Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - De-Legro

Pages: 1 ... 163 164 [165]
2461
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Feedback on the Manual
« on: November 18, 2013, 02:04:59 AM »

http://mightandfealty.com/en/manual/realms
"Each of these can contain any number of smaller types, so a kingdom could have one ore more duchies, marches, counties or baronies, but not the other way around (a barony can not contain a kingdom)."


Can a barony contain other baronies? Otherwise should it be made clear that only the higher 5 ranks can contain sub realms?


"Realms that are part of another realm count towards that realm with all their nobles and lands,"


I would change this to be something like, "Realms that are part of another larger realm, count towards that realms for the purposes of noble and settlement stastics"


" as deep as you want"
I would change deep for multi-leveled.


"Other than characters, settlements can only belong to one realm."


I would rephrase this to be something like "As opposed to characters, settlements can only belong to one realm"


http://mightandfealty.com/en/manual/travel


"You can travel by sea after embarking at a dock."


Should this make mention of needing appropriate permissions to use the dock?


"When travelling at sea, simply end your travel on land and you will automatically disembark where your route hits solid ground, switching you to normal land travel."
My reading of this is the end point does not need to be a dock? If so I think that should be explicitly mentioned


2462
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Feedback on the Manual
« on: November 18, 2013, 01:44:17 AM »
also on http://mightandfealty.com/en/manual/knight


The section " in sum total the knights of a realm can be powerful political forces, if they do not fall into apathy." Feels clunky to me. Something like, "when united the knights of a realm can be a powerful political force" is more natural to me.


On http://mightandfealty.com/en/manual/lord


"existing realm by inheritance, conquest or selection."


The "selection" bit confuses me. Does that refer to being appointed to a rulers position?


http://mightandfealty.com/en/manual/ruler


" by taking on more vassals and sub-realms and growing in size and power until you can either declare independence from your superior realm, or even reverse the tables and exchange positions. "


Is this case of a good suggestion of how to go about it, or is it an actual game mechanic requirement?

2463
Realms Chat / Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« on: November 17, 2013, 11:57:42 PM »
Privateers in service of lord so and so would be more accurate. this would be a good RP element for bastard borns to earn a family name, and to be awarded land.


And how will this play out without a real concept of ships? Raiding enemy territories? The concept of a Privateer was a method to raise ships for war that did not require the crown resources and/or committing naval officers to oversea them. This would be hard to apply to a realm that is already going to be at a possible disadvantage in terms troops without a major city. In general it requires a significant amount of forces being provided by private groups. So far as I can see the Island nations while not particularly united in a single realm are meant to be reasonably united and the sub realm level. Will privateers thus be sub realm forces given letters of "marque" by the central authority to act on behalf of the realm in general?


We are also talking about a concept that came into play during the 16th century, and so was not part of most the medieval period. It actually grew out of the need for merchant groups to field their own forces to protect themselves against increasing pirate activity, when national navies were unable to provide the level of protection needed. Originally the crown gave permission to these private merchant groups to attack pirate vessels only. However when war came about it didn't take the Monarch long to realise that these were a resource they could use.


Generally I am against concept like this, because all to often they lead to people thinking more in a Caribbean pirate mindset then a medieval one. Pirates and Privateers like it or not a popularly linked to that time and place.

2464
Realms Chat / Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« on: November 17, 2013, 11:48:30 PM »
Okay to flesh out a bit on my previous topic


  • The over-arching concept I had was that our nobles are exiles. They have ended up with island holdings not by choice, but necessity. True to their noble sensibilities though if you ask them they swear that it was of their choosing, as they wished to challenge themselves and prove their worth.
  • Culturally I was thinking a group that is fiercely self sufficient. This feeds into the sub-realm independence, while they practically see the need for uniting, they are also trying to hold on to their own power and thus in most cases the central authority is weakened. Unless outside events force them to act otherwise, the sub realms are quite happy with games of intrigue and power plays amongst themselves.
  • Dynamic Traditionalist. I am still fleshing this out but the general concept is that we have a very traditionalist culture. However in a nod to the practical mindset, and the necessities of island living, while they appear hide bound they actually can be quite flexible. Things to remember is that for the most part they would be cautious about change, although they have been known to be quite radical and quick changing on occasion, which leads to
  • Unpredictable. Like the weather and conditions that dominate their lives the nobles of the Island are unpredictable. Their gods are representation and personifications of things like the winds, the ocean and its currents. This should be an occasional thing like, more like a unexpected typhoon. It happens enough that they have a reputation for it, but no so common that others are unwilling to deal with them.
  • Fate is also a very important aspect to the islands. Things like prophets, auguries and portents are very important. This plays into both their unpredictable nature (they will quickly change their stance if unfavorable portents appear) and the dynamic Traditions stance (again they will drop a tradition quickly if the fates appear to require it)
Realm Influences
  • Weak central ruler, somewhat similar to the popular concept of the Irish High King. While Tom has said he isn't keen on competition for this position, perhaps if the position was for life, or was held by a family until its demise, at which stage competition for the position would begin. Of particular interest may be the sacred connections the Irish High Kings whom supposedly married a goddess. Our own King could be tied in some way to the Ocean Gods, either through something like marriage, could claim to have the Ocean gods blood in some way, or the ability to demand fealty from the Ocean gods.
  • Many Oriental cultures are Island based, such as Korea and Japan. Borrowing elements from these culture would help forge a sea based realm that isn't the stereotypical viking raiders.
Troop Composition
  • Given their strong maritime needs cavalry and heavily armored infantry are a rarity. Crossbows are also relatively difficult to use on a ship deck (or so I am given to understand, the reloading on a moving deck being the issue)
  • Strong reliance on archers and medium infantry.
Sub Realm Ideas
     Please note that I made these idea's before Tom stated how many islands we are likely to have. I also make some assumptions about resource distribution that may never be true. Finally the names are just random.


Island of Sileni
  • Largest island in our chain, large enough that the ruler of this island has 2 or 3 sub-realms under him.
  • Largest Producer of wood, thus of vital importance to the entire realms ship building efforts
Obviously this realm should be a real contender to dominate the others, with its advantage in man power, land and the strategic resource of wood. So what limits it?
  • Relatively poor in metal
  • Ancestor Worship. This group has a strong ancestor cult. In particular the actions of the living have a direct impact on the holdings their ancestors control in their death plane. While it is possible to make gains for their ancestors by acting against those not on their island, the biggest gains are to be made against those that practice the same ancestor worship. Thus the nobles are content to scheme against each other rather then attempt to dominate the realm.
Island Mercia
  • Has Mountain regions
  • Main Source of Metal for the realm
  • While most the realm use metal predominately for weapons, the abundance this island has sees them emphasize heavy infantry to a degree that is rare amongst their peers
  • Very militant culture. They are also more then willing to act as mercenaries for the other island realms, providing a core of heavy infantry for a price
Trader Islands
  • I'm not a huge fan personally of a mercantile culture, since trade is so abstracted in this game and we don't actually build ships. In my opinion this places a burden on RP to carry these elements that I have rarely seen maintained for any length of time. However it is obvious that there is a strong desire for this element, this is my idea of a compromise, a sub realm dedicated to it
  • Confederation of a few of the smaller islands
  • As each island is small and unlikely to be completely self sufficient they have developed a strong culture of trade
  • They are also quite willing to take what they need by force, though this is rarely done under their own flag.
  • More then any other group they emphasize the aspects of fate and weather religion due to their heavy reliance on the sea.


     

2465
Realms Chat / Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« on: November 17, 2013, 09:36:23 PM »
Yeah, some local variety. I would like to see some mix of tough sea dogs, maybe even pirates and peaceful fishermans/traders.


noble pirates?

2466
Realms Chat / Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« on: November 17, 2013, 06:44:02 AM »
Good ideas. However, we definitely want sub-realms, to bring in the greek model of small, independent states.

Quick idea until I have a time for a proper write up. As a group they believe they are superior to the mainlanders, having learnt to thrive on their islands. The are overly concerned with appearances and status, competiting endlessly at all levels.

In terms of the over-arching ruler, while generally weak, the position is prestigious leading to fierce competition to hold the rank. It really only has true power when the sub-realms unite in times of crisis. These leads to the saying "A good leader marshals his power in the time of crisis, a great leader manufactures the crisis"


2467
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Would You Pay to Play?
« on: November 16, 2013, 12:11:52 AM »
Too many bosses and not enough workers... I have worked in firms like this before and the end result is always delays and confusion.  Would a battle of many nobles without armies not be the same?

Now if you have 10 nobles in a battle but they are not leading armies (or very small ones), then orders begin to become confusing, egos begin to show, you have to watch your own back for betrayal.  Who is in charge of the battle?  They all want their part of the glory by nature.

However give a noble an army and they are busy leading it.  The army is power... they are a tool to be used but at the same time they are loyal to you and watch your back.

So in other words... reduce the power of multiple individual nobles when attacking unless they have armies.  10 soldiers is a good round number but a sliding scale could be used.  If someone spawns 10 nobles to attack you, he would need 100 solders to do the job without risking the nobles.  If he does it anyway...and those nobles are killed/captured/wounded in the process then the player is no longer able to use that as a way to advance and instead will be forced on the defensive.

It also becomes a reason for nobles with troops to hand them out to others.

That is a very interesting suggestion.

2468
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Would You Pay to Play?
« on: November 15, 2013, 03:26:04 PM »
which I will fix soon.


Not yet sure about the noble-without-soldiers-in-battle. You see, I don't want individual nobles to be able to attack, loot and take settlements.


Is this going to be a real concern long term though? Once regions start to get their walls up and have decent militia?

2469
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Would You Pay to Play?
« on: November 15, 2013, 02:51:43 PM »
As to the original question of this thread. Yes I would pay to play. The asking amount is pretty modest, the game even at this point is pretty fun. The only thing that I see slowing it down is if we don't get enough players.

2470
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Would You Pay to Play?
« on: November 15, 2013, 06:11:12 AM »

Hey, no need to get all ominous and foreboding on us. Before you started sending me messages about your story being ruined, I just thought we were all relaxing and having fun on an informal alpha test where the craziness we got into and tested out didn't matter much. If it means that much to you, I'll delete the characters after the turn rolls.


So what did we learn from this test?


And did you have to pass those soliders around after joining the battle in order to get 22 nobles to join a battle with only 15 men between them? I've never been able to get a noble to join a battle without troops.

2471
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: git experts ?
« on: November 15, 2013, 12:17:21 AM »
Ok, so sub-modules aren't the way to go.

Then what is?


Honestly, they are your only option to restrict read access that I know about. GIT was never really designed to restrict read access, hooks won't work for it like they will commit access. To me it looks like when GIT was create it was assumed that read access should be universal.

2472
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: git experts ?
« on: November 14, 2013, 11:59:01 PM »
If git could restrict read access, I wouldn't need sub-modules. :-)


Yeah I know, but Sub modules have a few gotcha's that can really catch out people that aren't experienced with GIT. Things like remembering to create a branch of a sub module any time you want to do work on it so you don't potentially screw up the pointers if other users run an update before you commit.


While you can use sub modules for what you want, really they are supposed to be for things that have separate life cycles. You might use a sub module to link to a 3rd party repository and you want to keep it at a certain revision until you CHOOSE to update it.


Only thing I dislike is that it also means when I change stuff across the project, e.g. add something new which also needs new template files and new translation strings, it means I have to submit the changes to lots of submodules, right?


Yes standard workflow is push to each sub module, then update sub modules in your main repository. The other aspect of this is that you will need to update the main repository whenever someone updates a sub module, in order to keep everything in sync.


Depending on how you set up people access to the sub modules they will also need to remember that a simple PULL command doesn't update the sub modules they have access to as well.

2473
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: git experts ?
« on: November 14, 2013, 10:35:58 PM »
Hm, what I read about submodules seemed more like it would remember that this folder is handled by a different repository and only track which revision, but not include changes in its own repository.

My directory structure is the standard Symfony2 layout:


Of that, translations, views and public might have to be opened to others.




Are you trying to restrict read access as well as write access?

2474
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Code Quality and testing
« on: November 10, 2013, 02:46:50 PM »
Just starting to learn using PHPunit (+ selenium), but with this it seems easier to convert your test cases.


Codeception is built on top of PHPunit, and is compatible with any code written for PHPunit. It nicely extends the unit testing capabilities of PHPunit into a Behavior-driven development which emphasises easily understood tests so that non-code participates can contributes (BDD is also one of the worst offenders for buzz words and jargon I've ever seen, but the concept is good).


By default Codeception uses PHPbrowser for the acceptance and functional tests, but it has a module to use selenium if you prefer.

Pages: 1 ... 163 164 [165]