Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Off-topic Chat / Test, just a test
« Last post by LeonelloCreemia on May 22, 2018, 12:15:48 PM »
Hello. And Bye.
2
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Burn ships!
« Last post by Andrew on May 09, 2018, 02:24:26 PM »
I did some look into allowing lake travel a long while back, and allowing docks on lakes would be nearly a two line change to the game's code.

Allowing boats on rivers, on the other hand, would be.... comparatively intensive. I'd prefer not to make them just thin strips of a new biome, because I'd likely have to rework how bridges work. There are a few things I'd like to do that would involve larger, strategy affecting constructions, but that's a bit down the line. I mention them because they involve me figuring out how to better work with PostGIS functions and ensuring the game interprets user inputs correctly. PostGIS, for what it's worth, is what the game uses to interface is with it's GIS mapping data. There are some functions in PostGIS that let you do some pretty cool things, but getting them in a user-editable state will be... a process.
3
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Burn ships!
« Last post by Cipheron on May 07, 2018, 11:37:57 AM »
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.

A quick fix for the river thing would be to treat travel near a river the same as travel by road, e.g. you get a speed boost by following the course of a river but still aren't able to cross it unless it's at a bridge. This would allow effectively the same benefits as trying to work in a river-travel system but without the coding headaches, and having to place docks on rivers.

An alternate solution would be to edit the map, and make major rivers wider and just treat them the same as ocean spaces, and allow docks on adjoining provinces. That way, the code shouldn't need to be touched, the map would just need editing.

Also, there are lakes in the game which you can't cross. It would be nice if docks were allowed there, so sea travel could short-cut settlements on each side, would that just be a matter of editing some database settings for the adjoining settlements?
4
General Discussion / First Challenge of 2018: The World in Words
« Last post by Andrew on May 03, 2018, 11:41:09 PM »
Alright everybody, I'm here to challenge you all to use that fancy new description system we have on all those places you've only been able to describe in roleplays before this--that's right, I want you to describe those settlements!

This will be purely determined by which descriptions I like best, but I will reward 500 credits to whomever does the best "Single Estate Description", 300 credits to the runner up, and 200 credits to the third best.

I am also toying with a categories based on realm-wide consistency/cohesiveness. Consider that a hint.

This challenge will end on May 18th @ 23:59 game time.
5
General Discussion / Re: A Discussion On The Value Of Characters
« Last post by WVH on May 02, 2018, 01:05:44 AM »
Maybe having more achievements would help?  I wish I knew how many times Wilson had ruled a realm or held titles, how many nobles were killed by him (or his army) in battle.  All of this and more.  It is almost like a tomb stone...or a way to see the pedigree of a character by looking up her dead relatives.

Rest in Peace... Wilson Van Valen...

http://mightandfealty.com/en/character/view/202

1-5-3 Has appeared at Stoneham.17-39-1 Died in battle. Achievements battle glory 41mortal soldiers slain 43nobles captured 9battles fought 86
6
General Discussion / Re: A Discussion On The Value Of Characters
« Last post by De-Legro on April 23, 2018, 01:59:21 AM »
One character per player only: Thats the way to go in my opinion. People would identify with and value their characters much more.


I would get so bored, then again I do value my characters. The last one I lost was only new but it completely destroyed a planned RP arc.
7
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.
8
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.
9
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...
10
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.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10