Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« Last post by Andrew on October 13, 2017, 01:30:49 PM »
I'd not even make that setting use the existing lists system. It'd be far simpler to jsut have the game do something like "if (in_array($settlement->getLord()->getUser()->getCharacters(), $currentcharacter) { allow } else { deny }". If I'm understanding the code right, I think that logic would be part of this function: https://github.com/Zanaras/MaFCDR/blob/master/src/BM2/SiteBundle/Service/PermissionManager.php#L52, along with an update to the form used to select settlement permissions to allow that as an option. We would possibly also want to make that a user profile selectable, so there could be a default setting for players to have when taking over a settlement.

Someone mentioned somewhere to allow RealmPositions to be on lists, technically, they already can be. It's just not fully implemented. I THINK all that we'd need to do is expose the field on the form, build a search method for it (by stealing the one used for realms, settlements, or characters and modifying accordingly), then edit this line here: https://github.com/Zanaras/MaFCDR/blob/master/src/BM2/SiteBundle/Service/PermissionManager.php#L121, to include a check for $member->getTargetRealmPosition and whatever logic is needed--it shouldn't differ too much from the character one, just with an additional step to fetch the position holders and see if the character we're looking at is one of them. The database itself already supports this logic, and has since the server move--that is, the field in the database for positions exists on permission list members and has a relation setup to the ream positions. I do sometimes do small updates knowing what I want to do to an area later.
2
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Andrew on October 13, 2017, 01:15:09 PM »
If realms cost upkeep, it won't be while I'm running the server.

The EVE Online approach has a few ideas to it though. This is part of why I was debating giving out credits to those who support development of the game, and the game already has free subscription levels for those I think are worth having one (no one does though, not even my own accounts).

If we take the Skyrim approach to skills, it may make it worthwhile to invest in skilling up characters for sale to others, and a highly skilled character could fetch a nice sum, theoretically. Character transfers, at a small fee (to the game, selling characters is debatable), are already on the todo list.

Artifacts are presently on the todo list to be purchasable. I've not determined a price for that though. Could also make them something you get after having so much subscription time. That might encourage people to stay subscribed actually. What would be a good rate, I wonder?

De-Legro mentioned player houses being a subscription or purchasable, but I'm kind of on the fence about that, because they'll already be something that encourages players to have heraldry, and they'll have some in-game mechanics associated to them.

Another idea is making monuments and memorials in cities or on the map a paid item, for like 100 credits or something. I'd want it low enough people would use it, but high enough to make it something done sparingly (because too many damn memorials would be really annoying).

A multi-sub system would be... interesting, though I fear confusing. Right now it's a question of subscribed or not. If there are multiple mini-ones, it's a question of subscribed or not, if yes, which ones.
3
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Cipheron on October 13, 2017, 09:07:09 AM »
Well another route is what Wurm Online does. With Wurm Online, group settlements need to pay upkeep, so some players pitch in for that while others tag along.

Translating that to M&F, you'd have something where it costs credits to create or maintain realms/subrealms. The ruler would have a number of means to raise enough credits for the upkeep (e.g. ability to trade credits). With unpaid upkeep however, I'd leave the realm intact but restrict the ability to conduct several areas of business.

Obviously this idea isn't very fleshed out, I'm just putting it out there as a concept for now.

Other than that, you could go for a hybrid system, where players are free to get a subscription to support the game, but that subscription also gives them in-game credits that they can trade to the other players, who might be playing for free. Then you have a bunch of things in the game that need a regular supply of credits but aren't over-powering, such as the realm upkeep I mentioned.
4
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« Last post by Cipheron on October 13, 2017, 08:35:03 AM »
Well since you control the characters, you're free to ignore that to your heart's content. No-one would make you go and use those towns. If denying access is RP-only then you'd have to explain why you need the rules to default to supporting things the way you want, for every player.

Because you want to RP your own characters not having access to a certain town is no good reason to make it the default that nobody's characters have default access to any of their other towns. you can RP not having access all you want even if access exists. However people can't RP having access when no access exists. It only becomes an issue when people try to access towns that their other characters own. Then they have to go through additional steps of logging out of one character, logging into the other character, editing permissions, then logging back into the original character. So in other words, the only time it impacts gameplay is as a random timewasting hassle when they're trying to do something. If they didn't want the character having that access, then they wouldn't try and access it.

Andrew outlined the solution anyway, if you want to restrict your character's access artificially. That is, to have a new checkbox on the permissions screen saying "allow same player's character access". Then when you click it, it uses the existing list system behind the scenes (to keep the code changes to a minimum). I'd recommend that it defaults to "on" however. Then you'd be free to click it "off" if that supports your roleplaying scenario how you like. But of course the checkbox would be a little redundant here since you can just pretend.
5
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« Last post by De-Legro on October 13, 2017, 07:54:03 AM »
Well that's why I was thinking a hidden list would simplify things.

- Make the list automatically for new accounts. This should only happen in one place in the code.
- When you create a new character, add them to the list
- when a character dies, delete them from the list
- when you gain control of a settlement, add in permissions for the list

basically this only needs to add code in where things change, not all places that might check permissions. It piggy-backs on already-existing and known working code. it's always better to layer a new system on existing systems than to write special exceptions. Much easier to debug.

But you ignore the question I keep raising. Do you WANT all your character having a single permission list automatically applied to them? Do you want all your settlements to be bound to this list? For example most of my own personal characters have no access to Hawks Hold, indeed very few characters do since there is some RP revolving around it religious significance to Hawks.
6
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by De-Legro on October 13, 2017, 07:49:53 AM »
I wasn't really talking micro transactions, though they have their place. I was more thinking provide some "cosmetic" features that warrant subscriptions, so I guess something that is compelling and has a reason to pay to keep active. The sub fee for each feature might well be lower then the current subs but you might have more then one sub running to access various things.

It is all pie in the sky though, since as I said to those on Discord, I have no concrete idea's on what to offer in this space right now.

Another option would be to retain the current subscription system, but simplify things to having a single paid account tier.
7
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« Last post by Cipheron on October 13, 2017, 06:48:24 AM »
I'm on the fence about a hidden "my characters" list, because I can imagine people using it, and people not using it, in different situations. I don't think it'd be hard to code, though, without creating a hidden list--just add a check in the dispatcher somewhere to check to see if this character belongs to the same user. The only downside is that you'd have to add it to EVERY place permissions are checked.

Well that's why I was thinking a hidden list would simplify things.

- Make the list automatically for new accounts. This should only happen in one place in the code.
- When you create a new character, add them to the list
- when a character dies, delete them from the list
- when you gain control of a settlement, add in permissions for the list

basically this only needs to add code in where things change, not all places that might check permissions. It piggy-backs on already-existing and known working code. it's always better to layer a new system on existing systems than to write special exceptions. Much easier to debug.
8
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Cipheron on October 13, 2017, 06:10:55 AM »
What about an Eve Online type model, in which players can earn credits in the game with which they can pay for their subscriptions? We haven't really discussed anything like that. It's a model that's proven successful in other games and it has some real advantages, because it's like a subscription system, but it also encourages player interaction / trade / role diversification.

Also, because the player earning credits and the player selling credits both benefit, there's much less of a sense of frustration as the paid accounts accumulate resources. Free players tend to wonder how they can exploit the rich-ass guys then.

One idea here is that instead of trading game-credits directly, you set up a special in-game currency e.g. called "Platinum" since you already have gold. That gives the game devs more control over how it works / balance. e.g. each paid account could get an "allowance" of platinum per month (which could be adjusted by the devs as they see fit), which would make them more willing to trade/spend it than game-credits themselves. Then, the free players earn platinum, and they can use that to pay for their subscription in lieu of credits. BTW a cap on Platinum per account would prevent a few people just trying to monopolize this resource, and encourage spending of it instead.

A well thought out system along these lines could work out pretty good for this game. e.g. if lords could offer a weekly payment of Platinum per vassal then that would mean people are more committed to the whole lord/vassal thing, since some players would use "be a vassal" as their strategy of earning enough credits to upgrade to a paid account. That lord would have to have their own source of Platinum or paid credits however.
9
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Foxglove on October 12, 2017, 02:50:18 PM »
I'm loathe to go microtransactions, but if that's what most people spend money on (likely), and it'll still support the cost of the game's server, I can bring it up with Tom.

It would have to be done very careful, in the sense that it would need to be made absolutely clear to players that they can fully play the game without ever paying anything. But there are a range of vanity purchases that can be made to personalize their game. Something along the lines of a notice where ever an option to purchase something appears to the effect of, "Might & Fealty is completely free to play and nothing you purchase will ever give you any in-game advantage. This content simply exists to enhance and personalize your [insert character, settlement, what ever]". Something like that, anyway. If new players get any hint (incorrectly) that they'll run in to a paywall, it'll be a huge turn off.

As I said before, the problem would be that it would be hard to replace the predictability of regular monthly subscription income just with vanity income. With the current vanity, once a player has bought something like the culture packs they're never going have to buy them again. Of course, that's how it should be with vanity. You shouldn't have to keep paying to maintain your content, once you've bought it, it should be yours for as long as you play the game.

So, if we were to go down this route, I made the suggestion of introducing new vanity purchases that can further personalize your characters. That way, every time someone creates a new character there's a percentage chance that the game could generate some income. People in this game become emotionally attached to three things: characters, settlements, and realms (perhaps also soldiers for some people). So any newly created vanity would perform best, economically speaking, if it were linked to those. It would have to be things that people would like to buy more than once. Again, that really leads us down the path of optional, cosmetic extras every time they create a character.

Of course, the big and obvious vanity purchase that is currently missing is realm banners or flags, akin to the family heraldry. However, we're going to have to really brainstorm to come up with further things that people would actually want to buy in enough numbers and regularly enough to create a proper income.

As far as the concept of the monthly fees goes, I've actually never been keen on it. Even though it's not a lot of money for most people, I don't think the fees give enough to justify them to the players. The game isn't going to be a runaway financial success and money spinner for anyone at this stage, so the fees are really probably just a barrier against gaining more players. However, it is important that who ever runs the game is at least getting the hosting fees paid and something to cover expenses. Perhaps more vanity could do that, or perhaps not. It would need a more detailed assessment of the finances to work it out.
10
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Andrew on October 12, 2017, 10:22:09 AM »
It is theoretically possible for me to figure out what most of M&F income actually is.

I'm loathe to go microtransactions, but if that's what most people spend money on (likely), and it'll still support the cost of the game's server, I can bring it up with Tom.

It's also something I'd want to ask the player base at large what their thoughts on it are, especially those who are presently subscribing.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10