Please spare the personal flaming. You have no idea what I was playing. I'm talking about open world FFA PvP in sandbox MMOs. You are talking about chess, some imaginative percentages /do you have official statistics for the type of 5% or 95% of the battles?/ And then you make some general conclusions without any logic, based on the nonsense you wrote. How 1vs1 fight is not casual, but 5vs1 is casual? I won battles 1vs5. Seems you even cannot imagine it. In fact the most casual PvP is arena fight, because there is so many limitations to make the combat "fair". So you can use premade tactics or even to rely on your gear.
Of course I'll spare the personal flaming -- I haven't personally attacked you so far, why would I start now?
Why are you trying to pretend like fair battles are common in open world FFA PVP games? You and I and everyone who's played these games any length of time knows that the overwhelming majority of conflicts are one-sided. 1 in 20 battles (ie 5%) being a fair fight is probably far more generous than what actually happens in EVE.
Agreed. General rule in any open world FFA PVP MMO that I've been in (UO, SB, EVE, MO) is that if you find yourself in a fair fight, you either did something wrong or you are missing what the enemy really has in their favor.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Casual gameplay is defined by being convenient and easy to jump in and out. You are using this word wrongly since mobas fit this defintion exactly. In sandboxes you need to get ready for fights, by crafting or equiping your gear, eating food, etc. so its not something you can just jump into for 15 minutes and get a fight. You also can lose this in death so the game is hardcore, ever heard of Diablos famous game mode? Do you think it was named like that because you spawn right next to the mobs with all your stuff?. Im sure even Nariu will agree with this.
I dont know where your getting those numbers, this really depends on the player. If you roam around with 4-5 guild mates instead of 20 you will have higher chances of finding groups your size or bigger. So in sandboxes, the experienced depth depends on the player, its not spoon fed to you. Also your wrong in that no matter what 5 players do, they cannot beat 20 lesser skilled players. Like I said this really depends on the skill ceiling, do you really think the best 5 CS GO players couldnt beat 20 random noobs? Mobas pvp is exactly like mmorpg but in a "fair" enviorment, so the skill ceiling isnt very high on them, maybe its not possible with those. See what I mean?
Your also seeing everything from a pvp point of view, while this is only one of many layers in sandbox games. Your telling me anything thats not directly pvp is somehow "shallow" and "reducing game depth"? All those minecraft players, such shallow gamers building stuff 24/7!! Cant even pvp in those servers! so 0% effective game depth lol
Certainly it's a common fantasy for players to believe they're hardcore by playing perma-death games. I mean it says hardcore right there on the button, it must be hardcore right? I must be hardcore for choosing it...right?
Well it turns out that's wrong and that hardcore not only doesn't make the game harder in any meaningful way, it creates an atmosphere where most players are less likely to put themselves into challenging situations. So the hardcore button has actually reduced the skill required to do well.
But of course if you're a developer (and I am) you don't shy away from playing up that fantasy. If I ever make a Diablo style ARPG you can be sure I'll add a fiery, animated "HARDCORE!" button. Players will fall for it every time.
So due to the above, we see that the hardcore vs. casual I'm discussing is the root of what's actually casual vs. hardcore. And it's actually more hardcore if you can only win by skill. It's actually more casual if you can win without skill.
If you're at all interested in the truth of the matter, think through how often -- with 4 teammates in tow -- you're going to end up fighting exactly 5 opponents. By far the majority of fights you'll create are going to be one-sided slaughters (most in your favor, perhaps eventually one against you.)
As for your CS:GO players, please respond to what I'm actually saying. I've never said it was impossible for few to beat many. I've only pointed out how it makes games more casual for there to be non-skill ways to win combat. Those 5 best CS:GO players will never lose in CS:GO. In another game where players can bring more teammates, those 5 best players might lose due to the non-skill-based reason of facing too many opponents to handle. (Also I'm slightly uncomfortably using CS:GO as our example of a high skill cap game, given that it's a hitscan shooter; if you're really accurate at clicking things in Windows, you'll make a pretty awesome CS:GO player.)
Hmm...at this point I reached the part where you said "MOBAs PVP is exactly like MMORPG but in a fair environment". Not too sure how to proceed. Up til now I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as to being reasonably well informed about the various types of PVP games, but that statement is staggeringly inaccurate. Have you ever actually played a MOBA?
So no I don't "see what you mean". Even if MOBA PVP was like MMORPG PVP, your statement wouldn't make sense because we're discussing population advantages (which don't exist in MOBAs) and how they act as a non-skill trump card.
As for your last bit, please respond to what I'm actually saying. Obviously at no point have I claimed PVE couldn't be deep (though it is harder.) I'm saying enough actual things that you shouldn't have to respond to things you imagined or wished that I said.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Casual gameplay is defined by being convenient and easy to jump in and out. You are using this word wrongly since mobas fit this defintion exactly. In sandboxes you need to get ready for fights, by crafting or equiping your gear, eating food, etc. so its not something you can just jump into for 15 minutes and get a fight. You also can lose this in death so the game is hardcore, ever heard of Diablos famous game mode? Do you think it was named like that because you spawn right next to the mobs with all your stuff?. Im sure even Nariu will agree with this.
I dont know where your getting those numbers, this really depends on the player. If you roam around with 4-5 guild mates instead of 20 you will have higher chances of finding groups your size or bigger. So in sandboxes, the experienced depth depends on the player, its not spoon fed to you. Also your wrong in that no matter what 5 players do, they cannot beat 20 lesser skilled players. Like I said this really depends on the skill ceiling, do you really think the best 5 CS GO players couldnt beat 20 random noobs? Mobas pvp is exactly like mmorpg but in a "fair" enviorment, so the skill ceiling isnt very high on them, maybe its not possible with those. See what I mean?
Your also seeing everything from a pvp point of view, while this is only one of many layers in sandbox games. Your telling me anything thats not directly pvp is somehow "shallow" and "reducing game depth"? All those minecraft players, such shallow gamers building stuff 24/7!! Cant even pvp in those servers! so 0% effective game depth lol
Certainly it's a common fantasy for players to believe they're hardcore by playing perma-death games. I mean it says hardcore right there on the button, it must be hardcore right? I must be hardcore for choosing it...right?
Well it turns out that's wrong and that hardcore not only doesn't make the game harder in any meaningful way, it creates an atmosphere where most players are less likely to put themselves into challenging situations. So the hardcore button has actually reduced the skill required to do well.
But of course if you're a developer (and I am) you don't shy away from playing up that fantasy. If I ever make a Diablo style ARPG you can be sure I'll add a fiery, animated "HARDCORE!" button. Players will fall for it every time.
So due to the above, we see that the hardcore vs. casual I'm discussing is the root of what's actually casual vs. hardcore. And it's actually more hardcore if you can only win by skill. It's actually more casual if you can win without skill.
If you're at all interested in the truth of the matter, think through how often -- with 4 teammates in tow -- you're going to end up fighting exactly 5 opponents. By far the majority of fights you'll create are going to be one-sided slaughters (most in your favor, perhaps eventually one against you.)
As for your CS:GO players, please respond to what I'm actually saying. I've never said it was impossible for few to beat many. I've only pointed out how it makes games more casual for there to be non-skill ways to win combat. Those 5 best CS:GO players will never lose in CS:GO. In another game where players can bring more teammates, those 5 best players might lose due to the non-skill-based reason of facing too many opponents to handle. (Also I'm slightly uncomfortably using CS:GO as our example of a high skill cap game, given that it's a hitscan shooter; if you're really accurate at clicking things in Windows, you'll make a pretty awesome CS:GO player.)
Hmm...at this point I reached the part where you said "MOBAs PVP is exactly like MMORPG but in a fair environment". Not too sure how to proceed. Up til now I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as to being reasonably well informed about the various types of PVP games, but that statement is staggeringly inaccurate. Have you ever actually played a MOBA?
So no I don't "see what you mean". Even if MOBA PVP was like MMORPG PVP, your statement wouldn't make sense because we're discussing population advantages (which don't exist in MOBAs) and how they act as a non-skill trump card.
As for your last bit, please respond to what I'm actually saying. Obviously at no point have I claimed PVE couldn't be deep (though it is harder.) I'm saying enough actual things that you shouldn't have to respond to things you imagined or wished that I said.
Your whole argument that risk will make players less likely to put themselves in challenging situations is missing something, risk vs reward. Players will engage in challenging gameplay IF the rewards are enough. How is risk reducing the skill needed to do well? If anything, you cant make any mistakes and you have to play your best because theres only limited chances of suceeding until its game over.
Forget about the 5 players for a second. Imagine its only 1 player, the best in CS go (or insert skill based game here), that goes out roaming looking for fights (in a supposedly open world pvp game with the exact same combat). The minimum number of players he can encounter is 1, an even fight, so for him 100% of fights will be competitive. Now if he finds 2 players it will be alot more challenging and so on with even more enemies. My point is that you can choose to go out alone or with 20 friends, but if you want to challenge yourself you will probably get bored with the later, so you choose the former option.
You said "The population advantage is such a powerful advantage that it actually renders the other skills far less important -- with basic tactics, basic ambushes, and basic item choices, your 20 players are still going to absolutely destroy your 5 opponents (even if they make the best possible choices.)". That means that even if the 5 players did their very best and 0 mistakes, it would be impossible to overcome the number advantage. I say this is relative to the games skill ceiling, if its high enough there will always be a small chance you can win.
And cmon, Mobas are tab target games with combat very similar to mainstream MMORPGS. Theyre are basically standalone battlegrounds, the twitch skill required is very low.
About the last part, you continously claim that arena games are 100% chess and sandboxes are 50% chess and 50% checkers, that the "shallow" activies like crafting, hunting mobs, gathering resources, building bases are diluting the whole game just because its not 100% instant pew pew, so I havent imagined anything.
Your whole argument that risk will make players less likely to put themselves in challenging situations is missing something, risk vs reward. Players will engage in challenging gameplay IF the rewards are enough. How is risk reducing the skill needed to do well? If anything, you cant make any mistakes and you have to play your best because theres only limited chances of suceeding until its game over.
Forget about the 5 players for a second. Imagine its only 1 player, the best in CS go (or insert skill based game here), that goes out roaming looking for fights (in a supposedly open world pvp game with the exact same combat). The minimum number of players he can encounter is 1, an even fight, so for him 100% of fights will be competitive. Now if he finds 2 players it will be alot more challenging and so on with even more enemies. My point is that you can choose to go out alone or with 20 friends, but if you want to challenge yourself you will probably get bored with the later, so you choose the former option.
You said "The population advantage is such a powerful advantage that it actually renders the other skills far less important -- with basic tactics, basic ambushes, and basic item choices, your 20 players are still going to absolutely destroy your 5 opponents (even if they make the best possible choices.)". That means that even if the 5 players did their very best and 0 mistakes, it would be impossible to overcome the number advantage. I say this is relative to the games skill ceiling, if its high enough there will always be a small chance you can win.
And cmon, Mobas are tab target games with combat very similar to mainstream MMORPGS. Theyre are basically standalone battlegrounds, the twitch skill required is very low.
About the last part, you continously claim that arena games are 100% chess and sandboxes are 50% chess and 50% checkers, that the "shallow" activies like crafting, hunting mobs, gathering resources, building bases are diluting the whole game just because its not 100% instant pew pew, so I havent imagined anything.
I've already explained it and it really isn't that complicated:
Risk causes players to seek weaker challenges.
Weaker challenges require less skill.
And the related topic:
All of the skill involved in a game happens during its challenges.
The penalties in a game occur after the challenge. After skill is involved.
So no, penalty (risk) doesn't make it any harder to avoid mistakes. Any challenge that kills someone in a perma-death game requires exactly the same amount of skill to beat in a game without perma-death. The only difference is whether the game kicks you in the shins for failure or not.
Your CS:GO scenario seems to ignore the fact that finding a teammate is a shallower activity than the skill required to be a high-end CS:GO player (although again, it makes me cringe to discuss this as though CS:GO is a game with a particularly impressive skill cap. It's a hitscan shooter.) But assuming we were talking about a deeper shooter, it would be an example of the 100% chess vs. 50/50% chess/checkers hybrid. When a shallow decision creates a substantial power increase, that makes the overall game shallower.
"MOBAs are tab target games with combat very similar to mainstream MMORPGs" -YoungCaesar Please, for your sake learn what MOBAs are...
Watch a match to discover a new genre you weren't aware of.
Read Wikipedia's entry on MOBAs to flesh out your knowledge of what they are and where they came from.
As for the last part? No. I've continuously claimed that population imbalances create shallow, casual PVP. I haven't said anything about the rest of the game (which isn't really related to the discussion at all.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So no, penalty (risk) doesn't make it any harder to avoid mistakes. Any challenge that kills someone in a perma-death game requires exactly the same amount of skill to beat in a game without perma-death. The only difference is whether the game kicks you in the shins for failure or not.
I dunno, Axe. I don't think it's that absolute. For example, in most MMOs you can fail your way to the top. Die a thousand times doing the same task, but as long as you keep repeating the task you'll eventually get the next level, the reward, or whatever lies ahead. The same goes for throwing bodies at something. A big enough pile-on of derping can solve most problems in an MMO. In neither case does the player have to learn how to complete the task properly, let alone effectively or efficiently.
With a harsh penalty, you have two likely scenarios.
Players avoid it, steering toward content with a more palatable risk/reward level.
Players accept the challenge.
Of course there are all sorts of greys in between, but those are the two most common that we see. In the latter, though, players become far more skilled at tackling the content than in low penalty scenarios where sheer numbers or even attrition - both requiring far less skill than actually learning how to counter the content's obstacles/challenges - can achieve the same end.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Hmm not sure about that lokofeit. Most games only give you experience for completing the task, whether that is handing in the quest or winning the fight. If you don't win the fight you don't get experience, don't get experience you never get to the next level.
So you cannot fail your way to the top without beating the event. You have to actually beat it to get experience.
edit - now you may never beat the boss but beat all the trash mobs to it and yes you get experience. If that's what you meant than I agree. Same with PVP, you might not actually beat that guy but beat whatever lower players before that guy.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by TheeLord Anything not related to death penalties or merits of frequent / infrequent combat that we can discuss please?
How about mystery? I've always thought a worldly game like this should have deep mystery buried in the lore. Mysteries that can lead to discoveries. Discoveries of all kinds, sometimes long lost artifacts, sometimes historical knowledge that fills in blanks and can help in further discoveries, sometimes lost knowledge involving trades/making things, and whatever else.
I think there's game play value in one-off game wide discoveries and the player wide "race" to making such discoveries. I'm thinking in the sense that players would have to put together lots of bits of knowledge and have to come to a realization that putting this and that together might mean something, and then go check things out. Where players read lore (hopefully in-game ancient tomes and scrolls (which players would obviously place on web sites), put together discovery info, look for ancient names and places, and puzzle together long strings of pieces of info.
UO originally had a very deep mystery running in the background, and they based their GM events largely on this. Adding little bits here and there to a hidden plot that never really was finished due to GM rollover over the years. It involved a golden necklace with a black gem stone that kept popping up, events centered around a GM played bad guy gaining the necklace, dying, then coming back as a Liche wearing that necklace, then being defeated by the players and the necklace disappearing, then a secret search for that necklace. But then the plot line died, and only then did someone (me) realize what had been going on for so long, but at that point the GMs didn't know themselves, so they did a little addition to the running events where a mysterious person took the necklace out of the game. Probably forever, and as a hint that it was over to those of us that got excited about it.
I never thought it would be that hard to set up a bunch of this sort of thing to use as a game goes on for GM story lines, letting players make these particular discoveries as a part of the means to defeat the big bad Boss.
And of course, lost treasures and one of a kind items to collect.
What about "rares"? That's another form of game play, gaining them and then trading them for collections and museums.
sunandshadow, it seems you very much like building and feel your investments should be protected no matter what. I don't particularly agree with this for my vision of the "perfect" sandbox game as that doesn't speak "freedom" to me.. Factions will allow you to hire NPCs to protect your investments while offline, and we've kicked around the idea of having certain servers that are only up for like 6 hours a day for those who only play at certain times every day. Do you have any other suggestions for systems to protect your buildings and territory while offline?
Depends on what type of player you want to attract, as well as how niche of a niche you want to be. As these types of systems generally lend themselves better to the underhanded player, than those who'd like to promote a positive player environment. Case in point being games like Shadowbane, or other games of it's ilk. Even SWG's base system to a lesser extent. While the system offers something that could lead to a healthy PVP environment, more often than not it simply becomes a game of cat and mouse, late night city sieges (while those losing aren't even online), running from real fights (only fighting in massive zergs), harassment of newbs, etc... Freedom is a great feeling, problem is freedom also means enjoyment at others expense. This leads to retention problems.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I dunno, Axe. I don't think it's that absolute. For example, in most MMOs you can fail your way to the top. Die a thousand times doing the same task, but as long as you keep repeating the task you'll eventually get the next level, the reward, or whatever lies ahead. The same goes for throwing bodies at something. A big enough pile-on of derping can solve most problems in an MMO. In neither case does the player have to learn how to complete the task properly, let alone effectively or efficiently.
With a harsh penalty, you have two likely scenarios.
Players avoid it, steering toward content with a more palatable risk/reward level.
Players accept the challenge.
Of course there are all sorts of greys in between, but those are the two most common that we see. In the latter, though, players become far more skilled at tackling the content than in low penalty scenarios where sheer numbers or even attrition - both requiring far less skill than actually learning how to counter the content's obstacles/challenges - can achieve the same end.
If a boss one-shots you with a 0.5 sec spell, you'll literally never beat him until you're skilled enough (interrupt within 0.5 sec) or you level up so much (doing other things) that he won't one-shot you.
The latter part (beating the situation by leveling) is an RPG thing. It's vertical progression.
But both players (perma-death or not) will reach that boss in the one-shot state, facing the exact same skill requirement.
As for who becomes more skilled, the very fact that we enjoy gaming proves that wrong:
Enjoyment of gaming is rooted in natural selection. (Koster, 2003)
Play-fighting is the most common form of play, as it's practice of a critical life skill (many other species do it too.)
At some point in our evolution there were those who enjoyed play and those who didn't.
At some point both encountered real combat.
Those who enjoyed playing had more combat experience built up (in the form of play-fighting) than those who had no interest in that activity.
If practice hadn't been valuable, then time spent playing would be wasted time and the game-haters would have survived instead.
Which is just an exhaustive proof of the common knowledge: practice makes perfect. Low-risk games create vastly better-practiced players than high-risk games.
If EVE had shipped a Team Deathmatch companion game in 2003, with World of Tanks style gameplay, then players of TDM EVE would absolutely crush Regular EVE players. They would have far more than 10x as much practice experimenting with different combat tactics, loadouts, and fleet compositions. There's simply no way regular EVE players could compete, because practice is how mastery is reached.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I dunno, Axe. I don't think it's that absolute. For example, in most MMOs you can fail your way to the top. Die a thousand times doing the same task, but as long as you keep repeating the task you'll eventually get the next level, the reward, or whatever lies ahead. The same goes for throwing bodies at something. A big enough pile-on of derping can solve most problems in an MMO. In neither case does the player have to learn how to complete the task properly, let alone effectively or efficiently.
With a harsh penalty, you have two likely scenarios.
Players avoid it, steering toward content with a more palatable risk/reward level.
Players accept the challenge.
Of course there are all sorts of greys in between, but those are the two most common that we see. In the latter, though, players become far more skilled at tackling the content than in low penalty scenarios where sheer numbers or even attrition - both requiring far less skill than actually learning how to counter the content's obstacles/challenges - can achieve the same end.
If a boss one-shots you with a 0.5 sec spell, you'll literally never beat him until you're skilled enough (interrupt within 0.5 sec) or you level up so much (doing other things) that he won't one-shot you.
The latter part (beating the situation by leveling) is an RPG thing. It's vertical progression.
But both players (perma-death or not) will reach that boss in the one-shot state, facing the exact same skill requirement.
As for who becomes more skilled, the very fact that we enjoy gaming proves that wrong:
Enjoyment of gaming is rooted in natural selection. (Koster, 2003)
Play-fighting is the most common form of play, as it's practice of a critical life skill (many other species do it too.)
At some point in our evolution there were those who enjoyed play and those who didn't.
At some point both encountered real combat.
Those who enjoyed playing had more combat experience built up (in the form of play-fighting) than those who had no interest in that activity.
If practice hadn't been valuable, then time spent playing would be wasted time and the game-haters would have survived instead.
Which is just an exhaustive proof of the common knowledge: practice makes perfect. Low-risk games create vastly better-practiced players than high-risk games.
If EVE had shipped a Team Deathmatch companion game in 2003, with World of Tanks style gameplay, then players of TDM EVE would absolutely crush Regular EVE players. They would have far more than 10x as much practice experimenting with different combat tactics, loadouts, and fleet compositions. There's simply no way regular EVE players could compete, because practice is how mastery is reached.
You create a ridiculous scenario there and then base your entire argument around it. Yes, if you attack ANYTHING when under level in an RPG, you can get one-shot. At the appropriate level, however, this one-shot scenario you create is fictitious, which negates your entire stance on the matter. If anything, you are suggesting that people will wait until they can level to a point where they can turn the table and one-shot the boss. However, most MMOs reduce or remove the rewards for completing the task at that point. Some MMOs simple don't allow you to face the enemy once you are significantly beyond it.
Can you give examples of the MMOs you are referring to that function the way you suggest?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
sunandshadow, it seems you very much like building and feel your investments should be protected no matter what. I don't particularly agree with this for my vision of the "perfect" sandbox game as that doesn't speak "freedom" to me.. Factions will allow you to hire NPCs to protect your investments while offline, and we've kicked around the idea of having certain servers that are only up for like 6 hours a day for those who only play at certain times every day. Do you have any other suggestions for systems to protect your buildings and territory while offline?
Depends on what type of player you want to attract, as well as how niche of a niche you want to be. As these types of systems generally lend themselves better to the underhanded player, than those who'd like to promote a positive player environment. Case in point being games like Shadowbane, or other games of it's ilk. Even SWG's base system to a lesser extent. While the system offers something that could lead to a healthy PVP environment, more often than not it simply becomes a game of cat and mouse, late night city sieges (while those losing aren't even online), running from real fights (only fighting in massive zergs), harassment of newbs, etc... Freedom is a great feeling, problem is freedom also means enjoyment at others expense. This leads to retention problems.
That's a good point that has to be addressed in any PvP persistent game.
But this is a fantasy game. There can easily be magical or alchemical defenses against destruction, both while the player is logged off and in action.
It's also a Sandbox game that, I presume, tries to lend "realism" but with that fantasy sense on top.
Also, it seems to me that building your house inside a defended city should be desirable as opposed to building out in the wilds where there's little >normal< defense vs. the time it takes to destroy (while a player isn't around). But expensive magics and other means to provide defenses can allow a rich and powerful Mage to build his private Mage Tower, or anyone else who has the wealth and resources to do so. And a player doesn't have to do this, they can just build a small house void of defenses and rebuild in the case of destruction.
I'd strongly suggest that attacking a player's house and looting contents outside of faction wars be included in the death penalty as a crime just like PKing and looting.
My idea for this is to use several tactics that move from normal defenses to expensive magical defenses and makes it all work. The idea being to make a rich fantasy world that feels "right" to "realism" in a fantasy land.
Make destruction of heavy construction (Stone, magically enhanced wood) take time to build up for, building siege weapons after moving in materials and requiring a lot of time of such weapons use to bring down walls.
Have various "magical" enhancements that can be used where needed or skipped where not needed, due to expense.
Require an attack using these siege weapons to also be expensive so that it's a choice that comes with a cost, and failure means loss to the attackers.
So, some general ideas...
Magical oils for wood to give it stone like strength.
Magical Wards, like "The Sprinklers of Distopia" that turn on a spray of water when fires are used against constructions.
Magical Wards that rebound attacks.
Magical towers that shoot at enemies within range (pretty common), and can add more expensive magical attacks too.
Siege weapons that require time to build on site (a real life day or more using NPCs non-stop), alerting the defender of an impending attack. NPC AI that shoots at such to slow construction of siege equipment or even stop it entirely.
Underground vaults for storage that are much harder to break into. (This would be a very good one for that Ranger living alone in the wilds at his hunting shack.)
Allow any player, not just Factions, to hire NPCs for jobs like defense. At a cost, of course.
Pets that defend the home.
Natural traps. Poisoned darts, slicing blades, spiked pits, nets, falling stones, etc. And means to hide them, of course. (That Ranger living alone in the wilds again, he could be a master of this and even sell his skills to others.)
Magical Mouths on walls casting spells.
And remember, all of this can be coded for "dual use" for Dungeons and Ruins too. Even MOB camps. Making for a more interesting experience exploring and dungeoning.
Originally posted by TheeLord Anything not related to death penalties or merits of frequent / infrequent combat that we can discuss please?
How about interactivity with worldly objects? I love games that have a lot of things to open and close, push and pull, look at closely or manipulate for hidden aspects. Levers, drawbridge like stuff, buttons, levers, etc.
And I especially love a game that hides that stuff so you have "secret switches" and hidden passages and the like. Those circling fireplaces with a wall sconce you have to pull, all sort of that type of thing.
I loved UO's system where your mouse cursor felt like your hands in the ways you "reached out and touched" things in the game. Or you used a tool on anything to see if something happened, which they were lacking the possible uses for.
I mean, what if you used a hammer on a marble wall and it fell away in pieces revealing a secret mural behind it? Or nothing happens if there's nothing behind it.
Tool usage like UO had can be expanded and make for much more interesting exploration in the game in many ways. And it doesn't seem like it would require much more coding (more art though) if the tool use system is set up that way in the beginning. And you'd get a lot more game play out of it.
But tool use in crafting can still move you into a script if you want to remove the tediousness that UO had for that.
That's a good point that has to be addressed in any PvP persistent game.
But this is a fantasy game. There can easily be magical or alchemical defenses against destruction, both while the player is logged off and in action.
It's also a Sandbox game that, I presume, tries to lend "realism" but with that fantasy sense on top.
Also, it seems to me that building your house inside a defended city should be desirable as opposed to building out in the wilds where there's little >normal< defense vs. the time it takes to destroy (while a player isn't around). But expensive magics and other means to provide defenses can allow a rich and powerful Mage to build his private Mage Tower, or anyone else who has the wealth and resources to do so. And a player doesn't have to do this, they can just build a small house void of defenses and rebuild in the case of destruction.
I'd strongly suggest that attacking a player's house and looting contents outside of faction wars be included in the death penalty as a crime just like PKing and looting.
My idea for this is to use several tactics that move from normal defenses to expensive magical defenses and makes it all work. The idea being to make a rich fantasy world that feels "right" to "realism" in a fantasy land.
Make destruction of heavy construction (Stone, magically enhanced wood) take time to build up for, building siege weapons after moving in materials and requiring a lot of time of such weapons use to bring down walls.
Have various "magical" enhancements that can be used where needed or skipped where not needed, due to expense.
Require an attack using these siege weapons to also be expensive so that it's a choice that comes with a cost, and failure means loss to the attackers.
So, some general ideas...
Magical oils for wood to give it stone like strength.
Magical Wards, like "The Sprinklers of Distopia" that turn on a spray of water when fires are used against constructions.
Magical Wards that rebound attacks.
Magical towers that shoot at enemies within range (pretty common), and can add more expensive magical attacks too.
Siege weapons that require time to build on site (a real life day or more using NPCs non-stop), alerting the defender of an impending attack. NPC AI that shoots at such to slow construction of siege equipment or even stop it entirely.
Underground vaults for storage that are much harder to break into. (This would be a very good one for that Ranger living alone in the wilds at his hunting shack.)
Allow any player, not just Factions, to hire NPCs for jobs like defense. At a cost, of course.
Pets that defend the home.
Natural traps. Poisoned darts, slicing blades, spiked pits, nets, falling stones, etc. And means to hide them, of course. (That Ranger living alone in the wilds again, he could be a master of this and even sell his skills to others.)
Magical Mouths on walls casting spells.
And remember, all of this can be coded for "dual use" for Dungeons and Ruins too. Even MOB camps. Making for a more interesting experience exploring and dungeoning.
These are all exceptionally well thought out points as well as ideas. My only concern would be player ingenuity, that's the hardest part to combat, we always seem to find a way around every contingency. It's the whole path of least resistance we as a race thrive on (especially gamers).
I think in general this was the biggest factor in losing freedom there is in MMORPG worlds. The answer seemed to be barriers and walls. I'm not saying that's the right or good way to go about fighting it, it just seems to be the path of least resistance on devs behalf.
I do like the idea of magical barriers, it would certainly work, the only hard part is how you design it around people being there to defend or not. Red eye Knights are a powerful force . I know AOC tried a vulnerability window, I'm not sure how that worked out I never did sieging in it, just FFA-PvP.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You create a ridiculous scenario there and then base your entire argument around it. Yes, if you attack ANYTHING when under level in an RPG, you can get one-shot. At the appropriate level, however, this one-shot scenario you create is fictitious, which negates your entire stance on the matter. If anything, you are suggesting that people will wait until they can level to a point where they can turn the table and one-shot the boss. However, most MMOs reduce or remove the rewards for completing the task at that point. Some MMOs simple don't allow you to face the enemy once you are significantly beyond it.
Can you give examples of the MMOs you are referring to that function the way you suggest?
My argument isn't based on that particular scenario. No matter what the encounter is, a certain amount of skill is required; a certain number of mistakes must be avoided in order to succeed. And no matter what penalties exist, the exact same amount of skill is required to avoid failure. It's only after you fail (if you fail) that penalty becomes involved.
I simply chose an example which was the simplest possible scenario (a boss with an insta-kill spell) rather than worry about the details of a more realistic boss like "the boss' spells do 5% of your health and the encounter is balanced so you don't have enough DPS to kill him before he kills you, unless you interrupt at least half his spells." Still simple, but way more complicated and way more likely for someone to get hung up on the details of the encounter rather than the fundamental concept I'm describing.
What I'm describing applies to both bosses, and every other MMORPG boss or monster or challenge.
Any challenge requires a certain amount of skill, and the amount required will be exactly the same for PD or non-PD players. The main difference is what happens if you fail. A secondary factor is that because PD players face permanent death they will limit the difficulty of challenges they pursue (which means that in actual play, those players need less skill than the ones consistently facing the toughest challenges available.)
Penalty happens after the challenge is failed. Any skill that's required exists on the challenge itself. Penalty happens after that, and involves little skill of its own (often no skill at all, as in the case of perma-death.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's a good point that has to be addressed in any PvP persistent game.
But this is a fantasy game. There can easily be magical or alchemical defenses against destruction, both while the player is logged off and in action.
It's also a Sandbox game that, I presume, tries to lend "realism" but with that fantasy sense on top.
Also, it seems to me that building your house inside a defended city should be desirable as opposed to building out in the wilds where there's little >normal< defense vs. the time it takes to destroy (while a player isn't around). But expensive magics and other means to provide defenses can allow a rich and powerful Mage to build his private Mage Tower, or anyone else who has the wealth and resources to do so. And a player doesn't have to do this, they can just build a small house void of defenses and rebuild in the case of destruction.
I'd strongly suggest that attacking a player's house and looting contents outside of faction wars be included in the death penalty as a crime just like PKing and looting.
My idea for this is to use several tactics that move from normal defenses to expensive magical defenses and makes it all work. The idea being to make a rich fantasy world that feels "right" to "realism" in a fantasy land.
Make destruction of heavy construction (Stone, magically enhanced wood) take time to build up for, building siege weapons after moving in materials and requiring a lot of time of such weapons use to bring down walls.
Have various "magical" enhancements that can be used where needed or skipped where not needed, due to expense.
Require an attack using these siege weapons to also be expensive so that it's a choice that comes with a cost, and failure means loss to the attackers.
So, some general ideas...
Magical oils for wood to give it stone like strength.
Magical Wards, like "The Sprinklers of Distopia" that turn on a spray of water when fires are used against constructions.
Magical Wards that rebound attacks.
Magical towers that shoot at enemies within range (pretty common), and can add more expensive magical attacks too.
Siege weapons that require time to build on site (a real life day or more using NPCs non-stop), alerting the defender of an impending attack. NPC AI that shoots at such to slow construction of siege equipment or even stop it entirely.
Underground vaults for storage that are much harder to break into. (This would be a very good one for that Ranger living alone in the wilds at his hunting shack.)
Allow any player, not just Factions, to hire NPCs for jobs like defense. At a cost, of course.
Pets that defend the home.
Natural traps. Poisoned darts, slicing blades, spiked pits, nets, falling stones, etc. And means to hide them, of course. (That Ranger living alone in the wilds again, he could be a master of this and even sell his skills to others.)
Magical Mouths on walls casting spells.
And remember, all of this can be coded for "dual use" for Dungeons and Ruins too. Even MOB camps. Making for a more interesting experience exploring and dungeoning.
These are all exceptionally well thought out points as well as ideas. My only concern would be player ingenuity, that's the hardest part to combat, we always seem to find a way around every contingency. It's the whole path of least resistance we as a race thrive on (especially gamers).
I think in general this was the biggest factor in losing freedom there is in MMORPG worlds. The answer seemed to be barriers and walls. I'm not saying that's the right or good way to go about fighting it, it just seems to be the path of least resistance on devs behalf.
I do like the idea of magical barriers, it would certainly work, the only hard part is how you design it around people being there to defend or not. Red eye Knights are a powerful force . I know AOC tried a vulnerability window, I'm not sure how that worked out I never did sieging in it, just FFA-PvP.
Thank you.
Yeah, I agree that players tend to find ways to get around things. But in this case, isn't that part of the fun? But also on the defender's part, designing their own defensive "layout" using these things.
In all that, I think that the "underground vault" idea is the most important, or similar things (safes or block house in the middle of all the defenses). If the objective is to make it cost an attacker both resources (money or otherwise) and lots of time to to accomplish destruction and get to the looting, then the more you can do that the better your defense.
And adding it as a crime with penalties just like PKing (if it's outside of Faction Warfare) is also very important in order to give players a reason to not just do this willie-nillie, without good reason, or generally just to be a jerk to others or enrich themselves at others' expense as a general way of playing.
On the other hand, in a game that's looking for advanced social interactivity (not forced, offered as an option) then you also want to be able to take care of that player who's generally being a jerk in other ways, like spamming in the middle of player events or training MOB onto your group just when you can't handle it.
This game allows you to go after those types of jerks JUST THAT ONE TIME or EVERY SO OFTEN (I expect these negative points to wear off over time), if you need to teach them a lesson. The penalties probably won't be that bad if you aren't doing this a lot. The purpose of any justice system (that's what these death penalties are about) isn't to totally remove that stuff, it's to keep it under control and not allow "rampant PKing". Otherwise they'd simply not allow combat or theft/looting outside of warfare. But the jerks find ways to be jerks and have no consequences. This give players the means to bring consequences to players doing that stuff that coding can't catch.
This all lends to better social interactions too. Making friends instead of enemies.
Friends, alliances, even trade partners who want your continued success for their own continued success. On any level from the individual player to entire city social structures.
It just makes for a better game experience all around. Unless you're a jerk, of course. But who cares about them anyways.
Yeah, I agree that players tend to find ways to get around things. But in this case, isn't that part of the fun? But also on the defender's part, designing their own defensive "layout" using these things.
In all that, I think that the "underground vault" idea is the most important, or similar things (safes or block house in the middle of all the defenses). If the objective is to make it cost an attacker both resources (money or otherwise) and lots of time to to accomplish destruction and get to the looting, then the more you can do that the better your defense.
And adding it as a crime with penalties just like PKing (if it's outside of Faction Warfare) is also very important in order to give players a reason to not just do this willie-nillie, without good reason, or generally just to be a jerk to others or enrich themselves at others' expense as a general way of playing.
On the other hand, in a game that's looking for advanced social interactivity (not forced, offered as an option) then you also want to be able to take care of that player who's generally being a jerk in other ways, like spamming in the middle of player events or training MOB onto your group just when you can't handle it.
This game allows you to go after those types of jerks JUST THAT ONE TIME or EVERY SO OFTEN (I expect these negative points to wear off over time), if you need to teach them a lesson. The penalties probably won't be that bad if you aren't doing this a lot. The purpose of any justice system (that's what these death penalties are about) isn't to totally remove that stuff, it's to keep it under control and not allow "rampant PKing". Otherwise they'd simply not allow combat or theft/looting outside of warfare. But the jerks find ways to be jerks and have no consequences. This give players the means to bring consequences to players doing that stuff that coding can't catch.
These are all good examples as well.
I wonder how you feel about a more flagged based system, along with guild warring, over FFA attack anyone systems?
Just on experience I found it to be the most healthy system as far as the player base goes. PVP was also a lot healthier the healthiest I've ever seen it TBH, maybe outside of DAOC (which is really it's own thing).
Think a system like SWG, with more factions to work for, opening up more PVE related flags. IE Do some dungeon, your city becomes vulnerable, at least to those standing with that faction, you know the risk and can be there to fight it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yeah, I agree that players tend to find ways to get around things. But in this case, isn't that part of the fun? But also on the defender's part, designing their own defensive "layout" using these things.
In all that, I think that the "underground vault" idea is the most important, or similar things (safes or block house in the middle of all the defenses). If the objective is to make it cost an attacker both resources (money or otherwise) and lots of time to to accomplish destruction and get to the looting, then the more you can do that the better your defense.
And adding it as a crime with penalties just like PKing (if it's outside of Faction Warfare) is also very important in order to give players a reason to not just do this willie-nillie, without good reason, or generally just to be a jerk to others or enrich themselves at others' expense as a general way of playing.
On the other hand, in a game that's looking for advanced social interactivity (not forced, offered as an option) then you also want to be able to take care of that player who's generally being a jerk in other ways, like spamming in the middle of player events or training MOB onto your group just when you can't handle it.
This game allows you to go after those types of jerks JUST THAT ONE TIME or EVERY SO OFTEN (I expect these negative points to wear off over time), if you need to teach them a lesson. The penalties probably won't be that bad if you aren't doing this a lot. The purpose of any justice system (that's what these death penalties are about) isn't to totally remove that stuff, it's to keep it under control and not allow "rampant PKing". Otherwise they'd simply not allow combat or theft/looting outside of warfare. But the jerks find ways to be jerks and have no consequences. This give players the means to bring consequences to players doing that stuff that coding can't catch.
These are all good examples as well.
I wonder how you feel about a more flagged based system, along with guild warring, over FFA attack anyone systems?
Just on experience I found it to be the most healthy system as far as the player base goes. PVP was also a lot healthier the healthiest I've ever seen it TBH, maybe outside of DAOC (which is really it's own thing).
Think a system like SWG, with more factions to work for, opening up more PVE related flags. IE Do some dungeon, your city becomes vulnerable, at least to those standing with that faction, you know the risk and can be there to fight it.
You know, I've put a lot of thought into that sort of thing too. And I see some very strong potential.
I really like your idea of doing a dungeon opening up PvP flags vs. someone in relation to that dungeon. That's something I never thought of in that way.
Originally posted by Axehilt No matter what the encounter is, a certain amount of skill is required; a certain number of mistakes must be avoided in order to succeed. And no matter what penalties exist, the exact same amount of skill is required to avoid failure. It's only after you fail (if you fail) that penalty becomes involved.
The guy that brought 300 friends says you're off your rocker.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by TheeLord Anything not related to death penalties or merits of frequent / infrequent combat that we can discuss please?
How about a survivor penalty? Most games its an easy choice whether or not to attack someone based on IF you can win. What if you can only instant heal for 15% and then only get 1% per a min or 10% more every 10 min. Or taking a ton of damage would slow you down for a while or reduce how much you could carry. It would slow down the pace of the game, but people would really choose their battles. Why is it real or immersive if you win with 1 hp, 1 min latter you are back at full ability ready fight at the same level. Also fighting 4-5 weaker players in a row could get you killed.
The guy that brought 300 friends says you're off your rocker.
Beating an encounter with 300 friends requires almost no skill with permadeath.
Beating an encounter with 300 friends requires almost no skill without permadeath.
It doesn't matter what scenario we're talking about, penalty doesn't change the skill required. Penalty only occurs after any skill that's involved.
Certainly I've said many times in this thread that being able to bring 300 friends marginalizes the amount of skill required, but that's not a penalty factor, it's a population factor.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Agreed. General rule in any open world FFA PVP MMO that I've been in (UO, SB, EVE, MO) is that if you find yourself in a fair fight, you either did something wrong or you are missing what the enemy really has in their favor.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Certainly it's a common fantasy for players to believe they're hardcore by playing perma-death games. I mean it says hardcore right there on the button, it must be hardcore right? I must be hardcore for choosing it...right?
Well it turns out that's wrong and that hardcore not only doesn't make the game harder in any meaningful way, it creates an atmosphere where most players are less likely to put themselves into challenging situations. So the hardcore button has actually reduced the skill required to do well.
But of course if you're a developer (and I am) you don't shy away from playing up that fantasy. If I ever make a Diablo style ARPG you can be sure I'll add a fiery, animated "HARDCORE!" button. Players will fall for it every time.
So due to the above, we see that the hardcore vs. casual I'm discussing is the root of what's actually casual vs. hardcore. And it's actually more hardcore if you can only win by skill. It's actually more casual if you can win without skill.
If you're at all interested in the truth of the matter, think through how often -- with 4 teammates in tow -- you're going to end up fighting exactly 5 opponents. By far the majority of fights you'll create are going to be one-sided slaughters (most in your favor, perhaps eventually one against you.)
As for your CS:GO players, please respond to what I'm actually saying. I've never said it was impossible for few to beat many. I've only pointed out how it makes games more casual for there to be non-skill ways to win combat. Those 5 best CS:GO players will never lose in CS:GO. In another game where players can bring more teammates, those 5 best players might lose due to the non-skill-based reason of facing too many opponents to handle. (Also I'm slightly uncomfortably using CS:GO as our example of a high skill cap game, given that it's a hitscan shooter; if you're really accurate at clicking things in Windows, you'll make a pretty awesome CS:GO player.)
Hmm...at this point I reached the part where you said "MOBAs PVP is exactly like MMORPG but in a fair environment". Not too sure how to proceed. Up til now I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as to being reasonably well informed about the various types of PVP games, but that statement is staggeringly inaccurate. Have you ever actually played a MOBA?
So no I don't "see what you mean". Even if MOBA PVP was like MMORPG PVP, your statement wouldn't make sense because we're discussing population advantages (which don't exist in MOBAs) and how they act as a non-skill trump card.
As for your last bit, please respond to what I'm actually saying. Obviously at no point have I claimed PVE couldn't be deep (though it is harder.) I'm saying enough actual things that you shouldn't have to respond to things you imagined or wished that I said.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
How about what is the definition of a sandbox, or a MMO? Those two will make the topic lively, for sure.
Your whole argument that risk will make players less likely to put themselves in challenging situations is missing something, risk vs reward. Players will engage in challenging gameplay IF the rewards are enough. How is risk reducing the skill needed to do well? If anything, you cant make any mistakes and you have to play your best because theres only limited chances of suceeding until its game over.
Forget about the 5 players for a second. Imagine its only 1 player, the best in CS go (or insert skill based game here), that goes out roaming looking for fights (in a supposedly open world pvp game with the exact same combat). The minimum number of players he can encounter is 1, an even fight, so for him 100% of fights will be competitive. Now if he finds 2 players it will be alot more challenging and so on with even more enemies. My point is that you can choose to go out alone or with 20 friends, but if you want to challenge yourself you will probably get bored with the later, so you choose the former option.
You said "The population advantage is such a powerful advantage that it actually renders the other skills far less important -- with basic tactics, basic ambushes, and basic item choices, your 20 players are still going to absolutely destroy your 5 opponents (even if they make the best possible choices.)". That means that even if the 5 players did their very best and 0 mistakes, it would be impossible to overcome the number advantage. I say this is relative to the games skill ceiling, if its high enough there will always be a small chance you can win.
And cmon, Mobas are tab target games with combat very similar to mainstream MMORPGS. Theyre are basically standalone battlegrounds, the twitch skill required is very low.
About the last part, you continously claim that arena games are 100% chess and sandboxes are 50% chess and 50% checkers, that the "shallow" activies like crafting, hunting mobs, gathering resources, building bases are diluting the whole game just because its not 100% instant pew pew, so I havent imagined anything.
I've already explained it and it really isn't that complicated:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I dunno, Axe. I don't think it's that absolute. For example, in most MMOs you can fail your way to the top. Die a thousand times doing the same task, but as long as you keep repeating the task you'll eventually get the next level, the reward, or whatever lies ahead. The same goes for throwing bodies at something. A big enough pile-on of derping can solve most problems in an MMO. In neither case does the player have to learn how to complete the task properly, let alone effectively or efficiently.
With a harsh penalty, you have two likely scenarios.
Players avoid it, steering toward content with a more palatable risk/reward level.
Players accept the challenge.
Of course there are all sorts of greys in between, but those are the two most common that we see. In the latter, though, players become far more skilled at tackling the content than in low penalty scenarios where sheer numbers or even attrition - both requiring far less skill than actually learning how to counter the content's obstacles/challenges - can achieve the same end.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Hmm not sure about that lokofeit. Most games only give you experience for completing the task, whether that is handing in the quest or winning the fight. If you don't win the fight you don't get experience, don't get experience you never get to the next level.
So you cannot fail your way to the top without beating the event. You have to actually beat it to get experience.
edit - now you may never beat the boss but beat all the trash mobs to it and yes you get experience. If that's what you meant than I agree. Same with PVP, you might not actually beat that guy but beat whatever lower players before that guy.
How about mystery? I've always thought a worldly game like this should have deep mystery buried in the lore. Mysteries that can lead to discoveries. Discoveries of all kinds, sometimes long lost artifacts, sometimes historical knowledge that fills in blanks and can help in further discoveries, sometimes lost knowledge involving trades/making things, and whatever else.
I think there's game play value in one-off game wide discoveries and the player wide "race" to making such discoveries. I'm thinking in the sense that players would have to put together lots of bits of knowledge and have to come to a realization that putting this and that together might mean something, and then go check things out. Where players read lore (hopefully in-game ancient tomes and scrolls (which players would obviously place on web sites), put together discovery info, look for ancient names and places, and puzzle together long strings of pieces of info.
UO originally had a very deep mystery running in the background, and they based their GM events largely on this. Adding little bits here and there to a hidden plot that never really was finished due to GM rollover over the years. It involved a golden necklace with a black gem stone that kept popping up, events centered around a GM played bad guy gaining the necklace, dying, then coming back as a Liche wearing that necklace, then being defeated by the players and the necklace disappearing, then a secret search for that necklace. But then the plot line died, and only then did someone (me) realize what had been going on for so long, but at that point the GMs didn't know themselves, so they did a little addition to the running events where a mysterious person took the necklace out of the game. Probably forever, and as a hint that it was over to those of us that got excited about it.
http://www.drabstreet.net/BlackNeclace.html
I never thought it would be that hard to set up a bunch of this sort of thing to use as a game goes on for GM story lines, letting players make these particular discoveries as a part of the means to defeat the big bad Boss.
And of course, lost treasures and one of a kind items to collect.
What about "rares"? That's another form of game play, gaining them and then trading them for collections and museums.
Once upon a time....
Depends on what type of player you want to attract, as well as how niche of a niche you want to be. As these types of systems generally lend themselves better to the underhanded player, than those who'd like to promote a positive player environment. Case in point being games like Shadowbane, or other games of it's ilk. Even SWG's base system to a lesser extent. While the system offers something that could lead to a healthy PVP environment, more often than not it simply becomes a game of cat and mouse, late night city sieges (while those losing aren't even online), running from real fights (only fighting in massive zergs), harassment of newbs, etc... Freedom is a great feeling, problem is freedom also means enjoyment at others expense. This leads to retention problems.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Hardcore , life ending adventure , try it and tell me , what's hardcore.
Casual
perma-death can count as one way to make the game "hardcore" in gamble way.
Higher you are , greater you fall , and more careful you must .
But i don't ready like it , i prefer short but hard challenge instead of marathon that test stamina .
If a boss one-shots you with a 0.5 sec spell, you'll literally never beat him until you're skilled enough (interrupt within 0.5 sec) or you level up so much (doing other things) that he won't one-shot you.
The latter part (beating the situation by leveling) is an RPG thing. It's vertical progression.
But both players (perma-death or not) will reach that boss in the one-shot state, facing the exact same skill requirement.
As for who becomes more skilled, the very fact that we enjoy gaming proves that wrong:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You create a ridiculous scenario there and then base your entire argument around it. Yes, if you attack ANYTHING when under level in an RPG, you can get one-shot. At the appropriate level, however, this one-shot scenario you create is fictitious, which negates your entire stance on the matter. If anything, you are suggesting that people will wait until they can level to a point where they can turn the table and one-shot the boss. However, most MMOs reduce or remove the rewards for completing the task at that point. Some MMOs simple don't allow you to face the enemy once you are significantly beyond it.
Can you give examples of the MMOs you are referring to that function the way you suggest?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's a good point that has to be addressed in any PvP persistent game.
But this is a fantasy game. There can easily be magical or alchemical defenses against destruction, both while the player is logged off and in action.
It's also a Sandbox game that, I presume, tries to lend "realism" but with that fantasy sense on top.
Also, it seems to me that building your house inside a defended city should be desirable as opposed to building out in the wilds where there's little >normal< defense vs. the time it takes to destroy (while a player isn't around). But expensive magics and other means to provide defenses can allow a rich and powerful Mage to build his private Mage Tower, or anyone else who has the wealth and resources to do so. And a player doesn't have to do this, they can just build a small house void of defenses and rebuild in the case of destruction.
I'd strongly suggest that attacking a player's house and looting contents outside of faction wars be included in the death penalty as a crime just like PKing and looting.
My idea for this is to use several tactics that move from normal defenses to expensive magical defenses and makes it all work. The idea being to make a rich fantasy world that feels "right" to "realism" in a fantasy land.
Once upon a time....
How about interactivity with worldly objects? I love games that have a lot of things to open and close, push and pull, look at closely or manipulate for hidden aspects. Levers, drawbridge like stuff, buttons, levers, etc.
And I especially love a game that hides that stuff so you have "secret switches" and hidden passages and the like. Those circling fireplaces with a wall sconce you have to pull, all sort of that type of thing.
I loved UO's system where your mouse cursor felt like your hands in the ways you "reached out and touched" things in the game. Or you used a tool on anything to see if something happened, which they were lacking the possible uses for.
I mean, what if you used a hammer on a marble wall and it fell away in pieces revealing a secret mural behind it? Or nothing happens if there's nothing behind it.
Tool usage like UO had can be expanded and make for much more interesting exploration in the game in many ways. And it doesn't seem like it would require much more coding (more art though) if the tool use system is set up that way in the beginning. And you'd get a lot more game play out of it.
But tool use in crafting can still move you into a script if you want to remove the tediousness that UO had for that.
Once upon a time....
These are all exceptionally well thought out points as well as ideas. My only concern would be player ingenuity, that's the hardest part to combat, we always seem to find a way around every contingency. It's the whole path of least resistance we as a race thrive on (especially gamers).
I think in general this was the biggest factor in losing freedom there is in MMORPG worlds. The answer seemed to be barriers and walls. I'm not saying that's the right or good way to go about fighting it, it just seems to be the path of least resistance on devs behalf.
I do like the idea of magical barriers, it would certainly work, the only hard part is how you design it around people being there to defend or not. Red eye Knights are a powerful force
. I know AOC tried a vulnerability window, I'm not sure how that worked out I never did sieging in it, just FFA-PvP.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
My argument isn't based on that particular scenario. No matter what the encounter is, a certain amount of skill is required; a certain number of mistakes must be avoided in order to succeed. And no matter what penalties exist, the exact same amount of skill is required to avoid failure. It's only after you fail (if you fail) that penalty becomes involved.
I simply chose an example which was the simplest possible scenario (a boss with an insta-kill spell) rather than worry about the details of a more realistic boss like "the boss' spells do 5% of your health and the encounter is balanced so you don't have enough DPS to kill him before he kills you, unless you interrupt at least half his spells." Still simple, but way more complicated and way more likely for someone to get hung up on the details of the encounter rather than the fundamental concept I'm describing.
What I'm describing applies to both bosses, and every other MMORPG boss or monster or challenge.
Any challenge requires a certain amount of skill, and the amount required will be exactly the same for PD or non-PD players. The main difference is what happens if you fail. A secondary factor is that because PD players face permanent death they will limit the difficulty of challenges they pursue (which means that in actual play, those players need less skill than the ones consistently facing the toughest challenges available.)
Penalty happens after the challenge is failed. Any skill that's required exists on the challenge itself. Penalty happens after that, and involves little skill of its own (often no skill at all, as in the case of perma-death.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Thank you.
Yeah, I agree that players tend to find ways to get around things. But in this case, isn't that part of the fun? But also on the defender's part, designing their own defensive "layout" using these things.
In all that, I think that the "underground vault" idea is the most important, or similar things (safes or block house in the middle of all the defenses). If the objective is to make it cost an attacker both resources (money or otherwise) and lots of time to to accomplish destruction and get to the looting, then the more you can do that the better your defense.
And adding it as a crime with penalties just like PKing (if it's outside of Faction Warfare) is also very important in order to give players a reason to not just do this willie-nillie, without good reason, or generally just to be a jerk to others or enrich themselves at others' expense as a general way of playing.
On the other hand, in a game that's looking for advanced social interactivity (not forced, offered as an option) then you also want to be able to take care of that player who's generally being a jerk in other ways, like spamming in the middle of player events or training MOB onto your group just when you can't handle it.
This game allows you to go after those types of jerks JUST THAT ONE TIME or EVERY SO OFTEN (I expect these negative points to wear off over time), if you need to teach them a lesson. The penalties probably won't be that bad if you aren't doing this a lot. The purpose of any justice system (that's what these death penalties are about) isn't to totally remove that stuff, it's to keep it under control and not allow "rampant PKing". Otherwise they'd simply not allow combat or theft/looting outside of warfare. But the jerks find ways to be jerks and have no consequences. This give players the means to bring consequences to players doing that stuff that coding can't catch.
Once upon a time....
This all lends to better social interactions too. Making friends instead of enemies.
Friends, alliances, even trade partners who want your continued success for their own continued success. On any level from the individual player to entire city social structures.
It just makes for a better game experience all around. Unless you're a jerk, of course. But who cares about them anyways.
Once upon a time....
These are all good examples as well.
I wonder how you feel about a more flagged based system, along with guild warring, over FFA attack anyone systems?
Just on experience I found it to be the most healthy system as far as the player base goes. PVP was also a lot healthier the healthiest I've ever seen it TBH, maybe outside of DAOC (which is really it's own thing).
Think a system like SWG, with more factions to work for, opening up more PVE related flags. IE Do some dungeon, your city becomes vulnerable, at least to those standing with that faction, you know the risk and can be there to fight it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You know, I've put a lot of thought into that sort of thing too. And I see some very strong potential.
I really like your idea of doing a dungeon opening up PvP flags vs. someone in relation to that dungeon. That's something I never thought of in that way.
Very interesting.
Once upon a time....
The guy that brought 300 friends says you're off your rocker.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
How about a survivor penalty? Most games its an easy choice whether or not to attack someone based on IF you can win. What if you can only instant heal for 15% and then only get 1% per a min or 10% more every 10 min. Or taking a ton of damage would slow you down for a while or reduce how much you could carry. It would slow down the pace of the game, but people would really choose their battles. Why is it real or immersive if you win with 1 hp, 1 min latter you are back at full ability ready fight at the same level. Also fighting 4-5 weaker players in a row could get you killed.
Why does games have to be real? It is convenience. Players don't want to wait.
Beating an encounter with 300 friends requires almost no skill with permadeath.
Beating an encounter with 300 friends requires almost no skill without permadeath.
It doesn't matter what scenario we're talking about, penalty doesn't change the skill required. Penalty only occurs after any skill that's involved.
Certainly I've said many times in this thread that being able to bring 300 friends marginalizes the amount of skill required, but that's not a penalty factor, it's a population factor.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver