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]

135678

Comments

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,931
    Sovrath said:

    Well, let's put it this way ...

    You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.

    Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."

    So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.

    However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.

    There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.

    How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?

    Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."



    Developers don't have to make a game that everyone will enjoy.  Nor should they try.  Just make a game that will entertain enough players to pay the bills and make a decent profit.

    Hopefully the game will be described well enough so that only those who are seeking such an experience will play it.

    Anyway though, such events as logging to find their city was being razed would be very rare events.  I would use NPCs guards and soldiers quite extensively in Factions.  Not just in cities and towns, but also at towers, forts, and guarded campsites throughout a Faction's territory.  There would also be frequent NPC patrols (both mounted and on foot) roaming that same territory (even aerial patrols if a Faction has griffon or wyvern riders).  The Players could also eventually hire & acquire NPC retainers/henchman/subordinates, some of whom they could employ to guard their dwellings.  There's even the possibility that all player characters could remain in the game world 24/7.  So that a player's character (controlled by AI) could help defend his/her own property while the player was offline.  Though the AI would be programmed to flee if there was absolutely no hope of victory. 

    This could also help with Griefers.  Because they wouldn't be able to escape simply by logging out.  And they would need to camp out/log out in a safe location if they wanted any chance of being defending against those they had antagonized.
    You asked why and he told you. Plain and simple. However this is why I keep saying that developers should be making games they want. If the goal is many players it's going to be bland. 

    No it's not necessarily as plain and simple as Sovrath stated.  That's why I wrote what I wrote.  There's more that I could on that subject as well.  Other factors that could help prevent the city of a Faction from being completely overrun.  And other choices players would have even if their home city or even entire home province did happen to be conquered.
    What in the hell are you even talking about?

    "Why do you think people wouldn't want the works to change?"

    Sevroth explains some good examples why

    "But factions"

    I'm wondering if you are again confused what the topic is about. Derailing yet another thread. 
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 9
    Sovrath said:

    Well, let's put it this way ...

    You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.

    Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."

    So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.

    However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.

    There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.

    How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?

    Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."



    Developers don't have to make a game that everyone will enjoy.  Nor should they try.  Just make a game that will entertain enough players to pay the bills and make a decent profit.

    Hopefully the game will be described well enough so that only those who are seeking such an experience will play it.

    Anyway though, such events as logging to find their city was being razed would be very rare events.  I would use NPCs guards and soldiers quite extensively in Factions.  Not just in cities and towns, but also at towers, forts, and guarded campsites throughout a Faction's territory.  There would also be frequent NPC patrols (both mounted and on foot) roaming that same territory (even aerial patrols if a Faction has griffon or wyvern riders).  The Players could also eventually hire & acquire NPC retainers/henchman/subordinates, some of whom they could employ to guard their dwellings.  There's even the possibility that all player characters could remain in the game world 24/7.  So that a player's character (controlled by AI) could help defend his/her own property while the player was offline.  Though the AI would be programmed to flee if there was absolutely no hope of victory. 

    This could also help with Griefers.  Because they wouldn't be able to escape simply by logging out.  And they would need to camp out/log out in a safe location if they wanted any chance of being defending against those they had antagonized.
    You asked why and he told you. Plain and simple. However this is why I keep saying that developers should be making games they want. If the goal is many players it's going to be bland. 

    No it's not necessarily as plain and simple as Sovrath stated.  That's why I wrote what I wrote.  There's more that I could on that subject as well.  Other factors that could help prevent the city of a Faction from being completely overrun.  And other choices players would have even if their home city or even entire home province did happen to be conquered.
    What in the hell are you even talking about?

    "Why do you think people wouldn't want the works to change?"

    Sevroth explains some good examples why

    "But factions"

    I'm wondering if you are again confused what the topic is about. Derailing yet another thread. 

    Right.  Because the things I wrote about have absolutely nothing to do with how the persistent game world of an MMORPG can be effected/altered by players and how it can work without breaking the game and driving most, if not eventually all, of the players away from the game.

    What's wrong with you, dude?


    IselinChildoftheShadows
    "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.)

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,931
    Sovrath said:

    Well, let's put it this way ...

    You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.

    Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."

    So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.

    However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.

    There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.

    How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?

    Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."



    Developers don't have to make a game that everyone will enjoy.  Nor should they try.  Just make a game that will entertain enough players to pay the bills and make a decent profit.

    Hopefully the game will be described well enough so that only those who are seeking such an experience will play it.

    Anyway though, such events as logging to find their city was being razed would be very rare events.  I would use NPCs guards and soldiers quite extensively in Factions.  Not just in cities and towns, but also at towers, forts, and guarded campsites throughout a Faction's territory.  There would also be frequent NPC patrols (both mounted and on foot) roaming that same territory (even aerial patrols if a Faction has griffon or wyvern riders).  The Players could also eventually hire & acquire NPC retainers/henchman/subordinates, some of whom they could employ to guard their dwellings.  There's even the possibility that all player characters could remain in the game world 24/7.  So that a player's character (controlled by AI) could help defend his/her own property while the player was offline.  Though the AI would be programmed to flee if there was absolutely no hope of victory. 

    This could also help with Griefers.  Because they wouldn't be able to escape simply by logging out.  And they would need to camp out/log out in a safe location if they wanted any chance of being defending against those they had antagonized.
    You asked why and he told you. Plain and simple. However this is why I keep saying that developers should be making games they want. If the goal is many players it's going to be bland. 

    No it's not necessarily as plain and simple as Sovrath stated.  That's why I wrote what I wrote.  There's more that I could on that subject as well.  Other factors that could help prevent the city of a Faction from being completely overrun.  And other choices players would have even if their home city or even entire home province did happen to be conquered.
    What in the hell are you even talking about?

    "Why do you think people wouldn't want the works to change?"

    Sevroth explains some good examples why

    "But factions"

    I'm wondering if you are again confused what the topic is about. Derailing yet another thread. 

    Right.  Because the things I wrote about have absolutely nothing to do with how the persistent game world of an MMORPG can be effected/altered by players and how it can work without breaking the game and driving most, if not eventually all, of the players away from the game.

    What's wrong with you, dude?


    You asked a question, he have a solid answer and you changed the discussion entirely. It's getting obnoxious. 
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    You asked a question, he have a solid answer and you changed the discussion entirely. It's getting obnoxious. 

    Sovrath said:

    Well, let's put it this way ...

    You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.

    Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."

    So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.

    However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.

    There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.

    How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?

    Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."


    Yes, Sovrath is right.  Some players would like that sort of game and some players wouldn't like that sort of game.  I wasn't disputing that point.   

    I was just trying to explain that certain design features could be implemented so that  the situations he described would be rare events.  But okay. 





    "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.)

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,931
    You asked a question, he have a solid answer and you changed the discussion entirely. It's getting obnoxious. 

    Sovrath said:

    Well, let's put it this way ...

    You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.

    Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."

    So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.

    However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.

    There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.

    How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?

    Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."


    Yes, Sovrath is right.  Some players would like that sort of game and some players wouldn't like that sort of game.  I wasn't disputing that point.   

    I was just trying to explain that certain design features could be implemented so that  the situations he described would be rare events.  But okay. 





    I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.

    When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.


    AlBQuirky
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,242
    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. 

    Honestly, I don't like the idea of catering so much to PVE-only players and designing whole systems around their particular preferences.  Personally, I think I would rather take the risk of alienating certain kinds of players rather than implementing such unrealistic designs (insofar as allowing some players to be incapable of being attacked by others).
    That's problematic. 
    It's a funny thing about PvP games.
    Even wannabe PvPers quit. 

    - First you have the wave of PvEers that leave, if they are there at all. 
    - Then you have the PvPers that aren't up to snuff, and have that light bulb moment that they are losing more than winning because the PvEers left. (Or they were the initial targets.) 
    - Then you have the next wave of PvPers because they can't all be in the top half. 
    - Then you have still more PvPers leave, the next wave just like the last. 
    - On and on until you barely have enough of the truly hardcore who simply don't care if they lose or not, but you don't have enough paying customers to even properly maintain your game. And then even some of them start leaving because the game just isn't active enough anymore. 

    From there, the writing is literally on the wall, as you can look back at every PvP game, every PvP server, and see this has happened. 
    Except for Eve, which is really more of a Battleship game, and has no competition quite of the same kind (resource and production, in space). 
    Finally, about Eve vs. others, never underestimate the meaning of having an actual character that a player relates to more strongly. 
    Those pancake butts in Eve just aren't the same thing. 

    I know what you are trying to create, and I sympathize with you. But it's just not possible, because the above: 
    - IS true
    - IS logical
    - and it IS completely understandable. 

    I've been giving you the next best options, but like all PvP enthusiasts you are not accepting the truth outlined above. 
    I truly wish it could be different. But it won't. 
    UO did this to him  :D

    tzervoScorchienAmaranthar
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 7,416
    edited May 9
    In Ultima Online , The entire city of Magnincia was reduced to rubble( which you can still get in game as deco btw) , By demons in a very long running event , Magnincia was attacked by Demons because of its prideful ways , and players defended the city  but in the end it was destroyed ..

      The rebuilding of Magnincia during the Shadow of Virtue event was a long running event New Magnincia was rebuilt with player help some able to build there homes on the isle into a very Humble city ..

      One of the best and most interesting events i have taken part in .. UO does great events .

      Player can also still right now effect the world in many ways even if they are on the other side of it .
    Post edited by Scorchien on
    Ancient_Exile
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,361
    Sovrath said:
    Iselin said:
    Iselin said:
    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.
    Phasing is a single player experience and doesn't affect the world for others like the op is discussing. 
    It affects it for anyone that goes through the transition. But like I said, it's just story telling trickery. EQN's idea wasn't.
    If you complete a quest and see something different because of it that's a single player experience. If someone else completes a quest and you see the result is not. Phasing was an attempt to give the illusion that you are affecting the world without hindering someone else's experience and for those that like the single player experience it works really well.

    EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that. 

    I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.

    Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
    Well, let's put it this way ...

    You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.

    Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."

    So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.

    However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.

    There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.

    How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?

    Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."



    Well said, Sovrath. A lot people quit WoW when Cata launched. It literally changed Azeroth. What Amathe said about the human starting area was one such change.

    I did quit WoW then, but not because of the world changes. It was what they did to the Guild structures with that change and my guild fell apart.

    Maybe it's because EQ was my first MMOPG, so that's what formed my "expectations", but with 14 or so different starting areas, if I wanted a change, I could find it. Later on, there were still choices in areas to level up in, but not so many.

    If what I spent days working on in an MMO was suddenly gone through no fault of my own, I'd leave. I don't mind developers changing "their world", but do not trust in giving that power to players. "Because I can!" is too common of a mantra for far too many people for my tastes.

    It all comes down to expectations, I guess. I expect what I accomplished the last time playing an MMO to be there when I come back. I don't want to dance to thousands of other players actions each time I log in. I understand that some players enjoy, even thrive on this, though.

    It does have its down side, for sure. An alt comes to the same farmer another character helped ages ago. That alt is given the exact same quest and you can't help but say, "Wolf problem again? Or is it still?" For me, I'd rather deal with "boring old repetitiveness" than "OMG! What the hell happened here!"

    This old dog is learning new things here, though :)
    Ancient_Exile

    - 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


  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,242
    AlBQuirky said:
    Sovrath said:
    Iselin said:
    Iselin said:
    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.
    Phasing is a single player experience and doesn't affect the world for others like the op is discussing. 
    It affects it for anyone that goes through the transition. But like I said, it's just story telling trickery. EQN's idea wasn't.
    If you complete a quest and see something different because of it that's a single player experience. If someone else completes a quest and you see the result is not. Phasing was an attempt to give the illusion that you are affecting the world without hindering someone else's experience and for those that like the single player experience it works really well.

    EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that. 

    I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.

    Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
    Well, let's put it this way ...

    You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.

    Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."

    So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.

    However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.

    There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.

    How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?

    Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."



    Well said, Sovrath. A lot people quit WoW when Cata launched. It literally changed Azeroth. What Amathe said about the human starting area was one such change.

    I did quit WoW then, but not because of the world changes. It was what they did to the Guild structures with that change and my guild fell apart.

    Maybe it's because EQ was my first MMOPG, so that's what formed my "expectations", but with 14 or so different starting areas, if I wanted a change, I could find it. Later on, there were still choices in areas to level up in, but not so many.

    If what I spent days working on in an MMO was suddenly gone through no fault of my own, I'd leave. I don't mind developers changing "their world", but do not trust in giving that power to players. "Because I can!" is too common of a mantra for far too many people for my tastes.

    It all comes down to expectations, I guess. I expect what I accomplished the last time playing an MMO to be there when I come back. I don't want to dance to thousands of other players actions each time I log in. I understand that some players enjoy, even thrive on this, though.

    It does have its down side, for sure. An alt comes to the same farmer another character helped ages ago. That alt is given the exact same quest and you can't help but say, "Wolf problem again? Or is it still?" For me, I'd rather deal with "boring old repetitiveness" than "OMG! What the hell happened here!"

    This old dog is learning new things here, though :)
    The Pre-WoTLK zombie event was AMAZING to me people wined and wined and it was cut short.
    AlBQuirky
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303

    I apologize for being a bit of jerk and not really giving a detailed answer in my first post of this thread.


    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.)

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 9
    I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.

    When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.


    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally rely on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part. 

    Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
    "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.)

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    AlBQuirky said:

    Well said, Sovrath. A lot people quit WoW when Cata launched. It literally changed Azeroth. What Amathe said about the human starting area was one such change.

    I did quit WoW then, but not because of the world changes. It was what they did to the Guild structures with that change and my guild fell apart.

    Maybe it's because EQ was my first MMOPG, so that's what formed my "expectations", but with 14 or so different starting areas, if I wanted a change, I could find it. Later on, there were still choices in areas to level up in, but not so many.

    If what I spent days working on in an MMO was suddenly gone through no fault of my own, I'd leave. I don't mind developers changing "their world", but do not trust in giving that power to players. "Because I can!" is too common of a mantra for far too many people for my tastes.

    It all comes down to expectations, I guess. I expect what I accomplished the last time playing an MMO to be there when I come back. I don't want to dance to thousands of other players actions each time I log in. I understand that some players enjoy, even thrive on this, though.

    It does have its down side, for sure. An alt comes to the same farmer another character helped ages ago. That alt is given the exact same quest and you can't help but say, "Wolf problem again? Or is it still?" For me, I'd rather deal with "boring old repetitiveness" than "OMG! What the hell happened here!"

    This old dog is learning new things here, though :)

    Power can be given to players, but not too much power.  And certainly not power without responsibility or consequences.  People can do a lot of things in the real world, but most tend to refrain from exercising their freedom to the utmost degree.  This is often due to the possible and potential consequences involved.  Though morality, values, and beliefs can play a role as well.  However, in an MMORPG, morality, values, and beliefs may or may not play as large a role unless the player is actually ROLE-PLAYING his or her character. 

    Now an MMORPG cannot enforce ROLE-PLAYING as such, but it can encourage it or incentivize it by rewarding reputation points for making certain choices or performing certain actions.  (A character could also lose reputation points due to choices and actions as well.)  A character could do enough good things to become Renowned in certain regions or enough bad things to become Infamous in certain regions.  However, if the character is operating in an area dominated by evil or not-so-good factions, a character might gain Renown by doing evil and become Infamous for doing good (though evil factions would judge choices & actions more by whether they were helpful/advantageous to them or harmful/disadvantageous to them).
    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.)

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,242
    I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.

    When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.


    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally really on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part. 

    Ooo! You just game me an idea. 

    First, understand my concept of an AI.
    It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after. 
    It's really kind of simple, and expanded. 
    - Give MOBs this "want" AI. 
    - Start building from the core brain up. 
    (A) First series, basic animal....
    - Fight or flight.
    - Food and shelter. 
    - Defend young.

    (B) Second series, more intelligent animal
    - Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves  et.)
    - defend home.
    - Food storage.

    (C) Third series, more advanced animal intel
    - use basic tools like stones and sticks.

    (D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here
    - Build fires
    - Basic construction, stone age


    (E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence
    - More advanced construction
    - more refined tool making
    - mining, farming, and the like

    (F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence
    - Spells and magic
    - Advanced contraptions

    There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it. 
    "Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered"
    "Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"

    Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score.
    Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive." 
    Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale. 
    Their actions are based on these rolls. 

    There would be roll charts for various circumstances, 
    - wandering in search, 
    - encounter 
    - combat

    This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea. 

    Now, the topic being players changing the world, 
    what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave.
    What if their band size grew, and grew. 
    What if Players defeat them, with some escaping. 
    Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again. 
    Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag). 
    See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis. 

    And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands. 

    Ancient_ExileGdemami

    Once upon a time....

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,931

    I apologize for being a bit of jerk and not really giving a detailed answer in my first post of this thread.


    We're all guilty of it from time to time.
    AmarantharAlBQuirkyAncient_Exile
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 10
    I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.

    When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.


    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally really on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part. 

    Ooo! You just game me an idea. 

    First, understand my concept of an AI.
    It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after. 
    It's really kind of simple, and expanded. 
    - Give MOBs this "want" AI. 
    - Start building from the core brain up. 
    (A) First series, basic animal....
    - Fight or flight.
    - Food and shelter. 
    - Defend young.

    (B) Second series, more intelligent animal
    - Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves  et.)
    - defend home.
    - Food storage.

    (C) Third series, more advanced animal intel
    - use basic tools like stones and sticks.

    (D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here
    - Build fires
    - Basic construction, stone age


    (E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence
    - More advanced construction
    - more refined tool making
    - mining, farming, and the like

    (F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence
    - Spells and magic
    - Advanced contraptions

    There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it. 
    "Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered"
    "Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"

    Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score.
    Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive." 
    Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale. 
    Their actions are based on these rolls. 

    There would be roll charts for various circumstances, 
    - wandering in search, 
    - encounter 
    - combat

    This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea. 

    Now, the topic being players changing the world, 
    what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave.
    What if their band size grew, and grew. 
    What if Players defeat them, with some escaping. 
    Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again. 
    Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag). 
    See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis. 

    And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands. 


    That is the sort of thing that can make an MMORPG much more interesting.

    And there are ways to keep players from killing off everything or defeating every enemy in a game world.  There can be areas to which players do not have access.  Or areas that are far too difficult and dangerous for players to consider traveling across/through or that into which delving comes at far too high a price.  Forests which are too deep and dangerous to ever explore thoroughly.  Hidden valleys, parts of the continent walled off by very dangerous mountain ranges, barren wastelands or deserts that are so vast (and dangerous) that they would have trouble carrying enough supplies (food, water) in order to cross.  Unknown continents separated by vast expanses of ocean.  Areas of the underground that are far too dangerous to explore to a great extent.  There could even be portals to another world which players cannot find or close.

    If something like stamina/energy is used, then players simply wouldn't be able to fight and clear a whole region of monsters or animals without needing to seek shelter and rest.  (Giving time for monsters and animals to respawn.)  Not to mention that they would only be able to carry so much food and water.  Wagons couldn't be taken everywhere.  There could even be areas that would be too difficult for horses or pack mules to navigate.  And why should players be able to leave their mounts unguarded without fear of them being killed, eaten, or stolen?  Or why should all mounts be able to magically fold up into their pockets (or wherever they go when they disappear in certain games).



    AmarantharAlBQuirky
    "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: 4,242
    I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.

    When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.


    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally really on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part. 

    Ooo! You just game me an idea. 

    First, understand my concept of an AI.
    It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after. 
    It's really kind of simple, and expanded. 
    - Give MOBs this "want" AI. 
    - Start building from the core brain up. 
    (A) First series, basic animal....
    - Fight or flight.
    - Food and shelter. 
    - Defend young.

    (B) Second series, more intelligent animal
    - Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves  et.)
    - defend home.
    - Food storage.

    (C) Third series, more advanced animal intel
    - use basic tools like stones and sticks.

    (D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here
    - Build fires
    - Basic construction, stone age


    (E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence
    - More advanced construction
    - more refined tool making
    - mining, farming, and the like

    (F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence
    - Spells and magic
    - Advanced contraptions

    There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it. 
    "Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered"
    "Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"

    Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score.
    Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive." 
    Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale. 
    Their actions are based on these rolls. 

    There would be roll charts for various circumstances, 
    - wandering in search, 
    - encounter 
    - combat

    This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea. 

    Now, the topic being players changing the world, 
    what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave.
    What if their band size grew, and grew. 
    What if Players defeat them, with some escaping. 
    Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again. 
    Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag). 
    See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis. 

    And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands. 


    That is the sort of thing that can make an MMORPG much more interesting.

    And there are ways to keep players from killing off everything or defeating every enemy in a game world.  There can be areas to which players do not have access.  Or areas that are far too difficult and dangerous for players to consider traveling across/through or that into which delving comes at far too high a price.  Forests which are too deep and dangerous to ever explore thoroughly.  Hidden valleys, parts of the continent walled off by very dangerous mountain ranges, barren wastelands or deserts that are so vast (and dangerous) that they would have trouble carrying enough supplies (food, water) in order to cross.  Unknown continents separated by vast expanses of ocean.  Areas of the underground that are far too dangerous to explore to a great extent.  There could even be portals to another world which players cannot find or close.

    If something like stamina/energy is used, then players simply wouldn't be able to fight and clear a whole region of monsters or animals without needing to seek shelter and rest.  (Giving time for monsters and animals to respawn.)  Not to mention that they would only be able to carry so much food and water.  Wagons couldn't be taken everywhere.  There could even be areas that would be too difficult for horses or pack mules to navigate.  And why should players be able to leave their mounts unguarded without fear of them being killed, eaten, or stolen?  Or why should all mounts be able to magically fold up into their pockets (or wherever they go when they disappear in certain games).

    Yes. A truly great world of extreme adventure could be made. 
    Hireling henchmen to act as porters, Rangers and their Pets to hunt for fresh game, Druids to talk to the trees for information, Elves and Halflings to act as scouts (depending on terrain, I'd set up Elves for superior woodlands and Halflings for superior stoney/plains areas), Familiars to act as messengers, Mages to cast concealment spells, the whole darn gamut. 
    Ancient_Exile

    Once upon a time....

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 10
    I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.

    When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.


    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally really on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part. 

    Ooo! You just game me an idea. 

    First, understand my concept of an AI.
    It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after. 
    It's really kind of simple, and expanded. 
    - Give MOBs this "want" AI. 
    - Start building from the core brain up. 
    (A) First series, basic animal....
    - Fight or flight.
    - Food and shelter. 
    - Defend young.

    (B) Second series, more intelligent animal
    - Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves  et.)
    - defend home.
    - Food storage.

    (C) Third series, more advanced animal intel
    - use basic tools like stones and sticks.

    (D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here
    - Build fires
    - Basic construction, stone age


    (E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence
    - More advanced construction
    - more refined tool making
    - mining, farming, and the like

    (F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence
    - Spells and magic
    - Advanced contraptions

    There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it. 
    "Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered"
    "Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"

    Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score.
    Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive." 
    Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale. 
    Their actions are based on these rolls. 

    There would be roll charts for various circumstances, 
    - wandering in search, 
    - encounter 
    - combat

    This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea. 

    Now, the topic being players changing the world, 
    what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave.
    What if their band size grew, and grew. 
    What if Players defeat them, with some escaping. 
    Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again. 
    Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag). 
    See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis. 

    And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands. 


    That is the sort of thing that can make an MMORPG much more interesting.

    And there are ways to keep players from killing off everything or defeating every enemy in a game world.  There can be areas to which players do not have access.  Or areas that are far too difficult and dangerous for players to consider traveling across/through or that into which delving comes at far too high a price.  Forests which are too deep and dangerous to ever explore thoroughly.  Hidden valleys, parts of the continent walled off by very dangerous mountain ranges, barren wastelands or deserts that are so vast (and dangerous) that they would have trouble carrying enough supplies (food, water) in order to cross.  Unknown continents separated by vast expanses of ocean.  Areas of the underground that are far too dangerous to explore to a great extent.  There could even be portals to another world which players cannot find or close.

    If something like stamina/energy is used, then players simply wouldn't be able to fight and clear a whole region of monsters or animals without needing to seek shelter and rest.  (Giving time for monsters and animals to respawn.)  Not to mention that they would only be able to carry so much food and water.  Wagons couldn't be taken everywhere.  There could even be areas that would be too difficult for horses or pack mules to navigate.  And why should players be able to leave their mounts unguarded without fear of them being killed, eaten, or stolen?  Or why should all mounts be able to magically fold up into their pockets (or wherever they go when they disappear in certain games).

    Yes. A truly great world of extreme adventure could be made. 
    Hireling henchmen to act as porters, Rangers and their Pets to hunt for fresh game, Druids to talk to the trees for information, Elves and Halflings to act as scouts (depending on terrain, I'd set up Elves for superior woodlands and Halflings for superior stoney/plains areas), Familiars to act as messengers, Mages to cast concealment spells, the whole darn gamut. 
    And then perhaps a game could finally fulfill the promise of a certain title released many moons ago.


    "Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure."


    Amaranthar
    "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: 615
    edited May 10
    Ancient_Exile said:

    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally rely on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.  
    I will sound like a broken record, but even though I agree with you it is easier to make interesting dynamic worlds where players affect the world with PvP, it is not only possible but also being done right now via PvE without the use of AI in "A Tale in the Desert", "One Hour One Life" and with partial use of AI that can be affected by players in "Elite:Dangerous".

    Btw @Amaranthar, the ideas you describe are very similar to what E:D does, where you can have factions behave different according to their beliefs (anarchists, autocrats, corporation, social), expanding, going to war with factions they do not like, etc. And all changes affect mission boards, the local economy etc.

    EVE also has a similar system with NPC's roaming, mining, more recently even invading systems and putting them in lockdown with the introduction of the triglavians (which has effects on the system and requires players to drive them off), and even fighting one another: https://massivelyop.com/2019/06/23/eve-north-2019-a-huge-battle-once-broke-out-in-eve-online-but-not-a-single-player-was-involved/

    Ashes of Creation is trying to achieve something similar with its node system. I think the main difference is that apart from the EVE example, E:D and AoC are trying to get these interactions on a larger scale and I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
    Ancient_ExileAlBQuirkybcbullyAmaranthar
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 10
    tzervo said:
    Ancient_Exile said:

    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally rely on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.  
    I will sound like a broken record, but even though I agree with you it is easier to make interesting dynamic worlds where players affect the world with PvP, it is not only possible but also being done right now via PvE without the use of AI in "A Tale in the Desert", "One Hour One Life" and with partial use of AI that can be affected by players in "Elite:Dangerous".

    Btw @Amaranthar, the ideas you describe are very similar to what E:D does, where you can have factions behave different according to their beliefs (anarchists, autocrats, corporation, social), expanding, going to war with factions they do not like, etc. And all changes affect mission boards, the local economy etc.

    EVE also has a similar system with NPC's roaming, mining, more recently even invading systems and putting them in lockdown with the introduction of the triglavians (which has effects on the system and requires players to drive them off), and even fighting one another: https://massivelyop.com/2019/06/23/eve-north-2019-a-huge-battle-once-broke-out-in-eve-online-but-not-a-single-player-was-involved/

    Ashes of Creation is trying to achieve something similar with its node system. I think the main difference is that apart from the EVE example, E:D and AoC are trying to get these interactions on a larger scale and I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.

    Are the changes to the game world in A Tale in the Desert and E:D permanent?  At least until they are altered again by Player Characters, Non-Player Characters, and or Mobs?

    NPC factions fighting each other is interesting and something I'd like to see more of in MMORPGs.  I'll have to read that article about EVE Online when I get a chance.  Hopefully soon.
    "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.)

  • PalaPala Member UncommonPosts: 316
    Dont care about changing the world, in fact I dont think players should be able to change the world to any significant degree. And if so then only through massive engagement of small or big groups. Never solo! 
    Ancient_ExileAlBQuirky
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 615
    edited May 10
    Are the changes to the game world in A Tale in the Desert and E:D permanent?  At least until they are altered again by Player Characters, Non-Player Characters, and or Mobs?

    NPC factions fighting each other is interesting and something I'd like to see more of in MMORPGs.  I'll have to read that article about EVE Online when I get a chance.  Hopefully soon.
    In ATitD they are permanent within a tale. Iirc Tales last 1 to a couple years, not fixed, and then the world resets.

    In E:D the changes are permanent. The issue that E:D has is that due to its size and player distribution, you could argue that they are mostly irrelevant. If a player trades something, then another group or the AI comes in and affects the system and breaks that player's trading route, they can always migrate to another system with similar characteristics.

    You could argue that this is an advantage or a disadvantage depending on your preferences:

    1) Players that don't like change to deeply affect their gameplay like this, because they can still play the game the way they want. They still get some sense of immersion from this illusion of change in the world and this is the objective of the world changing for them.

    2) Players that want truly dynamic worlds feel that this is like cheating: the changes are irrelevant since they just shift some numbers around. They understand that real change will inconvenience them at times and challenge them because that's the whole point. For them, change needs to be driven by some sort of competition for resources.
    Ancient_ExileAlBQuirkyAmaranthar
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,361
    edited May 10
    I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.

    When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.


    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally really on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part. 

    Ooo! You just game me an idea. 

    First, understand my concept of an AI.
    It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after. 
    It's really kind of simple, and expanded. 
    - Give MOBs this "want" AI. 
    - Start building from the core brain up. 
    (A) First series, basic animal....
    - Fight or flight.
    - Food and shelter. 
    - Defend young.

    (B) Second series, more intelligent animal
    - Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves  et.)
    - defend home.
    - Food storage.

    (C) Third series, more advanced animal intel
    - use basic tools like stones and sticks.

    (D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here
    - Build fires
    - Basic construction, stone age


    (E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence
    - More advanced construction
    - more refined tool making
    - mining, farming, and the like

    (F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence
    - Spells and magic
    - Advanced contraptions

    There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it. 
    "Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered"
    "Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"

    Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score.
    Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive." 
    Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale. 
    Their actions are based on these rolls. 

    There would be roll charts for various circumstances, 
    - wandering in search, 
    - encounter 
    - combat

    This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea. 

    Now, the topic being players changing the world, 
    what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave.
    What if their band size grew, and grew. 
    What if Players defeat them, with some escaping. 
    Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again. 
    Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag). 
    See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis. 

    And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands. 


    That is the sort of thing that can make an MMORPG much more interesting.

    And there are ways to keep players from killing off everything or defeating every enemy in a game world.  There can be areas to which players do not have access.  Or areas that are far too difficult and dangerous for players to consider traveling across/through or that into which delving comes at far too high a price.  Forests which are too deep and dangerous to ever explore thoroughly.  Hidden valleys, parts of the continent walled off by very dangerous mountain ranges, barren wastelands or deserts that are so vast (and dangerous) that they would have trouble carrying enough supplies (food, water) in order to cross.  Unknown continents separated by vast expanses of ocean.  Areas of the underground that are far too dangerous to explore to a great extent.  There could even be portals to another world which players cannot find or close.

    If something like stamina/energy is used, then players simply wouldn't be able to fight and clear a whole region of monsters or animals without needing to seek shelter and rest.  (Giving time for monsters and animals to respawn.)  Not to mention that they would only be able to carry so much food and water.  Wagons couldn't be taken everywhere.  There could even be areas that would be too difficult for horses or pack mules to navigate.  And why should players be able to leave their mounts unguarded without fear of them being killed, eaten, or stolen?  Or why should all mounts be able to magically fold up into their pockets (or wherever they go when they disappear in certain games).




    Those were called time sinks back in the day. I called it "downtime" because after most EQ fights, the group needed to heal up and recover mana. EQ didn't allow players to rampage across Norrath killing everything in sight. An even level monster had as much chance of kicking your ass as you did its ass, solo.

    They placed high level wandering monsters in almost all zones, like Griffins in The East Commonlands or Sand Giants in The Desert of Ro.

    I can just hear the outcry if these methods were tried again. How dare you try to slow down players! :lol:
    Ancient_Exiletzervo

    - 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


  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    tzervo said:
    Are the changes to the game world in A Tale in the Desert and E:D permanent?  At least until they are altered again by Player Characters, Non-Player Characters, and or Mobs?

    NPC factions fighting each other is interesting and something I'd like to see more of in MMORPGs.  I'll have to read that article about EVE Online when I get a chance.  Hopefully soon.
    In ATitD they are permanent within a tale. Iirc Tales last 1 to a couple years, not fixed, and then the world resets.

    In E:D the changes are permanent. The issue that E:D has is that due to its size and player distribution, you could argue that they are mostly irrelevant. If a player trades something, then another group or the AI comes in and affects the system and breaks that player's trading route, they can always migrate to another system with similar characteristics.

    You could argue that this is an advantage or a disadvantage depending on your preferences:

    1) Players that don't like change to deeply affect their gameplay like this, because they can still play the game the way they want. They still get some sense of immersion from this illusion of change in the world and this is the objective of the world changing for them.

    2) Players that want truly dynamic worlds feel that this is like cheating: the changes are irrelevant since they just shift some numbers around. They understand that real change will inconvenience them at times and challenge them because that's the whole point. For them, change needs to be driven by some sort of competition for resources.

    (Note:  I haven't tried a A Tale in the Desert because I'm not too terribly interested in an Ancient Egyptian setting.

    About ATitD - Nothing wrong with an occasional server reset, IMHO.  If an MMORPG has competing PC, NPC (Some which players can join, some which they can't join), and Mob Factions, then the game could allow for one Faction or an Alliance of Factions to win eventually.  Then a few weeks to a month could be spent seeing what happens to the world when that Faction or Alliance is victorious.  After that, the Server could be reset, reincarnating everyone on the Sever a little more powerful than they were initially (or at the time of the last Reset).  New players could join a Reset Server, but they'd have to pay a little extra for a Reincarnated Character.  This might depend on how many times the Server has been Reset.  Possibly.

    Every Server would be a little bit or a lot different than another Server, of course.  Depending on how events unfolded.  Some of which could be completely random.  Though certain Pivotal Events could be introduced by the Game Developers in order to restore or maintain balance in the game world any time they desired. 


    E;D is set in Outer Space?  If so, think I'll pass. 

    1) Kind of defeats the purpose of playing with other people.

    2) Agreed. 

    Competition for resources is one of the most basic types of competition.  Land is a resource (and can contain many different kinds of resources), so conflict over territory would be a subcategory of this, I believe.  Disputes over trade routes and/or access to foreign markets could also be subcategories of this type of conflict.  Even access to recently located ancient ruins (such an ancient city) wherein it is rumored (such as according to legend or prophecy) that great wealth and arcane/divine secrets can be discovered could cause a major conflict between powerful Factions. 

    There can also be divided Pantheons of deities who are at war or in some sort of conflict (even if it is just a game for them), which then filters down to the world they have created (or claimed for their own), and the beings they have created on its surface (or chosen to take an interest in after arriving in that plane).  \

    Factions can also be opposed to each based on conflicting Ethoses.

    Examples: Good vs Evil, Not-so-Evil vs Not-so-Good, Not-so-evil vs Not-so-evil/Not-so-Good vs Not-so-Good (where the self-interest of each Faction is their guiding principle.  Though they will most likely tend to portray their enemies as evil or more evil/less good than they are.)

    Racial enmities or a history of conflict between two or more Factions can also play a role.


     




    tzervoAlBQuirkyAmaranthar
    "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.)

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 10
    AlBQuirky said:

    Those were called time sinks back in the day. I called it "downtime" because after most EQ fights, the group needed to heal up and recover mana. EQ didn't allow players to rampage across Norrath killing everything in sight. An even level monster had as much chance of kicking your ass as you did its ass, solo.

    They placed high level wandering monsters in almost all zones, like Griffins in The East Commonlands or Sand Giants in The Desert of Ro.

    I can just hear the outcry if these methods were tried again. How dare you try to slow down players! :lol:

    Powerful andering Monsters or even groups of Wandering Monsters/Beasts.

    Good point.  They can be very effective as well. 

    Players can still play the games where they get to max level in one to two weeks and have nothing really interesting left to do after a month or two.  No one will stop them.  Though someone might try to convince them that there is a better way to design an MMORPG.  Even make one and allow them to try it out.
    AlBQuirkyAmaranthar
    "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: 615
    edited May 10
    Ancient_Exile said:
    Note:  I haven't tried a A Tale in the Desert because I'm not too terribly interested in an Ancient Egyptian setting.

    About ATitD - Nothing wrong with an occasional server reset, IMHO.  If an MMORPG has competing PC, NPC (Some which players can join, some which they can't join), and Mob Factions, then the game could allow for one Faction or an Alliance of Factions to win eventually.  Then a few weeks to a month could be spent seeing what happens to the world when that Faction or Alliance is victorious.  After that, the Server could be reset, reincarnating everyone on the Sever a little more powerful than they were initially (or at the time of the last Reset).  New players could join a Reset Server, but they'd have to pay a little extra for a Reincarnated Character.  This might depend on how many times the Server has been Reset.  Possibly.

    Every Server would be a little bit or a lot different than another Server, of course.  Depending on how events unfolded.  Some of which could be completely random.  Though certain Pivotal Events could be introduced by the Game Developers in order to restore or maintain balance in the game world any time they desired. 


    E;D is set in Outer Space?  If so, think I'll pass.  
    Just to clarify: I am not trying to sell anyone on these games. I am also not playing them for specific reasons: ATitD is old and its UI is a turn off for me. And E:D, apart from its interesting BGS and great handling (flying a spaceship in E:D feels really damn great), has sloppy design written all over it and is being updated at the pace of an old snail.

    But all these games are interesting in some way and give proofs-of-concept how you could have dynamic worlds with players affecting them in PvP, PvE, with and without AI

    Re server resets, I only consider them interesting if there is some sort of final conclusion to them or some victory condition. In Foxhole you have a single shard with two factions entirely composed by players fighting each other. More than 50% of the structures are defenses built by players to help the war effort. Cities can be razed and rebuilt. Recently players can build bases and trench structures, affecting the landscape. Wars typically last 2 to 6 weeks until one side wins and then the map resets. Think GW2's WvW on a larger timescale and with deeper building and logistics mechanics - and with the players drastically affecting the world.

    Crowfall has some interesting concepts as well with its Eternal Kingdoms and campaings, letting the player progress their account and "home worlds" through the campaign resets.

    Re resource competition/scarcity: One Hour One Life has interesting systems built on top of it. If a colony/village aggressively farms the resources around the village, they will deplete, forcing smart ecology-friendly decision making and playstyles. That UI and controls though... ugh.

    There are lots of crazy and excellent ideas out there already. But they hit a bump because many gamers do not really want to challenge themselves mentally and/or because the total package is messed up in one way or another.
    Ancient_ExileAlBQuirky
Sign In or Register to comment.