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 - Demivar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
If you get another character within your County to be in your interaction range (by entering your settlement, most likely, you can go to Politics, go to the Diplomacy section of your Barony, click change realm, then select your County and it should slot right back into the hierarchy.

Hopefully this helps.

Developing Might & Fealty / Error: Breaking Oath Event
« on: June 15, 2017, 12:46:40 AM »
On the character history, if someone breaks an oath to someone else to join another character, the text which says"(character 1) has visited you and sworn an oath of fealty, breaking his old oath to (character 2) and becoming your vassal." is not correctly set up for genders, and will say "breaking his old oath" regardless of whether they are male or female.

Helpline / Re: How to Format In-Game Text
« on: June 14, 2017, 08:38:07 AM »
You can see via the syntax help button which you can find in the box that appears when you're writing a message into an existing conversation. To italicise, surround the text text with asterisks (*s), ie; *not one step back* would come out as not one step back in game. The same applies to double asterisks (**) for bold text and (***) for bold and italicised text. Lists and other such functions are explained in the syntax help text.

The only codes which can be used ingame are reference codes which currently work and have search functions for characters, settlements and realms. They should look like [c:number], [s:number] or [r:number] respectively, and when the message is sent the message will contain a permanent link to that page. One thing to note, however, is that the game will always show the current name. For example, if I wrote a letter calling for an attack of the settlement of Erikstadt, and after the war we renamed it to Borisborg, if I then checked the message that I sent two months later, it would show the settlement as being called Borisborg, as the game simply takes the reference and finds its current name.

Developing Might & Fealty / Javelins
« on: June 10, 2017, 12:47:55 PM »
Javelins are broken and stupidly OP, this is a well known fact. So, here's a discussion thread for how to fix them and make them work properly.

The obvious move is to make them unusable with bows. If you've seen the numbers, it's completely ridiculous. If this can be fixed, that'd be a damned good start.

Right now, javelins are a 1-shot cannon which if used in any force will add an enormous amount of power to it at the cost of being a single use item which is resupplied at a blacksmith, making it an absurdly powerful weapon which requires a lot of micro to resupply. My thoughts are quite simply that in M&F people can often prepare for years for conflict. If people knew how stupidly strong javelins were, I'm sure that a lot more people would use them. If this happens, we'll end up with a warfare cliff. One half of players (more experienced ones, most likely) use javelins and can resupply them to varying degrees of effectiveness, the other half don't. If they meet in battle, the side with javs will, in proportion, annihilate the enemy. Warfare is already a bit daunting, but this would make even smaller scale fights really unrewarding for players. Imagine 2 armies meet in the field, fighting over a village. One knows, one doesn't, the latter gets spanked by his neighbour. I always refer to M&F's battle system as a battle resolver, as it gives a fair outcome if you consider both armies that reached the battle in isolation. This single switch of say, a shield to a javelin, can massively change the outcome of a battle.

What could be done instead, is make javelins into a cheaper skirmishing weapon. Whatever is done, I think that its role should shift from a superweapon to a ranged option in the third slot. I can think of a lot of examples where this would work effectively and remain a viable option whilst losing a lot of its incredible power. I'd also be in favour of changing javelins from a break on use item to an item with simply a much higher break rate. People might need to bring spare javelins, but it'd remove a lot of the jav vs no jav effectiveness swing.

Whatever we do, I think that the problem needs to be addressed within the game's existing code. In the future there are plans to change the combat system, but I think that changes to them in the current system would be very useful. I have some ideas of my own, but some others also had some ideas which were likely more complex, so I'll hold back for now.

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Restoring Sub-Realms
« on: June 09, 2017, 12:51:10 PM »
Once capitals are in, the process of recreating a realm could be as follows:
If a realm currently has 0 provinces and no ruler, it is eligible for restoration. If a character personally owns a settlement which used to be such realm's capital and both character and settlement are independent, besides "create realm" button he will see a "restore realm" button.
How would you intend on this working for realms that are already antiquated? I don't believe tha

Helpline / Re: Regarding Subscriptions.
« on: June 09, 2017, 01:12:12 AM »
I'm assuming that you're mentioning this as you saw what I was informed of as a warning and reminder to Eldamar in the place of some large-scale abuse.

To clarify quickly and ease your worries (as no one official is around), the game's terms of service restricts players to one free account per player. Your account is what you will see, and will show all of your living and dead characters. The number of characters active on an account is defined by membership level, and for free accounts this is 4 characters. You may use the full limit of this whenever you want, and when a character dies you can replace them without issue.

The issue was raised when a database query was made and it was made very obvious that certain players have been using absurd numbers of accounts. So rather than having one account with 4 characters, they'd have multiple accounts with different usernames and logins which they would alternate between and have 4 characters on each. They would log out of an account and log into their other ones. As a rule of thumb, provided that you aren't logging out and switching accounts. If you are, make sure you clarify with the terms of service, which quite simply states that free accounts are limited to one per player.

You've nothing to worry about, provided you only have one free account. I hope this helps.

Developing Might & Fealty / Re: Restoring Sub-Realms
« on: June 08, 2017, 04:32:06 PM »
You're thinking CK2, Andre  ;)

I had thought the same, but again it depends on what the game tracks. From what I've been told, the game has vast amounts of stored data, but how does the game determine what point it was at its largest?

It only happened by them choosing to die manually whilst imprisoned.

I don't think you can re-execute people, but you can burn alive someone who is already dead, for example.

After a recent encounter one of my distant characters, this bug became apparent.

If a prisoner kills themselves manually, they are still marked as a prisoner, and can be executed and handled as such.

It reminded me of this bug, so upon request I've posted this report on the forums for the record.

A good example would be [size=78%][/size] Who is, as you can see, dead yet still imprisoned.

Rage Zone / Re: Joining battles at 99% especially siege ones.
« on: June 02, 2017, 10:03:24 AM »
Mm. You're also forgetting the idea of feint spamming. If one could disengage at will, they could rinse and repeat the same process over and over again until the circumstances are perfectly in their favour. I don't want to have to react so frequently, nor would I enjoy it if wars were prolonged to a mess of constant engage/disengage, it'd be tiring and not fun.

If you attack, you are setting up a "confirmed" battle. If the other side doesn't evade, there will definitely be a battle of some scale at a certain spot around a certain time. This actually benefits less active players, as they know that if they can get to the battle, there will be a battle. Feint-spamming favours the active and dedicated, and perhaps even worse it's just boring.

Rage Zone / Re: Joining battles at 99% especially siege ones.
« on: May 30, 2017, 02:25:06 AM »

Yes this is assuming it wasn't 99% done, are the siege engines only constructed in the last 1% of the battle preparations? This is what I mean by 600 men marching through the siege lines right at the end of a battle as if nothing at all is going on. You totally missed my point here mate. Like this actually makes me think you didn't read my post at all. I said I was fine with losing, its just these circumstances are illogical. We were encamped outside the town, circling it for days in game. We obviously built siege engines during the 99% of time that we were there. Being able to just march in and get defensive bonuses doesn't make sense. If you think that I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. They might be able to attack us from behind sure, but march through the siege line without a battle? Arnheim is no Antioch, we surrounded that baby easily. Come on.

I'm totally fine with losing  ;D  most of the time that is what happens in this game, for me at least. Its just these circumstances are kind of ridiculous.

I did read your post fully and I do get where you're coming from. The mechanics aren't perfect, and it does lead to things that can be a bit weird (which is why the Rage Zone exists, and it's being used correctly). I just thought that I'd try to provide an alternate perspective to the events to try to show an alternate path of logic. You're a sound player, and I fully believe you, you've been calm and controlled and it's nice to see. The game is abstracted to a preparation/"upcoming battle" phase and the combat itself. Whilst thinking about it directly can seem like it's quite silly, in the simplest form of the game's abstraction the reinforcements were delayed, but not by enough to prevent men from getting to the defences in time.

The contingent of the Dark Forest troops that were assigned to blocking and harrying were swept aside, and I guess that they can be considered to be the perimeter forces. M&F's system is designed to be functional in battles themselves, but I do get how a lot of things seem counter intuitive and illogical if you take it literally. Thankfully, Decius was only wounded, so less harm was done than there might have been otherwise.

General Discussion / Re: Artifact....
« on: May 29, 2017, 01:20:09 AM »
I see that you can create a single artifact per account. Are you able to edit the item after creation? How about delete to create a new one?
I believe that neither are possible. You can create an artifact with a description, and it can neither be changed nor destroyed (I think). It is bound to your account, so if it ever has no owner you can assign it to one of your characters to put it back into the game world.

Rage Zone / Re: Joining battles at 99% especially siege ones.
« on: May 28, 2017, 07:56:48 PM »
Blocking area does work, provided you bring enough men, which wasn't the case.

Whilst I think that a Siege system would work really well in M&F, things can still be explained in most cases using the existing mechanics and a bit of filling in the blanks. Whilst the system isn't perfect, it's functional.

Rage Zone / Re: Joining battles at 99% especially siege ones.
« on: May 28, 2017, 07:07:41 PM »
The reinforcements were delayed regardless. Two Dark Forest parties were set to block the roads, but weren't given enough men to delay the reinforcements by long enough. Both parties were wiped out, with one First One being killed and the second being captured.

I understand your frustration, but particularly in assaults you can consider it to be the battle preparation phase. You don't just appear at Stone walls and attack them, there needs to be time to make siege equipment and prepare for an assault. The men guarding the road were swept aside as they were too few and too weak, and there was enough time for reinforcements to get to the settlement before the assault started.

General Discussion / Re: Help Wanted: Dedicated Translation Teams
« on: May 22, 2017, 07:50:31 PM »
I'm fluent with italian if you're interested
The same Italian that told me that the Italian version of M&F still has halberds named as pikes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8