Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Burn ships!
« Last post by De-Legro on Today at 02:03:25 AM »
Yes let me burn ships. As a Island nation I can then force anyone that dares land on my island to remain their forever or die. Or you know I could just camp the ships and use block area to achieve the same thing.

The question is, what would the down side to burning ships be? Without some sort of consequence it would be a very one-sides option, particularly as I noted for islands.
2
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Troops V2.0 - Unit Types
« Last post by De-Legro on Today at 02:01:25 AM »
What is unique about M&F and what I really like about this game is persistent mortal characters who, once trained, hang around until dead or disbanded and can fill any role you need. They can ride to battle or man the walls. Every soldier has unique history. This is fantastic.


What is suggested here I see as a serious downgrade. When we go for restrictive troop types, we go back from truly flexible individual soldiers to gamey "units/unit types". I see a lot of harm in this but I fail to see any real benefits. The announced benefit was that less active players would have an easier time building up their garrisons? Not important enough for such a huge change, imo.


I do like the idea to sophisticate the equipment supply though. I don't fully understand how it's supposed to work though.

When did I say I was removing the individual nature of troops? Professional or Militia they would retain the current system of being named and having history. It would also be completely possible to train militia troops into a professional force, or retire professional troops into militia. It would simply take time instead of the instant actions we have now. Nor did I announce anything about allowing less active players an easier time to build up garrisons.

As I said at the beginning this is not about adding more flexibility, but about presenting choices. Once troops actually have on going costs Lords will need to decide if they want to dedicate their limited resources into have more of the flexible professional troops, or having a larger over all defense force by recruiting cheaper militia forces.
3
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Troops V2.0 - Unit Types
« Last post by Constantine on December 08, 2017, 03:22:11 PM »
What is unique about M&F and what I really like about this game is persistent mortal characters who, once trained, hang around until dead or disbanded and can fill any role you need. They can ride to battle or man the walls. Every soldier has unique history. This is fantastic.


What is suggested here I see as a serious downgrade. When we go for restrictive troop types, we go back from truly flexible individual soldiers to gamey "units/unit types". I see a lot of harm in this but I fail to see any real benefits. The announced benefit was that less active players would have an easier time building up their garrisons? Not important enough for such a huge change, imo.


I do like the idea to sophisticate the equipment supply though. I don't fully understand how it's supposed to work though.
4
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Troops V2.0 - Unit Types
« Last post by silvershot on December 08, 2017, 03:11:15 PM »
Please explain further how this will improve the experience. Basically this sounds like an introduction of "weaker" tier troops (garrison and levies). I don't see how this provides flexibility or choice at all.


Levies are weaker, but would allow you to bolster your ranks more quickly in the event you lose a significant chunk of fighting force. They can act as cheaper fodder to protect your more effective troops. Professionals would likely end up being more expensive, while levies would fill in the gaps with being less expensive. When not serving, they'd probably do more work around a settlement than the militia.

I should say, I'd expect something along those lines. I made a suggestion like this previously.


Edit:
In my suggestion, the training was front loaded as well -- you trained them, and later called them up. They produce a tiny bit less than normal peasants, since they can't forget their normal training -- and have a significantly reduced amount of time to call them into service whenever you do so. Think of it as time spent forming units, gathering equipment, any minor refreshers, etc.

I'd also imagine you could have any of the three do any job, just some less effectively, efficiently, or at greater cost. Professional soldiers would make fine militia, but they wouldn't contribute much to the economy and they'd cost more for likely not fighting much better than militia at the walls.

Militia would be significantly less expensive; a little less skilled, but they also work in the economy and can help pay for themselves. As said, they wouldn't likely want to leave their hometown, or possibly just get very upset for leaving their local realm even if they're able to. That's the domain of the professional soldiers, who won't complain about much.

Levies probably wouldn't be much less effective than militia at the walls, but in active defensive service they'd probably lose a chunk of the economic contribution. If you think a big attack is coming, you could try to rally them into service in time (but you'd run into training constraints). They'll also travel hopefully a little bit easier than militia. Meanwhile, they'd also be the cheapest upkeep. Since upkeep SHOULD be a thing.

It does make balance even harder, though -- to add a third option. But it might be interesting.
5
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Troops V2.0 - Unit Types
« Last post by Constantine on December 08, 2017, 02:54:44 PM »
Please explain further how this will improve the experience. Basically this sounds like an introduction of "weaker" tier troops (garrison and levies). I don't see how this provides flexibility or choice at all.
6
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Burn ships!
« Last post by Andrew on December 08, 2017, 01:18:35 PM »
This wouldn't be hard to do or implement, as far as stealing and burning ships.

Making rivers navigable would be.... tricky, due to how the game handles the land/sea logic, and how it handles you coming ashore. I'd like to do this, and I think it's sorta on my TODO list already, but it's nowhere near as easy.
7
Conduct & Design Discussion / Burn ships!
« Last post by Constantine on December 08, 2017, 01:08:47 PM »
An option to burn down ships, please. And steal other people's ships. Maybe some sort of possibility of maritime battles or coastal defences. Heck, make rivers sailable. I want more options and interaction within the theme of sea raids in general.
8
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: The 1.1 Update Topic
« Last post by De-Legro on December 06, 2017, 03:07:06 AM »
All you said was "give the tutorial a skip button". That's not really addressing my suggestion at all, so how can I go into depth about that?

Tutorials, especially standalone ones that are flagged as such - they suck. All good designers say that you shouldn't do this. You teach through doing, every design guide says to do that.

Phrasing the learning as achievements lampshades the fact that it's a tutorial system. People are collecting badges instead of "completing tutorial objectives". And if it's an achievement system you're free to pick and choose the order you try the things, and people can volutarily skip parts of it, but complete it later if they feel like it.

So long as people reailse from the start that the achievements are indeed structured to be a tutorial, then what you have is

wait for it....a tutorial, simply not a scripted one.

The reason a scripted tutorial is worthwhile for something like M&F is because there are facets of the game that you can't rely on being readily accessible. Things like teaching people how to mobilise troops, how to spot people using watch towers, starting battles, joining battles, settlement defense. These are all things that require specific circumstances, ones that quite possibly people don't encounter for months. Yet if you wish to teach and more importantly showcase everything that M&F encompasses, you need a way to unlock all those parts in a timely manner.

The entire point of tutorials is that you ARE doing, either through a scripted system or otherwise. If it wasn't doing, it would simply be a walk through or digitised manual. The tutorials I personally find most useful are those that are broken down into different topics and lessons. Allowing me to go to the ones I think I need, and also to return to things later when I find I didn't intuitively know as much about a system as I thought I did. So sure we could add "achievements" on top of a properly functioning tutorial system in the manner you prescribe, but that in no way addresses the issues of giving people the opportunity to pursue those achievements in a time frame that doesn't require significant dedication.
9
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: The 1.1 Update Topic
« Last post by Cipheron on December 06, 2017, 02:53:15 AM »
All you said was "give the tutorial a skip button". That's not really addressing my suggestion at all, so how can I go into depth about that?

Tutorials, especially standalone ones that are flagged as such - they suck. All good designers say that you shouldn't do this. You teach through doing, every design guide says to do that.

Phrasing the learning as achievements lampshades the fact that it's a tutorial system. People are collecting badges instead of "completing tutorial objectives". And if it's an achievement system you're free to pick and choose the order you try the things, and people can voluntarily skip parts of it, but come back later and complete them later if they feel like it.

Also, it allows you to structure things in the achievement system to support your broader goals for the game, e.g. a "become a vassal" achievement will ensure that most new players will take at least one knight's offer instead of just dropping into the game wanting to be a lord straight away. And chain one on that where you have three of your characters being vassals, you get another badge. Plus you can make badges for creating your first knight's offer, having 1 vassal, having 3 vassals and so on. You can thus incentivize the behaviors you think players aren't conducting enough.

The thing is, the systems you need to build for this are less complex than what you'd need to build to create a special "tutorial world" and make sure it's got a unique slice that resets for each player that is doing the tutorial at the same time (thus needing many copies of the tutorial world - one for each player who hasn't completed the tutorial). Also, many of the game actions have a time component, e.g. travel, troop production etc. It's just not suited to having separate world(s) for the tutorial. How long are things like travel and troop training going to take in the tutorial? If it is regular speed, then you're forcing players to spend significant time outside the game if they want to see the tutorial content, and if it's accelerated, then they might get the shits once they get into the game proper and it's slow. either way, it's not going to be good for retention.
10
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: The 1.1 Update Topic
« Last post by De-Legro on December 06, 2017, 02:49:19 AM »
I think you're focusing on the least important part of the suggestion here. Having colorful icons and stuff is a "nice to have" thing because it makes systems more appealing to use, however that's not the actual suggestion itself.

A "nice appealing graphic" was all I actually said in the actual suggestion. No more detail than that, so critiquing that on hypothetical details that I never actually said while ignoring all the relevant parts of the suggestion isn't really helpful.

An "appealing graphic" could be as simple as a simple shield outline, but with well-chosen color fills dependent on the type of achievement and a gradient / metallic finish. It doesn't have to be something you pay for, because that's nothing to do with what I was talking about. it's just good graphical design sense and understanding how color theory works, along with basic psychology. You make a bunch of colored basic shields you can collect for achieving different types of things and people will strive to collect them no matter how pointless it is. People don't care that it's pointless, they see slots that can be filled, they will want to fill them. You can utilize this to get players to achieve some of the goals you have for the game if you're clever.

No actually my focus was on why this system would be superior to a completely skippable tutorial in terms of actually producing system the eases people into the game. Graphics was a throw away comment at the end of my actual point. Since you only replied regarding graphics, I followed the thread of the conversation as it was.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10