Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« Last post by De-Legro on October 11, 2017, 04:55:51 AM »
I was just voicing support for Tom's plan in the OP for this thread, he outlined what I talked about. The reasoning is that if a player can do something at no cost then it should probably be set up for you instead of needing to go through a bunch of logistical hurdles.

The point is that automatically assigning a "my characters list" which is hidden+default means you don't need a list for that, at all. And by automatically applying that list to each province, you don't need to ever edit permissions for each town to merely let your own characters in. So it's not just once per new character, it removes the need to edit in each of those permissions every time you take or re-take a town. It's not an unfair advantage, since you could do it anyway if you were enough of a grognard. It levels the playing field and removes unnecessary bookkeeping from play.

It would mainly benefit new players, since they wouldn't have to learn the permissions system before they can have their own characters interacting with each other's settlements. Anything that reduces the amount of game knowledge which must be front-loaded for no real benefit is better for player retention.

A better way to handle that would be to set up a defualt permission system for each character, that is then applied to any settlement he owns. You might need tongue there divide it down by realms as some characters have holdings in multiple realms. This way my EI character would not automatically and forever have access to all my Hawks settlements as if he was a full Hawk member.

Still you need a way overrule the list for special cases. I think the .ore you flesh out the entire concept the more it becomes a bunch of edge cases to handle for relatively little gain.
22
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« Last post by Cipheron on October 11, 2017, 04:33:24 AM »
The first request makes little sense when you consider there is no reason characters from a single player are all tied together and allied.  Besides which how often do you create a new character? How much time does it take to change a single list when you create a new character? Perhaps I misunderstand the request.

As to titles it is a long term Todo item for them to be part of the permission and message systems.

I was just voicing support for Tom's plan in the OP for this thread, he outlined what I talked about. The reasoning is that if a player can do something at no cost then it should probably be set up for you instead of needing to go through a bunch of logistical hurdles.

The point is that automatically assigning a "my characters list" which is hidden+default means you don't need a list for that, at all. And by automatically applying that list to each province, you don't need to ever edit permissions for each town to merely let your own characters in. So it's not just once per new character, it removes the need to edit in each of those permissions every time you take or re-take a town. It's not an unfair advantage, since you could do it anyway if you were enough of a grognard. It levels the playing field and removes some unnecessary bookkeeping from play.

It would mainly benefit new players, since they wouldn't have to learn the permissions system before they can have their own characters interacting with each other's settlements. Anything that reduces the amount of game knowledge which must be front-loaded for no real benefit is better for player retention.
23
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Cipheron on October 11, 2017, 04:04:55 AM »
I have to agree here, the more characters any one player has, they exponentially have less time and investment in each one. Even with only 4 characters in a "family" you're likely to only be communicating with 1 of them 99% of the time, because it's awkward to split your communication around with multiples and remember who was "speaking" to whom.

Here's my suggestion. Get rid of the 3-settlement limit per-character and change that to a 12-settlement limit per free account. And perhaps at the "basic" paid account level, you make that a 12 settlement limit per character. Some effects would be:

- players able to play a single character with 12 towns, if they want to
- less incentive to spam characters for purely logistical reasons
- more character slots free to be actual knights, not lords
- more character slots free for inter-marriage / children between accounts later on
- blur the line between paid and free accounts

I think these changes would be beneficial as starting players would make less "zombie" characters to merely hold towns, and have fewer characters - that they're more invested in - as lords, while freeing up spare character slots for miscellaneous adventurer/knight types.
24
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« Last post by De-Legro on October 11, 2017, 04:01:30 AM »
Hey, any chance of improvements to permissions system, Andrew?

One thing Tom mentioned in the OP was the possibility of automatic permissions for all a player's characters.

One way to do that without breaking the system might be to merely have a hidden list that automatically updates to hold all your living characters, and have that list automatically applied to each town, but hidden. This would simplify things like Tom suggested but without changing much of the underlying game code.

Tom's idea of having hidden "default lists" related to each realm/subrealm is also a really good one, and just changing the front-end so that you can set permission-levels for an entire list at once.

~~~

The other reason I wanted to necro this thread is that a question arose in-game which could require an actual useful addition to the permissions system.

It would be great if it was possible to specify permissions for a combination of realm / position as well as realm / person.  This would serve multiple purposes:

- permissions wouldn't need to be edited when assigning new people
- it would be clear who has which permissions from their titles
- can be rescinded as needed via demotion from the titles

This would strongly encourage creating special permissions based on titles rather than on individuals, which could streamline things a lot and make new types of organization practical in-game, while being a cheap way of adding more meaning to user-created titles.

The first request makes little sense when you consider there is no reason characters from a single player are all tied together and allied.  Besides which how often do you create a new character? How much time does it take to change a single list when you create a new character? Perhaps I misunderstand the request.

As to titles it is a long term Todo item for them to be part of the permission and message systems.
25
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: New Permission System Design
« Last post by Cipheron on October 11, 2017, 03:46:49 AM »
Hey, any chance of improvements to permissions system, Andrew?

One thing Tom mentioned in the OP was the possibility of automatic permissions for all a player's characters.

One way to do that without breaking the system might be to merely have a hidden list that automatically updates to hold all your living characters, and have that list automatically applied to each town, but hidden. This would simplify things like Tom suggested but without changing much of the underlying game code.

Tom's idea of having hidden "default lists" related to each realm/subrealm is also a really good one, and just changing the front-end so that you can set permission-levels for an entire list at once.

~~~

The other reason I wanted to necro this thread is that a question arose in-game which could require an actual useful addition to the permissions system.

It would be great if it was possible to specify permissions for a combination of realm / position as well as realm / person.  This would serve multiple purposes:

- permissions wouldn't need to be edited when assigning new people
- it would be clear who has which permissions from their titles
- can be rescinded as needed via demotion from the titles

This would strongly encourage creating special permissions based on titles rather than on individuals, which could streamline things a lot and make new types of organization practical in-game, while being a cheap way of adding more meaning to user-created titles.
26
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by De-Legro on October 10, 2017, 11:57:21 PM »


If the subscription fees were stopped, I'd go with just giving everyone the ultimate level subscription as default. Let's not forget that during the early days of the game there were no limits at all on how many characters a single player could control and, arguably, the game had a lot more life to it then. However, I totally agree with De-Legro that First One spamming during wars needs to be wiped out, but I think that could be done just by tweaking the restriction that limits the number of new characters you can create in a short space of time.



This is an example of Correlation vs. Causation. It is true that during the time of unlimited characters there was more activity, but claiming that the unlimited characters had anything to do with it is much harder. If you recall the unlimited characters and bubba's actions using them was the first instance of a large scale rage quit, which incidently impacted the formation of the Imperium when we moved from a beta to the full game. More likely the high activity was due to the game being new and only being open to those whom have invested in the crowd funding effort. Just like any new game there is a honey moon period simply because it is new.

I have without a doubt been one of the player with the most characters in game, I one point I ran three ultimate accounts all maxed out. I now run a single account with 10 characters, and it is much much better for the game. Even with a single ultimate account there were multitude of characters whom existed purely to move troops and start battles. They never messaged anyone nor responded to messages, since who has the time to constantly trawl through the messages of 50 character to find those relevant to that character? As the game has evolved I have certainly changed my opinion in regards to characters. If you don't have the time to make the character a relevant individual within the game, then in my opinion there is no valid reason for that character to exist. I realise that this in conflict with Tom's vision but I think his experiment has shown the weakness of that vision. We have had realms of 50 or more settlements, with no internal communication and next to no external communication run from 1 or 2 accounts. I think 20 characters is a pretty high limit already, personally I would set it no higher then 12.
27
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Cipheron on October 10, 2017, 11:31:16 PM »
I have been wondering though, people may choose to make multiple accounts because they can't afford the game themselves. Would it be worth it to add ways for players to earn credits or subscriptions? The game already has volunteer subscription levels in the code that I added should I decide to reward someone for helping.

If you go that route, consider adding in in-game trading with credits. What this achieves is that some "rich" players will be attracted because they can buy in-game influence via credits (i.e. they're spending on the game) but that's less divisive to other players since they are benefiting from the trade, too.

e.g. if you can trade for gold, then that's not a game-breaker but some rich player gets a temporary advantage, while the gold-seller gains credits to use in the game. However, whatever you link gaining credits to will be disproportionately done in the game. e.g. if you can trade gold for credits, then people will munchkin gold collection from their towns, which might not be fun gameplay. You can get more creative by listing things you want to encourage in the game and then tie direct rewards and/or credit-trading to those things.

So, say you want to encourage knight's offers instead. Then ... make a system where if you create a knight's offer and it's taken and the person sticks around as active for 30 days, then you get some amount of Credits. Guaranteed this will get everyone wanting to create competitive knight's offers, even if they play a free account. People will still hoard credits even if they're not using them. Human nature.
28
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Andrew on October 10, 2017, 01:51:01 PM »
The game was 100% paying for it's own hosting before the move, and then some. As it stands right now though, all income goes to Tom, mostly because I've not gotten around to changing the PayPal API so I can receive the income then transfer the income-after-deducting-costs to Tom. It's also a discussion I need to have more thoroughly with him sometime, about what he wants done about all that and what I can spend on what.

A lot of the life in this game was lost due to lack of development and server issues. I can pretty easily get an email to anyone who ever played for longer than like 2 weeks, but that's a one-off thing if I do it. I'd want to give those returning players something that was truly interesting to return to--which is hard when I'm the only coder that is contributing (in the sense of the game is running code made by someone) to the game. That said, if you know people who left who would have good input, I'd love to hear their thoughts on things.

I have been wondering though, people may choose to make multiple accounts because they can't afford the game themselves. Would it be worth it to add ways for players to earn credits or subscriptions? The game already has volunteer subscription levels in the code that I added should I decide to reward someone for helping.
29
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« Last post by Foxglove on October 10, 2017, 01:33:49 PM »
I tend to agree that having any sort of paid subscription level can turn 'free' players off. However, it depends on how much the fees help out with the costs of hosting the game. Not very much, I'd imagine. But some regular income that comes in at a reasonably predictable level from month to month is possibly better than nothing. More vanity stuff to buy might offset some of the loss to income, but possibly not in predictable ways (e.g. if a player buys all the available vanity, that's all you're ever going to get from them).

If the subscription fees were stopped, I'd go with just giving everyone the ultimate level subscription as default. Let's not forget that during the early days of the game there were no limits at all on how many characters a single player could control and, arguably, the game had a lot more life to it then. However, I totally agree with De-Legro that First One spamming during wars needs to be wiped out, but I think that could be done just by tweaking the restriction that limits the number of new characters you can create in a short space of time.

I also agree that the rule should be one player = one account. If all players effectively had the ultimate level that should be good enough for everyone. I remember one of Tom's thoughts on multi-cheating was that a  big reason people create multiple accounts is simply because they want to play more of a game (i.e. experience more it has to offer), and that was a big part of why M&F initially had no restrictions on character creation. And also because catching multi-cheaters (and being sure of it) is time consuming.

30
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: The 1.1 Update Topic
« Last post by De-Legro on October 10, 2017, 11:18:36 AM »
As well as burning oil poured on defenders, alchemists could also create Greek Fire type concoctions which could coat arrows, or poisons which could coat swords. Perhaps describing some of the things the alchemist does in the building description would make sense.


So things that improve troops in general, attack and defence really. Then again modern science can't actually replicate Greek Fire and it wasn't developed by the Greco-Roman Egypt alchemist who's practise involved large amounts of spiritualism and the concept of purification. Indeed none of the effects listed required "alchemist" poisons having been used to coat arrows and assassin blades by pretty much every culture known, and also being largely useless in battle due to the fact the poison simply doesn't remain on a blade long during battle conditions. Fire arrows likewise are trivial, generally need to be fired from close range due to their propensity to extinguish and are of arguably greater value to the sieging army. Even then their utility is argued about and many consider them to be a weapon of terror rather then actually useful.


If we want to make alchemist the "fantasy" chemist that they became in the 12th century once medieval europe had access to Islamic scientific text all well and good, but then they should be the pre-requisite for allowing settlements to produce defensive (and perhaps offensive) equipment that is consumed during a siege, not some weird over all defensive bonus.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10