Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« Last post by Andrew on October 12, 2017, 10:14:42 AM »
I'm on the fence about a hidden "my characters" list, because I can imagine people using it, and people not using it, in different situations. I don't think it'd be hard to code, though, without creating a hidden list--just add a check in the dispatcher somewhere to check to see if this character belongs to the same user. The only downside is that you'd have to add it to EVERY place permissions are checked.

That said, we could make it a settlement option to allow same user characters entrance. Or we could make it a player setting that each user can toggle.
12
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by De-Legro on October 12, 2017, 03:49:56 AM »
While influences of M&F are interesting, we are seriously digressing from the subject.
13
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Foxglove on October 12, 2017, 03:07:14 AM »
Yeah ... every single soldier was a named individual in the original X-Com from ~23 years ago.

Yes, I know. I played it. It was also a feature of Laser Squad from the late 1980s which was cited by the creators of the original UFO: Enemy Unknown as direct inspiration for their game. While Laser Squad itself was inspired by Rebelstar and Rebelstar Raiders. Having individual, named, characters in strategy games is certainly not a new concept.

Regardless of the history of the concept, when Might & Fealty was still undergoing development during testing, Tom said that the inclusion of individual soldiers was a direct result of the public reaction to the 2012 XCOM in the way that players developed an attachment to their soldiers. It was that sense of attachment that he liked, so he tried to reproduce it in Might & Fealty.

I took part  in the forum discussions where he talked about it. I certainly don't remember everything from the early days of the game, but I happened to remember that bit. I wasn't just saying it on a whim.

But we're all getting way, way off the point of the thread and we should try to get back to the main thrust of the topic. Much as I like a trip down the nostalgia tunnel of retro gaming, it's not the thread for it.
14
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Cipheron on October 12, 2017, 12:42:20 AM »
Yeah ... every single soldier was a named individual in the original X-Com from ~23 years ago. It's not a new feature. Also, those features from Crusader Kings II were also in Crusader Kings I. Not to pick on young people but you seem to assume that the games which are current are the only inspiration out there. Most game developers are a little older and/or familiar with games from 1990-2010. Those are the core inspiration for most current gen games, not other recent releases.

There's also a logical problem here. People are saying that Might and Fealty (2013) was inspired by Crusader Kings II and X-Com 2012. That gives him a 1 year window of production to release. However - were they they only new games he played in 2012? Clearly to find the "inspiring" ones you'd have to sample a lot of games. You can't know what's going to inspire you before you see it. So we have the scenario where Tom is supposedly playing many new-release strategy games in 2012, to the required depth / time-investment to learn their core mechanics, yet he's somehow finding time to produce an entire game by himself for beta-release in 2013. It just doesn't add up.

People also don't think about how long a game development cycle actually takes. A released game today was probably in planning 4-5 years before. But people see a game come out in e.g. 2017 that looks like a game released in 2016 and they call it a "rip-off". That's just dumb. The 2017 game would have been in the late beta-testing stage when the 2016 game was released, and too late to make any big changes. Look at Star Citizen for example. Because of the crowd-funding you can get a glimpse at the development cycle. it's been in production since 2012. And add another 2-3 years of discussion and planning before that, then the idea was probably mooted around 2009-2010. So, overall planning and production on that game is going to stretch to around 10 years. Games are a major investment.
15
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by silvershot on October 12, 2017, 12:15:51 AM »
Possibly, although XCOM: Enemy Unknown was also released in 2012 and Tom cited that as the direct inspiration for the way soldiers are handled in Might & Fealty (each being a named individual, and such).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO:_Enemy_Unknown

Perhaps this?
16
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Demivar 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.)


17
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Foxglove on October 11, 2017, 11:33:50 PM »
Possibly, although XCOM: Enemy Unknown was also released in 2012 and Tom cited that as the direct inspiration for the way soldiers are handled in Might & Fealty (each being a named individual, and such).
18
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Cipheron on October 11, 2017, 04:00:13 PM »
I've always thought that the design concept for the family system here must have been strongly influenced by Crusader Kings II (I don't know if that's true, but it certainly seems like it)

Nah, Crusader Kings II only came out in 2012, while might and fealty was already being developed before that was released. It's doubtful that CKII was any sort of influence. All the core ideas go way back. The Koei games (rot3k series) and Total War series have a lot of the core ideas already. CK just took that to another level of complexity.
19
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Foxglove on October 11, 2017, 02:45:00 PM »
it's awkward to split your communication around with multiples and remember who was "speaking" to whom.

I must say I've never found it to be a problem to remember that. I actually see that as a problem of the nature of the message system and the way it handles converations. I don't think many people - aside from Tom - have ever really been fans of the message system.

As far as the character limits go, there are lots of reasons why players were given the ability to create large numbers of characters. Some of those came from lessons learned from Battlemaster (the reasons why people multi-cheat; the fact that a game like this actually needs a certain number of 'drone' characters to function but it not being fun to be a 'drone'; and so forth), as well as reasons more specific to the nature of this game, like creating big enough families to make marriages and internal conflicts within families work. I've always thought that the design concept for the family system here must have been strongly influenced by Crusader Kings II (I don't know if that's true, but it certainly seems like it), but has never actually been as effective.

Nevertheless, for me, the question of how many characters an individual player can play is more of a side issue when we're taking about whether or not to retain subscriptions. I always got the impression that the only real reason character limits were linked to subscriptions was because that was pretty much all there was in the game that could be linked to a form of subscription.

We'd first have to decide whether or not to retain subscriptions (in the sense of having players contribute something to the game every month). I guess that's up to Andrew. Then work from there. As far as I remember, Tom's original thoughts were that the only things that should be paid for in the game were the vanity items (things like the heraldry). I can't remember why he then changed that to introduce monthly fees and don't have to time to trawl back through the forum threads.

I think it would be possible to scrap the monthly fees and replace the income with something else based entirely on optional and non-essential content. I'd probably be inclined to link new paid-for content to families and characters. That would make people think more about their characters and invest more in them (invest in the emotional sense).

It would also give the game the chance of creating income every time a new character is created, which might well be a viable alternative in creating a regular income not based on monthly fees. Something along the lines of creating a new character costs nothing, but then you have a range of optional extras that can be bought to make the character more unique. That being said, I have no idea what those things could be. It would be much easier in a game with more visual imagery (for example, during the development of the game, the testers were very eager to see some sort of character portraits, but Tom couldn't find any rights-free portrait generator that he felt was suitable).
20
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by De-Legro 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.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10