Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Affect the World! [MMORPG vs SPRPG]

AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,235
"I want my actions to affect the world."

I've seen this sentiment in a few threads and often wonder how it works when thousands (sometimes multiple thousands) of players are sharing that world.

In a single player game where I am the only one playing I can see this and want it, which many SPRPGs seem to be steering away from these days.

When I think about MMORPGs, the choices made, the quests accomplished, the actions taken that may "change the world", how is this commuinicated to other players that took different, or opposite choices, actions, quests in the same world area?

One player saves a King. Another ignores the quest and the King dies. When both players enter the capital, is there a King present? The same one, or a different one? What do the other layers see who haven't gotten to that quest yet? Will they ever get the chance to "save the King?"

A player finds a group and they attack an enemy encampment. Is that encampment gone for all time (one time event) or will another appear for other players to enjoy wiping out?

Not that many MMOs today offer such depth, but if they did, how would it work?

"Instances" remove the MMO part of the equation, so while that may be a solution to some, I don't see it.

PS: Ancient_Exile, this for you :)

- Al

Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
- FARGIN_WAR


«1345678

Comments

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    1. If one player saves the king, then another player doesn't need to save the king.  The king is saved already.

    2. You didn't say they destroyed the enemy encampment, but I suppose I am to assume they did so.  Anyway, that depends.  What sort of enemy encampment is it?
    Gdemami
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 489
    edited May 8
    AlBQuirky said:
    "I want my actions to affect the world."
    ...
    Not that many MMOs today offer such depth, but if they did, how would it work?
    ...
    They already work in the way that all games with sandbox elements do to some degree:

    - EVE/Albion Online territory control, economy and in-game real estate
    - Screeps: you actually program the world
    - Elite:Dangerous (E:D) Background Simulator (BGS) and Powerplay
    - Foxhole building mechanics and territory control
    - Building stuff in A Tale in the Desert
    - BDO node control

    And I am pretty sure many others that I haven't played and do not know of. You don't see it in mainstream themeparks since the design is antithetical to changing the world.

    So back to the king example, you cannot do it through quests. You need two sides: one wants to kill the king and the other wants to save him. Both need to have an incentive to do one or the other. If the king dies a successor is implanted by the victorious side.

    This can be through PvP but does not necessarily need it, since E:D sketched out what I call "proxy PvP" - competition through PvE with the BGS, even though E:D did it in a simplistic and half-arsed way.
    SovrathAncient_Exile
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 489
    Actually to correct myself, E:D's BGS is quite brilliant, it is the game loops built on top of it that are simplistic and do not allow for the players to affect the world to a significant degree.
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,235
    1. If one player saves the king, then another player doesn't need to save the king.  The king is saved already.

    2. You didn't say they destroyed the enemy encampment, but I suppose I am to assume they did so.  Anyway, that depends.  What sort of enemy encampment is it?

    1) So you want developers to create one time only quests so that the first player there gets them and nobody else? Interesting...

    2) Enemy encampment. Does it matter what kind? Its enemies. More than just one player share enemies, right? If the encampment gets destroyed, what will "other players" do?

    I think you tend look at MMOs as "me playing only" games. It's a wonderful thought, but not reality. I could be wrong. I am many topics :)

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,235
    edited May 8
    tzervo said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    "I want my actions to affect the world."
    ...
    Not that many MMOs today offer such depth, but if they did, how would it work?
    ...
    They already work in the way that all games with sandbox elements do to some degree:

    - EVE/Albion Online territory control, economy and in-game real estate
    - Screeps: you actually program the world
    - Elite:Dangerous (E:D) Background Simulator (BGS) and Powerplay
    - Foxhole building mechanics and territory control
    - Building stuff in A Tale in the Desert
    - BDO node control

    And I am pretty sure many others that I haven't played and do not know of. You don't see it in mainstream themeparks since the design is antithetical to changing the world.

    So back to the king example, you cannot do it through quests. You need two sides: one wants to kill the king and the other wants to save him. Both need to have an incentive to do one or the other. If the king dies a successor is implanted by the victorious side.

    This can be through PvP but does not necessarily need it, since E:D sketched out what I call "proxy PvP" - competition through PvE with the BGS, even though E:D did it in a simplistic and half-arsed way.

    Interesting. I have played none of those games because what you describe is mainly PvP. I don't play PvP MMOs :)

    Take Screeps, from your examples. How do they handle multiple player "programming the world" in opposite directions (say law vs chaos as an example). Who wins? How does the game decide?

    Building stuff is easily handled. I'm talking more about "quests" and NPC political changes that players may affect, where other players will see that change.

    Sandbox MMOs have always struggled with PvP aspect of building. Some players don't care that what they spent hours on is destroyed the next time they log on. Other players do care quite a good deal. It's a huge reason I won't play PvP sandbox MMOs. I refuse to be someone else's toy :)

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,604
    tzervo said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    "I want my actions to affect the world."
    ...
    Not that many MMOs today offer such depth, but if they did, how would it work?
    ...
    They already work in the way that all games with sandbox elements do to some degree:

    - EVE/Albion Online territory control, economy and in-game real estate
    - Screeps: you actually program the world
    - Elite:Dangerous (E:D) Background Simulator (BGS) and Powerplay
    - Foxhole building mechanics and territory control
    - Building stuff in A Tale in the Desert
    - BDO node control

    And I am pretty sure many others that I haven't played and do not know of. You don't see it in mainstream themeparks since the design is antithetical to changing the world.

    So back to the king example, you cannot do it through quests. You need two sides: one wants to kill the king and the other wants to save him. Both need to have an incentive to do one or the other. If the king dies a successor is implanted by the victorious side.

    This can be through PvP but does not necessarily need it, since E:D sketched out what I call "proxy PvP" - competition through PvE with the BGS, even though E:D did it in a simplistic and half-arsed way.
    Your example of having "one side" wanting the king killed is sort of how I've always seen this work.

    It could be done in a pve way as well but it would probably have to involve instances. Maybe a sort of competition on which player alliance did it first? Not sure.

    I have no problems with instances in mmorpg's if they are done well but I understand why others don't like it.
    tzervoAlBQuirky
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,895
    Like @tzervo mentioned this sort of thing is best served in sandbox elements and not within your typical quests. Any form of land ownership, construction, farming, territory control, etc is in fact changing the world to everyone and is typically a never ending cycle.

    For quests you can't really have an outcome affect anyone else unless it is a single quest not tied to any other, it's more like an event instead of a quest so when it goes live anyone online at the time has a chance to complete it first, or the quest changes so subtly that anyone can still complete it and the difference is so small no one notices anyway.

    For example the king could need saved once a month and for the entire remaining month between the player that contributed the most gets a special label. Or perhaps it's a quest and every time someone completes it the quest changes from King, Queen, Lord, Jester, or any other member of the royal family, but the point being that it's still effectively the same quest it just changes up between different players and eventually will roll back around to the king again.

    The encampment scenario is a lot easier to handle on an immersion level and it becomes a more technical hurdle. SWG had encampments that would spawn around the area and when all the enemies were killed it would get destroyed and spawn somewhere else. You get the dynamic nature of destroying an encampment, but no one else has to miss out on fighting that NPC. It's just not found in the same area any more.
    SovrathAncient_ExiletzervoAlBQuirky
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 489
    edited May 8
    AlBQuirky said:

    Interesting. I have played none of those games because what you describe is mainly PvP. I don't play PvP MMOs :)

    Take Screeps, from your examples. How do they handle multiple player "programming the world" in opposite directions (say law vs chaos as an example). Who wins? How does the game decide?

    Building stuff is easily handled. I'm talking more about "quests" and NPC political changes that players may affect, where other players will see that change.
    Re Screeps: it is an MMORTS. You program your colony and expand it in a world with other players. It is essentially a programmer's PvP MMORTS. You build, attack other players, form alliances and expand.

    It is easier to have dynamic changes with PvP. Conflict drives changes. Regardless, I mentioned two games that could be played by a PvE player.

    - E:D: You affect the persistent world via the BGS. You can do it with PvP or alternatively purely via PvE'ing (group/solo play is done in the same persistent world). It involves political states in solar systems such as dictatorship, democracy, anarchy etc. Interesting concept, great system, bad game loops built on top of it imo that do not do it justice.

    - ATitD: you affect the world via building or participating in the in-game social structures. Iirc some of the "trials" in the game have to do with social interaction (friendship, "marriage", politics and voting). Very good but very old game.

    This answers the political aspects of affecting the world. I do not consider the "quest" route and phasing interesting enough, and definitely not impactful enough. When I am thinking "affecting the world" I am thinking "affecting other players", not getting my own little phase with 10 people that made the same choice.
    AlBQuirky
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,364
    I may be unambitious, but I have never wanted to change the world. I want a persistent, constant world that stays the same for my alts to experience. I want to be able to take a few months off without angst over whether the King will still be the King, and if someone will have burned my starting city down in my absence.
    AlBQuirky

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 489
    edited May 8
    Oh also: One Hour One Life is another case of a PvE MMO where literally the whole game is about you altruistically leaving a positive footprint advancing your village/community in a persistent world during your 1 hour playing session. Again not a fan of the implementation but the concept is amazing and hey, it's there.

    My point being:

    - For PvP there are already many examples of successful games where you can drastically affect the world.

    - For PvE there also exist quite a few options, but the games are either old or there is something that is not quite right in the implementation. The concepts are already out there though.
    Ancient_ExileAlBQuirky
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    AlBQuirky said:
    1. If one player saves the king, then another player doesn't need to save the king.  The king is saved already.

    2. You didn't say they destroyed the enemy encampment, but I suppose I am to assume they did so.  Anyway, that depends.  What sort of enemy encampment is it?

    1) So you want developers to create one time only quests so that the first player there gets them and nobody else? Interesting...

    2) Enemy encampment. Does it matter what kind? Its enemies. More than just one player share enemies, right? If the encampment gets destroyed, what will "other players" do?

    I think you tend look at MMOs as "me playing only" games. It's a wonderful thought, but not reality. I could be wrong. I am many topics :)

    1. Why do we necessarily need a bunch of quests?  NPC and Mob factions can be programmed to behave like factions in an RTS game.  Plus there can be a number of random things that could happen at any time.  Much like in Strategy War games.  So a king falls or ill or someone tries to assassinate a king and a player saves him.  But if the king wasn't saved, then he would be replaced by an heir.  However, if there was no heir, other things could happen.  And so and so on...

    2. The kind of enemy encampment is important because that effects how easily replaced it is.  Anyway, that same enemy encampment might not be rebuilt in the same location, but another could be set up somewhere else.  Either by the same Faction or another.
    GdemamiAlBQuirky
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 489
    edited May 8
    Sovrath said:
    Your example of having "one side" wanting the king killed is sort of how I've always seen this work.

    It could be done in a pve way as well but it would probably have to involve instances. Maybe a sort of competition on which player alliance did it first? Not sure.

    I have no problems with instances in mmorpg's if they are done well but I understand why others don't like it.
    In PvP games, this sounds to me like a variant of factional warfare, and it does not need instances.

    In a PvE game, I was mostly thinking the concept already used in E:D: you can have groups of players with PvP disabled and instancing: one group does PvE to earn points for one faction, the other group does PvE to earn points for the opposing faction. The results affect all players and are applied on some system that affects the world as a whole.

    So just replace E:D's powers with king/faction and spaceships with warriors/mages/armies/mobs.
    Ancient_ExileAlBQuirky
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 8
    Amathe said:
    I may be unambitious, but I have never wanted to change the world. I want a persistent, constant world that stays the same for my alts to experience. I want to be able to take a few months off without angst over whether the King will still be the King, and if someone will have burned my starting city down in my absence.

    You make me sad.

    How about a game that is so interesting you could care less about playing alts?
    Gdemami
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,364
    Amathe said:
    I may be unambitious, but I have never wanted to change the world. I want a persistent, constant world that stays the same for my alts to experience. I want to be able to take a few months off without angst over whether the King will still be the King, and if someone will have burned my starting city down in my absence.

    You make me sad.

    How about a game that is so interesting you could care less about playing alts?
    Um, no. But hey, these are just my personal preferences. I love, for example, that I can log into EQ's Faydwer Forest and it is exactly as it was 21 years ago. 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    Amathe said:
    Amathe said:
    I may be unambitious, but I have never wanted to change the world. I want a persistent, constant world that stays the same for my alts to experience. I want to be able to take a few months off without angst over whether the King will still be the King, and if someone will have burned my starting city down in my absence.

    You make me sad.

    How about a game that is so interesting you could care less about playing alts?
    Um, no. But hey, these are just my personal preferences. I love, for example, that I can log into EQ's Faydwer Forest and it is exactly as it was 21 years ago. 

    And you are totally satisfied with that?  Simply reliving the same experiences over and over?
    Gdemami
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,364
    Yes.
    AlBQuirky

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    Amathe said:
    Yes.

    :'(
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,604
    Amathe said:
    Amathe said:
    I may be unambitious, but I have never wanted to change the world. I want a persistent, constant world that stays the same for my alts to experience. I want to be able to take a few months off without angst over whether the King will still be the King, and if someone will have burned my starting city down in my absence.

    You make me sad.

    How about a game that is so interesting you could care less about playing alts?
    Um, no. But hey, these are just my personal preferences. I love, for example, that I can log into EQ's Faydwer Forest and it is exactly as it was 21 years ago. 

    And you are totally satisfied with that?  Simply reliving the same experiences over and over?
    I think you are reading into it.

    If I take a walk in any of our national parks they aren't going to change "that" much. Oh sure, trees might be taller or have died but the feeling is still there.

    Maybe the bigger thing would be to have the forest stay the same but what's happening in the forest change?
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    Sovrath said:
    Amathe said:
    Amathe said:
    I may be unambitious, but I have never wanted to change the world. I want a persistent, constant world that stays the same for my alts to experience. I want to be able to take a few months off without angst over whether the King will still be the King, and if someone will have burned my starting city down in my absence.

    You make me sad.

    How about a game that is so interesting you could care less about playing alts?
    Um, no. But hey, these are just my personal preferences. I love, for example, that I can log into EQ's Faydwer Forest and it is exactly as it was 21 years ago. 

    And you are totally satisfied with that?  Simply reliving the same experiences over and over?
    I think you are reading into it.

    If I take a walk in any of our national parks they aren't going to change "that" much. Oh sure, trees might be taller or have died but the feeling is still there.

    Maybe the bigger thing would be to have the forest stay the same but what's happening in the forest change?

    That's what I would like.  For the game world to be dynamic rather than static. 
    AlBQuirky
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,604
    Sovrath said:
    Amathe said:
    Amathe said:
    I may be unambitious, but I have never wanted to change the world. I want a persistent, constant world that stays the same for my alts to experience. I want to be able to take a few months off without angst over whether the King will still be the King, and if someone will have burned my starting city down in my absence.

    You make me sad.

    How about a game that is so interesting you could care less about playing alts?
    Um, no. But hey, these are just my personal preferences. I love, for example, that I can log into EQ's Faydwer Forest and it is exactly as it was 21 years ago. 

    And you are totally satisfied with that?  Simply reliving the same experiences over and over?
    I think you are reading into it.

    If I take a walk in any of our national parks they aren't going to change "that" much. Oh sure, trees might be taller or have died but the feeling is still there.

    Maybe the bigger thing would be to have the forest stay the same but what's happening in the forest change?

    That's what I would like.  For the game world to be dynamic rather than static. 
    Oh yeah, I'd love that as well.

    I think that's what Everquest Next was going for but it's not clear if they ever achieved any part of it before it was shelved.
    Ancient_ExileAlBQuirky
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 8
    Sovrath said:

    Oh yeah, I'd love that as well.

    I think that's what Everquest Next was going for but it's not clear if they ever achieved any part of it before it was shelved.
    Yeah, I'll have run a search on that Story Brick concept they had sometime and see what I can dig up about it.

    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,176
    In my mind, this sort of thing needs to be an Event. 

    It should not end immediately, the MOBs should respawn with a limit based on "reinforcements" set by the attacking side's supply end. 

    This is a place where my idea of Guild Militaries works. 
    A PvEer joins a Guild, but they don't want to PvP. They don't join the Guild's Military. 
    But they can fill supply orders. They can use their Hirelings (attuned to their Crafting Skill) to build things, but if that's out in the field, they can lose those Hirelings to an enemy attack. The Player would have the option to send their Hirelings out there, or only use them in safe areas. 

    * These PvE Players can go anywhere they want, including the battle zones. But if in radius of a battle, they lose their Blocking, they turn almost transparent and ghostlike, and they can't battle with PvPers or their aligned NPC's/MOBs. 
    However, if PvPers train outside MOBs in, the PvEers can battle with those. 

    Mainly the PvEers are supply side actors. But see Quests, below.

    Quests can be added for both PvP and PvE. 
    In the case of PvEers, their quests can be to attack supply caravans and bases. 
    * This is important as it affects the Respawn rate of the main battle, based on supply, as stated above. 
    These supply caravans and outlying bases can't be attacked by the Militaries (the PvPers) 
    * in a reversal of the above outline, because they are "secret" runs disguised as normal caravans. They are not "officially" in the war. 
    (This part can also be instanced, but I really don't like instancing.) 

    So both get to do their part in a larger scale Event. 
    Ancient_ExilebcbullyAlBQuirky

    Once upon a time....

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,364
    And then there was the time I went back to WoW, rolled a new character in the human area, and behind the Abby the woods was on fire from the effects of some stupid expansion. So even trees change when games alter the world. I hate that. It had been such a peaceful, welcoming place before.

    Not my cup of tea. You may drink different tea of your choosing.
    bcbullyAlBQuirky

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,401
    edited May 8
    It's trivial in single player games of course but even themeparks do this to some extent with trickery.

    WOW has been doing it for more than a decade with their "before and after" phased versions of villages and other battlefields. ESO does it as well although the architecture and terrain doesn't change much but the population and which notable NPCs are or are not there, before and after you do the local quest chain.

    EQN had plans to bring this to another level for anyone who remembers more than the hype about voxels: NPCs were going to react to you differently and give you one of many possible quests or none at all depending on how they "felt" about you - i.e. the whole common faction things was to be done at the individual NPC/player level as well. There were also going to be community area development projects and roving mobs trying to keep you from completing it.

    If they had managed to launch it as they were describing it, EQN would have shaken up MMORPG design in many important ways. They were actually trying to create a game where everyone would get a slightly different experience and servers would develop over time in ways unique to them and unlike how the other servers were developing.
    AlBQuirky
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,586
    Affecting the world and story don't really mix well together - it's hard to script a compelling story when the players can change the outcome too often.


    So, what I'd like is a properly simulated world that we can live in, rich in lore but with no story - any stories will be our own.


    The things I'd like to see affected by players:

    • Territory control - if the local town ruler asks me to clear out a camp of goblins, and then I go clear out that camp of goblins, then that camp should cease to exist and the surrounding area becomes more peaceful and farmers wont get murdered during raids.
    • Building in the game world - players should be able to buy and sell houses within existing towns and cities, but also setup their own population centres if they choose to. Players should also be given more freedom in how they build their houses - choose the materials, decorations, design etc.
    • Player politics - players should be able to rise to positions of authority, and from there be able to set policies. Maybe the mayor of one town decides the town needs a new wall, so they should be able to levy a tax to raise funds to build that wall. They can also set priorities for guards, recruitment etc. There should likewise be consequences - if you manage your city poorly, crime will rise, or invaders will attack, or the population could revolt and kick you out of office.
    • Procedural quest generation - if there are a lot of wolves in the area, local farmers should give out quests to kill wolves. Once the wolves have been killed, the quests disappear.

    Creating a simulated world is very hard, however. One of the things I learnt from Raph's blog is that when trying to create a simulated world, you need to ensure there are rules in place that try to drive the world back to it's balancing point.

    If you don't players will break the world almost instantly.

    You'll get situations where players will, naturally, kill all the wolves near a town. In a simulated world, this should mean the deer population explodes, and they eat all the crops, and the whole ecosystem gets screwed.

    Or, perhaps an NPC orc gets too successful in the world, defeating a few players plus a load of local npc enemies. If left on his own, its possible the orc could become too powerful for players to deal with, and effectively block a whole region.

    So, you need to ensure the world pushes back and tries to get back to that equilibrium. This is especially true when players leave the game. You don't want ghost villages all throughout the game, so you need rules to push back towards the middle.



    tzervoSovrathAmarantharAncient_ExileAlBQuirky
Sign In or Register to comment.