Author Topic: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters  (Read 735 times)

willy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Karma: +1/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #30 on: April 17, 2017, 02:56:34 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.

I like the idea of no xp for mugging people in bed. Having a "Train" button seems about as dull and gamey, though.

I'd rather see the fairgrounds being able to host 'melees' for training. A battle with no kills, x number of people choosing whoever the f they want to support/attack with reduced xp. Make it a player interaction (or at least characters), and expand on what is in place. Troops will have battle reports of potentially interesting training records...and you can weed out the men from the boys with a 'trained this way' history marker. Tweak it xp wise with what you want from people just foffing about with wood sticks. Training isnt just npc xp then, its a chance for commanders to test battle mechanics without massive risk.

Is it feasible, development wise?

[PS: I'd also like to see xp be spread more randomly. Let npc's distinguish themselves by xp hogging or something. Like, you may have trained a bunch of regular folk in broadsword/plate/horse and they do fine....but damned if Baptiste over there in axeleathers isn't a born warrior who needs retraining ASAP.]
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 04:57:07 PM by willy »

Cipheron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #31 on: April 17, 2017, 03:03:45 PM »
tbh I think the "approved way of having fun" stuff is just another type of toxicity as bad as what those people complain about. An attitude that you want to screw with people who were minding their own business because they were having fun in an un-approved way ... that's some attitude, sure.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 03:05:32 PM by Cipheron »

Demivar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Purveyor of cunning plans.
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #32 on: April 17, 2017, 03:03:51 PM »
[PS: I'd also like to see xp be spread more randomly. Let npc's distinguish themselves by xp hogging or something. Like, you may have trained a bunch of regular folk in broadsword/plate/horse and they do fine....but damned if Baptiste over there in axeleathers isn't a born warrior who needs retraining ASAP.]
Ironically, when you have actual veteran troops you'll start to see more disparity between their experience values. When they cause casualties in battle, they gain additional experience. Those who do best gain the most experience. Disribution might seem flat because you're not actually killing anyone.
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: 151
  • Karma: +7/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2017, 03:08:26 PM »
Does 2xp really make much of a difference though? I really want to know, because every war I've been in was using green troops and they never had any problem defeating enemies, it all came down to planning and execution. If you're running around training on first ones you're probably missing out on optimizing troop production in your towns. Doesn't sound all that efficient at all. Time waster. I'm questioning whether it's actually an advantage at all, really.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • Karma: +105/-52
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2017, 03:14:41 PM »
Does 2xp really make much of a difference though? I really want to know, because every war I've been in was using green troops and they never had any problem defeating enemies, it all came down to planning and execution. If you're running around training on first ones you're probably missing out on optimizing troop production in your towns. Doesn't sound all that efficient at all. Time waster. I'm questioning whether it's actually an advantage at all, really.


Then look at weavers threads, he details all the formula effects of experience. Does 2xp make a difference? No not really. But we aren't talking about 2xp, we are talking nobles that have fought a hundred or more battles against slumbering nobles. Also given that people rarely fight, just how many settlements do you think need to be training more troops? Most I visit seem to have decided they have a big enough militia months ago, and you forget that a decent sub set of the player keep knight characters with no land specifically to handle the troop side of things.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Demivar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Purveyor of cunning plans.
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2017, 03:17:10 PM »
tbh I think the "approved way of having fun" stuff is just another type of toxicity as bad as what those people complain about. An attitude that you want to screw with people who were minding their own business because they were having fun in an un-approved way ... that's some attitude, sure.
Clique-like behaviour is toxic and dangerous, I agree. People need to come into an environment where things aren't stuffed down their throats.


With "minding their own business" the reality is that it's anything but. Sure, new players are free to kick around a bit, even do some retarded shit, I'm usually pretty lenient with new players. They aren't minding their own business, any existing player knows that the result of fake battles is arbitrary, and no new information can really be derived from it. It's a process, similar to clicking an "add experience" button with a timer, and having to be done in a more finicky way because there aren't mechanics for it. I don't see how people can derive any form of pleasure from these battles, and hence its only purpose is to add meta strength to their armies. When the results of that training are used, it is in war. The people that they fight are affected by that.


22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you

Andre

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
  • Karma: +2/-2
  • Constant boredom
    • View Profile
Re: Some Questions about First Ones and Player Characters
« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2017, 05:36:03 PM »
Not exactly related to this thread specifically. But I was wondering, what about experience levels of troops showing when you look at another First One?
Either we could have something like an average experience level of troop types. Or maybe something like under 15xp the soldier is "green", 15-49 is trained, 50-99 is experienced and 100+ is a veteran. And then we could see on the First Ones page that they have 100 green archers, 20 trained archers, 100 green light infantry and so on. 


Also, personally I feel like limiting experience from small and training battles is the best route to go.