Might & Fealty Community

Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: cenrae on June 18, 2017, 10:53:30 AM

Title: Soldier Experience
Post by: cenrae on June 18, 2017, 10:53:30 AM
I remember a long time ago Tom said when soldiers got around 20 experience their survival rate greatly increases.  Has anyone experimented much with soldier experience? When do you think it's best to train into calvary or say plate for example?
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: WVH on July 27, 2017, 11:14:33 AM
To a point.  If you get beaten badly in a battle tho... they are all going to die anyway.


I had a unit of 20 special plate/warhorse/broadsword warriors with 80+ exp.  Added them to a couple hundred other warriors but was caught in a pitched battle of about 2/1... beaten but then then of course if you can not get away fast enough, you go through round and round of battles... and every one of them will die.  Or if you are lucky, you get a few left wounded and they die while running around trying to avoid more battles.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Dorian on July 27, 2017, 12:45:18 PM
From my experience the veterans die like any other soldiers. They deal a lot of damage (I think), but don't appear to be as resilient as they should. Considering the amount of time you need to gain the experience and how difficult it is to do it, it doesn't seem to be worth it.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Andrew on July 27, 2017, 01:25:33 PM
Hm...

I wonder if it's possible to simply render a soldier unconcious in battle rather than just kill them. I'd think it'd be as simple as removing the soldier from his unit group, and that you could trigger this in situations where a high-xp soldier would otherwise be killed.

They'd still be seriously wounded, and I'm not sure if wounded soldiers dieing after the battle is a thing (it should be if it isn't), but it'd make this less squishy.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Foxglove on July 27, 2017, 02:00:04 PM
I'm not sure if wounded soldiers dieing after the battle is a thing (it should be if it isn't)

I'm pretty sure it is a thing. I've had soldiers with the blood drops after them in the listings who die outside of battle. I've never made a point to study the percentage of wounded soldiers who die rather than recover, but I've always had the impression that it's more common for wounded to die than recover. But that's entirely based on instinct as I've never made a study of it, as I say.

From my experience the veterans die like any other soldiers. They deal a lot of damage (I think), but don't appear to be as resilient as they should. Considering the amount of time you need to gain the experience and how difficult it is to do it, it doesn't seem to be worth it.

That's also been my feeling about experienced soldiers. It's not really worth fussing too much about when you put experienced soldiers in to higher classes of weapons and armour. Just put the most experienced soldiers you have into the best weapon/armour combinations available to you, and don't worry about it too much. As others have said, if you get caught on the wrong side of a battle with numbers against you, the highly experienced will die as easily as a rookie. And asymetrical battles are much more the norm in this game than evenly balanced ones.

Hm...

I wonder if it's possible to simply render a soldier unconcious in battle rather than just kill them. I'd think it'd be as simple as removing the soldier from his unit group, and that you could trigger this in situations where a high-xp soldier would otherwise be killed.

Although it seems like a good idea, it's a difficult thing to balance (I imagine). 10 soldiers each with 100 experience get in to a battle with 100 soldiers with 10+ experience each. The highly experienced soldiers get slaughtered to a man. How probable would it then be that those 10 highly experienced soldiers are just left unconscious on the battlefield rather than the enemy walking around knifing them in the neck while they're on the ground in dreamland? Come to that, how probable is it that 10 highly experienced soldiers would survive at all against those sorts of superior numbers? All battles in this game are essentially open-field without any terrain adavantages that a small number of highly trained soldiers could exploit to survive.

It's one of those development decisions where gameplay meets reality and one of them has to come out on top. In reality, it's entirely reasonable that highly experienced soldiers die as easily as the next man. In gameplay terms, its annoying to spend time grinding soldiers up the very long experience ladder to then see them get killed off in the space of a battle or two.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: silvershot on July 27, 2017, 04:08:47 PM
Really, highly experienced soldiers should handle a retreat better and be able to move away in a more orderly, safe fashion and perhaps take less casualties in the pursuit phase. They should also be generally better fighters, of course, but knowing how to stay orderly when they know they can no longer win the battle should ensure that more survive.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Constantine on July 27, 2017, 11:37:50 PM
In fact experienced soldiers tend to not flee from the battle when things go south and stay in the fight longer than rookies. So when the odds are against you, your best soldiers are most likely to get multiple wounds and die.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on July 28, 2017, 04:55:37 AM
Yes it is on the to do list to improve solider decisions based on likely battle outcome. The trick is sometimes you want your mean to retreat, and others you want a last stand, so it probably needs player input. At the same time you need to make sure people don't get too much advantage from say using troops to block/area ornotherwise delay while set to early retreat.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Constantine on July 28, 2017, 12:21:41 PM
That problem would be solved if battle preparation time somehow correlated with not only army size but also army size difference. If you're engaging an army twenty times larger than your own, we can lower preparation time to 5 minutes without any gameplay issues.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on July 28, 2017, 12:50:47 PM
That problem would be solved if battle preparation time somehow correlated with not only army size but also army size difference. If you're engaging an army twenty times larger than your own, we can lower preparation time to 5 minutes without any gameplay issues.

It already does that, has done for a long time. The original change was due to behaviour during a Rathgar war. I believe abou 20 minutes is as short as I have seen it but it may have been adjusted since then. This was back when people would use nobles with a single solider to tie down armies.

During the EI war a loophole was fixed where you could attack with a tiny force, get the small battle timer and then transfer troops to that character without increasing the timer.

But that doesn't actually address the issue I raised, since it is not necessary to use a much smaller force if you intend to have your force pull back quickly.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Constantine on July 28, 2017, 01:09:16 PM
If you're using a full company to cover army's retreat and instruct soldiers to disengage early, that actually sounds like a valid tactic though.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on July 28, 2017, 02:37:10 PM
If you're using a full company to cover army's retreat and instruct soldiers to disengage early, that actually sounds like a valid tactic though.

And if you are doing in enmass to prevent people from joining a pitched battle some 300 yards away? Yes there are times that it would make sense. Given current mechanics there are plenty of times where it won't. 100 men can tie down 400 or more for 7 hours, regardless of the terrian or other factors.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Constantine on July 28, 2017, 02:54:09 PM
For that reason I suggested to increase interaction range considerably. So there would be no need to babysit your troops. Right now those who can micromanage multiple party movement 24/7 always win. If you could interact with everything in the province once you entered it, we'd see a much more laid-back game.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: silvershot on July 28, 2017, 02:54:49 PM
And if you are doing in enmass to prevent people from joining a pitched battle some 300 yards away? Yes there are times that it would make sense. Given current mechanics there are plenty of times where it won't. 100 men can tie down 400 or more for 7 hours, regardless of the terrian or other factors.


The best way they could do that is if it were 100 well equipped and skilled soldiers, probably cavalry, versus a messy rabble. But that would probably be over in far less time than 7 hours, anyway.

Edit: It'd be nice if there was an easy way to combine nearby battles, but sometimes not even realm is appropriate.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on July 28, 2017, 05:22:44 PM
For that reason I suggested to increase interaction range considerably. So there would be no need to babysit your troops. Right now those who can micromanage multiple party movement 24/7 always win. If you could interact with everything in the province once you entered it, we'd see a much more laid-back game.

How does that help? One bigger interaction zones make block area more effective? Second your opponent can still engage you once you are in range before you can join the battle if they are more active/happen to be online at the right time.


The best way they could do that is if it were 100 well equipped and skilled soldiers, probably cavalry, versus a messy rabble. But that would probably be over in far less time than 7 hours, anyway.

Edit: It'd be nice if there was an easy way to combine nearby battles, but sometimes not even realm is appropriate.

No the solution is easy, you don't allow new battles to be created with X yards of an existing one. Then you.don't need logic to combine battles that are close.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Constantine on July 28, 2017, 05:36:55 PM
How does that help?
If this is paired with combining all nearby battles, people who can log in two times a day will be able to be competitive. They won't have to play that "log in every hour" game to maneuvre with the opponent into a more beneficial set of battles.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on July 28, 2017, 05:57:17 PM
If this is paired with combining all nearby battles, people who can log in two times a day will be able to be competitive. They won't have to play that "log in every hour" game to maneuvre with the opponent into a more beneficial set of battles.

If that is the game you want, BM already exists. We aren't trying to replicate two turns a day and provence level interaction. If we want to go that route we should remove hour travel ticks and return to movement only 1 per in game day like it was to start with, and do away with the fancy map that allows for such freedom of movement. If I can attack anything in a provence why have any movement that doesn't result in arrival at the settlement?

It's not like the BM model doesn't suffer from its own issues, like how the realm with the most players active just before and after a turn generally having a massive advantage.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: silvershot on July 28, 2017, 10:35:14 PM
No the solution is easy, you don't allow new battles to be created with X yards of an existing one. Then you.don't need logic to combine battles that are close.

Thought about that after I posted too. But I guess I was thinking that you might still want to try to draw people into the battle.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on July 29, 2017, 12:15:12 AM
Thought about that after I posted too. But I guess I was thinking that you might still want to try to draw people into the battle.

They can always pick a side and join if that is.what they wish though, and it eliminates whining about mistakes any algorithm makes.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on July 29, 2017, 03:34:57 PM
They can always pick a side and join if that is.what they wish though, and it eliminates whining about mistakes any algorithm makes.

De-Legro, we aren't saying to make EVERYTHING provincial. Just battles. As it is, players who are able to log on constantly (meaning those who do not have a job, such as students, or those with a job involving a computer) can massively outplay those who are on twice a day because we actually need to fucking work for 8 hours in a non-office environment. I'm sorry, but it's very, very difficult to play Might & Fealty when I'm powerwashing a stadium in 110 degree heat for 8 hours. So I apologize if I'm not exactly empathetic with those who have the time to leverage the absolutely tiny view range circle and the even smaller, insignificant interaction circle that might as well be as large as the dot on the map where you are for all the difference it makes. You cannot make a strategic game of this scale, and yet have things happen in real-time without some kind of compensation. As it is, they hyperactive (and yes, they are hyperactive in the sense that they are far, FAR more active than the average player) can just form thin wall of nobles and wait for one of their nobles to spot someone, then have all of his characters gang up on that one person.

This is the reason that there hasn't been a huge war up until right now. The average player often just gets curbstomped by a single person who is microing better than a competitive Starcraft player with multiple characters.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Weaver on July 29, 2017, 06:47:59 PM
That argument makes no sense. In 6 hours, a Noble with 100 troops can't make it from one end of a spot circle, to the other, if you have 20 scouts. At 200 troops, he'll be able to cross only the semi-axis. There is military aid, and anyone can make a dumb circle of blocking Nobles, doesn't matter how active they are. If you walk into a trap of that nature, you weren't outplayed by a dude who is online 24/7; you got outplayed by a dude who guessed where you were going and was correct.


Usually, when this happens, you lost a settlement or are under attack at a settlement, and you sent your troops to reinforce or take it back. That is a mistake. If he is there before you, you are shit out of luck- you shouldn't even bother going there if he has superior troops.


In short, it has nothing to do with the system, or the spot range, or the interaction range, it has everything to do with following up a strategic error with a tactical one.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on July 29, 2017, 06:52:43 PM
That argument makes no sense. In 6 hours, a Noble with 100 troops can't make it from one end of a spot circle, to the other, if you have 20 scouts. At 200 troops, he'll be able to cross only the semi-axis. There is military aid, and anyone can make a dumb circle of blocking Nobles, doesn't matter how active they are. If you walk into a trap of that nature, you weren't outplayed by a dude who is online 24/7; you got outplayed by a dude who guessed where you were going and was correct.


Usually, when this happens, you lost a settlement or are under attack at a settlement, and you sent your troops to reinforce or take it back. That is a mistake. If he is there before you, you are shit out of luck- you shouldn't even bother going there if he has superior troops.


In short, it has nothing to do with the system, or the spot range, or the interaction range, it has everything to do with following up a strategic error with a tactical one.

Oh hi Weaver, knew you'd take any chance to respond to one of my comments. Hey guess what's longer than 6 hours? The 7 hour prep time for a battle. You know what else is longer? the 8 hour working day. That's if you don't have overtime. So 6 hours really isn't that long of a time after all, especially if you overlap the sight circles.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Weaver on July 29, 2017, 07:48:35 PM
You know what else is long and lasts more than 8 hours?


Why do you assume that everything that will happen, will happen exactly when you sleep or work? That's a poor excuse. Watchtowers extend the viewrange to crazy amounts, so really, if you don't see him coming, then why not delegate war to someone who will. If you do not have the preparation and skills necessary to receive a mobility push, then no amount of 'fixes' will help you.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: silvershot on July 30, 2017, 01:52:42 AM
They can always pick a side and join if that is.what they wish though, and it eliminates whining about mistakes any algorithm makes.

That's something else entirely different.

If an enemy wants to try to avoid a battle, and they pass nearby, and I can't engage them in a new battle or draw them into the other battle, then they just get a free pass. If they want to avoid it by going a longer way around, that's something else entirely.

300 yards away? The battle line could theoretically expand that far, and so could a camp during planning. A longbow has a useful range of approximately 200 yards, killing range even higher than that; they better be running or sprinting their forces away from and past me if they don't want to get picked at.

Late crossbows could reach well over 300 yards; early crossbows could kill as far as 300 or so yards with training and a little luck but granted were probably far more lethal and useful on a flat plain at 50-70 yards.

Though I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on July 30, 2017, 02:48:47 AM
That's something else entirely different.

If an enemy wants to try to avoid a battle, and they pass nearby, and I can't engage them in a new battle or draw them into the other battle, then they just get a free pass. If they want to avoid it by going a longer way around, that's something else entirely.

300 yards away? The battle line could theoretically expand that far, and so could a camp during planning. A longbow has a useful range of approximately 200 yards, killing range even higher than that; they better be running or sprinting their forces away from and past me if they don't want to get picked at.

Late crossbows could reach well over 300 yards; early crossbows could kill as far as 300 or so yards with training and a little luck but granted were probably far more lethal and useful on a flat plain at 50-70 yards.

Though I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere.

Yes, I want to revisit the fact that once you are in a battle you can't force others in. I think it makes sense that you can choose to also attack new forces in the area. I also think that join battle needs to be more sophisticated, so that you can choose your side and forces others into battle on the other side. Not necessary though if the first change is made since you could join then initialise battle.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on July 30, 2017, 03:01:05 AM
De-Legro, we aren't saying to make EVERYTHING provincial. Just battles. As it is, players who are able to log on constantly (meaning those who do not have a job, such as students, or those with a job involving a computer) can massively outplay those who are on twice a day because we actually need to fucking work for 8 hours in a non-office environment. I'm sorry, but it's very, very difficult to play Might & Fealty when I'm powerwashing a stadium in 110 degree heat for 8 hours. So I apologize if I'm not exactly empathetic with those who have the time to leverage the absolutely tiny view range circle and the even smaller, insignificant interaction circle that might as well be as large as the dot on the map where you are for all the difference it makes. You cannot make a strategic game of this scale, and yet have things happen in real-time without some kind of compensation. As it is, they hyperactive (and yes, they are hyperactive in the sense that they are far, FAR more active than the average player) can just form thin wall of nobles and wait for one of their nobles to spot someone, then have all of his characters gang up on that one person.

This is the reason that there hasn't been a huge war up until right now. The average player often just gets curbstomped by a single person who is microing better than a competitive Starcraft player with multiple characters.

No for several reasons. First maintaining the infrastructure for the current map becomes almost pointless without localised battles. Manevouring troops is the primary purpose of the map, if we can see everything in a provence and engage there is simply little purpose to having fine grained movement.

Secondly the same arguments have been used in BM for years, with only two ticks a day. I have little confiendnce complaints about the hyper active will cease, just that there will be a bigger potential pool if people to complain about.

I am happy to talk about increasing interaction ranges, happy to talk about removing scouts increasing interaction zones, or tweaking Thier effect in scouting range so people don't feel they need 100 of them.

Battle timers, battle ranges etc are also things we can look at. If you can't just start a new battle in top of an existing one you limit a major advantage of the very active, they ability to control easily whom enters a battle.

Andrew might feel differently, I have not had the chance to discuss it with him, but it is certainly not something I am going to invest my time into making a reality.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: silvershot on July 30, 2017, 08:48:10 AM
Yes, I want to revisit the fact that once you are in a battle you can't force others in. I think it makes sense that you can choose to also attack new forces in the area. I also think that join battle needs to be more sophisticated, so that you can choose your side and forces others into battle on the other side. Not necessary though if the first change is made since you could join then initialise battle.


Awesome!

And if it's feasible, it might also be worthwhile to afford players the ability to try (a chance) to avoid being drawn into the battle, perhaps if they have the evasion option enabled. Obviously not guaranteed, but if they are trying to avoid you, they should still be able to try, but with risk of course.


Honestly, evasion might be worthwhile as having other risks associated... Skirmishes of scout parties/vanguards or whatever. But that's an entire new mechanic. I understand that might be far too complex to even be considered. The risks could effect both parties, though.  As an example of consequences of evading, there could be a risk of losing carried supplies (perhaps some recovered by the attacker?), lost equipment or risk of minor casualties for both sides.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on July 30, 2017, 09:58:56 AM

Awesome!

And if it's feasible, it might also be worthwhile to afford players the ability to try (a chance) to avoid being drawn into the battle, perhaps if they have the evasion option enabled. Obviously not guaranteed, but if they are trying to avoid you, they should still be able to try, but with risk of course.


Honestly, evasion might be worthwhile as having other risks associated... Skirmishes of scout parties/vanguards or whatever. But that's an entire new mechanic. I understand that might be far too complex to even be considered. The risks could effect both parties, though.  As an example of consequences of evading, there could be a risk of losing carried supplies (perhaps some recovered by the attacker?), lost equipment or risk of minor casualties for both sides.

Is this instead of the existing evade mechanic?
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Gustav Kuriga on July 30, 2017, 07:31:07 PM
No for several reasons. First maintaining the infrastructure for the current map becomes almost pointless without localised battles. Manevouring troops is the primary purpose of the map, if we can see everything in a provence and engage there is simply little purpose to having fine grained movement.

Secondly the same arguments have been used in BM for years, with only two ticks a day. I have little confiendnce complaints about the hyper active will cease, just that there will be a bigger potential pool if people to complain about.

I am happy to talk about increasing interaction ranges, happy to talk about removing scouts increasing interaction zones, or tweaking Thier effect in scouting range so people don't feel they need 100 of them.

Battle timers, battle ranges etc are also things we can look at. If you can't just start a new battle in top of an existing one you limit a major advantage of the very active, they ability to control easily whom enters a battle.

Andrew might feel differently, I have not had the chance to discuss it with him, but it is certainly not something I am going to invest my time into making a reality.

It seems you are hellbent on not listening to anyone here, so I will stop talking.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: silvershot on July 31, 2017, 03:22:30 PM
Is this instead of the existing evade mechanic?


Perhaps in addition to. It may not offer enough to be worth development time, but even a successful disengagement or evasion might carry some risk. They could, for example, send skirmishing forces to try to force you into battle, or at least slow you down. I don't know, though. I definitely think a perfect disengagement/evasion would be difficult if the enemy is already hunting you.

Perhaps it would be easier for a noble and a few guards to escape -- leaving behind his men to fend for themselves and perhaps branding him as a coward.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on August 01, 2017, 06:36:02 AM
It seems you are hellbent on not listening to anyone here, so I will stop talking.

Yet I listened to Silvershot. For your information there have been large wars, how large do you want? There have been wars with more then ten thousand troops on each side for example. Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I don't listen, just that I am not swayed by their point of view or argument. A game can not cater to all people and those with more time to play have just as much right to have games in existence that suit their play style and activity as those that do not. That said there are other changes that should make things more live-able for players that have less frequent logins. The tiny interaction range I believe should be increased, just not to the size of an entire settlement. Beyond the fact that it introduces a logic disconnect given the battle interaction range will vary with the size of the settlement, with the proposed changes to how settlements/estates/ will work and the ability to change the size of them, it will open itself up to all sorts of abuse that we then have to come up with solutions and code around.

Personally I don't think the battle preparation timers particularly help less active player, at least not when they are on the side that don't have the initiative. I would think that by time most log in and learn of a battle, the time to travel to that battle is longer then the time left in the preparation.


Perhaps in addition to. It may not offer enough to be worth development time, but even a successful disengagement or evasion might carry some risk. They could, for example, send skirmishing forces to try to force you into battle, or at least slow you down. I don't know, though. I definitely think a perfect disengagement/evasion would be difficult if the enemy is already hunting you.

Perhaps it would be easier for a noble and a few guards to escape -- leaving behind his men to fend for themselves and perhaps branding him as a coward.

Would be perhaps interesting to have a system were evade is simultaneous to the creation of a battle. We would probably need some sort of regrouping timer though, otherwise the aggressive party can simply spam more attacks before you move, that or get Tom's movement code to actually function as required in terms of moving your party when you evade.

In the talks Andrew and I have had about improvements to the battle engine the use an functionality of skirmishes is certainly something we want to introduce. The current battle system favours top end equipment over all else. Using skirmishes to prevent retreat, or indeed using them to cover a retreat are good ways to make lighter armoured troops useful I feel.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Constantine on August 01, 2017, 10:26:14 AM
A game can not cater to all people and those with more time to play have just as much right to have games in existence that suit their play style and activity as those that do not. That said there are other changes that should make things more live-able for players that have less frequent logins.
On the contrary, we atually need changes to give 24/7 people more stuff to do.
Wars are the only thing that caters to their very high activity level. Everything else is very slow. So high activity players either leave or basically live from war to war. It's not even funny to watch them enter hybernation regime while there's nobody to kill as they delete all of their extra characters and log in once a day. And then something comes around and they spawn 20 characters again and go at it like there's no tomorrow.
Maybe that's the main reason behind some people seeking any opportunity to fight even if its already a gangbang of some minor realm half a continent away.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on August 01, 2017, 10:55:09 AM
On the contrary, we atually need changes to give 24/7 people more stuff to do.
Wars are the only thing that caters to their very high activity level. Everything else is very slow. So high activity players either leave or basically live from war to war. It's not even funny to watch them enter hybernation regime while there's nobody to kill as they delete all of their extra characters and log in once a day. And then something comes around and they spawn 20 characters again and go at it like there's no tomorrow.
Maybe that's the main reason behind some people seeking any opportunity to fight even if its already a gangbang of some minor realm half a continent away.

Try to make argument that don't revolve around whatever situation you find yourself in. Just as I had to explain to various Hawks in annoying OOC message's it is very easy to see ooc reasons or collusion when you are not privy to everything that is occuring. For instance Hawks would not now be involved in a war had Ascalon not had a feast RP running. I almost didn't send a character at any rate so it is pretty coincidental that Eldamar where able to make contact with me and enlist Hawks aid. Likewise many in Hawks including myself had made assumptions that Ryne and Gwent events were all organised OOC by Battlemaster friends. However no matter what I assumed OOC it had no bearing on my characters.

If war was that important to the very active players, we would simply start them. The most active players I know are myself, Weaver and Demivar, and we are all generally much happier not at war.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Constantine on August 01, 2017, 12:10:53 PM
It is interesting how you took my post as a personal jab because it was not aimed at you at all. I have no idea what Hawks players do during peace times and how many characters each has. But this knee-jerk reaction could mean it is pretty much the same as Stoned's Rathgar, Dubhaine's Lowlands, Weaver's EI, Demi's Ascalon and even my Slumberstone when I had plenty of free time and was very active.


I am not throwing anyone under the bus here, just stating the facts. My arguments do revolve around situations I found myself in because that is literally the only way you interact with the game and community and see how things are. I do not have any knowledge of the game outside of my own experience with it, I hope that's clear.


One can argue that there are no ooc cliques who coordinate their political alignments in discord or that people don't need wars to not get bored to death. And that could well be true. But it does not even matter as long as the usual MO is still as I've described it. Hibernation>activity spike where a weaker side is obliterated in a gangbang>hibernation. I am not interested in motives and behind the scenes stuff, I am pointing out the flawed activity cycle. Wars are actually very rare. But a war can make or break the entire experience for you. And players who get used to months of slow paced gameplay get completely obliterated because they can not micromanage their armies 24/7. That's bad deisgn. This game needs to decide what sort of game it is.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: De-Legro on August 01, 2017, 12:57:53 PM
It is interesting how you took my post as a personal jab because it was not aimed at you at all. I have no idea what Hawks players do during peace times and how many characters each has. But this knee-jerk reaction could mean it is pretty much the same as Stoned's Rathgar, Dubhaine's Lowlands, Weaver's EI, Demi's Ascalon and even my Slumberstone when I had plenty of free time and was very active.


I am not throwing anyone under the bus here, just stating the facts. My arguments do revolve around situations I found myself in because that is literally the only way you interact with the game and community and see how things are. I do not have any knowledge of the game outside of my own experience with it, I hope that's clear.


One can argue that there are no ooc cliques who coordinate their political alignments in discord or that people don't need wars to not get bored to death. And that could well be true. But it does not even matter as long as the usual MO is still as I've described it. Hibernation>activity spike where a weaker side is obliterated in a gangbang>hibernation. I am not interested in motives and behind the scenes stuff, I am pointing out the flawed activity cycle. Wars are actually very rare. But a war can make or break the entire experience for you. And players who get used to months of slow paced gameplay get completely obliterated because they can not micromanage their armies 24/7. That's bad deisgn. This game needs to decide what sort of game it is.

I was quite careful not to take it personally. I was simply providing a counter experience. But lets follow your rabbit hole. Go on and list all the realms that have been obliterated.
Title: Re: Soldier Experience
Post by: Andrew on August 01, 2017, 01:06:26 PM
Guys, stop. You're just feeding each other's arguments at this point.