Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Majesty 3 -- with new game engine

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Alfryd said:
Well, for example, the idea of autonomous-personality-simulation, and traditional Role-playing-game-staples such as characters gaining experience and levels over time.
Click to expand...

They are no more elements of the RPG than they are elements of genres requesting them to achieve their purpose.

A game like Creatures has similar elements because the main direction of the game request those elements in order to deliver on the general project of the game.

They have no right to be tagged RPG elements as they can not be exclusive to the RPG genre.
 
Last edited:
HeroicSpur said:
Furthermore one of the best (and underutilised) elements of Majesty 1 was kingdom-kingdom conflict. While I would rather see more co-op than conflict, it was a good part of Maj1 which we didnt see much, except in the siege and quest for the ring or chalice (whichever it was).
Click to expand...

I just want to note that it's extremely difficult to make an intelligent AI control a kingdom under Majesty, which is why it was never included in MKFS or NE in freestyle. What determines build order? Heros recruited? Spells cast? When and which buildings to repair? As you can tell by The Siege or Quest for <whatever>, it's very easy to beat the AI with the limited script it has for those scenarios; for example, one of them depends on Caravans for its gold income so you can easily bankrupt it by killing the caravans and letting it use its gold on whatever it uses it on (I can't remember, but either replacing fallen heros or casting blessings/Wizard spells).

This is not to be confused with the inability to make an AI, but I'm just saying to make one that is challenging and worthwhile was out of its reach back then (and frankly, I believe now).
 
I agree, I doubt many developers would have the time, inclination or more importantly the skill to craft an intelligent AI, which I incidentally find a bit amusing in a game that really should be selling it's ai like it's the new sliced bread (alas it doesn't have any). But I agree, pragmatism prevails. But that doesn't mean you can't have co-op where you're working together. This doesn't even necessarily have to be 2 kingdoms - which might not make sense in some contexts. It might be that the main player/host rules the kingdom, while the co-op player controls a remote outpost, or some other similar arrangement. The enemies of course being the usual monster fare.

I've kept my comments about AI fairly limited, but there's a lot more to be said. I will not say it because it will depress me too much.
 
I read this whole thread and must say, it was extremely interesting. I agree with most things said by HeroicSpur and Alfryd. I also would like more intricate AI for the heroes, where Majesty 2 subtracted from that rather than added to it. More of a sim, less of an RPG, I agree with all that. There are elements of Majesty 2 I like, but they don't include the hero AI (particularly how heroes will do nothing on their own, and will not defend the palace when it's attacked, even when you place a reward flag on it sometimes), the constant stream of monsters as compared to the first game, the small maps, and the lack of an option akin to the freestyle of the first game. Rather, they included the option to create parties (although I also like HeroicSpur's suggestion to leave it up to heroes - or perhaps heroes may decide to band up, but the sovereign can also enforce it, although I'm not sure. I'm rather a fan of zero-player games - they appear to be way too rare - and I don't mind giving up even more control than was already given up for Majesty as compared to regular RTS games), hero class progressions, tougher 'bosses', more hero abilities... and henchmen running from danger (to some extent).

Also ChienAboyeur, in response to your last message here... I don't think those elements need to be exclusive to RPGs to give them the right of being tagged RPG elements, as you put it. They are very typical of RPGs, not so much of other games, although those might - it is true - also use them sometimes. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about Majesty, essentially a sim (or maybe an RTS in the case of the second game), making use of those elements. And even if you don't accept that, then you might still accept at least that that must be what Alfryd meant. After all, Alfryd also called Majesty 1 a sim and Majesty 2 an RTS, while still talking about RPG elements.
 
Alfryd said:
This may sound hypocritical, but I'm actually not averse to the notion of having a couple of troops that I could issue direct 'assignments' to as a form of 'city watch/militia', subject to some heavy caveats (i.e, 'loyal' means neither 'suicidal' nor 'not paid a regular salary'.) Being able to assign guardsmen/labourers/tax collectors (and possibly adepts/solarii) to particular gatehouses or set default patrol routes seems relatively harmless... but of course from there it's a small step to "assigning patrol routes" straight through the walls of an enemy city.
Click to expand...
That's easy enough to prevent - they refuse to accept patrol routes that take them too far from their base (of from the settlement itself). If there's an enemy structure within their patrol range, that was your opponent's choice to put it there.

A possible way of doing siege engines, incidentally, could be to have a building that serves as a home for the siege engine. While the siege engine is at home, it behaves as a defensive emplacement. Putting a siege flag on a structure, however, causes the siege engine to make its way to within range of the structure and open fire on it.

How many of your total siege engines respond to a siege flag would depend on the value of the flag and the distance - essentially, the money on the flag is representing paying someone to haul the engine out there. Don't pay enough and the siege engines don't move. Put enough up and you might get multiple engines mobilising.
 
I personally like M2.

Now some poeple would like more control, others less. There has to be a nice balance - after all, ti IS a game, and player should interact and influence things.

What I would personally like to see in Majesty 3?

- Less hero spamming. it feels like that's the primary way to beat boss monsters and clear a map. When you send 30 heroes after a boss (with cheating, so they all have excellent items) and half of them die..something is not right. Regular soldiers and guards should take the brunt of the simpler work - heros should be rarer. Having 2-3 hero parties should be quite a lot!

- better guards/army If I'm a sovereing, I SHOULD be able to have at least a small army or competent guards. And some more control of them. Heroes are freelancers, but guards/soldiers are not. How I see it is simple. you have your guards - who do what guards normally do. You build a barracks and have soldiers - you buy them just as heroes, and you can control them more directly. However, they are weaker than heroes. Then you have heroes.

- Bigger parties 5 to 6 heroes per party pls. Also, ability to call in more lords than just 3.


- more hero customization Indirect one. As a king, an option to gift weapons/armor to a hero would be nice. The bigger selection of gear, the more can one tailor the look of a hero. I hate the hammers paladins use at higher levels. I actually hate quite a few of the unit changes. Would be nice if I could gift (for a hefy price of course) my chosen heros weapons and armor after my own taste.. Like a nice looking sword. Or maybe even a two-hander? Why not? Who sez paladins only come in hammer+shield variety? And why couldn't a blademaster carry a shield?
Models already have different weapons and armor parts...so allowing us to customize it a bit more...YES PLASE! Some would say that too much RPG elements. Humbug. There's no such thing s enough RPG elements...especially when they're optional.

- more individuality to heros that's a good point. A bit more would be nice..plus a refined AI. Rouges should sneak around and backstab, not run head first into the enemy with attacks that deal damage in a cone. If it's a SIM, heroes should have a bit more life on their own.
 
Last edited:
I recall there was an earlier thread over on the Warlock forums where Fredrick said that there were unofficial plans for a Majesty 3... but whether work has actually started, or will ever start, and whether we would actually hear about it if it had, and whether this would be grounds for optimism or, for example, cringing dread, are all pretty open questions.
 
Same as Salvattic. Great thread BTW:

I am personaly fond of two ideas there: Heroes creating parties of henchmens.
Maybe noone connected it together, but this is basically THE thing how to do the wars and how to make use of siege engines. Siege engine would be basically henchmen.
And the henchmen into hero is also nice thing.

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.
 
Why doesnt someone make an opensource version?
People can add their own heroes, mechanics, maps, perhaps even kingdom sets (like human and monster kingdom).
If only....
 
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.

So, I mean, I can sympathise with your efforts, but I feel Maj2, by itself, just isn't enough of a foundation to build on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back