Majesty 1 & Majesty 2 comparison

[Claudius]

Forgive what I'm sure will turn out to be more of an idea to fix them both than a comparison of the two, but here's my $0.02 on these games.

It seems to me that both games missed the mark a bit, but are both very close. The problem with M1 is that the heroes end up winning the game for you without your input; the problem with M2 is that they never do anything except with your input.

What I'd like to see, in M3 at least, is a combination which would involve more "flavour" and much better AI. They need to make the heroes totally self-sufficient and to act on their own, but doing things only in their own interest. You might say that M1 does this, but in M1 what is in their interest in also in the player's, which is the problem. What I'm thinking the solution must be is to create time-using occupations for heroes based on a personal agenda which may not coincide with the player's at all, or may even harm the player, unless the player gives sufficient incentive (reward) to override a given hero's drive to his own goals.

So, a Paladin would spend his time destroying magic and the undead, which might include stirring up a nest of undead or pissing off a neutral mage, neither of whom have anything the player wants and which would otherwise have left him alone. A Rogue might make lots of money for your economy but steal from everyone indiscriminately, your tax collectors included, and spend it gambling & drinking. A Mage could make it his life's goal to obtain some arcane history book which has precisely 0 practical value to him or the player. Rangers could... I don't know... go around disarming poachers' rabbit traps or somesuch. Heroes might help you by killing wandering monsters in the process, or destroy an enemy base very occasionally, but they wouldn't actively seek to accomplish objectives which are of any benefit to you, the player.

To get them to quit doing these things, a reward would have to be offered via flags which outweighs their goals, rather than the M1 system of merely making them prioritize one among a set of actions they'll eventually accomplish anyway. Of course, some heroes (such as Paladins) would naturally require a higher price to divert from their agenda.

I'm sure it'd be a major AI project, but I think it's the only way to truly fulfill this series' potential.

 

[unmerged(169164)]

Once more, the problem is not with the heroes end up winning the game for you without your input; it is that players do not appreciate that for a large number of that.

There is no way around to prevent heroes from achieving end game goals if you go the way they perform stuff on their own and improve their capacity to do so as a game progresses.
The player's part is to bring heroes to the stage when they can deal the final blow by themselves. People frustrated by this aspect are players who do not like the concept of independent heroes.This is where the room to improve Majesty exists: in increasing the span between the starting stage and the final stage.

Heroes in Majesty already perform stuff that is counter productive to the player, some of what you suggest is already in (like rogues whose behaviour is close to what you suggest) Check the thread, you will read negative echo on it.

A cause why I cant conceive Majesty other than being a SP game. Heroes focusing on their own stuff and ignoring more pressing concerns for the greater good of the Kingdom is easy to accept in a SP game. In MU games, it appears terrible as a player can take advantage over the other by sheer chance as the other is stuck with some heroes wandering around instead of fighting to repell an assault. Would create frustration and endless call to the developpers to mitigate the effect.

 

[Spiderman]

Once more, the problem is not with the heroes end up winning the game for you without your input; it is that players do not appreciate that for a large number of that.

I gotta agree more and more with ChienAboyeur. I had a chance to play a Freestyle game yesterday: New Settlement, 10K, Lairs is the one with the experiments, Difficulty Master. I didn't do anything aside build stuff and cast one Heal spell because a Sewer popped up and a hero got the Plague and I didn't want it spreading Hero-wise, I built Warriors, Barbs, Rangers, Outpost to kill the Barbs and get Healers, Dauros, Paladins, Solari, and Wizards (in that order). No flags were spent.

Basically, I just sat back and watched. Yes, the Rangers cleared the map (those not following and supporting the Barbs). It turned out there were six lairs. *However*, the only reason they were destroyed was because a hero decided to "Raid a Lair" and start bashing away. *One* hero. And it was one Warrior for one lair, one Barb for maybe 2 or 3 and one Paladin for maybe 2 or 3. No one else even tried to help or join in. The 5th lair was destroyed around Day 35, same time the map was cleared, and the last lair wasn't Raided until Day 50. So that's 15 days of the heros just wandering around, doing their own thing, attacking the monster that popped out of the lair or the occasional minotaur that came from the sides.

So honestly, I don't see the complaint. Yes, the heros cleared the map without any input. But they took their own time doing it. Frankly, if they didn't, *I* would be complaining "What do you mean, a level 8 hero can't see that he's strong enough to take on a lair? Especially with absolutely nothing else to do?" And again, only three hero types apparently have Raid a Lair - maybe the Warrior of Discord does too, not sure about the Cultist or Lunord as I didn't go that route. But if I didn't have those three hero types, the map still might not have been cleared.

But yes, I can see how the flags would be of much more use in MP.

 

[AFnord]

Discoridans can raid lairs, but they also tend to die horribly while trying to raid lairs, unless you heal them. Helians can also raid lairs, but tend to favour going to guardhouses, and will only play a major role in lair raiding if you don't build any. I can't remember seeing a lunordian ever raiding a lair on his own. Paladins are the biggest offenders when it comes to raiding lairs, although warriors, barbarians & rangers will also do it from time to time. I think that every hero can decide to raid lairs "in theory", because I have seen healers attack lairs without me putting a reward flag on it, but that is very rare (monks, the lazy buggers, never seem to do much at all though).

 

[Claudius]

Once more, the problem is not with the heroes end up winning the game for you without your input; it is that players do not appreciate that for a large number of that.

There is no way around to prevent heroes from achieving end game goals if you go the way they perform stuff on their own and improve their capacity to do so as a game progresses.
The player's part is to bring heroes to the stage when they can deal the final blow by themselves. People frustrated by this aspect are players who do not like the concept of independent heroes.This is where the room to improve Majesty exists: in increasing the span between the starting stage and the final stage.

Heroes in Majesty already perform stuff that is counter productive to the player, some of what you suggest is already in (like rogues whose behaviour is close to what you suggest) Check the thread, you will read negative echo on it.

I agree with most of what you said here, but I don't see why 'end-game goals' have to be completed by the heroes with no player input just because they're autonomous. Certainly the heroes should be able to complete their personal ultimate goals by the end, but there's a big difference between the player's goals and the heroes' goals, or at least there could easily be.

If the player's end-game goal is to destroy some ancient graveyard spawning wraiths I can see Paladins trying to do it on their own, or some other isolated cases, but for the most part provided maps are made such that the path to the greatest personal rewards for the heroes and the players's goals rarely if ever coincide, then you have autonomous heroes without ruining the reward system.

And I hadn't noticed my Rogues doing that, but if they are I'm glad to hear it; that class makes more sense if they do.

 

[Spiderman]

I think that every hero can decide to raid lairs "in theory"

Well, it should be in their decision tree which is in the Prima Guide and I asked in another forum, so I'll see if I get an answer.

I don't know about the Rangers - I had two Guilds so eight of them were running around, but if they weren't supporting my Barbs, they were off Exploring Distant Lands or just doing "other stuff". There was plenty of time in that 15 day period for them to raid the last lair but none of them did it. So unless they need an "easy" lair like a Creature Den (mine was an Ancient Castle), I don't see them Raiding a Lair.

 

[DorthLous]

I can add the rogues to the list of heroes that will attack lair by themselves. Usually it goes like this: -Go steal things in lair -ponder next move -hey, a lair is in attack distance -attack lair. They don't do the attacking part that often though.

I think rangers can attack lair under a similar pattern, i.e.: go and fight an enemy right beside a lair, wonder what to do next, attack the lair.

 

[unmerged(169164)]

I agree with most of what you said here, but I don't see why 'end-game goals' have to be completed by the heroes with no player input just because they're autonomous. Certainly the heroes should be able to complete their personal ultimate goals by the end, but there's a big difference between the player's goals and the heroes' goals, or at least there could easily be.

If the player's end-game goal is to destroy some ancient graveyard spawning wraiths I can see Paladins trying to do it on their own, or some other isolated cases, but for the most part provided maps are made such that the path to the greatest personal rewards for the heroes and the players's goals rarely if ever coincide, then you have autonomous heroes without ruining the reward system.

And I hadn't noticed my Rogues doing that, but if they are I'm glad to hear it; that class makes more sense if they do.

Rogues also rather often flock behind a strong hero going to hunt, either to loot the tombs of monsters or to loot the fallen hero's tomb.

On the point: to some extent, it is impossible not to end with heroes able to complete most of map goals by themselves in a Majesty like game.

The issue is the following: in a setting like Majesty, heroes might come to encroach on
the player's ultimate territory, the player divine right to determine what is happening on the map. This of course includes when terminating a map.

In a total control environment (like many RTS), the player forces identification to his player' goals into the units. Not an issue as units have no goals by themselves and are designed to be operated as mere tools (with various properties)

In an influence environment, the player's goals and units's goals must overlap in some places. The units can developp more goals than the player but must share the core goals of the player. The player's only power is to get the units to perform actions they wish to accomplish but prioritize differently than the player.

For example, heroes, no matter who they are, never developp the goal of destroying lairs. Lairs' destruction can only happen at the player's command. There is a shift from a influence environment to a control environment. Which is contrary to the game design objectives which is (told to be) based on indirect control.
This leads to a mixed system (which can be good)

That's about what a player wants to play. If a player wants to play (and requests to play) a game in which heroes have their own mind, then forcefully, to some extent, the player must lose his prerogative to determine when the map is terminated as heroes grow able to perform the goals on their own.

Or the player wants to play a game in which heroes are deleguated the management of certain petty situations while the most mattering situations are left in the player's hands.

 

[BroodingMonarch]

Forgive what I'm sure will turn out to be more of an idea to fix them both than a comparison of the two, but here's my $0.02 on these games.

It seems to me that both games missed the mark a bit, but are both very close. The problem with M1 is that the heroes end up winning the game for you without your input; the problem with M2 is that they never do anything except with your input.

What I'd like to see, in M3 at least, is a combination which would involve more "flavour" and much better AI. They need to make the heroes totally self-sufficient and to act on their own, but doing things only in their own interest. You might say that M1 does this, but in M1 what is in their interest in also in the player's, which is the problem. What I'm thinking the solution must be is to create time-using occupations for heroes based on a personal agenda which may not coincide with the player's at all, or may even harm the player, unless the player gives sufficient incentive (reward) to override a given hero's drive to his own goals.

So, a Paladin would spend his time destroying magic and the undead, which might include stirring up a nest of undead or pissing off a neutral mage, neither of whom have anything the player wants and which would otherwise have left him alone. A Rogue might make lots of money for your economy but steal from everyone indiscriminately, your tax collectors included, and spend it gambling & drinking. A Mage could make it his life's goal to obtain some arcane history book which has precisely 0 practical value to him or the player. Rangers could... I don't know... go around disarming poachers' rabbit traps or somesuch. Heroes might help you by killing wandering monsters in the process, or destroy an enemy base very occasionally, but they wouldn't actively seek to accomplish objectives which are of any benefit to you, the player.

To get them to quit doing these things, a reward would have to be offered via flags which outweighs their goals, rather than the M1 system of merely making them prioritize one among a set of actions they'll eventually accomplish anyway. Of course, some heroes (such as Paladins) would naturally require a higher price to divert from their agenda.

I'm sure it'd be a major AI project, but I think it's the only way to truly fulfill this series' potential.

I love the above ideas. What it would definately require however is many more opportunities for heroes to do their own thing than in Majesty 1 and 2 put together. An obvious solution would be to simply add a whole host of new buildings to the players roster. So for example the player might build a church which gives him some benefit but unfotunately for him also tempts paladins and their brethren into long periods of useless (to the player) prayer there. Another solution is to add new locations to the formula. As it stands now Majesty had two kinds of structure, a players building and a lair. You could potentially introduce sites such as those seen in the Heroes of Might and Magic games and other turn-based series. This could give the heroes something to do without making the number of buildings available ridiculous. Of course giving heroes additional personal projects doesn't necessarily require a structure at all. A good example of this is the heroes planting stuff in Majesty which other heroes can then come along and harvest for poison or potions. Really, the potential for this kind of thing is limitless just like with the potential for the Majesty series as a whole.

As for the whole "ending the map of their own accord debate", I don't think my issue is that the heroes will finish the map without your input in and of itself. I could tolerate that. It's just that after a time my presence as the player becomes less and less relevant (and of course the whole flag mechanic which we've already gone over). In a way it's kind of like being a parent, you nurture your children for a time and then let them go out into the world and do what they will, always being there for them when they need you. But this is a game, and I dislike feeling like a third wheel in a medium the point of which is to interact to influence events.

Perhaps the issue is with the absense of late game challenge. This is of course true of the vast majority of strategy or management or simulation games including even my own favourite games of all time. The Seven Kingdoms games and Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic are two I love to death but as with most games there comes a point when you are so powerful that you simply will never be beaten. Of course the key difference is the fact that to win, inevitable as it may be, you personally must still take control. This is of course not true of the original Majesty and probably what I dislike about it.

Now there will be those who will say "well, if you don't like that then you don't like the very essence of what Majesty is" and they might be right until you get to the sequel in which victory is impossible without you taking control. I guess it's just a case of different strokes for different folks but I do want to make one thing absolutely clear. One poster earlier suggested that I liked the heroes having less personality. This is absolutely not the case. Heroes winning the map for you and heroes having a personality are not the same thing unless their personality involves destroying lairs but when you think of every aim a hero could possibly have, this is only one ambition out of countless potential ambitions. You could easily have heroes with distinct and interesting personalities without them conquering the map of their own accord.

Regarding recent debates, rogues most commonly steal from graveyards from what I've seen and they will loot individual graves whenever possible. However no matter where the rogue is stealing from it makes no difference to the player whatsoever. You will never hear a Majesty player say "damn I would have won that game if only that rogue hadn't stolen that gold" which is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view. As it is, stealing is just a cute thing the rogues do, it has no significant impact. Again, I do love the above quoted proposal. But who knows what direction the series will be taken next (ignoring the mobile phone game).

 

[Spiderman]

Lots of points.

I didn't use Rogues as I felt I could "do" the map without them, but I could see them going for the lairs. I think they would empty it out first though.

I think rangers can attack lair under a similar pattern, i.e.: go and fight an enemy right beside a lair, wonder what to do next, attack the lair.

I don't know, like I said, I had 8 Rangers running around and those that weren't supporting the Barbs or Visiting Distant Lands didn't go for the Lairs, even if they fought an enemy right next to it. So if they DO do that, it's very low on their tree.

So for example the player might build a church which gives him some benefit but unfotunately for him also tempts paladins and their brethren into long periods of useless (to the player) prayer there.

They do have a church, the Temple of Dauros

However, I get the feeling that prayer isn't that big on their list, even if it was added. They are a "militant" order, in that they go out to seek and destroy evil/monsters. They don't waste time praying.

Now, Monks I could see that happening.

It's just that after a time my presence as the player becomes less and less relevant...

But I think that's the point of the game. You can influence it/the game/the heros so that the scenario ends earlier perhaps, but ultimately, yes, the heros can do it for you.

Now there will be those who will say "well, if you don't like that then you don't like the very essence of what Majesty is" and they might be right until you get to the sequel in which victory is impossible without you taking control.

And that's more or less the sticking point between Maj1 vets who wanted to see the sequel carry on the Maj1's gameplay of not taking control. Since the sequel was made by a different company which looks like it had a different goals than the original, I don't think you can compare the two, really.

 

[DorthLous]

Well, I tried something new, I played on a large advanced map made in the freestyle settings. Using cheats, I got every class with the exceptions of cultists, sisters and warriors of discords. Everything else I had either the maximum number for a guild or more. I used no flags, however, I did use very aggressive building placement, sorcerer's abode's gate as well as the hall's 800 on monsters heads. How long did it took for my heroes to clear the map by themselves? 115 days. So if not using paladins is said to be a self-limiting move, I'd say not using flags is even worse. The game was clearly designed for a player to use them and if he doesn't, while he can, he'll be severely impaired from it.

P.S.: To Spiderman. To be honest, I don't think I remember rangers attacking lairs when there was no longer anything left to explore and they started leaving for distant lands. I'd like an access to their A.I.s (oh, how I'd love to mod that game. Add other freestyle settings and such!)

 

[Spiderman]

What were the enemy lair settings? Any wandering monsters? It might have taken even longer if you didn't use the Hall bounty and just let the heros find the monsters on their own

Maybe in another 10 years, the code will be released as open

 

[DorthLous]

Oh, I know, but I was getting tired of that friggin dragon destroying my houses... guardhouses and towers helped, but still... It just shows it'll take forever for your heroes to clean a map without a flag, even if you use every other tools. (could have used Earthquakes, though, but still)

 

[unmerged(169164)]

Adding more and more in hope to balance things out is rarely possible as implementation has a cost. Besides, it makes rebalancing more difficult.

The compromize is to be found between the situations happening on the board and the capacity of the players to influence heroes to tackle a situation.
The relation between the economy and the events triggers is what to focus on.

60pc of situations can be handled by heroes and 40 other requires the player's intervention. Intervention that should be limited by the player's economy.

Better a lower number of activities going to a gradual answer to it like richer and richer heroes prefering to live their life rather than answering to a flag. Or more terrifying monsters that require more bounty money etc...