We need GM direction:

Davin,

I have talked to a number of people that have been reading our  forum and they seem to one constant comment. We need you to take a stronger defined direction for us to go in and a definitive direction that we are going to be taking.

1st: To start with are we staying with the prior game history of not?

2nd: Then if we are changing the history at what point does the history change? Are we scrapping all of it or at what point?

Once these two points are settled then it makes the redesign a lot easier to define that history and then the factions.

Speaking for myself I am for wiping all of the history away and rewriting it from the point of the Meteor strike and etc.

I've been trying to get players to contribute their opinions to that very question.  I think it's reasonable to say that the existing history won't fit our needs very well, but how we modify it is definitely a question.  I really didn't want to just make one-sided decisions and "lay down the law".  I'd much rather have some widespread opinions from the players about what they'd like to see.  I don't want to just pick something that everyone's going to end up being unhappy about.  We've had a few comments so far, but I think we need more input and discussion in order to come to a consensus.  As long as I can maintain game balance and playability, I don't have a problem with most any historical redesign.

So far we've discussed changing the effects caused by the meteor strike into a new situation that we can play better with, and that sounds like a perfectly reasonable plan.  But if anyone has a better idea, let us know now before we start down that road.

[quote='Davin' pid='137459' dateline='1580335795']
I've been trying to get players to contribute their opinions to that very question.  I think it's reasonable to say that the existing history won't fit our needs very well, but how we modify it is definitely a question.  I really didn't want to just make one-sided decisions and "lay down the law".  I'd much rather have some widespread opinions from the players about what they'd like to see.  I don't want to just pick something that everyone's going to end up being unhappy about.  We've had a few comments so far, but I think we need more input and discussion in order to come to a consensus.  As long as I can maintain game balance and playability, I don't have a problem with most any historical redesign.

So far we've discussed changing the effects caused by the meteor strike into a new situation that we can play better with, and that sounds like a perfectly reasonable plan.  But if anyone has a better idea, let us know now before we start down that road.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I like the meteor option.  A large meteor strike would likely wipe out everyone.  I like setting the world 100 years or more into the future from the original history.  If using the meteor scenario have it hit Manchuria... wipe that out of the game and perhaps another the Imperial Homeland.  This would take out two aspects of the game that would eliminate some future issues.  Forcing the Imperials to stand on their own and limit their resources.  Manchuria... it was a mistake and needs to never appear in the game again.  After small meteor strike that wipes out Imperial homeland followed by a drought and plague would have the effect that I think is trying to be had with the "Reboot" of the game.  This would give the Roder a better reason to exist in the game -- food production.  I am an advocate that the Religions in the game became the healers - Ring, Gift, and Banner -- and they helped curb the spread of plagues after the meteor.  Just some thoughts.

David Oliver Kling [FutureSojourner]

Let me clarify what I meant...  Of course there was a suggestion of a second meteor strike, but more of the discussion has been about rewinding history back to the previous meteor strike and restarting history from that time forward.

Is that what you understood?

That is as I have suggested we do, it would make the best logical sense to explain why all the lands cities were reduced to ruins.

[quote='DreamWeaver' pid='137456' dateline='1580333373']
I have talked to a number of people that have been reading our  forum and they seem to one constant comment. We need you to take a stronger defined direction for us to go in and a definitive direction that we are going to be taking.
[/quote]

This! Reading this forum is a bit like watching an indecisive project manager on The Apprentice. They spend so much time fretting over minor details they have no time left for the important things. Make a decision about what you think will be best for the game, code it and move onto the next thing that needs doing. All this talking just delays the return of the game.

I really don't see anyone being that bothered if history is rewritten slightly or if the map is changed or if some stats are buffed or nerfed. Even if it's 90% the same as the original Midgard I can't imagine many people saying "Even though I can play up to three different clans for five bucks a month I'm not going to as my city's walls are weaker". After looking at the turn fees for some of the games on the "A Month of Play-by-Mail Games!" facebook posts I'd imagine the reaction of most people to the return of Midgard will be "wow, please take my five bucks a month".

Hello "Dave"....it is the small things that really matter to those of us that have played in many versions of the game over many years. If your going to do something, it is best to have a clear picture and do it well from the beginning. There are certain topics that need to be ironed out like the factions and descriptons. Also the game history also needs to be ironed out.

Dave, the important thing is getting the game running again, but with extremely little time available it's going to be quite a while before I can make that happen.  In the meantime we can discuss details like history and factional organizations to get a good handle on them before it's time to implement them.

I'd like for more players to be involved in the discussion so there are more points of view to pick from.  When it comes time, I'll set one of these in stone and we'll play with that.  But I'd really like to hear what others would like so I can make good (and hopefully popular) decisions.  I've had player opinions change my intentions several times so far, and I expect more to go by the wayside.

We are trying to get as many players to contribute to our many talking points to better aid Davin our GM with deciding what is best to make the game better as he recodes it. I hope our efforts have some good support in those decisions for the games many directions and possibilities. The Midgard game has always been extremely complex and that is what helps to make it an awesome game.

It is indeed complex so there's lots to consider, but you all have made many good contributions already and are clarifying for me a lot of what I think ought to happen.  The more of this we can get, the better the end result will be.