|
Post by sparrowhawk on Jun 3, 2004 8:26:33 GMT
This thread is intended as the place to discuss the forthcoming Beta 0.2 release (due first week of July).
As a starter, I need some help on an item that is causing me a problem:
I have got most of the alliance code running now, and there are a few issues that need resolving. For example - say Mads is playing against Merlin but is an alliance with Ringy. He decides to backstab Ringy and break the alliance (oh, surely not!). What should happen to any of Ringy's lords/armies that are inside Mads' strongholds? Currently my thinking is to displace them to a random location outside the stronghold. A problem if the stronghold is surrounded on all sides by enemy armies (Mads' and Merlin's say). Or should a battle happen IN the stronghold. That would probably mean that you would never leave your king/queen inside an allied player's strongholds for fear of treason. Now that may be a good thing, adding a little spice. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by queex on Jun 3, 2004 9:58:04 GMT
I say let blood flow. It stops displacement issues (which were a head-ache in ML).
I might also suggest a 'time delay' for establishing and breaking alliances- you announce you want an alliance (or to break it) but it doesn't take effect until the other player's turn.
It makes back-stabs less effective, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
merlin
Public Area Guest
Posts: 19
|
Post by merlin on Jun 3, 2004 10:42:26 GMT
How does the mechanic work? Can I go to battle at a location as well as move through it?
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Jun 3, 2004 11:14:09 GMT
Battle it out at the stronghold.
This basically means people will be wary of trusting allies too much, but's there's nothing wrong there.
I also don't think there needs to be any advance warning. Let treachery strike where it may.
How will forming alliances work? Presumably it needs the consent of both parties, so what is the mechanism?
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Jun 3, 2004 11:15:26 GMT
*Currently* it works like AOE, so you have stances towards other players. If both of you are friendly, you're an alliance. Probably needs some refining
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Jun 3, 2004 12:43:30 GMT
Another question:
A change that will have a major effect on how players plan their games is that hereonin seeking is no longer a random experience, with multiple seeks yielding items every so often at the same lith, henge, etc.
Now though, all special locations have a probability of something being found once and once only. So seeking at the Lith of x may yield a Cup, subsequent seeks will yield nothing.
The exception to this is Towers which still work as before.
My question is this - should special locations regenerate items every n days? I prefer not to, thus forcing players to decide whether to use up a resource early on or keep it for later. It also means that people will *have* to start searching at henges and ruins if they cannot find BOC elsewhere, and generally by the end game stage there will be fewer UC lords knocking about.
Incidentally, garrisoned strongholds already regenerate stores within their granaries (with a finite amount being stored), so you need to decide who will receive shelter and who won't.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Jun 3, 2004 12:44:26 GMT
How does the mechanic work? Can I go to battle at a location as well as move through it? If an ally and an enemy are fighting ahead of you, you can only attack, as before. You will not fight your ally, only your enemy.
|
|
merlin
Public Area Guest
Posts: 19
|
Post by merlin on Jun 3, 2004 14:05:45 GMT
So how do you set and break the alliance. What would the mechanic be for stabbing someone in the back?
Question re: XML output for Alliances... do you know information about your alliance? can you get their information through your XML?
Or more to the point, in game will their lords show up on you alliance page?
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Jun 3, 2004 14:48:35 GMT
So how do you set and break the alliance. What would the mechanic be for stabbing someone in the back? You set your stance from friendly to enemy. The alliance record from you to them gets deleted. Now whenever the system looks for allies it won't find a record linking you to them, ergo they are baddies (except where their allegiance flag is 0, then they are neutral) No, not at present. But they probably should be on there. Not at present. But if the xml has them, then they should appear on the page.
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Jun 3, 2004 17:20:04 GMT
Another question: A change that will have a major effect on how players plan their games is that hereonin seeking is no longer a random experience, with multiple seeks yielding items every so often at the same lith, henge, etc. Now though, all special locations have a probability of something being found once and once only. So seeking at the Lith of x may yield a Cup, subsequent seeks will yield nothing. The exception to this is Towers which still work as before. My question is this - should special locations regenerate items every n days? I prefer not to, thus forcing players to decide whether to use up a resource early on or keep it for later. It also means that people will *have* to start searching at henges and ruins if they cannot find BOC elsewhere, and generally by the end game stage there will be fewer UC lords knocking about. Incidentally, garrisoned strongholds already regenerate stores within their granaries (with a finite amount being stored), so you need to decide who will receive shelter and who won't. With substantially higher probability, right?
|
|
Natmus
Morkin Admin
Fight the power!
Posts: 4,518
|
Post by Natmus on Jun 3, 2004 18:42:06 GMT
Another question: A change that will have a major effect on how players plan their games is that hereonin seeking is no longer a random experience, with multiple seeks yielding items every so often at the same lith, henge, etc. Now though, all special locations have a probability of something being found once and once only. So seeking at the Lith of x may yield a Cup, subsequent seeks will yield nothing. The exception to this is Towers which still work as before. My question is this - should special locations regenerate items every n days? I prefer not to, thus forcing players to decide whether to use up a resource early on or keep it for later. It also means that people will *have* to start searching at henges and ruins if they cannot find BOC elsewhere, and generally by the end game stage there will be fewer UC lords knocking about. Incidentally, garrisoned strongholds already regenerate stores within their granaries (with a finite amount being stored), so you need to decide who will receive shelter and who won't. I have entertained a thought for a while regarding liths. It is regarding that liths have the best probability of finding BoCs, while liths at the same time are the most numerous features in Midnight, with (by my estimate) ruins coming in second, then caverns and lastly henges. Why not making the features' values equal to the rarity of the particular feature, so that any given player would have a greater chance of finding something usefull at henges, and mostly find nothing at the much more common liths ? Having said that, I would agree that goodies should be limited to keep those 20+ UI armies led by UC lords a rarity. Lakes too should be limited, as I once suggested, and it should be easy to find WoL for a single lord or army, but only for one seeker per day. Subsequent seekers should find nothing. Speaking of searching, where are my Wolfslayers and Dragonslayers? Why haven't you implemented this magnificent feature of the original game yet? I for one crave swords, and I'm not afraid to start a poll to get them
|
|
Freiegeister
Morkin Member
'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' - Dawkins
Posts: 1,126
|
Post by Freiegeister on Jun 3, 2004 23:37:52 GMT
You set your stance from friendly to enemy. The alliance record from you to them gets deleted. Now whenever the system looks for allies it won't find a record linking you to them, ergo they are baddies (except where their allegiance flag is 0, then they are neutral) Did you consider a system such as in Civilization where there are certain actions you can take against an ally. To create an alliance you would both need to set something to say you are. (Will this be public, ie all players know all the time or only when doing a look Ahead at an enemy force or stronghold and read who the Lord is allied too?) To break the alliance you would formally end it, however you could choose to: Evict ally forces from your Strongholds, or attack an ally. You could have the appropriate warning messages that this action would/may break the alliance.
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Jun 11, 2004 15:24:39 GMT
My first impression of the interface (at least the main view screenshot) is fairly good. It certainly looks more polished than the current one.
But - and there's always a "but" - I don't think the new info in the list of present lords works at all well. You get more info, yes, but it is much harder to locate the info you want amongst that jumble of numbers and letters. I urge a rethink - this is similar to the tabulated battle report syndrome.
First, I'd suggest clearly separating the sections that reflect the stamina from those that show the numbers, so that specific info can be located quickly. Along the same lines, how about introducing an option where the stamina can be reflected by a colour rather than the initials. (green for UI through various shades to red for UE). You could superimpose the initials over the coloured block (as a preference option settable for each user), which would help those who are colour blind.
Similarly, you could colour the stamina progress bar accordingly too.
Except for the info looking messy, a thumbs up then.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Jun 11, 2004 15:40:51 GMT
Thanks for the feedback. I agree that the info list is rather cluttered, although I would say - having played several test games against myself - that you quickly get used to finding the info that you need.
However, point taken. Unfortunately the option suggested of colour coding the entries is not possible with existing HTML list boxes (as far as I am aware). You get one colour for the list foreground, and that's your lot.
I might be able to use an IFRAME and have a table of repeating rows within that instead. Never used one before, so let me go away and see if it's ok, and also whether it's part of the xhtml definition.
|
|
Freiegeister
Morkin Member
'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' - Dawkins
Posts: 1,126
|
Post by Freiegeister on Jun 13, 2004 23:28:52 GMT
|
|