The thing is when Majesty was released the whole appeal was this new indirect control of your heroes through setting bounties. However there are many maps that you never, ever actually need to offer money for your heroes to do anything. Only the largest of maps require flags of any sort. To me that's just bad design. The very thing the game is meant to be about just doesn't work well. It works in Majesty 2 and God do I pray for a defense flag whenever I go back to Majesty. Yeah it's true that setting flags speeds things up considerably but if I'm trying to get the game over and done with I'm probably not enjoying myself very much.
Well, from my perspective, the first and foremost purpose of Majesty was to be a Sim, and from that perspective heroes going out and destroying nearby lairs, on their own initiative, makes perfect sense. I mean, sooner or later any hero who isn't completely heartless/gutless/preoccupied will get the itch to do something about those monsters ravaging the townsfolk. I don't see any way to get rid of that behaviour without either (A) undermining verisimilitude or (B) creating monsters that essentially never threaten you.
But I mean, I would be essentially happy playing Majesty if there were no permanent 'win' conditions at all, but most players sort of look blank if they're not given a clear indication of 'what they're supposed to do', hence the quest structure. I just saw the bounty system as a method of player-hero communication that was 'organic' in the context of the simulation.
I mean, if I'm looking for a challenge on a given map, I'll either try to beat it within a certain of days, and/or- preferably- without casualties. That's very difficult to do without personal intervention.
It's true, I do like the "sim" aspect of Majesty but it was never that deep. I mean it wasn't Theme Park in a fantasy world (which I think would be awesome). I would like to see the sim element increased but I totally dispute the claim that it makes Majesty better than Majesty 2 because like I said, it was never that deep to begin with.
It wasn't particularly 'deep', but it pervaded the design in ways which were often subtle and quite thorough. It affected the AI, not just in terms of what the heroes did, but what they
didn't do- (e.g, paladins wouldn't poison their weapons, monks did not buy potions, healers did not visit brothels.) Different hero classes had substantially different decision trees, and EVERY class did
something on their own initiative other than shop and snooze, even if it was just visiting the local inn or stretching their legs. Many, as you observed, hunted monsters spontaneously, and/or were only weakly responsive to monetary rewards. In Maj2, essentially all of this has been erased.
(That said, I would not object to an AI that gave the heroes' 'hobbies' a lower priority- so that, e.g, monks did not visit inns when minotaurs were razing the marketplace.)
I understand that when hero behaviour has been standardised, 'balancing' the classes becomes easier, but given that balancing requires many iterations of tweaking and observation during development regardless, why not try to 'balance' the factions in terms other than hit points and DPS? Wizards wouldn't
need hit points if they were intelligent enough to
not get hit. Cultists wouldn't
need to be formidable in combat if their
real strength was reconnaissance and infiltration. Paladins wouldn't
need to be nerfed if moral scruples limited their tactical usefulness.
Besides- heretical as this may sound- from a sim perspective, unique personalities are simply
more important than being perfectly balanced. Undercutting personality for the sake of balance is not a worthwhile tradeoff in that context.
I'm not saying that you didn't care about/enjoy the Sim elements of Maj1. But I also think you cared about the RTS elements more. Majesty
could be the basis for a solid RTS, but that requires a very different set of changes.
On a similar note, the heroes in Majesty almost never run away. They would almost always fight to their inevitable death. The heroes in Majesty 2 do run away when it's sensible to but usually end up dead anyway if they're facing a ranged opponent.
Heroes in Maj1 would usually die
when they decided to fight a superior adversary, but that initial decision was much rarer than in Maj2. In Maj2, all it takes is a 100 gold reward to have a level 1 wizard solo a werewolf, which from a sim perspective is nothing short of
appallingly bad. When Maj2's heroes realise the fight is hopeless, they don't retreat- instead, they yell for help, presumably from you, and only flee on the very verge of death. Maj1's AI left a good deal to be desired, but it's a lot less broken than Maj2's.
The problem with trying to take the 'best' elements of Maj1 and Maj2 is that you have to ask, "best for what purpose? Sim-fans or RTS-fans?" Because what's good for one group will in many cases conflict with what's good for the other group. You cannot serve two masters.
