Killian Paltreth

Telenor's page

6 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS


Okay, I didn't read all pages of this messageboard, because most of it is arguing about limits of punishment for death. I want to ask opinions on one idea I have. What if make players choose at the point of creation if they want to play "hardcore" type of character. Yea, idea is leaked from d3, but I think, it would be great. For those who chose to play hardcore death is the end. Yes, not much people would play hardcore, but if offer them something from the line "bigger risks - greater rewards" I would say, that it be great option that will also fill the gap for players who thrive for intense realism or just want to challenge themselves. For example if I play hardcore character I will have grater rewards for quests, faster/cheaper "mining" and production, increased exp rewards for monsters and quests. Of course people would not play hardcore chars in the same fashion as usual, they will play more careful to die less and utilize all advantage - increased rewards etc.- as much as possible. Such characters will fill level of society that "not so adventurers" and will flow rapidly, because of natural deaths. I do not know how hard to implement such choice for developers, but I do not see much difficulties. It would be just great if such system will exist and will be not hard to balance...


Not sure if I missed it or no one really asked, but will items lose durability(?) over time and usage? Because there was talk in other topics that economic system based on supply and demand will suffer hard if all swords +5 that were crafted during life of the game will mostly stay in the game(except of course selling them to NPC). And if items will lose HP then how it will be, will my sword brake little by little over time, or will it suffer damage with any hits I land? Also if such system will exist I would suggest that repairing of item should decrease it's maximum durability, so nothing will stay in the game forever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, there are lots of talking about how it is complicated for some players to go and repair their building, how fun killing will be if we will be forced to go on-line to repair/visit a building so it do not collapse, but people, why do you forget about NPC? We definitely will use NPC builders for creating new structures, why not to use them to repair?
Personally I do not like the idea of canceling decay by any method, and especially by using structure non-stop. Losing 1% of maximum HP per real-time day will give 3 month of time without ANY attention. This should be enough to come beck and pay for repairs and even more if there will be some automatic repairs when you are off-line. Say, I have built an inn. With system of continuous decay it will fall apart in 3 month(I would also suggest changes in decaying speed due to weather or other environmental stuff). As player of MMORPG I'm playing not for sitting in tavern and crafting food to sell it(?) but to go and kill some monsters, explore and do some other cool things. Thus I think there definitely should be some way to automatize management of any building. For "business" structure like any crafting- of inn-like there should be an opportunity to hire NPC master, which will enable some settings for your building, like percentage of production of different products per cycle, some automated resource resupplying, budget for day/week/month settings. I really suggest every one to check economic system of "The Guild" (gold edition). It incorporates almost everything I would like to see in macro type of economic part of PFO. And for defensive type of structures like towers, hideouts etc. there should be possibility to make scheduled repairs that will cost money of less money and resources should you choose to provide them in your building's storage.


There was a line:

Forencith wrote:
Also, make constructions require material/monetary upkeep...

I do believe, that it would be cool, if all structures will slowly loose durability(hp) just with time, so buildings that are not attended properly and are not provided with some materials and NPC workers will eventually be reduced to rubble. And again, no one said even a word about idea of ruins that could be left after destroying of building...

I agree that strictly specified locations for building are not so fun and I see why GW want to do it, but what if make minimal distances between structures AND make a system that will limit number and type of buildings in any area.
For example I want to build a guard tower in some region, but there is already one built. First I can not build mine closer than X feet away from first one. This is easy and can be great system for big structures that have big X. But what about small things like houses? I would say, that it would look stupid if there will be no things like clusters of closely built hovels, so why not let players build limited number of structures that are logical for such placement in specified region. For example: we can not build more than 10 houses in any 250 feet radius region. That would mean every time I want to place a house computer checks any restrictions for minimum distances to other buildings and then checks if there is less then 9 other houses(it may be other system for limiting numbers and types of structures per area) in 250ft radius. Also it may be needed to disable possibility of construction of new building in such place that older building's territory will exceed "loading" limit. So if there is a cluster of 10 houses built within minimum distance for construction(10 feet?) no one could start building a new house within 250ft of any house of this cluster. Again, numbers could be different of course.

And also I vote for making difference between traveling on the road and through any other type of terrain in speed +give players opportunity to build roads. Lets say that fast travel will be possible only on roads, usual running will be faster/require less stamina and all roads longer/bigger than X will be marked on the map/minimap. This will create a reason for rulers and for usual players to expand and maintain infrastructure of hex. If combined with structures losing hp over time(yes roads also will have to have HP) it will give great feel of realism and new economic part of gameplay.


Also I didn't know where to post it, but I would be super happy, if after destroying a structure there was some ruins left. Depending on type of structure it then will be possible to reconstruct some types of buildings from this ruin for less price. For example if watchtower(basically stone structure) is destroyed it lives a ruins, from which it is chipper to create some similar buildings - watchtowers, may be something else. BUT! if for example ruins are from wooden house, then to create a stone house on the same place I will have to clear a construction site first, and that will require additional money and time(ruins should be cleared by special NPC workers, and it is process similar to constructions, but require only money) and only after clearing I will be able to start building a stone house for full price.

From this idea also arises some new ways to introduce players to hazards. Ruins, that if unattended will start to spawn some monsters is, IMHO, super cool way to add some atmosphere to game. For example during conflict of two fractions one of castles was razed and for some reasons (not enough resources,because, again for example, it was advanced castle, and there is opportunity to rebuild only for increased price, but with half of all updates that was built) it was not rebuilt. After one week of real-world time ruins of this castle become a home to some vicious and wild creatures and start to spawn them on the map. Depending on security level of hex it will be different time between monster spawning and depending on structure size strength of monsters will vary. In this case, ruins of big castle could spawn lots of lesser undead - zombies and skeletons of commoners, weak ghosts and shades, some number of dungeon dwellers - oozes, vermin. In case of exceptional sizes(or wealthiness of owner) some dragons could decide that old treasury is good enough for them to live in. Ruins of smaller structures not only will spawn weaker monsters but also will have less chance to become inhabited at all. Now let us imagine super epic war between player factions(kingdoms) that could take place on the edge of known lands. Brutal war wages for several month and after it one of kingdoms end up wiped out from the land, its subjects are forced to leave this place and search for other place under the sun. While victorious kingdom acquire great amount of recourses, it also has lost a lot and need some time to return its infrastructure to normal. Because of traveling time and clearing time and construction time people could not clear all the ruins that are left after this conflict and we receive awesome environment, where we could still smell blood and fire in air, see leftovers of someones lifework(I mean NPS's) buried into the ground AND in addition to this atmosphere we have now hordes of undead, and other beasts crawling around, guarding some treasure, that was forgotten in madness of war. + ruins could become usable as dungeons, depending on developer's wish. I see it as my character walk close to the ruin and I am able to click(?) on it, opening an interaction window. There could be shown some recourses(loot), that is found in it, price and possibilities of reconstructing, price to clean up a construction site and, may be, randomly assigned generated dungeon - ruiny terrain, some monsters, some loot, nothing special. With such thing as dungeons in ruins player have first to clean up the dungeon in order to construct something there.


So what is known situation about number of building spaces per hex? As I imagine this it will be some kind of 1 place(area) for fort or no place for it at all, little bit more places for towers and lots of places for hideouts. If so, then to imagine how hard it would be to really hide your hideout we absolutely need approx. number of such places. (do want some voice of developers here).

Also I still can not figure out, hideouts are promised to be invisible to those people who failed their check on spot(also will it be increasing with level of skill CHANCE to find a hideout or just required level to see hideout of certain progression?), are they not shown on the map or you really can not see them(may be even if you see how some one walk in or out of them) and so can not target?

About world loading, I have no experience in programing, so it is very possible that I'm going to say something stupid, but what if in case hexes themselves are not so big(1.2 km 1 hex, it is approx. 10 min to walk(!) from one side to other in real world and so - 2.5 min of real time while playing) make smooth loading of hex you are currently in and 6 neighbor hexes and unload information about previously loaded hexes. For example I enter the game, system loads hex I'm currently in as loading screen and then, while I'm playing it loads on background other 6. When I leave hex I started in and go to one of the preloaded hexes system unloads those hexes that do not touch new one and then loads all new adjacent hexes. I do believe that it should be done as background process, may be such % of productivity, that it will not be felt. Also it is possible to assign priorities to loading adjacent hexes depending on current movement direction/position of character. This way the feeling of undivided world should be created.

And about interiors of the buildings - if somebody ever have played "The Guild" - medieval economic simulator - they had interiors interruptible, but not walkable. You could see some "NPC" moving around and doing stuff, could click on some active objects and I really liked it. Actually, I believe that using of The Guild's system of buildings, their usage and realization in aspect of "walkability" would be great! This also may be applicable to crafting processes.

To those who talking about possibility to combine hideouts with other buildings - how do you imagine finding out about them and destroying them? Do not think, that I'm against it, actually it would be absolutely awesome! And again here The Guild's system could be implemented - with enough resources you can just build a new "room" to your buildings, which will allow you to use it's benefits. But still... All I could think in terms of detecting and destroying such hidden hideout is that they will require harder check of spot, may be even some additional skills can affect - for example knowledge of stoneworks, and if you spot it - it will be shown to you in list of rooms(updates) of this specific building, that it has hideout. Then you just have to destroy whole building.

And one more thing - what about the law and destruction of buildings? For example I've built inn in low security sector(not with absolutely no security, but the one with opportunity to attack but with marshals), by usual logic, if some one comes and start to attack my inn, he will be marked as outlaw with all consequences(I imagine it as attack of the building counts in the same way as killing some one), but for example if I will build a hideout inside of this inn, then from it will ambush some one and kill him, this someone will have an option to place a bounty on my head OR on my buildings! But really, how others see what should happen in such situations?