Kingdoms Brainstorming

[antimattergizmo 41]

And here I am with less spam, but less contributed, huzzah!

[Jed1314 420]

Lets haul this topics sorry ass back onto the rails ...

We have already covered some major issues (which I understand to be resolved) such as currency, but many remain. For example, there is massive, massive disagreement on block protection. I suggested a diplomacy system earlier but it was met with some resistance. We also haven't really dealt with crime and punishment (although I think everyone agrees it should be handled by people and not programming). Can anyone else think of major issues still to be dealt with ?

I had an idea to expand the diplomacy system, but there is no point really if Dunk isn't fond of it since I suspect he will understand Bioxx's preferences, so can see which suggestions have a potential place.

[antimattergizmo 41]

I touched a tad on it a while back, but it was in the middle of spats with block protection. Town growth. what about instead of remembering to expand borders from the homestone every house that pushes borders, have a growth of influence based on resource reserves, population, and time?

[Scooterdanny 285]

That would be pretty cool, but unless we add something like towny/factions i don't see it working.

[Deathbytac0 46]

I touched a tad on it a while back, but it was in the middle of spats with block protection. Town growth. what about instead of remembering to expand borders from the homestone every house that pushes borders, have a growth of influence based on resource reserves, population, and time?

That sounds pretty good, but what if they don't exactly live in town? You have never had to live in a town, if you needed to you could conform to it's rule, go there for supplies, and even help in the community. It's just based on whether the person walks to make town runs. This still doesn't rule out what you have, in fact it may help, but do we need anything to help us live in the country?

[Jed1314 420]

I touched a tad on it a while back, but it was in the middle of spats with block protection. Town growth. what about instead of remembering to expand borders from the homestone every house that pushes borders, have a growth of influence based on resource reserves, population, and time?

I think this is too many tying factors. A town should grow on the basis of population alone. Extra wealth will attract more players, causing indirect growth anyway

[Deathbytac0 46]

I think this is too many tying factors. A town should grow on the basis of population alone. Extra wealth will attract more players, causing indirect growth anyway

That's probably right actually, there are no npcs to populate anyway. This also leaves us country dwellers alone, we can all live where we say.

[cevkiv 156]

Whistling past the graveyard. There's no point in having block protection if it can be bypassed completely with the click of a button. It should always be extremely hard for a single individual to destroy a city, and still hard for a large group of people to destroy a city. It's not unreasonable for 10 people to take an hour to destroy a city of 10 people. If they can destroy it quickly there's no point in having block protection. If it takes too long, no one will be able to do it. Destroying a city should be something that takes a determined group of people. It shouldn't be something that can be done on the drop of a hat with a click of a button.

I feel very passionately about game design, and I have spent a great deal of time studying the subject: Reading books on the matter, digging up articles written by influential game designers, listening to lectures on the subject, and playing a wide variety of games, sometimes games I don't even have interest in or enjoy, simply to give myself a wider familiarity with the subject. I see a lot of suggestions in here that reek of people who have no understanding of the delicate balance that must be struck between security and freedom. It should not, under any circumstances, be possible to completely bypass block protection, as that entirely defeats the purpose of block protection. Similarly, it should be possible for a single, extremely determined individual to bypass block protection and commit theft, or for a large group of determined individuals who dedicate a reasonable amount of time to do the same.

If the city I and others have spent dozens of hours building and designing can be destroyed in ten minutes because block protection can be completely bypassed by another other city, what is the point in having it in the first place? There would be no point.

The way to strike a balance between security and freedom is to have block protection always be in effect, but to provide ways for those who are willing to spend the time and/or resources to lessen its effectiveness. This rewards both those who take the time to build defenses, as they will always be at least somewhat effective, and those who take the time to build the things that counter those defenses. That is good game design. It rewards both sides of a struggle for their efforts without making one side or the other feel that their efforts were completely wasted.

Too much of what I read in this thread strikes me as griefers bitching that people want to make it hard for them to grief. That's really all it comes down to in my mind. The very people because of whom we desperately need these protections would be the very people to complain the loudest about their existence. Of course a criminal would complain about something that makes it harder for him to commit his crimes. And destroying what another has worked so hard to build without their consent is a crime.

A system whereby the time required to break a block is multiplied would serve to deter the casual griefer, but would not stop several determined individuals. If it takes 64 times as long to break a block, that would require a great deal of time expended by a single person, enough to deter all but a very determined individual, whereas a group of say, 8 people would only take 8 times as long as normal to break the block, or a group of 4 people sixteen times as long to break a block. Oh me, good heavens, it took you 20 extra seconds to break that block! Poor you, you little griefer. What a horrible world, where you actually have to devote time to ruining other people's fun.

Seriously. This entirely comes down to "Griefers don't want protections that stop them from having fun at other people's expense." That's it. That's the sum of this argument over block protection.

[edit] added more than just a pithy comment.

[psychotimo 5]

oi. calm down. No need to get all insulted.

As far as NPC shops, I'm trying to make it my goal that every aspect of this game is quite difficult. You will have to spend all of your time doing one thing to get good enough at it for it to be useful. If you want to be a blacksmith, you'll have no time to hunt or farm to get food, so you'll sell your wares and tools to buy food. If you're a shopkeeper, you'll spend all your time trading instead of smithing or hunting. This allows people to feel like they help support the other members of their community while allowing them to work at the one aspect of the game they enjoy the most.

well that would be quite the problem, if you're dedicated to shopkeeping then you should either have an RPG-skill that enables you to make signshops later on or just be able to make some kind of signshop anyway otherwise you'd be a lousy shopkeeper due to being at school/work or other RL stuff since you can't be online at certain hours, know what i mean? the shopkeepers work would be restocking the chests for his signshops (or restocking the chests for his hardworking NPC asistent :3 ) and he'd also be in charge of bying stuff directly from other peeps to restock his storage.

might not be the best explanation but i hope you get what i mean xP

there is this thing called middle ground in which a person can purchase something if he needs (doesn't have the skill), but also can live at least a bit by him/herself when people are not around. I may come off saying everyone a loner because IRL and Minecraft I am. May be a misconception, but you say smithing skill like an rpg skill. I'm talking knowing how to balance the metal on the sides of swords so that they are perfect for cutting through the armour of a rival nation, but not something like "Steve is a level 20 blacksmith, weapons improved 5%" I don't want anything close to that

same here, used to be a loner too ( a lot less of a loner since university, hell yeah ^^)

anyways having some sort of RPG skill could be nice (depending on what bonusses they'd give, i'd suggest durability for a smith: you'd be able to make the tools yourself but a smith's work would last a lot longer) but on the other hand, smithing,mining,... kind of everything in TFC is quite hard and timeconsuming (well hard untill you're used to it), i mean first thing to do for a lot of peeps is get at least 1 wheat to gather some chickens for an easy supply of food. so IMO TFC doesn't really need RPG-skills for everything although they could be nice

(miner: more detail in propick messages? lumberjack, quicker at chopping down wood? stuff like this that wouldn't really give someone too much of a bonus but do change the speed/quality of your work significantly)

No, psycho, i was not making a point at you, calm down pal. anyways, i think an npc shop is unneeded, a sign shop would be nice on servers where the time-zones are diverse, but that can probably be done externally from tfc

well, i am calm, i just get a bit fired up when i join a debate and since i know that i sound quite aggressive when i get a bit... enthousiastic xP i presumed you were talking to me xP anyways, sorry if i sounded aggresive again :S

[Scooterdanny 285]

I think, most of us are for meta skills, not steve rpg skills, as that comes up quite often. and lol it's fine.

[antimattergizmo 41]

I will repeat for the sake of you not getting yelled at too much more than you will for some of these statements. There will never in the future of TFC be anything close to RPG skills, or buffs because of proffesions. You are in a certain job because you yourself are good at the job, not from the help of choosing a job. Sign shops break, tear, rip, pulverise, and blow asunder any hopes of immersion within the game, slightly less, but prevalent all the same are npcs. You would have to be completely new to the server and mod to not have the slightest clue to getting a porkchop or two and not completely rely on a shopkeep that isn't online 24/7 to cater to your every need. I understand more difficult forging means it will take much more time, but not so much that you will go a day without getting a chance to kill a quick pig.

[cevkiv 156]

Psycho, a simple solution for shopkeeping would be the creation of some sort of barter stall or trading post block or group of blocks (much how a bed takes up two blocks, this item could take up multiple blocks), which has an inventory which can be stocked, and a method for trading a specific item, set by the shop's builder, for the item stored in the shop. So if a town happens to be the only town on the server with a large supply of native gold, the townsfolk could set up a trading post that would allow people from other towns to trade something that the townspeople want in exchange for the gold that others might need.

[antimattergizmo 41]

Hmm, something like a shop keeper has to stock all the items and price them, but can be idle/away and people could still use it with his/her flat rates. Upside is trading without a trader, downside is no bartering the price. All the bartered items go right in the trading stalls item resevoir

[Jed1314 420]

-snip-

I actually had the time to go back and read the entire thread (you'll have to excuse me, I was on holiday at a festival and when I got back it was 14 pages).

I don't know if you ever saw, but I suggested block fortification some time ago with it's own thread (in fact, it was my first suggestion )

I can totally understand why you would interpret what I said as a desire to grief, but I can assure you, I hate griefers because they stand totally opposed to what I love in these games. I like ordered and meaningful conflict, happening for a reason with a distinct target and motivation in mind, where the target can defend themselves. Griefers stand for meaningless and random destruction and looting, and that is the last thing I want.

Had you specified that several people could break the same block when talking to me, I would have been much less resistive regarding your suggestion for block fortification.

I took a look at CivCraft and am inclined to agree with their methods. Understand that I didn't want diplomacy because I want to see peoples hard earned possessions ruined or people being forced into a single system of government. I only want to ensure that my style of play is protected as well as yours, which is to say that I don't want a system which prevents faction based pvp and the destruction of towns. I can't stand the seemingly overwhelming opinion that minecraft should be a game of "caring and sharing" I don't care for and certainly won't share with everyone on a server. That isn't because I'm an asshole, it's because I don't like communism or pvp free servers. I want to host a server like medieval Europe, full of politics, war, subterfuge and factions working with and against one another, not some fluffy socialist cottonball where your house is always safe and the only thing you have to worry about is the (frankly pathetic) vanilla mobs.

[Deathbytac0 46]

Hmm, something like a shop keeper has to stock all the items and price them, but can be idle/away and people could still use it with his/her flat rates. Upside is trading without a trader, downside is no bartering the price. All the bartered items go right in the trading stalls item resevoir

That's what I'm thinking. I hate the fact that it isn't all between the players with no game interference. What if the player uses the stall right in front of the shopkeeper, that would anger me. No interaction, no haggling, I can't be generous or rip anybody off.

I haven't been keeping up with this topic because it's so big, so I'll just ask. What was said about currency and minting? Also Cevkiv,

So if a town happens to be the only town on the server with a large supply of native gold, the townsfolk could set up a trading post that would allow people from other towns to trade something that the townspeople want in exchange for the gold that others might need.

Does this mean every item has a fixed value?

[cevkiv 156]

I actually had the time to go back and read the entire thread (you'll have to excuse me, I was on holiday at a festival and when I got back it was 14 pages).

I don't know if you ever saw, but I suggested block fortification some time ago with it's own thread (in fact, it was my first suggestion )

I can totally understand why you would interpret what I said as a desire to grief, but I can assure you, I hate griefers because they stand totally opposed to what I love in these games. I like ordered and meaningful conflict, happening for a reason with a distinct target and motivation in mind, where the target can defend themselves. Griefers stand for meaningless and random destruction and looting, and that is the last thing I want.

Had you specified that several people could break the same block when talking to me, I would have been much less resistive regarding your suggestion for block fortification.

I took a look at CivCraft and am inclined to agree with their methods. Understand that I didn't want diplomacy because I want to see peoples hard earned possessions ruined or people being forced into a single system of government. I only want to ensure that my style of play is protected as well as yours, which is to say that I don't want a system which prevents faction based pvp and the destruction of towns. I can't stand the seemingly overwhelming opinion that minecraft should be a game of "caring and sharing" I don't care for and certainly won't share with everyone on a server. That isn't because I'm an asshole, it's because I don't like communism or pvp free servers. I want to host a server like medieval Europe, full of politics, war, subterfuge and factions working with and against one another, not some fluffy socialist cottonball where your house is always safe and the only thing you have to worry about is the (frankly pathetic) vanilla mobs.

I try to keep up with the suggestions forum, but there it's somewhat hard for me to keep track of everything that gets written in there. I have no seen your thread.

I dislike the ability of anyone to destroy what I make under any circumstances, but I understand that other people enjoy this, and I do think that a balance can be struck between the two ends of the spectrum without making either side feel entirely put out.

I apologize for the lack of reiteration. This is one thread that I have actually been devoting the time to reading every single post that comes along (maybe not thoroughly, but I have yet to skip over any of the posts). I didn't want to clutter up the thread by restating my idea over and over and over again, although perhaps I did that anyway with the great deal of arguing I did.

I would love it if this was a world where everyone wanted to get a long and not destroy what others worked so hard to create. However, I understand that different people have different ideas of what constitutes fun. I think that with a minimal system of rules, you could get anything you wanted, from monarchies to democracies. It would all depend on what the person creating the town wanted. If people didn't like it, they would be free to make their own towns or move to other towns on the server. If the town owner demands taxes, there should be a mechanic where they can punish (remove citizenship/imprison) people who fail to pay their taxes. If the citizens of a town vote that all houses should be made in a similar style, they could enforce it by kicking offenders who refuse to remodel out of the town.

A judge once said, "I know I've come to the right decision when no one is entirely happy with it." I do not like the idea of people being able to destroy my things, but I am willing to accept it if it is made time consuming to do so. Similarly, you do not want a system where it is impossible to destroy another's city. Is asking you to assemble a group of people to make it possible to do in a reasonable amount of time, or to require you as a lone individual to devote a serious amount of time to do so so unreasonable? What we're really trying to do here is come up with a way to deter casual griefing without removing the ability of groups of people to go to war with each other while not making people who build defenses feel that the defenses serve no purpose.

I think it's possible for us both to get some of what we want. Neither of us can have it wholly our own way without the other person feeling screwed over. But I do think it's possible to strike a balance between the two sides.

[cevkiv 156]

That's what I'm thinking. I hate the fact that it isn't all between the players with no game interference. What if the player uses the stall right in front of the shopkeeper, that would anger me. No interaction, no haggling, I can't be generous or rip anybody off.

I haven't been keeping up with this topic because it's so big, so I'll just ask. What was said about currency and minting? Also Cevkiv, Does this mean every item has a fixed value?

No. The way I imagine it should work instead of each item having a fixed value, when someone sets up the shop for sale they would be able to choose what item they want and in what quantity in exchange for whatever it is they're selling.

This would enable the ability to compete for buyers, as if one town is selling leather for 1 silver coin (or 10 wheat, or 1 copper ore, or whatever), another town could compete with them for business by undercutting their price, either by requiring a lesser amount of coins (if there is a system of coinage), or by requiring less of the item that the other town is asking for. If my town is asking for 10 wheat for a piece of leather, your town could sell leather for 8 wheat. If my town is asking 1 gold coin and 3 silver coins for an ingot of silver, your town could sell the same item for 1 gold coin and 1 silver coin.

[Jed1314 420]

I try to keep up with the suggestions forum, but there it's somewhat hard for me to keep track of everything that gets written in there. I have no seen your thread.

I dislike the ability of anyone to destroy what I make under any circumstances, but I understand that other people enjoy this, and I do think that a balance can be struck between the two ends of the spectrum without making either side feel entirely put out.

I apologize for the lack of reiteration. This is one thread that I have actually been devoting the time to reading every single post that comes along (maybe not thoroughly, but I have yet to skip over any of the posts). I didn't want to clutter up the thread by restating my idea over and over and over again, although perhaps I did that anyway with the great deal of arguing I did.

I would love it if this was a world where everyone wanted to get a long and not destroy what others worked so hard to create. However, I understand that different people have different ideas of what constitutes fun. I think that with a minimal system of rules, you could get anything you wanted, from monarchies to democracies. It would all depend on what the person creating the town wanted. If people didn't like it, they would be free to make their own towns or move to other towns on the server. If the town owner demands taxes, there should be a mechanic where they can punish (remove citizenship/imprison) people who fail to pay their taxes. If the citizens of a town vote that all houses should be made in a similar style, they could enforce it by kicking offenders who refuse to remodel out of the town.

A judge once said, "I know I've come to the right decision when no one is entirely happy with it." I do not like the idea of people being able to destroy my things, but I am willing to accept it if it is made time consuming to do so. Similarly, you do not want a system where it is impossible to destroy another's city. Is asking you to assemble a group of people to make it possible to do in a reasonable amount of time, or to require you as a lone individual to devote a serious amount of time to do so so unreasonable? What we're really trying to do here is come up with a way to deter casual griefing without removing the ability of groups of people to go to war with each other while not making people who build defenses feel that the defenses serve no purpose.

I think it's possible for us both to get some of what we want. Neither of us can have it wholly our own way without the other person feeling screwed over. But I do think it's possible to strike a balance between the two sides.

I think you are right. I was too selfish in my original suggestion in that it made playing your style more difficult. With multiple people able to destroy blocks more quickly and the addition of siege weapons, I could certainly be happy. I have started to think about setting up my own server and it has made me think more on this issue. I agree that minimal rules defined by the player are a good compromise, as with suitable enforcement mechanics, it would be easy for me to implement a system as I described earlier on my own server, but not have it ruin your game experience.

[antimattergizmo 41]

If only there was a way to only activate the block being destroyable if a certain number of people are doing the same in the area that aren't allowed to destroy said block normally. That way a one-man passer-by greifer would have effect on the block and would require either a band of raiders from the wild or a decent chunk of another town to actually make an impact. of course even with enough people to destroy the blocks the rate at which destroyed would still be slowed.

[cevkiv 156]

If only there was a way to only activate the block being destroyable if a certain number of people are doing the same in the area that aren't allowed to destroy said block normally. That way a one-man passer-by greifer would have effect on the block and would require either a band of raiders from the wild or a decent chunk of another town to actually make an impact. of course even with enough people to destroy the blocks the rate at which destroyed would still be slowed.

I don't follow you. Are you talking about a way to open protected chests without destroying them? That could be accomplished by adding a lockpick item whose use allows you to open doors or chests in the protected area.

[Deathbytac0 46]

No. The way I imagine it should work instead of each item having a fixed value, when someone sets up the shop for sale they would be able to choose what item they want and in what quantity in exchange for whatever it is they're selling.

This would enable the ability to compete for buyers, as if one town is selling leather for 1 silver coin (or 10 wheat, or 1 copper ore, or whatever), another town could compete with them for business by undercutting their price, either by requiring a lesser amount of coins (if there is a system of coinage), or by requiring less of the item that the other town is asking for. If my town is asking for 10 wheat for a piece of leather, your town could sell leather for 8 wheat. If my town is asking 1 gold coin and 3 silver coins for an ingot of silver, your town could sell the same item for 1 gold coin and 1 silver coin.

Wouldn't that make things harder for everybody else. From what I'm imagining you can code that easy, I'll try doing something like it in a bit after I get this TFC map viewer stuff done.

[Scooterdanny 285]

I mean, if we are going to use a system, cannot we use the default minecraft system, with a sign/chest? we could just slightly modify to interface.

[cevkiv 156]

I mean, if we are going to use a system, cannot we use the default minecraft system, with a sign/chest? we could just slightly modify to interface.

That's a bukkit plugin, or, at least, I've never seen a non-bukkit plugin implementation of it.

TFC doesn't run on Bukkit. It's a mod of vanilla minecraft. So any implementation of a chest protection system needs to be done inside of TFC. I think tiers of chests, with better locks as you go up the tiers, would be sufficient, provided there were tiers of lockpicks that could be used to bypass the locks.

[antimattergizmo 41]

I was talking about terrain blocks and not locked items (because I thought I may regret pulling that old trick out of the bag).

[bsb23 303]

I'm not a big fan of greifers and I'm not a big fan of block protections. If it were possible to stop both that would be great but there isn't. Number one there is no way to stop greifers period besides putting them in jail you can only slow them down and most people give the obvious first thought of don't touch my stuff. And if you can't stop them well then the server should. This is server reliance this is what we have been moving away from with the ideas of jails, multiple currencies, you-decide-governments and the general moving away from an external config file and into in-game options.

Another problem is the believability is it believable that some random guy on the road can not just randomly break through your window right now? No! There is no magic force stopping that from happening here irl and it wouldn't make sense for MAGIC (thats right I used a bad word) to do this for you. You should build strong defenses, you should live near other defensive areas and people (cities), and you want to avoid a high-crime area. That is how you avoid crime without magic.

What needs to happen to stop greifers? For starters we need to make it so they need to work to be able to do anything extra there is a possibility this may make them want to protect there own things rather than ruin others. Food should start low enough that if they take any detours from finding food, they will die. We need a tool to identify who has come in contact with or altered a block just a recent list should be fine. People should be able to be marked as an outlaw of that empire. If it were above their name tag that would be perfect. Now people can find the bad guys much more easily. If they run to another empire, well that happens and the outcome would depend most likely on political feelings. Even in other towns they should be marked as an outlaw of the blank empire but only if that information was shared with the empire the villain was hiding in. And then the obvious things jailing, locks, guards of some sort, and strong building material.