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 ... 161
1
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« 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.

2
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« 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.

3
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« on: October 12, 2017, 03:49:56 AM »
While influences of M&F are interesting, we are seriously digressing from the subject.

4
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« on: October 11, 2017, 05:01:39 AM »
I can understand making the free account limit account based rather then character based. However if we retain paid accounts there is no reason to make hard limits on settlement ownership. Frankly I would remove limits on both accounts and just have a higher level of corruption applied to free accounts. That said nothing has convinced me that account tiers has any benefit apart from revenue, so I would rather remove them and create a new revenue stream. As foxglove said it can't be like the current cosmetic add-ons. It needs to be something compelling enough to warrant subscribing.

5
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« on: October 11, 2017, 04:55:51 AM »
I was just voicing support for Tom's plan in the OP for this thread, he outlined what I talked about. The reasoning is that if a player can do something at no cost then it should probably be set up for you instead of needing to go through a bunch of logistical hurdles.

The point is that automatically assigning a "my characters list" which is hidden+default means you don't need a list for that, at all. And by automatically applying that list to each province, you don't need to ever edit permissions for each town to merely let your own characters in. So it's not just once per new character, it removes the need to edit in each of those permissions every time you take or re-take a town. It's not an unfair advantage, since you could do it anyway if you were enough of a grognard. It levels the playing field and removes unnecessary bookkeeping from play.

It would mainly benefit new players, since they wouldn't have to learn the permissions system before they can have their own characters interacting with each other's settlements. Anything that reduces the amount of game knowledge which must be front-loaded for no real benefit is better for player retention.

A better way to handle that would be to set up a defualt permission system for each character, that is then applied to any settlement he owns. You might need tongue there divide it down by realms as some characters have holdings in multiple realms. This way my EI character would not automatically and forever have access to all my Hawks settlements as if he was a full Hawk member.

Still you need a way overrule the list for special cases. I think the .ore you flesh out the entire concept the more it becomes a bunch of edge cases to handle for relatively little gain.

6
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« on: October 11, 2017, 04:01:30 AM »
Hey, any chance of improvements to permissions system, Andrew?

One thing Tom mentioned in the OP was the possibility of automatic permissions for all a player's characters.

One way to do that without breaking the system might be to merely have a hidden list that automatically updates to hold all your living characters, and have that list automatically applied to each town, but hidden. This would simplify things like Tom suggested but without changing much of the underlying game code.

Tom's idea of having hidden "default lists" related to each realm/subrealm is also a really good one, and just changing the front-end so that you can set permission-levels for an entire list at once.

~~~

The other reason I wanted to necro this thread is that a question arose in-game which could require an actual useful addition to the permissions system.

It would be great if it was possible to specify permissions for a combination of realm / position as well as realm / person.  This would serve multiple purposes:

- permissions wouldn't need to be edited when assigning new people
- it would be clear who has which permissions from their titles
- can be rescinded as needed via demotion from the titles

This would strongly encourage creating special permissions based on titles rather than on individuals, which could streamline things a lot and make new types of organization practical in-game, while being a cheap way of adding more meaning to user-created titles.

The first request makes little sense when you consider there is no reason characters from a single player are all tied together and allied.  Besides which how often do you create a new character? How much time does it take to change a single list when you create a new character? Perhaps I misunderstand the request.

As to titles it is a long term Todo item for them to be part of the permission and message systems.

7
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« on: October 10, 2017, 11:57:21 PM »


If the subscription fees were stopped, I'd go with just giving everyone the ultimate level subscription as default. Let's not forget that during the early days of the game there were no limits at all on how many characters a single player could control and, arguably, the game had a lot more life to it then. However, I totally agree with De-Legro that First One spamming during wars needs to be wiped out, but I think that could be done just by tweaking the restriction that limits the number of new characters you can create in a short space of time.



This is an example of Correlation vs. Causation. It is true that during the time of unlimited characters there was more activity, but claiming that the unlimited characters had anything to do with it is much harder. If you recall the unlimited characters and bubba's actions using them was the first instance of a large scale rage quit, which incidently impacted the formation of the Imperium when we moved from a beta to the full game. More likely the high activity was due to the game being new and only being open to those whom have invested in the crowd funding effort. Just like any new game there is a honey moon period simply because it is new.

I have without a doubt been one of the player with the most characters in game, I one point I ran three ultimate accounts all maxed out. I now run a single account with 10 characters, and it is much much better for the game. Even with a single ultimate account there were multitude of characters whom existed purely to move troops and start battles. They never messaged anyone nor responded to messages, since who has the time to constantly trawl through the messages of 50 character to find those relevant to that character? As the game has evolved I have certainly changed my opinion in regards to characters. If you don't have the time to make the character a relevant individual within the game, then in my opinion there is no valid reason for that character to exist. I realise that this in conflict with Tom's vision but I think his experiment has shown the weakness of that vision. We have had realms of 50 or more settlements, with no internal communication and next to no external communication run from 1 or 2 accounts. I think 20 characters is a pretty high limit already, personally I would set it no higher then 12.

8
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: The 1.1 Update Topic
« on: October 10, 2017, 11:18:36 AM »
As well as burning oil poured on defenders, alchemists could also create Greek Fire type concoctions which could coat arrows, or poisons which could coat swords. Perhaps describing some of the things the alchemist does in the building description would make sense.


So things that improve troops in general, attack and defence really. Then again modern science can't actually replicate Greek Fire and it wasn't developed by the Greco-Roman Egypt alchemist who's practise involved large amounts of spiritualism and the concept of purification. Indeed none of the effects listed required "alchemist" poisons having been used to coat arrows and assassin blades by pretty much every culture known, and also being largely useless in battle due to the fact the poison simply doesn't remain on a blade long during battle conditions. Fire arrows likewise are trivial, generally need to be fired from close range due to their propensity to extinguish and are of arguably greater value to the sieging army. Even then their utility is argued about and many consider them to be a weapon of terror rather then actually useful.


If we want to make alchemist the "fantasy" chemist that they became in the 12th century once medieval europe had access to Islamic scientific text all well and good, but then they should be the pre-requisite for allowing settlements to produce defensive (and perhaps offensive) equipment that is consumed during a siege, not some weird over all defensive bonus.

9
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: The 1.1 Update Topic
« on: October 10, 2017, 09:32:40 AM »
If memory serves, I added moats and apothecaries. I may remove the defense bonus from apothecaries and give the full 10 back to alchemists.

As to why moats, because they're a real thing?

Alchemist aiding defense was always weird to me anyway.

10
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« on: October 09, 2017, 03:45:00 AM »
Generally speaking, whether someone is a subscriber or not simply depends on how invested they are in the game. Back when I was a Baron I had two characters, and eventually made two more alongside my main one to have a trio together and a single one elsewhere. I only started paying for the game after playing for 9 months in various capacities.


Most players don't need the First Ones, some do, and some others abuse it. I've never questioned my own use of First Ones since I've only ever created more when I've had a need to make more for various reasons, and mine tend to be spread out across a very large area. The only real problem I see with FOs is that some people choose to have disproportionately large numbers of the, and then issues arise.


I started the game amidst a large group of players, and we all felt comfortable with our numbers of FOs. A single character can do meaningful things, and if you're playing the game as it's designed to be played, then it's actually very fun without needing more First Ones.


Whether you think that it's done right or not, corruption is a very impactful mechanic which has large cumulative effects. It is mechanically better to have lots of players than it is to hoard stuff, and having more players tends to be more fun anyway.


With this in mind, you need to remember that First Ones are fairly useful in war. And whilst it isn't quite a straight linear improvement, having more FOs available tends to make wars a lot easier. Not all players are the same, some are more active, some are more committed, and some contribute more than others. If every player had the same number of FOs, the game would devolve into it being a race to attract as many players as you can. Having players as a currency would detract from the spirit of the game. When I started playing, I didn't need many FOs, and now I use a fair few across many locations. Player numbers becoming the defining factor of realms would not be beneficial, in my opinion. Regardless, this is a good talking point.

There are plans to make FO's less essential to war, but those are a ways off. FO spam during wars is one thing I would love to stamp out.

11
General Discussion / Discussion - Subscription Levels
« on: October 09, 2017, 12:37:29 AM »
So for a long time I have thought about if the subscription levels provide anything to the game other then a source of income. I would propose that we scrap it entirely. Even though we have a free account I think we will find that having a "pay wall" turns people off since general experience will suggest to them that playing free in any game that has paid accounts is signing up to be a second class citizen. Further it will get rid of the constant gripes about players with large accounts.

What I would suggest is that we change the rules, one player = one account and that all accounts are equal, say somewhere between 8-20 characters allowed. To offset the income stream we would need more goodies for people to purchase, or a subscription system that adds something that is desirable but doesn't infer in game advantage, like the ability to have have one of the in game houses/dynasties when that feature is completed.

12
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: The 1.1 Update Topic
« on: October 08, 2017, 11:57:39 PM »
Why do we need more fortification types?

13
General Discussion / Re: Why M&F peaked so young
« on: October 08, 2017, 11:47:17 PM »
When deciding which information to obfuscate, and how to do that, one big issue is to think carefully about how this effects game balance. e.g. a single player with two paid accounts, 20 characters can know a lot at once. They can run the core of a whole empire, and they get economies of scale of information gathering. And this is before we consider any additional obfuscation.

Obfuscating things for non-lords could, if not handled carefully, massively increase the relative advantage of those continent-scale players vs nations that divide out the lands between multiple players. There are already logistical and intelligence-gathering disincentives to splitting up lands with more players. Poorly conceived obfuscation of information could make those disincentives greater.

e.g. perhaps if things are obfuscated, we should limit the amount one knight can know. e.g. a lord with a single far-flung holding on the other side of the world shouldn't have minutae information about the daily running of that town. Then, the benefits of passing that to an underling to manage would be more balanced against the costs: the place was so remote that it was hard to maintain up to date information on what's happening there, anyway.

No. If there is an advantage conferred by single accounts with large amounts of land, it should be countered in other ways, for example a corruption system that actually has relevance. The fact that we have relatively few large land holders, and that those that do exist get consistently whipped by realms like Hawks speaks to the fact that such large networks don't confer the absolute advantage people think they do. What they do however is limit game interaction between players which is detrimental.

That said as I mentioned in Discord, the obfuscation should make sense. It is reasonable to expect that counts, Duke Kings etc have some level of knowledge about the lands they hold dominion over. Exactly what that entails, and if there should be differing levels depending on if the Lord is your direct vassal or not I am not sure. Perhaps also this would give libraries more of a purpose, allowing for controlled information distribution within a realm.

14
General Discussion / Re: Why M&F peaked so young
« on: October 06, 2017, 01:21:18 AM »
You can already see who's slumbering across the map by clicking on towns, without using taverns. (The information is already there on the map if you click enough times. "You can do X if you just click a lot" is in fact a clear game design flaw. If merely clicking gives you the information you need then it's always better to just automate that to remove the need for clicking. This is game design 101).

However, a new player looking at the map can't see that information (who is slumbering) via clicking until they've made a character and already placed it in the world. They also can't see that any knight's offers even exist until making a character and trying to place it. e.g. if you come across the game for the first time all you see is "this game is completely full. there's no room for me!" At this stage, things like "knight's offers", "slumber" etc aren't even concepts that have been introduced to the new player, nor can they discover this by clicking until after they have a character, at which point it's completely public information.

At the point of game-discovery they're just deciding whether it's worth their time to make a character and start playing. The only information they have right then is "blue town = free, red town = taken". They cannot be expected to understand that there are concepts hidden to them, which mean some towns that appear "taken" are in fact "free" (not owned by active players). Unless your goal is to scare away new players, this is clearly a huge problem.

So ... if you want new players to come in, then you probably need knight's offers to be visible on the main map before you log in, and/or some way for new players to discover which realms are truly full of active knights, and which ones have space for new people. Slumbering gives that information, but it's not available to someone just checking out the game. Making slumbered towns purple would convey this information to new players, and it doesn't give existing players access "magically" to any information they don't already have.

Think about this: if vacant towns are the only visibly "available" towns to a casual observer, then why would you be surprised that the new people attracted to come in want to try and make their own new tiny kingdoms in the visible free space? That's the only thing the game map (before you have a character to log in with) is advertising as the available thing to do. There's nothing on the front page of this game to indicate to the casual observer that the existing realms offer any opportunities whatsoever - they all appear full even if 80% of the towns are basically free to take, and you don't see knight's offers.

Slumbering areas and knight's offers are 100% public knowledge once you spawn your first character, but they're something people need to know before they spend the time to create a proper character. As it is, the game's public information is selectively attracting the very players you say you don't want - those who want to carve little chunks off for new kingdoms.

Directing new players to vacant or slumbering towns is a recipe for disaster. Nothing tends to attract hostile response faster then moving into unused land that some realm considers theirs. As for the clicking for slumbering characters, I would argue that the unlimited access to all character information is not a good thing. Far too many "wars" revolve around knowing about slumbering estates that are "good", and the current trend of setting up unrelated feeder realms across the map because you notice slumbering lands is also hardly a good thing for the game. So I would argue that the path forward is not making such info easier to access, but rather make it harder.

15
General Discussion / Re: Why M&F peaked so young
« on: October 05, 2017, 06:33:55 AM »
Well, one idea is that perhaps town color is under-utilized. Color is cheap way of emparting much more information.

Currently there's just blue = no-lord and red = lord, but what if slumbering was delineated by purple? That would be a compromise solution that doesn't go for the erosion thing, and would be handy for both new and existing players.

Taverns already tell you who is slumbering locally. I see no reason why you should magically know who is slumbering all across the map. Though to be far I would also remove the blue dots, and most the settlement info that is available to all. I can not fathom what IG logic allows me to see the population of every settlement for instance.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 161