The role of Players

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The role of Players

Post  Nikephoros on Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:47 pm

So, what will be the role of the players?

Lord and generals?
Rank & file?
Both?

Personally, i already made explicit the preference for the first hypotesis. Having bot armies commanded by players, or "hero teams" of a few human fighters against huge odds, sounds just epic to me.

Also, will the players be "mortal"? If they are heroes, they can be killed, or have limited lives and then some time to wait to respawn again in the campaign map.

Any ideas from you?
avatar
Nikephoros

Posts : 66
Join date : 2010-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:47 pm

It should depends on whether your taken prisoner, ransomed/released or executed.

It should work like M&B native IMO but allow killing as well. This would take you out of the game temporarily but for a set amount of time whereas if imprisoned you would have a chance for escape, the faction could jailbreak you by various means or you could be sold back.

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:22 am

I still support the idea that the troops on the map aren't named, but that anyone can drop in for them. So you will have a king troop (just one) which will be played by me only, for roleplaying sake. But all other soldiers can be played by any clanmember, but of course you can always play the same soldier on the map.

This is MUCH easier when you have to deal with people going on holidays, being a weekend off or having important school stuff. It's just possible to be dependent on 'but my guy has to be here for the battle, as he is in the warband!'.

You have more freedom that way, but you can still choose to have "hero teams" and the such.
avatar
Arch3r
Admin

Posts : 150
Join date : 2010-02-09
Age : 25
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Nikephoros on Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:44 am

After a quick thinking i realized it would favor too much clans with many members.
avatar
Nikephoros

Posts : 66
Join date : 2010-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Nikephoros on Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:20 am

This is related with the role players will have in the game:

the game encounters will be in battle mode, and the players right now have, for balancing sake, worse equipment than their AI counterparts.
Maybe changing the starting gold can fix the situation and not make the players look like bums?
avatar
Nikephoros

Posts : 66
Join date : 2010-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:28 am

I still think all soldiers should be named.

Being able to teleport your best troops all over the map of Calradia would be ridiculous.
No shit it would favour big clans, they have more members more soldiers is more power. Bigger clans should be favoured!

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  PhantomZero on Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:09 pm

It's quite simple really, factions with more troops will have to spend more money on their troops pay and upkeep rather than on equipment and armors.

Small factions with less troops will have more money to spend on better equipment.

PhantomZero

Posts : 2
Join date : 2010-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:11 am

Plazek wrote:I still think all soldiers should be named.

Being able to teleport your best troops all over the map of Calradia would be ridiculous.
No shit it would favour big clans, they have more members more soldiers is more power. Bigger clans should be favoured!
I'm still against it with all my heart and soul, if there are large battles (like 30 players versus 30 players) and all troops would be named than ALL 60 people would need to be available. That is impossible, it just is.
avatar
Arch3r
Admin

Posts : 150
Join date : 2010-02-09
Age : 25
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:55 am

Yea, so you better have reliable people then!

If people have deserted then they have deserted, do not put people you cannot rely on in important places.

I would rather have to deal with that than a a magical teleportation system.

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Nikephoros on Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:09 am

What if each clan has a number of "special" units at the beginning of the game (i.e. players), depending on the number of its members?

You can add more, but it will cost you more than to recruit a single "normal" troop. Much more.

Also, this units will be "named", but not bond to a single player. They will be an "open" soldier, they won't be "teleported", as the human player will only be able to use those soldiers, and not the normal units.

If you gather all this units for a battle and you have not enough players, for any reasons, the units will just not show on the field, and if the battle is lost, will disappear with the others.

This will encourage clans with many members to more "responsibly" use their "superior firepower".

I hope i've been clear, my head is quite messy, right now.
avatar
Nikephoros

Posts : 66
Join date : 2010-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:14 am

I prefer this to be a strategy game like Total War where battles are fought in M&B than some kind of RPG. Reliable people, you mean people with no reallife? I got enough moments where I aren't able to play myself, should I expect 30 people to be always available for a match? Hell no, it is and will remain a big nay, as it's not feasible, not a chance.
avatar
Arch3r
Admin

Posts : 150
Join date : 2010-02-09
Age : 25
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  CFR on Sun Apr 04, 2010 2:53 pm

My feeling on players is they are Just men within the army, nothing special.
But as the King expands his land he should be able to give his men (players) fiefs within the kingdom and this would give them a status ie a noble. Thus giving expansion Wink
avatar
CFR

Posts : 91
Join date : 2010-03-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:08 pm

It depends how you organise the thing Arch3r.
If I was organising this I would make it so that battles only happened once a week at a set time like a regular league or tournament. It could be made to work like this irregardless of how many turns you are going to get in that week. Perhaps you need time to "prepare your forces" "negotiation time" or whatever excuse to delay these battle to that time but it can work.

If playing one or two matches at a set time every week is having "no life" then I guess not many of us have lives Arch3r, I mean what is that compared to you spending all this time modding and running CoR you big fat no lifer Rolling Eyes

It sounds to me like you imagine that these things could happen at any time as if you could be attacked anywhere unnanounced. I hope you do not intend to make the game work like this cause that is plain stupid. If you have to hover over the game continuously to the point you would ever have to "expect 30 people to be always available for a match" then this will fail and fail hard.

I am imagining a slow paced, turn based game where you will have ample warning and preparation time for any battles that will be taking place.Not some pseudo MMO where people can attack you in the night whenever they want. You do not need to "expect 30 people to be always available for a match" it should simply be "expect 30 people to be available for a match on sundays and thursdays (for example) provided they are an army on a campaign or get attacked at a pre organised time"

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:10 am

No, my idea was having the campaign turns during the week and fighting all/most battles in the weekend. Anyways proof to me that it's a good idea if you want it so badly, even though it's not going to happen. Give me 30 (or 20 if you don't have 30) names of 22nd members and let them come on a certain date, planned over 2 weeks or so. I'm pretty sure one of them will cancel.
avatar
Arch3r
Admin

Posts : 150
Join date : 2010-02-09
Age : 25
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Nikephoros on Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:02 am

I still think my idea is a good compromise Wink
avatar
Nikephoros

Posts : 66
Join date : 2010-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  CFR on Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:10 am

Im just getting confused as these convos hardly seem to follow on from each other. Razz
avatar
CFR

Posts : 91
Join date : 2010-03-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:27 am

Nikephoros wrote:I still think my idea is a good compromise Wink
Yes, that was my plan also, kind of. Having some officers (and the king) that are in one army/town. About fiefs I don't know as money doesn't go to lords but to the kingdoms. So all fiefs belong to the kingdom/king. The number of officers/lords could however depend on the number/size of settlements.
avatar
Arch3r
Admin

Posts : 150
Join date : 2010-02-09
Age : 25
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:12 am

One might cancel "OMG WERE DOOMED!" Rolling Eyes

Look Arch3r I am all for discussion of TBfC however you are not really helping. I wrote up quite a long rant but having got that off my chest I will keep it short.

Your ad hominem arguemnts, gross exagerations and false claims really are not very pursuasive. Stop trying to validate your point of view by any means possible and look at things objectively, argue legitimiately and we might actually achieve something.

PS

How about you "prove" how enabling soldiers to teleport all over the calradia map is a good thing exactly.

also

Why is it such a bad thing if unreliable players -> unreliable soldiers?
Surely this is just a effective simulations of reality. If you have unreliable soliders in real life they desert, if you have unreliable players that cannot make even one important match for the weekend then they have deserted. It works does it not?!

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:38 am

How exactly are the soldiers teleporting all over the calradia map exactly? Just the fact that players control the soldiers in an army doesn't mean that soldiers are teleporting. The system is just a lot easier to implement for various reasons. For example:

Someone has an accident, moves, gets sick, goes on holiday etc...those people would disappear out of your army, enemy though you paid for them. This wouldn't be an issue if any regular member can play a regular soldier.
Special troops get more special. You can still have elite armies, but not everyone runs around with them.
Adds realism in some degree. When there are lots of soldiers all over the map, it's hard to have enough members. I was planning large armies, not some armies with a maximum size the number of your members, plus some bots. Also it's not like kings knew the names of all regulars, sometimes they didn't even know exact army sizes.
avatar
Arch3r
Admin

Posts : 150
Join date : 2010-02-09
Age : 25
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:38 am

They are teleporting because ther eis a huge difference between 22nd nub army and 22nd elite prozor army.

If you do not name them I can make it so my elite prozor army is everywhere because it does not matter so much the equipment you use but the players you use.

Having players able to fill any soldier spot means that you can have your best guys magicly teleport eveyrwhere. I thought this was obvious.


If someone has an accident or goes on holiday etc. then replace them with an AI! OR go back to base to pick them up or have them come to you! Simples.

Special troops do not get more special they get less, I bet a militia guy who uis actually a player could slaughter loads of bots at Tier 3. How special is the tier three then?

Furthermore IMO the most special units will be those that are controlled by players. Totally destorying the concept of specific players units IMO totally REMOVES the most special units in the game!

Kings might not know the names of their soldiers but that does not mean they could magically transfer the skills of their best soldiers throughout the world of claradia inmto any body that they wished!

ps typos, rushed I am going out.

I think we need to both try and come up with a detailed concept of how it will work and the pros and cons of each system to establish which will be best. Of course if you want me to bother cotnributing further to this discussion you need to step back from the.

"this will never ever happen it is impossible" standpoint and at least entertaim the idea and perhaps consider trying to see the advantages. I mean I am not going to bother working on this if you will not even properly consider this stuff, which is how it appears to me right now.

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:13 pm

Actually, you're heavy underestimating bots here. Have you tried the SP? It's hard to beat 4 recruits at sparring because they have equal weapons. If you have worse weapons, 2v1 is going to be a serious problem, especially when they're Tier-3. Without the right equipment it's damn hard to kill a lord in single player. Or when I hat to fight a castle guard 1v1 in a pilgrim disguise myself, he beat the shit out of me. Bot AI has improved a lot, sometimes they feint, they sometimes blcok after attacking. They are actually unpredictable now.

Also if your best guys are that much better than your weak guys, you should train those more as well, to keep the skill standard high, in my opinion. Also equipment DOES matter a lot, 10 okay players in full armor and best weapons can beat 10 very skilled players in group combat really.
The pro's of my system are:
-Less chance of drop-outs (if you outnumber an enemy on the campaign map with 10 v 7, it can't become a 6 v 7 battle.
-Giving smaller clans a better chance to field a decent amount of troops, without getting slaughtered by the larger clan without problems.
-More relaxed, no need to feel guilty for missing a match as anyone can replace you.
-It still allows for Elite groups, since it's a roleplaying campaign, you can still choose to have an elite squad/army.
-Officers still ARE named and can also form the elite.
-Allows for many more Player troops on the campaign map, while your system only allows the number of players (so a clan with 5 people can only field 5 player troops, which means a too small scale in my opinion) that a clan has.
-Usually all soldiers of the same Tier/rank are given kind of the same training (look at roman soldiers, trained as groups for a certain amount of time). This gives more realism.

Con's
-Other than no 22nd prozor superdeathsquad of doom, I can't think of one.
avatar
Arch3r
Admin

Posts : 150
Join date : 2010-02-09
Age : 25
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Nikephoros on Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:31 pm

I must say, the details of both system are not really clear.
avatar
Nikephoros

Posts : 66
Join date : 2010-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:54 pm

Quick summary:
With my system kingdoms can buy troops (that are available) in two types, being Bots (for example Reveran Man-at-arms AI) or Players (for example called called Reveran Man-at-arms Player). Player troops are more expensive and of course higher tier troops also are more expensive. Armies will thus consist of Player troops and bots troops of all kind of Tiers (whatever the kingdom has access to).
Each troop that is bought will be presented on the campaign map, without a name. In battle they will be represented, depending on the type, by a bot or a clanmember.

Anything still not clear?
avatar
Arch3r
Admin

Posts : 150
Join date : 2010-02-09
Age : 25
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:18 pm

Well this is how I would imagine it and I warn you before you begin you may need a rest half way Razz

Noble Troops:

For example me and my generals, they will control armies and fiefs. They will have special units which allow them to have special and high tier equipment for free/cheap. They will be fully represented in the game as individuals in every way. As you might imagine a Lord in native. They should have unique upgrade paths.

Player Troops:
These will be very similar to regular AI soldiers. They will be the same tiers and unit types, however unlike AI troops they have the advantage of being human and thus will have extra potential for tactical and leading abilities on the field. For example being a squad leader for some AI or simply making up a crack squad of human soldiers.

Should they die whilst on a campaign you will have to go back to base to pick up replacements or have some new soldiers delivered. The player should be transferable but only in town if he is already in place on the map. If he is not yet on map he should be able to be placed into any newly produced soldier.

If they are captured they will have to be ransomed or rescued like a lord or any other regular AI soldier.

If people are unavailable for a match then as it is a regular troop the AI can simply take their place.

AI Soldiers:

The regular troops without a player. They will work as advertised. Essentially as above but without the human aspect.


Pros:
-More realistic, your highly skilled veteran soldiers (ie your actual players) will be where they are, you have to make the hard decision of whether to send them to the front lines or use them to defend your key locations. You cannot turn your backwater peasant defence unit into a veteran fighting force; insantly and irregardless of those same people were on the map 5 seconds earlier.

-Role playing, your players will actually have a real presence in the game. If they die they will be dead until they are "resurrected" if they are captured they will need to be ransomed or escape. That warrior will actually be them in the game rather than them being some mystical force that can somehow possess people at will. I really think this could add a lot for the non-lord level players.

-Diplomacy and co-operation, if you cannot simply transfer your army about like magic then you will have to rely more on diplomatic agreements to cement your fortunes if you do not have the manpower alone. For example under Arch3r's system even if you only had 30 real players in your clan you could build 300 "player troops" then send them into battle all over Calradia. It would not matter that you do not actually posess the manpower for this because once you are done looting in Iberon you magically transfer the players to Sargoth and do a siege. Then it does not matter when they all die because they are not real and can all be transferred for the battle at Veluca. Finally despite having overextended yourself because you left 100 "player troops" in your capital city and despite the fact that you sent away ALL your players to those previous 3 fights, despite the fact that they all died they all now have 3.3recurring lives to defend it!

This is plainly ridiculous but on top of that totally destroys the need for diplomacy and co-operation. There are no real limits on power or size it is all just numbers and there is no personal aspect. Under a system as I imagine it when the massive player zerg clan comes along and tries to take over Calradia we will have to co-operate. We cannot simply magic our best players all over the map to defeat them but will have to use tactics, cunning and wise planning to make sure our best fighters are where they are needed when the time comes.

I think Arch3r's system will harm diplomacy and co-operation in the game. I think it will enable single clans to become too self sufficient. Ideally I would rather see each clan be a smaller fighting force than a faceless monster. I would rather see clans as city states working in co-operation for common self interests than massive map spanning empires. I want to see things in a more detailed local level which is what my system will promote and Arch3r's will demote.

-Meaning, when your soldiers die I want it to mean something. For the general and for the players themselves. If you can magicly transfer the fighters "soul" into some other identikit soldier then it wont mean jack. If however the soldier are named they will be out of the fight until they are replaced this will meaning something for me and for my warrior. It will effect us significantly if I lose a lot of men and we will have to head back to resupply. Under Arch3r system however we just need to take plenty excess "player troops" and they can die as much as they want. If however they will be out until resupply can happen then it will not just me more relaistic on the strategic level but in game as well. People will be more inclined to play as if they really will die if they die because who knows how long they could be out of action for.

Cons:
-None, oh wait I am not Arch3r and am taking this seriously! Rolling Eyes

-More limiting, if your soldiers are in one place they are there, if you die in game your are dead for some time. You can only have so many players soldiers etc. Some might find this frustrating (i might even if this ever gets to testing) so I am listing it as a con although I think that all of these things are double edged. They are limiting but real life is limited too and real life works just fine.

-Small clans disadvantaged. Another double edged con here, some people might not like that small clans are limited in size with regards to human players. Personally however I think that small clans should be limited, if you do not have the power to hold fiefs then why should you be holding them?! You can work as mercenaries for another clan, or perhaps I will hire you to manage Sumbuja because I am limited in numbers too and have got all my guys working on more important projects. This is double edged because although it limits small clans in some ways do you think stuff like the 2 above agreements will happen if small clans are not limited? This is another case of limitations working to the good.

-Harder work organising your real players and making sure they turn up at the battles. This is a real disadvantage and more one sided than the previous two. If specific units are specific players we need to make sure our players are available for the matches. However I am left wondering how this is any different from any other clan match?! If you cannot rely on your clan members to come to matches then you need to reconsider who you let in your clan. However in 22nd we would use a little thing called planning to overcome this.
---
"hey 22nd guys I am going to be leading a campaign on tbfc to take Dhirim, who is going to be available at the weekends for the next 4 weeks for clan matches?"

"oh you guys are and you can for two of the weeks but not the others?"

"well your good so I will take you anyway along with the others but in case some of you cannot make some of the weeks we will tkae these guys as well, if anything goes really wrong it will be ok cause I got the ZHG mercenary clan on standby as well if were desperate, not to mention our allies who I think are fielding an army of their own as well."
---
As for players dropping out and it going from a 10 vs 7 to a 6 vs 7 battle how is this a problem? If you cannot keep control over your soldiers and they all "desert" then well, they deserted huh. Sucks but it happens get more reliable players. They knew they were going to war, they knew the match was at that day and time they should have been there.

-Small clans might get slaughtered. Double edged, sucks for them but they should work on getting some allies or get the protection of a larger clan. Small countries get slaughtered in wars too. Realism vs carebear attitude here.
=====
As you can hopefully see having read through this that this decision is an extremely important one on the future of the game. It will have a MAJOR impact on game mechanics and how the game works. Essentially as I see it my system is a more local level system which (I hope) would lead to a greater emphasis on real player troops and direct the game to smaller "kingdoms" working in collaboration as going it alone simply will not work if you face significantly larger clans or alliances.

On the other hand we have Arch3r's system which as I see it emphasises AI soldiers and large armies of "player troops" which do not have specific players. Under this system clans empires will likely be larger as smaller clans will be able to still field more significant player armies, the smaller clans will have a better chance of staying competitive with the large ones but in my opinion this could potentially harm the diplomatic aspects of the game.
=====

Well I am done for now having spent like 40 minutes typing this shit up, I hope you read it properly and thank you if you did. if anyone has any questions regarding specifics as I see them I will be only to happy to answer. As you can see I am all for typing up voluminous texts.

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Foamy on Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:41 pm

Forgive me if i have misunderstood but it seems to me that both systems are very similar. The only difference i see is the player lords in Plazek's system. I really like the idea of player lords however what to do if that person cannot make a battle is difficult. obviously you cant have no player leader but then substituting them with another person could be considered unfair.

The other problem with the player soldiers which can be captured is that if they're not locked to a person then capturing them doesn't have any affect.

What if each player troop was assigned to one or more people when it is created and the people it is assigned to cannot be changed unless it is in a town. Also people cannot be assigned to more than one troop. this way the clan could decide how flexible they want to be depending on the situation. You could also use one of the people available to an army as a substitute lord if the original player was not available.

Foamy

Posts : 3
Join date : 2010-04-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum