MP Native Kingdoms [Persistent Kingdoms Successor]

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Domoo

Recruit
Best answers
0
Perhaps both of you are right, however I have seen at least on NA some factions have some members spawn at another castle in order to have their cavalry hit people in the back. Nevertheless, another point that I've thought about is, do you think it would be possible to set your spawn? For example, your faction has two castles, you press a button so that you will only spawn in castle 1 until set otherwise or castle 1 is lost/you leave the faction. That way you dont have to worry about pressing ~ and 1 every time you die.
It is possible to do it even in PW/PK right now but people still have trouble doing it. I myself have spawned in the wrong castle at times, even after 2000 hours on the mod.
 

Roy1012

Baron
Best answers
0
Is there a place you would have us post custom banners we would like to have for our clans? Or are we just not at that stage of development yet? Also, do you plan on changing the combat from the bannerlord style to be more akin to warband in terms of speed? And is this something you can even do?
 

Bridge_Troll

Veteran
WBNWVC
Best answers
0
Is there a place you would have us post custom banners we would like to have for our clans? Or are we just not at that stage of development yet? Also, do you plan on changing the combat from the bannerlord style to be more akin to warband in terms of speed? And is this something you can even do?
Phew, ye that is actually a bit early to be honest. We don't even know which format, size etc. the banner image file needs to be or can be so it's kinda hard to give you any sort of information.

On that note, we might be able to implement a system where you could upload a custom banner for your faction or clan while in game / at runtime. An administrator can approve or reject the uploaded image and if approved it will be distributed as new banner to all connected clients.
Just an idea, we might run into some technical limitation from Bannerlord, we just gotta test that. In general that would mean we do not need to create a mod release just to change some banners and servers/their admins have full control over banners.
 

Younes

Master Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Very good idea, in doing this you would give server so much more control over what type of server it wants to be
 

Roy1012

Baron
Best answers
0
Phew, ye that is actually a bit early to be honest. We don't even know which format, size etc. the banner image file needs to be or can be so it's kinda hard to give you any sort of information.

On that note, we might be able to implement a system where you could upload a custom banner for your faction or clan while in game / at runtime. An administrator can approve or reject the uploaded image and if approved it will be distributed as new banner to all connected clients.
Just an idea, we might run into some technical limitation from Bannerlord, we just gotta test that. In general that would mean we do not need to create a mod release just to change some banners and servers/their admins have full control over banners.
This would be great, but would these be permanent/semi permanent, or would we have to re-upload them each time we log on? For example, will I only need to upload it once and be approved by admins to use it, or am I going to need to get an admin to approve it every time I come online? This would be rather tedious and also very horrible as the admins aren't always on.
 

Bridge_Troll

Veteran
WBNWVC
Best answers
0
This would be great, but would these be permanent/semi permanent, or would we have to re-upload them each time we log on? For example, will I only need to upload it once and be approved by admins to use it, or am I going to need to get an admin to approve it every time I come online? This would be rather tedious and also very horrible as the admins aren't always on.
Imho we'll give the server a config flag whether it's enabled at all, only temporary as long as the server is running/on a per map basis or permanent across server restarts. So if some server does not have much disk space available they can keep it disabled or only temporary
 

Younes

Master Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
This is really a good solution for servers with a very familiar playerbase.


It would be practically impossible to enforce such system on factions that switch from banner and name every 5 seconds in public server
 

Roy1012

Baron
Best answers
0
Imho we'll give the server a config flag whether it's enabled at all, only temporary as long as the server is running/on a per map basis or permanent across server restarts. So if some server does not have much disk space available they can keep it disabled or only temporary
Hmm, I imagine this might be an issue for some people, myself included. You should still allow for groups to submit their banners, but not make any special releases for just banners, release them with any normal/regular update.
 

Bridge_Troll

Veteran
WBNWVC
Best answers
0
This is really a good solution for servers with a very familiar playerbase.


It would be practically impossible to enforce such system on factions that switch from banner and name every 5 seconds in public server
We can create a rate limit on how often/frequent you can upload a custom image

Hmm, I imagine this might be an issue for some people, myself included. You should still allow for groups to submit their banners, but not make any special releases for just banners, release them with any normal/regular update.
Sorry, but I actually don't really understand which issue that would create for you? My questions sounds kinda rude, I don't know how to phrase it properly, sorry :xf-wink:, I genuinely want to understand why you still need to be able to submit the banners if you can upload them on a server at any time. Maybe we can work around it so it's actually not going to be an issue anymore.
 

Younes

Master Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
We can create a rate limit on how often/frequent you can upload a custom image


Sorry, but I actually don't really understand which issue that would create for you? My questions sounds kinda rude, I don't know how to phrase it properly, sorry :xf-wink:, I genuinely want to understand why you still need to be able to submit the banners if you can upload them on a server at any time. Maybe we can work around it so it's actually not going to be an issue anymore.
I think the whole having to request a banner to admin is kind of a bummer. Perhaps there could be a combination of both. There is a default set of banners, but each specific server has the liberty to add more banners if it wants to
 

Roy1012

Baron
Best answers
0
I think the whole having to request a banner to admin is kind of a bummer. Perhaps there could be a combination of both. There is a default set of banners, but each specific server has the liberty to add more banners if it wants to
That’s exactly what I mean. If the banner can be saved on the server I have no issue and the need for the mod to include banners isn’t necessary (though still may be helpful for people who are not part of a clan), the issue lies with the admins having to approve it each time if that is the case. If it saves no problem. The only issue is needing an admin on each time to re-approve it, Though I imagine this could be changed by server to server.
 

Bridge_Troll

Veteran
WBNWVC
Best answers
0
That’s exactly what I mean. If the banner can be saved on the server I have no issue and the need for the mod to include banners isn’t necessary (though still may be helpful for people who are not part of a clan), the issue lies with the admins having to approve it each time if that is the case. If it saves no problem. The only issue is needing an admin on each time to re-approve it, Though I imagine this could be changed by server to server.
Ah yes, I see. Well yeah, the approval process is kind of an inconvenience. However, I think it might be more or less necessary to avoid people putting in any sort of revolting gore, pornography and what not images.
Re-approving would only be on the temporary setting, but ye, the approval system could also be optional if servers wanna take the risk.
 

Roy1012

Baron
Best answers
0
Loving the charts of the phases and everything, admittedly I don’t understand most of it but hey nice formatting 👌 👍

Looks like you guys are well on your way to figuring this all out. Thank you Dev Team, Very Cool!
 

CalenLoki

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
I'm glad someone is doing PW-like mod for BL. I'll probably make a map for it at some point, like in the good old days.

All those years that TW took to release BL gave me time to think how PW general idea could be improved.
My vision may be a bit to far from original for those who prefer "proven good" from "maybe better", and I'd gladly read your opinions.
It embrace combat, economy and politics, while neglecting RP a bit.
It's a wall of text, but I hope someone will find it interesting read. I just have to write down those ideas, otherwise they clog my head.

I can divide it into 4 main parts:

1. Locations
As map maker I'd love bigger part of what I design to play active role in power struggles. So I'd suggest adding a lot of capturable points that affect strategy, tactics and economy. By a lot I mean ~2-4 per village, ~6-10 per castle, ~10-15 per town and some in-between settlements. So Around 100 for big map. Things like keep, barracks, main gate, granary, stables, water-mill outside city walls, bandit camp, ect.

Locations would be linked with each other (when they have direct road connection)
Each location would be capturable. But kingdom could capture only those directly linked to their land. So i.e. besieging enemy castle would require taking all locations on the way one after another. No sneaky castle capture possible.
You could spawn at any of your faction location that is not at the frontline (not linked with enemy location). So defenders would be able to spawn closer to contested location (1 link) then attackers (2 links).

Each location would have 3 in-game objects: spawn point, capture point and goods terminal. Because you'd never capture and spawn the single location at the same time (capture only frontline, spawn only behind frontline) those could be placed very close to each other.

Some locations would be available only to start-ups. So newly created kingdoms, bandits, ect. If your kingdom owns any valid spawn location, those locations will reset it's ownership after 5 minutes. Also each kingdom can have only one of these.
I.e. you can clear a lair from bandits, capture it, withdraw all the resources, then let it reset (thus let bandits back in without weapons).

2. Economy
Unlike PW, where economy is grindy peasant work (i.e. holding LMB at tree/log/anvil, ect.) IMO it's better to focus on managing (decision making) and transporting (risk of moving from one place to another).

So player job would be taking goods from locations where they are not needed to those that can use or store them. Load pack horse/cart/wagon with goods from one location and ship them to other through dangerous roads full of potential encounters.
None of the goods would be carry-able by players.

Goods would be generalised (i.e. 1h weapons) instead of specific (short sword of virginity +2.5).

Each location constantly produce goods, based on permanent characteristics and current resources.
I.e. production of grains is based on field size, population and tools. Population requires food and clothes. Weapons or tools: workshops, population, tools, processed iron, charcoal, wood. And so on.

Each location also stores what it produced and/or received. But there is deterioration that scales exponentially: unnoticeable at lower levels, but hitting harder the more you hoarded. Some locations would be better or worse at storing specific type of goods: armoury, granary, treasure, warehouse, stable, barrack, ect.
It's to preventing players from mindlessly hoarding. And to allow economy to gradually reset when left unattended.

I though about 29 resources. But if it feels like too much complexity, that number could be halved by merging some of them.
5 raw resources: flax, gold ore, iron ore, wood
5 processed resources: linen fabric, woollen fabric, gold, charcoal, iron bars
10 equipment resources: clothes, tools, armour, weapons <1h, 2h, pa, bow, x-bow, throwing, shield> (or merged into melee, ranged, shield, but I feel locations would feel more unique with wider choice)
5 food types: grains, meat, fish, veggies, fruit. They could be alternatively merged into just "food", but separating may reward people with wide connections (bonus for diversity).
4 live resources: population, soldiers, horses, sheep

Location characteristics, set by map maker, would be production multiplayer and storage soft-limit for each of mentioned resources.
Preferably theses should scale with current server population, to prevent high-pop scarcity and low pop-overabundance on the same map.

3. Feudalism
I always find democratic or totalitarian "factions" unfitting for medieval setting. I'd much rather see feudal system. It allows richer internal politics, provides chain of command and visual distinctions between elites and commoners.

Simple principle: vassal pledge loyalty to his liege. His liege pledge to yet someone else. The guy on top of the ladder, who doesn't subject to anyone, becomes faction leader. At any point anyone can change his pledge. I.e. lord can declare independence, and he takes all his vassals with him.
For simplicity sake max 4 levels would be allowed (king, lords, knights, commoners).
Or it could scale with amount of players to keep on average 3 vassals for each liege. (i.e. 3 kings, each with 3 lords, each with 3 knights, each with 3 commoners). So up to 3 players 1 level, 4-12p 2 levels, 13-39 3 levels, 40-120 4 levels, 121+ 5 levels.

Locations would be owned privately. So they'd belong to specific person, rather than to entire faction. Only the owner and his lieges can withdraw goods without any limits. So it's important to share them between multiple faction members, to make management easier.

Newly captured location belongs to the player with the most vassals who participated in the assault.

4. Player character
I much prefer wider choice of playstyles, with a lot of equally viable choices. So perfect system for me would be cless-less system where character skills would be based on equipment choice and available resources.

Player would fill his character with generic equipment, within a limit of 10 points. I.e. 1h sword (3 points), shield (2p), medium armour (3p), throwing axe (1p), horse (1p). Character statistics would then be generated by multiplying those with available resource (sqrt of population + 5x sqrt of soldiers), then applying to an formula. Some items would affect multiple skills (i.e. throwing axe is also an 1h weapon), some would have negative effects (archery/xbow reduces athletics to prevent kiting).
Of course 2x more used resources doesn't mean

Weapon and armour would be generated in similar way (chosen points*sqrt of available resources).

You could upgrade equipment by visiting better equipped locations (i.e. visit armoury and stables after spawning in barracks). Still within your limits, but some locations can have better stuff for specific purpose.

Personally I'd force players to always spawn at closes available spawn point. Just to increase manpower distribution across the map. They could update their equipment and skills by visiting appropriate locations afterwards.

Owner of location and his lieges would get 2x more than everyone else in their faction.

It also gives potential tool for gameplay balancing in favour of smaller factions over zergs. I.e. your resource use could by reduced by your faction size (faction that contains 37% of server population has -37% lower stats).
Or it could create bigger distinction between nobles and commoners: resource usage multiplier equal to 50%+% of your faction that are your vassals (directly or indirectly). So king has always 150%, nobles 50%+(100%*(their vassals+1)/kingdom size) and commoners have 50%+(100%/kingdom size)


I hope you enjoy the read.
I'd love to hear your opinion.
If anyone is interested in more detailed formulas, I think in math-language.
I'll plug it in the discord-suggestions-bot-thingie later. Better to refine it first.
 

Roy1012

Baron
Best answers
0
I like the idea of your feudalism, however this is completely dependent upon the players and individual guilds, and is unlikely to work on a server-wide scale. Also, this sort of already happens on the NA side -- often the leadership in big clans are given that position for merging, and should they leave, their men will go with them. This leads to an interesting power dynamic between the nobles/leadership and the King/leader which becomes a balancing act of individual interests.