Pub Poll: Quests & Awards (+)

[unmerged(2005)]

Originally posted by Keynes
I dont care much for the word "quest" - it gives kind of an RPG-ish feel to the game. Perhaps something like "challenge" although the meaning isnt quite right.

I totally agree. "Quest" just doesn't sound right. For the lack of a better word "public offer", "universal proposal" or whatever. (Surely somebody can come up with something appropriate).

As for CK, I hope it won't be too easy. At some points, I have the feeling that the human player will have too easy a time to exploit certain mechanisms. For instance, I hope inheriting won't become too easy. I really like the idea of high prestige etc requisites to be able to marry into a dynasty etc. It should be a long way up the feudal ladder...

As for these "quests", I think you should also be able to coerce people a bit in doing suchandsuch. "Give me your daughter or..." kind of thing.

BTW, will there be any pictures for characters in the game. That would very much help keeping them apart and remembering who's who. Have several faces, hair pieces, garments etc to choose from and make it look like an old (late) medieval portrait.

 

[Eochaid]

I'm not quite sure how Snowball could simulate the Black Knight and the Knights of Ni. And besides Camelot Sucks. King Arthur said so himself.

Still, lookoing foir relics (bones/Grail/True Cross) could be a good idea. You would have to hire people to try to find it and wait for a long time hoping they will succeed. Or maybe from time to time could a "True Cross" event pop-up, allowing the players to join the auction. At the time Kings spent thousands to buy relics.

Even if it only was forgery, owning such precious artefacts was a source of Prestige and Piety as long as you got peopte to actually believe it's authentic.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Eochaid
r said so himself.

Still, lookoing foir relics (bones/Grail/True Cross) could be a good idea. You would have to hire people to try to find it and wait for a long time hoping they will succeed. Or maybe from time to time could a "True Cross" event pop-up, allowing the players to join the auction. At the time Kings spent thousands to buy relics.

But it could be so open to abuse! I might be able to "find" a piece of the True Cross every few months or so.

 

[Eochaid]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy


But it could be so open to abuse! I might be able to "find" a piece of the True Cross every few months or so.

Of course not. Snowball can code an event that happens only once (or twice if they accept the idea of forgeries) in the game. And the True Cross could be something you capture during a war, or buy afterwards.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy


But it could be so open to abuse! I might be able to "find" a piece of the True Cross every few months or so.

Kind of realistic, no?

 

[Cat Lord]

Originally posted by sergei
Both Transactions and Unions start with one party making an Offer. Shall the Offer be addressed to a particular Ruler, it is a Proposal. Shall the offer be addressed to "whoever is brave", it is a Quest. Once the Quest is Accepted by a Ruler, it becomes either a Transaction or Agreement.

Sounds find to me and the word Quest seems appropriate.

Originally posted by sergei
What are the subjects of quest? Examples? At the moment we can play with

a) money
b) prestige
c) imprisoned characters (ransom ideas)
d) engagement/marriage to a certain (prized?) party
e) what else?

Delivering some land from some foes comes immediately to mind.

Getting two parties to come to peace sounds also good, but may be difficult to implement.

Originally posted by sergei
and whether such Quest should be constructed like a Proposal (i.e. 'I will marry my daughter to the one who gives my dynasty 1000 of Prestige' -> your Ruler accepts this and it becomes binding for him to deliver by certain point) or Award (i.e. you are able to Accept only when you can complete the terms immediately).

Thoughts? Ideas? [/B]

What comes to mind immediately again is that a Quest should have a deadline (before a certain date), and someone accepting the quest and not fulfilling it should lose prestige at least. Proposal sounds definitely better than Award, but it is the same: As soon as you decide to take it you have to progress to achieve it. The idea of losing in failing only work with Proposal type though. Otherwise, people will only pick-up an Award if it is reachable (i.e. they already fulfil the conditions or are not far away).

There should be a mechanism so that "dummy" quest (i.e. altoghether already "done" by someone who just has to claim the prize) should not appear.

Otherwise there is a serious flaw in the system: The most powerful/prestigious/rich country will accept all the Quests appearing, becoming even more powerful/prestigious/rich, making it even more easy to achieve a future Quest, etc, etc...

This could be balanced by having a level of fulfillment depending of the actual power/prestigious/wealth of the pretender. Then Quest would be like: "You have to double your Piety, double your wealth, etc" instead of "Reaching X points of piety, or Y amount of gold..."

Cat

 

[Eochaid]

This could be balanced by having a level of fulfillment depending of the actual power/prestigious/wealth of the pretender. Then Quest would be like: "You have to double your Piety, double your wealth, etc" instead of "Reaching X points of piety, or Y amount of gold..."

That really is a good idea! Like for example having 5 levels of difficulty, and depending on your wealth/piety/prestige, one could only pick quests from the corresponding level:

1. Dead Easy: "Get married, have children"
2. Easy: "Attack weak neighbour X and make him your vassal"
3. Average: "Convert pagans in province X"
4. Hard: "Get pretender X elected pope or Emperor"
5: Heroic: "Find the Grail"

 

[unmerged(485)]

Here's another quest which would always fail (kinda like some of those in EU II i.e. getting a RM with the Knights) - the search for Prester John.

 

[Drakken]

From what I understand :

- "Offers" are made toward a particular ruler.
- "Quests" are proposed to any interested ruler.

1)The debate about the "quest" word remains rather rhetorical, but I don't like it either. It doesn't sound right in the Middle Ages. Another term should be used. For example, by a dichotomy private offer/public offer could be made.

"Private offers" are for restrained negociations. Thus the results can be negociated between two or more princes. Thus the price for a no deal should not be quite heavy. A certain loss should of course be presence, from a simple loss of prestige to a escalade toward war, but this loss should not be instantaneous. Rather the effects should be stirred in time...

"Public offers" are closed propositions. We want x, give us x, you'll get y. Although the price and the reward are strongly delimited, rulers shouldn't necessarily run to fulfill quests. You should have a certain prestige and wealth both to propose and to fullfill a level of quest. Quests cost money to organize. Furthermore, quests should NOT be the main event. It should be parallel to the game, as helpful or painful it can be for a questing or a proposing ruler. Also, The cost to fail a quest should be instantaneous and heavy, with both a big loss of confidence, of trust and any other painful event, even the most dangerous idea to get eventually rid of you, since you have been proven useless and incapable. Finally, even if the other succeeds his quest, the proposing ruler should have all his options remaining open, even to refuse, or to get rid of the successful quester at the extreme. A ruler should never be forced to fulfill his promise, especially in the Middle Ages.

The mains points are that AI princes should be able to evaluate if the costs outrank the benefices first, and if the proposing ruler will accept to reward a success in second.

And of course, NPC non-ruler should be able to accept quests as well.

 

[Winkelried]

Originally posted by Drakken

1)The debate about the "quest" word remains rather rhetorical, but I don't like it either. It doesn't sound right in the Middle Ages. Another term should be used. For example, by a dichotomy private offer/public offer could be made.

I think task, errand or even challenge are better words than quest. Maybe: errand=easy, task=medium, challenge=hard you could even add feat (of wonder)for nearly impossible ones.

Also, The cost to fail a quest should be instantaneous and heavy, with both a big loss of confidence, of trust and any other painful event, even the most dangerous idea to get eventually rid of you, since you have been proven useless and incapable.

Completely agree. Thus not fulfilling an easy quest like "smoke out a known nest of highwaymen" should result in a more severe loss of piety/prestige than and hard one like "find the holy grail". I mean no one will consider you incompetent if you don't succeed in doing someting exceptional. They would rather think "another one who tried and failed" resulting in a smaller loss of prestige/piety.

Finally, even if the other succeeds his quest, the proposing ruler should have all his options remaining open, even to refuse, or to get rid of the successful quester at the extreme. A ruler should never be forced to fulfill his promise, especially in the Middle Ages.

The mains points are that AI princes should be able to evaluate if the costs outrank the benefices first, and if the proposing ruler will accept to reward a success in second.

And of course, NPC non-ruler should be able to accept quests as well.

Agree. The AI should be able to evaluate the results of a succeeded quest and also the repercussions of not giving the reward that is expected from him.

 

[Damocles]

Ah yes, one of the Medieval monarchs most favorite past times was mediating the disputes of others.

I think when it comes to filching various religious artifacts from the Levantine however, the Italian city states were in their element...

 

[Alexandre]

Originally posted by Eochaid


That really is a good idea! Like for example having 5 levels of difficulty, and depending on your wealth/piety/prestige, one could only pick quests from the corresponding level:

1. Dead Easy: "Get married, have children"
2. Easy: "Attack weak neighbour X and make him your vassal"
3. Average: "Convert pagans in province X"
4. Hard: "Get pretender X elected pope or Emperor"
5: Heroic: "Find the Grail"

I'd allow a player to choose from each level, but a great prince is just not going to get much piety and perhaps even lose prestige, for taking a *very* quest. Conversely, a minor noble who succeeds at something heroic should get a greatly enhanced amount of prestige and peity.

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(436)]

Can you set limits on who can reply to a proposal or quest?

For example a king may only want to make a proposal to his own nobles,

- whichever noble defeats the heretics in X will be made a Y (count/ duke / etc) OR given Z land OR given ...

or to nobles of a neighbouring kingdom

- to the nobles of england... cast of your tyrant king and rebel. In return I will offer you ... troops/ money/declare war/marraige/land/claim/title and I only ask of you ... nothing / money / recognition of claim / terrritory / support

I would have thought that a major proposal or request would be to attempt to gain a cassi belli against another family / ruler.

Paul.