Difference between the first gamer's choice and the crap

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
vanguard
Difference between the first gamer's choice and the crap

What is the difference between crap and the success? Well, seems to me that balance in management is not achieved and who knows how many days will pass until the aim is achieved.

Well, I red a lot about bugs but seems to me relations between actions in management and indexes in production are not tuned up as it should be in the game of this kind. Yes, fine tuning of game mechanics, engine behavior and "brain thrill" is what gamer of any kind is seeking... I was trying different worlds #29-31 and all are missing this issue. If I manage to get enough food later I lose income. If any other concept of my lord doctrine is implemented, I cant survive in plus.

So, you will say, that is what we want to achieve. No, for Gods sake, its not the aim. If I have a household, I have to be able to close my yield to minimal plus not to be in shortage of any kind. If I fulfill this condition, then I can grow my economy, build my army, conquer the world around me.

In a way as it is now, no one is able to survive the winter...but we all dream about expanding from 8 tiles around...ha ha ha... no way bro!!! Be smart! Change this, please.

So, use it or lose it!

p.s.
It is not criticism if effects positive change! Its evolution!!!

Mat
administrator
Mat's picture
(moved here from bug

(moved here from bug reporting)

Mat
administrator
Mat's picture
Thank you for your post

Thanks for your concerns. On one part, I fully agree that we need to tweak the calculations - but I think it's normal this stage of a game. As a small indie with more tasks than participants, we wanted the client and the server to be stable first, and then tweak the game after we've put more efforts into this - as it's more efficient to tweak when the environment is already working. We had our initial numbers and calculations, but we all know that no battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.

So we purposefully scheduled this for early testing, so we can have more feedback on every change. In favour of continuous testing and the ability to tweak on-the-fly, every world reads a copy of a "rulebook" - so tweaking anything but the internal system of calculations don't need to change the code itself and we can iterate through various options, or we can even run worlds parallel on different test settings  quite painless. Regarding tweaking, we've already received a lot of valuable feedback from forum posters like SandLover or Thraxas. I'll continue to tweak the rules based on this feedback and for the suggestions regarding changing the internal calculations, those are on the table too.

I'm a bit confused over the other part of your criticism though. I agree that the feudum should be self sufficient or yield a moderately positive output for expansion, but I think - and other testers seemed to confirm it - surviving winter and having a positive output is pretty easy to achieve with the current settings (but please let me know if I'm wrong on this!). Actually, I'd rather make it a bit harder. May I ask what's your build that can't get you through the winter?

vanguard
Thraxas's picture
"surviving winter and having

"surviving winter and having a positive output is pretty easy to achieve with the current settings"

Agreed.

I also agree that just getting and maintaining a stable economy shouldnt be the long term aim of the game. It should however be part of it - the better the economy you can create the bigger army you can support etc. etc.
Or to put it another way getting the economic structure of the game right is pre-requisit to making the game work. This structure will need to be biased toward creation of a surplus when we start needing that excess to fund war and offset losses from e.g. raids.

While I can see where the OP is coming and very good to see another point of view I do wonder if its overly harse feedback on what is an unfinished game that is moving forward in huge leaps and bounds.

vanguard
We all understand that when

We all understand that when the warfare build will arrive there will be adjustments to the economy again. I think it can be very interesting having a pretty tight economy in this game. Wars are not only decided by who has the biggest army but it is also possible to bring your opponents in food and/or coin problems by forcing them too raise their levies for too long.

Keep in mind that with the vassal system you create groups of people competing with each other. So you can help each other out. Also, players can just focus on food/gold/iron production so they can support their buddies that focus more on warfare. A lot of possibilities are present.

If sjohund has problems surviving the current builds I will gladly help him out.

Log in or register to post comments