Author Topic: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters  (Read 1197 times)

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3107
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« on: December 19, 2016, 05:34:48 AM »
Just canvasing the player base for current opinion on a couple of topic that will inform some design suggestions I am working on


1) Are Player Character the only First Ones?
2) Are bandits human or First Ones, or a mix I suppose
3) Are First Ones and Humans genetically related and are viable offspring possible from a coupling between the two races?
4) Do the First exert a magical or physic control over Humans.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Kuromei

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2016, 05:52:20 AM »
Personally, I think that PCs are the only First Ones, Bandits are Truly Immortal Liches that come back at the head of a fresh undead army everytime they die, reproduction between FO and Humans is A-ok and the child is a FO, and there is no difference genetically, just FO are magically blessed, and FO do subconsciously exert dominance over Humans.


It's those Immortal Undying Fuckers Bandits that have it best. They just keep coming back :|

WVH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +20/-47
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2016, 07:42:50 PM »
1) Are Player Character the only First Ones?
2) Are bandits human or First Ones, or a mix I suppose
3) Are First Ones and Humans genetically related and are viable offspring possible from a coupling between the two races?
4) Do the First exert a magical or physic control over Humans.


This has been my opinion based on my own game play, other peoples writings, and what I have read on here over the years (which could have been misread).


1.  No.  I believe NPC's have a place in our story telling.  From our back stories to current RP, we need the freedom to create our story.


2. I say a mix... If bandits are human, they must be the most powerful humans alive.  Maybe that is why they have the courage to stand up to First Ones?  They have killed multiple rulers of Rathgar for example.  That takes some serious balls for a First One much less a human.


Some First Ones are exiled (for example, the nithing of Rathgar) for some they could rely on family and friends for support around the world but others could easily become bandits.  Some bandits must be First Ones or else capture (if it still occurs) by bandits would allow a F1 the freedom to escape at ease without being bound by the magic?


3. I don't think so... If I remember correctly from the guided start, this was nixed by GM.  A player wanted to be a human and the whole can of worms was opened up resulting in a no go.  From a mechanic standpoint, we can not create human characters... so no strong offspring are possible, however with RP someone could create a situation that has them.


4. I don't think so... If we did, First Ones would not need to use food to control a population remaining in place.  The idea that the population could fluctuate based on resources (including protection which increases production) leads me to believe they have free will.  Recalling soldiers could be another aspect of free will, although it could be a battle of minds between two First Ones also.  But if they could control the humans that way, we would not need shrines to make them happy.  So I think we manipulate the population just like the elite manipulate us in the real world.

Velrun

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +19/-11
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2016, 10:22:21 PM »
1) There has never been a NPC besides mortals, so at least as far as the current game is concerned, players are the only First Ones
2) They are First ones. Its not an answer I like but given the current mechanics, their abilities and effects they are First Ones.
3) No, as WVH said Tom was clear on this back in the time of Bastur
4) This was a hand wave excuse for a couple of things back in the beta, like the ability to TO from outside walls, and to explain the fact Humans never rebel. I don't think Tom ever said it was magically, simply that the First had a presence that prevented mortals from disobeying.

willy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +1/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2017, 07:16:04 AM »

I like to think of First Ones as epic Heros. Sons of an orgy of the greek pantheon...just being Hercules and Achilles all wrapped into one and ruling the scrubs of the world. Like, let me put it this way:


Willy Givens to his men: "Ok, it's one slumbering First One....there's fifty medium infantry of you, what could go wrong?".
Men's Reply: "I heard that even their snores can kill!"
"Just go do it"


Melee Phase 1
51 soldiers fighting, 1 enemy routed
1 soldier fighting, 1 enemy killed

Willy: "What happened to Barris?
That same guy: "Well, we burst into the bedroom and the First one yawned...Barris' heart gave out...but we stabbed the First'un good but he got away"
Willy looks exacerbated: "A sleeping man got away?"
Guy: "We stabbed him, then he started to roll over. We counted it a win and left"

Andre

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
  • Karma: +2/-2
  • Constant boredom
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2017, 12:30:45 PM »
That's genius  ;D

Demivar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Purveyor of cunning plans.
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2017, 12:37:46 PM »
I like to think of First Ones as epic Heros. Sons of an orgy of the greek pantheon...just being Hercules and Achilles all wrapped into one and ruling the scrubs of the world. Like, let me put it this way:


Willy Givens to his men: "Ok, it's one slumbering First One....there's fifty medium infantry of you, what could go wrong?".
Men's Reply: "I heard that even their snores can kill!"
"Just go do it"


Melee Phase 1
51 soldiers fighting, 1 enemy routed
1 soldier fighting, 1 enemy killed

Willy: "What happened to Barris?
That same guy: "Well, we burst into the bedroom and the First one yawned...Barris' heart gave out...but we stabbed the First'un good but he got away"
Willy looks exacerbated: "A sleeping man got away?"
Guy: "We stabbed him, then he started to roll over. We counted it a win and left"
And why were they attacking a slumbering First One?
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you

willy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +1/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2017, 02:36:48 PM »
Had a slumberblight with no family or realm relations. With no relations, estates, or anyone to love him...he seemed ideal to experiment on. No plans to farm afk's or anything. I'm not really sure about capture/kill rates for First Ones and wouldn't want to snuff out a potentially returning player.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3107
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2017, 02:55:54 PM »
Had a slumberblight with no family or realm relations. With no relations, estates, or anyone to love him...he seemed ideal to experiment on. No plans to farm afk's or anything. I'm not really sure about capture/kill rates for First Ones and wouldn't want to snuff out a potentially returning player.


People mostly attack slumbering nobles in order to train their troops. Not sure why because the same people generally never initate war but I guess the have to have something to do.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Demivar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Purveyor of cunning plans.
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2017, 03:05:39 PM »
Had a slumberblight with no family or realm relations. With no relations, estates, or anyone to love him...he seemed ideal to experiment on. No plans to farm afk's or anything. I'm not really sure about capture/kill rates for First Ones and wouldn't want to snuff out a potentially returning player.
It's true that most slumbered characters ain't coming back, but unless there's loads of them in one spot or they're at risk of un-slumbering and spying on you there's rarely any good reason to kill them. When a killing blow is landed on a FO they have a 2/3 chance to surrender rather than die instantaneously. They're hard to kill and capture, and are enormously better than any mortal you'll ever find.


In terms of artificially training troops, it ruins the feel of the game. I agree that there should be some ability to train troops outside war, but if you had any actual veterans you'd know what I was talking about. People grow attached to their veterans because after all of the wars they've been through you can look at their profile and see where they fought, who they killed etc. What I find disgusting is that Roran's Plate Armoured War Horse Broadsword Royal Guards had 150-250XP and mountains of wartime experience, almost all of them died from the point that they started, but the ones that remained were naturally better soldiers because of all of the wars they'd fought. The same can be said for a lot of other realms. What we have now, through players artificially training their troops (not blaming you), is people with really high XP who have never fought a real battle, or have only fought briefly.


I get that you want to test stuff, but (as De Legro said), most people who do that do so do it to get free XP without any risk of losing the men that they're training. I always feel greatly disappointed when we take a settlement and the residual troops there have atleast 80XP and took part in 15 sorties from the same settlement.
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2017, 12:58:49 AM »
It's true that most slumbered characters ain't coming back, but unless there's loads of them in one spot or they're at risk of un-slumbering and spying on you there's rarely any good reason to kill them. When a killing blow is landed on a FO they have a 2/3 chance to surrender rather than die instantaneously. They're hard to kill and capture, and are enormously better than any mortal you'll ever find.


In terms of artificially training troops, it ruins the feel of the game. I agree that there should be some ability to train troops outside war, but if you had any actual veterans you'd know what I was talking about. People grow attached to their veterans because after all of the wars they've been through you can look at their profile and see where they fought, who they killed etc. What I find disgusting is that Roran's Plate Armoured War Horse Broadsword Royal Guards had 150-250XP and mountains of wartime experience, almost all of them died from the point that they started, but the ones that remained were naturally better soldiers because of all of the wars they'd fought. The same can be said for a lot of other realms. What we have now, through players artificially training their troops (not blaming you), is people with really high XP who have never fought a real battle, or have only fought briefly.


I get that you want to test stuff, but (as De Legro said), most people who do that do so do it to get free XP without any risk of losing the men that they're training. I always feel greatly disappointed when we take a settlement and the residual troops there have atleast 80XP and took part in 15 sorties from the same settlement.

How else do you expect us to get experience? Bandits aren't especially common, and the ones you do see can smack down a new player with impunity because of the amount of troops they have and random equipment they get often leaving them with plate and scale troops as standard. There aren't many if any wars going on. The only other way is to waste your troops against settlements that are owned by slumberblighted first-ones. If the settlement has anything more than a palisade, this will often mean a one-sided massacre unless you have an overwhelming number superiority or quality superiority. Or both.

Demivar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Purveyor of cunning plans.
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2017, 01:15:28 AM »
How else do you expect us to get experience? Bandits aren't especially common, and the ones you do see can smack down a new player with impunity because of the amount of troops they have and random equipment they get often leaving them with plate and scale troops as standard. There aren't many if any wars going on. The only other way is to waste your troops against settlements that are owned by slumberblighted first-ones. If the settlement has anything more than a palisade, this will often mean a one-sided massacre unless you have an overwhelming number superiority or quality superiority. Or both.
Not to sound surly, but you could just not train them. I'm not one of the players with these veterans, and I'm in the same boat as those with inexperienced troops that it would be nice to see blooded.


You don't need experience, it's a way of letting veterans of many campaigns be better in combat as a reflection of their history. As for attacking slumbered settlements, the same principle applies that you're gaining artificial experience.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 01:17:58 AM by Demivar »
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2017, 06:19:06 AM »
I think the XP system needs to be rethought then. The answer is almost never to rely on good behavior from players, but to make sure that the built-in rewards are in line with desired behavior. Players will almost always do the least riskiest set of actions that gets the desired result. if we leave those exploits in the game, they are the de-facto rules by which the game world operates. We can complain that it's not "in character" but since when do sane people go out of their way to do things the hard way?

The mechanics of the game are the game world's physics, like it or not. It's "in character" to know the laws of physics by which your world operates and make rational decisions based on that. People can and do go out of their way to avoid things they think are unfair, but in the real world, the people who exploit unfair advantages come out on top. It's no different to attacking slumbered first ones for free XP. As I see it, people in the game are acting exactly like they do in real life. If that's causing behavior that's contrary to the intent of the game's design, then it's the game's design which is broken, not character behavior.

You get too much XP for attacking small forces and lone first ones, everyone in your army gets 3-4 XP for that. For a battle that started but never happened you get 2 XP per troop. Those are slow but predictable. If you want to only reward people for fighting "true" battles then there needs to be a steeper difference in XP gained from a proper battle vs a sham/training one. However, peacetime training is a thing in real life, so it's not necessarily unrealistic that it's possible to train troops beyond the bare minimum in peacetime.

Maybe something that could work is an XP cap on how much troops can gain from small battles. e.g. you only get your bonus XP for merely being present in a battle up to some set cap such as 30 XP. After that, they need to score actual hits or survive attacks to get more XP. This would allow some hardening of totally-green troops, but it would prevent them being trainable to the stratosphere with it.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 06:40:40 AM by Cipheron »

Demivar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Purveyor of cunning plans.
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2017, 01:13:12 PM »
I think the XP system needs to be rethought then. The answer is almost never to rely on good behavior from players, but to make sure that the built-in rewards are in line with desired behavior. Players will almost always do the least riskiest set of actions that gets the desired result. if we leave those exploits in the game, they are the de-facto rules by which the game world operates. We can complain that it's not "in character" but since when do sane people go out of their way to do things the hard way?

The mechanics of the game are the game world's physics, like it or not. It's "in character" to know the laws of physics by which your world operates and make rational decisions based on that. People can and do go out of their way to avoid things they think are unfair, but in the real world, the people who exploit unfair advantages come out on top. It's no different to attacking slumbered first ones for free XP. As I see it, people in the game are acting exactly like they do in real life. If that's causing behavior that's contrary to the intent of the game's design, then it's the game's design which is broken, not character behavior.

You get too much XP for attacking small forces and lone first ones, everyone in your army gets 3-4 XP for that. For a battle that started but never happened you get 2 XP per troop. Those are slow but predictable. If you want to only reward people for fighting "true" battles then there needs to be a steeper difference in XP gained from a proper battle vs a sham/training one. However, peacetime training is a thing in real life, so it's not necessarily unrealistic that it's possible to train troops beyond the bare minimum in peacetime.

Maybe something that could work is an XP cap on how much troops can gain from small battles. e.g. you only get your bonus XP for merely being present in a battle up to some set cap such as 30 XP. After that, they need to score actual hits or survive attacks to get more XP. This would allow some hardening of totally-green troops, but it would prevent them being trainable to the stratosphere with it.
I agree that the system should be changed, but that goes without saying.


What people fail to realise is why experience exists as a mechanic. It isn't a measure of how new the troops are, it's a veterancy bonus for those relatively few men that survive long campaigns. I happily send my green troops to their deaths, because I know that the men that survive a decent sized campaign will come home experienced, and I'll have troops which are more competent than the others by a small amount. What people fail to realise when they're training troops is that it is not you that is disadvantaged, it is they that have an advantage on the grounds that they're choosing to commit troops which they are greatly attached to.

I don't care whether you -can- do it, but I don't see why any decent player should bother doing it. Sure, any fucker can artificially train troops, but to what purpose? You get better stats on your troops, and in exchange your soldier logs aren't history, they're a reminder that you're trying to Min/Max Might and fucking Fealty of all games. I'm not opposed to trying to do well, but the entire game revolves around sentiment. Wars are fun for some people some of the time, but it isn't worth spoiling the nice parts of the game to claw yourself an advantage because the other person is playing the game as intended. If you care that much about minor stat increases, then you're playing the wrong bloody game.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 01:28:52 PM by Demivar »
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2017, 02:43:41 PM »
idk, once you have a max number of settlements, enough troops, what is there to do, you can wage wars, but you're already maxxed in settlements, you can ... not produce more troops because your settlements are full. I'm guessing a lot of people train up troops because it's something to do that you can log in and do. You can win battles fine with sheer numbers of green troops, and coordination, i don't think XP really trumps that. It's actually far less effort to do things that way. Mass-producing green troops is in fact the easy win in war, painstakingly training up troops is not.

Training troops and other things might be as much about boredom as anything else. It doesn't take that long before you have all the "stuff" you can get in this game. After that, what is there to keep people around? People need structured activities. Being a glorified chat room isn't going to keep them. Sure we could stamp out training, but we'd need to consider the various reasons people do the things they do, and what effects different changes would have on player numbers. Probably the best way to stamp out mock battles is to create a "field training" action for knights, that doesn't count as a battle, but has some fairly low XP cap of e.g. 30 XP like I said, while also capping XP for just "turning up" to a battle at the same 30XP. Then people could log in and do that to keep them interested in daily logins, it wouldn't be overpowering, and it wouldn't create the combat logs you mentioned.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 03:17:07 PM by Cipheron »