Author Topic: The Next Big Change: Buildings  (Read 120 times)

Andrew

  • Game Master / Lead Developer
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
  • Karma: +73/-7
  • Mildly Amused
    • View Profile
    • Lemuria Community Fan Site
The Next Big Change: Buildings
« on: July 09, 2017, 04:45:26 AM »
So, you might be thinking, we already have buildings, and they work, so why would you change them? Well, they do work, but with a lot of aspects of Might & Fealty, they strike me more as a skeleton lacking meat than a fleshed out design.

There are, at present, 53 types of buildings, focusing primarily on military or things that support the military. And you can only build them once, and from there their use is abstracted: more people in the city, more tailors, more smiths, all from one "smith". Yes, Might & Fealty is a military simulation, but it's also simulates other things, like medieval politics and nobility. And I know that there are a good number of players that do or have previously played specifically for the building aspect of things.

Here's what I propose:
  • Expand the build list -- Simulate more of what's present in a given city, modeling everything from the number of Inns to the Mints t the Jousting Fields to the Wells at the end of the streets.
  • Repeatable builds -- Allow players to control how many of a given building exist in a city. This will also allow the game to better understand how the layout of a given city, and may even allow us to do such things as modeling a city based on the number of roads that  go through gates in it's walls, and how that plays into an attacking force besieging the city. Certain things, like walls, will naturally cost MUCH more each time you build them.
  • Optional Autobuild -- Give players the option to disable the autobuild aspect. Buildings will still rely on other buildings (or the resources they put out) but maybe you just want that personal touch?
So, that covers my goal, and some of the why, but what are my other reasons?
  • It increases the amount of abstract modeling we can do on what a city may or may not look like. If you have 3 gatehouses but 5 roads that go to your city, we can assume there's a perimeter road outside the walls.
  • It lets us build other changes off of this. When player complexes are added, you could associate parts of those with specific buildings, allowing you to add flair to your city. When unit groupings are something managed through a barracks or garrison, allowing repeatable builds makes it super easy to figure out how many groups you should be able to field.
  • It also means we could even go so far as allow you to name buildings or statues or give them in-game descriptions.
  • Lastly, when you can build things outside a settlement, it means we don't have to reinvent the wheel for what the building system allows, but just reinforce the wheel we've already fixed.
Now, I'd like to hear your feedback on this. Should every building be repeatable? Which ones shouldn't? Why or why not? Is this just a horrible idea? What buildings should be added to really flesh things out?
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)

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: The Next Big Change: Buildings
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2017, 12:48:44 AM »
I'm not against the ability to build some buildings more then once, but to me it needs to serve a concrete purpose. For example if you tied military units to barracks it makes sense that you build one for every unit you wish to host in that city. Having every building rebuild-able under the current system just introduces one more aspect to min/max with regards to settlements.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

silvershot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: The Next Big Change: Buildings
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2017, 01:05:34 AM »
I think buildings like markets should be carefully considered how multiples might exist. Perhaps a general market place should be expanded (slight bonus) for increased cost, while additional ones would make more sense only when certain populations are reached. The market is notable for me because it's one of the buildings which increases food production, but it's also assumed to be sprawling.

Then again, I suppose if they're built outside the walls, it puts them at risk of looting,  damage, etc.

Perhaps it might be worth visiting a minor events system? It could go hand in hand with the quests. ("Coyotes are attacking our sheep and making farmers afraid to visit our outlying mills and markets." And you'd lose some of the bonus until it's handled. or even just small groups of angry peasants/bandits that don't really move. IDK, it could be something to do even during the peaceful times. Also could be weather, etc.) Training grounds are another case where additional ones (other than making one slightly more efficient over time by slightly increasing its size, as it can sort of already be abstracted with except versus population size) might have to be built outside. You get limited (to non, perhaps depending on looting options) access when hostile armies are besieging/looting in your land.

I think it'd be nice to have granaries and storage areas, so you can control stockpiles (for example, limiting growth by stockpiling excess food until you fill your stores). Granaries, warehouses, wharfs, etc. These exist inside a city, and could make sieges interesting (or completely kill them, I don't know), or at least make a city not immediately lose population when armies visit. It could also allow for easy rationing for your entourage!

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: The Next Big Change: Buildings
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2017, 01:14:37 AM »
I think buildings like markets should be carefully considered how multiples might exist. Perhaps a general market place should be expanded (slight bonus) for increased cost, while additional ones would make more sense only when certain populations are reached. The market is notable for me because it's one of the buildings which increases food production, but it's also assumed to be sprawling.

Then again, I suppose if they're built outside the walls, it puts them at risk of looting,  damage, etc.

Perhaps it might be worth visiting a minor events system? It could go hand in hand with the quests. ("Coyotes are attacking our sheep and making farmers afraid to visit our outlying mills and markets." And you'd lose some of the bonus until it's handled. or even just small groups of angry peasants/bandits that don't really move. IDK, it could be something to do even during the peaceful times. Also could be weather, etc.) Training grounds are another case where additional ones (other than making one slightly more efficient over time by slightly increasing its size, as it can sort of already be abstracted with except versus population size) might have to be built outside. You get limited (to non, perhaps depending on looting options) access when hostile armies are besieging/looting in your land.

I think it'd be nice to have granaries and storage areas, so you can control stockpiles (for example, limiting growth by stockpiling excess food until you fill your stores). Granaries, warehouses, wharfs, etc. These exist inside a city, and could make sieges interesting (or completely kill them, I don't know), or at least make a city not immediately lose population when armies visit. It could also allow for easy rationing for your entourage!

Some sort of random event system has been on my agenda for a long time. Tom was very much against it, it wanted everything to derive from player actions. With such a system in place you could very well have a "settlement" demand system where the populace tell you that they need another market or whatever. But that said, its not a priority so it isn't going to be added any time soon.

If we are revisiting buildings I would be all for revisiting what bonuses and things are applied as well. In the short term I would even support reducing the building list and getting rid of buildings that add little to the game currently. Buildings should be about more granting some bonus to resources in my opinion.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

cenrae

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 558
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: The Next Big Change: Buildings
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2017, 05:06:12 AM »
I think this is a great idea. Multiple buildings could replace the existing build focus system as well.


Would this be a possible foundation for developing additional villages within a region other than the main settlement?
Clan Skies | House Kye on BM

Constantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +19/-10
    • View Profile
Re: The Next Big Change: Buildings
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2017, 11:19:38 AM »

We already have this principle to a certain extent. I mean, many buildings seem to be built on top of previous ones. Like Palisade>Wooden wall>Stone wall. Or Blacksmith>Weaponsmith>Bladesmith. It kinda makes sense. But I am not completely sure what the purpose of three Bladesmiths would be. Just increase the production rate? We already have a system for this - focus.

I also believe if I'm able to build 20 Fairgrounds in one town things will quickly go out of hand.


Andrew

  • Game Master / Lead Developer
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
  • Karma: +73/-7
  • Mildly Amused
    • View Profile
    • Lemuria Community Fan Site
Re: The Next Big Change: Buildings
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2017, 11:32:41 AM »
So the plan is that not every building will be repeatable. Most will, but some specifically won't. Markets for instance, will not.

Since I'll already be buried in the construction code, some buildings will become direct upgrades of others, if you so want. The obvious choices for this would be to upgrade walls or towers from wood to stone, or to upgrade a palisade to a proper wall.

Granaries for storing food are a likely addition, but editing existing buildings is very likely.

Outlying villages are a possibility, though I was thinking more along the lines of strategically placed forts or castles.
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)

Demivar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Purveyor of cunning plans.
    • View Profile
Re: The Next Big Change: Buildings
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2017, 12:21:57 PM »
Outlying villages are a possibility, though I was thinking more along the lines of strategically placed forts or castles.
I had always thought that things along those lines would be interesting, but the M&F map is already extremely porous. Unless forts gained the ability to install artificial barriers (like how impassable sections of land work now, I couldn't ever really see a good use for them aside from perhaps blocking rivers off.
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane
22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: The Next Big Change: Buildings
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2017, 02:28:03 AM »
We already have this principle to a certain extent. I mean, many buildings seem to be built on top of previous ones. Like Palisade>Wooden wall>Stone wall. Or Blacksmith>Weaponsmith>Bladesmith. It kinda makes sense. But I am not completely sure what the purpose of three Bladesmiths would be. Just increase the production rate? We already have a system for this - focus.

I also believe if I'm able to build 20 Fairgrounds in one town things will quickly go out of hand.

Multiple facilities would not necessarily be the same as focus. Focus has diminishing returns, each pop added does less work then the pop before it. That would not strictly need to be true for multiple facilities. Regardless Focus is mostly broken and Andrew and I have been discussing how to fix it or remove it.
He who was once known as Blackfyre