Author Topic: Things to Do  (Read 1028 times)

Andrew

  • Game Master / Lead Developer
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Karma: +75/-7
  • Mildly Amused
    • View Profile
    • Lemuria Community Fan Site
Re: Things to Do
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2017, 11:31:17 PM »
So, if these become actual interactive npcs on the map though and follow travel rules, it might not be so bad if they are sent longer distances. Some unorganized soldiers on tree road make for a good target. :)
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 12:51:26 AM 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)

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Things to Do
« Reply #31 on: August 09, 2017, 12:25:34 AM »
Possibly. It'd give bandits something to do.

silvershot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Things to Do
« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2017, 12:52:01 AM »
I like the sound of that. As I said, it should be relatively short-ranged, no more than 3-4 provinces (in my opinion, though the exact range would probably change based on in-game experience) to avoid both full centralization, and so that troops aren't being sent halfway across the map.

I disagree, but only because I think you could simply make it expensive and time consuming. I think that trying to funnel larger groups of troops longer distances would just, naturally, take a lot longer. You would probably also have to be concerned with ensuring they are fed. If they're not fed, they'd have to forage and take even longer.

Groups light infantry, archers and/or cavalry would probably be able to travel pretty quickly.

Groups of Medium Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Armored archers and heavy cavalry would probably travel a lot more slowly.

It's easy to keep small groups in order. Much harder to keep larger groups in order.

Funneling soldiers this way could cost money, and food (if you want to ensure you avoid starvation and let them travel faster).

And if you move too far away from their destination? It will take a bit longer to reorganize their march towards you, or they could just keep marching to the wrong place (so you'd have to intercept them some how, or sacrifice scouts, etc, to keep them coming to your location)

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Things to Do
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2017, 01:36:28 AM »
I like the sound of that. As I said, it should be relatively short-ranged, no more than 3-4 provinces (in my opinion, though the exact range would probably change based on in-game experience) to avoid both full centralization, and so that troops aren't being sent halfway across the map.

The implementation I currently favour would be for them to simply be a unit upon the map. My concept is that all soldiers belong to a named military unit, with each unit consuming a barracks at its settlement of residence. Each military is broken down into sections, that is smaller probably identical units. The exceptions is the command section which will have the command NPC for the entire unit and the training section. I  am still sort of conceptualising the details, especially because I am trying to work the whole thing into much larger planned changes but the general idea would be that much of the entourage we currently attach to our characters would instead be attached to a unit, particularly things like camp followers.Each section is the smallest group you can give orders to, but in the most part they must operation within a specific range of the command section.

The training section is completely different. They operate in the home barracks, training replacement troops. I have yet to decide if they only train troops in response to losses, train troops constantly to maintain a certain composition ready to provide replacements as needed or some select-able combination of the two. The way mustering would work is that the training section would send troops to the command section, ready to be deployed to each section. This movement would be as a group, so some sort of control is probably necessary, either settings for a minimum unit size before replacements are sent, or a button to request replacements. Once they arrive at the command section they go to the sections that need them, either as a teleport thing or when the section next is within interaction range of the command unit.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

DemivarsVagina

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Things to Do
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2017, 10:14:38 PM »
So I really like the idea of being able to interact more with settlements. I think that multiple players should be able to live under the lord of a settlement and have more roleplay opportunities. It doesn't seem "realistic" (such a controversial word) to have every player concerned about global politics and war in a hands-on capacity. There are many important issues that should crop (pun intended) up at home to deal with. The idea previously mentioned of roaming NPCs is a nice touch, but even of a non-combat variety.


Hell, if nothing else let's make tavern chat rooms, room descriptions, custom housing, all via a text-based display with some pictures so we don't have to worry about adding in a ton of mechanics. Andrew, this is an extension of our conversation but I just wanted to post this here too. The concept of taking a MUD and adding in some pictures is fantastic as well. Because let's face it, the real problem with population in this game stems from the fact that unless you own a settlement or are a kingdom ruler, there isn't much to do. I'm brand new as of this typing and even I can see that. This is not to insult the developers of course, merely an observation from a new set of eyes.

Additionally, scaling back player involvement I think is something important. If leaders are less common, then they will be more important. So a player general who adds NPCs AND players to his army and marches around with them now has to consider the players in their unit. Players would become soldiers that could be moved around automatically or require a daily "move" action. And if we add in the need to feed/supply troops, supply lines, etc. then you suddenly have a whole mass of depth to the game by just adding some of these basic logistic issues for leaders to contend with.


To sum it up a bit:

Roleplay
  • Tavern Chat Rooms
  • Buildings with Descriptions
  • Custom Buildings/Homes/Castles
  • Add jobs that are not directly combat-related to towns
  • Scale back the required power level at character creation (peasants, hedge knights, whatever you want to call it)
Logistics
  • Players need to eat
  • Break the link between food and population increase (zero-sum rule)
  • Players in player "armies"


Other Ideas
  • Crafted Items
  • Player Economy
  • Player-owned businesses in towns
  • Make land a small patch of land a purchased property (except the kind that's awarded by a lord to one of his/her knights)






While this may seem like a lot to do (and maybe it is), I think that our main issue here is that this game is marketed as a game where you can play for a few minutes a day and leave again. That simply isn't the case, clearly by the other responses I've been reading. If this were a game where an action took a full real life day, maybe. So players come in and maybe find that things are not what they expected. If we open up the roleplay options, then we open the door for more players that can get involved in the game and allowing lords to do their thing. You can either go this direction, or you can go the opposite, choosing to simplify the game in the process and make it essentially a mobile clicking game that would take 5 minutes or less for a 24-hour period. I really hope you go with the former, I'm just trying to put it into perspective. Not everyone wants to be a knight or a lord, or at least not start out that way. Some of us want to be mercenaries, sailors, bandits, blacksmiths, merchants, etc.


Anyway, those are just some thoughts from a new guy!


Andrew

  • Game Master / Lead Developer
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Karma: +75/-7
  • Mildly Amused
    • View Profile
    • Lemuria Community Fan Site
Re: Things to Do
« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2017, 10:46:42 AM »
I like the idea of being able to interact more with settlements too, though I also like the ease the existing interaction system allows when it comes to accessing things, so rather than replace it, I'd like to add something in tandem that allows a more immersive experience.

Tavern chat rooms could be added I think. I'll add it to my todo list.
Buildings with descriptions, already on my todo list.
Custom buildings, sort of on my todo list.
Add jobs. . . . . . Elaborate please.
Scale back the required power level, there's a thing I'd love to do involving new player characters being created and arriving in a city but it requires player complexes to be added first.
Players needing to eat, I'm going to decline on the grounds of M&F not being a survival game--maybe when I add the warrens though, we can reapproach this.
Zero sum rule, we might bend ti down the line, when I manage to teach the game what an actual storage system is, but I don't plan on removing it anytime soon.
Player armies, doable. Could you elaborate more on what you'd like to see with this?
Crafted items, me and De-Legro were discussing this at one point. I think our visions are a bit different.
Player economy, eh.... Technically we already have a player economy. Most of the players seem to be against me adding new resource types to it though. :(
Player owned businesses, I've discussed this with De-Legro before, but at the earliest this won't even be considered for adding until player complexes are added.
Owning land, this is sort of already on my todo list.
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: 3109
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Things to Do
« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2017, 10:22:41 PM »
I like the idea of being able to interact more with settlements too, though I also like the ease the existing interaction system allows when it comes to accessing things, so rather than replace it, I'd like to add something in tandem that allows a more immersive experience.

Tavern chat rooms could be added I think. I'll add it to my todo list.
Buildings with descriptions, already on my todo list.
Custom buildings, sort of on my todo list.
Add jobs. . . . . . Elaborate please.
Scale back the required power level, there's a thing I'd love to do involving new player characters being created and arriving in a city but it requires player complexes to be added first.
Players needing to eat, I'm going to decline on the grounds of M&F not being a survival game--maybe when I add the warrens though, we can reapproach this.
Zero sum rule, we might bend ti down the line, when I manage to teach the game what an actual storage system is, but I don't plan on removing it anytime soon.
Player armies, doable. Could you elaborate more on what you'd like to see with this?
Crafted items, me and De-Legro were discussing this at one point. I think our visions are a bit different.
Player economy, eh.... Technically we already have a player economy. Most of the players seem to be against me adding new resource types to it though. :(
Player owned businesses, I've discussed this with De-Legro before, but at the earliest this won't even be considered for adding until player complexes are added.
Owning land, this is sort of already on my todo list.

Technically all item producing buildings already are player owned businesses. Even those that are force built like blacksmiths pretty much dedicate their production solely to us. I have spoken before about making some town building more automated and remove complete control over a settlement from the player, but it would be a big change in terms of repercussions so it something that really needs to be thought out better, at the moment it is just a thought bubble.

Yes I have been against player crafted items, just as I am against jobs in general. This is mostly because I can see the entire game and dev efforts being sucked into little side projects that don't address the core of the game. Lore wise First Ones were not always all aristocracy. There was a time that we filled every spot in civilisation and no doubt at least some of the survives are craftsmen, architects and the like. The problem game mechanic wise I have with things like crafting is that once it is added it becomes a must have thing, and we become swamped with crafting characters.

Armies are in for a rework as I have said. I will post today about my ideas here which cover things like recruitment, upkeep and movement.
He who was once known as Blackfyre