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 - Constantine

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
General Discussion / Re: A discussion the importance of lore upon gameplay
« on: February 08, 2018, 02:41:51 PM »
So why not let people create their own culture packs? I am really not thrilled to see real world cultures in a fantasy game.

Note estimation time, look at bottom of page for server time. From that you have how many hours till completion, apply that to whatever the local time is.
Alternatively the game could instantly tell you how many hours till completion remains.

Bump. Logging in, I'm seeing this: Est. complete: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 13:35:51 -0600.
Every day I need to make these needless calculations in my head. Can't we at least add (will happen in X hours). This does not seem to be hard to add but it will be very important quality of life feature for many people.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Troops V2.0 - Unit Types
« on: December 11, 2017, 02:18:35 PM »
Professional or Militia they would retain the current system of being named and having history. It would also be completely possible to train militia troops into a professional force, or retire professional troops into militia. It would simply take time instead of the instant actions we have now.
I think we need a better explanation of how you envision this new system. Because I am completely confused right now.
Do you just mean that mobilising troops from settlement garrisons will not be an instant action (as it is now) but a lengthy and costly process?

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Burn ships!
« on: December 11, 2017, 02:16:16 PM »
Being an island realm is already a somewhat one-sided option, you know. Don't see anyone complaining. When you're raiding an island, you're already fucked if they manage to block the boats. Attacking mainland settlements leaves you a lot of room for manoeuvre. If your boats are blocked you can continue damaging the victim and then just leave by land eventually. If you're worried about unfair advantages, my suggestion does not create any but perhaps helps mitigate some.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Troops V2.0 - Unit Types
« on: December 08, 2017, 03:22:11 PM »
What is unique about M&F and what I really like about this game is persistent mortal characters who, once trained, hang around until dead or disbanded and can fill any role you need. They can ride to battle or man the walls. Every soldier has unique history. This is fantastic.

What is suggested here I see as a serious downgrade. When we go for restrictive troop types, we go back from truly flexible individual soldiers to gamey "units/unit types". I see a lot of harm in this but I fail to see any real benefits. The announced benefit was that less active players would have an easier time building up their garrisons? Not important enough for such a huge change, imo.

I do like the idea to sophisticate the equipment supply though. I don't fully understand how it's supposed to work though.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Troops V2.0 - Unit Types
« on: December 08, 2017, 02:54:44 PM »
Please explain further how this will improve the experience. Basically this sounds like an introduction of "weaker" tier troops (garrison and levies). I don't see how this provides flexibility or choice at all.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Burn ships!
« on: December 08, 2017, 01:08:47 PM »
An option to burn down ships, please. And steal other people's ships. Maybe some sort of possibility of maritime battles or coastal defences. Heck, make rivers sailable. I want more options and interaction within the theme of sea raids in general.

General Discussion / Re: Making players an asset
« on: November 24, 2017, 12:58:19 PM »
I would agree here, if there were better systems in place to get forewarning of the troop build up. There should be ways for at least a chance to exists that you find out the troops are coming before they cross the border.
More effective watchtowers?
However the point about silent attackers/troops in general is a annoying point. I am not sure about trying to force something though, we have the attack messages which are almost universally rubbish. To me this seems like a problem that is only fixed through changing the actual attitudes of players rather then mechanics, but if I are being honest we are moving beyond a the sphere that I am able to provide much insight.
This is the point I was arguing against from the very beginning. There can be no doubt that players' behaviour is indeed heavily influenced by gameplay. If a player improves his standing in a game mostly by accumulating villages and resources, he will interact with other players in a certain way. If a player can actually get ahead in the game by gathering other players under his banner, he will be forced to interact with other players in a completely different way. Think about it.
Not so much on religions though, as I don't want to recreate BM in M&F.
Andrew, that's not fair. Having mechanical religions in a game is not intrinsically a BM's thing. It's like saying that you don't want to have feudal hierarchies in M&F because you don't want to recreate BM.
Religions offer another parallel hierarchy and in a game of fealty this could be really interesting.

General Discussion / Re: Making players an asset
« on: November 23, 2017, 02:42:44 PM »
And why do I need to talk to start a war? If I want to march 2000 soldiers to someone's city and attack them, why do I need to delcare that I'm attacking them? Just do it. They'll figure out they're under attack pretty quickly I assume.
That's what I'm talking about. In a feudal world simulator you'd expect to interact with envoys a lot, send runners to other courts, invent casus belli and parley at least as often as you fight. Instead you foster the Destiny Sphere mentality, when you always attack silently and preferably in the dead of night. And when the defender reaches out to you, you stay silent or go "kek". Because you don't need to ever talk to people unless you're really bored. This makes M&F extremely gamey and poor in flavour department.

There are other things knights can do though, it's just not as obvious anymore. At one point someone was trying to handle the lack of a ruler conversation by creating an organization that coordinated contact between people. There have been dungeoneering guilds. Trade companies. Mercenary outfits. Religions. Technically, these are all "knight game", just without mechanics to support them (for the time being).
A separate activity, adding nothing to lords game. Have to agree with Legro here.
Religion is different though. It needs infrastrcture to work.

General Discussion / Re: Making players an asset
« on: November 22, 2017, 03:50:59 PM »
But then you are stuck in a loop, you have a world and a system designed around many players, but you don't have those players so the systems don't work properly, which results in a poor experience, which reduces your chance of gaining those needed players. A system that achieves both objectives is insanely difficult to conceive. Better to build the game around what you have, actually ensure the fun of those player who are playing and in some cases paying for the game, and then build out the systems if and when player numbers rise.
I think I get it, but then if the game is not built to foster growth it will eventually wither. I'd personally go for a hybrid solution, where the game adjusts itself according to how many active players are around. But that might be too complicated, admittedly. In any case, I don't think that systems won't work properly. We do have enough players to make them work, they will just have to readjust their playstyles from "Waaagh!" to writing some letters first. There's a reason why Tom was so butthurt about people not even talking before attacking and starting wars. They didn't need to, the implementation of his vision was flawed.
I don't understand the request for "politics". Politics is an activity people choose to undertake, either in the sense of managing/governing a realm, or in the sense of politicking to increase ones position and power. These are largely free form actions that rely on players forming structures and interactions. So exactly what mechanics are required to foster that.
Politics are not exactly free form actions. The way people interact in a game is actually determined by the rules of the game. Battlemaster has a much more interesting political landscape exactly because it relies on player cooperation a lot, has real and serious consequences of diplomacy, intrigue and defection. Basically, you often can not win wars with your armies alone. In M&F you always can. Hence diplomacy can be used if you want to "not get bored" but is not really relevant and everyone knows it. 
I agree that politics is a somewhat broad term though. Let's change it to diplomacy, intrigue and meaningful negotiations.

General Discussion / Re: Making players an asset
« on: November 22, 2017, 12:26:41 PM »
I would much prefer the game to drop the idea of knights entirely, focus on Lords and move more towards grand strategy and politics.
That's reasonable. Knights serve no purpose other than troop leaders.
Although I still don't see where politics comes into the picture here.

Some of these changes are to make the game work better with the projected player population we have. Some are simply to try and focus the scope of the game and make the development feasible. So moving forward single player controlling 15-20 even 30 settlements I don't see as a huge problem. Single players controlling 100 is I think something we want as a exception rather then a rule.
Wow, low expectations indeed.
I think I'd rather see some changes that would make the game open to expansion even if it feels a bit empty at first rather than making it perfectly playable for a handful of established players and absolutely hostile to influx of new players.

Once again, allowing players to own so much land they can single-handedly establish autonomous full-cycle realms to dominate the entire neighbourhood will kill all attempts to create a grand strategy / political simulator. Travian has more incentives for diplomacy and political game than M&F, for crying out loud.

General Discussion / Re: Making players an asset
« on: November 21, 2017, 05:41:33 PM »
If our player base insists when given the choice on playing in a way that is basically a bunch of loners trying to work out why they constantly get bored, well that is the pitfalls of a sandbox.
This is a highly flawed approach unless you actually don't care about the success of this game.

I think you refuse to hear my point. But it is still true. The fact that the game does not incentivise cooperation, diplomacy, building feudal hierarchies, etc. but instead incentivises village hoarding and optimisation of supply chains objectively makes it a much lesser game than it could potentially become.
The fact that you try to do things differently with Hawks to not get bored is sadly irrelevant to my statement. Because you do in fact play just like everyone else - when some vague threat from without draws your attention you simply wipe it out and go back to trying to not get bored. Hawks use the "diplomacy" of do what we tell you or lose everything you have exactly because there are no gameplay mechanisms faciliating more interesting and complex conflict.

You know well that this game has lost a lot of dedicated players. This happens not because they were pussies and cry babies. And not even because of the toxicity of certain players. But simply because the game does not deliver on promised features. this is how Tom described the game:
A roleplaying game, a strategy game, a political and negotiations game.A simulation of a medieval / low-fantasy world not in the sense of realistic physics, but in the sense of having humans with human motivations and personal ambitions as the driving forces.
This is what players expect. What they get is a clunky sandbox military boardgame. Every game has rules and rules determine the way players tend to play. And when all you have is a hammer, everyone just looks like a nail. The fealty aspect of the game could use an overhaul and improvement. That's all.

General Discussion / Making players an asset
« on: November 21, 2017, 01:21:23 PM »
There has been some talk about roleplay and high player population being important in this game.
This is not true. The game does not incentivise you to interact with other player on a meaningful level or to recruit them for your realm. You can run a realm of any size with just one or two friends.
The main resources in this game is the quantity of owned villages, access to metal and a large roster of characters to field small mobile armies. It is actually better to have less players to run the realm more effectively. Corruption is a non-issue. This leads to a mentality where players are encouraged to be absolutely ruthless to each other in a manner that is only fun for loners and sociopaths. This also leads to smaller realms being irrelevant and increasingly non-existent. The map will soon (if not already) be divided between several huge empires surrounded by some puppet states/protectorates. Eventually there won't be any wars fought ever again.

Conflict in this game would be absolutely different if player characters were an important asset. We'd see much less wars to elimination, much more diplomacy and intrigue if convincing a player to change his allegiance instead of just crushing him was even slightly beneficial.
The one way I see it can be done is making huge swaths of land held by one player unfeasible. No one player should be able to own enough land to run an infinite HI conveyor. If players absolutely needed to attract other players to govern lands and pay them tax, they would respect other players as highly valuable resource. If loyalty becomes an important resource, players would pay more attention to diplomacy, reputation, even roleplay. Politics would become a meaningful pastime.
I don't care how many characters paid accounts can have, but it is clear to me that drastically limiting how many villages any one player can own is absolutely crucial.

Instead of "est. complete XX:XX server time" please put "est. complete in XX:XX hrs"

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18