Sequel

[Heradite]

Seeing as how Paradox bothered buying Majesty (thanks Paradox...I was planning to buy the franchise and make an open-sourced sequel...) I am guessing they will make a sequel.

Things I think they should NOT change:

1. Unit control should remain AI. I liked Majesty and it's expansion pack so much because...well I didn't control a single unit. I didn't have to worry about my units AS much.

2. Bounty Flags: These should remain. They basically guide the hero to their wanted purpose.

3. RPG stats: Heroes should keep their levels, strength, and stuff.

Things I think they SHOULD change:

1. Enemy kingdoms EVEN IN SINGLEPLAYER: Maybe not all scenarios, but definably freeplay. I get bored sometimes having no opposing kingdom to challenge my rule and having no real goals once all monsters died in Freestyle mode.

2. Smarter Units/Monsters: I would love for my units to be smarter, for my warriors to be brave and not run away, and for my healers to follow and heal more. I wish some (not all) monsters, like Goblins, planned attacks instead of randomly attacking.

3. Citizens living their lives when not being henchmen: It would be cool to see your citizens live their lives and stuff. Maybe have heroes be off duty and we can see them leading their lives in buildings we make for that very purpose (or the buildings could be like houses...random pubs and stuff appearing as more families move in)

4. Mounted Units: I think mounted units could be fun. Maybe.

5. Constant updates: Yup, constant updates to add scenarios. And actually add more than 3...

6. Zooming: ...

This is of course if your planning to make it unto an RTS. If your planning to make it into an MMO (which I could so see happen....) I have other suggestions.

 

[unmerged(81288)]

No MMORPG please. The market is close to bubbling just like the collectible card game and dot-com industries were, and on top of that Majesty's setting would be considered too generic for the average player/consumer base.

On top of which, an actual MMORPG would effectively kill HoA.

 

[Alfryd]

Heradite: I don't disagree on any particular point. And I also found the zoom system a wee bit irritating.

No MMORPG please. The market is close to bubbling just like the collectible card game and dot-com industries were, and on top of that Majesty's setting would be considered too generic for the average player/consumer base.

You are probably correct, though I think an MMO where you direct a party of heroes with semi-autonomous AI (combined with the turn-spending mechanics of HOA,) would be both in-keeping with Majesty's premise and relatively novel.

 

[Spiderman]

Everyone seems to want enemy kingdoms, and it's not a bad thing to want it, but how exactly can it be implemented given the current framework? I mean, you can set up different enemy "sovereigns" who may build specific Temples (one goes Agrela/Dauros, another goes Krolm, another goes Krypta/Fervus), but are the build and order of the generic buildings always going to be the same? If the AI has limited gold, how does the recruitment and order/priority of heros work? How does the AI place reward flags/bounties on YOUR buildings/heros - how much and what buildings?

I think questions like that need to be answered satisfactorily before enemy kingdoms can become a reality.

 

[ShortStomp]

But didn't Cyberlore already answer those questions? I forget the name of the scenario (The Siege?), but there was one with an enemy palace, and the enemy heroes attacked your installations and heroes. Should be fairly easy to make that feature available in freestyle, and maybe have it crop up as a complication in most prefab scenarios.

It could also provide the story explaining why some scenarios have a deadline: if you fail to achieve goal x within 30 days, then the other kingdom will beat you to it, and the goal can only be achieved once (particularly where x = a specific person, unique building or artifact, or unique reward for destroying a boss). This would also let you create scenarios without a specific deadline, but still with the urgency to accomplish x before the other kingdom.

I like this idea.

 

[Alfryd]

But didn't Cyberlore already answer those questions? I forget the name of the scenario (The Siege?), but there was one with an enemy palace, and the enemy heroes attacked your installations and heroes. Should be fairly easy to make that feature available in freestyle, and maybe have it crop up as a complication in most prefab scenarios.

True, but Borjiin's kingdom in The Siege had the advantage of huge gold income to compensate for the fairly rudimentary AI of the computer opponent. He never used spells apart from Heal and Reanimate, and never replaced buildings or expanded his settlement and forces. I think Spidey's looking for a more pronounced challenge than that. I know I am.

Age of Empires had some reasonably challenging/competent AI opponents, in that they made more-or-less sane decisions using terrain analysis, etc. Predictability still tends to be their downfall. But a full discussion of improved AI would be needed to flesh out the proposal properly.

 

[ShortStomp]

As I said elsewhere, I take "Improved AI" as a given component of any Maj2, regardless. If that's not feasible, then you can always just use the same fudge -- in every case, the AI gets more gold than you do -- either by caravans, by starting with more gold AND a "Wall Street," or whatever. No, it won't be as tough or flexible as a good MP opponent, but it would still be a cool game feature.

 

[Grash]

No AI can play as good as a good player. Almost every game balances this by giving them something extra. The human has advantages such as being able to pause, being able to act random and being able to reason. But the computer only has the advantages of not having to move the mouse around and being able to calculate stuff easily. That is not enough. However, a decent AI can and WILL play better than most new players, and a good AI with a few "buffs" can be a challenge to even the best players. Although in Majesty, I can't think of much to help the AI. Obviously, they can have more gold. But other than that, there's not much they can do... Sure, they could be taught just how much reward is likely to set a hero going, or what your kingdom should look like so Trolls and Ratmen don't do much damage...but then the players will observe the AI and learn these too, catching up. In such a game, where the player does so little, I can't think of much to give to the AI other than gold; and that may not work out too well. I don't think what the experienced players want is a blundering fool of a sovereign sending hordes of heroes your way. That could be arranged by making stronger Goblins.

 

[unmerged(80041)]

The game could give all their heroes level 4 weapons and armor, all enchanted to +3, to begin with.

It would be very painful.

 

[Alfryd]

The human has advantages such as being able to pause, being able to act random and being able to reason.

Ah, but the machine player does not need time to react, can always avail of a random number generator, and can often evaluate things more rationally than a human player can.

I presume that teaching the AI to place buildings efficiently, react to a given blend of troops by the player with appropriate counters (cost allowing,) and reasonable system for juggling priorities, together with some quasi-random decision-making, would go a long way toward improving matters. The ultimate challenge, naturally, is an AI capable of long-term adaptive learning, but I am simply not even trying to think up a system to cover that unless I'm reasonably certain that Paradox is actually developing an RTS-type sequel, and might, conceivably take the idea seriously. Heck, there's no guarantee it's even practical in the first place.

 

[Spiderman]

No AI can play as good as a good player. Almost every game balances this by giving them something extra.

That's true but kinda hokey. I know in some games, Warlords definitely and perhaps Stronghold, there is "varying" levels of AI where the lower levels do more "random" and dumb things, while the highest AI "do the smartest". But again, it's hard to know what the "smartest" actions are in the first place. That's why I said, more likely than not, there'd probably be specific AIs who build towards specific paths of certain Temple/Guild combinations. But a general AI that is the "Master of All"? I don't think it's possible right now.

 

[unmerged(81288)]

A truly comprehensive AI capable of matching human opponents would require technology not available currently, not to mention a level of programming that would come dangerously close to sentience.

A game that can truly think like a human would stir up anything from ethical debates all the way to Terminator jokes.

 

[unmerged(80041)]

It was done for Chess...

 

[Alfryd]

I was planning to buy the franchise and make an open-sourced sequel...

Hey- that was my plan! Well, eventually.

It was done for Chess...

Well, yeah, but it took about 40 years.

 

[Spiderman]

Chess (and checkers, for which a perfect program apparently has also been developed) have "known" range of moves for each possible moves.

While that may be the case for Majesty, I think the number of possible of moves are even greater: what is my opponent (person) playing in turns of Guilds/Temples? What are the monsters, if any? What Temple/Guild build should I go for? Am I aggressive/defensive?

So yeah, I think computers will have to get more powerful to crunch all of that info in a reasonable amount of time.

Also, I think there have been strides in learning AI, but it would also need greater computer power for a game and a reasonable amount of response time.

 

[Grash]

I'd rather play a mediocre game than look at a good game that froze my computer.

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking doesn't sell computers.

 

[Heradite]

The AI would obviously have to be..better, but it will be smarter as you advance difficulty.

The AI will obviously have more gold, and will be able to start their heroes off stronger (like their level 1 Warrior can start with 50 strength while ours starts with 25) and their heroes level up faster.

AI also will take less time to build buildings and heroes.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

AI's...
If there is one thing I hate is it AI's that know everything (go for that good spot of gold half a map away even if it hadn't explored it's own camp) or outright cheat (Red Alert AI had 4 Baracks at a time spewing out units; no way a player could do that... :?)

But the reason the AI for the current Majesty quests (The Siege and Quest for the Ring) looks lacking is because they cannot build. They cannot upgrade. They are not trained to do *anything*. It shouldn't be too much of a hassle to make an AI that is fun to play Freestyle with. Sure it is not like a human; but a change from time to time is welcome. Specific settings could be set (it goes for Agrela/Dauros, Fervus/Krypta, Krolm, Dwarves/Elves/Gnomes) etc. Sure; it gets some boosts but with Majesty it prob. shouldn't be too much of a hassle to make an AI kingdom work seen unlike any other RTS. After all there they also have to guide their units, harvest resources etc. Here they; just like Humans; have to learn to build proper, train, flag and spellcast. The control of the units will be left over to the same AI human-heroes have. We know the Majesty AI can flag (Siege); cast spells (we just need to learn them to use more), train. So all that really needs most attention is the building grid (as the current one can't). And just teach it that it should place a marketplace infront of the palace, guardhouses near sewers if the rats can get near marketplaces, wizard's Guilds with cover etc.
Not saying I could do it (no programmer) but I think an AI-programmer has less hassle making a proper Majesty AI than one for the Regular RTS (not taking in account individual Hero-AI, just the "AI Majesty")

 

[unmerged(80041)]

I'm sure I could (if I had a way to do so) write a decent AI for Majesty.

 

[Grash]

Hear hear! In most games, I reveal the map with cheats, then watch as the enemy walks straight into my base. Then I play the same map without using that cheat, and the enemy takes the SAME time to come to me. Obviously the AI knows everything. That's blatant cheating.

Of course, it allows me to cheat with a free conscience, so I don't mind too much.