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 ... 9
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« on: October 11, 2017, 11:47:25 PM »
CK2 was released on February 14th, 2012, and XCOM was released on October 9th, 2012, though CK2 was probably a bit meh without DLCs (not that the DLCs made post-Old Gods are at all worth it)

(Removed the stupid formatting that I neither intentionally added or checked. I hate forums.)

General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« on: October 09, 2017, 03:07:13 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.

General Discussion / Re: Why M&F peaked so young
« on: September 30, 2017, 02:48:01 PM »
The erosion of land doesn't make any sense. If people are completely hell bent on making new realms (for some reason) then they should understand what region they're going into before they start spawning random first ones. Marking settlements as independent just because they aren't being used doesn't help anyone other than opportunists looking to cause trouble, and given how boring and prolonged M&F can be, those sorts of people are just an uninteresting pain in the arse.

As for new player introduction in general, it is in my opinion the most important thing that M&F needs is an improvement on the Knight Offers system. I'd say more, but it turns out that Vintroth was writing at the same time as my and my thoughts are similar to his.

Helpline / Re: Activation email.
« on: August 26, 2017, 08:09:49 PM »
We've recently changed servers, and from what I've skim read this might mean that the source of the emails has changed too.

If the email server isn't working correctly, this may be a problem that only Andrew can solve, though at a glance there may be another solution. When I registered, I did so with an address, which didn't work and I ended up needing to use my address (this is due to the former server host being German). The address could be an issue, else it's an issue with the server change which happened only days ago.

I've nudged Andrew on Discord, but due to timezones he might not be available for at least another half a day.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: travel dates and battle timers
« on: August 07, 2017, 10:53:46 PM »
Why not force the server time to stay as is? I know that the new host will be in the US, but the change will be a nuisance.

Bug Reports / Error The optimistic lock on an entity failed.
« on: August 06, 2017, 05:44:27 PM »
I tried to start a new conversation, brief description, brief contacts, sent to 2 people. I got this error message.

Error The optimistic lock on an entity failed.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Slumbering nobles
« on: August 04, 2017, 05:06:28 PM »
Character 1665 who is alive can see several if not more contacts when creating new messages that are dead. Such as [C:1739 and C:372]. All three of these are my own characters.
As far as I am aware, in the game's earlier stages contacts were not removed upon death. This was later fixed, but characters who had contact with people that died at the time currently retain these contacts in their lists.

General Discussion / Re: The Value of Experienced Soldiers
« on: August 02, 2017, 06:28:22 AM »
The cliff between established realms and the rest can be a problem, as I can attest to with a realm that through various means has had every facet of its army and military wiped out aside from a handful of men in a few forest villages in Renneval and Falconreach. Heavies, Cavalry and Experience are the main forms of stored wealth, and fighting against that kind of stuff is difficult.

The point that I raised to various people a while back is that experience should really be thought of as a veterancy bonus rather than anything else, soldiers with personal history that have survived numerous conflicts etc etc. If it were possible, I'd be an advocate in favour of a global hard xp reset when more XP farming techniques are disabled. Whilst the bonus isn't substantial at the highest tiers, with common troops the disparity between experienced and inexperienced soldiers is significant, and after large scale systematic XP farming (normally against slumbering First Ones) many people have vast numbers of troops with far higher experience than they should do. They have no history, but they do have stats. Older nations have their infinite corps of veteran Heavy Infantry and I understand that, but they are not the issue at hand.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 02, 2017, 12:34:01 AM »
Furthermore, I'd like 'brands' in the game. Like Ascalonian steel or Gwent cheese, as a way to raise gold for the aforementioned furnishing or whatever else you could do with gold.
Wrong way round. Ascalonian food & wine is the best food and wine, as stated by the finest food critics and sommeliers in all of Ascalon.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 01, 2017, 09:13:29 PM »
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.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: The Next Big Change: Buildings
« on: July 10, 2017, 12:21:57 PM »
Outlying villages are a possibility, though I was thinking more along the lines of strategically placed forts or castles.
I had always thought that things along those lines would be interesting, but the M&F map is already extremely porous. Unless forts gained the ability to install artificial barriers (like how impassable sections of land work now, I couldn't ever really see a good use for them aside from perhaps blocking rivers off.

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.

Conduct & Design Discussion / 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.

Conduct & Design Discussion / 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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9