The role of Players

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Fri May 07, 2010 8:53 am

Austupaio wrote:But isn't your whole point that bots =/= players?

Let's say two of our patrols meet on the map and engage. It's 20 v. 20.

With your large clan, you can easily have 20 players in a single match, I might be able to get 5 players and 15 bots.

This is obviously not a balanced engagement.

No my whole point is the players should be more individualised. Not simply fitting into the slot of whicher cookie cutter "player unit" that happens to need them, but to be realisticly represented in the game. This actually disadvantages large clans in some sense because otherwise as soon as the 22nd have made like 180 "player units" we can have three fully manned player powered amries anywhere on the map! As opposed to 60 wherever on the map they actually are.

I still don't know why small clans should not be disadvantaged though. It is easy, it makes sense, and as Nikephoros observes as well it will improve the diplomatic aspects.

Anyway Austapio this is not going to be a totally balanced game. Thats like the whole point, it is strategy and positioning and having your troops in the right place at the right time. IF you fail on the strategic level then no shit your going to be in unbalanced battles!

PS That it is a medieval game makes no difference. Let us compare Persia and the Greek city states, or Rome and England, the Moores vs the Spanish Visigoths. There have been many epicly outmatched battles between massive empires and small countries all throughout time. They are damn interesting. Even if the massive empire tends to win the majority it is not the case that they win them all.


Last edited by Plazek on Fri May 07, 2010 5:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Austupaio on Fri May 07, 2010 10:55 am

I'd like to see the other small clans agreeing with Plazek that we should be at a disadvantage.

You can hardly speak objectively, having the largest clan.

On that matter, you seem to hardly be able to speak objectively at all.

Pretty much every conflict of opinion is you arguing with Arch3r about how the mod should work, generally favouring your own clan heavily.
avatar
Austupaio

Posts : 32
Join date : 2010-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Fri May 07, 2010 6:01 pm

Yea, except as I repeatedly say I do not think these things because of self interest. I repeatedly write large detailed posts regarding this stuff and the reasons behind why I think it. That you as well now start to say it is simply because it is in my interests it pretty lame really.

Anyway if you are questioning my judgement based upon my subjective situation it is hardly the best way to critisize. After all you are from self admittedly one of the smallest clans involved thus by your own logic your opinion is worthless too. Amirite?

You speak of conflict of opinion like it is a bad thing. When conflicting ideas is what drives innovation. I admit the discussions often get heated, this is because both me and Arch3r care a lot about this game and both want what we see as best for it.

Anyway you are totally missing the point of the disadvantage. The fact that any clan that is smaller will be disadvantaged mean you must simply work together to achieve victory (this is of course actually assuming we intend to be evil warmongering bastards that want to come fuck up all your shit, and so may not be the case) leading to many interesting cases of diplomacy and intrigue as Nikephoros recognises.

NOt to forget the key advantage of Arch3r's system as I mentioned and you ever so happily glossed over. Arch3r's system is not biased in favour of smaller clans at all. Large clans gain the advantage equally. Of course proportionally applied strictly speaking the advantage will be greater, conversely my system is also equal but proportionally could afect larger clans in a more negative way.

Archer's system:

Clan 1:
100 clan members
500 "player units"
1000 bots

Able to field 5 fully manned player armies of 100 men.
Each with 200 bots in support.

Clan 2: version A
10 clan members
500 "player units"
1000 bots

Can also run 5 player armies with 100 "player units".
With 200 bots in support but can only field 10 real players at a time.
Is this fair and equal on the small clanner?
Can 10/100 players and 200 bots beat 200 bots and 300 players?
(I presume bots fill in gaps when too many player units, or if done in rounds they get to simply take 10 per round and fill gaps with bot units until they run out)

Of course such a small clan would not have that many player units so I drew this up as well. That was just to dmeonstrate all things being equal they would be disadvantaged.

Clan 2: version B
10 clan members
50 "player units"
3000 bots

So now they could have 5 armies of 10 players.
With 600 bots each. Of course this ratio may not fit the end prices of troops however. The Clan 2 army would now be 10 players and 600 bots. This would have to counter 100 players and 200 bots. It would I should imagine be a much closer fight. But considering what people accomplish in single player against bots do you really think you will win? Especially if it must be in a 64 vs 64 server, my sides army would be exlcusively players till we started to run low. Would 22 bots and 10 players be so hard?


Would a system where each player is actually represented on the map and not able to be trnasported into the body of a "player unit" be fairer!?

After all under Arch3r's system my WHOLE CLAN can be anywhere on the map AS MANY TIMES AS WE WANT so long as my economy was able to produce the troops.

Under mine we will actually be limited to however many members we have. As would you with your smaller clan. So perhaps now you can see how it is not actually as unfair as you might imagine. Nor is Arch3rs system necessarily as equal as you might think. Of course you would also be able to buy bots in both systems. In my conception however we would be forced to spread our clan members around so they have a few guys to control our bot armies. As opposed to mass producing player units and having 22nd player armies ALL OVER the map.

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Sat May 08, 2010 6:25 am

Plazek wrote:
After all under Arch3r's system my WHOLE CLAN can be anywhere on the map AS MANY TIMES AS WE WANT so long as my economy was able to produce the troops.
Indeed, and your larger clan won't have an economy advantage, unless we give larger clans more starting territory/resources. My system would only need a balanced economic system, to make it not favor large clans. Because than you CAN'T have lots of armies with 100 players everywhere on the map.
If the economic system was balanced, than how would it favor large clans exactly?
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 Sat May 08, 2010 5:40 pm

By us achieving economic superiority.

At which point we will be able to pump out greater and greater numbers of player troops leading to more military power leading to exploiting that to achieve greater economic growth leading to an exponential increase in player army power.

As opposed to being allowed only 1 player unit per player in the clan. Forcing a hard limit on the amount of player units you can hold. Avoiding any risk of exponential growth.


Of course maybe we will not ever ahcieve economic superiority maybe it will not happen. However while it is certainly a possibility claiming that your sytem will provide this supposed balance is fallacious.
----

Whichever system you use larger clans WILL hold an advantage, there is no way around that it will always be the case what exactly those advantages will be depends upon the system used. However given the right conditions as I explained your system actually allow a far far greater advantage than mine does to the larger clan.

----

Anyway all this shit should be irrelevant, balance should be achieved by player diplomacy, politicking and tactics. Not contrived by trying to work a system that ensures balance, it will not happen it is a near impossible feat.

A freeform diplomatic system will be far superior, easier to implement and much more fun.

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Sun May 09, 2010 8:08 am

I was talking about a balance economic system. That means you wouldn't be able to have an economic superiority in such a scale that noone can match your army sizes. A balanced economic system will be one of the most, if not the most, important system that the campaign will have.
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 May 09, 2010 1:43 pm

I think you are conflating balanced with boring.

It is perfectly possible for a strong economy to drive an unassailable military force. There are plenty of examples in this in history, and the present day.

A realistic economy would leave that possibility wide open. I hope you do not create a false and arbitrarily limited economy to simply ensure balance in the game.

When as I have said many many times, balance will emerge from the game organicly as people work together to beat the stronger powers.

As opposed to limiting eveyrone to ensure an artificial balance that does nothing except take away from the game.


---

I think you should just accept that there will be an imbalance of power in the game just as there always is in reality. The interest and excitement of such things comes about from the unexpected when the weak use their cunning to defeat the stronger opponents. Instead of trying to ensure there is no imbalance in the game you should embrace it. However at the same time should be providing ways to overcome it in interesting ways.

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 May 09, 2010 3:46 pm

People, as plazek pointed out, balance shall emerge during the test phase.

But first, we should note some basic directions about the role of the players, which is, as we all know, a key issue.

Personally, i'm more prone to support the idea of having generic "human units", and some occasional "named unit" AND "lord", to confere economical and tactical advantages.
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 Sun May 09, 2010 4:06 pm

That is probably what will happen as that is what Arch3 wants I believe.

I just wnated to point out how my ide was not actually based upon self interest and in fact could benefit us less in the long run than Arch3r's.

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Arch3r on Mon May 10, 2010 2:27 am

" think you should just accept that there will be an imbalance of power in the game just as there always is in reality. The interest and excitement of such things comes about from the unexpected when the weak use their cunning to defeat the stronger opponents. Instead of trying to ensure there is no imbalance in the game you should embrace it. However at the same time should be providing ways to overcome it in interesting ways."
Of course there will be unbalance, there already is because the 3 factions that are in-game are different and thus unbalanced. But as long as the economy doesn't favor larger clans more than smaller clans, it will be fine. That way smaller clans can, if they are better strategically and diplomatically, compete with military sizes to larger clans or even beat them.
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  Vermin on Fri May 14, 2010 9:20 am

You should both learn to keep your discussions shorter and simpler, because I'm gonna have to read this again. I've only understood the basics of what was said here.

But there are a few things that I would like to mention now

First, if a named player is defeated on the battlefield he should be removed for a short period of time or something. I really dislike the idea of capturing and ransoming someone. A large portion of the French nobility of the 14th century was almost bankrupted because of all the ransoms they had to pay to their English captors.
If an army is defeated, that is more than enough. Forcing them to pay a ransom after they lost alot of troops is a bad idea. Pushes them even further into the dirt.

Secondly, I've had a pair of botbattle-evenings on our server as well as a botbattle after a training with only clanmembers. One thing I observed is that bots still die easily. Ive seen a dozen swadian men-at-arms fall against three players from my clan and those bots are still the most powerful bots you can get.
If this is going to be a mod with bots then the number of players in a battle should really be limited

And I prefer not to be too disadvantaged as a smaller clan. I would like for this to be balanced for all parties.
Sure, its very realistic when the French defeat the Flemish, Flanders is smaller than France but! Would it be fun for a smaller clan to be at a disadvantage all the time? Dont you think we'd like to have as much fun playing the mod as 22nd or CoR would be having? Or do we really have to embark on a large scale recruitment campaign just have the same advantages? (we have fewer members than other clans because we arent as wellknown and generally more selective)
Someone said I could hire recruits on the TW-forums. Yes, thats possible but then those people would not be familiar with our tactics or playing style, you'd have to test those people first and check whether they actually want to put in some effort or you'll end up with a couple of newbies or people who sign up but dont show up.
And even then, if clans like CoR or 22nds recruit aswell they'll get more and usually better recruits. Their clans are older and better known than others, eventually turning it into a popularity contest rather than a mod.

I'll end here, I have to read everything again and write more. I'm not finished yet.
Sorry if I missed or misunderstood something, wrote this in a hurry.
avatar
Vermin

Posts : 5
Join date : 2010-03-14
Age : 27
Location : Belgium

View user profile http://zendarhunters.enjin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Sat May 15, 2010 2:20 pm

Indeed so maybe you should make a coalition with the other smaller clans that are playing and show us that we cannot just push you all around!


---

See if I had a small clan I would love to sign up under the wing of some other larger clan perhaps we would own a single town or something like an old style city state. Working our way up the ranks of that high clan and becomming a respected part of that kingdom. Using politicking and cunning to get to the top. Trying to incite rebellions if I decide that the Kingdom I work for is no longer in our best interest and trying to get the clans members to join with me!

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Austupaio on Sat May 15, 2010 9:59 pm

Considering I'm probably the smallest clan, I'd be okay with that. Coordinating with your liege lord.

However, as a vassal state, I'd like a general feeling of fairness. If I were CoR's or the 22nd's vassal, while I'd be happy to work with them, and possibly go along with most of their plans, flat out orders wouldn't be appreciated.
avatar
Austupaio

Posts : 32
Join date : 2010-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Sun May 16, 2010 1:42 pm

Yea, so maybe you would end up getting treated that way anyway.
Then bring about a rebellion and overthrow your masters Very Happy

Of course this would only be possible if you could pursuade the enemy army to join you. I think this would be hard if the players are not actually in game. If players are nothing more than the "minds" of the generic "player units" placed there by the King of that nation when he decides who is playing.

Whereas if eveyrone was actually in the game, as a legitimate player unit, such things would be possible. It would be epic for a devious Austupio to convince my generals to betray me in exchange for some awesome rewards. For those generals to be able to take their armies with them. Can't happen in Arch3r's game mode. It is too limited.

Just one of the many advantages my conception of the game has. Or at least I think it is an advantage to have such things be theoretically possible within the game rules.

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Austupaio on Sun May 16, 2010 3:17 pm

Well, while I'm not denying that would all be fun, it'd require a certain amount of role playing from everyone involved, that just may not appear in a group event. Time will tell, however.
avatar
Austupaio

Posts : 32
Join date : 2010-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  CalenLoki on Mon May 17, 2010 2:35 pm

Whole thread is a bit messed up (too many long elaborates about which system favour big clans more Razz) so I'll try to sum up, and say what do I think. Correct me, if I write something wrong.
-first idea is that each player is represented on campaign map by named troop (hero/lord)
-second: there are "player troops", and every clan member can play as them.

IMO it should be mix of both ideas:
-four soldier types:
  • First level - peasants, upkeep x1, AI controlled
  • Second level - soldiers (three classes), upkeep x3, AI controlled
  • Third level - veterans (three classes), upkeep x10, player controlled (anyone from clan can play them), Can be AI controlled, If you don't have enough players

  • Fourth level - lords (three classes), upkeep x25, tied to single player (named) independent on campaign map. If this player is absent during battle, lord troop doesn't fight (wait for result). Lords can do anything they want on campaign map (even against their kings), but can also mark "obey any order", and king takes control over their actions. They can manage diplomacy as they want (change their senior , have vassals themselves). Basically they would be in fact independent kingdoms


Between lords there can be several relations, which can affect gameplay:
  • Neutrality - if they meet at same tile on campaign map, nothing happened, unless one party set "don't allow passage" - then result is battle
  • Alliance - as above, but "don't allow passage" doesn't apply.
  • War - every meeting become battle. Also presence of enemy troops increase danger level on all tiles thet they could possibly went in single turn (see -> my idea in "Villages/Towns/Settlements")
  • Vassalage - vassal can play as one of "veteran troops" in any battle of his senior or other vassals. Vassal can also allow his senior to control his actions. Any political agreement of senior automatically apply to all his vassals (and their vassals)


Why so complicated? Because:
-it's well explained, so it looks complicated - it isn't Razz
-your first idea lead to nearly empty battles (players are spread all over map, little chances to gather whole clan in single battle)
-second gives every player except king nothing to do on campaign map - tested in Warband Campagin - boring....
-it allow deep diplomatic connections - vassalage, civil wars, mercenary, betrayals, ect.

How many lords could be on campaign map? IMO as many as kingdoms can retain, but at the beginning only 1 per kingdom (king).

Why King would want to create lord troops if they can betray him?
-They are high level troops - best equip, high statistics.
-Few elite troops eats less than many peasants. Upkeep is in gold.
-they increase party morale (so any party above 10 soldiers should have them)
-king doesn't have to spend his entire life to manage his big kingdom with its 50 towns and 200 parties

hope you like it Wink

CalenLoki

Posts : 9
Join date : 2010-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Mon May 17, 2010 6:54 pm

|I like it, I need to read it again but that does sound like a good mix of ideas.

However if you are having lords with autonomy, you actually need to tie player units to the lords armies/or the lords(prob better solution). After all if the 22nd General decides to rebel and he has to take his soldiers from the 22nd clan player pool. Well I am gonna guess that I might not let that happen, I would at least take our best players for myself, and this would be justified, as the king I would be able to have the best soldiers. It would be better if the troops were attached to armies, or to lords. If lords will have multiple armies.

Then when a lord decides to do his own thing, he actually has a pool of soldiers to draw from. It would have to be that, or in the event of civil war have the soldier units themselves have an action become available. To choose which side to follow. Would be funny Very Happy

I really would like to see opportunities for soldier class units at some point though. Would make it so much more fun for them.


---

However I might mention my idea, would hopefully not have players spread all over. I see it more as city states on the clan level, perhaps ruled over by a king who manages to make several cities bend to his will. With most players from a clan all in 1 army.

Just as an aside Smile

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  CalenLoki on Mon May 17, 2010 10:12 pm

Hmm... 5:xx isn't probably best hour to post in foreign language, but I try Razz

If you are asking what happens to soldier troops (unit in warband campaign, not human players) if one of vassal lords became independent, than answer is: all troops that were in vassal fiefs and armies commanded by him are still his, wrenched off the kingdom.

If you wonder what happens with human players, who can "posses" lvl3 troops, than: it's their decision if they want to stay with king or go with rebel (even if rebel doesn't have any lvl3 troop)

So you don't have to tie players to lords, but to kingdom - only if kingdom brake in more parts, (because of lord rebellion) players have to decide who will they fallow. And it probably wont happen too often.

I don't want to tie players (those who don't have named lord) to single lord or king, because all players from one kingdom can fight in any battle of this kingdom - so king would just keep them tied to himself, to prevent any rebellion.

In fact, as long as players don't have named lord, they don't even have account on TBFC - because they only role is to play in battles - they should only be included in some list, to prevent lending players between clans. Eventually they could have account, but only action they could take, would be selecting their lord (but not too often - one per two weeks or something)

Whole system also allow kingdoms to choose best troops for their player base - big clans a lot of lvl3 troops, few lvl4 troops (just commanders), while small clans as many lvl4 troops as possible, few lvl3 and a lot of lvl2.
It also allow mercenary bands - as long as they find employers who pay them enough money and allow to eat and recruit from his fief, they can exist (require "alliance" relation between merc captain (lvl4 troop) and his employer (be it lord or king)). But they can betray in any moment, and only penalty would be reputation loose...

Additional thing - if you let someone enter your town, and then he betray you (change "alliance" to "war"), it should be played as battle inside town, not siege (if you have any troops there) or instant capture (if you don't have any troops there).

CalenLoki

Posts : 9
Join date : 2010-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Plazek on Tue May 18, 2010 4:22 pm

Do you not think it is illogical to be able to have your best warriors on one side of the map at one time, and then on the other the next battle?

Do you not think it will harm strategy regarding placement of troops? People can just send in their best guys all the time. Without having to worry whether or not they should be playing them in that fight or making sure they are where they will be needed more later.

Why will people need mercenaries? This is a sort of market that is only stimulated by demand, and for there to be significant demand there must be a limited supply of soldiers.

Plazek

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Nikephoros on Wed May 19, 2010 7:33 am

As always, it all resolves around one question: will the units be named or not?

Personally, although i recognize it implies some logistical difficulties, i'm with plazek on this one.
Yes, it's easier for clans to just deal with "x players to muster for the day y", and there's the problem "what if that player in that army can't fight on that day?" but in the end it's nothing too hard to fix.

Also, the "lord+army" thingie seems quite fine.

But lords should not be "compulsory" in the system. They should be, in my optics, the upgrade of a named unit, and offer strategic bonuses (+x hexes movement, +x resource\trade income, basically) with an una tantum cost.
avatar
Nikephoros

Posts : 66
Join date : 2010-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The role of Players

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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