Author Topic: A Not So Quick Question  (Read 607 times)

Andrew

  • Game Master / Lead Developer
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Karma: +75/-7
  • Mildly Amused
    • View Profile
    • Lemuria Community Fan Site
A Not So Quick Question
« on: May 17, 2017, 03:35:10 PM »
In line with trying to get an idea what players want to play, I'd like to ask you all to describe the Might & Fealty of the future, what new things the game will let you do and what parts of it have been expanded so far to be unimaginable. To you, what is the game you envision this becoming?

Please be detailed, I'm not only curious what your thoughts are, but I'm looking for ideas on all fronts. I've a list of my own, but everyone here is far more creative than I am alone.
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)

willy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +1/-2
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2017, 04:31:20 PM »
I'd like to see a high-density island. Something kinda like Battlemaster's War Islands, with a set war/realms and tighter focus. I wonder how this game might change if there were 10 First One's for every estate available, if there were excess knights constantly engaged in war.


Oh, and I mentioned it somewhere else...but I'm looking at Might and Fealty like I want it to be a RP tabletop meets Total War franchise game. Game just needs more lore like D&D and more flair like Medieval: Total War.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2017, 04:39:42 PM by willy »

Demivar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Purveyor of cunning plans.
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2017, 04:51:47 PM »
I was thinking more Mount & Blade Warband meets a modded game of multiplayer CK2.
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you

Andrew

  • Game Master / Lead Developer
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Karma: +75/-7
  • Mildly Amused
    • View Profile
    • Lemuria Community Fan Site
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2017, 05:08:25 PM »
Assume I've never played any other game.

What is it you mean when you say a combination of M&B:W + CK2?

What does more flair like Medieval: Total War mean? A turn-based strategy map? Assassins?
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)

willy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +1/-2
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2017, 05:32:09 PM »
SI picture essentially the first Medieval: Total War's planning phase (an old timey map on a tabletop). Our flags are now pretty gamepieces we move around. Every player has their own 'turn/season', basically they set a (lets say a week's worth) of moves and every week can adjust planning to the world.Penned parchment maps, character profiles with a bit of artwork, little luck events that happen for characters. The flair of something pretty, scenic. Maybe the dots of towns are now actual sketches of towns, the color scheme of the map is toned down. All mostly cosmetic stuff that helps immersion. I've seen other strategy games use the aesthetic, but I think of the first Medieval: TW specifically. Mechanically, everything seems on the right track as it is, so this is all just bloom I'm talking about.

[Moderated to correct the weirdly small text so it was readable]
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 01:17:03 AM by Foxglove »

Constantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +19/-10
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2017, 06:18:02 PM »
Okay, I imagine future M&F as a game that has more features (both PvP and PvE) and a better GUI.
When I log in I will actually have stuff to do even if there are no other players in the vicinity and no one is answering my letters.
I see cool visuals. Soldier models representing their equipment and origin. Settlements that actually look and feel like they're from a building sim game. Character portraits, better looking sigils, more art everywhere.
I see the entire province I am currently in and am able to interact with everyone also in this province.
I see parties of bandits, packs of wolves and monsters roaming the land. Wildfires, plague and famine require my attention. Every settlement needs to be looked after and not just be left alone forever as a resource donor. Quest system actually becomes handy.
I see lendan stones as actual items a FO needs to generate and then pass to other FOs. But communication will also be easier because every settlement will have a lendan tower building, that will allow the master to connect to a global "chatroom" when inside the town.


Foxglove

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 543
  • Karma: +72/-10
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2017, 02:46:03 AM »
In the future, I'd like to see the game having moved away from the near total dependence on war to create interest and excitement. I'd like to see the political elements of the game enhanced so that First Ones/realms can exercise 'soft' power through diplomatic, religious, or cultural means (or some combination of them all). There would be cultural or diplomatic buildings or structures that exert an influence aura across a certain area and inspire awe in the mortals about a particular realm or First One, giving that realm or First One greater power over them. This would mean an end to war as the only means of imposing power on the map, as more subtle ways of imposing power appear. This would also give more casual players a way to build up power that doesn't depend on ultra active war fighting.

There would be greater focus on each character as an individual person rather than just a pawn to be shuffled around a board. This means more ways to give individuality to characters. The character traits actually becoming active and meaning something.

More activities for characters to do - social events such as tournaments; hunting; and sports of some kind (horse racing, for example, since it's got a long history with the nobility). Quests greatly enhanced to give individual characters something to do and rewards for completing quests.

Assassins with an actual bite - the ability to kill other characters through poisoning, stealthly attacks, etc. Countered, for fair play purposes, with new entourage such as food tasters and bodyguards. Again, introducing a more subtle way to exert power than just through war. Perhaps the assassins themselves would be a form of NPC or entourage member who's dispatched on a mission against someone. Or perhaps the assassins are First Ones. Either way, it introduces another way to play - a subtle cat and mouse game between assassin and prey.

The message system either revamped or replaced, to make communications between characters much easier and less confusing for newcomers. Along with the 'requested since for ever' ability to mark letters as read by all your characters so you don't have to re-read the same stuff.

For war, there would be tools placed into the game to allow people to track different methods of success in a war. At the moment, the only thing we really have to determine who's winning a war is forceable exchange of territory - which side's colour fills more of the map. But there can be other ways to measure winners and losers in a war. Stats to track the number of enemy soldiers or First Ones killed in battle. Wars determined by who captures the most hostages. Stuff like that. Giving people the viable option to fight differents kinds of wars where no-one wins or loses territory if they decide they want to fight a war judged by different standards. That might actually encourage people to be less defensively minded if they can fight a war without the risk of losing everything. Wars of honour or bragging rights, rather than wars of total conquest.

Fast travel points - teleportation circles or gates - that allow characters to travel great distances across the world in a short time. These would just allow First Ones and entourage to travel and not soldiers (so they can't be exploited for military purposes). But they would encourage people to actually have their characters travel the world, explore, and meet and interact with new people. It would also make RP events easier to organise, and tournaments too.

I wouldn't mind seeing more fantasy elements in the game. It's always been described as 'low fantasy', but in reality it's more of an alternate history world than a fantasy one. We don't need dragons, elves, and the like. But we could have some sort of fantasy creatures as alternative mounts to horses; some sort of fantasy beasts as alternate forms of weapon (think some kind of flying creature as an alternate ranged weapon used by its handler). Basically, stuff that adds flavour and colour to the world.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 03:12:55 AM by Foxglove »
Standing for the responsible use of power since Year 1, Week 1, Day 1.
Fun fact: I wrote some of the text for the M&F crowdfunding campaign.
Favourite warm beverage: hot chocolate.

Dystopian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2017, 03:12:59 AM »
Good suggestions.

willy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +1/-2
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2017, 07:31:50 AM »
I wouldn't mind seeing more fantasy elements in the game. It's always been described as 'low fantasy', but in reality it's more of an alternate history world than a fantasy one. We don't need dragons, elves, and the like. But we could have some sort of fantasy creatures as alternative mounts to horses; some sort of fantasy beasts as alternate forms of weapon (think some kind of flying creature as an alternate ranged weapon used by its handler). Basically, stuff that adds flavour and colour to the world.

I like the kind of mythical demi-god figures First One's are. It's like you dropped all the super-heros of ancient peoples and dropped them into medieval europe. I wouldn't mind more fantasy elements, but I do prefer it low-key or rare/special.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 02:26:38 PM by willy »

Endrosz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2017, 08:36:23 AM »
"In the future, I'd like to see the game having moved away from the near total dependence on war to create interest and excitement. "

^ This. Excellent ideas followed this statement.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 08:38:50 AM by Endrosz »

Tan dSerrai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
  • Karma: +20/-2
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2017, 10:29:34 AM »
What I'd like to see:

- anything that keeps (or moves the game to) the game playable by investing 10-45min per day: Waypoints, preplanning, less importance for dynamic (on the minute) information.
- anything that makes combat more interesting tactically and especially makes cooperation on the battlefield between players more important
- anything that makes (non-micro) cooperation between players more important in the economic and political parts of the game, 'playing alone' should be possibly but only in small levels/areas
- anything that allows 'limited wars' - for small chunks of territory, raiding, taking and holding outposts...warfare should be (mostly) smaller in scale, not branch out into 'full out war between large realms' which ends in destruction or severe diminishing of one side. It should be possible to fight battles - but winning a battle should not lead to full dominance of one side. It should take time and effort  to translate battlefield control into political control of an area. (Sieges!). And yes, that is a very difficult nut to crack...
- I'd like to see something like a 'dual timeline' - it takes months to build up an army but only one battle to lose it...and that battle only takes a short time and we have little possibilities to interact with it (I want to ride at the side of my liege! I want to be able to betray my side midbattle! I want to haggle with my vassals who are reluctant to invest their heavy infantry! I want to be able to order 'charge now' to my vassals - or to follow the command of my liege to hold the line). Right now we have an 'accelerated' timeline - building industry, weapons and armies is far faster than in RL (who wants to wait 18 years for a recruit to grow up and be trained?) - but that currently compresses battles into the same accelerated timeline (over in 2-3 RL hours). It would be neat if larger battles would take 2-4 days to be fought...and possibly also not on a point of a map but maybe not only be 'inflated in time' in relation to gamespeed but
also 'inflated in territory' - meaning a larger battleline covering 2-3 regions to enable players to maneuver their units on the map.
- anything that simplifies the 'unit mixture' we have/had (no idea what did happen ingame during the past 1,5 years) and make units more distinct and dependent on territory (light cav being a lot faster in plains, light infantry being better in mountains, heavy units 'seeing' less but being better in fighting...all that.

- ok, I found an old post I made quite some time back - it explains the 'longer battles, individual units, terrain importance' somewhat: http://forum.mightandfealty.com/index.php/topic,2812.msg18697.html#msg18697
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 10:48:07 AM by Tan dSerrai »

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2017, 12:31:19 AM »
In my mind the games issue is much the same as BM. It tries to be both a Grand Strategy/Political simulator, but then forces us to worry about fine details like individual recruitment and moving troops around. For me this is a disconnect and has ended with the same problem that always plagued BM, which is for the most part being a troop leader/knight is piss boring and everyone wants to be a lord, but then once people are we lack the raw numbers of troop leaders/knights to make conflict meaningful. Hawks as fought more wars then perhaps anyone beyond the original North, and I can say that the majority of wars are between 3-4 players and their personal hordes of throw away knights. In BM that didn't allow for such rampant character creation the result was multi accounts on grand scales.

For me moving the game somewhat towards CK2 in terms of settlement management and troop management is more ideal. Constantly we talk about improving the "knight" game and to be honest there is a complete lack of concrete concepts that would result in a meaningful knight game. I advocate that we discuss moving the game away from needing it, focus what scant development resources we have into strengthening the part of the game that actually exists.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Foxglove

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 543
  • Karma: +72/-10
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2017, 03:40:41 AM »
In my mind the games issue is much the same as BM. It tries to be both a Grand Strategy/Political simulator, but then forces us to worry about fine details like individual recruitment and moving troops around. For me this is a disconnect and has ended with the same problem that always plagued BM, which is for the most part being a troop leader/knight is piss boring and everyone wants to be a lord, but then once people are we lack the raw numbers of troop leaders/knights to make conflict meaningful.

That's extremely well put.

Right back when Tom first floated the information in the BM forum that he was working on the game that eventually became Might & Fealty, I distinctly remember that he described a game where politics and diplomacy would be more important than war. Somewhere along the line, that vision seemed to fade and fighting down-and-dirty frontline wars/battles became more and more important.

However, the schism between these two aspects of the game was never resolved. As De-Legro says, M&F has the scale and vision of a grand strategy game with politics at its heart where you're called on to form realms and manage hundreds or thousands of people. But then it forces you to focus in on the micro management of day-to-day details, rather than just allowing you to paint with a grand sweep.

The game (or rather we) needs to decide what it actually is. Is it a grand strategy game akin to something like CK2, Civilization or Stellar Monarch? Or is it more of a small scale frontline game akin to something like Battle Brothers or Mount and Blade? It currently tries to do both.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 03:42:54 AM by Foxglove »
Standing for the responsible use of power since Year 1, Week 1, Day 1.
Fun fact: I wrote some of the text for the M&F crowdfunding campaign.
Favourite warm beverage: hot chocolate.

Constantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +19/-10
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2017, 09:35:56 AM »
Sure it can do both. In fact, that's what successful games are supposed to do. Look at other grand strategy browser games, they all offer building sim elements and often troops micro too. And the more detail they offer, the more player retention they see. Those are just facts.
LoL could be a much better game if its combat system would be better developed. Please don't ditch M&F elements that already work.


You're talking about the knight game being boring as if taking features away will somehow make it more fun. Please suggest adding features instead.

Tan dSerrai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
  • Karma: +20/-2
    • View Profile
Re: A Not So Quick Question
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2017, 03:26:44 PM »
I agree in 'less micro and more grand strategy'. Still, there should be a meaningful tactical level where conflict can be resolved - in a fun way. The whole economic system does 'only' produce soldiers and buildings  (which is fine - I really like the 'mostly zero sum economy'), with soldiers being the 'marker of strength' of different entities. These need to be usable in a meaningful way.

Towards that we do not need 'equip single soldiers with different weapons' - we need a system where players may coordinate ideas on how to go about the conflict. It should be enough to set up your character - or your 2-5 characters - with 'units' that (optionally have different characteristics and) can fight, ideally by giving them a chain of orders that play out over 2-3 days with: Go here as fast as you can (risking ambush), wait for the others, deploy in line and advance. Sure, numbers need to matter - but intelligent, coordinated use should allow victory over somewhat superior numbers.

Then, once a conflict has been fought it needs to be translated into a result - and that should not be 'obliteration because its the easiest result'. It should in most cases be 'The looser needs to hand over part of his territory'. If there are other outcomes possible (agree to vassalization, dominance of your cult in my area...), so much the better. Towards territory, I like the occupation/control scheme of EU4 (?): I control 5 of your regions militarily - I withdraw from three and you give me 'ownership' of two. Meaning as long as you only 'control' a region, you gain maybe 10% of its resources - but once you own it you have full control...but ownership needs to be 'given'.

If the 'sub regions' are implemented, so much the better - more possibilities of border skirmishes.  :)
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 03:59:50 PM by Tan dSerrai »