Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Journal"
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Thanks for the "The Journal," keep it up! | Thanks for the "The Journal," keep it up! | ||
+ | |||
+ | :Hehe, it's a bit of both actually. Rhetorical and I wanted to know :-) Way back when, Malice and Basil were both Generals about the same time, which is when Malice first came to think of Basil as somewhat of an arrogant blow hard. Then we got to the Falasan-Eston War, by which time Malice was King of Ash Sea Islands and he stood firmly alongside Falasan. In addition to King Andrew's diplomatic proclamations to his fellow rulers, Duke Basil would often make his own announcements to the rulers of Atamara and that's when Malice and Basil really began to bicker. Which, in turn I think, saw Eston begin pulling down temples of Magna Serpaensism and then Malice contrived to get the Venerable Order of the Citadel declared evil. It was a good bit of fun, I can tell you. A shame to hear he quit, though after the skulduggery that did for the Ash Sea Islands, I can well understand the sentiment. My thanks for the update in any case! --[[User:Revan|Revan]] 20:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
|author = [[User:Perth|---Player of the Perth Family]] | |author = [[User:Perth|---Player of the Perth Family]] | ||
Line 56: | Line 58: | ||
:::Same here... I just lost one of my characters, Nicolas Chénier, who was pretty much as high as he could get in the realm. But he was far from being some skeleton. Aside from often not running just to give others a chance, he was hell-bent on continental domination, and that gave him a lot to do to occupy his time. I've got a well-placed character on Dwilight, but that place is so precarious that any political unrest threatens to outright kill the realm, so why would I even think of doing anything there? Besides, he'd just risk losing his more than comfy spot, and he's better off as he is than he would be as ruler. I've got a third character, rather new, who I am building up. I don't mind having newbie characters, I'm sure I'll be able to get him in a reasonable spot within reasonable time, but he can't fill the enormous void the death of my other character created. And fleeing would have had the same result as death. While I understand that they are trying to create an atmosphere with this, I would disagree with ever expanding it everywhere, or during non-invasion times. After all, it just tends to prop up more clone characters, and with the ridiculous high death rates in certain realms, it's easily understandable if they are simply all handed back what their dead sibling once had: after all, there's nobody else left to fill the role. This doesn't stimulate RP, it just discourages people from investing in their characters or to take risks. Hell, you can die from simply preaching now. Think I'll go cross the borders to preach in hostile lands when I'm likely to die by peasants, considering the number of serious wounds I would get? Would generals want to order their men into wars as much, to attack strong fortified cities in tough situations as much, knowing a number of them may die? War weariness would explode. And since most people don't find much fun in the trader or bureaucrat games, nor have the time for the political games, that's a very bad thing. The invasion forces battle onto us, but without this mortality would be a very, very bad thing, IMO. -[[User:Chénier|Chénier]] 13:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC) | :::Same here... I just lost one of my characters, Nicolas Chénier, who was pretty much as high as he could get in the realm. But he was far from being some skeleton. Aside from often not running just to give others a chance, he was hell-bent on continental domination, and that gave him a lot to do to occupy his time. I've got a well-placed character on Dwilight, but that place is so precarious that any political unrest threatens to outright kill the realm, so why would I even think of doing anything there? Besides, he'd just risk losing his more than comfy spot, and he's better off as he is than he would be as ruler. I've got a third character, rather new, who I am building up. I don't mind having newbie characters, I'm sure I'll be able to get him in a reasonable spot within reasonable time, but he can't fill the enormous void the death of my other character created. And fleeing would have had the same result as death. While I understand that they are trying to create an atmosphere with this, I would disagree with ever expanding it everywhere, or during non-invasion times. After all, it just tends to prop up more clone characters, and with the ridiculous high death rates in certain realms, it's easily understandable if they are simply all handed back what their dead sibling once had: after all, there's nobody else left to fill the role. This doesn't stimulate RP, it just discourages people from investing in their characters or to take risks. Hell, you can die from simply preaching now. Think I'll go cross the borders to preach in hostile lands when I'm likely to die by peasants, considering the number of serious wounds I would get? Would generals want to order their men into wars as much, to attack strong fortified cities in tough situations as much, knowing a number of them may die? War weariness would explode. And since most people don't find much fun in the trader or bureaucrat games, nor have the time for the political games, that's a very bad thing. The invasion forces battle onto us, but without this mortality would be a very, very bad thing, IMO. -[[User:Chénier|Chénier]] 13:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::::Now there's a perspective I had not considered. Mortality could go too far and leave us with a lot of recycled characters and players fatigued with making them over and over. The very thought makes me shudder. Could there be a middle ground though? Instead of universal mortality, perhaps older characters could have a chance of dying? Though that isn't particularly fair either. Regardless, I am inclined to think that I might have to enjoy the perils of mortality on Beluaterra whilst it lasts. Indeed, perhaps we should all be thankful we have such a benevolent GM, heh. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::::As for those new characters, my main struggle there is the with the way BattleMaster has evolved. It takes a lot more effort than it once did to engage fellow players. If you can't engage, it's hard to connect with or enjoy the new character you're establishing. Which is one of the reasons I would find it so very easy to play Malice until the BattleMaster servers went down if I could. Simply for familiarities sake. Though perhaps the real problem here is that I'm playing in all the wrong places. It might be time to start exploring BattleMaster again for more exciting realms. --[[User:Revan|Revan]] 20:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
|author = --[[User:Haerthorne|Aerywyn]] 04:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC) | |author = --[[User:Haerthorne|Aerywyn]] 04:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 22:11, 22 July 2010
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/skins/common/images/bm-logo.png The Journal | ||
Discussion Board | ||
Another aspect of this project is that I would like to generate some discussion and maybe even an exchange of tales and views. These days, it isn't really appropriate to have OOC exchanges in-game. Likewise, whilst the discussion list serves its purpose, it's a little too heated for my tastes. Perhaps this little Oasis of Tranquility can become the place for mature and nuanced debate about BattleMaster? I can dream... |
Immortality
Just so you know... | July 22, 2010 |
Dear User 6707,
I have been playing BM for about 3 years now (though I quite and came back after about a year or so, but have been back now for a good two years). I have recently discovered "The Journal" and quite enjoy it and encourage you to continue with it. I am writing simply to answer I question you asked in your article on mortality. You asked (I hope not rhetorically) about what ever happened to Basil Ariston. Well, when I first joined this game Basil Ariston was a mentor (not literally, but in all respects) to my character Kerwin, in Eston on Atamara. Well, you see, Basil was the long time Duke of Massillion, which was Eston controlled for a very long time if I am not mistaken. One day, Eston's ally, Darka, decided to turn on Eston (or rather, was hired out by Minas Ithil with whom Eston was fighting at the time) and Darka marched right in and took over Massillion in two days. Eston was much weaker and left powerless to do anything about it. In fact, our leaders groveled for mercy and made peace on the promise we would in return attack our Federated allies Norland... which we did. However, the point about Basil Ariston is that the player was so upset that Darka could walk in and TO Massillion in two days, one which had been part of Eston for so long, so easily, that he was infuriated to the point of deleting his account. He deleted his account before peace had even been made, I believe. And he was gone. I don't know if he has returned since, but that is the story. Thought you might enjoy it. Thanks for the "The Journal," keep it up!
| |
---Player of the Perth Family |
Death and Glory | . |
Dear writer of the Journal,
I've played since 2007 and have experienced the highs and lows of extreme character roleplay; that is, seeing a character develop over a long period of time and assume their own little space in the heads of myself and others. First of all, I can understand why everyone fears the idea of their characters dying -- but that is no reason not to put their character in the way of death. My original character, Aerywyn Haerthorne, had come far and became a major player in both the politics, warfare and general life of Arcaea and the main reason I played Battlemaster. He had advanced so far as a character that he and the King were considered to be inseperable juggernaughts (ok, the juggernaught is a bit much, but you get the idea). He died in a duel defending his people's honour about a week after gaining a city for himself at the prime of his life. Whilst a very good character that I sorely miss was removed so suddenly, the character did not disappear. Whilst I fell into a slump in regards to Battlemaster for a little while, if I had thrown him into dangerous struggle I would not built him up as a character, and if I had not done that then he would have lived a safe life instead of dying in a duel he could not refuse. If you played your character well then people will remember them. Now, I am against the idea of mortality for every island on Battlemaster because obviously some people would not like that and it would go further to persuading some to leave a game that is enhanced by their participation. But in regards to Beluaterra I think it captures the mad urgency of everything on a greater level. For a roleplaying reason you could argue that in normal war there are people holding back, the polity of common nobility stopping fellow knights from striking to kill. In Beluaterra you have numerous non-human factions with a completely different view of war which is in turn affecting the humans to make them more... highly strung, in a way. It comes in the greater context of Beluaterra that you are fighting for your life, not just fighting for your honour. But back on the idea of mortality and what it means for characters. Currently I have on character on Beluaterra; King Celyn of the Dominion of Alluran. One of his motivations is to save the lives of his own people, whom he views have been forsaken by the greater morasse of humanity (he did not have a fun time on Dwilight either) and left to the jaws of an invading force to which his kingdom was the first to fall. Twice during the invasion he came close to death, once even falling to critically wounded from wounded because apparently the surgeons botched the job. So he has a healthy fear of death and scorns those who believe honour is everything. As a result he accepts the offer of the monsters and finds solace in the fact that "at least they don't insult us" and figured that they aren't so bad after all. All of this has fleshed him out immensely, down to the fact that if he survies he will have a claim to being one of the hardest nails in the game. That the chances of death are rather high makes that all the more enjoyable. Here is a poem that came to mind as soon as the invasion began.
-Robert Herrick (1591-1673), "Momenti mori", my friends.
| |
--Aerywyn 04:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
Estates
Villains finish last. | . |
Dear "The Journal"
I have a subject you may like to include in your next article. I have been playing a villain character on Dwilight for some time, you may have heard of him he is the Demon of Dwilight, and I think that we players who choose the dark side have hard luck. The question you will address is "what to do with an old character?", what I am wondering is "what to do with a villain character?" Since BM is a social game, playing a villain character bounds the player to failure. Not to say that my villain character is not my favourite, I have had the best times with him, but there is an inevitable doom. What do you think? P.S. I am a big fan of the show!
| |
D.west.ton |
Expansionary Wars... | . |
...are not the only kind of war there is. In Dwilight, for example, the Averoth/Astrum war, the Raivan/Morek war, the current Xinhai/Aquilegia wars are not expansionary in any way. That is less so on other continents, but I think it's part of what makes Dwilight different.
| |
vonGenf 09:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
General Comments | . |
I look forward to your other articles. Your current one has already sparked some ideas in the bm dev channel on IRC. I've always thought we needed to recruit more players. However, my attempts at this brought in the typical Nighthawk624 player, so I ditched it. If you have ideas(in addition to feature requests to solve this problem/I take it a simple remove estates is what you're proposing?) to aid recruitment, I would be happy to read them. Oh, and good luck bringing the battlemaster discussion from the mailing list to wiki. :P
VonGenf, let us think this through carefully. While I'm not saying you are wrong, it could likely be that the reason those wars weren't expansionary is because there weren't estates to hold the lands so they had to go for an alternative style. This is not necessary bad or good. I do think less expansionary wars would be a good thing, but they should still exist.
| |
Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor and Community Manager 15:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |
Well Done! | . |
I'd just like to say "Well Done" to you on your new paper. I hope that we can see more analyses on other game aspects in the future. Once suggestion: Your articles will probably generate quite a bit of discussion. (At least I hope so!) I would suggest adding a new discussion link to your article that points to a sub-page specifically for discussion of that article. That would separate discussion for issues, and allow your main page discussion to be specifically for general comments on the paper itself.
| |
--Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC) |