two basic ideas for Majesty 2

[unmerged(97027)]

How did Majesty appeal to people? Why was it fun to play? I think there are two basic aspects of Majesty: 1. Nurturing your heroes and seeing them grow and become powerful. 2. Interacting with a living world.

Really to improve Majesty means to improve upon this two basic aspects. How could this be done?


1. Nurturing heroes

The easiest way to add more fun to this aspect would be to allow the player to take his heroes with him to the next mission. The players will be more motivated to take good care of their heroes if they don´t get lost at the end of the mission. To implement such a feature, I recommend a "hero pool" that works as follows:

• There are 8 heroes of every available kind in the pool. They are randomly generated at the start of a new campaign, with unique names and, preferably, some distinctive visual features (size, face, colour of hair, etc.).
• After building a guild, you don´t recruit heroes. Instead, heroes from your hero pool will join the guild after some time (maybe depending on how much your town meets their needs).
• If a hero is killed and not revived within the mission, he is revived after the mission. After his grave has vanished from the map, another hero from the hero pool will replace him, so all your guilds will stay full.
• If there are no more heroes in the hero pool, additional heroes will be randomly created. After the mission, the eight strongest heroes of every kind will be saved in the hero pool, the others get deleted.
• After each mission, the average strength of your heroes is calculated. More missions on the big map are unlocked if you reach certain values (you don´t have to finish certain missions to unlock others).

Those are just some basics. Of course the hero pool would allow other interesting features, like special weapons or armor that can only be found in certain maps (maybe even optional treasure-hunting maps). There could also be elderly hermits who are masters of various trades and teach special skills to heroes who visit them in their secluded hideouts.


2. Living world

The world becomes alive if there are lots of thing happening without the player doing anything to start them.

• You should sometimes (only sometimes!!) see a wild animal roaming the lands.
• You should see some townsfolk wandering around your town, visiting the marketplace or the tavern.
• Sometimes, two heroes should have a chat (e.g. standing together and gesture).
• Heroes should have some "idle animations", like a ranger taking a nap beneath a tree, or a warrior sitting on a stone and sharpening his sword.

 

[unmerged(60143)]

The nurturing of heroes part will probably be given enough resources, but I agree on the living world. It needs a lot of sound effects from nature, perhaps a day/night cycle and heroes doing other things than killing monsters to create the right atmosphere.

It would be kind of cool if the the heroes were randomly assigned different 'inclinations' that would make them ...inclined to do things more or less often or change their behavior a bit, which in turn would earn them their suffix. A ranger who constantly takes naps under trees would earn him 'Harold the tired/sleepy/treenapper/bum' etc.

 

[Draxynnic]

Well, the first would only really be applicable to the single-player campaign... you wouldn't want someone showing up to a mutiplayer game with a bunch of level 100 heroes.

It also impacts on the rest of the economic model (why upgrade a blacksmith if every hero has had gold weapons since your fifth game?) as well as threatening the possibility of making earlier games unplayable because your hero pool has reached too high a level for them.

I think it would make an interesting change to have one or two heroes crop up from previous missions (either explicitly, or a secret "highest-level hero transfers" or "highest-level-hero-of-class-X transfers" deal) without making it a common occurance.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

I agree with the first ofcourse, since I suggested something similar myself some time ago:

LEGENDARY HEROES.
(nothing to do with the quest)
What is the main reason why people don't associate much with their heroes? The fact that they lose them anyways when the quest is over. Why can't we carry them over? Because then there could be very overpowered heroes in games. The following then is also for SP; even if it tries to minimalise the overpowering. After succesfully completing each quest you are allowed to pick one of the heroes to become "legendary". This means they will become in a list (maxed to say 50 heroes). Now the lvl 4 palace has a Legendary Heroes' Guild building. Once you have it you can summon these heroes to your kingdom. Everything they do during that quest gets saved in the end aswell (when you pick yet another. Unless the 50 are reached; then you either pick no new, or have an existing legendary replaced). If there are possible events like level and itemloss in the game they would never be too overpowered this way either (especially if the chance increases with the heroes power). Some of the quests could be limited to these heroes only. Like a "Vigil for a Fallen Hero" but then with x heroes you all picked yourself for the job. And will be resurectable etc. (heavy monsters needed ofcourse ).

Definitely like the second suggestion, and seeing as the Giant in the Movie is sleeping it might be in...

 

[unmerged(79778)]

While carrying over heroes mission to mission would be nice, I don't see how you do this without making the game way to easy to beat. After only a couple missions these heroes would be an incredibly high level and would crush any opposition. So the solution is to reset the heroes to low levels at the beginning of each quest, at which point who cares about carry over, or design the heroes so they don't level up which would ruin the game play of majesty.

Also if you are going to do this heroes who die should stay dead. If they are just brought back for you there is really no challenge and no penalty for failure.

 

[unmerged(79717)]

Kind of echoing what housefish is saying...
If you allow players to transfer heroes between quests (and it's not even clear at this point if M2 will even have quests in the Majesty sense of the word) there needs to be a equally compelling reason not to carry over your old heroes. As someone else said in another post, perhaps the more you carry forward to a new area the greater the chance the old quest area will collapse to evil influences and you have to reconquer it.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Personally I am in flavour of, the higher leveled the hero is, the more likely it is that a lair/chest/etc. drop is negative than positive.
Negative effects could include (but are not limited to) weapon/armor disintegration, leveldraining, maxHP loss, death, perm. statdamage and other fun stuff
In my own suggestion their power was limited because it would take alot of time before they get into the game (so only help the endgame) but we could always have it that powerfull heroes atract more powerfull foes aswell (somewhat like the Spires of Death principle, based on hero power, and with enemies coming from the side of the map/all lairs)

 

[unmerged(97027)]

@dynamix: Of course the hero pool would be used in multiplayer, too. It´s too cemplex a feature to create it just for half the game. The average level of your heros would be shown, and there would be an option to set the max. allowed difference. You´d also be able to use various randomly created hero-pools.

@Hassat Hunter: Sorry, I didn´t see your post. I think, though, that the whole persistent hero thing will be to much work to implement to make up only a small element of the game. I think Paradox will either make it a major gameplay element or don´t use such a system at all.

@housefisch: That´s just a matter of game balance. As I said, the alter quest will be unlocked if your heros reach a certain average level, and of course those quest will be more difficult, so you really need those stronger heros.

About heros staying dead: That would just lead to frustration and thus reduce the fun, since it´s most often not the players fault if a hero dies, but the AIs. Would you like to watch the lvl12 Ranger you´ve nurtured since your very first mission die because he´s just too stupid to run away from an superior opponent?
It would also break the quest-unlocking system, because if heros stay dead it´d be easily possible to finish all starter quests without getting a hero pool thats strong enough to unlock the next levels.

There should of course be a penalty for death, but I´d rather prefer a loss of XP, and resurrection taking more time.

 

[unmerged(60143)]

Honestly, not having permanent death would seriously reduce the fun. The whole heropool thing doesn't seem to steer Majesty in a direction I'd like... Letting a couple of heroes carry over to a succeeding mission in some exclusive scenarios might be fun but it becomes a whole new game with what you're suggesting. Wasn't this done in a game called Warlords Battlecry?

I'd rather see death as a part of the game, and when a hero manage to reach really high levels, mostly by luck and some nurturing, they should be rewarded with some powerful skills and perhaps an entry in the "Hero Hall of Fame", and that's it.

 

[unmerged(79717)]

"Hero Hall of Fame"?
Hold on a second.. are we talking about M2 or HoA now?

If you want to 'carry over' heroes to a new area there has to be some sort of drawback or risk in doing so.

First off, for game balance sake, I'd say it's a bad idea to even have the option of taking your highest level hero.
Let's (reasonably) say, if you move to a new area, the highest level hero becomes viceroy of the old area and attempting to remove the viceroy causes an automatic collapse of the old area (i.e. you have to go back and retake that area).
Now, excluding the viceroy, the levels of all the other recruited heroes are tallied and each hero removed causes a increasing chance of area collapse (based on level).
For example, if I conquered an area with a 12th level warrior, a 7th level ranger, a 5th level rogue, a 9th level wizard, and two 3rd level gnomes, left alive at the end, my highest level hero (the warrior) becomes the viceroy. The levels of the remain heroes tally to (7+5+9+3+3=27). If I decide to take the wizard with me to the new area, the old area has a 9/27=33% chance of collapsing. If it was a easy area to conquer (and I faced a difficult challenge ahead I might take that risk. If I wanted to be more conservative because the old area was difficult to take (everyone died except for 6 heroes) I might just take a 3rd level gnome to help with construction. In that case I have just a (3/27=11%) chance of disaster befalling the old area. If I barely managed to survive after 3 attempts I might want to "play it safe" and not take anyone.

Now, I'm NOT suggesting this should be the actual system, rather it's just an example of how, conceptually, removing old heroes to a new area might be a proposition involving some risk. Otherwise after you initial area there is little need to recruit new heroes and certainly little worry about being challenged by monsters (unless you make each new area exponentially harder).

 

[Draxynnic]

One problem with calculating such things by level is that some heroes, at least in Majesty, have much steeper level/power curves than others. Wizards, for instance, gain power pretty darn rapidly with levels, so even a level 3 wizard with the Library spell at that level can be a pretty significant augmentation to your forces on a new map... and a fully kitted out level 7 wizard is pretty much God against non-magic-resistant enemies. On the other hand, a player may never be tempted to pull a temple or guild full of level 20-odd Healers, Cultists, Rogues, Gnomes or maybe even Rangers out of their region - while they're all useful to have, some of them have less than half the oomph per level that a Solari or Paladin might provide, so the temptation would be to strip out the heroes with a high impact while leaving the support troops. (And in my experience those support troops can get to pretty impressive levels sometimes.)

A better system would be to make an actual estimate of how powerful each hero is at each level. One such equation could be to multiply a factor (dependant on the hero) by the level of the hero, adding set factors for the abilities and equipment the hero has (some of them do represent significant jumps, after all, especially for Wizards). The system doesn't need to be a perfect analysis of how powerful a hero is, and could even be deliberately unbalanced according to how willing to travel a given hero is, but it would probably be better than simply basing it on level alone... unless, of course, the heroes are balanced so that level really is a good indication of power regardless of class.

Addendum: Come to think on it, something similar could be put in place for the Mausoleum (or any building with a similar function and mechanic). A level 7 gnome clearly isn't as important as a level 7 wizard, after all...

 

[Hassat Hunter]

All very valid points.
And since we know have confirmation cross-over is in the game, it is time to open the speculationbox of the implentation...

One point I always favoured was; you need some building forces (dwarves, gnomes) if you travel out for a new settlement (not all maps should start with a base planted). So atleast you get some of them aswell with you.
Also if there are more maps like "Vigil for a Fallen Hero" (which I personally liked alot), but now with your own heroes exported from other quests, it wouldn't be wise to only take with you a few powerhouses. You really need some exploration troops, and other support units.

Combining my own idea and Dumble Dwarfs one you could potentially have a stock of heroes on each completed map. Then when loading such a map that needs heroes (and only then) do you seek out help from the heroes of the old maps. The more you add the easier that quest becomes, but the less "stable" the old area. So it wouldn't be possible for each new quest, just the ones that ask for it.
(then again; I still prefer my own idea I quoted before above this; but don't we all prefer our own ideas in the end anyways , we just need to compromise to make everybody happy )

 

[Draxynnic]

Well, rangers should be the easiest and safest to move - it's not like they spend much time in a fully explored and pacified settlement anyway...

 

[unmerged(97027)]

Honestly, not having permanent death would seriously reduce the fun.

What is the reason for this assumption?

First off, for game balance sake, I'd say it's a bad idea to even have the option of taking your highest level hero.
Let's (reasonably) say, if you move to a new area, the highest level hero becomes viceroy of the old area and attempting to remove the viceroy causes an automatic collapse of the old area (i.e. you have to go back and retake that area).

I doubt many players would like a system that makes them lose their best heros.

One problem with calculating such things by level is that some heroes, at least in Majesty, have much steeper level/power curves than others.

That´s true, it is a weakness of Majesties game balance, that would have to be fixed for my system to work.

One point I always favoured was; you need some building forces (dwarves, gnomes) if you travel out for a new settlement (not all maps should start with a base planted). So atleast you get some of them aswell with you.

What is the advantage in that system? Do you want the player to decide for himself which buildings to start with? In Majesty, it was always a challenge to use the buildings you got to your advantage, and it prevented players from just using the same setup over and over again.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, sometimes it just doesn't make sense for a quest to start with a fully fledged Palace already in place. It would be (IMO) more appropriate to start with naught but the heroes selected, and then let them build up an outpost, from which you start your operation.

Ofcourse we could just aswell start such quests with an outpost in place, but it was also a little bit of a push in the back of players to bring in Gnomes/Dwarves etc. as the "outpost" would feature few (or none?) peasants for construction.

Just another interesting way to start off a quest, nothing vital.

 

[unmerged(97027)]

Well, sometimes it just doesn't make sense for a quest to start with a fully fledged Palace already in place. It would be (IMO) more appropriate to start with naught but the heroes selected, and then let them build up an outpost, from which you start your operation.

I understand there are good "logical" reasons for that idea, I´m just trying to figure out how it would integrate into the gameplay. I think to implement your idea would be a lot of work for the devs, and it would make the game more complicated for players (at least it´s one more feature to learn to use).

Now, what are the advantages? It would add a little extra challenge for the players, but basically it´d just mean you have to wait longer before you can start expanding your town - the samme effect can be achieved with less effort if you just give the player little or no money at the beginning of a mission. It would also add to the atmosphere, because a mission where you have no town would presumably feel more like an "invasion into the wilderness" or something like that.

If I add everything up, I don´t think this would be a useful feature, since it doesn´t make up for the effort to create it.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Have you ever played a Command & Conquer game?
It is pretty much similar to starting with a MCV (or Dwarf/Gnome) instead of a full-fledged base.

It could make for an interesting MP-game (besides Palace Standing, Deathmatch etc.), where you could select up to X heroes from your SP-pool and that's what you get for the quest. Money you get from income tax once your heroes slayed some foes, and return home to the "outpost". Then the real start could begin.

I don't think it takes *that* much effort to properly create it (if it does, don't do it folks!), but yes, it is just a little unneccessary (but fun) extra for some quests/MP.

 

[unmerged(86560)]

I'm going to be honest here, but I dislike your first idea.

However, I think that perhaps instead of a "quest" or "episode" just ending, that what you have already established gets carried over into the next series of events.

For instance, once you clear out a large nest of giant spiders, you move on to the next objective. Perhaps now a large tribe of goblins has settled in the outskirts of your territory and now you have to go wipe them out. The map can even have expanded somewhat to allow for this. After you complete that objective or quest, you have to go help out a neighboring kingdom that has been overrun by ratmen, etc. etc. etc.

All in all, it would be just a continuation of the original quest you made, all the heroes would carry over as well as your kingdom, and you don't have to worry about a hero pool or whatever.

Now, of course, there would be many different scenarios to choose from, so it wouldn't be just one as in the example, there would be others that take you down different paths with different objectives.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

That's possible.

But atleast you like one of my proposed ideas, as I kind of suggested your just suggested quest-structure too

 

[unmerged(86560)]

That's possible.

But atleast you like one of my proposed ideas, as I kind of suggested your just suggested quest-structure too

Yeah, I liked your idea alot more than the hero pool one.