (CEST)

The 1:1 correspondence between RL time and IG time is just an insane proposition. I know that Tom has been quoted as saying IG and RL time are the same, but that just doesn't work. The statement simply cannot be reconciled with available data unless you assume some really insane basis for time measurement. You'd need some kind of logical reason why people would organize 4 years into some larger organization, like a "Great Year" or something. Why would they do that? As such, I don't bother trying to reconcile the logical impossibilities of the two systems. IG time just is, and that's that. --Indirik 23:18, 16 September 2008 (CEST)

I think no one can deny 1 bm month is about 1 rl month, like 30 days or whatever it is. That's how the election are set up. it's the seasons that are dodgy, not the months. the tricky bit is the year (is there a new year message? forgot..) It's simply very, very difficult to keep track of it on an every day basis inside the game. We are not talking about using it in this wiki page as that's easy when everything is laid out and looking backwards. It gets even more awkward if people start using numbers like x008, and what not. How do you change the year without changing the number? --Fodder 08:09, 17 September 2008 (CEST)

No, there is no message when the year changes. The only message you get about the passage of time is the change of season. The labeling of years here on the timeline is just a system for keeping things organized, and to do so in a way that is familiar to everyone. --Indirik 14:42, 17 September 2008 (CEST)

I deny that 1 bm month is 1 non-virtual month. I believe Tom has said before that a character ages(avoiding faster ages for wounds and such) at about 3 non-virtual months to 1 bm year. This is one reason I really like the seasons. Four seasons, or 1 year, is equivalent to 3 of of our non-virtual months. --Vita Family 16:24, 17 September 2008 (CEST)

the wonders of google 1) http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss-moderated/2007-November/014096.html 2) http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss-moderated/2007-November/014098.html ...note.. age is not chronological age, I think most people die in their twenties or thirties (or something like that) back then --Fodder 21:49, 17 September 2008 (CEST)

Yes, I know that's what Tom said. It just doesn't make sense from our character's point of view. Yes, you can have three complete sets of seasons per year, but *why*? What set of circumstances could cause people to group three sets of seasons into a unit of time by which to measure their lives? Talk about inconvenient... "Hey, Joe, is this the second winter of the year, or the third? I never can keep track of those things." Agrarian societies, as BattleMaster is mostly, measure time based on harvests, as most of their is occupied with producing food so they can stay alive. And harvests are based on ... seasons The whole reason things like calendars are made is so people can track when to plant the crops. Now perhaps you could make some case for a theological reasoning behind grouping three sets of harvest into a unit of time that we could call a year. But what two religious groups could possibly ever agree on that, let alone a dozen or more? The reason we converted the time line to a year based on IG-seasonal progression was just to remove, to the extent possible, the use of RL dates in the time line. (We left them there, in gray, so people could more easily relate to them.) To a great extent I believe we succeeded with a time scale that almost everyone can agree on. The use of season-based years like that removes the need for using "2008" or the very annoying (to me and many others) "1008". So we now have a time scale that intuitively makes sense, is easy to use, and agrees to a very large extent to the apparent character aging rate. A year lasts long enough to make it seem a long time, yet changes fast enough to not make it seem that time is moving at a glacial pace. For me the new time scale makes sense, feels right, and is very internally consistent. --Indirik 00:55, 18 September 2008 (CEST)

New realms

2008-03-28 Grand Duchy of Fissoa - Duke Leon Agenor secedes from Madina, forming the 6th realm on Dwilight

The same format should be taken by D'Hara, which has overpowered Shadovar and will shortly end the TO of their capital. This isn't just a chapter of Shadovar's history, its a brand new realm that ought to have its own colour and history. -Chénier 17:58, 13 October 2008 (CEST)

Colors

I have changed the colors to the exact ones of the realm for the most part. In the future to find them you go to the information tab, then to realm list. Right click on the table in the center, scroll dow to "This Frame" and click on "View Frame Source". A little ways down you will see a bunch of lines looking somewhat like this:

<tr><td width=24 align=center><img src="/icons/Springdale-icon.png"></td><td><FONT COLOR=#FFC1FF>Springdale</FONT></td><td align=center>Monarchy</td><td align=left>Neel</td><td align=right>154 days</td><td align=right>218351</td><td align=center>64</td><td align=center>16</td><td align=center> <FONT SIZE=-1><a href="RealmDetails.php?ID=1">Details</a></FONT> </td></tr>

Where it says <FONT COLOR=#XXXXXX> is the color you want. I also think it would make life easier to keep a running table of the colors for each realm, so I will start one here. --Athins 20:08, 13 October 2008 (CEST)

While the idea of using the same color as in-game is a good one, legibility has to be the top priority. I have reverted the Caerwyn color. That bright yellow is practically impossible to read against a white background. If it's the same as the viridian color, then we'll just have to live with it. Viridian is dead anyway. And we're not going to be able to get a visually distinctive, unique color for every realm anyway. The Springdale color is a bit light, too. It can be read, but it's verging on too light against a white background. --Indirik 20:14, 13 October 2008 (CEST)

What if we put a black background behind the lighter texts? --Athins 05:32, 14 October 2008 (CEST)

IMNSHO: yuck... --Indirik 16:41, 14 October 2008 (CEST)

Cut Off

Obviously, with the amount of events happening per year, the length of this page is eventually going to grow to unwieldy amounts. Should we, after every five, ten, or X years, cut the page line off and start a new page? (That is, something like "Dwilight/Timeline/First(or Second, or Third, ect)Decade") If so, what would be a good year? --Anabellium 07:37, 22 December 2008 (CET)

Springdale	#FFC1FF
Morek	#a04040
Pian en Luries	#9E7F00
Madina	#e02040
Everguard	#3BB600
Grand Duchy of Fissoa	#FFFFFF(Can't use, same as Background)
Caerwyn	#FFFF1D
Shadovar	#FF1915
Astrum	#135AF9
Terran	#7A009D
D'Hara	#572BFF