Merc
Garheim
Posts: 143
|
Post by Merc on Jan 21, 2018 10:11:30 GMT -8
The requirements as I see them are: (R1) give players a chance to influence the story and lore by undertaking actions outside of the centrally controlled storyline (R2) provide a number of game systems to allow player actions to benefit their factions (R3) allow more player-player interactions through collaboration/competition (R4) allow players who don't want to participate in the game systems the ability to create character stories in the world (R5) allow players to feel involved in an active world, i.e. don't let them feel like their builds are for nothing The constraints we have are: (C1) the majority of players want to keep the historical lore (C2) the majority of players want to keep the existing map (C3) a proportion of players want to keep the existing factions I think we can meet the requirements subject to the constraints by these outcomes (I would suggest we tackle and introduce these in a phased manner): (O1) create a multi-resource economy system that players can build and benefit their faction (R2, R5) (O2) reinvigorate the brawling and guild systems so advancing in these affects the economy system (R2, R3) (O3) create a war game that allows for players to initiate battles against other players or NPCs with risk and reward but without allowing a hard loss (R1, R2, R3) (O4) create a lore and environment that are suitable for the game system (R4) (O5) keep track of resources, war scores, maps and stories so players can monitor their contributions (R1, R2) I really like the objectives and plan you have laid out. This helps to breack down the process of creating of the parts. So from what I understand the consensus is that there are four resources: Food, Wood, Rock, and Gold? Food: Produced by: Farms, Fishing, Animal Husbandry Builds Produces: 1 Fodd (Bignette), 2 Food (Restricted), 3 Food (Unrestricted) [Loreos gets 3x the amount at each category] Consumes: 1 Wood (Bignette), 3 Wood 1 Rock (Restricted), 5 Wood 3 Rock (Unrestricted) Consumed by: Military building, Armies Wood: Produced by: Lumber Builds Produces: 1 Wood (Bignette), 2 Wood (Restricted), 3 Wood (Unrestricted) [Lenfald gets 3x the amount at each category] Consumes: 1 Wood (Bignette), 3 Wood 1 Rock (Restricted), 5 Wood 3 Rock (Unrestricted) Consumed by: All production buildings Rock: Produced by: Mines and Stone Quarries Builds Produces: 1 Stone (Bignette), 2 Stone (Restricted), 3 Stone (Unrestricted) [Garheim gets 3x the amount at each category] Consumes: 1 Wood (Bignette), 3 Wood 1 Rock (Restricted), 5 Wood 3 Rock (Unrestricted) Consumed by: Military building, Castles, and higher level production buildings Gold: Produced by: Markets, blacksmith, taverns, ports and harbors, road building, post offices, irrigation projects etc Produces: 1 Gold (Bignette), 2 Gold (Restricted), 3 Gold (Unrestricted) [Outlaws gets 3x the amount at each category] Consumes: 1 Wood (Bignette), 3 Wood 1 Rock (Restricted), 5 Wood 3 Rock (Unrestricted) Consumed by: Armies, Victory Points This is my interpretation of whats been said in an easier format.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Caedric Moore on Jan 21, 2018 10:21:45 GMT -8
I agree; elimination should be out of the question, as should total occupation of a rival Faction's territories. I think there should be conquerable and non-conquerable territories but even those that can't be taken can still be Raided and/or Razed; we could even limit the ability to declare War against a rival territory by requiring it to be adjacent to one your Faction already controls, but I still feel these systems would be best implemented if the existing map were altered just a bit so that each Faction shares a border with the other two. It could be attributed to a continental shift - earthquakes, plate tectonics, and all that; the plate Loreos sits on moved north and east so now it shares a border with both Lenfald and Garheim - or a Loreesi incursion into the two northern Factions. As is, for most of LoR's history Lenfald and Loreos have been at odds/at war with one another, but Garheim has just kind of sat there, not really allying with either side and more or less being left out; shifting the borders would add more balance and rivalry. I also agree it's important that nobody feels left out or their opinions unheard; this is an open forum and everyone who has input or criticism of any kind should feel free to comment That's the fun of a collaborative game like LoR: it's a big melting pot of ideas coming together to create a world. It's true that whatever changes are made to the game, not everyone will be happy with every aspect, but if we ensure that every player is still able to build how they want I think everything will be for the better.
|
|
Sir Daren
Lenfald
Training men and looking for work
Posts: 260
|
Post by Sir Daren on Jan 21, 2018 11:18:48 GMT -8
As much as having a more complicated rule system to make the game more dynamic in its changes, game speed, etc. I would love for it to be on the more simplistic side, if nothing else so there isn't such a learning curve. Once the rules are set, is the outcome still determined by builds? Or will this become more virtual game heavy? I like the idea of one's builds affecting things, and the number/type of builds creating results
|
|
|
Post by Jayden & Moira on Jan 21, 2018 14:55:03 GMT -8
Cuahchic , Merc , and Sir Caedric Moore I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think we can resolve all of the requests without a global trade system. I am certain we can develop a simple, appealing system by implementing a system of settlement development and detrimental warfare. I do not believe that implementing a system of global trade involving this three resource concept is necessary and I am worried that it will over-complicate the game we have come to know and love. I believe both a faction's desire to declare war and a player's interest in trade should be left unencumbered by mundane guidelines. However, if tallying and accounting for this system can be automated as Cuahchic has stated and the majority would prefer the system you are proposing, then I will not stand in the way. I agree Sir Daren , and simplicity is what I'm fighting for. If you wouldn't mind, could you tell us what it is your looking for in the new system?
|
|
|
Post by thedonald13 on Jan 21, 2018 16:41:28 GMT -8
Sorry thedonald13 , I didn't quite understand what you did here. What was the 11 possible dice rolls for? In the examples given, what does #8 actually mean? Does it mean they produce 8 of the three resources each turn? Sorry for being a bit slow on the uptake here.
I do agree with Sir Caedric Moore that food rather than grain would be best - then fishing, husbandry, foraging, etc can be counted as food. It's all good! All my suggestions are based off of fairly popular board game about resource gathering and their management. If your not familiar, first you should play, second it would be terribly confusing with no frame of reference! Every settlement in the game is at the crossroads of three resources. In our version each settlement(we can use the preexisting map, factions, and settlements) gets placed on number 2-12. 2-12 are all possible sums of two dice being rolled. If that number comes up, the example used was #8, that faction will receive 1 of each of the 3 resources associated with the settlement. So, in my example because an 8 was rolled. The Loreesi City of Toberg produced: Ore, Lumber, Food The Garheim City of Skraborg produced:2 Ore, and 1 Gold The Lenfald City of Stoneborough produced: Ore, Lumber, Food The Outlaw City of The Shade produced: Gold, Lumber, Food Each factions has around 12 named cities, I cut it down to 11 to use the dice rolling system. None of the 3 resources are decided, but I made educated guesses based on the map. Map of Roawia (preview) by Mitah Val Karem, on Flickr Alright, so I'm working on the proposal and really having a hard time convincing myself that this "three resource system" is necessary. I don't want to leave it out entirely because so many of you guys seem interested in it but I really need someone to explain to me why you need any of the resources. Resources are just another means to score points, and eventually spoils of war. We would still promote builds to upgraded settlements into cities and maybe something more like municipalities.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Caedric Moore on Jan 21, 2018 16:56:27 GMT -8
That's where I disagree. I feel that without new gaming systems providing reasons to build, people won't build for LoR at all and the game will die. Without a Resource system, players just build a moc and there it is; it's done and over with and means nothing to the world or storyline of LoR and fades away... Without Resources, why declare War? What does a Faction stand to gain by declaring War and what does War mean? Why trade and what do you trade? Without set guidelines, how do we determine how powerful the Factions are? What does it mean for a Faction to be more powerful - why are the factions even separate? I don't mean to sound defensive, but I don't really understand why you're so opposed to the Resource system Jayden & Moira; players would still build mocs for every action and stories - while not mandatory, like now - would be encouraged. Participation and collaboration would be encouraged; competition and rivalry would be encouraged. The suggested Economy and War systems wouldn't be mandatory to participate in to be a part of LoR; they'd just be something else to join in on if you want to. Also, what's so off-putting about the idea of trading/collaborating with members of other Factions? I guess I'll build a Vignette tonight for an example and present my idea of how the entry would play out.
|
|
|
Post by Jayden & Moira on Jan 21, 2018 18:13:50 GMT -8
You make a good point Sir Caedric Moore. I'm conflicted now, which may mean your winning this argument... Alright, since I don't have a good alternative yet I'll take a step back and just try to help refine the system. I think my only real qualm may be with the inclusion of semi-tangible resources versus theoretical ones, not with the system as a whole.
|
|
Sir Daren
Lenfald
Training men and looking for work
Posts: 260
|
Post by Sir Daren on Jan 22, 2018 0:06:23 GMT -8
As I go through the posts about points, I (unfortunately) start to glaze over, and just am not quite following it clearly. While the kinks get worked out thats not a problem and i know someone will make a good explanation for newbies and people like myself later. My one question is: is this as build oriented? But also, is this build mandatory? To expand, does the economic point system rely upon players builds (like the colonization challenge) or do such resources exist even without builds to back them? If yes, does that mean that certain resources are only attainable through certain types of builds? A.k.a. must I build a bunch of farms and quarries just to be able to post a castle that I built? If that were the case, I am certain that it would push some players away, especially players like me who don't have a bunch of time for building; for a fun hobby, the last thing I want to think is "oh blast, I have to finish that lumber camp before I can build a battle scene". Could anyone clarify this? Jayden & Moira For myself, I want a game where I can easily participate without having to be a constant contributor, because i think this game, its stories, and its builders are awesome but I have a lot in RL that keeps me busy, such as using my building space for other large projects. I have seen some players come back to the game after a time away. The game shouldn't be a spectator sport in which whether you are there or not you don't affect the game, but more like a group ultimate frisbee game - when you are able to be there, you get to play. If I contribute a castle, and nothing else for a while, it should give my faction more strength, but if I don't build anything for a while I shouldn't lose ground or have to "rebuild my castle" because it was destroyed when I wasn't able to build. (unless I agree to have my castle destroyed and then make a build showing a destroyed castle). I think of some other players such as Fritzix who doesn't add builds constantly, but sure makes good ones when he does. Those builds should be more than just mere points. Sorry if this doesn't help the points system discussion and is somewhat vague. I guess I don't have a better way to phrase it...
|
|
AK_Brickster
Innkeeper
Scouting the Lenfel Border
Posts: 3,272
|
Post by AK_Brickster on Jan 25, 2018 9:18:41 GMT -8
Just as an update, the KC has agreed that if we don't hear back from the current GC author by this weekend, we'll hand off finishing the write-up to another KC member so that we can get the global update out by the end of the month.
Keep up the great talking points, guys. I'm glad to see people excited about LOR, even if it's in a different form.
|
|
Merc
Garheim
Posts: 143
|
Post by Merc on Jan 25, 2018 17:17:43 GMT -8
AK_Brickster thank you for the update. It is good to know that the KC members are working behind the scenes. Sir Daren I can't answer for sure but I would assume if someone builds a castle, or some other build that "requires" resources, a member of that faction who has the resources might use those resources to make the build "active". An idea in general could be that if something is built it has some value but can't produce anything until the creation cost is paid. In this way it can still benefits the player but to benefit the faction someone or the faction as a whole pays the cost. This idea would also promote people in a faction to cooperate with each other (except maybe outlaws because your know ).
|
|
AK_Brickster
Innkeeper
Scouting the Lenfel Border
Posts: 3,272
|
Post by AK_Brickster on Jan 26, 2018 8:44:50 GMT -8
That's a good idea, Merc. We don't want to limit people's ability to build just because the resources for that type of structure aren't available yet. An "activation" process seems like it would make sense to avoid that issue.
|
|
Sir Daren
Lenfald
Training men and looking for work
Posts: 260
|
Post by Sir Daren on Jan 26, 2018 11:43:36 GMT -8
And that makes sense too, storyline wise
|
|
ludzik
Lenfald
Lenfald Freeman
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by ludzik on Jan 26, 2018 15:16:52 GMT -8
Just as an update, the KC has agreed that if we don't hear back from the current GC author by this weekend, we'll hand off finishing the write-up to another KC member so that we can get the global update out by the end of the month. Keep up the great talking points, guys. I'm glad to see people excited about LOR, even if it's in a different form. sorry - but I gotta pick some nits here..... by this weekend means by the end of the weekend? By the start of the weekend?
|
|
AK_Brickster
Innkeeper
Scouting the Lenfel Border
Posts: 3,272
|
Post by AK_Brickster on Jan 26, 2018 19:52:14 GMT -8
That is definitely picking nits. Sometime this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Cuahchic on Jan 27, 2018 5:32:43 GMT -8
Just as an update, the KC has agreed that if we don't hear back from the current GC author by this weekend, we'll hand off finishing the write-up to another KC member so that we can get the global update out by the end of the month. Keep up the great talking points, guys. I'm glad to see people excited about LOR, even if it's in a different form. That's great news AK_Brickster, and thanks for the information! AK_Brickster thank you for the update. It is good to know that the KC members are working behind the scenes. Sir Daren I can't answer for sure but I would assume if someone builds a castle, or some other build that "requires" resources, a member of that faction who has the resources might use those resources to make the build "active". An idea in general could be that if something is built it has some value but can't produce anything until the creation cost is paid. In this way it can still benefits the player but to benefit the faction someone or the faction as a whole pays the cost. This idea would also promote people in a faction to cooperate with each other (except maybe outlaws because your know ). This makes sense and would be how I would do things to, rather than limiting builds at the player level, I would limit them at the faction level. If someone builds a castle then as long as someone else in their faction builds a farm, then that should be fine. ************ As an update on my other project, I'm about 50% complete on giving you guys an example of the automation that I keep talking about. Hopefully by next week it will be done.
|
|