• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Imagine war as: You set target (as war targets, something like in Victoria 2, war aims), you chose general and give him sum of money. He would than hire number of henchmens, siege engines, better weapons from heroes-blacksmiths, and heroes too. The army than could go on campaing.
This might actually tie into the suggestion I made in another thread that you could combine setting bounties and forming parties into a single mechanic, by declaring Quests on which interested heroes could embark. It would let you screen applicants, negotiate individual payoffs, and provide a well-defined reason for heroes to work together. (As opposed to the problems you'd see with party-formation in Maj2, where heroes form cliques solely at the player's behest and then amble off on shopping expeditions until you tell them otherwise.)

So, yeah- one can easily imagine a 'War' flag where you have the option to attach a regiment of footsoldiers or a pair of dwarven field ballistas, and the heroes serves as lieutenants. Or maybe the Barracks building could be an add-on for the Warrior's Guild, and the Call to Arms function would serve a similar function.
 
Well, we noticed, it's just that... well... even among the folks who played it, not many people are hugely enthusiastic about Maj2. It's not a cult classic like Majesty was, able to inspire fervent loyalty despite modest sales (and a number of serious flaws in the mechanics and content-balancing.) Maj2 gave us a reasonable RTS, an uninspiring fantasy setting, and an exhasperating excuse for a simulation.
You're absolutely right about that. There are vast numbers of RTS games out there already for people who like that sort of thing. There are no other games out there like Majesty 1. That's why Majesty 2 was so disappointing. It's not that it was a bad game in itself; it was a decent enough RTS game. But what I wanted, and what a lot of other Majesty 1 players wanted, was an improved version of what Majesty 1 was, and that's because this is likely the only opportunity there is to get that kind of game.

I didn't buy Majesty 2. I actually felt it was my duty not to buy it, considering how it missed the point. But I'm quite ready to buy Majesty 3 if it goes back to the roots of the series. I fear it will fall into the same trap as Majesty 2, however. The decision will be made by saying, "There's a big market out there for RTS games," and it will turn into just another RTS game again. If I wanted that I'd go play Starcraft 2 or something.
 
M2 had some fundamental flaws that prevented longevity.

1. broken multiplayer.
2. little replayability. No real player-simulating AI.
3. poor design of game mechanics
4. not enough support for modders. Altho Ino-Co and Paradox went out of their way to help our team, and we are very grateful for their openness and support, the game was fundamentally limited in ability to provide a complex sandbox to toy with. Most people found the level editor overwhelmingly difficult, even after the manual.
 
So what do you suggest? Make FreeMajestySim?
This might be something of a departure, but after making a related post on the Warlock forums, I'm beginning to think that a game in the same mold as Paradox's line of historical grand-strategy titles might actually be the best way to revive the franchise.

There are a number of suggested gameplay additions in this thread (hero life-cycles and migration, sandbox campaigning, inter-kingdom relations) that are actually more at home within the 'big picture' approach of a game like Crusader Kings, than they are on the smaller maps and timescales of an RTS match. And the idea of free-willed adventurers roaming the land that you need to coax into service by indirect methods could work just as well within that scope.

Due to the higher level of abstraction, the demands in terms of art-content (models, voicelines, animations, textures, etc.) could also be much more modest, which would make fan-led development more viable (you might just be able to recycle assets from Maj1, as Heroes of Ardania did.)

I'm not saying Majesty fans, by ourselves, could actually make a game with the same complexity and polish as CK, but it's conceivable that we could put together a basic 'demo application' to showcase the concept. And then, if Paradox like the idea, they could run with it. (They certainly have the experience, and according to Fredrick, they originally bought the franchise because folks in the office thought the original was pretty sweet.)

In marketing or sales terms, a Majesty title might work as a sort of child-friendly introduction to Paradox's other games, with milder complexity and an (at least superficially) lighter tone. So, there are theoretical options here. Might be a good idea to talk to some of the folks at the company first, though.
 
I think they actually make money with the no-animated ipad version, so they dont need develop other majesty3.
In addition, multiplayers on majesty 2 is just shut down now, and its really a shame. maybe too much money for buy a server? many players always paid for play this game with friends, on steam or with the other "gold package". But they cant play lol , they are just fucked off.
 
concerning make a new game by ourselves its a very good idea , if good programmers fan can make a kickstarter its maybe possible. i'm so hungry and frustated that i cant play this game on multiplayer , you know...
 
Yeah. Coop seems like way to go now. But the tech-tree has to be realy structualized tech tree so that it would realy have effect. With players specializing on given branches of tech tree to combine different effect. With affilation of heroes and affilation to gods (heroes affilation to gods and player affilation), this could be prety good as basic warior could get some improvements based on his affilation and temple build for god he belief in (or what is that word, because in ardania, you are shure about existence of those gods).
 
I think they actually make money with the no-animated ipad version, so they dont need develop other majesty3.
I really want to play Majesty Mobile at some point, if only for comparison, but yeah- that could be a promising way to go. As I understand it, MajMobile has pretty limited content though (only 3 temples, for instance,) so I doubt it's expanded on the original's gameplay much.

As I understand it, implementing multiplayer isn't all that difficult in a technical sense, as long as you don't expect fancy cheat-prevention measures or online match-making. The gameplay mechanics are, of course, an entirely different question...

A kickstarter might work for funding purposes, but you'd very likely need to have a demo first. I'm also not sure how, or if, licensing the IP would work there.
 
Last edited:
Is the engine any good? I tried to read a bit on the internet and the oponions wasn't any good.

I have no idea where you read that, there are hardly any games made on it because its brand new (2010) and its not as open as UDK or Unity. And yes, the engine is very powerful, and very RTS oriented.
 
As I understand it, implementing multiplayer isn't all that difficult in a technical sense, as long as you don't expect fancy cheat-prevention measures or online match-making. The gameplay mechanics are, of course, an entirely different question...

Try implementing at least a simple chat server with UDP with a server and a client lobby, and you'll see how hard it is. Add package encryption/decryption, threading and hundreds of checks and syncs for a RTS game... No, start with the chat server first :)))
 
Hapuga: As GEM3 is extension of GEM2 and not completly different engine that don't share any common components with previous GEM engines, one can take some examples from GEM2 and GEM2.5 games.
 
Try implementing at least a simple chat server with UDP with a server and a client lobby, and you'll see how hard it is. Add package encryption/decryption, threading and hundreds of checks and syncs for a RTS game... No, start with the chat server first :)))
...Well, I make multi-threaded client-server mobile apps for a living, so maybe 'not all that difficult' is relative.
 
GEM 2.5 is a good enough platform for a game like Majesty. The flaws that were in the game are not related to engine functionality, they are related to crappy implementation. One thing that the GEM editor lacks in my opinion is the support for variables.
 
GEM 2.5 is a good enough platform for a game like Majesty. The flaws that were in the game are not related to engine functionality, they are related to crappy implementation. One thing that the GEM editor lacks in my opinion is the support for variables.
I would mention that one of the major complaints made about Maj2 was the lack of dynamically-generated 'freestyle' maps, which I don't think the engine has built-in support for (in the sense of fractal terrain generation.) (Though, interestingly, the engine does support a number of AI features conspicuously missing from Maj2.)