Author Topic: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters  (Read 1210 times)

willy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +1/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2017, 03:11:50 PM »
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.


It is quite a stain on their record to see that 'heroic victory'. If nothing else, the history aspect of the game let's us pinpoint when/where someone is cheaping it and boo at them. I don't mind it if others do it. It adds it's own flavor. Armies of cheese help make an army of blood and glory more special. Hell, I might try it with a brutish character. Take away the min/maxing and add rp flavor of some asshole's quest to hit people sleeping....build a catalog of sleeping nobles with sortie reports. Do detailed battle reports ever disappear?


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. 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.


If people are going to take the safest way to amass elite troops, it would be better if it was done through better player interaction. Let people pick on sleepers for tiny xp build, let others gather and have non-lethal melees for a bit better xp farm (but maybe keep injuries, lol). The big xp rewards in great battles with significant risk. You should be able to build elites safely, at the cost of time. You should also come back from a 5k battle with some proper heroes even if they went in fresh (some of them distinguishing themselves through natural talent or raw killscore). There are probably tons of playstyles that could be attempted, even more with new features/development.

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2017, 03:19:55 PM »
You should beware of merely nerfing things however.

There's a really good point about this in Richard Bartle's - creator of the first generation MUDs ~2003 textbook on designing multiplayer games. Often, one strategy is seen as too overpowered, so the devs nerf that strategy then expect players to switch to the other activities. Except this is an incredibly naive expectation and has been the death of many online games.

Players are choosing between many alternatives. These alternatives include "strategy A" and "strategy B" in your game but they also include valid choices such as "go play a different game". When you nerf things, some people will switch to the other strategy, while some people will just switch to another game altogether. And you shouldn't dismiss the negative knock-on effects of a decline in the player base caused by nerfing strategies you think are too popular.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 03:23:06 PM by Cipheron »

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2017, 04:51:29 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.

How does that work when settlements of slumber blighted lords lose their militia?

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.

What a strange question. Settlements and troops are boring. You go do the exact same actions in some idle game or whatever, why waste time in a multiplayer game focusing on solo antics? Politics, intrigue and relationships now those are interesting. When you personally have enough settlements you do something like foster a group of landless players to go and strike out on their own. Or you find a tiny realm that has big ambitions and aid them in return for tribute or whatever.

I would think the current "training" is on the way out. You already get less XP based on the forces on both sides, I would suggest that once battles get to a stupid one sided battle that there should be no XP gain what so ever.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 04:57:23 AM by De-Legro »
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2017, 05:48:12 AM »
Idk if you're getting the point. The "not my idea of fun" so "change the rules to stamp out what players are currently doing" thing is what I'm talking about.

It seems like a restrictive and prescriptive attitude to "play" that might well be driving more people away. It's a sandbox then you get upset that some people aren't playing in the sand the way you like so you ban those tools they're playing with ... I think you're just not getting this in a game design sense. Like I said before, there are many multiplayer games which have tried to balance things by removing the "easy" way to get something then expect people to do it the hard way, except they don't, the players just leave to other games since there are less things to play with now.

"But they could be doing all these other fantabulous things we already have that we approve of" is just missing the point. The appeal of those is already factored into what people choose to do. Taking away one thing that people choose to do isn't going to magically make the remaining things more appealing than they currently are, it only makes the game as a whole less appealing. What's the reason to log in every day? Is it just chat? Daily chat about politics without any/many material things you can actually do gets old fast.

I also think it is becoming an issue with the "devs as players" thing we have going now. The current main devs are the leaders of some of the oldest and most established realms, and the way they talk on issues such as player retention and what new players should be doing kind of sounds like it's entirely steeped in them being the leaders of the oldest and most established realms.

I mean any attitude such as saying new players should be perfectly happy to serve as vassals before they even think about any sort of independent play ... which is the vibe I got in response to ideas to boost new players. e.g. when i suggested that slumbered claims eventually decay to make it clear to new players that there are available towns, there was a massive hostility to any idea like that on the basis of preserving history and the old realms, basically. Sure, you can side with "dead realms + history" but don't expect that to be inviting to fresh batches of players.

There's an attitude that old realms are intrinsically more worthy than new realms purely based on being old, and going along with that, it shapes how people consider possible rule changes, e.g. anything that might mean old realms have to be more active to maintain their borders is fought tooth and nail. And i'd argue that these antiquated slumber-empires are even worse for the game health than any "training battles" idea, that people can log in and do daily. But no, because that might threaten the old realms power, any discussion of any change that might remove slumbered towns from an empire is verboten.

More than a few players get put off because it looks like there's nowhere free to settle to do their own thing. The counter attitude was "they should learn to serve before they learn to lead, because this is might and *fealty*". Which is an abhorrent attitude to new players, let's not beat around the bush here. (not least because some people who founded right at the start might never have been a vassal of someone else. don't tell others to bow the knee).  And the other response to an non-informative introduction map for new players was that they should learn the rules or go ask on the forum. You can't expect people to go to an external website or "read the manual" to ask why the map *looks like* there are few settlement opportunities, and how this is misleading. They have to realize it's misleading before knowing to ask about it. And of course the appearance of the map *is misleading*, that's kind of the point here. It isn't the player's fault at that point, it's clearly the game and it's culture.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 06:28:41 AM by Cipheron »

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2017, 06:22:54 AM »
You mean like the brand new realms I had forged in the south, given to entirely new players to do with as they wish? That sort of thing? I don't particularly care if XP grinding is fun or not, to me the idea of 1000 men learning something about fighting and combat by attacking a SLEEPING LIFELESS characters is logically not possible. Likewise having a ton of men attack a small force does not logically seem to be a way to learn beyond a very limited point.

Part of the reason I want an accessible in game new player chat area and/or a OOC realtime chat in the game is exactly so that people can ask those kind of questions without needing to go to the forum. Don't like the way the Devs are handling things then step up. Its not like we are a little club that forbid anyone else from joining, we are simply the only players that have shown ANY willingness to try keep the code moving towards something like completion.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2017, 06:29:39 AM »
And there are so many sleeping lifeless characters in real life. If such slumber people existed in real life would they be permanently walked around, pretending they're not there? No. So there's nothing unrealistic or gamey about getting rid of slumberers at all, it's just a response to the material reality that the game presents. HAVING slumberers in the first place is what is not logical. Attacking them if they are there is entirely logical.

One problem is that I've had slumberers wake up and start taking over towns, refuse to talk (I wanted to offer them some towns but they refused to reply). Having slumberers in your area is a real risk that things are going to go pear shaped then you have to go clean it up.  I didn't attack slumberers in my area until recently, like a few weeks ago. But after 3-4 woke up and messed up half my towns and it took a week or two before everything was normal again, I started clearing them out as a precaution. Here, this had zero to do with "training" and everything to do with "remove the ticking time bombs".

Slumberers are like homeless people at the train station. In the game you can build walls and guards, but these time-bomb people who could wake up at any moment are inside your walls with no way to remove them other than to attack them. If you leave them there out of player-player politeness, that's entirely an OOC decision to do so, it makes no sense IC. No lord would leave other rival lords with enforceable claims inside their expensively-guarded city walls.

One thing I'd support is forcing you to do a message when you Take Control of another player's town, similar to the battle screen. Don't allow message-free takeovers.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 06:43:57 AM by Cipheron »

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2017, 06:44:09 AM »
And there are so many sleeping lifeless characters in real life. If such slumber people existed in real life would they be permanently walked around, pretending they're not there? No. So there's nothing unrealistic or gamey about getting rid of slumberers at all, it's just a response to the material reality that the game presents. HAVING slumberers in the first place is what is not logical. Attacking them if they are there is entirely logical.

One problem is that I've had slumberers wake up and start taking over towns, refuse to talk (I wanted to offer them some towns but they refused to reply). Having slumberers in your area is a real risk that things are going to go pear shaped then you have to go clean it up.  I didn't attack slumberers in my area until recently, like a few weeks ago. But after 3-4 woke up and messed up half my towns and it took a week or two before everything was normal again, I started clearing them out as a precaution. Here, this had zero to do with "training" and everything to do with "remove the ticking time bombs".

One thing I'd support is forcing you to do a message when you Take Control of another player's town, similar to the battle screen. Don't allow message-free takeovers.

Did I say there was something wrong with killing them? I do it myself just so they don't clog up my status screen when they are near my settlement. I said getting experience for killing them is rather dumb. I can't really support the forced message thing. 90% of attack messages are "die" or an assortment of random characters, so what is the point of forcing it for take overs? People will simply type whatever they need to to satisfy the requirement.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2017, 06:56:40 AM »
You can still glean information from what they type. If they type gibberish you're more likely to womp them than if they type some meaningful appeal.

Also, they could leave a message for the settlement owner anyway, so it doesn't break the existing game systems.

And it would afford you a way to message them back about the takeover.

e.g. if you take over a slumbering player's town then they come back a bit later, if you were forced to do a message, exactly what you write could very strongly influence the attitude of the slumbering player to your takeover.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 06:58:43 AM by Cipheron »

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2017, 07:03:14 AM »
You can still glean information from what they type. If they type gibberish you're more likely to womp them than if they type some meaningful appeal.

Also, they could leave a message for the settlement owner anyway, so it doesn't break the existing game systems.

And it would afford you a way to message them back about the takeover.

e.g. if you take over a slumbering player's town then they come back a bit later, if you were forced to do a message, exactly what you write could very strongly influence the attitude of the slumbering player to your takeover.

Part of the message system todo list is to make it possible to message anyone that is within interaction range of a settlement you control. But seriously they have the option to leave you a message now. The fact they don't is going to strongly influence your attitude. So again why force a message to exist, that then sticks around in the database for ever more for every take over?
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Gris

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • a
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2017, 12:02:07 PM »
part of rl battle experience is training, but there's always as much as you can learn that way, you need the real thing to become a veteran, it's something one can't learn through training, to limit  training experience a cap sounds good to me... also, you should drastically boost experience from "true" battles depending on the scale of the battle itself, so that soldiers would get serious experience (30? 40? can't work out the numbers), and minimize that from  training (one man) battles (to say 0,5 or so, devs will know the numbers better), just 2 cents
b

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2017, 12:23:31 PM »
Saying to limit the XP from training battles to 0-5 is more or less the same thing we have right now. You get 2-4 xp per troop for small battles, with no cap that I know of.

That was why I suggested a hard cap on xp from training. Doing some field-training is in fact realistic. So if there was a hard-cap on "basic XP" for just being involved in a mobilized battle, e.g. 25 or 30 xp, then people could train up completely green troops a bit by doing field exercises, which would no longer be unbalancing, and would actually be fairly realistic.

Above that, troops would only advance to be "true veterans" by being involved in combat actions which have risk/reward involved.

Andrew

  • Game Master / Lead Developer
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Karma: +75/-7
  • Mildly Amused
    • View Profile
    • Lemuria Community Fan Site
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2017, 01:24:51 PM »
Or we could just set it so that if the other side has slumbering nobles that you just don't get experience. Exploit fixed. Wouldn't need to add anything to the battle report either, which means no major overhaul, and it'd just exist solely in the battlerunner itself and the manual.

You want a training battle? Go fight someone. And hope you don't die.

Training battles... hm. Something for later. I suppose we could add training weapons to the equipment list and then have the BattleRunner check for training weaponry and cap experience at like 20 or some equally small number. That'd give a bonus of 6 points, which is minuscule. Hm.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 01:27:10 PM by Andrew »
Standing for the creation of interesting things since Year 1, Week 5, Day 4.
Favorite cold beverage: Strawberry Shake
My hobbies: Fixing computers, video games, anime, manga, some other stuff, sleep (in no particular order)

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2017, 02:25:47 PM »
I think a separate classification of training weapons might be a bit unwieldy. There might be slightly too many weapon types as it is ...

I'd prefer that there's just a "manouevers" option in the actions screen, which works more like looting than a battle, and it would gain a small amount of XP up to some limited cap.

The "no xp for slumber" might work, or it might cause people to switch to preying on unarmed "live" prey. You always need to factor in unexpected changes of behaviour.

Long-term i think the method of "divving up" the XP value of the fight makes more sense. Then fighting 10 people with 400 give you 1/40th of the XP per person as fighting 1 on 1.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 02:30:17 PM by Cipheron »

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2017, 02:39:27 PM »
I think a separate classification of training weapons might be a bit unwieldy. There might be slightly too many weapon types as it is ...

I'd prefer that there's just a "manouevers" option in the actions screen, which works more like looting than a battle, and it would gain a small amount of XP up to some limited cap.

The "no xp for slumber" might work, or it might cause people to switch to preying on unarmed "live" prey. You always need to factor in unexpected changes of behaviour.

Long-term i think the method of "divving up" the XP value of the fight makes more sense. Then fighting 10 people with 400 give you 1/40th of the XP per person as fighting 1 on 1.


Considering there was a time before slumber blight existed and we never had massive issues with roving parties of troops looking for training it is unlikely to be an issue.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Demivar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Purveyor of cunning plans.
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2017, 02:41:34 PM »
I think a separate classification of training weapons might be a bit unwieldy. There might be slightly too many weapon types as it is ...

I'd prefer that there's just a "manouevers" option in the actions screen, which works more like looting than a battle, and it would gain a small amount of XP up to some limited cap.

The "no xp for slumber" might work, or it might cause people to switch to preying on unarmed "live" prey. You always need to factor in unexpected changes of behaviour.

Long-term i think the method of "divving up" the XP value of the fight makes more sense. Then fighting 10 people with 400 give you 1/40th of the XP per person as fighting 1 on 1.
A good short term solution could be that good players could stop training their troops. People can always conceal it, but it's normally quite obvious who's doing it. Though it's possible, it has no place in the game. Stop doing it and punish those who do ICly. Simple.
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you