Stormanne's page

The Source engine would be great. Cryengine may be a bit much for most low to mid level PCs. Hero would be a good fit. But, for the love of all that's holy, stay away from the Unreal Engine. The Unreal engine stores it's SDK locally on any machine that is running an Unreal powered game. And, if you look at the problems that GamersFirst is having with people using the SDK to hack the locally stored game code for APB: Reloaded to cheat the game, the Unreal Engine leaves too many holes for people to exploit.

New players shouldn't be single-handedly sieging established castles, they should be raiding and defending outlying locations, interrupting or defending supply convoys, and otherwise engaging with equally matched players.

You say this, but what about the more powerful, predatory player who will be preying on the new player and preventing them from accomplishing anything? Let alone a group of predatory players. When I say a mechanic to level the playing field, I mean something that prevents a high level player from attacking a low level player. And quite frankly, no amount of low level players will do enough damage to a high level to prevent him or his group from wiping them out. This is to be a game, played for fun. There is no fun when it is impossible to advance.

Stormanne wrote:

@Daniel- This problem is easily solved by making the majority of items either user created or bound to character. That means the player has to move beyond the "safety" of their small hold to build up wealth. Another solution would be have the size of the players holding dependent upon their level/experience.

So, in order to build a castle, I have to quarry the stone myself? And the purpose of this is to ensure that I'm tough enough that there are some people who aren't disqualified from siege because they would win?

How about, you build the castle to claim the territory by right of force majeur. By doing that, you open yourself to anybody who wants to contest your superior force with their own. Don't want to fight for your right to control land? Pay rent to someone who is willing to fight for their right to collect rent from you.

By right of force majeur? So, what about the new player? You're all for telling them to "F" off since you were there first and had time to gather strength and resources. The way you want to approach PvP will make sure that the only audience for the game are those that start at launch. Anyone who is late to the party is going to be screwed by the human nature to abuse what power they have. There would have to be a mechanism in place to have a level playing field otherwise the power gap between the haves and have nots becomes such that the have nots say to hell with it and leave the game.

@Daniel- This problem is easily solved by making the majority of items either user created or bound to character. That means the player has to move beyond the "safety" of their small hold to build up wealth. Another solution would be have the size of the players holding dependent upon their level/experience.

@Dorje- Talking about being baited into aggressive action? If you are foolish enough to be drawn in and act rashly, then you get what you get. I'm sure there will be game masters to report harassing or abusive behavior to instead of falling for the bait. This is the internet and it has been around long enough for us all to have a thick enough skin and cool enough head to realize when we're being taunted or baited.

The approach to PvP shouldn't be putting the onus on the potential victim. The victim may be transporting goods he's crafted or raw materials that he's taken time to gather. For a predatory player, there is little risk compared to the possible reward. The potential victim has to carry what he needs to do his tasks plus be prepared for possible attack by a predatory character. On top of that, should the victim succeed in defending himself, his resources would be possibly depleted enough that he would be even more vulnerable to another predatory character who may be in the area. The predatory character only has to carry what he believes he needs to successfully defeat his particular victim. And, even if he loses, he loses only the holdings that are on his person at that time. Quite frankly, the risk should be even, therefore the aggressor should stand to lose just as much as his mark if he fails.

Hmmm, if they go with non-consensual PvP, then I would want the consequences to be very high indeed. Plain and simple, if you initiate the combat and lose, that character and all his holdings are gone...permanently. You have to create a new character and start again. The pro-open PvP claim that open PvP in the only mechanic that players can make a meaningful impact on the game. I'll agree and take it to the next level. Death makes a great impact as it is irreversible. I think that making death permanent for the aggressor character, should he lose, would reduce the chance for griefing. And, it fits well with the risk vs. reward system that they approve of for use of staying or leaving safe zones.

Oh, and one final caveat for the open PvP...you should only be able to initiate combat with like sized or larger parties who are of the same level or higher than you.

The biggest issue I have with hirelings, in the way DDO executes them, is that they tend to become a crutch people rely on to avoid other players. Especially if the AI is even remotely intelligent. Even if it is bad AI, the player can at least plan for the behavior of the hireling, due to it being static. While it is a bit of a slippery slope argument for PFO, the reality in DDO is that it's better to have an idiot you can rely on than a genius you cannot. At least, it is for those that would normally have a static group but are not playing with them at a given time.

An idea to avoid some of the typical in combat AI limitation would be the introduction of an active environmental awareness AI. Whereas in current MMO's, NPC activities are limited to scripted activities that are tethered to a specific area of patrol. Remove the tethers and give a basic set of command protocols for the NPC to work within. We've all seen the monsters in other games standing around waiting for the PC to encounter them. Creation of an AI that is attempting to accomplish something and is in a realistic manner trying to pay attention to their environment would eliminate a lot of the ability for PCs to create patterned responses and strategies and keep encounters a lot more organic.

At the very least, a field of vision AI that doesn't rely of an arbitrary boundary being crossed before an NPC reacts. This would open up the possibility of realistic ambush scenarios and true to life attacks of opportunity. The FoV AI, when combined with a non-tethered operational theater, would also eliminate "skirting" (sticking to the outside edges of NPC operational boundaries in order to circumvent encounters or exploit limitations of AI)by PCs. An FoV system would also allow for more varied responses by the NPCs. Depending on the situational awareness of a particular group of NPCs, a mix of ranged to melee strategies could be engaged to take out perceived threats at a distance and bypass the trappings of typical "Holy Trinity" encounters.

I'm also well aware that all these are fantastic and grand ideas that don't amount to a hill of beans without someone with the know how to pound out that type of functioning code.

My vote is for Deepnettle. There is a subtlety to it. As well as a sense of foreboding. Definitely leads one to believe that trouncing about carelessly in the deep reaches of the Echo Wood will leave one, at the very least, the worse for wear. Thornkeep would be my second choice, though.