Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - The Vintroth

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Rage Zone / Re: Players behind Ascalon - greed at its finest
« on: November 28, 2018, 02:24:16 PM »


Hmm quite some stir after a long silence...


Since there is no accounting, I will go with the common sense, and common sense tells me there will never be war between Ascalon and Thule, or even enmity, so maybe they work hand in hand hm? For your record, the old North would never pass on a chance to war Ascalon, that much for role play.


So, Van Valen seceded with his lands and formed Exiles, and you did nothing. Then, when he retired, wishing to leave his lands to the Exiles, you concluded that now you want those lands that were never yours, but Van Valens? There is a super thin backing to this story, if there is any at all, doesn't look IC at all.


Rebellion... in order to rebel, one actually needs to be a part of a motherland. Exiles are a realm of their own, so maybe you got mixed up a bit here  ::)  If you made a conquest by blood and fire, I wouldn't say a word, but you simply walked into deserted towns, reverted thousands of militia (that Exiles trained under Van Valen) and then you started dictating terms. There isn't much of gaming there at all, so it is in order for community to become aware of the kind of players behind certain characters. And I'm not moaning, I put it under the rage yone, not under 'Admin pls help me zone'.


I don't have time now, but I will answer other posts as well, there is a lot of bull there for sure.
Silvershot/Kirfkin who you quoted is not a part of Thule by the way. As for a big stir, I only realised you'd made this post yesterday as it no longer shows new posts on the discord (which you could join for easier OOC conversations).

I've already told you that I can play my characters and of course conflict between them is possible. No matter what realm they're in. I know there were plenty of wars with Rathgari and Ascalon before I joined the game. Roran told me of them when he brought me in. However, Karameikos is slightly different from the Rathgar of old as you might have realised and Karameikos has since the time I started playing M&F been friendly with Ascalon. Hell, a brother (or nephew or some such) of Karameikos royalty is even a part of Falconreach. Admittedly, changes are taking place now as that player also quit the game recently. I believe we both agree that war needs reasons and for as long I've played it isn't Ascalon and Karameikos that have been at each others throat, but Eldamar and Karameikos (despite the fact that they're allied). The reasons behind those conflicts are many though and I shan't go into detail... quite interesting though from beginning to end.

As for the fact they're not fighting as an argument for that they're working hand in hand. Nonsense argument. Take that argument to the full extent and everyone who are not fighting are working together which obviously isn't true for any realm, in any place.

 Already told you why no one, Mormont or Alfborg really cared if Van Valen left. He was Van Valen. His family name held more importance than the land he owned, far more so. However, as I also explained to you, Van Valen is now gone but his land is still Rathgari. - Rathgari land in my Alfborg's mind (I don't play all the Alfborgs), should only ever belong to Rathgari and there was only one way to make that happen. But all that have been explained at length in IC messages, so I don't understand how you can't see it. It seems that you have decided there is no backing and no matter how much I (or anyone else) explain it, IC or OOC you won't accept it.

On the same note, yes. The part of the Exiles that is of concern to Thule used to be a part of Karameikos under different Van Valen family members. The other part was ruled by Haugbui before he died which was not a part of Karameikos. This you should already know if you've been paying attention to anything that has been said or going on the recent years. You're simply making assumption after assumption. Thousands of men? Hardly.

Again, you assume much but seem to know very little in fact. Including history or the characters of the people you make assumptions about. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why you, whoever you play, might be annoyed or even angry. However, I am actually quite happy to speak to you and hear you out and explain the things that you don't know. However, simply writing of what I tell you as some thin excuse (for greed? for being oocly based? for what?) is neither reasonable or fair.




2
Rage Zone / Re: Players behind Ascalon - greed at its finest
« on: November 27, 2018, 08:07:30 PM »
I suppose a welcome back is in order. I am one of those horrible, despicable and greedy players you speak of.

Do I play in both Ascalon and Thule? Yea, sure I do but you might be surprised to hear that I can actually play my characters. Prime example, I play (as my name here suggests) the Duke of Falconreach. He doesn't really care what the Exiles and Thule are up to. Still, other nobles wishes to see a nice border hence the Ascalonians that came up there to sit and say "lets fix the border". - They haven't attacked anyone to my knowledge nor do they aim to do so. A simple situation to be resolved by words is expected, no need to use force. Not in any way related to Thule. In fact, the only reason I became involved on Lyonell was that Strenvale wanted to mediate on behalf of the Exiles and also brought Lyonell in as help to do so.

On the other hand, Thule. They fought a small conflict with the Van Valens a few years back, following a few disagreements. Thule won the conflict in the end, after some early reversals. The peace was basically no changes for either side, though we never did bother to take back the one or two provinces that Valen took from us... because unlike what you believe, I am not greedy at all (nor Östfold or the rest of Thule for that matter). It isn't the land that is interesting, it is the fact that it is Rathgari land. Van Valen was respected and well liked by all Alfborgs, as a friend and foe. The Alfborgs were always happy to have him there, scar or no scar. With him gone however it is again not his land that is of interest to me but the fact that it is Rathgari. This is unrelated to Ascalon.

In the end, I do own plenty of land. I don't want more land if that is what you believe. In fact, as anyone that speaks to me would know, I fucking hate when I have to take over land nowadays because it doesn't serve me any good what so ever really. It just adds to my corruption across all characters, no matter if they're the Duke of Falconreach, a lowly knight or that Rathgari from Thule. However, I have to play my characters. Thule wishes to see Rathgari people in Rathgar as Dyre pointed out.

I don't know who you play so I don't know what information you have or where you've gotten it from but your perspective seems twisted to an extreme degree. I don't know if it is you who has put random OOC rumours on random characters across Thule that really do not deserve them or if it was someone else, following along the same lines. But frankly, I suppose it doesn't matter. Either you will listen to this and see that it really isn't as black and white or as bad as you seem to believe. Or don't listen to this and simply believe what you wish.



3
General Discussion / Re: The Next Big Step for M&F?
« on: August 08, 2018, 11:47:56 AM »
It might be a good thing to decide once and for all whether we want this game to primarily be about relationships between characters, storytelling and such. Or whether we want it to be a strategy wargame. I've increasingly come to believe that it can't be both at the same time (at least, not in its present form).

The problem is that if we have both aspects running alongside each other, we get the strongly motivated wargamers effectively dominating the way the world develops and occupying the upper level positions of power. While the players that aren't really interested in the military aspects just have to roll with the punches. We've seen this time after time with the various strong military powers that have risen and fallen during the life of the game. It's them who control which realms live and die. Faced with the wargamers, the other types of players effectively become vassals to them or just get bored/disillusioned and leave the game.

As I've said many times in the past, when Tom was developing the game it increasingly seemed to become very focused on the strategy game aspect at the expense of everything else. Pretty much to the point that it became a full-on strategy game. Which was a million miles away from the way he originally pitched the game way back when on the Battlemaster forum when he suggested he was more interested in creating a game where politics was the most important aspect, rather than a game that was essentially an evolution of Battlemaster.

 If we're going to move to soldiers not being directly led by First Ones, it feels like we're trying to fundamentally change the wargame aspect so that this becomes a much less intense experience (in terms of demands on playing time to fight wars). If so, then:
  • Slow the pace of war down very significantly so that it gives everyone a chance to participate, whether they're checking in once a day or 6 times a day. Perhaps make it so that armies move at a pace of one or two regions per real life day. By making it so you can fight a war effectively with a slow-ish playing speed it makes it accessible to greater numbers of players, including the casuals.
  • Scrap the supply lines completely. Seriously, what fun do they actual add to the game? How much fun is it to need to have characters run supplies of food followers out to keep armies in the field? Who actually enjoys running a logistics supply chain?
  • This is really radical - probably too radical - but scrap trading completely. How many players have ever got much out of trading? If you step back from the fact that constant supply trading was a key concept of the game development, what is it actually adding to the game? Nothing, I'd say. How many new players have you ever encountered who, when it's explained to them that they'll need to convince other players to send them resources to build up their settlements (or told them that they have to send some of their resources to others) have ever responded enthusiastically? Constant supply trading exists only for two reasons: constructing higher level buildings and training better equipped soldiers. If war is becoming a bit less intense, a bit more abstract, then we don't need the trading. The fun aspects of the game are the building up of settlements, the training of different types of troops, and sending them out to fight. Constant supply trading isn't fun and very little trading between players actually takes place. In the place of trading we could just make realms have something like abstracted supply tokens (based on the amount of territory they own) that can be assigned to specific settlements within the realm to create different sizes of settlements. Then it would become more about players politicking their way in to ruling the key settlements within a realm. More about building relationships, less about messing about with supply chains.
Alongside this, if we're serious about making Might & Fealty more about roleplaying and co-operative storytelling, the game desperately needs activities for characters to participate in that are supported by mechanics. It needs a way to help people tell smaller stories. We need dueling. We need tournaments. We need ways to hold social events like feasts, hunting parties, weddings, actual questing that has some purpose to it. Basically, we need ways to tell the stories of everyday life. It won't do to say that people can write this stuff themselves without mechanics. Most people come to a game expecting things to be supported by game mechanics to a certain extent.


While we're at it, if we are making the wargaming aspect less significant and demanding on playing time, we should look at all of those things that are in the game purposely to make it more difficult and time consuming for powergamers (e.g. that you have to individually select the equipment load for each soldier). If we're trying to create a more level playing field where everyone has a reasonable chance in wars, we shouldn't need those aspects of the game to do it. It should be the nature of the war fighting itself that's changed so that there are no advantages to logging in more than - let's say - once a day to fight your wars.

To say something, I'll simply say that I like the above. Liked it even more the second time I read it. Even the somewhat radical idea of scrapping trade. I have always found that this game should be about the relations between characters, not the amount of heavies you can train and manage effectively.

4
General Discussion / Re: A Discussion On The Value Of Characters
« 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.

5
General Discussion / Re: A Discussion On Allowing Non-Human First Ones
« on: February 23, 2018, 11:58:39 PM »
What I think would be cool is a dynamic system. Here's a rough idea:

Have ethnic groups, derived from realms / subrealms. You can pick one as your primary identity when you spawn you character, and the realm creator gets to specify a set of (optional) bonuses and penalties for the realm. Children would be able to inherit the primary ethnicity of either parent. Possibly, allow characters to change ethnicity based on other realm memberships available to them, and based on marriage, so you can marry someone to get a new ethnicity, giving another use for marriages.

Optionally, allow each ethnic group to get certain +/- values for e.g. living in certain terrains, or for raising / leading certain troop types. I'd split terrains into three groups, mountains/hills, forests/marsh, plains/scrub, and troop ability into three groups too, archers, cavalry and infantry. So you could e.g. get a +2 in hill/mountain production and +2 in archers, but you'd have to take -1 in everything else to get that, or you can have an ethnicity that's an all-rounder. e.g. a large realm like Ascalon would probably make "Ascalonian" have the generic settings, and players could choose just to identify as "Ascalonian", but sub-realm ethnicities would be more specialized based on what terrain and resources are available to them.

While I would like to see cultures, such as Ascalonian, Eldamari, Mercian, etc etc, within the game, I don't think giving them specific bonus is a great idea. Largely because it will likely lead to min-maxing which I'd argue harms the game. - Rather, the reason I would like to see cultures is because lore and setting. That is what ties *actual characters* down and generally forces you to play them or at least generally follow along or you'd be laughed out IC.

Not that bonuses can't be interesting or well done, for in many games they are. But I believe for a game like Might and Fealty, it won't do the same thing.

6
General Discussion / Re: A Discussion On Allowing Non-Human First Ones
« on: February 22, 2018, 05:55:41 PM »
As I have said before, lore such as this does need to affect gameplay, and it can only do that if it is considered official, true or whatever. (Discussion on lore and gameplay: http://forum.mightandfealty.com/index.php/topic,6379.0.html)

Cultures hardly exist as is. The depth of M&F is, as I've said before, lacking. Adding the ability to play an elf or orc won't solve the problem of depth. All it does is add another variable. By themselves, variables won't do anything. A specific setting is what is needed as I have argued before. If you want other races, introduce them together with a specific setting or there is little to no point.

You say it add another dynamic, another factor, but there are hardly any dynamics to begin with. There is no culture (in most places, or it is not clear cut even where it exists), no religion (that is enforced in any meaningful way). What difference is this going to make really? Am I being critical, of course I am, because someone needs to be. Does this actually benefit the game? - Does this actually solve a problem or add *meaningful depth*?

How will an orc or elf "First One" spawn cultures when humans and first ones can't seem to do it?

Lastly, for as little of a theme Might & Fealty has, does it actually fit with the current theme? I'd argue no, simply because I find it goes against the already established lore, of which we have precious little. - So unless we're planning on making lots of changes and actually adding more lore in general, I believe my answer comes to a no.


7
As for settings, we have purchasable culture packs that are not European. I should note that Tom always mentioned that culture packs were going to be more then names, but never really nailed down what that "more" was. Personally I would like custom culture packs, so I can create my own naming system for my mortal slaves.
The culture packs never made much sense in my eyes. Since they actually do list things as European or other things. For not being on Earth it is a bit of a strange thing to do. I'm not in favour of 'custom' ones as I am in favour of 'established cultures'. I don't see why we need every fool and their dog having a custom pack, y'know.

Quote
The images are because there was only ever a small budget for graphics that was never going to stretch to multiple versions for different "cultures". Plus there was a lot of talk at the start of the game about how exactly the game would handle multiple graphic packs that was never completely resolved because we got side tracked about adding "custom" weapons and troop types.
All the same, the standard is European. That is what we have and that is what people will perceive the game as generally speaking.

Quote
As for Lore, one thing I would love to see established is the original inhabitants of this small part of the world. As I recall EI and Rathgar were supposed to be "native". The ruling family of the Fading Isles was, but most of the actual realms within it were made up of immigrants. Hawks for example were originally shipwrecked. Personally it irks me to see yet another "native and long term" realm spring up in the same region that has already had a procession of "native" realms. It was a stretch to have three native cultures given the size of the map to start with.
The lacking lore is the very cause of almost everyone being an immigrant, and the disregard of historic realms and culture.

8
When I say the game isn't a medieval simulator, what I'm saying is that it's not simulating medieval life on earth. If it was, you'd be looking at a map of Europe, rather than whatever it is we call the continent. If we make it a medieval simulator, we lose a LOT of the liberties on how things operate or work, and I'll probably stop developing it because I don't have the time to research how much food a medieval baker can produce.
Fair enough, but then we mean two different things entirely.

Quote
The mortals in game aren't human. At least not so much as we are. The game doesn't even explicitly state that the mortals, or first ones, even look like exactly like humans, just that they are "not unlike". The closest you get is these:

"So the gods went about creating a new creature much more similar to themselves then all the others ones. The First Ones. A race not unlike man, but stronger, smarter and not subject to aging."

"First Ones look much like mortal men at first glance, but you can spot very fast that they are not the same. No disease or illness can touch them, save one. As such, they never need healers or herbs, and they can recover from wounds that would strike every mortal down for sure. Their teeth and skin are perfect, their hair is fair and their eyes are awake and shining, deep as a clear lake on a summer day."

Personally, I'd love to go a little less low-fantasy and add other races into the game. People seem to be against this idea, for some reason though. You could, for what it's worth, argue that we're all playing Tolkien-esque elves, and that this is where the Elves from early BattleMaster originally came from. :P
Right. You can argue that but really, unless stated otherwise; most will just assume human. So if we now decide that all First Ones are little green men, we should probably state it clearly :P

Quote
And yeah, most of the art and images do reflect European standards, though I think that's more so we have something to look at that's standardized more than anything. A few people are aware of the debates I've had about weapon effectiveness and how it could be altered. I'd love to break away from this purely European thing though, and am toying with the concept of making culture packs more than just name lists, but there are many things that don't have similar conventions across geographic areas.
What is wrong with being purely European? - It is a very small piece of land we live on in M&F anyways. Should technology and culture really vary so much?

Quote
My goal is to make M&F a good game, one that's interesting, not necessarily historically accurate. If there's an area that can be fixed or improved upon in such a way that makes sense and adds to the gameplay, I'm more than willing to try it, but I try to avoid major changes without serious consideration as to what the consequences might be.
A sentiment that I generally agree with, but again, what is really wrong with specific context and setting to bind characters? Of course, it would be a big step and one that should be considered carefully, but being strict with lore is not necessarily a bad thing (not that you said it were).

Quote
"A new player should, before placing a character down, be able to get an idea of what a realm is like, what opporunities there are there, and know a little about where they are going." --Me, my previous post.
Whoops.


9
I'm not against creating more game lore, but there'd have to be a good reason to add something that would constrain, possibly even overwrite, the creative activities of players.

Is adding depth and the binding of characters not a good enough reason? It is not as if players can't work from within the constraints of what is game lore. They'll work within it as in any other game/setting/etc.

Quote
I've toyed with putting some game history into the game's fiction, so there's an understood "hey, this happened" that can't be argued, but that means it can't be argued, and there's less opportunity for contention on the subject.
There is a large difference between something happening and why it happens. Plus, if the 'game history' says xyz, there is no reason someone could explain it further from another viewpoint in terms of story. Another perspective does not break lore, rather adds to it (or well, depending on how it is done, but you get my point). Plus, people can lie, right? If done in an IC way, people can do a lot of things within the constraints of set lore.

Quote
One might suggest that we limit the setting of Might & Fealty to a specific era in our history, to which I'd respond that M&F is not a medieval simulator, is not set on earth, and does not humans (unless this is actually a sci-fi title, which it might be). Even then, which time era would we set it to? From which area of the world? Based off which group of people there?

Let us break this one down.
1. Not a Medieval simulator.
2. Not set on earth
3. Not humans /unless sci-fi/.
4. What era?
5. Based on what culture?

To the first point; there is plenty to suggest otherwise. The weaponry in the game is very medieval, as are the terms Knights, Lord, et cetera. - The fealty system - Of course, one can easily argue that many of the terms used are used outside of a medieval context as well. That is a fair point, but there is very little to suggest that we are not in some type of medieval world. "A simulation of a medieval / low-fantasy world" is also written on the about page by the way. So in the end, it does seem that we are in fact playing in a medieval low fantasy world, which also happens to be the way most people I know view the game. But moving on.

2. I don't think that matters much. A lot of fantasy settings, low or high, are not set on earth.

3. Why can't we have humans, even without sci-fi? Plenty of both high and low fantasy settings have humans without it being a sci-fi setting.

4. Medieval based on what I said before.

5. Western European in general. There is nothing to suggest that the game is not based on European things. The art of the game, such as the buildings, images of plate armour, halberds and crossbows looks very much European to me. Most realms established also seem to be based on European nations to some degree.


Quote
A better question would be, what exactly does the game lore already establish, as fact?
Very little. It gives some background to the world and setting. It does establish the nature of First Ones and slumber, that gods exist and a few other things.

Quote
And a follow-up would be, what do we need to expand on from there, so that people can better enjoy the game?
Now that, is a great question. I can think of a few things, but there are probably more ideas out there. A prolonged conversation concerning these things can probably spawn much more that I can think of right now. Religions, cultures, established nations, a general history. Anything that adds context and makes it easier to bind the character into the lore and setting.

Quote
To switch gears to your discussion of Knight Offers, a rework of the new character arrival system is on the TODO list, for a later update. Before I tackle it though, I need a few things, some of which I'm already experimenting with in 1.1. The main things are a I need a way for characters to be part of a realm, without holding land, titles, or vassalage in it, and a place for those new characters to arrive to that actually improves on the new player experience rather than just dropping them in a sea of information. For the previous, it will require some effort. As for the latter though, the first part of that will come in 1.1, with Places. Ideally, the bulk of it will happen in 1.2 or 1.3 when I roll out Complexes.

That said, I'm not saying I won't change things in a smaller update somewhere rather than waiting for a major update, but I'd like to make it so rather than arriving as a knight, you arrive as a person. Rather than just being a knight, your first choice is becoming a knight of someone, or not. A new player should, before placing a character down, be able to get an idea of what a realm is like, what opporunities there are there, and know a little about where they are going. When they arrive, they should have an opportunity to learn more about a realm, talk to people in it, and decide if they want to stay or go someplace else. They shouldn't have to kill their character to go someplace else.
Sure. Though I still think that they should have to read about realms *before* they spawn in anywhere and preferably before they even make the character. If they knew of the major cultures of the game, they could make an Ascalonian and spawn somewhere else but still have an idea of what an Ascalonian should perhaps be like to some extent.

Quote
Oh, and what realms you're a part of should be more obvious. This silliness that you inherit the realms of your liege will be ending when I get around to figuring out the alternative to how it'll work instead.
Sure, why not. Seems like a sensible thing. Perhaps the liege can choose what his knights will be a part of?

10
General Discussion / A discussion – the importance of lore upon gameplay
« on: February 05, 2018, 06:55:08 PM »
I would for a moment to no one’s great surprise, raise a discussion, concerning Might & Fealty. As the title says, it is a discussion primarily focused on lore and the effect it has on the gameplay of Might & Fealty. Though, as any who know me to any extent will know, it will touch on other matters as well.
 
Let us first try and define a few terms, at least for the part of my own discussion and post. You might very well believe that I misuse terms or disagree on the definitions that I intend to use. However, the definitions of these terms are hardly the important part of this discussion. Instead, it is the skin on the meat as it were.
 
  • Game Lore – It is what I would define as the official lore of the game. It is what we find written on the game’s fiction page. http://mightandfealty.com/en/fiction This is canon.
  • Clique Lore – The lore that exists, written or unwritten, in a single or a number of players’ hands. The exact form of this lore may vary, but it does not exist as a written part of the game and ways to explore it remain limited to, either, OOC interaction or *acceptance into the fold IC* (which might very well contain OOC parts as well. A mix of both IC and OOC factors would not be overly surprising, if to varying degrees.).
  • Wiki Lore – That which exists on the wiki. While some more general lore is to be found here, both things related to game lore, clique lore and other lore; it is often outdated or irrelevant. The other part of wiki lore is the gathered personal stories, which despite possibly important to the game, is irrelevant to a large extent to the game lore and setting but holds some importance to other written lore.
  • Other (Written) lore – This is the lore you find gathered throughout the game if you are looking. Realm pages, character pages, and within both living and dead realm conversations. This is the source of the wiki lore, for it stems from gameplay and the ideas of players of the area of the world they inhabit. This might very well (at times) be the source of the clique lore.
  • Setting – The gathered, specific, context of the world of Might & Fealty. It does not only include the game lore, but also the other types of lore to various degrees, plus the various cultures, realms and history that existed within the game, recorded by game or player.

Let me begin by saying that I view Might & Fealty as a roleplaying sandbox game, where it is the actions of characters, and relations between them that matter above all else. To view it in any other way will, in the end, drive it to become little more than a wargame in the guise of something greater. It is also worthwhile to say that Might & Fealty is a terrible platform for wargaming anyways. The battle system does not reward skill in battle mechanics, but rather, activity, time already spent in the game, and the ability to acquire better estates. This is however, somewhat besides the point of this discussion.
 
So, what influence do these types of lore have upon gameplay? Game lore has one obvious influence on those who play by it (which they might not), it binds their characters, and their actions to a specific context. It gives some manner of background to where they place their characters and some idea of the setting in which they play. The fiction that exists for Might & Fealty is however, very limited both in length and depth. Due to this very limited nature, it has a very small effect on gameplay.
 
In comparison, clique lore, which is hidden (to varying degrees), seems to influence gameplay to a much larger degree. This type of lore is not inherently bad, but it sets a precedent of people on the inside, and those on the outside. In some cases, it might not even be something that is actively organised, but an unwritten understanding of a realm’s lore and code of conduct.  It is difficult, if not impossible, for a new player to explore and make use of this lore. Not only does it then leave new players as lost sheep, unless someone is able to explain things to them in a good, and concise manner (like Roran did to any of my questions back in the day). But, as another problem, if the holders of this lore leave, it is simply lost. I have on numerous occasions argued that established realms and cultures are more important that what a new player might wish to create, as a fresh thing. To be introduced into a realm in an efficient manner, given context (like I was given) will surely be a more efficient system of introduction that the void of information that this game often can seem to be. However, to return to the main point, it seems to be that this ‘hidden agreement of IC culture’ is what really binds a character in most places.
 
The wiki, and the lore within it can lessen the problem of depth somewhat. It is a good source of information concerning various things if it is updated by players. Yet, it is not a good method of introduction, nor does it contain the broad context that the game would generally. It is simply a place to find more in-depth knowledge once already introduced; a place for further context and player-made lore. Does this influence gameplay? To a large extent I’d say no, but it can influence play even so. If what has been is recorded well, it can drive players to take it into account in a manner they might not otherwise do.
 
To summarise, game lore has a very small effect, even though it should be the very setting and context of the game. It should bind characters to the world in a more effective way than any other. Yet, it seems to me that if any type is really responsible when it comes to binding characters; it is the clique lore and to some extent the other lore. Lastly, wiki lore by itself might not bind characters to a specific setting, but it can influence the way people play the game and how they view it.
 
The setting of the game, mainly based on game lore should bind both new and old characters. Yet, in my experience, it rarely seems to do so. Why is this? Why does clique lore take the upper hand? – I believe there is a very simple answer to this. To generate a setting to bind the character fully, one needs lore of some complexity. It does not need to be super complex or extensive, but it cannot be *simple* or irrelevant to gameplay to have an actual effect. If you read relevant lore, that carry some complexity, you will make a character *from* that and already there, you bind it to the setting and lore. If you do not, it will have consequences IC if the lore and setting is activity used. Perhaps such an approach limits the infinite freedom sandbox, but I, personally have nothing against it for I’d rather play within the confines of the sandbox with actual characters bound in lore with some complexity. The problem that is so easy to face in the infinite sandbox is that the character is made, then either not bound at all, or bound much later and much more loosely that it would otherwise be.
 
I believe an example can be made of such a system. Myself, and others that I know, have in the past or in the present played on Warband Roleplay servers. These servers, are always bound in some manner of complex lore to be found on the forum in these cases for the game does not allow to show it. – But once read and character made, it is bound in that lore and acting outside of it will not do you any favours, either IC or OOC.
 
In the main, the purpose of this discussion is to raise points and bring thoughts to those who read it. Even so, some suggestion to solve the problems I raised are probably expected for raising problems without suggested fixes is generally, and sometimes rightly, frowned upon.
 
So, what can be done to improve the binding of characters in the setting and the lore? Firstly, I believe the main and most important step is to make more game lore. Make things ‘official’. Make things specific and let the lore be complex and relevant. Not just about the First Ones you play, but the factions and nations you’ll encounter. If that lessens the infinite sandbox, so be it.
 
My second point, would be a new Knight Offer system. Where leaders of realms (large and small? Only large?) may open the capital for new knights to spawn, even if no traditional knight offer is open. However, the difference would lie in when you choose where to spawn. I would have it done first, where the player is presented with a list of realms, paired with introductions and descriptions of said realm. That would allow the player to form an idea and bind the character in the specific setting that he only after choosing realm, creates.
 
I shall leave it at that and I hope that, if nothing else, it did at least make you think.

11
General Discussion / Re: Why M&F peaked so young
« on: September 30, 2017, 02:43:56 PM »
The game actively encourages players to start in active realms. Theoretically, that means new players should be interacting with players to learn these things before triyng to strike out with a character to take land.

^^^^^^^That is very important. Really, new players should be, while not forced, definitely pushed into that direction.

However, I believe there is a point to be made that the Knight offer system could be expanded to further apply incentive for new players to use the knight offer, and above all find the correct one for their own wishes. While the current KO system works, it is also somewhat limited in the amount of information you can give to the new player. While I suppose, not only new players accept them, I imagine most new players actually do, and we do want to cater to them somewhat. To hopefully incurage a growth in the playerbase.
 

An ideal system, in my opinion, would give a list of nations along with a description of what to expect from the various nations. Presumably written by the ruler of said nation. In that way, a setting can be established at once and the new players have some idea of what to expect depending on what he picks. Then, from there he is presented by the KO's of that realm, presumably again with some short text.

I do admit that I have no idea if this is a reasonable idea in terms of actually making it work, if it is even possible. However, if it could be done it would present a more clear view of the world for the new player other than the map. From such descriptions of nations, he would, presumably, be able to gauge culture, some history and general setting to then decide what would fit best. 

12
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Activity & Activity Buildings
« on: September 28, 2017, 11:48:05 AM »
The game should be, in my opinion, focused on character relations. Skills would, I expect, only lead to attempts at min-maxing First Ones. It is as De-Legro rightfully points out, people would simply game the system and do silly things if allowed if it gave them any kind of advantage. So while I admit specialization, progression and skills sounds nice in theory, I believe it would be a larger mistake in the long run. However, if they're only for dungeons, I don't mind. Largely because I haven't touched a dungeon since year 10 in game.

Furthermore, if skills, as was suggested earlier improve with use. Players who have played for longer will have an even larger advantage than they already do. It would help for history, culture etc in game to be more continuous, which I believe is good. Yet, I can't help but feel it is the wrong way to go about it.

13
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Restoring Sub-Realms
« on: June 09, 2017, 11:09:52 AM »
This would mean that some realms might not be recreatable at all.

I would not consider that a problem really.

If a nation is dead long enough, either via conquest or slumber, their culture would slowly die out. Replaced by what came after. Sure it would not be an instant thing, and I am not sure Amble's suggestion is the best to show that. However, I do not see any problem in some realms not being recreatable.

14
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Exploit: Thralls During a Siege
« on: April 22, 2017, 09:53:53 AM »
Does pop looting during a siege work near the town? Well then it seems the exploit isn't as one-sided as claimed.

You can loot for thralls (which is what I assume you are talking about) outside the walls yes. However, you will understand that it does not help if I loot perhaps (I don't remember the exact number from when I tried) 6 thralls when they just sent in 50-100 thralls. It is not really viable. Even more so considering that the cooldown to loot is the same.

15
Realms Chat / Re: The Kingdom of Ascalon
« on: January 25, 2017, 12:20:57 PM »
We should send someone to Hawks, and maybe, just maybe they'll return with this... "bigger bigger stick". It will surely make everything more efficient.

Pfft Dystopian. We are not terrorizing anyone! At least not until things start blowing up.

Pages: [1] 2 3