Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
General Discussion / Re: A Discussion On The Value Of Characters
« Last post by Humbaz on April 20, 2018, 03:10:43 PM »
One character per player only: Thats the way to go in my opinion. People would identify with and value their characters much more.
12
Bug Reports / Re: Error The optimistic lock on an entity failed.
« Last post by De-Legro on April 12, 2018, 02:33:21 AM »
Its not a new error, it has plagued the game since it was released, just it is very sporadic.
13
Bug Reports / Error The optimistic lock on an entity failed
« Last post by VetalEl on April 10, 2018, 03:53:47 AM »
I wrote this message also in another topic...sory for duplication but 'cause it's a new error I put here too...
14
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: M&F Changelog
« Last post by Andrew on April 09, 2018, 04:15:15 PM »
Removing old roads shouldn't be a hard add, but I'd have to look at it.

Towers and docks might be converted to full fledged places. I was toying with it at one point, certainly. Technically speaking, the game already understands that Places can have soldiers garrison them. It'll probably be a bit before I come back to places though.

That said, I have udpated the TODO post with a bunch of stuff about sieges.
15
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: M&F Changelog
« Last post by Cipheron on April 08, 2018, 03:29:11 PM »
If there are going to be "places" could you also include improved means of managing existing structures? e.g. removing unwanted roads and features would be a nice thing to have if the role of places external to the cities is going to be increased.

Also, i'd suggest that the updates should be generalized, e.g. towers and docks should become garrisonable / buildable locations that can have troops stationed there.
16
Announcements / M&F 1.1 Update
« Last post by Andrew on April 08, 2018, 07:47:42 AM »
So, after realizing that trying to do a big massive update was a bad idea, I stripped out all the unfinished bits, finished all the easily finishable bits, and packaged it all up for release.

Might & Fealty is now on version 1.1.0.0, which includes a number of new features for realms, characters, settlements, and more:
  • Characters
    --Characters are no longer restricted to heterosexual relationships. This is a setting that must be enabled, in the characters setting menu though, as this game is loosely based off medieval society.
    --Validation of character suicide form is now performed server side as well as client side. -- Finishing one of Tom's TODOs.
    --Character suicide screen now lets you edit the death message, and redirects you to view the character page of the fallen upon submit. -- Finishing one of Tom's TODOs.
    --It is now possible to retire a character. In other words, you can remove them from play without killing them.
    --Retired characters get to have a retirement background field, explaining why they retired or what they're doing in their retirement.
    --It is also possible to un-retire characters, bringing them back into regular play, after a bit.
    --Prisoners now properly and fully affect travel speeds. They also slow down travel overall, as transporting prisoners is not routine travel.
    --Account character list now sorts unplaced characters first and retired characters just before the dead characters.
  • Conversations
    --Realm conversations will now identify themselves as a realm conversation when read.
    --Character & message summary unread conversation listing will now identify which realm a conversation is part of, if any.
  • Description Manager (Back-end Service)
    --Added the Description Manager for tracking historical descriptions, linking them to who made them, when, and for what thing.
    --So simple and useful, I convinced the BM'ers they should use it too.
  • Realms
    --Realms can now designate a capital.
    --Realm Positions will now sort between active and retired on the position management page, letting you see at a glance which ones are currently in use.
    --Realms can now be abolished. If sovereign, all sub-realms/estates become independent. If not, all subrealms/estates move up a level.
    --Realm descriptions are now handled by the Description Manager.
    --Realms can now be abolished. Handle with care.
  • Settlements
    --New buildings: Apothecary, Arena, Dockyard, Moats, Guild District, Guild Square, Quarry, Race Track, Royal Seat, Warehouse, Regional Seat, Local Seat, Imperial Seat.
    --New permissions: "Create Place Inside" and "Create Place Outside"
    --Settlements now display their realm when select on the map, and their top-level realm if that is different.
    --The game will now inform you of existing militia and recruits when trying to train more.
    --Settlements now have user-editable descriptions, handled by the Description Manager.
  • User Experience
    --New players are no longer able to place new characters directly on the map. Knight offers are now more important.
    --Invalid credentials on login attempt will no longer dump database info.
    --(Shorter) Announcements will now display on login page/box.
If you find any bugs, please let us know!
17
General Discussion / Re: A Discussion On The Value Of Characters
« Last post by silvershot on April 06, 2018, 03:16:34 PM »
I am concerned that an inability to escape would simply give more power to the players who do not care about the stories of the world that other players have created. When your characters means nothing, and their character(s) means a lot... Only one person really has anything to lose.

It may be better to revisit how one should be able to escape; what risks might be involved. Additionally, killing yourself why captured might eventually be a viable option, but it's unlikely if it's a character you care about (unless it fits within their personality assuming you role play).

If you cannot escape, and you cannot under any circumstances kill your character while they are captured, then I find it highly likely that someone will just hold prisoners, blocking that character slot from being used, and then just simply execute them after getting what they want afterwards.

Perhaps the latter point makes sense under some circumstances in story, but there's definitely room for power-gamey abuse.


To put it in a more succinct manner... A meaningful character captured by a meaningless (e.g. drone or what have you) character will just be killed or be held (until likely killed) by a player who does not care about creating a story nor the IC consequences of their actions. Basically, if you don't play the game to develop stories, then everyone else's stories are probably irrelevant and IC feelings about you and your characters will basically never matter to them.
18
General Discussion / Re: A Discussion On The Value Of Characters
« Last post by Cipheron on April 06, 2018, 01:10:01 AM »
I think there's often a vision in game design that a problem can be solved by a big stick rather than a carrot - punish a player to encourage them to behave in certain ways, rather than offer them some incentive to behave in a certain way.

That's right. Richard Bartle, the creator of the original MUDs also talks about this as a common stumbling block when creating online games. Devs often believe they can dis-incentivize a behavior and that players therefore must switch to the "preferred" behavior. But they can easily switch to the behavior of playing a completely different game or activity. When trying to shift players from Choice A to Choice B, you should take into account the risk of Choice C, which represents "play something else".

Quote
I'd suggest things like giving characters a bonus to settlement production; a bonus in battle; and so on depending on their past actions - i.e. charcters actually have to do something to earn experience (in the form of players clicking options while playing them). They wouldn't gain experience just passively. That may mean that people who really focus on development of a few characters might then actually gain advantages over players who just spam large numbers of disposable characters.

I don't think if that would help tip the balance in this particular scenario. Consider a players with a 10-character account, they've trained up their core characters, then during a war, they bump up to a higher-tier account and spam additional commanders. They're still getting the benefit of the high-focus training on their core leaders, but that in no way dis-incentivizes them from spamming disposable grunts. This is not a criticism of the idea, but we need to think through real-life examples to see if the policy would actually affect behavior in the way that's claimed.

The thing is, there's a huge disconnected between how many troops an account can have in their settlements, vs how many troops you can effectively mobilize. It's this imbalance that creates the scenario in which massive character spam is a winning strategy in warfare. So while putting a dampener on character creation could slow this down, it's only hiding the exploit below an extra level of paperwork, not removing the core issue of game balance.
19
General Discussion / Re: A Discussion On The Value Of Characters
« Last post by Foxglove on April 05, 2018, 05:30:53 PM »
I've never been a fan in any game of the concept of putting characters semi-permanently in to a place where you can't play them unless someone else allows it (i.e. if you are captured you stay there until another player decides to release you). The game would effectively punish you for taking part in a battle by depriving you of use of the character if it gets captured. Not a good idea.

I think there's often a vision in game design that a problem can be solved by a big stick rather than a carrot - punish a player to encourage them to behave in certain ways, rather than offer them some incentive to behave in a certain way.

There are basically two ways that games traditionally create player attachment to characters - on an emotional level (the character has or develops some story that makes the player attached to them); or by making the character more valuable as you progress through the game (new skills, etc) - or, of course, by some combination of the two.

My suggestion would be to allow characters to gain something as they go along (experience; abilities; skills; or some thing of that sort). When you create a new character it's a blank slate but becomes more valuable as you go along. Then players wouldn't consider characters to be so disposable and spamming new characters wouldn't be an easy option.

I'd suggest things like giving characters a bonus to settlement production; a bonus in battle; and so on depending on their past actions - i.e. charcters actually have to do something to earn experience (in the form of players clicking options while playing them). They wouldn't gain experience just passively. That may mean that people who really focus on development of a few characters might then actually gain advantages over players who just spam large numbers of disposable characters. Possibly, you could also make it so that experience/skills degrade if they are not used for a time. That might somewhat guard against the creation of super-characters who become amazing at everything by being rotated through different duties so they max out experience in all areas.

Also, it would be a help if the trait system actually worked. Part of the reason it was introduced was to make characters different from each other, but it does no good unless fully implemented.
20
General Discussion / Re: A Discussion On The Value Of Characters
« Last post by The Vintroth on April 05, 2018, 01:57:08 PM »
I believe that Might and Fealty, to a large extent, is interesting because of the stories that come from actual characters that develop in various situations in a certain setting.

The only thing I'd point out is that if your captor slumbered, it'd be nice to be able to escape. Other then that, ransoms should work well enough to get your characters free in most places. To massively increase or even stop you from killing the character will likely lessen the problem of FO commanders that are not characters. - Though there is always the chance that they won't be captured and remain the worthless 'character' they already are.

I would raise another idea that could complement your idea. To have characters approved before they can be spawned. It would increase the amount of time it would take to get a character spawned since a "Moderator/Admin/Character checker" needs to read through your description and general idea. For the negative effects this might possibly have, it would force everyone to actually put some effort into creating characters. Furthermore, it would force people to write descriptions which I believe is always nice to see.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10