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] 2 3 ... 160
So far as I know, the author of the script no longer plays

Bug Reports / Battle Bug
« on: August 10, 2017, 04:06:56 AM »
Has anyone started a battle in the past few hours? There appears to be a bug where the character that initiates a battle ends up as the defender. I am trying to see if this is a case for all battles or not.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: travel dates and battle timers
« on: August 09, 2017, 01:37:51 AM »
Messages us the Markdown system, so ideally anything related to them needs to also adhere to that.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« 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.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 07, 2017, 01:20:48 AM »
I've warmed up to it, actually.

Yay, I will write up a proposal then.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 05, 2017, 03:35:03 AM »
Being able to duel with other FO, either to death or till one of the participants is wounded.
Maybe make it somewhat like the dungeon system, using or learning moves (stabbing , slashing, kicking,  shield bashing etc.).

Hunting. A less dangerous version of dungeon explorations. Various animals depending on the biome with a small chance to stumble apon a truly dangerous beast.

There is a way to duel, its just annoy to set up.

[Moderator De-Legro actions. Cleaning up this reply. While several of us, including myself derailed this topic Andrew has requested it get back on track, so I am removing posts that might fan the off topic discussion again. Ideally, get your personal feuds off the forum.]

A dead horse to beat on? All self-deprecating jokes aside, perhaps a way to funnel new recruits to a specific settlement? It would have to be relatively short-ranged to avoid people sending troops from halfway across the map, but this would make it much, MUCH easier for players who don't have the time available to actively fight a war to still contribute to the strength of a realm. It would possibly also put more emphasis on regional power rather than full on centralization.

There would have to be something to keep besieged towns from receiving these troops magically (someone blocking travel at the settlement should also block said soldiers), and a delay between when the soldier is recruited, and when they show up in the settlement they were sent to, based on distance.

Part of my plans with making military units an actual thing is the ability to set up recruitment to funnel to marshaling area's. It might not get off the ground though because the other devs aren't thrilled with removing the character element from troops interactions

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Slumbering nobles
« on: August 03, 2017, 05:15:16 AM »
Slumberers as an xp farm is being killed in the code.

Removing them from the main contact list is on my to-do list. Mind you, they'd still be accessible, but as a separate list, ideally.

I won't remove them from the map though. I may however add in code to easily capture them for relocation.

On my to do list for the message system is the ability to organise contacts. Like BM there will be some auto generated categories, like realm lists. Slumbering could easily be another auto generated list.

Creating Might & Fealty / Re: Slumbering nobles
« on: August 03, 2017, 01:25:57 AM »
Slumbering is a sickness, the only one that affects the First Ones that we are currently aware of, and thus I believe we should in the most part be terrified of it. I am all for moving slumbers so they don't simply become XP farms, but then we are already talking about ways to reduce/eliminate the practice of RP farming. To achieve continuity I would rather see all slumbered moved to a certain location, a hospital/isolation for them if you will. Certainly that would be more work, and require far more details then I have outlined, but to me that fits the game better then just disappearing them.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 02, 2017, 01:17:09 AM »
In my opinion the game needs NPC events that provide the setting for player interaction. Things like bandits that require people to co-operate to firstly secure a region against their attacks, and then scout out their hideout for example. The original design took sandbox to mean only player generated content. I don't think that is feasible for a web game that isn't supposed to dominate your life.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 02, 2017, 12:00:03 AM »
Please don't be facetious. Assist action just gets you destroyed if your timing is not ideal and your enemy is more active and not dumb. War is all about opportunity and maneuvres. You need to be there to change your destination when the enemy moves. You need to be there to start travelling in time to get to the battle in time when it starts in the first place. You need to be there to start a timely retreat and not get caught by regrouping enemies if you failed the previous action. Come on, we all play this game and know how fighting plays out when you can't check on it constantly.
I don't know who's being fooled by this "few minutes a day" thing. It's like we're not playing the same game. smh

Sure, yet Hawks rely on Military Aid a lot. We have two battle raging against Gwent now, and 80% of our participants had to rely on military aid to join, hell I had to use it for two of my characters, and I am online 14 + hours a day due to work. I am sure we could be more efficent if I could rely on having people around to move 24 hours a day, but I can't. Nor do I wish to command more then 10 characters myself total, its not fun to do nor do I find it rewarding to win wars through nothing but my own effort.

What I will say is military aid is FAR more useful when you are the side with the initiative. Again I mention that I would love to change the game to be less reliant on our characters as glorified troops carriers. I would love to aid mechanics that allows for some sort of automation of military units based on a series of "commands", rules that you can give the NPC commander of that army. Ideally I would make it so that all military action occured in such a way, and reduce the ability to make rapid and instant military decisions. If all parties have to deal with a slower chain of command and none have absolute control of their forces, I would hope that fighting would move back towards whom has the better preparation and strategy rather then just who can move 3k of troops around the fastest.

Mount & Blade Warband had a follow party mechanic and it was incredibly useful. No idea how you'd implement it in M&F, but it's something that has been discussed in the past and is certainly worth raising again.

Yes there was a web game sort of similar to BM that had a similar mechanic. Basically most players sat around raising troops and then setting them to follow the few ultra active marshals. In my vision of the game without characters as essential troops leaders, such a mechanic would be relatively easy to add to the basic control interface, it ends up basically being a permission like any other.
It's nice it worked out that way for you, but to me it hardly seems like a normal case.

Orders can change, and realistically there's usually about a day of a grace period before things can go wrong if no one follows. But it could easily be less than that.

To me that is bad strategy. When Elysium was at its finest I could indeed change orders and now that at least that core of thirty something characters would follow the new strategy. If you don't have that level of activity, as Hawks in general no longer does, then I am afraid that the concept of changing orders goes out the window in most cases. You are simply better off following the game plan. The truth is that if you think things are going to go bad with the current orders, unless you know people are going to be able to respond things are probably going to go worse if you change orders. Plus people just get angry at you for doing it.

What if movement turns when back to only once every 6 hours? Not quite BM level but then you don't need to be checking things constantly and also you have "potentially" far greater time to respond to emerging battles and start marching.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 01, 2017, 04:35:24 PM »
Well that depends. I recall when I started Battlemaster being told his sure it was a game you could play a few minutes a day, but that you would never win doing that. This is not a unique problem, most online games suffer from it. Making a game compelling and accessible for people with different timezones and time to spare is extremely difficult. Making it "fair" as well is simply adding to the difficulty. So the first question is what does an acceptable outcome from that style of play look like.

General Discussion / Re: The Value of Experienced Soldiers
« on: August 01, 2017, 04:30:41 PM »
Something that makes them like Napoleon's Old Guard perhaps. The moral centre of an entire army and a frightening enemy to those that face them.

General Discussion / Re: Fixing Evasion
« on: August 01, 2017, 04:25:28 PM »
The evasion mechanics are broke, and I took some time to look at the code for how this works and think I have a decent understanding of it.

Since battle isn't my forte though (I'm more a builder/roleplayer), can someone run me through what actually happens and what the problem is.

After that, lets take a moment to figure out how to fix it. I'm pretty sure I've got an idea, but I need to make sure we're all on the same page on this.

When you evade and fail, your character will start moving. Now I am not clear on the next big. I known the evade attempt is stored in the browser session, but don't know if it is stored when you start the siege base attempt, or upon failure. Either way if that session data is lost through many different methods, you can attempt to evade again.

General Discussion / Re: Soldier Experience
« 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.

General Discussion / Re: Soldier Experience
« 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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 160