• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Acharis

Medieval MMO, thouble with lack of things to do

35 posts in this topic

Let's forget about everything that was said for a moment. Do you, as a player, find this kingdom oriented goal gameplay appealing? Do you find it more appealing that a goal centred around your individual assets/achievements/power?
 
Personally, the descripton of A Tale in the Desert put me off. I didn't make me want to play it...

I don't play Tale in the Desert for the same reason. However:

I'll be brutally honest. With the constraints that you most want to maintain on the game, I have a hard time finding the individual character goal approach appealing. It comes back to the issue you created this thread to address: there isn't much to do. If I want to play a peasant character (or a noble or king or anything else), what is there for me to achieve, ever? Amassing wealth would feel kind of hollow if I could just as easily have chosen a noble character instead of a peasant. Maybe I could put together a cool collection of stuff, but if we're observing historical realism how much of a variety of stuff can I accumulate? If I want to show off my accomplishments compared with other players or amass power I can use to change the play experience for others, how can I ever catch up to to players who started before me if there is never a server reset?

I could go on. But the main point is that under the current design, the only interactions I can really imagine having with the game will never change from what I would experience in the first five minutes of play. The maximum development my character can achieve is to be marginally better than he was at the beginning. In the framework that you've laid out so far kingdom level goals allow for individual tasks to have meaning, and for different kingdoms to be distinct from each other in meaningful ways. I don't know that it would be enough to be the whole attraction but I might at least be willing to play.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, but without seriously compromising on some of your core design ideas I don't know what my character could be that would bring me back to play more than a couple of hours. Kingdom level goals allow for some expanded options without compromising on your core design goals while keeping the game as a historical sim. Alternately, if it were a game from a different genre (casual smartphone game, collection of minigames, or something else) I might not mind the current crop of options. In fact, if your game were like Torn City I might enjoy it a lot. I don't know if the mission-based setup would mesh with what you're envisioning, but it keeps a lot of the elements you have now.

Are there any things that you wish you could do in the game but currently can't?

Edited by Khaiy
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't play Tale in the Desert for the same reason.

That what I was afraid of. A strictly cooperative game could work, but it won't make you nor me "wow, I have to play this"...

 

I'll be brutally honest.

Please, be. I find it extremelly annoying when people try to be polite or worry about my feelings when I just want feedback, tracking of problems and solutions. I really, really apreciate people who don't treat me like a kindergartener :)

 

With the constraints that you most want to maintain on the game, I have a hard time finding the individual character goal approach appealing.

OK, how *you* would do it? Preferably keeping _some_ of these constrains if possible...

 

In fact, if your game were like Torn City I might enjoy it a lot. I don't know if the mission-based setup would mesh with what you're envisioning, but it keeps a lot of the elements you have now.

Can you explain (from a player perspective) why you enjoy it?

 

I have not played it but I can bet it's Mccodes script which means there is an energy that refills overtime (2 kinds of energy, one to do missions, one to attack other players), then there are several tiers of missions (unlocked "locations" witch every holding around 5-10 missions with increasing difficulty) and you can attack other players to steal their money. Usually it would not have resets of any king (everlasting) althrough sometimes it can have resets.

If I missed something important, please say so.

 

Are there any things that you wish you could do in the game but currently can't?

Well, actually it's the opposite. I made this medieval game (www.lordsgame.com) which is highly competitive, balanced, fair, with periodic resets. But with that setup not everything that feels medieval could fit, so I thought of making Europe1300, it was planned as a kind of a mirror image. Which means it could be cooperative (with group vs group war mechanic which could not fit to my previous medieval game), everlasing without any resets, not that strongly balanced nor fair (in exchange for thematic/mood goodies) and with totally unfair (yet fun) hierarchical structure. But that was just a concept, I'm not tied to it at all.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are correct about Torn City, at least as of several years ago. When I played I enjoyed the pace of character progression and the continuous unlocking of new game features that came along with it. These included new activities and play mechanics, not just new mission locations, provided by ongoing additions from the dev team. You can be as social as you'd like, but you're never forced to it. For players interested in doing so, you can cooperate with others for greater rewards. And you are exposed to some risks, but you're not in danger of having your character be wiped out.

For your game, my preferred approach would be to deemphasize historical realism relative to your other design goals and increase potential competition between players. I would aim for countries made up of regions and regions made up of cities, towns, etc. Players in these towns can amass resources in order to increase their influence at this level, with the implications that players with similar clout can vie for control (or cooperate).

Players with more power at the city level can meaningfully participate in a similar system for influence over the region, and at the regional level players can do the same for the country. Players who don't want to participate in the struggle for political influence can play as simple peasant farmers, chandlers, craftsman or whatever. Political aspirants need to maintain support from enough of these to keep their own stations secure, which they can do with gifts, formation of groups, promises of work and wealth for them by choosing public works, and so on.

Mechanics that support these sorts of things allow for the correct mood (feudal arrangements that balance individual ambition with pacifying underlings and mollifying superiors) while not forcing anyone to participate in more than running their farm or producing their goods if they don't want to.

The flip side of this is that more powerful players might make their underlings' prospects worse, but this would increase the risk of someone else taking power. My idea is that it gives context to the work of the lowest-power players while allowing those who want to have governing positions to make consequential choices.

There would need to be other play elements as well, but at a minimum players could aspire to rewards and try to avoid consequences.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it feature permanent death?

 

Like if a kingdom decided to completely destroy another you could kill all the players in the other kingdom and not have them respawn instantly.

 

 

I'll be trying the game out and I'll report on things that I think work well and things I think work less well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it feature permanent death?

 

Like
if a kingdom decided to completely destroy another you could kill all
the players in the other kingdom and not have them respawn instantly.

No, no, it's not a game like that. It's a persistent simulation of living in medieval times rather than Counter Strike style deadmatch :) You can't kill other players.



 

I'll be trying the game out and I'll report on things that I think work well and things I think work less well.

That would be nice :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I played I enjoyed the pace of character progression and the continuous unlocking of new game features that came along with it.

I think that's a very important acpect of it all. Progression. How about unbalancing the income curve? Right now it's almost static (a new player and an old one would earn the same amount per day on average). How about making it grow so a old player earns x10 than a new one after a year of play (and after a year he hits a cap and the income becomes stactic again)? By grow I mean of course via player's investments, not a simple function of time :)

 

Players in these towns can amass resources in order to increase their influence at this level, with the implications that players with similar
clout can vie for control (or cooperate).

I have a trouble visualising the "influence resources"... Do you have some ideas/examples what could increase influence over a town? BTW, how it works in real life? :D

My first impression is some nobles mustering their troops and taking over land, but that does not sound as a viable solution for a town...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a very important acpect of it all. Progression. How about unbalancing the income curve? Right now it's almost static (a new player and an old one would earn the same amount per day on average). How about making it grow so a old player earns x10 than a new one after a year of play (and after a year he hits a cap and the income becomes stactic again)? By grow I mean of course via player's investments, not a simple function of time

 

I think that more important than the quantity of resources that can be gathered is how the resources can be used. If I can generate 10x more income than a new player, I won't care if that only means I can buy 10x more chairs. I would expect an older player to have more ability to produce things than a new player. Progression, to me, would suggest something like new activities that are not feasibly available to a new player. Wealth is a fine way to define when new activities become available, but it isn't the only possibility.

 

I have a trouble visualising the "influence resources"... Do you have some ideas/examples what could increase influence over a town? BTW, how it works in real life?
My first impression is some nobles mustering their troops and taking over land, but that does not sound as a viable solution for a town...

 

What I'm imagining is more like there are offices that players can hold, and those offices give players the ability to make different things happen. Maybe there's a mayor of a town who can decide what buildings will be built, and he can court "lower" players by suggesting buildings that they would want either by giving them something to do or by increasing demand for the resources they produce. Or a regional governor can demand resources from towns in her region, and can impose some kind of penalty if someone doesn't meet the quota.

 

Influence isn't so much a distinct resource as it is the ability to impose things on or demand things from players/institutions below you.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm imagining is more like there are offices that players can hold, and those offices give players the ability to make different things happen. Maybe there's a mayor of a town who can decide what buildings will be built, and he can court "lower" players by suggesting buildings that they would want either by giving them something to do or by increasing demand for the resources they produce. Or a regional governor can demand resources from towns in her region, and can impose some kind of penalty if someone doesn't meet the quota.

 

Influence isn't so much a distinct resource as it is the ability to impose things on or demand things from players/institutions below you.

I was thinking about it for a while, and I see two big problems.

 

One, it's only about the players on the top, the "players/institutions below you" do not benefit from this feature at all. Only a small minority of players would ever enjoy it. Therefore, it's not solving the problem. I'm concerned about the players at the bottom, because those at the top will enjoy the game anyway, just because they have the power over others :D The key point is how to make it fun/interesting for those at the bottom of the hierarchy.

 

Two, it's bacisly how it works right now... There are kingdoms and one player (who accumulated morst influence, mostly by lending it from other players) in each is the ruler. Sure, I could add more tiers (like duches), but the concept is still the same here (plus I won't have that many players to fill a multitier hierarchy - I estimate 300-500 active players total which will be spread (unequally) among 26 kingdoms).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider contingencies to keep the 'cooperation' working when players quit or go on vacation or just dont have much time to play.

 

How much interaction (initial and continuous) will the 'cooperation' require to work.

 

If one or more of the scenarios in the first line above start happening will any organized arrangements which make your kingdoms work quickly fall apart?

If you have someone new step into whatever roles you have and are they restricted in what they can change from whats previously been organized (and how much checks and balances are there if say they decide they are quitting and decide to trash everything they can lay their hands on ??)

 

Its a problem many of the MMORPGs have where groups to achieve raids or whatever are often short lived (and its hard to even find serious people any more in many of them who actually want to cooperate - many are just in it for what they want and are gone instantly once they get it)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back!

 

I've been playing for some time and reached top 10 spot on the highscores and I have some questions about the game;

 

If I immigrate to a new country what happens with my mansion in my old country? Can I still return to it when I immigrate back?

 

 

Also this game might need a sort of "level up" system.

 

Most games when players train a skill (let us call it 'jewelry') the players gain exp and level up. Eventually the player learns to make better necklaces/gems/rings than before. Making better jewelry would allow more profit for the player. More profit would mean more money for materials, more materials more jewelry, more jewelry more exp, more exp a higher level, a higher level means better jewelry. It can go on for ever like this.

 

My country doesn't have a king yet (I am planing of becoming one) so I can't tell you about combat.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mansion

There are 2 systems:

1) You have one mansion and it "travels with you". A strightforward system.

2) You can have any number of mansions but only the best on in your CURRENT kingdom adds influence (this system is used right now). The reminaing mansions add prestige, but no influence, so excessive mansions are mostly useless with an "consilation prize". The advantage of this syetm is that you can't easily make a hostile takeover (move a group of players to another country, take over the throne, wreck the kingdom, and then come back to your original kingdom) because in the new kingdom you don't have the mansion which is a significant source of influence.

 

I'm hesitating which one to use in the final version...

 

Level up

You have skills, but... I guess these don't seem too progressive. I'm thinking of making it more traditional (you are poor at the beginning and overtime your income increase significantly), but it has drawbacks too...:

"Progression. How about unbalancing the income curve? Right now it's almost static (a new player and an old one would earn the same amount per day on average). How about making it grow so a old player earns x10 than a new one after a year of play (and after a year he hits a cap and the income becomes stactic again)? By grow I mean of course via player's investments, not a simple function of time"

 

Rulers of kingdoms

I just released a new version and basicly all kingdoms start with an ability of a king now (almost no vassal kingdoms).

 

 

@Hasmond, since you played it, tell me, should I redesign the gameplay totally (like making fighting over land system or something) or rather stick with what currently is and improve it (by adding proper level up system for example)?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0