Consolidated Brainstorm list for Future SoD Versions

Users who are viewing this thread

it was from this thread i was directed to the old one. sorry.  :mrgreen: Didn;t know this would be the new one.
 
I think this is a good place to put my religious balancing act for the looting-your-own-troops mechanic that Cyclo brought up. Might as well preserve it for posterity in case that feature ever makes it in, and maybe someone could find it a stimulating brain teaser.

I hope someone finds the coder who made that feature -- perhaps you could make a topic in the Pioneer's Guild or The Forge and ask around, Cyclo? Maybe he'll come forward and work some code magic for ya. :idea:
 
Titanshoe said:
Replace all or most of the native items..

Ever happened to read some damned posts? Well if you had you would probably have noticed that the item cap has been reached for the newest SOD version. That means 915 items instead of the native 400-something. So much for replacing, huh?
 
It's a great topic for a great mod.
But the topic , i think, could be better if you summarize implemented  ideas and declined ones in the topics' beginning.
 
I think the Fire Arrow mod adds a ton of good new features such as its complex lord overview, burning siege equipment, and trade system.

The source code was released and I am sure there are at least a few handy features that could be used.
 
I don't know of any ideas that are too good but this probably comes up alot, they are even doing this in the expansion
Make the ladies actually have a purpose, like marrying them, so you can start your own legacy

One thing that bugged me was that there was not that much good loot, there were lots of different looking items but they all did more or less the same thing
I think that there needs to be some sort of overhaul on weapon damage/speed/ range and cost
I really like how native expansion has it, because there are some really good weapons that you can actually tell the difference besides the 1+ to damage or 3+ to speed
 
You're all going to smack me, but my idea is to remove cheats entirely.

But I do have more ideas! I like the idea of being able to get married, and start your own legacy. Possibly give a reason to insert child characters into the game? Have a son/daughter? Gender is based off a certain roll, and it could be worked into actually a roll into whether or not the child lives or dies in childbirth. Could work too with the mother.

I know some of that is probably sensitive to some people. But it happened more then commonly back in the medieval ages. And I just like the idea of seeing kidchars as an active character type in the game. Maybe not adding them into this version, but possibly future versions(if there will be any).
 
i ended up reading the entire thing and coming up with criticism (no new ideas tho).

note that when i use the word realism here, it means realism when taken in context of what we know in regard to what can happen due to social dynamics and culture (ie something can happen under a feudal system or not) and in the context of the game world in question. sometimes its paraleled from history, if the subject has been taken directly from history. (like feudal system).

22.  Lower impact of surgery skill.  Loosing 3 troops against 150 enemies is unrealistic.  The current loss ratio of faith troops should stay the same, but losses of regulars are 3-5 times as high.

this depends. historically, such loss rates were possible if armored knights were suppressing a peasant rebellion.

Since Parliament will be implemented, create option to give claimants new roles as optional stewards of territories conquered.  The might-makes-right legitimacy of Lords only goes so far.

realistic. in reality they could make it to senatorship easily. or even higher.

33.  The option of becoming a vassal to a faction and gaining fiefs is possible although as a vassal you cannot build anything in villages but can in castles.  Either remove the option to become a vassal or fix the bug that creates the inability to build in villages.  Becoming a mercenary to a king should remain (cannot gain fiefs in this manner).

vanilla vasalage and mercenaryship enhances gameplay and adds in much realism into the gameplay. they should be there.

40.  Increase effect of the skill pathfinding (i.e. 6% per skill level)

most necessary i think.

This idea was done by one mod but I think it's unplayable. Why would I train my companions to release them later?  I want to have them on my side so I can use their party skills.  Besides V5 will add storyline.  The player will befriend completely new NPCs and old ones will probably be removed.  Plus, since you a 32 slot limit for a party (31 with yourself), if you were to have additional companions, you'd have too few slots left to upgrade any line of regulars!

its custom settlements.

what it brings in is some gameplay realism, ie, it would only be natural to make one of your lieutenants/companions a lord, had you made  yourself king. in addition, it allows you to set their skills accordingly. ie, increase leadership, trade etc. (in the custom settlements mod trade affects how many caravans you can put, and leadership how big army you can move around).

if heroes are incorporated into storyline, this would be rather unviable. for storyline involving heroes at least.

but, what i think is, it should be possible to promote a normal troop to hero or lord, with a random name, and no backstory etc. name can be generated from a list of first names, and the place near where hero is created or something. like 'Bruce of Praven'.

it would add flexibility and realism into the gameplay. (just like how early post-roman kings made a lot of nobles, and how napoleon did the same).

8.  Persuasion could allow you to set taxes higher without affecting relation as much.  Maybe for each point in persuasion you get +1 relation per week, thus 10 persuasion could be useful.

illogical and unrealistic tho. you couldnt 'persuade' the population continually for higher taxes. propaganda maybe (works through intrigue) but persuasion a bit irrelevant. you could persuade lords maybe. even that would be rather hard.

#  3 castles < "Duke" < 5 Castles
# 5 castles < Count < 7 castles

correct hierarchy is baron < count < duke < prince < king < emperor . all the intermediary titles like viscount fall in between.

7.  Controlled press (or guys that read the news):  This law (or method of governing) gives a regular positive relation with Lords and peasants (propaganda) but a higher chance of rebellion (some people know the truth).

irrelevant for any game that borrows from middle ages. press was not a reality in 1250. it would serve better if it was renamed. like, freedom of information or something.

It is already planned We even talked in PM about Sea Rider's fortress I believe

a 'sea raider's fortress' sounds like a bad idea to me. vikings, which they are borrowed from, had no central fortress. and if any such raider folk did have such a center, any organized nation would prepare a navy, wreck it, and seriously undo the effectiveness of any raider, diminishing them.

such a fortress concept also takes away the mystique of 'sea raiders'. they are coming from the sea, you dont know where they will appear, or where they come from. if you knew them, you wouldnt call them sea raiders, you would call them 'island x raiders' or 'island xers' or something, and could put them into context.

not being able to put the vikings into any solid context was one of the reasons why they were so frightening.

14.  Create borders around cities, castles, and villages (reference National Borders ala Rise of Nations/Rise of Legends).  Each faction has its own border and each fief conquered adds to the border (city > castle > village).  You move faster in your own / allied borders, normal speed in neutral territory, and a speed penalty in enemy territory. This would encourage people to make more strategic travel options rather than just "As the crow flies".

very good idea. i was thinking of that just last night.

actually that border can be tied to the spotting range of those settlements.

21.  Make ocean large enough to be a pain in the butt to cross and help explain why these civilizations do not trade.  There will be some technical issues regardless of the time to cross.  Such as:

    * How is it possible to collect fiefs from both sides of the map?
    * Why does one side of the map require special structures to train units while the other does not, etc.?
    * How will caravans function if spawned in one city and required to travel across the ocean (in the same respect, how will the city quest to escort the caravan work if the city is on other side of sea)?
    * Will there be naval caravans (trade ships)?
    * How are people from another land going to come to you to pay taxes (collect from all territories simultaneously)?  Maybe the maintenance fees on castles from the "new world" should be higher to offset the traveling cost (perhaps 350 per week).  Alternately, create the ability to move your capitol city.  Depending on what land you choose to have your capitol, the castles on the other side of the map will be higher costs.

quite solid points.

25.  Sea travel could be emulated entirely using menus & presentations.  Think Indiana Jones style icon moving across a 2D map.  And we could emulate encounters along the way, leading to battles, storms, etc.  So sea crossing can be controlled, or abstracted as we see fit.

this works quite well in most games.

7.  Persuasion (many suggestions in entire thread):

A.  Allow units to be hired at a discount based on level (opposed to Leadership which lowers monthly cost).  Say 5% per 2 skill levels.

B.  Allow higher skill to grant a moral boost to men (say +3 per skill level)

renown should also count into this. in reality renown would be more prominent than persuasion for entering into someone's service. just like how people can accept to work for lower salaries in more reputable corporations, similarly mercenaries would prefer a commander with higher renown back then. because just like how a respectable corporation would provide job security, a renowned commander would provide for lesser chances of losses and higher chances of victory.

8.  The amount of nobles allowed should be based on renown and persuasion skill

rather unrealistic.

renown didnt have much to do with having men in your service. it wouldnt prevent the ambitious powerful noble from rebelling. persuasion would maybe have a little more effect. but, basically how much power you could wield in terms of economic and military power would determine the number of people you could hold under control. also intrigue, just like how louis xiv managed innumerable french noblemen through petty maneuvers in versailles.


13.  Prisoner Management could be tied up with Looting so it would increase both prisoner capacity and items found after battles (renamed "Pillaging" or "Lawless Arts")

neither taking prisoners nor looting was a lawless act in warfare in middle ages, actually in any age back before baroque. they were integral part of warfare, and even whole wars were conducted only for those two. just a text issue in regard to realism tho. just another name would be ok.

15.  Increase Party diversity:  Force armies to consist of mostly regulars, some veterans, and a few elites.  It is cheap in both money and time to create an elite.
A.  Raise training time from regular to veteran significantly
B.  Raise training time from veteran to elite a lot (4-8 times)
C.  Raise cost from upgrading from regular to veteran 5-10 times, from veteran to elites by 15-30 times.  Each elite should be a significant investment of money (100-300 denars)
D.  Keep upkeep of regulars at the current, raise upkeep of veterans to 15-30, raise upkeep of elites to 30-80 denars.

the cost shouldnt exceed their effectiveness for reality's sake. it would be rather absurd to make them too hard, then make them unrealistically effective so that people could go for a few elites and then a few regulars and make it just like warcraft3 hero system. on the other hand noone would bother with elite units if they were ineffective in regard to cost.

20.  Add back the ability to change your banner in game from Chancellor.  Doing this will give a +5 relation with all enemy factions but -50 to renown.

why the renown penalty ? changing a banner/coat of arms could have any effect as to why its done and when. for example if a noble changed his coat of arms to incorporate a cross back in the 1100s, it would be taken as an act of piety and increase his renown. you cant gauge the effect to be always negative. in actuality, banner changes were done more for the positive effects they would bring. i think both the relation bonus to enemy factions, and penalty to renown are illogical here. there shouldnt be any such penalty or bonus.

28.  Practice Ranges could be used to organize archery contests and Stables used for horse races (or jousting fights), and so on.

archery contest is a splendid idea. in addition, they were a major entertainment event and very common in middle ages.

34.  Create an “entertainment value” similar to faith.  Villagers love the arena and theaters. The more people that are entertained, the more taxes collected.

all the entertainment a middle ages peasant had would come from wandering troupes and minstrels. or any resident village madmen. there werent any arenas, god forbid any theaters either. there still isnt any of those in villages in general. theater service has always been provided by wandering troupes.

being entertained had no relation to tax, and wont have any relation to tax in future either, unless the entertainment is provided by government as a return for the tax taken.

36.  Create a technology tree:

    * Unlocks new weapons and armor, better troops, and defenses for the troops to make them stronger, and improve the villages, towns, and cities.
    * To complete a research, a certain amount of points is needed.  To gain points a city that has a university is required.  A University produces a research point each X game days.  If you have 3 cities that have a university, you produce 3 research points each X game days.  Once completed, have a new technology unlocked or new units able to be trained.

this is beyond unrelistic, in regard to any lore, world, and history.

invention of new weapons and armor was something that couldnt be controlled in middle ages. it has been the case until late baroque, when military academies were founded, and even after that the progress was stagnant.

even in fantasy worlds there is no such thing as discovering a technology tree. the means of warfare didnt change at all in between ages of middle earth for example.

in addition it would lead to quirky rts gameplay, with people rushing technology and rendering the ENTIRE basis the game and the mod was built on, obsolete.

the fiefs were needed to make armored cavalry a possibility, because they needed expensive stuff and high sustenance, franks started issuing land to their cavalrymen. in conjunction with local defense needs due to constant raiding by external sources boosted it, and we ended up with the entire feudal system. if there wasnt the need for armored mounted cavalry, there wouldnt be the need for fiefs. if there wasnt the need for fiefs, the need for castles would lessen.

entire history would be different and feudal system may not even have come to being. this would work the same in any kind of lore/game.

1.  Slaves - turn prisoners into slaves for increase in towns population or create slave soldiers (low tier non upgradable troops).

slavery was banned in medieval europe. tho its surely possible for calradia. and therefore sod. tho slave and normal population should have different bonuses to income, just like in the Custom settlements mod. i gotta say that i find slavery even in game very distasteful.

in terms of gameplay that would force you to keep slaves rather than do things any other way, for they would bring more profits and also easier to control. therefore it locks the player into one path as viable.

1.  Kingdom income will compose of:

    * Taxes from villages
    * Taxes from towns
    * Tax from Nobles (lords - lord's hold fiefs and pay % [base 30%])
    * Tax from temple's lands (monasteries and temples, shrines and chapels don't count)

in a feudal system the first and the third wouldnt be there together. basically, if a village belongs to a lord as fief, he would tax them, and you could tax the lord. same goes for any city that was in the hands of a lord.

3.  Base tax value will be 10% (100% tax income).  0% taxes (voluntary) will give in fact -80% income (base taxes X (prosperity + taxes) so with 100 prosperity there will be 20% still paying for common cause).  Separate taxes will be set for villages and towns.

average traditional tax rate was 30% of the produce in middle ages. what the lord took from his peasants. the 'rent'. its natural that the overlord would assume the same rate when taking from his lords.

5.  I'm not sure if there should be a maximum for taxes.  Though they were rarely higher than 10% in history

which history is that  ? there are countless rebellions in middle ages because of high taxation. by high taxation i mean starving people. otherwise peasants were going with backbreaking tax rates without rebelling.

6.  Player can lower taxes any time depending on Persuasion (ability to sell his deed to the people) he will get benefits from such action, immediate increase of popularity, honor?, population? (immigration to the kingdom) and will get an "Argument" in the Parliament.

persuasion could never be used as a tool to persuade public for anything until invention of printing press, and even than it was ineffective because readership was low. persuasion could only work as mentioned here post radio communication age.

you can persuade senators in a parliament to higher taxes, but the taxed public wouldnt be favorable to that. for, they couldnt hear your voice.

7.  In order to raise taxes player calls Parliament.  Game menu will show introduction, short explanation of parliament function.  Then can ask Parliament to raise taxes for peasants or townspeople.  Parliaments response will depend on global prosperity (sum of all prosperities divided by number of fiefs villages or towns for peasants or townspeople) and global popularity (same) and other Arguments.

this is quite logical and realistic.

12.  Use French model of 3 circles of power.  The first was for the church clergy and other religious authorities, 2nd was reserved for nobles and rich people, and the 3rd was for everyone else (this included doctors, lawyers, peasants, everything).

clergy didnt pay tax in french model.

So I think low taxes should not have a lot of effects out of making population happier (but making population happy can become more important, if you need the support of a parliament to vote things, and if events like villagers revolting can occur), and long term evolution be more based on buildings, availability of goods or things like that (i.e.: a system where centers need trade goods produced by other centers to increase their population/health/prosperity ; most of the exchanges would be automatic, and wouldn't need a lot of new code as making centers get close center trade goods is already in native code

actually low taxes did have a lot of effects of making people happier. the ease in which muslims conquered anatolia from byzantines was due to their demanding of consistent, calculated fixed tax rate that didnt break the villagers' neck. since the thing passes in middle age, its a good example.

15.  Add salt mines back into the game.  Allow slaves to be sold and of course trade salt.  These can be strategically controlled resources.

again something that would make slavery the only option economically, because it would dwarf all other approaches in terms of profitability. this locks player into one tiny path for action.

16.  Instead of manipulating goods (already have food & moral), create a new value called 'resource point' linked to prosperity/health/place location.  It can be earned as the tax on a regular basis (weekly?).  The buildings need resource points to be built and maintained, so not only denars is key, resource points would also has some saying, otherwise, building cannot be built, building less performance (less recruits, cannot upgrade, etc.), destroyed, etc..

bad idea. stuff like artificial 'points' make some game increasingly less atmospheric in proportion to their numbers. it makes a game feel like trading game cards or playing a game show rather than a game set to give a specific atmosphere or tell a specific tale.

9.  Give native factions (Swadia, Vaegir, Nord, Rhodok, Khergit) Noble units.  It's unfair that natives have no access to Nobility and Faith Troops.

honestly, i dont know why 'noble' troops exist in sod at all. in a feudal system a noble is the lowest ranking knight. 'sir'. it means a knight, a mounted armored soldier. the whole feudal system deal is based on this. in short, all the nobles which would fight in a war would be mounted units, due to feudal system. this continued to be so until mid 18th century, even in countries where feudal system declined with high middle ages. creating a 'noble' unit which is separate and has a troop tech tree sounds just like adding an additional 'mercenary berserker japanese janissaries' unit type into age of empires just for show and making it more crowded.

.................................................

wow. thats a long bunch of text i have written. i gotta work now.

 
Holy ****, Unity. Nit-picky much? Geez. That's big ass post.

Edit: There are some things I agree with, and some things I don't. Slavery for example, who the hell gives a damn? It's a game. It's not real. It takes place in a era where Slavery would've existed. Also, it's a fantasy world.

It's silly to say you find something distasteful when it's in a VIDEO GAME. Why not just go join up with all those people who claim video games are the reason for violence in our schools, streets, and workplaces? Because it's not Video Games. It's the parents, it's the area the kids grow up in, and it's the peers. Anyway, I'm going off subject.

The point I'm making is that, there's alot of things that would make sense, there's alot of things that don't. But get one thing -straight-, unity, Mount and Blade is NOT REAL. Therefore, the realism claim is pointless. I like realism, but I don't like it when people try to use realism as an excuse to not agree with something. It's a game. It's for fun. It doesn't -HAVE- to be Historically accurate.
 
unity100 said:
22.  Lower impact of surgery skill.  Loosing 3 troops against 150 enemies is unrealistic.  The current loss ratio of faith troops should stay the same, but losses of regulars are 3-5 times as high.

this depends. historically, such loss rates were possible if armored knights were suppressing a peasant rebellion.
I will even say more. This was possible anywhere knights were fightning. In one of the greatest medieval battles where 60 000 troops met on battlefield in Grunwald (Tannenberg) where Teutonic Order was defeated by combined Polish and Lithuanian forces only 7 (seven or other small number) Polish knights died (loses were high on both sides but only 7 actual knights, heavy armored fellows).
Not to mention Kircholm battle where 2500 Polish Husars and 1000 infantry defeated 11000 Swedish troops killing from 6-9 thousands (it differs) with only 100 dead on Polish side.
But it's all not because of surgery but because of armor, good tactics, speed etc. If in MnB one manages to bring 100 Adenian Magnates on flat battlefield against almost any army he can have low death ratio without any surgery at all and it's realistic but if your troops die like flies it's not.
Although not every wound inflicted was lethal and MnB system allows only blunt damage to be non lethal. So concluding surgery brings realism to a game by allowing non blunt damage to be non lethal (we now only need blunt damage to become lethal :wink: ).


40.  Increase effect of the skill pathfinding (i.e. 6% per skill level)

most necessary i think.
But impossible, it's hardcoded.

This idea was done by one mod but I think it's unplayable. Why would I train my companions to release them later?  I want to have them on my side so I can use their party skills.  Besides V5 will add storyline.  The player will befriend completely new NPCs and old ones will probably be removed.  Plus, since you a 32 slot limit for a party (31 with yourself), if you were to have additional companions, you'd have too few slots left to upgrade any line of regulars!

its custom settlements.

what it brings in is some gameplay realism, ie, it would only be natural to make one of your lieutenants/companions a lord, had you made  yourself king. in addition, it allows you to set their skills accordingly. ie, increase leadership, trade etc. (in the custom settlements mod trade affects how many caravans you can put, and leadership how big army you can move around).

if heroes are incorporated into storyline, this would be rather unviable. for storyline involving heroes at least.

but, what i think is, it should be possible to promote a normal troop to hero or lord, with a random name, and no backstory etc. name can be generated from a list of first names, and the place near where hero is created or something. like 'Bruce of Praven'.

it would add flexibility and realism into the gameplay. (just like how early post-roman kings made a lot of nobles, and how napoleon did the same).
From gameplay view it's very bad idea. Player is strong enough without additional lords. Besides player is not creating a new faction. He is refugee and hopes to come back to his homeland one day after stopping the invasion that swallowed his home.

It is already planned We even talked in PM about Sea Rider's fortress I believe

a 'sea raider's fortress' sounds like a bad idea to me. vikings, which they are borrowed from, had no central fortress. and if any such raider folk did have such a center, any organized nation would prepare a navy, wreck it, and seriously undo the effectiveness of any raider, diminishing them.

such a fortress concept also takes away the mystique of 'sea raiders'. they are coming from the sea, you dont know where they will appear, or where they come from. if you knew them, you wouldnt call them sea raiders, you would call them 'island x raiders' or 'island xers' or something, and could put them into context.

not being able to put the vikings into any solid context was one of the reasons why they were so frightening.
That's why it's hidden fortress in unchartred island :wink: It's fantasy world.

14.  Create borders around cities, castles, and villages (reference National Borders ala Rise of Nations/Rise of Legends).  Each faction has its own border and each fief conquered adds to the border (city > castle > village).  You move faster in your own / allied borders, normal speed in neutral territory, and a speed penalty in enemy territory. This would encourage people to make more strategic travel options rather than just "As the crow flies".

very good idea. i was thinking of that just last night.

actually that border can be tied to the spotting range of those settlements.
I also like this idea thanks for reminding me of it. All this moving faster etc is almost impossible to do but even if it was purely aesthetic at the beginning it would do. I would see into it.

21.  Make ocean large enough to be a pain in the butt to cross and help explain why these civilizations do not trade.  There will be some technical issues regardless of the time to cross.  Such as:

    * How is it possible to collect fiefs from both sides of the map?
    * Why does one side of the map require special structures to train units while the other does not, etc.?
    * How will caravans function if spawned in one city and required to travel across the ocean (in the same respect, how will the city quest to escort the caravan work if the city is on other side of sea)?
    * Will there be naval caravans (trade ships)?
    * How are people from another land going to come to you to pay taxes (collect from all territories simultaneously)?  Maybe the maintenance fees on castles from the "new world" should be higher to offset the traveling cost (perhaps 350 per week).  Alternately, create the ability to move your capitol city.  Depending on what land you choose to have your capitol, the castles on the other side of the map will be higher costs.

quite solid points.
It's all gong to be in V5 if it ever is created. No worries.

25.  Sea travel could be emulated entirely using menus & presentations.  Think Indiana Jones style icon moving across a 2D map.  And we could emulate encounters along the way, leading to battles, storms, etc.  So sea crossing can be controlled, or abstracted as we see fit.

this works quite well in most games.
I thought of something similar and that is the conception I like the most (I love such 2d things, maps etc... side note, I never forgiven 3DO to make HoM&M 5 or Europa Universalis 3 in this awful 3d. Strategies should be 2d.


13.  Prisoner Management could be tied up with Looting so it would increase both prisoner capacity and items found after battles (renamed "Pillaging" or "Lawless Arts")

neither taking prisoners nor looting was a lawless act in warfare in middle ages, actually in any age back before baroque. they were integral part of warfare, and even whole wars were conducted only for those two. just a text issue in regard to realism tho. just another name would be ok.
Prisoner managment is no more. It's under leadership now.

15.  Increase Party diversity:  Force armies to consist of mostly regulars, some veterans, and a few elites.  It is cheap in both money and time to create an elite.
A.  Raise training time from regular to veteran significantly
B.  Raise training time from veteran to elite a lot (4-8 times)
C.  Raise cost from upgrading from regular to veteran 5-10 times, from veteran to elites by 15-30 times.  Each elite should be a significant investment of money (100-300 denars)
D.  Keep upkeep of regulars at the current, raise upkeep of veterans to 15-30, raise upkeep of elites to 30-80 denars.

the cost shouldnt exceed their effectiveness for reality's sake. it would be rather absurd to make them too hard, then make them unrealistically effective so that people could go for a few elites and then a few regulars and make it just like warcraft3 hero system. on the other hand noone would bother with elite units if they were ineffective in regard to cost.
We are trying to do that but it's really hard without some silly caps.

20.  Add back the ability to change your banner in game from Chancellor.  Doing this will give a +5 relation with all enemy factions but -50 to renown.
Banner change is in but it's only graphical choice.

Dang it's long. I have no time to answer it all...
 
    14.  Create borders around cities, castles, and villages (reference National Borders ala Rise of Nations/Rise of Legends).  Each faction has its own border and each fief conquered adds to the border (city > castle > village). 

.............................


I also like this idea thanks for reminding me of it. All this moving faster etc is almost impossible to do but even if it was purely aesthetic at the beginning it would do. I would see into it.

yea, it will dramatically increase aesthetic appeal.

Banner change is in but it's only graphical choice.

thats very good then. i forgot the times i changed my banner in custom settlements until i decided which one to use at last.

Dang it's long. I have no time to answer it all...

no worries. i wasnt expecting anything. all i wrote was for to point out certain stuff so that someone could use them in future for anything.

i have one expection tho, i desperately need 4.5 gold out asap ... heheh.
 
1.
I think most of the implemented helmets are a little oversized. Not Dark Helmet of spaceballs oversized, but still.. they are definetly too big.
I know, this is just a bagatelle, but its kind of annoying, because you see your helmet like all the time in battles. Would be nice, if they are a little bit resized in V5.

2.
And i'll add an idea i had, when i was playing today:
If you are king.. how about sending others on missions? like, for example: "Find/make me a Sword, worthy of a king", give them 10000 gold on their journey and send  them away. After some time, either they find a special item or they give you your gold back minus expenses of the search.

3.
Giving companions the mission to drive the cattle to the some destination for you
 
Alu said:
1.
I think most of the implemented helmets are a little oversized. Not Dark Helmet of spaceballs oversized, but still.. they are definetly too big.
I know, this is just a bagatelle, but its kind of annoying, because you see your helmet like all the time in battles. Would be nice, if they are a little bit resized in V5.

2.
And i'll add an idea i had, when i was playing today:
If you are king.. how about sending others on missions? like, for example: "Find/make me a Sword, worthy of a king", give them 10000 gold on their journey and send  them away. After some time, either they find a special item or they give you your gold back minus expenses of the search.

3.
Giving companions the mission to drive the cattle to the some destination for you
1. Open helmets are oversized so that head fits inside, look at capes with hoods and see how heads stick from it because they are not oversized as they should be.

2. From quite some time I wonder how to implement new Royal sets. The easiest but also least cool would be making them buyable at castle blacksmith. But this idea with quest for item is what I was looking for! Thanks!

3. I don't get it.

Cheers
 
Thanks for the replies and keep them coming.  I will take everything into consideration and agree with many of the points above.  All I did was organize and combine all the ideas that were sugested.  Some of these are my ideas, but most are not.  Many of these, I mean a lot, are going to be implemented in V4.5 Gold. 

After that is released, I will take another look at this list, strike through items that have been implemented and strike through items that cannot be implemented (i.e. hard coded). 

For now, I am way to busy to work on this but will revisit after 4.5 Gold is released. 

V5 may take more ideas that are easy to implement and have a positive effect on game play.  There are some good ideas here but would be very hard to implement and very little impact.  Those of course will not be done.  The SOD team will revisit these again in the future.  So keep the ideas coming, weather you have a new idea or commenting on ideas you do not like, I will eventually read them all ( read, not implement). 

As to the slavery comments, slavery in SOD is the same as in Native.  It will always be more profitable to ransom rather than to sell into slavery but selling into slavery will be more convenient (i.e. will be a slaver guild in each capitol city).  It will be for the player to decide, it will definitely not be the only option to make money.  Taxes will still be the majority of your income, this will just be supplemental. 


We are talking about having a ransom broker appear in that one castle that you build a prisoner tower but we are still talking.  This would make it easier for the player that actually has a conscious to not sell men (and women) into slavery but at the same time, it will be easy to drop off a load of men you are hauling around at the local slavery guild. 
 
vonmistont said:
Alu said:
1.
I think most of the implemented helmets are a little oversized. Not Dark Helmet of spaceballs oversized, but still.. they are definetly too big.
I know, this is just a bagatelle, but its kind of annoying, because you see your helmet like all the time in battles. Would be nice, if they are a little bit resized in V5.



3.
Giving companions the mission to drive the cattle to the some destination for you
1. Open helmets are oversized so that head fits inside, look at capes with hoods and see how heads stick from it because they are not oversized as they should be.



Cheers

I fixed the cloaks slightly already. 

I have no intention of making helmets smaller.  This would increase clipping as VM pointed out but also, some of them just look cool. 

You two options as a player if a helmet is to large. 

1.  Change the helmet.  There will literally be about a hundred new helmets to choose. 

2.  Press "R" and go into first person character mode.  This allows you to play from the eyes of your character and the helmet is no longer in view. 


Decreasing helmet size would be a huge job with little playback on the fun scale.  As a matter of fact, many people, myself included, would not like it.  Not to mention it would cause clipping issues with the heads of characters sticking out of armors.  So I can say for certain this will not be implmented but thanks for the suggestion. 

 
  Training is unrealistically fast itself. If both realism and acceptable speed is wanted, maybe such a model can be implemented:
  Exchange troops with ones who are of the next tier if your higher level troops have a high enough total training skill and gained enough experience. That would convince the traders (ransom brokers or a newer class) that their troops wouldn't be wasted on you. Also, to not put them in a deficit, you should pay them some denars.
  Also, make lords do the same and make their upgrading speed based on their skill for balance.
 
Back
Top Bottom