| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I won't name names, but the player that was "booted" actually left of his own volition when the leader proved to be an assEDIT: very unpleasant and un-coopertive in the player's sincere efforts to help with the settlement and enjoy the game. ;)
Also, a little birdy tells me that Gale intends to do exactly that: rally others to the cause and pressure leadership to change.
I think, "Working as intended" is the key phrase here :)
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Version of map that can be blown up can be found here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
About the "first month" characters:
These characters will have more XP than every character created in the future.
That is only true if these accounts never let their subscription lapse off course.
But I am not taking offense in this bit of marketing-speak, because to be honest, I have been thinking of making a thread myself where I point out the uniqueness and rarity of accounts that have accumulated XP from day one, especially DT accounts (that have no less then 2 characters with max xp). I am thinking these will be only in the hundreds, maybe low thousands.
If you look at it logically, it's just a single month of XP extra. It doesn't really matter and it shouldn't. Because if it did, GW would have a problem. But from the perspective of a future hardcore fan, of a game that has reached the height of success, the perspective of the min-maxer, "gotta catch them all" type of person, these accounts are too yummy to pass up on.
So I have been doing my math and contemplating to upgrade a few of my 35 dollar Adventure reward acconts (with DT) to EE this month for 65 dollars, instead of waiting till februari and only pay 15 dollar for an upgrade to Explorer, to start playing. Given the fact that the latter will give me 2 months of game time(came with the Adventurer reward), while the first gives me 3 months, the net price(premium) you pay for the fact that it's a "first month account" is only 35 dollars. For someone that has no precious pledge-level, and only gets the 1 month with the Explorer level, the premium is even less, only 20 Dollar.
I am sure that's a premium that people would pay no problem if the game becomes a success, and more.
Sell before you let your subscription lapse, off course.
I would like to add that I am also having a lot of fun with crafting, and am dying to make my Smelter, so it's not all Economics! :)
That is actually the beauty of this xp-system: you can actually enjoy your "investments" while you're sitting on them. Try that with stocks!
Disclaimer: only if the game becomes a succes and GW does not pull a "let us make skills so cheap that you can create in a year what originally cost you 2.5 years stunt." They have a right to do this, if it is needed for the viability of the game, so heed this warning.
Lastly: "I do not understand why people see this game as some sort of business-interest, but whatever"
Well, think about this: what is Ryan trying to say there? Value. Dollars, cool-factor, same thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't say what enough what a great job Duffy's map is.
This comes to why I sunk $100 into PFO: Emergent story in games via player interaction and agency and orders of complexity (eg management).
It's interesting seeing others ponder this question such as this blog:-
The solutions
1. Fixed story: in a game like Half-Life 2, the player has no influence on the story at all. You either do what the characters tell you to and it works out the way the writer wrote it, or you die or stop. I pick Half-Life 2 because it makes this work: I loved the game and cared about the story. It doesn’t feel ideal, though. The story doesn’t add anything to the action or vice versa, it was an extraordinary amount of work to create, and the story gets less interesting each time you replay it.
2. Chooseable story: in a game like Mass Effect, all of the story is pre-written, but you often make big decisions about how it plays out. By the end of the series, there are a huge number of possible eventualities for the characters and races that come about convincingly from your decisions. But you’re still only choosing from a discrete number of eventualities that have all been catered for by the writers, which means a lot of work for them and limited possibilities for you.
3. Generate minimal story: in Spelunky, you’re an adventurer delving into some caves. Everything else is generated by the game’s systems, which are universally consistent and create new experiences every time. The trade-off is that what it generates is rather vague in story terms.
You might do something mechanically interesting to save a damsel, but she’s just ‘a damsel’, a mindless placeholder for a person with no character or uniqueness. It does a great job of making you care about these elements for mechanical reasons, but the stories it generates read more like (good, complex) action scenes than anything with plot or character.
4. Generate rich story: a game like Galactic Civilizations 2 puts you in charge of a civilisation and gives you a lot of choice in how you deal with others: war, peace, trade, non-military rivalry, secret deals to screw over other civs, etc. From what I understand Crusader Kings 2 is even richer, letting you hatch assassination plots against particular members of particular royal families to shift the balance of power the way you want.
These games generate high-level story – ‘plot’ – through their mechanics, and express it through pre-written dialogues that may crop up multiple times. That means they might not be entirely convincing – every few turns, the Drengin in GalCiv2 threaten me with the same line of dialogue about demanding tribute. But there are at least named characters saying specific things, and in GalCiv they have a lot of personality.
These games are probably the closest we’ve got to merging interaction and story in a way where both really add something to each other. But they all tend to be about managing a civilisation, which is just one very particular kind of story.
It's interesting that he does not look at "multi-players interacting to create emergence" at 5.
But it's a tall order to achieve.
