Trying to think but in the context of this game here not sure alts would cause a major issue. And people will always buy two copies of the game and trade in most circumstances so it's a difficult one to administer. I personally prefer to have one main charachter and spend all my time on that so the ability to learn lots of abilities really appeals.
I don't get too fussed about people buying two copies as it's a self-limiting problem (there aren't that many players overall that are willing to pay for multiple accounts) and it's quite common even in games that have alts.
I've seen posts from the EVE head producer saying that given the system they have in place (single shard, skill based), if he had it to do over again he'd never allow there to be more than one character per account. That right there says a great deal.
Well, on the subject of offering more than one character to a player...
This is not a simple issue. I would like to address one thing before talking about this, in Citadel of Sorcery your character has access to ALL Abilities in the game. There is no reason to have to play two alternate characters in order to get different Abilities. If you want archer abilities, go get them. If you want to toss fireballs, go learn that spell. There are challenges to achieving various abilities, but no restrictions.
Now, as to offering multiple characters per account... we will be offering this option. There are reasons why this is a good idea. First, no one is required to do this, and since you CAN get any set of abilities for your character, many of the reasons for using multiple characters goes away. But there are some remaining reasons. Once example, I know players who belong to a big guild and most often want to interact with their guild members... but not always. Sometimes they don't want to be social, and they don't want their guild members to feel affronted, so they simply use an alternate character that does not belong to that guild when they are feeling anti-social.
Or... no matter how much we try (and let me tell you, we are going the extra mile to allow higher level characters to play with lower level) there is still some limit to how far apart character levels can be and still have an enjoyable experience when grouped. However, players can use an alternate character to play with friends just starting the game.
The end of this discussion for us was simple, make it so that a player is not forced to use an alternate character to experience any portion of the game, but don't stop them from doing so. You will find this kind of philosophy in may portions of the game design. Just like doing a quest solo vs. grouped. We do not stop players from doing either one, we give them the choice on every quest.
Understandable choice - but with the positives come the negatives (muleing, griefing, scamming, antisocial behavior, etc).
The main problem with the implementation of alts is that there is almost never any accountability for actions taken on an alternate character.
Generally speaking, the only thing of worth in a MMO is your "name". Your reputation in the community as someone others want to spend their leisure time in the presence of. Alts are frequently used to do unsavory things (still within the ToS of course) that would otherwise tarnish the reputation of the main.
I would strongly suggest considering a means by which alts are easily identifiable as linked to their main account (or put another way, that all characters on an account can be identified as linked). Common surnames, common family crest, or what have you.
This would still permit the advantages you stated without opening the door as wide to abuse of the alt capability (through at least allowing the community the ability to judge the player by their own actions rather than hiding behind a temporary and faceless alt identity).
Well, like you said, I'm sure that the alt will be connected with the main account. This is because it is P2P, so I'm guessing that with each subscription you get, say, 3 character slots.
Say the person is harrassing someone using an alt account. Well, the character itself will be banned, but so will the whole subscription. So this means that if one character is banned, so are all the rest.
The only thing wrong with this is that the person could pay for an extra sub...but that's unlikely.
Did I get that right, Jatar?
__________________________________________________ In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
Well, like you said, I'm sure that the alt will be connected with the main account. This is because it is P2P, so I'm guessing that with each subscription you get, say, 3 character slots. Say the person is harrassing someone using an alt account. Well, the character itself will be banned, but so will the whole subscription. So this means that if one character is banned, so are all the rest. The only thing wrong with this is that the person could pay for an extra sub...but that's unlikely. Did I get that right, Jatar?
Not really the point I was getting at.
Of course the alts will be connected at the account level - but that information is only available to MMOM and not the playerbase. As such, if a given player is using their alt slots in an unsavory way that is not against the ToS (and thus doesn't warrent a ban) the playerbase has no means by which to hold the player accountable for those actions.
For instance, take killstealing and spawn camping (though I realize this specific instance may not apply in CoS). A player may wish to engage in such anti-social behaviors, but doing so would ruin the reputation of his character and possibly his guild. With an alt slot that is unconnected to his main character, he could simply level an alt and steal / camp for whatever he likes. At the end of the day the alt is disposable and the main has benefited without any damage to it's reputation.
If the alt carries a unique last name that identifies it as belonging to a given main - the behavior becomes less appealing as the player will suffer any repercussions regardless of which character is currently being played.
While it remains possible for players to buy second accounts to do such things, at least in that instance there is another sub price going to MMOM (possibly offsetting the GM time that will very likely be used) and it's somewhat self-limiting due to cost (whereas an alt slot is free and easy).
Well, like you said, I'm sure that the alt will be connected with the main account. This is because it is P2P, so I'm guessing that with each subscription you get, say, 3 character slots. Say the person is harrassing someone using an alt account. Well, the character itself will be banned, but so will the whole subscription. So this means that if one character is banned, so are all the rest. The only thing wrong with this is that the person could pay for an extra sub...but that's unlikely. Did I get that right, Jatar?
Not really the point I was getting at.
Of course the alts will be connected at the account level - but that information is only available to MMOM and not the playerbase. As such, if a given player is using their alt slots in an unsavory way that is not against the ToS (and thus doesn't warrent a ban) the playerbase has no means by which to hold the player accountable for those actions.
For instance, take killstealing and spawn camping (though I realize this specific instance may not apply in CoS). A player may wish to engage in such anti-social behaviors, but doing so would ruin the reputation of his character and possibly his guild. With an alt slot that is unconnected to his main character, he could simply level an alt and steal / camp for whatever he likes. At the end of the day the alt is disposable and the main has benefited without any damage to it's reputation.
If the alt carries a unique last name that identifies it as belonging to a given main - the behavior becomes less appealing as the player will suffer any repercussions regardless of which character is currently being played.
While it remains possible for players to buy second accounts to do such things, at least in that instance there is another sub price going to MMOM (possibly offsetting the GM time that will very likely be used) and it's somewhat self-limiting due to cost (whereas an alt slot is free and easy).
That's all I'm saying.
While I see what you're getting at, it is not really that big of a deal. This problem will go for all games, so I fail to see why you make it seem like such a big deal here. So it hurts their rep, so they decide to do it on an alt account. It is the players choice, and (as long as the rules are not being broken) it really isn't that big of a deal.
While I understand your concern, alt accounts will also be put to good use. People who are in an anti social mood will be able to play their character and do their quest line, so it is a plus.
__________________________________________________ In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
Allowing players to know which alts are linked defeats a part of the reason for having them. However, we do offer players a robust method of handling players who annoy them. You can ignore them at various levels, including all their Atls if you wish (even though you may not know which are their Alts). Thus, if you are annoyed by a player you may choose to never see, hear or even know they exist, including all their alternate accounts. This is the ultimate form of player punishment for bad behavior, and they can't hide behind alternate accounts. However, due to this there is no need to keep good players from having alternate accounts, or using them with anonymity.
I like to have Alts, I find I learn how to play the game with my first character then experiment with my second alt. My third Alt is most likely to become my Main character. If slots allow another Alt becomes my banker. depending on grouping rules the might be a low level Alt to play with new members. If I end up as Guild Master then that would most likely require another Alt that lives in the guild house.
Alts and their misuse lead onto another Hot subject that of character naming. It seems to me tha C0S is a bit more RPG than a lot of recent games and so perhaps needs a strong naming policy.
I would like 4 names for a character Title, Player forename, Player Clan name and guild Name
The title would have to be earned
The two Player name combination should be unique to extend the options to use popular names like Hawk or Strongbow
Guild name would not have to be the full Guild title a guild could agree on a guild name ie "The Grand Order of the wild Rose" could adopt "wildrose" as the guild suffix to members names.
I always spend time naming my characters and It can be frustrating for those joining an established game as it seems all the preferred names are taken. Many game companies retain names for the life of the game even those of players who have quit. They are kept in hopes that they can persuade them to rejoin. I think they should be made available 12 months after a player has quit.
There are a number of Name generators on the internet. Such a program could be used to help those with little time and limited imagination to produce an acceptable name.
Originally posted by Jatar Mike470 is correct, partly we wanted to see if there was much interest in a dynamic world game that is primarily quest based. The sheer quantity of emails we have received supporting this idea is encouraging. It seems there are a LOT of players wanting to break out of the old mold and try something new. Our hard work has not been in vain.
However, there are many areas of our game that could benefit from additional discussion. One of these would be player Abilities. Although we have the player Abilities system designed, it is in no way written in stone at this juncture. Here are just a couple issues we have to face: 1) We are allowing players to seek any new Ability they want. This gives players the freedom to plan ahead and create the character of their choice. The issue: will this be too confusing or difficult for the casual player? If the answer is yes, in what ways could we do this, yet make it easy for casual players to understand and enjoy? 2) Once they have an Ability, we are allowing player to improve these Abilities with both study and practice, without cap. The issue: Eventuall god like characters that unbalance the game. In what ways should we limit the growth of players (if at all)?
We already have solutions for these problems, but it might be interesting to hear from players and see their solutions or alternate options. Another completely different area worth discussing is death. We are currently planning some penalties for death. However, we are also planning on offering players more than one way of paying those penalties. Rather than explain our exact plans, we would love to hear people weigh in on the idea of 'free' death vs. death penalties, and how sever they think penalties (if any) should be to make the game intersting, without making it annoying.
I think that allowing players to custom tailor classes is a great idea. I like the idea I have read on the CoS website that circumvents casual players from getting overwhelmed, by implementing a university system, where players can go to get help on planning class, and then adhereing to that plan.
Allowing players to build skills without end, is a bad idea. There has to be some skill or level cap for sure because - as stated - there WILL be uber godlike players and what not.
Death should not be without penalty, and I would be in favour of corpse runs, but then again I am ex-EQ so thats my preference haha. I feel having a death penalty actually puts emphasis and value on time spent in the game, as opposed to nonchalance at ones death.
...Allowing players to build skills without end, is a bad idea. There has to be some skill or level cap for sure because - as stated - there WILL be uber godlike players and what not.
Perhaps, but putting a 'cap' on things is annoying as well. Players want to keep improving their character. We're considering a system of diminishing gains. This means there is no reachable cap on improving an Ability, but the higher the player improves the Ability the less the gain at the next advancement. Therefore they can keep improving an Ability, but getting it to reach 'God like' power is a nearly impossible achievement.
They would be better off getting new Abilities where the gains were greater for their hard earned 'study' tokens, but players are not precluded from advancing their current Abilities if that's their desire.
...Allowing players to build skills without end, is a bad idea. There has to be some skill or level cap for sure because - as stated - there WILL be uber godlike players and what not.
Perhaps, but putting a 'cap' on things is annoying as well. Players want to keep improving their character. We're considering a system of diminishing gains. This means there is no reachable cap on improving an Ability, but the higher the player improves the Ability the less the gain at the next advancement. Therefore they can keep improving an Ability, but getting it to reach 'God like' power is a nearly impossible achievement.
They would be better off getting new Abilities where the gains were greater for their hard earned 'study' tokens, but players are not precluded from advancing their current Abilities if that's their desire.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Sounds like a nice system. The only ting is you need to make sure that their is content for the core gamer. The guy or gal that spends all the free time on "Leveling" or improving their charater. If they have no "cap" then they will need content that will still be a challage to them. The player should never feel "God Like" when doing adventures. Most games use Raids to combat this and some high level group content. EQ1 put in the AA system which was a great idea, it allowed players to customize their class even more while still grinding on content that was challaging in a group setting. CoS will need to do the same thing. Allow the core players to still fell challaged while allow them to have no limit on the customization of a class.
I love the idea of endless abilities but their needs to be content to support that.
...Allowing players to build skills without end, is a bad idea. There has to be some skill or level cap for sure because - as stated - there WILL be uber godlike players and what not.
Perhaps, but putting a 'cap' on things is annoying as well. Players want to keep improving their character. We're considering a system of diminishing gains. This means there is no reachable cap on improving an Ability, but the higher the player improves the Ability the less the gain at the next advancement. Therefore they can keep improving an Ability, but getting it to reach 'God like' power is a nearly impossible achievement.
They would be better off getting new Abilities where the gains were greater for their hard earned 'study' tokens, but players are not precluded from advancing their current Abilities if that's their desire.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Sounds like a nice system. The only ting is you need to make sure that their is content for the core gamer. The guy or gal that spends all the free time on "Leveling" or improving their charater. If they have no "cap" then they will need content that will still be a challage to them. The player should never feel "God Like" when doing adventures. Most games use Raids to combat this and some high level group content. EQ1 put in the AA system which was a great idea, it allowed players to customize their class even more while still grinding on content that was challaging in a group setting. CoS will need to do the same thing. Allow the core players to still fell challaged while allow them to have no limit on the customization of a class.
I love the idea of endless abilities but their needs to be content to support that.
/agree.
It is important to have content to fill in.. Since there is no end game, since there is no cap, then there should be content for each level.
I remember speaking about this in another post, and I stated that there must be content to fill in the levels. But I then recieved around four replies saying "That is impossible" or "That would take too long" and they are mostly correct. I would think that it is a huge challenge to actually have content from each level to 1-1000+. Now, while I'm sure that will take long, people will end up getting there.
I am guessing that for things like quests, your quests kind of level up with you. But, with things like herblore, tracking, etc., how does CoS plan on having endless content to fill in the levels? I believe that each X amount of levels should have quests, as well as the ability to unlock new abilities as your level gets higher.
Like you said, I would love endless abilities, to train on and on and be filled with new rewards as I reach higher levels. But my question is, how does CoS plan on handling this? Is it really possible to have endless content?
.....to add on:
I kind of like how games like RuneScape handled this. Now, the way they handled these abilities was rather poor IMO, and it was just a huge grind to reach the levels. But I do like how with each couple of levels, in each skill, there were several things to unlock. Like, say, if you reached 60 herblore you would achieve thee ability to create a super strength potion. Things like that can fill in the content.
Not only new potions, but new herbs, new quests for the skill, new obstacles, etc. (if we're talking about herblore here).
Now, if each several levels can do this, then I full heartedly agree that there should be no level cap. BUT, it is important that the skills do not involve too much grinding, like RuneScape's skills were.
__________________________________________________ In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
Content isn't really an issue in our system since each quest is tailored to the players on the quest. (you don't go on the exact same quests as anyone else, it's your story, we make it right for you).
As for 'god like' characters, that's not really feasible in our system of Ability advancement. Sure, you can work toward perfection, we will allow you to constantly work further toward that goal, but you can never actually achieve perfection. Such is true in life, and in CoS.
Example: In real life It's easy to run a six minute mile, and not that hard to get to a five minute mile, but as you get faster and faster gains become smaller and smaller. By the time you break the four minute mile shaving off another 1/10th of a second might take you months of hard work. Then, could you shave off another tenth? Sure you could, it's POSSIBLE, improbable, yes, but not impossible. There is no limit to how fast you can run the mile, but each gain gets harder and harder, but technically, there is no 'cap'. This is the system of Abilities in CoS, there IS no cap, but gains become harder and harder to achieve, but players, like people, need the chance that they could still get better.
Content isn't really an issue in our system since each quest is tailored to the players on the quest. (you don't go on the exact same quests as anyone else, it's your story, we make it right for you).
I understood and agreed with the under post, I just wanted to point this out.
When I spoke about content, I made the assumption that quests continue to stay my level. But, what I do not understand, is how side skills will be leveled. Things like, for example, herblore, tracking, etc. You see, I do not know much of the ability system, I do not know if it attributes to your overall level or is just a side skill.
Example: If I have 193 tracking, will that effect my overall level (like in Oblivion) or is it just a side skill that does not effect my level whatsoever (like in RuneScape).
The point of my post was that there has to be content for side skills as well.
__________________________________________________ In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
I understood and agreed with the under post, I just wanted to point this out. When I spoke about content, I made the assumption that quests continue to stay my level. But, what I do not understand, is how side skills will be leveled. Things like, for example, herblore, tracking, etc. You see, I do not know much of the ability system, I do not know if it attributes to your overall level or is just a side skill. Example: If I have 193 tracking, will that effect my overall level (like in Oblivion) or is it just a side skill that does not effect my level whatsoever (like in RuneScape). The point of my post was that there has to be content for side skills as well.
We don't write content for Abilities. Nor does Oblivioin or RuneScape's systems match ours in any similar way. It's really very simple, you are on quests, you have Abilities, you use the ones that are useful during that quest. There are no useless Abilities, nor any that are needed at all times. We don't write quests for an Ability, we just have quests and you decide which ones to use.
I think you guys are making this more complex than it needs to be. Look, if I have a tracking Ability and there is a monster that I could track... then I can use that ability. If I don't have tracking at that moment, I'll do something else. Quests aren't linear, everyone with ANY set of Abilities can finish the quest. You use what you have, and later, if you decide you might like to add another Ability you can go learn that whenever you wish.
I know this doesn't answer your questions about how our Ability system works, because we haven't released all the information on that yet. But... we have explained that you can learn what you want. So... if you learn to swim, then you can swim across the moat and go in that secret entrance... and if you don't know how to swim, then you'll nave to use a boat, or the draw bridge or launch yourself over the wall with a catapult The point is, use what Abilities you have, but we don't write content for Abilities, we just write quests and let you figure out how you want to tackle the hurdles.
Understood. I look forward to seeing more information about the ability system.
__________________________________________________ In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
So here are my suggestions to death penalty and guilds:
Death penalty as an xp reduction is bad IMO so I prefer games when there is no penalty at all. However seeing that it is a problem not to have any penalty because it doesn't stop the so called zerg I think it is better to have something like a time penalty. What I mean: for example if a character dies, he goes to the underworld / afterworld (now I don't have any idea how it exists in CoS or if it exists at all but it is not something not too hard to implement). It can be a very confined area with a path that leads back to the mortal world. If you want to revive, you have to go back that path defeating the guarding monsters along the way. Or you can choose to be revived after a certain amount of time.
This wouldnt reduce your xp, in fact killing those beasts if you choose to run through that path gains you xp so what you lose is time only.
Regarding guilds: I would like to see the ability to buy monopolies from the state (or the sorceress?). These can be monopolies on different articles of food, magic weapons, cloth etc. If your guild has a monopoly on a certain type of item, it recieves the tax from all the merchants who sell these items. These monopolies would provide a good amount of gold which would help you develop your guld hall and you can buy mercenaries for it or whatever you can spend your guild money on. Of course these monopolies aren't cheap to buy, they will require a lot of money. Only one guild could have a monopoly on one type of item. If the guilds challenge each other in battle they can aquire the other guild's monopolies so it would give a goal to fight for in guild wars.
Comments
I don't get too fussed about people buying two copies as it's a self-limiting problem (there aren't that many players overall that are willing to pay for multiple accounts) and it's quite common even in games that have alts.
I've seen posts from the EVE head producer saying that given the system they have in place (single shard, skill based), if he had it to do over again he'd never allow there to be more than one character per account. That right there says a great deal.
Well, on the subject of offering more than one character to a player...
This is not a simple issue. I would like to address one thing before talking about this, in Citadel of Sorcery your character has access to ALL Abilities in the game. There is no reason to have to play two alternate characters in order to get different Abilities. If you want archer abilities, go get them. If you want to toss fireballs, go learn that spell. There are challenges to achieving various abilities, but no restrictions.
Now, as to offering multiple characters per account... we will be offering this option. There are reasons why this is a good idea. First, no one is required to do this, and since you CAN get any set of abilities for your character, many of the reasons for using multiple characters goes away. But there are some remaining reasons. Once example, I know players who belong to a big guild and most often want to interact with their guild members... but not always. Sometimes they don't want to be social, and they don't want their guild members to feel affronted, so they simply use an alternate character that does not belong to that guild when they are feeling anti-social.
Or... no matter how much we try (and let me tell you, we are going the extra mile to allow higher level characters to play with lower level) there is still some limit to how far apart character levels can be and still have an enjoyable experience when grouped. However, players can use an alternate character to play with friends just starting the game.
The end of this discussion for us was simple, make it so that a player is not forced to use an alternate character to experience any portion of the game, but don't stop them from doing so. You will find this kind of philosophy in may portions of the game design. Just like doing a quest solo vs. grouped. We do not stop players from doing either one, we give them the choice on every quest.
Understandable choice - but with the positives come the negatives (muleing, griefing, scamming, antisocial behavior, etc).
The main problem with the implementation of alts is that there is almost never any accountability for actions taken on an alternate character.
Generally speaking, the only thing of worth in a MMO is your "name". Your reputation in the community as someone others want to spend their leisure time in the presence of. Alts are frequently used to do unsavory things (still within the ToS of course) that would otherwise tarnish the reputation of the main.
I would strongly suggest considering a means by which alts are easily identifiable as linked to their main account (or put another way, that all characters on an account can be identified as linked). Common surnames, common family crest, or what have you.
This would still permit the advantages you stated without opening the door as wide to abuse of the alt capability (through at least allowing the community the ability to judge the player by their own actions rather than hiding behind a temporary and faceless alt identity).
My 2 cents.
Well, like you said, I'm sure that the alt will be connected with the main account. This is because it is P2P, so I'm guessing that with each subscription you get, say, 3 character slots.
Say the person is harrassing someone using an alt account. Well, the character itself will be banned, but so will the whole subscription. So this means that if one character is banned, so are all the rest.
The only thing wrong with this is that the person could pay for an extra sub...but that's unlikely.
Did I get that right, Jatar?
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
Not really the point I was getting at.Of course the alts will be connected at the account level - but that information is only available to MMOM and not the playerbase. As such, if a given player is using their alt slots in an unsavory way that is not against the ToS (and thus doesn't warrent a ban) the playerbase has no means by which to hold the player accountable for those actions.
For instance, take killstealing and spawn camping (though I realize this specific instance may not apply in CoS). A player may wish to engage in such anti-social behaviors, but doing so would ruin the reputation of his character and possibly his guild. With an alt slot that is unconnected to his main character, he could simply level an alt and steal / camp for whatever he likes. At the end of the day the alt is disposable and the main has benefited without any damage to it's reputation.
If the alt carries a unique last name that identifies it as belonging to a given main - the behavior becomes less appealing as the player will suffer any repercussions regardless of which character is currently being played.
While it remains possible for players to buy second accounts to do such things, at least in that instance there is another sub price going to MMOM (possibly offsetting the GM time that will very likely be used) and it's somewhat self-limiting due to cost (whereas an alt slot is free and easy).
That's all I'm saying.
Of course the alts will be connected at the account level - but that information is only available to MMOM and not the playerbase. As such, if a given player is using their alt slots in an unsavory way that is not against the ToS (and thus doesn't warrent a ban) the playerbase has no means by which to hold the player accountable for those actions.
For instance, take killstealing and spawn camping (though I realize this specific instance may not apply in CoS). A player may wish to engage in such anti-social behaviors, but doing so would ruin the reputation of his character and possibly his guild. With an alt slot that is unconnected to his main character, he could simply level an alt and steal / camp for whatever he likes. At the end of the day the alt is disposable and the main has benefited without any damage to it's reputation.
If the alt carries a unique last name that identifies it as belonging to a given main - the behavior becomes less appealing as the player will suffer any repercussions regardless of which character is currently being played.
While it remains possible for players to buy second accounts to do such things, at least in that instance there is another sub price going to MMOM (possibly offsetting the GM time that will very likely be used) and it's somewhat self-limiting due to cost (whereas an alt slot is free and easy).
That's all I'm saying.
While I see what you're getting at, it is not really that big of a deal. This problem will go for all games, so I fail to see why you make it seem like such a big deal here. So it hurts their rep, so they decide to do it on an alt account. It is the players choice, and (as long as the rules are not being broken) it really isn't that big of a deal.
While I understand your concern, alt accounts will also be put to good use. People who are in an anti social mood will be able to play their character and do their quest line, so it is a plus.
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
Allowing players to know which alts are linked defeats a part of the reason for having them. However, we do offer players a robust method of handling players who annoy them. You can ignore them at various levels, including all their Atls if you wish (even though you may not know which are their Alts). Thus, if you are annoyed by a player you may choose to never see, hear or even know they exist, including all their alternate accounts. This is the ultimate form of player punishment for bad behavior, and they can't hide behind alternate accounts. However, due to this there is no need to keep good players from having alternate accounts, or using them with anonymity.
I like to have Alts, I find I learn how to play the game with my first character then experiment with my second alt. My third Alt is most likely to become my Main character. If slots allow another Alt becomes my banker. depending on grouping rules the might be a low level Alt to play with new members. If I end up as Guild Master then that would most likely require another Alt that lives in the guild house.
Alts and their misuse lead onto another Hot subject that of character naming. It seems to me tha C0S is a bit more RPG than a lot of recent games and so perhaps needs a strong naming policy.
I would like 4 names for a character Title, Player forename, Player Clan name and guild Name
The title would have to be earned
The two Player name combination should be unique to extend the options to use popular names like Hawk or Strongbow
Guild name would not have to be the full Guild title a guild could agree on a guild name ie "The Grand Order of the wild Rose" could adopt "wildrose" as the guild suffix to members names.
I always spend time naming my characters and It can be frustrating for those joining an established game as it seems all the preferred names are taken. Many game companies retain names for the life of the game even those of players who have quit. They are kept in hopes that they can persuade them to rejoin. I think they should be made available 12 months after a player has quit.
There are a number of Name generators on the internet. Such a program could be used to help those with little time and limited imagination to produce an acceptable name.
Seems to me, if the quest system is as intricate as we are being led to believe, alts will be an absolute necessity.
If everything you do affects how the quest engine "writes" your future, you might very well want several characters with different "pasts."
A lot of people would enjoy having one "good" and one "evil" at the very least.
Reputation with the various factions in the game is either important or it's not. If it's not, then the game isn't what they are promising.
I think that allowing players to custom tailor classes is a great idea. I like the idea I have read on the CoS website that circumvents casual players from getting overwhelmed, by implementing a university system, where players can go to get help on planning class, and then adhereing to that plan.
Allowing players to build skills without end, is a bad idea. There has to be some skill or level cap for sure because - as stated - there WILL be uber godlike players and what not.
Death should not be without penalty, and I would be in favour of corpse runs, but then again I am ex-EQ so thats my preference haha. I feel having a death penalty actually puts emphasis and value on time spent in the game, as opposed to nonchalance at ones death.
Perhaps, but putting a 'cap' on things is annoying as well. Players want to keep improving their character. We're considering a system of diminishing gains. This means there is no reachable cap on improving an Ability, but the higher the player improves the Ability the less the gain at the next advancement. Therefore they can keep improving an Ability, but getting it to reach 'God like' power is a nearly impossible achievement.
They would be better off getting new Abilities where the gains were greater for their hard earned 'study' tokens, but players are not precluded from advancing their current Abilities if that's their desire.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Perhaps, but putting a 'cap' on things is annoying as well. Players want to keep improving their character. We're considering a system of diminishing gains. This means there is no reachable cap on improving an Ability, but the higher the player improves the Ability the less the gain at the next advancement. Therefore they can keep improving an Ability, but getting it to reach 'God like' power is a nearly impossible achievement.
They would be better off getting new Abilities where the gains were greater for their hard earned 'study' tokens, but players are not precluded from advancing their current Abilities if that's their desire.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Sounds like a nice system. The only ting is you need to make sure that their is content for the core gamer. The guy or gal that spends all the free time on "Leveling" or improving their charater. If they have no "cap" then they will need content that will still be a challage to them. The player should never feel "God Like" when doing adventures. Most games use Raids to combat this and some high level group content. EQ1 put in the AA system which was a great idea, it allowed players to customize their class even more while still grinding on content that was challaging in a group setting. CoS will need to do the same thing. Allow the core players to still fell challaged while allow them to have no limit on the customization of a class.
I love the idea of endless abilities but their needs to be content to support that.
Sooner or Later
Perhaps, but putting a 'cap' on things is annoying as well. Players want to keep improving their character. We're considering a system of diminishing gains. This means there is no reachable cap on improving an Ability, but the higher the player improves the Ability the less the gain at the next advancement. Therefore they can keep improving an Ability, but getting it to reach 'God like' power is a nearly impossible achievement.
They would be better off getting new Abilities where the gains were greater for their hard earned 'study' tokens, but players are not precluded from advancing their current Abilities if that's their desire.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Sounds like a nice system. The only ting is you need to make sure that their is content for the core gamer. The guy or gal that spends all the free time on "Leveling" or improving their charater. If they have no "cap" then they will need content that will still be a challage to them. The player should never feel "God Like" when doing adventures. Most games use Raids to combat this and some high level group content. EQ1 put in the AA system which was a great idea, it allowed players to customize their class even more while still grinding on content that was challaging in a group setting. CoS will need to do the same thing. Allow the core players to still fell challaged while allow them to have no limit on the customization of a class.
I love the idea of endless abilities but their needs to be content to support that.
/agree.
It is important to have content to fill in.. Since there is no end game, since there is no cap, then there should be content for each level.
I remember speaking about this in another post, and I stated that there must be content to fill in the levels. But I then recieved around four replies saying "That is impossible" or "That would take too long" and they are mostly correct. I would think that it is a huge challenge to actually have content from each level to 1-1000+. Now, while I'm sure that will take long, people will end up getting there.
I am guessing that for things like quests, your quests kind of level up with you. But, with things like herblore, tracking, etc., how does CoS plan on having endless content to fill in the levels? I believe that each X amount of levels should have quests, as well as the ability to unlock new abilities as your level gets higher.
Like you said, I would love endless abilities, to train on and on and be filled with new rewards as I reach higher levels. But my question is, how does CoS plan on handling this? Is it really possible to have endless content?
.....to add on:
I kind of like how games like RuneScape handled this. Now, the way they handled these abilities was rather poor IMO, and it was just a huge grind to reach the levels. But I do like how with each couple of levels, in each skill, there were several things to unlock. Like, say, if you reached 60 herblore you would achieve thee ability to create a super strength potion. Things like that can fill in the content.
Not only new potions, but new herbs, new quests for the skill, new obstacles, etc. (if we're talking about herblore here).
Now, if each several levels can do this, then I full heartedly agree that there should be no level cap. BUT, it is important that the skills do not involve too much grinding, like RuneScape's skills were.
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
Content isn't really an issue in our system since each quest is tailored to the players on the quest. (you don't go on the exact same quests as anyone else, it's your story, we make it right for you).
As for 'god like' characters, that's not really feasible in our system of Ability advancement. Sure, you can work toward perfection, we will allow you to constantly work further toward that goal, but you can never actually achieve perfection. Such is true in life, and in CoS.
Example: In real life It's easy to run a six minute mile, and not that hard to get to a five minute mile, but as you get faster and faster gains become smaller and smaller. By the time you break the four minute mile shaving off another 1/10th of a second might take you months of hard work. Then, could you shave off another tenth? Sure you could, it's POSSIBLE, improbable, yes, but not impossible. There is no limit to how fast you can run the mile, but each gain gets harder and harder, but technically, there is no 'cap'. This is the system of Abilities in CoS, there IS no cap, but gains become harder and harder to achieve, but players, like people, need the chance that they could still get better.
I understood and agreed with the under post, I just wanted to point this out.
When I spoke about content, I made the assumption that quests continue to stay my level. But, what I do not understand, is how side skills will be leveled. Things like, for example, herblore, tracking, etc. You see, I do not know much of the ability system, I do not know if it attributes to your overall level or is just a side skill.
Example: If I have 193 tracking, will that effect my overall level (like in Oblivion) or is it just a side skill that does not effect my level whatsoever (like in RuneScape).
The point of my post was that there has to be content for side skills as well.
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
We don't write content for Abilities. Nor does Oblivioin or RuneScape's systems match ours in any similar way. It's really very simple, you are on quests, you have Abilities, you use the ones that are useful during that quest. There are no useless Abilities, nor any that are needed at all times. We don't write quests for an Ability, we just have quests and you decide which ones to use.
I think you guys are making this more complex than it needs to be. Look, if I have a tracking Ability and there is a monster that I could track... then I can use that ability. If I don't have tracking at that moment, I'll do something else. Quests aren't linear, everyone with ANY set of Abilities can finish the quest. You use what you have, and later, if you decide you might like to add another Ability you can go learn that whenever you wish.
I know this doesn't answer your questions about how our Ability system works, because we haven't released all the information on that yet. But... we have explained that you can learn what you want. So... if you learn to swim, then you can swim across the moat and go in that secret entrance... and if you don't know how to swim, then you'll nave to use a boat, or the draw bridge or launch yourself over the wall with a catapult
The point is, use what Abilities you have, but we don't write content for Abilities, we just write quests and let you figure out how you want to tackle the hurdles.
Understood. I look forward to seeing more information about the ability system.
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
So here are my suggestions to death penalty and guilds:
Death penalty as an xp reduction is bad IMO so I prefer games when there is no penalty at all. However seeing that it is a problem not to have any penalty because it doesn't stop the so called zerg I think it is better to have something like a time penalty. What I mean: for example if a character dies, he goes to the underworld / afterworld (now I don't have any idea how it exists in CoS or if it exists at all but it is not something not too hard to implement). It can be a very confined area with a path that leads back to the mortal world. If you want to revive, you have to go back that path defeating the guarding monsters along the way. Or you can choose to be revived after a certain amount of time.
This wouldnt reduce your xp, in fact killing those beasts if you choose to run through that path gains you xp so what you lose is time only.
Regarding guilds: I would like to see the ability to buy monopolies from the state (or the sorceress?). These can be monopolies on different articles of food, magic weapons, cloth etc. If your guild has a monopoly on a certain type of item, it recieves the tax from all the merchants who sell these items. These monopolies would provide a good amount of gold which would help you develop your guld hall and you can buy mercenaries for it or whatever you can spend your guild money on. Of course these monopolies aren't cheap to buy, they will require a lot of money. Only one guild could have a monopoly on one type of item. If the guilds challenge each other in battle they can aquire the other guild's monopolies so it would give a goal to fight for in guild wars.