Getting back on topic here, which is not about anyone's "dream MMORPG", let's talk about the never born EQ Next.
One of my biggest worries with the game was the voxel based destructible world they planned on. They had Norrath set up in vertical layers and a player could "dig" their way down to the next layer. This was a "sense of discovery" ploy. I had visions about seeing the top layer looking like swiss cheese in 1 day. Maybe even falling into a hole that someone dug upwards right underneath me. This did not sound like "fun" to me, but many players ate the concept up. It happens all the time on Minecraft servers, I guess.
This kind of "affect the world" would keep me away from the game, though for EQ Next I'd planned on taking a peak, at least
Let me ask what ways players can affect a game world? My examples were pretty terrible.
PS: If no one notices your influences, does it matter?
I was never a fan of the "hey, let's also make it like minecraft!" part. It was their other ideas about sophisticated NPC AI and unique player interactions with them, roaming mobs with a purpose, etc. that interested me.
As to players changing the world I think NPCs or developers with updates could do that just as well and create a dynamic world probably better than players would since a large portion of the players is usually more concerned with gaming the game and developers and NPCs would have more lore-consistent motivation.
I don't have a lot of faith on the way that players collectively would change a game if they had a lot of ways to do it. I kind of expected EQN to have penis towers everywhere
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Getting back on topic here, which is not about anyone's "dream MMORPG", let's talk about the never born EQ Next.
One of my biggest worries with the game was the voxel based destructible world they planned on. They had Norrath set up in vertical layers and a player could "dig" their way down to the next layer. This was a "sense of discovery" ploy. I had visions about seeing the top layer looking like swiss cheese in 1 day. Maybe even falling into a hole that someone dug upwards right underneath me. This did not sound like "fun" to me, but many players ate the concept up. It happens all the time on Minecraft servers, I guess.
This kind of "affect the world" would keep me away from the game, though for EQ Next I'd planned on taking a peak, at least
Let me ask what ways players can affect a game world? My examples were pretty terrible.
PS: If no one notices your influences, does it matter?
LOL, I have got to say, after playing Trove, Destructible Voxel worlds are the epic shizzle shitz of game world design and I expect many newer MMO's to try and build that feature in, some way, being able to fully modify the landscape like that is awesome.
With that said, you are not wrong about the swiss cheese look, in Trove, people do what is called Bomb Mining, where they find "ore" veins, and as opposed to digging them out, they just blow them apart with bombs, in short, they strip mine the areas. Now, in Trove they have mining veins which is what people value and want, the basic ground blocks, not so much, so, there is less rampant destruction to the overall game map, but it's still quite obvious where the nodes were, as there are random deep holes blown into the landscape, there are also people that just like tossing bombs, and bought/earned a tortoise mount just so they could endlessly toss bombs as they moved about the game world, so there is that as well.
And diggin up under someone is cool, but it's just "cool" it's not to be confused with a combat tactic, as they can't set a deep pit, if they have dig up to get you to fall, and even if they dropped you into a pit, you can dig out with ease.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
However, I have to admit that I want a game that's inviting to PvEers. Not hardcore PvEers, but your average player that doesn't want to be a target by other players very often. If you don't have a good number of those types, I think a game will be lacking socially and eventually (sooner rather than later) fall into a purely PvP game. That's where it starts to die. None of this other stuff matters. It's part of play, but as a part of the PvP world.
To have these PvEers, or maybe it's better to call them non-PvPers, and keep them, they have to be able to play plenty of the game world without the constant attacks that PvPers will impose on them.
All of the things you and I have mentioned have the potential to make that happen, while still having the threat, minimum as it may be. I think that would be the ideal game world. But you could also fail at doing it "strongly enough." That's what gamers will be looking at if you start making such a game.
So the potential consequences of Griefing*, Stalking/Camping, and/or Abusing other players need to equal or outweigh whatever 'benefit' or 'enjoyment' those offending players receive from their behavior.
*Remember, the definition of Griefing could vary widely from player to player. Some more sensitive players may consider the possibility/capability of players to negatively impact their experience in any way to be Griefing. These people may be control freaks or those who suffer from a lack of the ability to maintain control, or feel like they are in control, in their own personal/real lives. Or not. Anyway, I don't know why people like that would really ever want to play a game that has any form of competition. Or even any kind of cooperation or possibility of interaction with others where they cannot control the performance of other players. Or the outcomes of said cooperation/interaction.
You need to define griefing yourself, and get it right with players that aren't PvPers. Or try your luck with a PvP game and hope you can accomplish what no one else has. Logic tells me that it won't work, and that's purely based on logic and not what's happened in games before. I knew it from the very beginning, and have said these same things ever since early UO. It's proven right so far.
In the end, if you make a game, it's your decision. But it's late in the market now, with years of history. It's a tough sell from the get-go no matter how you go. So consider that too, and be prepared to present your pitch with logic. You'll probably need to provide evidence in testing on the Guardian type stuff, and explain the results and what you want for game play.
But what won't work exactly? Not developing a system which ABSOLUTELY PREVENTS Griefing of any kind? How do you do that and maintain any kind of logic and realism in the game?
I'm not talking about an absolute system of prevention. But the goal should be: - Cause PKing to not be a way of gaming due to mounting penalties, - Prevent an army from running through another Faction, because they'd do that all day long. I know you know this from your comments. I think I have a degree of mistrust in your judgement on this. Sorry, that's just being honest. It's earned not by you, but by the past in this matter of PvP.
As far as PKing, we are on the same page that it should be possible, on a "needs" basis, due to non-PvP griefing that some people do just to screw with people, and GMs can't be there all the time. So players need a little latitude to handle it themselves. But they will have to take turns, and then work off the penalty tags in between actions, or pay the small penalty that they can earn back fairly quickly if they happen to die.
It's the repeat PKing that's the problem, not the one-off instances that might occur in game play.
Getting back on topic here, which is not about anyone's "dream MMORPG", let's talk about the never born EQ Next.
One of my biggest worries with the game was the voxel based destructible world they planned on. They had Norrath set up in vertical layers and a player could "dig" their way down to the next layer. This was a "sense of discovery" ploy. I had visions about seeing the top layer looking like swiss cheese in 1 day. Maybe even falling into a hole that someone dug upwards right underneath me. This did not sound like "fun" to me, but many players ate the concept up. It happens all the time on Minecraft servers, I guess.
This kind of "affect the world" would keep me away from the game, though for EQ Next I'd planned on taking a peak, at least
Let me ask what ways players can affect a game world? My examples were pretty terrible.
PS: If no one notices your influences, does it matter?
LOL, I have got to say, after playing Trove, Destructible Voxel worlds are the epic shizzle shitz of game world design and I expect many newer MMO's to try and build that feature in, some way, being able to fully modify the landscape like that is awesome.
With that said, you are not wrong about the swiss cheese look, in Trove, people do what is called Bomb Mining, where they find "ore" veins, and as opposed to digging them out, they just blow them apart with bombs, in short, they strip mine the areas. Now, in Trove they have mining veins which is what people value and want, the basic ground blocks, not so much, so, there is less rampant destruction to the overall game map, but it's still quite obvious where the nodes were, as there are random deep holes blown into the landscape, there are also people that just like tossing bombs, and bought/earned a tortoise mount just so they could endlessly toss bombs as they moved about the game world, so there is that as well.
And diggin up under someone is cool, but it's just "cool" it's not to be confused with a combat tactic, as they can't set a deep pit, if they have dig up to get you to fall, and even if they dropped you into a pit, you can dig out with ease.
This made me think of construction and destruction in a game. I'm tired of instant results. I think it should take time to build or destroy in a Fantasy setting. Something that feels somewhat more realistic, but obviously not nearly real.
I always wanted to see house building that took a few days, with NPC construction workers managed by Players with the skills to set the NPC actions (players should have to spend a little time on this, but not be there a whole lot.).
Imagine seeing a major castle construction going on for a couple of RL weeks, seeing stages of development, NPCs working around the staked off and roped off laying done by the Player. Stone blocks that have been carved by Players per order piled nearby, temporary supply depots of lumber, and crates of assorted building supplies. All organized by the master builder, working off the plans provided by the owner.
This should be game play as well as game immersion and atmosphere.
I await the LOLs, lol.
Edit: I forgot about destruction. Doors should be easier, but walls should take time to destroy. And players should be able to defend their homes with Hirelings and Magic Wards. Maybe with Guardians and defenses provided by their deity, if earned.
It should take quite a while in minutes to destroy walls, allowing for defenses to react. Heavy stone fortifications should take RL days to crumble, using siege weapons. Heavy log defenses should take a lot of time too. The skill of the builder should have a lot to do with that too.
This made me think of construction and destruction in a game. I'm tired of instant results. I think it should take time to build or destroy in a Fantasy setting. Something that feels somewhat more realistic, but obviously not nearly real.
I always wanted to see house building that took a few days, with NPC construction workers managed by Players with the skills to set the NPC actions (players should have to spend a little time on this, but not be there a whole lot.).
Imagine seeing a major castle construction going on for a couple of RL weeks, seeing stages of development, NPCs working around the staked off and roped off laying done by the Player. Stone blocks that have been carved by Players per order piled nearby, temporary supply depots of lumber, and crates of assorted building supplies. All organized by the master builder, working off the plans provided by the owner.
This should be game play as well as game immersion and atmosphere.
I await the LOLs, lol.
Heh, I tried Life is Feudal once, construction and terraforming was slow there, and from what I hear it is even slower in Wurm Online. I assume that for collective efforts (castles, cities) it is not that bad, but for personal ones, it felt boring.
I like the way Foxhole handles building as a team. It meshes perfectly with the rest of the game. Builders/engineers (especially frontline ones) can have lots of fun there.
I don't know how long those took, but there should be a suitable period. That's why I don't want the players to have to be there all the time. Just spend the time to set the NPC actions in motion, and their skill modifies results. Yes - to the idea of collective efforts.
Getting back on topic here, which is not about anyone's "dream MMORPG", let's talk about the never born EQ Next.
One of my biggest worries with the game was the voxel based destructible world they planned on. They had Norrath set up in vertical layers and a player could "dig" their way down to the next layer. This was a "sense of discovery" ploy. I had visions about seeing the top layer looking like swiss cheese in 1 day. Maybe even falling into a hole that someone dug upwards right underneath me. This did not sound like "fun" to me, but many players ate the concept up. It happens all the time on Minecraft servers, I guess.
This kind of "affect the world" would keep me away from the game, though for EQ Next I'd planned on taking a peak, at least
Let me ask what ways players can affect a game world? My examples were pretty terrible.
PS: If no one notices your influences, does it matter?
How can players not effect a game world? Yes, it still matters even if I'm the only one who notices. But chances are that other players will notice as well. Just depends on the size or importance of the alteration.
Terra-forming is not really what I'm talking about at all. That requires a lot of man power to accomplish. One character with a shovel can only do so much. And a powerful mage probably has better ways to spend his or her time.
Also, not all ground/soil/earth is of the same composition. For example, some types of ground would be rocky/stony and very difficult to dig down into to any significant depth.
So, can player characters effect a game world?
Well, it can be as simple as a fighter and a few of his friends getting hired to guard a merchant caravan. Their presence in the group could make the difference between whether or not the caravan arrives at its destination safely.
Let's say later that fighter decides to settle down after a long career of adventuring and opens a tavern or retires to live on a farm. (Maybe he even gets married to a PC or NPC and has children.) Though he and his NPC dwarf cleric companion might still get called upon to help settle a local dispute or even embark on the occasional short adventure.
Or the fighter might have got knighted during his adventures and eventually acquired his own lands and a castle, along with various NPC retainers. He could get involved in the politics of the kingdom and one day might even become a close advisor to the king. Or he might learn of his king's wicked ways and become involved in a plot to overthrow the king.
There's so much more that could be done. But this is just off the top of my head and without putting much thought into 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.)
But what won't work exactly? Not developing a system which ABSOLUTELY PREVENTS Griefing of any kind? How do you do that and maintain any kind of logic and realism in the game?
I'm not talking about an absolute system of prevention. But the goal should be: - Cause PKing to not be a way of gaming due to mounting penalties, - Prevent an army from running through another Faction, because they'd do that all day long. I know you know this from your comments. I think I have a degree of mistrust in your judgement on this. Sorry, that's just being honest. It's earned not by you, but by the past in this matter of PvP.
As far as PKing, we are on the same page that it should be possible, on a "needs" basis, due to non-PvP griefing that some people do just to screw with people, and GMs can't be there all the time. So players need a little latitude to handle it themselves. But they will have to take turns, and then work off the penalty tags in between actions, or pay the small penalty that they can earn back fairly quickly if they happen to die.
It's the repeat PKing that's the problem, not the one-off instances that might occur in game play.
And killing needn't be the only way to deal with an irksome player. The game could also allow for robbing the player's character and knocking him out.
"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.)
But what won't work exactly? Not developing a system which ABSOLUTELY PREVENTS Griefing of any kind? How do you do that and maintain any kind of logic and realism in the game?
I'm not talking about an absolute system of prevention. But the goal should be: - Cause PKing to not be a way of gaming due to mounting penalties, - Prevent an army from running through another Faction, because they'd do that all day long. I know you know this from your comments. I think I have a degree of mistrust in your judgement on this. Sorry, that's just being honest. It's earned not by you, but by the past in this matter of PvP.
As far as PKing, we are on the same page that it should be possible, on a "needs" basis, due to non-PvP griefing that some people do just to screw with people, and GMs can't be there all the time. So players need a little latitude to handle it themselves. But they will have to take turns, and then work off the penalty tags in between actions, or pay the small penalty that they can earn back fairly quickly if they happen to die.
It's the repeat PKing that's the problem, not the one-off instances that might occur in game play.
And killing needn't be the only way to deal with an irksome player. The game could also allow for robbing the player's character and knocking him out.
Which should also have a lesser punishment under the Justice System, Faction rules.
Also a thing that was bad in UO, and maybe other games too. Thieves could be attacked, but doing so meant the Player defending themselves by attacking the thief lost their rights as far as getting killed. If a thief gets attacked, and ends up killing the guy, that should fall under the "murder" penalties.
And, a little off the side on this subject, I always wanted to see some means for Trades people to display their wares in a market setting. Maybe a table, or a blanket (better, since it could be on the ground or a table), where they can place their stuff to show, but it belongs to them and stealing rules apply (or "lock downs" if that's what the Devs choose).
But what won't work exactly? Not developing a system which ABSOLUTELY PREVENTS Griefing of any kind? How do you do that and maintain any kind of logic and realism in the game?
I'm not talking about an absolute system of prevention. But the goal should be: - Cause PKing to not be a way of gaming due to mounting penalties, - Prevent an army from running through another Faction, because they'd do that all day long. I know you know this from your comments. I think I have a degree of mistrust in your judgement on this. Sorry, that's just being honest. It's earned not by you, but by the past in this matter of PvP.
As far as PKing, we are on the same page that it should be possible, on a "needs" basis, due to non-PvP griefing that some people do just to screw with people, and GMs can't be there all the time. So players need a little latitude to handle it themselves. But they will have to take turns, and then work off the penalty tags in between actions, or pay the small penalty that they can earn back fairly quickly if they happen to die.
It's the repeat PKing that's the problem, not the one-off instances that might occur in game play.
And killing needn't be the only way to deal with an irksome player. The game could also allow for robbing the player's character and knocking him out.
Which should also have a lesser punishment under the Justice System, Faction rules.
Also a thing that was bad in UO, and maybe other games too. Thieves could be attacked, but doing so meant the Player defending themselves by attacking the thief lost their rights as far as getting killed. If a thief gets attacked, and ends up killing the guy, that should fall under the "murder" penalties.
And, a little off the side on this subject, I always wanted to see some means for Trades people to display their wares in a market setting. Maybe a table, or a blanket (better, since it could be on the ground or a table), where they can place their stuff to show, but it belongs to them and stealing rules apply (or "lock downs" if that's what the Devs choose).
I don't know if the game should allow for tying up other Player Characters to trees or something. And leaving them there until they get found by another PC, NPC (such as a guard patrol), a wandering monster (or group of monsters), or get eaten by a wild animal.
"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.)
(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.)
LOL, I have got to say, after playing Trove, Destructible Voxel worlds are the epic shizzle shitz of game world design and I expect many newer MMO's to try and build that feature in, some way, being able to fully modify the landscape like that is awesome.
This is actually interesting. How does Trove handle this not getting out of hand in the long term (taking both expected and undesired "exploitation" of the feature into account)?
Not much experience in Minecraft either but I always assumed this is not a problem there due to the semi-throwaway and private servers? And in Crowfall I would not expect this to be a problem either due to the resetting campaigns.
And yes, seeing what people commonly do in Terraria or example with this is amazing, but this does not have the complications of the MMO aspect.
Trove had a very unique system because of how their worlds worked and the fully destructible nature of their game, since they knew what to expect from players, and that they knew their maps would get stripmined in short order, their solution for this was that their maps were not persistent.
They were just massive voxel world maps, filled with various biomes and peppered with keeps and towers for players to complete to get loot and exp. I wager all of this was done though some kind of RNG system, so that each new map was randomly generated (to a point), like for example, Starting Points in the map were fixed areas. they were also not destructible, so players could not leave a huge pit under the starting point to troll other players, they could also not build on the starting point, as to try and trap other players.
Maps had a population cap, and for as long as a map was active, it remained, when a map became inactive (IE: everyone left) it would go away. Basically, when no one wanted to play on that map anymore, due to all the keeps, towers having been farmed, and viens dug up or blow up, the map would get "reset"
The only "persistent" worlds in Trove were Club Worlds, which were player owned, and believe this or not, some players were professional club world builders, where guilds would pay these other players to build a club world for them.
Which was really cool if you ask me.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I've been wanting curses (as in spells/enchantments) to be placed on top gear in such games for a long time, as protection against theft and/or looting.
Now you gave me another idea, that curses could be part of Player Home defenses.
One of my dreams was to have a game such as this, and build a powerful Mage, and then build a tower on a mountainside, where MOBs and players alike are a threat to both damage and theft. Developing a defense system to protect my tower if the game has a range of options, expensive and hard to get. It would be really cool to successfully pull that off, especially in a world where most players build their houses in or next to a town for safety.
I probably wouldn't be "that player", but the dream is still alive.
I've been wanting curses (as in spells/enchantments) to be placed on top gear in such games for a long time, as protection against theft and/or looting.
Now you gave me another idea, that curses could be part of Player Home defenses.
One of my dreams was to have a game such as this, and build a powerful Mage, and then build a tower on a mountainside, where MOBs and players alike are a threat to both damage and theft. Developing a defense system to protect my tower if the game has a range of options, expensive and hard to get. It would be really cool to successfully pull that off, especially in a world where most players build their houses in or next to a town for safety.
I probably wouldn't be "that player", but the dream is still alive.
Having cursed items in an RPG is cool. Why not in an MMORPG? Well, UO has them, but they tell you in the description that they're cursed. Which, to me, pretty much defeats the point of letting players find cursed items. Because who is going to equip or use something that they know is cursed?
Anyway, yes, I suppose Witches/Warlocks (dark magic-users) could place curses or hexes on things. Wizards would probably tend to use wards to protect their property and possessions instead. Though they might also be able to summon a guardian elemental or something to watch over their homestead (or tower) while they're away. Wards could be placed on individual items as well.
Actually, Priests should probably be able to apply curses as well. They would just be different in nature than the types of curses Witches use. Depending on the game world, a Witch might actually be a kind of demonic priest. Though I know that would be offensive to the Wicca-types. But like I said, it depends on the game world.
"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.)
Getting back on topic here, which is not about anyone's "dream MMORPG", let's talk about the never born EQ Next.
One of my biggest worries with the game was the voxel based destructible world they planned on. They had Norrath set up in vertical layers and a player could "dig" their way down to the next layer. This was a "sense of discovery" ploy. I had visions about seeing the top layer looking like swiss cheese in 1 day. Maybe even falling into a hole that someone dug upwards right underneath me. This did not sound like "fun" to me, but many players ate the concept up. It happens all the time on Minecraft servers, I guess.
This kind of "affect the world" would keep me away from the game, though for EQ Next I'd planned on taking a peak, at least
Let me ask what ways players can affect a game world? My examples were pretty terrible.
PS: If no one notices your influences, does it matter?
PCs (Player Characters) of a certain Faction manage to keep a wilderness area fairly clear of aggressive Mobs (monsters and dangerous wild animals).
PCs, NPCs, or both PCs & NPCs then begin to build a settlement in the area. Whether or not it survives depends on how well the PCs & NPC guards are able to defend it.
OR
PCs of a certain Faction don't manage to keep a wilderness area fairly clear of aggressive Mobs.
Orcs, Goblins, Lizardmen, or w/e then start to build a settlement in the area. If left unchecked, the settlement will eventually grow into a stronghold. That stronghold will be able to send more Mobs deeper into the Faction's territory, thereby threatening already established Faction settlements (villages, farms, towns, forts, etc.).
"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.)
I've been wanting curses (as in spells/enchantments) to be placed on top gear in such games for a long time, as protection against theft and/or looting.
Now you gave me another idea, that curses could be part of Player Home defenses.
One of my dreams was to have a game such as this, and build a powerful Mage, and then build a tower on a mountainside, where MOBs and players alike are a threat to both damage and theft. Developing a defense system to protect my tower if the game has a range of options, expensive and hard to get. It would be really cool to successfully pull that off, especially in a world where most players build their houses in or next to a town for safety.
I probably wouldn't be "that player", but the dream is still alive.
Having cursed items in an RPG is cool. Why not in an MMORPG? Well, UO has them, but they tell you in the description that they're cursed. Which, to me, pretty much defeats the point of letting players find cursed items. Because who is going to equip or use something that they know is cursed?
Anyway, yes, I suppose Witches/Warlocks (dark magic-users) could place curses or hexes on things. Wizards would probably tend to use wards to protect their property and possessions instead. Though they might also be able to summon a guardian elemental or something to watch over their homestead (or tower) while they're away. Wards could be placed on individual items as well.
Actually, Priests should probably be able to apply curses as well. They would just be different in nature than the types of curses Witches use. Depending on the game world, a Witch might actually be a kind of demonic priest. Though I know that would be offensive to the Wicca-types. But like I said, it depends on the game world.
I really like your distinction between Warlocks and Wizards in this subject. I didn't go in that direction yet. Adding Priests/Clerics as a third form of these protections is great stuff.
Well I just hit level 5 in DDO, on life 11 on my main, with my secondary Main on life 4, (all wizard, for the past life feat bonus) I have around half a dozen alts as well, all of which have run the same dungeons many times over.
And I was thinking about How DDO tries to give players a sense what you have done mattering, like if you do one quest line it affects some flavor text of another quest line.
Which IMHO is a really cool feature.
And I thought about how DDO is set up with Adventure Packs/Modules as they were originally called, in honor of the D&D term used, that players would run buy and run modules. I realized that in a game like DDO, players should not be able to affect other players, because just like AD&D in the real world, in the Original (and still around) Pen and Paper game world, what happens among a group of players stays within that group of players.
Their adventures and what they do, what modules they run, has no bearing on what any other group does. In short it does not affect the cannon of the game.
and I thought about this as I looked back on the old Keep on the Borderlands, and I remembered playing that module with my friends, and I wondered how many other groups of friends played the same module, all having their own stories, some might have been epic, while others may have been annoying.
But they were all their own unique individual runs of that module, in fact what any group if players does, has no lasting or large scale affect on these games, never has.
Just like if a group of players ran a module that involved Drizzt, and as opposed to working with him, they opted to go full murder hobo and kill him, then then don't get to call R A Salvatore, and tell them that they killed Drizzt in their campaign and that he needs to rewrite the Icewind Dale series to accommodate what they did.
In this vein, DDO really does a good job of building a World that fits into how AD&D gaming system works. They do their game the best way a game for their system could be built.
I said all this, because some game systems are best made in such a way that players can't change the cannon of the game world.
I wager when a game has a more established IP, there is less motive by the developer to let players change the cannon of the game world, since it is established by other sources.
There is also the issues with a game world that has moving time, where it's harder for players to just join the game later in the game, and this can be a death kneel for a game, as new blood is what keep the game alive and going.
Case in point, GW2 tried to make a game world where time passed, using their "Living World" idea, they made a whole world event schedule, that climaxed with the destruction and rebuilding of Lions Arch, after season one, that idea got trashed, and "Living Story" took its place, because it was very poorly received. Players coming into a game, sadly were simply not embracing the game idea that they missed out.
That can put a high wall of entry into the game world, and again, depending on the game, this can be a very bad thing for the survival of the game.
In many ways, it comes down to the demographic you want and the kind of game you want to build.
Ideally if the goal of developer is let players shape the world, they are better off just giving players the tools and sandbox to play in, and seeing what they build, and then simply opening up new servers as the old ones burn out. The more successful ones will keep a higher population and survive, the less successful ones will will fade into oblivion. Which would be one way to handle the situation.
The system needs to fit the game, the demographic, and the goal of the developer.
I personally enjoy playing games where the developer has chosen their demographic, and then built a game to cater to them, if anyone else wants to play, fine, but the game was not nor will it ever be, made for them, it was made for a specific demographic.
If that is not you, oh well, good luck, and feel free to slam the door on the way out.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Well I just hit level 5 in DDO, on life 11 on my main, with my secondary Main on life 4, (all wizard, for the past life feat bonus) I have around half a dozen alts as well, all of which have run the same dungeons many times over.
And I was thinking about How DDO tries to give players a sense what you have done mattering, like if you do one quest line it affects some flavor text of another quest line.
Which IMHO is a really cool feature.
And I thought about how DDO is set up with Adventure Packs/Modules as they were originally called, in honor of the D&D term used, that players would run buy and run modules. I realized that in a game like DDO, players should not be able to affect other players, because just like AD&D in the real world, in the Original (and still around) Pen and Paper game world, what happens among a group of players stays within that group of players.
Their adventures and what they do, what modules they run, has no bearing on what any other group does. In short it does not affect the cannon of the game.
and I thought about this as I looked back on the old Keep on the Borderlands, and I remembered playing that module with my friends, and I wondered how many other groups of friends played the same module, all having their own stories, some might have been epic, while others may have been annoying.
But they were all their own unique individual runs of that module, in fact what any group if players does, has no lasting or large scale affect on these games, never has.
Just like if a group of players ran a module that involved Drizzt, and as opposed to working with him, they opted to go full murder hobo and kill him, then then don't get to call R A Salvatore, and tell them that they killed Drizzt in their campaign and that he needs to rewrite the Icewind Dale series to accommodate what they did.
In this vein, DDO really does a good job of building a World that fits into how AD&D gaming system works. They do their game the best way a game for their system could be built.
I said all this, because some game systems are best made in such a way that players can't change the cannon of the game world.
I wager when a game has a more established IP, there is less motive by the developer to let players change the cannon of the game world, since it is established by other sources.
There is also the issues with a game world that has moving time, where it's harder for players to just join the game later in the game, and this can be a death kneel for a game, as new blood is what keep the game alive and going.
Case in point, GW2 tried to make a game world where time passed, using their "Living World" idea, they made a whole world event schedule, that climaxed with the destruction and rebuilding of Lions Arch, after season one, that idea got trashed, and "Living Story" took its place, because it was very poorly received. Players coming into a game, sadly were simply not embracing the game idea that they missed out.
That can put a high wall of entry into the game world, and again, depending on the game, this can be a very bad thing for the survival of the game.
In many ways, it comes down to the demographic you want and the kind of game you want to build.
Ideally if the goal of developer is let players shape the world, they are better off just giving players the tools and sandbox to play in, and seeing what they build, and then simply opening up new servers as the old ones burn out. The more successful ones will keep a higher population and survive, the less successful ones will will fade into oblivion. Which would be one way to handle the situation.
The system needs to fit the game, the demographic, and the goal of the developer.
I personally enjoy playing games where the developer has chosen their demographic, and then built a game to cater to them, if anyone else wants to play, fine, but the game was not nor will it ever be, made for them, it was made for a specific demographic.
If that is not you, oh well, good luck, and feel free to slam the door on the way out.
"In nearly all MMORPGs, the development of the player's character is the primary goal. Nearly all MMORPGs feature a character progression system, in which players earn experience points for their actions and use those points to reach character "levels", which makes them better at whatever they do.[8] Traditionally, combat with monsters and completing quests for non-player characters, either alone or in groups, are the primary ways to earn experience points. The accumulation of wealth (including combat-useful items) is also a way to progress in many MMORPGs. This is traditionally best accomplished via combat. The cycle produced by these conditions, combat leading to new items allowing for more combat with no change in gameplay, is sometimes pejoratively referred to as the level treadmill, or "grinding". The role-playing game Progress Quest was created as a parody of this trend."
(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.)
Well I just hit level 5 in DDO, on life 11 on my main, with my secondary Main on life 4, (all wizard, for the past life feat bonus) I have around half a dozen alts as well, all of which have run the same dungeons many times over.
And I was thinking about How DDO tries to give players a sense what you have done mattering, like if you do one quest line it affects some flavor text of another quest line.
Which IMHO is a really cool feature.
And I thought about how DDO is set up with Adventure Packs/Modules as they were originally called, in honor of the D&D term used, that players would run buy and run modules. I realized that in a game like DDO, players should not be able to affect other players, because just like AD&D in the real world, in the Original (and still around) Pen and Paper game world, what happens among a group of players stays within that group of players.
Their adventures and what they do, what modules they run, has no bearing on what any other group does. In short it does not affect the cannon of the game.
and I thought about this as I looked back on the old Keep on the Borderlands, and I remembered playing that module with my friends, and I wondered how many other groups of friends played the same module, all having their own stories, some might have been epic, while others may have been annoying.
But they were all their own unique individual runs of that module, in fact what any group if players does, has no lasting or large scale affect on these games, never has.
Just like if a group of players ran a module that involved Drizzt, and as opposed to working with him, they opted to go full murder hobo and kill him, then then don't get to call R A Salvatore, and tell them that they killed Drizzt in their campaign and that he needs to rewrite the Icewind Dale series to accommodate what they did.
In this vein, DDO really does a good job of building a World that fits into how AD&D gaming system works. They do their game the best way a game for their system could be built.
I said all this, because some game systems are best made in such a way that players can't change the cannon of the game world.
I wager when a game has a more established IP, there is less motive by the developer to let players change the cannon of the game world, since it is established by other sources.
There is also the issues with a game world that has moving time, where it's harder for players to just join the game later in the game, and this can be a death kneel for a game, as new blood is what keep the game alive and going.
Case in point, GW2 tried to make a game world where time passed, using their "Living World" idea, they made a whole world event schedule, that climaxed with the destruction and rebuilding of Lions Arch, after season one, that idea got trashed, and "Living Story" took its place, because it was very poorly received. Players coming into a game, sadly were simply not embracing the game idea that they missed out.
That can put a high wall of entry into the game world, and again, depending on the game, this can be a very bad thing for the survival of the game.
In many ways, it comes down to the demographic you want and the kind of game you want to build.
Ideally if the goal of developer is let players shape the world, they are better off just giving players the tools and sandbox to play in, and seeing what they build, and then simply opening up new servers as the old ones burn out. The more successful ones will keep a higher population and survive, the less successful ones will will fade into oblivion. Which would be one way to handle the situation.
The system needs to fit the game, the demographic, and the goal of the developer.
I personally enjoy playing games where the developer has chosen their demographic, and then built a game to cater to them, if anyone else wants to play, fine, but the game was not nor will it ever be, made for them, it was made for a specific demographic.
If that is not you, oh well, good luck, and feel free to slam the door on the way out.
(sic)
Thanks for not reading my post.. I appreciate it. and I return the favor a lot by not reading most of the nonsense you post.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Well I just hit level 5 in DDO, on life 11 on my main, with my secondary Main on life 4, (all wizard, for the past life feat bonus) I have around half a dozen alts as well, all of which have run the same dungeons many times over.
And I was thinking about How DDO tries to give players a sense what you have done mattering, like if you do one quest line it affects some flavor text of another quest line.
Which IMHO is a really cool feature.
And I thought about how DDO is set up with Adventure Packs/Modules as they were originally called, in honor of the D&D term used, that players would run buy and run modules. I realized that in a game like DDO, players should not be able to affect other players, because just like AD&D in the real world, in the Original (and still around) Pen and Paper game world, what happens among a group of players stays within that group of players.
Their adventures and what they do, what modules they run, has no bearing on what any other group does. In short it does not affect the cannon of the game.
and I thought about this as I looked back on the old Keep on the Borderlands, and I remembered playing that module with my friends, and I wondered how many other groups of friends played the same module, all having their own stories, some might have been epic, while others may have been annoying.
But they were all their own unique individual runs of that module, in fact what any group if players does, has no lasting or large scale affect on these games, never has.
Just like if a group of players ran a module that involved Drizzt, and as opposed to working with him, they opted to go full murder hobo and kill him, then then don't get to call R A Salvatore, and tell them that they killed Drizzt in their campaign and that he needs to rewrite the Icewind Dale series to accommodate what they did.
In this vein, DDO really does a good job of building a World that fits into how AD&D gaming system works. They do their game the best way a game for their system could be built.
I said all this, because some game systems are best made in such a way that players can't change the cannon of the game world.
I wager when a game has a more established IP, there is less motive by the developer to let players change the cannon of the game world, since it is established by other sources.
There is also the issues with a game world that has moving time, where it's harder for players to just join the game later in the game, and this can be a death kneel for a game, as new blood is what keep the game alive and going.
Case in point, GW2 tried to make a game world where time passed, using their "Living World" idea, they made a whole world event schedule, that climaxed with the destruction and rebuilding of Lions Arch, after season one, that idea got trashed, and "Living Story" took its place, because it was very poorly received. Players coming into a game, sadly were simply not embracing the game idea that they missed out.
That can put a high wall of entry into the game world, and again, depending on the game, this can be a very bad thing for the survival of the game.
In many ways, it comes down to the demographic you want and the kind of game you want to build.
Ideally if the goal of developer is let players shape the world, they are better off just giving players the tools and sandbox to play in, and seeing what they build, and then simply opening up new servers as the old ones burn out. The more successful ones will keep a higher population and survive, the less successful ones will will fade into oblivion. Which would be one way to handle the situation.
The system needs to fit the game, the demographic, and the goal of the developer.
I personally enjoy playing games where the developer has chosen their demographic, and then built a game to cater to them, if anyone else wants to play, fine, but the game was not nor will it ever be, made for them, it was made for a specific demographic.
If that is not you, oh well, good luck, and feel free to slam the door on the way out.
(sic)
Thanks for not reading my post.. I appreciate it. and I return the favor a lot by not reading most of the nonsense you post.
Yea... Scratching my head wondering what their point was...
- 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
Well I just hit level 5 in DDO, on life 11 on my main, with my secondary Main on life 4, (all wizard, for the past life feat bonus) I have around half a dozen alts as well, all of which have run the same dungeons many times over.
And I was thinking about How DDO tries to give players a sense what you have done mattering, like if you do one quest line it affects some flavor text of another quest line.
Which IMHO is a really cool feature.
And I thought about how DDO is set up with Adventure Packs/Modules as they were originally called, in honor of the D&D term used, that players would run buy and run modules. I realized that in a game like DDO, players should not be able to affect other players, because just like AD&D in the real world, in the Original (and still around) Pen and Paper game world, what happens among a group of players stays within that group of players.
Their adventures and what they do, what modules they run, has no bearing on what any other group does. In short it does not affect the cannon of the game.
and I thought about this as I looked back on the old Keep on the Borderlands, and I remembered playing that module with my friends, and I wondered how many other groups of friends played the same module, all having their own stories, some might have been epic, while others may have been annoying.
But they were all their own unique individual runs of that module, in fact what any group if players does, has no lasting or large scale affect on these games, never has.
Just like if a group of players ran a module that involved Drizzt, and as opposed to working with him, they opted to go full murder hobo and kill him, then then don't get to call R A Salvatore, and tell them that they killed Drizzt in their campaign and that he needs to rewrite the Icewind Dale series to accommodate what they did.
In this vein, DDO really does a good job of building a World that fits into how AD&D gaming system works. They do their game the best way a game for their system could be built.
I said all this, because some game systems are best made in such a way that players can't change the cannon of the game world.
I wager when a game has a more established IP, there is less motive by the developer to let players change the cannon of the game world, since it is established by other sources.
There is also the issues with a game world that has moving time, where it's harder for players to just join the game later in the game, and this can be a death kneel for a game, as new blood is what keep the game alive and going.
Case in point, GW2 tried to make a game world where time passed, using their "Living World" idea, they made a whole world event schedule, that climaxed with the destruction and rebuilding of Lions Arch, after season one, that idea got trashed, and "Living Story" took its place, because it was very poorly received. Players coming into a game, sadly were simply not embracing the game idea that they missed out.
That can put a high wall of entry into the game world, and again, depending on the game, this can be a very bad thing for the survival of the game.
In many ways, it comes down to the demographic you want and the kind of game you want to build.
Ideally if the goal of developer is let players shape the world, they are better off just giving players the tools and sandbox to play in, and seeing what they build, and then simply opening up new servers as the old ones burn out. The more successful ones will keep a higher population and survive, the less successful ones will will fade into oblivion. Which would be one way to handle the situation.
The system needs to fit the game, the demographic, and the goal of the developer.
I personally enjoy playing games where the developer has chosen their demographic, and then built a game to cater to them, if anyone else wants to play, fine, but the game was not nor will it ever be, made for them, it was made for a specific demographic.
If that is not you, oh well, good luck, and feel free to slam the door on the way out.
(sic)
Thanks for not reading my post.. I appreciate it. and I return the favor a lot by not reading most of the nonsense you post.
How did you know I didn't read your post? Just because I chose not to respond in an obviously direct and specific way what you wrote?
Anyway, you see, the reason that MMORPGs have the potential to be better than Pencil & Paper/Tabletop RPGs is because that more than a small group of players can compete and cooperate in a Persistent Game World. The more ways they can interact with each other, the Non-Player Characters, the Mobs, and the Game World itself the better. The more important choices and actions they can make which have significant effects on themselves, other Player Characters, NPCs, and Mobs the better. If their choices and actions could actually have a lasting impact on the game world itself, that would be really cool.
And, yes, it is possible that one Group or Guild or Faction or Alliance of Players might eventually rise to dominate the Server. In that case, all the Players on the Server could then vote on whether or not to Reset the Server. If the majority vote for a Reset, then the last few days or weeks of the Server could involve seeing what happens to the Game World when that particular Group/Guild/Faction/Alliance establishes its sovereignty over the Game World. Or the Known World anyway. After that, the Server can be reset, and all the Player Characters can be reincarnated and start off a little more powerful than they were originally.
Of course, there are other ways to deal with a dominate Group or Faction. Events can be used to weaken or distract a dominant Faction, enabling other Factions to regain or increase their strength without being continually threatened by the currently dominant Faction. All kinds of things could happen. Earthquakes, Volcanic Eruptions, Droughts, Famines, Plagues, Peasant Revolts, NPC Conspiracies against the Throne, Monster hordes or an army of Dark Elves emerging from the mountains or underground, attacks by (Viking-type) sea raiders, or a new powerful NPC Faction arriving via land or sea. Ancient Dragons could awaken, armies of the undead could emerge from an ancient city after someone foolishly/accidentally removes the magic/divine seal which bound them in place. Etc, etc, etc.
"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.)
Well I just hit level 5 in DDO, on life 11 on my main, with my secondary Main on life 4, (all wizard, for the past life feat bonus) I have around half a dozen alts as well, all of which have run the same dungeons many times over.
And I was thinking about How DDO tries to give players a sense what you have done mattering, like if you do one quest line it affects some flavor text of another quest line.
Which IMHO is a really cool feature.
And I thought about how DDO is set up with Adventure Packs/Modules as they were originally called, in honor of the D&D term used, that players would run buy and run modules. I realized that in a game like DDO, players should not be able to affect other players, because just like AD&D in the real world, in the Original (and still around) Pen and Paper game world, what happens among a group of players stays within that group of players.
Their adventures and what they do, what modules they run, has no bearing on what any other group does. In short it does not affect the cannon of the game.
and I thought about this as I looked back on the old Keep on the Borderlands, and I remembered playing that module with my friends, and I wondered how many other groups of friends played the same module, all having their own stories, some might have been epic, while others may have been annoying.
But they were all their own unique individual runs of that module, in fact what any group if players does, has no lasting or large scale affect on these games, never has.
Just like if a group of players ran a module that involved Drizzt, and as opposed to working with him, they opted to go full murder hobo and kill him, then then don't get to call R A Salvatore, and tell them that they killed Drizzt in their campaign and that he needs to rewrite the Icewind Dale series to accommodate what they did.
In this vein, DDO really does a good job of building a World that fits into how AD&D gaming system works. They do their game the best way a game for their system could be built.
I said all this, because some game systems are best made in such a way that players can't change the cannon of the game world.
I wager when a game has a more established IP, there is less motive by the developer to let players change the cannon of the game world, since it is established by other sources.
There is also the issues with a game world that has moving time, where it's harder for players to just join the game later in the game, and this can be a death kneel for a game, as new blood is what keep the game alive and going.
Case in point, GW2 tried to make a game world where time passed, using their "Living World" idea, they made a whole world event schedule, that climaxed with the destruction and rebuilding of Lions Arch, after season one, that idea got trashed, and "Living Story" took its place, because it was very poorly received. Players coming into a game, sadly were simply not embracing the game idea that they missed out.
That can put a high wall of entry into the game world, and again, depending on the game, this can be a very bad thing for the survival of the game.
In many ways, it comes down to the demographic you want and the kind of game you want to build.
Ideally if the goal of developer is let players shape the world, they are better off just giving players the tools and sandbox to play in, and seeing what they build, and then simply opening up new servers as the old ones burn out. The more successful ones will keep a higher population and survive, the less successful ones will will fade into oblivion. Which would be one way to handle the situation.
The system needs to fit the game, the demographic, and the goal of the developer.
I personally enjoy playing games where the developer has chosen their demographic, and then built a game to cater to them, if anyone else wants to play, fine, but the game was not nor will it ever be, made for them, it was made for a specific demographic.
If that is not you, oh well, good luck, and feel free to slam the door on the way out.
(sic)
Thanks for not reading my post.. I appreciate it. and I return the favor a lot by not reading most of the nonsense you post.
Yea... Scratching my head wondering what their point was...
Tch.
"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.)
How did you know I didn't read your post? Just because I chose not to respond in an obviously direct and specific way what you wrote?
Yah. If you are not going to address what I said, don't quote me.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
How did you know I didn't read your post? Just because I chose not to respond in an obviously direct and specific way what you wrote?
Yah. If you are not going to address what I said, don't quote me.
Don't tell me what to do.
"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.)
Comments
As to players changing the world I think NPCs or developers with updates could do that just as well and create a dynamic world probably better than players would since a large portion of the players is usually more concerned with gaming the game and developers and NPCs would have more lore-consistent motivation.
I don't have a lot of faith on the way that players collectively would change a game if they had a lot of ways to do it. I kind of expected EQN to have penis towers everywhere
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
With that said, you are not wrong about the swiss cheese look, in Trove, people do what is called Bomb Mining, where they find "ore" veins, and as opposed to digging them out, they just blow them apart with bombs, in short, they strip mine the areas. Now, in Trove they have mining veins which is what people value and want, the basic ground blocks, not so much, so, there is less rampant destruction to the overall game map, but it's still quite obvious where the nodes were, as there are random deep holes blown into the landscape, there are also people that just like tossing bombs, and bought/earned a tortoise mount just so they could endlessly toss bombs as they moved about the game world, so there is that as well.
And diggin up under someone is cool, but it's just "cool" it's not to be confused with a combat tactic, as they can't set a deep pit, if they have dig up to get you to fall, and even if they dropped you into a pit, you can dig out with ease.
But the goal should be:
- Cause PKing to not be a way of gaming due to mounting penalties,
- Prevent an army from running through another Faction, because they'd do that all day long.
I know you know this from your comments. I think I have a degree of mistrust in your judgement on this. Sorry, that's just being honest. It's earned not by you, but by the past in this matter of PvP.
As far as PKing, we are on the same page that it should be possible, on a "needs" basis, due to non-PvP griefing that some people do just to screw with people, and GMs can't be there all the time. So players need a little latitude to handle it themselves.
But they will have to take turns, and then work off the penalty tags in between actions, or pay the small penalty that they can earn back fairly quickly if they happen to die.
It's the repeat PKing that's the problem, not the one-off instances that might occur in game play.
Once upon a time....
I'm tired of instant results.
I think it should take time to build or destroy in a Fantasy setting.
Something that feels somewhat more realistic, but obviously not nearly real.
I always wanted to see house building that took a few days, with NPC construction workers managed by Players with the skills to set the NPC actions (players should have to spend a little time on this, but not be there a whole lot.).
Imagine seeing a major castle construction going on for a couple of RL weeks, seeing stages of development, NPCs working around the staked off and roped off laying done by the Player. Stone blocks that have been carved by Players per order piled nearby, temporary supply depots of lumber, and crates of assorted building supplies.
All organized by the master builder, working off the plans provided by the owner.
This should be game play as well as game immersion and atmosphere.
I await the LOLs, lol.
Edit:
I forgot about destruction.
Doors should be easier, but walls should take time to destroy. And players should be able to defend their homes with Hirelings and Magic Wards. Maybe with Guardians and defenses provided by their deity, if earned.
It should take quite a while in minutes to destroy walls, allowing for defenses to react. Heavy stone fortifications should take RL days to crumble, using siege weapons. Heavy log defenses should take a lot of time too.
The skill of the builder should have a lot to do with that too.
Once upon a time....
That's why I don't want the players to have to be there all the time. Just spend the time to set the NPC actions in motion, and their skill modifies results.
Yes - to the idea of collective efforts.
Once upon a time....
And killing needn't be the only way to deal with an irksome player. The game could also allow for robbing the player's character and knocking him out.
Also a thing that was bad in UO, and maybe other games too.
Thieves could be attacked, but doing so meant the Player defending themselves by attacking the thief lost their rights as far as getting killed.
If a thief gets attacked, and ends up killing the guy, that should fall under the "murder" penalties.
And, a little off the side on this subject, I always wanted to see some means for Trades people to display their wares in a market setting. Maybe a table, or a blanket (better, since it could be on the ground or a table), where they can place their stuff to show, but it belongs to them and stealing rules apply (or "lock downs" if that's what the Devs choose).
Once upon a time....
I don't know if the game should allow for tying up other Player Characters to trees or something. And leaving them there until they get found by another PC, NPC (such as a guard patrol), a wandering monster (or group of monsters), or get eaten by a wild animal.
They were just massive voxel world maps, filled with various biomes and peppered with keeps and towers for players to complete to get loot and exp. I wager all of this was done though some kind of RNG system, so that each new map was randomly generated (to a point), like for example, Starting Points in the map were fixed areas. they were also not destructible, so players could not leave a huge pit under the starting point to troll other players, they could also not build on the starting point, as to try and trap other players.
Maps had a population cap, and for as long as a map was active, it remained, when a map became inactive (IE: everyone left) it would go away. Basically, when no one wanted to play on that map anymore, due to all the keeps, towers having been farmed, and viens dug up or blow up, the map would get "reset"
The only "persistent" worlds in Trove were Club Worlds, which were player owned, and believe this or not, some players were professional club world builders, where guilds would pay these other players to build a club world for them.
Which was really cool if you ask me.
Now you gave me another idea, that curses could be part of Player Home defenses.
One of my dreams was to have a game such as this, and build a powerful Mage, and then build a tower on a mountainside, where MOBs and players alike are a threat to both damage and theft. Developing a defense system to protect my tower if the game has a range of options, expensive and hard to get.
It would be really cool to successfully pull that off, especially in a world where most players build their houses in or next to a town for safety.
I probably wouldn't be "that player", but the dream is still alive.
Once upon a time....
Adding Priests/Clerics as a third form of these protections is great stuff.
Witch/Warlock = Curse
Mage = Ward
Cleric/Priest = Aegis
Once upon a time....
And I was thinking about How DDO tries to give players a sense what you have done mattering, like if you do one quest line it affects some flavor text of another quest line.
Which IMHO is a really cool feature.
And I thought about how DDO is set up with Adventure Packs/Modules as they were originally called, in honor of the D&D term used, that players would run buy and run modules. I realized that in a game like DDO, players should not be able to affect other players, because just like AD&D in the real world, in the Original (and still around) Pen and Paper game world, what happens among a group of players stays within that group of players.
Their adventures and what they do, what modules they run, has no bearing on what any other group does. In short it does not affect the cannon of the game.
and I thought about this as I looked back on the old Keep on the Borderlands, and I remembered playing that module with my friends, and I wondered how many other groups of friends played the same module, all having their own stories, some might have been epic, while others may have been annoying.
But they were all their own unique individual runs of that module, in fact what any group if players does, has no lasting or large scale affect on these games, never has.
Just like if a group of players ran a module that involved Drizzt, and as opposed to working with him, they opted to go full murder hobo and kill him, then then don't get to call R A Salvatore, and tell them that they killed Drizzt in their campaign and that he needs to rewrite the Icewind Dale series to accommodate what they did.
In this vein, DDO really does a good job of building a World that fits into how AD&D gaming system works. They do their game the best way a game for their system could be built.
I said all this, because some game systems are best made in such a way that players can't change the cannon of the game world.
I wager when a game has a more established IP, there is less motive by the developer to let players change the cannon of the game world, since it is established by other sources.
There is also the issues with a game world that has moving time, where it's harder for players to just join the game later in the game, and this can be a death kneel for a game, as new blood is what keep the game alive and going.
Case in point, GW2 tried to make a game world where time passed, using their "Living World" idea, they made a whole world event schedule, that climaxed with the destruction and rebuilding of Lions Arch, after season one, that idea got trashed, and "Living Story" took its place, because it was very poorly received. Players coming into a game, sadly were simply not embracing the game idea that they missed out.
That can put a high wall of entry into the game world, and again, depending on the game, this can be a very bad thing for the survival of the game.
In many ways, it comes down to the demographic you want and the kind of game you want to build.
Ideally if the goal of developer is let players shape the world, they are better off just giving players the tools and sandbox to play in, and seeing what they build, and then simply opening up new servers as the old ones burn out. The more successful ones will keep a higher population and survive, the less successful ones will will fade into oblivion. Which would be one way to handle the situation.
The system needs to fit the game, the demographic, and the goal of the developer.
I personally enjoy playing games where the developer has chosen their demographic, and then built a game to cater to them, if anyone else wants to play, fine, but the game was not nor will it ever be, made for them, it was made for a specific demographic.
If that is not you, oh well, good luck, and feel free to slam the door on the way out.
Yea... Scratching my head wondering what their point was...
- 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
Tch.
Don't tell me what to do.