I was pondering about PFO battles just now, and one thing that frightened me was the thought of a hectic, ugly mesh of men jumping in circles around each other like in WoW. One thing that I realized would ensure large, intellectually stimulating battles is NPC warriors. Let me explain:
Years ago I used to play the Star Wars: Battlefront games. What was fun about those was that while NPC troops, vehicles, etc. flooded the battlefield and acquired the bulk of kills, it was the actual players that made all the difference. For example, as a sniper you could sit back and let the NPC's try to take a fort. By hiding and taking out key targets (guys on turrets, heavy weapons platforms, etc.), you could drastically influence the outcome of the battle.
Battles like this would be even more orderly in a medieval fantasy setting, because of the regimental, slow motion of foot troops who will make up the bulk of most battlefields- as opposed to the speedy, vehicle centric model of scifi combat.
This way of doing things will provide for much more cohesive, believable armies. The heroic player characters can do their part in various ways, by buffing/debuffing troops, healing them, or just rampaging through them.
These soldiers could potentially be very customizable, especially if there is some sort of point system used to regulate troop power. There could be archers/missile troops, pikemen, cavalry, siege crews, etc. and elite versus swarmy versions of all of them.
Fore example:
Human Peasant Pikemen: 4 points each
Light armor proficiency: 1 point per man
Proficiency with some martial reach weapon: 3 Points per man
Elite Elven Archers: 7 points each
Light armor proficiency: 1 point per man
Longbow Proficiency: 3 Points per man
Improved longbow training: 3 points per man
Each point could represent 1 gold or something similar: Leaders of kingdoms could pump out troops to their specifications, raising and training them on base and paying for them based off their numbers and skill. This would make large scale battles very RTS like, which I think would be a fun dimension to add to the game.
My two cents on battle.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like what you are thinking, however it gets a bit too focused for regular MMO gameplay. What you describe is essentially a whole game in and of itself, Tabula Rasa (short lived by interesting Sci-Fi game) accomplished this pretty much, and trying to hold a fort against waves of inbound aliens was great... you just hoped the NPC's beside you would get those last shots in while you reloaded...
I got the impression that the resources required to run these things (and do it well) were rather extensive, and it was also part of the gameplay a lot of players just didn't bother with. Helping an NPC strike force 're-liberate' a fort could mean vendors with rarer selections might open up etc, which would provide a bit more incentive for people to jump on board. Its still mainly PVE though.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If the bots in Battlefront get the most kills, you are doing something wrong. Battlefront is a combination of deathmatch PvP and slaughter PvE v PvE- the goal is to kill the waves of bots more quickly than your opponents, with the option to interfere with them.
Why have a mechanism which deliberately avoids the best advantage of the MM part?
Goblinworks Founder
|
I haven't responded to this thread because I've actually been trying to picture what a mix of third person MMO and a NPC Driven RTS would actually feel like. My first thought was along that "thats crazy" lines but the more I think about it, the more I like it. We don't really know what combat or anything else is going to be like in PFO as yet so we can discuss things like this with ease.
When I tried to picture a large scale battle I actually thought of Age of Empires II of all things. It was probably my favourite medieval RTS game from my past, far better than the Warcraft series IMO. To play a single character zoomed out like an RTS in a war surrounded by NPCs would be pretty cool. Maybe a skill like command or some other charismatic skill would allow a guild leader and his officers to command small squads of NPC archers, footman, cavalry and siege with each requiring a skill set of their own. They would not be as powerful as player characters, but they would have their own uses.
The more I think about it the more I would love to see an MMO with some true RTS elements. Personally I would rather be the singular adventurer weaving in among the NPCs and cutting down the enemy, but I can definitely see the attraction. Like DOTA meets EvE meets Age of Empires meets UO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Doctor Carrion, this is exactly what I had in mind in when I started the thread The Art of War asking for large-scale armies that would have to slowly move across the map in order to attack enemy Kingdoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's an Asian/Eastern game like this and think it's onto it's No.2 version now. Can't remember the name but players are heroes wading through NPC armies. There's Zeppelins-boat-ships and great big creatures as well. It looks impressive for sure. Wonder if player settlements could have a NPC militia? Tbh players with siege engines and destructible buildings/fortification is more than enough for my preferences however: More dynamic than the above impressive looking game (four word title iirc).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do like this idea for many reason in addition to those mentioned by Doctor Carrion.
1. The more 'regular' NPCs there are, the more the players get to feel like heroes. (Without 2/3rds of the worlds population being a 'hero', like WOW where 75% of the worlds population (pc and npcs included) run around in uberepicteir17 armor.)
2. Allows player settlements to use NPCs as guards (cause lets face it, most PCs aint gonna do it.)
3. Large scale battles become more tactical and less slug-fests.
4. This-
The nice thing about having NPC armies is that you then have to move them around the map, which opens up opportunities for strategic-level feints.
5. Opens up many viable options for players to play 'commander/leader' classes, who can enhance or control NPC combatants.
6. Battlefront is great. My wife loves to play that game with me because she feels like she can actually do something, but she will not touch Halo or many other FPSs. The point being, a system like this widens the market to people who don't like ultra-competitive games.
you shoud hath 2 modes 1 to tell toops like in rome towtell war and 1 to
be a champyin and you hath to pay them 1 peas per gear.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that if one wishes to field NPC armies, they must be directly drawn from an NPC population, and that losses in manpower will not be easily recuperated. If warfare does not carry great risk of depopulation and ruin to a ruler, there will not be enough weight to one's decisions int he same and armies will be thrown away to quickly. This would additionally make population bases into valuable resources, to be fought over, traded, and rented out. (making possible such entities as mercenary companies) Additionally, players will be encouraged to guard these assets of soldiers, as a tool to be used rather than as a currency to be spent.
These together would lend weight and realistic stability to warfare, making it a thing to carefully prepare for and keeps its nature as a massive wealth-destroyer. A nation which enacts war unsuccessfully numerous times should not have anywhere near the economic strength or population of its more peaceful neighbors afterward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel that if one wishes to field NPC armies, they must be directly drawn from an NPC population, and that losses in manpower will not be easily recuperated. If warfare does not carry great risk of depopulation and ruin to a ruler, there will not be enough weight to one's decisions int he same and armies will be thrown away to quickly. This would additionally make population bases into valuable resources, to be fought over, traded, and rented out. (making possible such entities as mercenary companies) Additionally, players will be encouraged to guard these assets of soldiers, as a tool to be used rather than as a currency to be spent.
These together would lend weight and realistic stability to warfare, making it a thing to carefully prepare for and keeps its nature as a massive wealth-destroyer. A nation which enacts war unsuccessfully numerous times should not have anywhere near the economic strength or population of its more peaceful neighbors afterward.
100% seconded, I would like NPCs themselves to be a resource. Especially with the crafting and harvesting systems in place. I would personally love it if one of the portions of building up a town, involved drawing in NPCs to the area, which increases how many you can get and how much harvesting etc... is possible in nearby hexes. IE adding in specific buildings that also draw in different types of NPCs. Taverns, Inns, even gamblers dens etc... Every type of building could draw in people of different types.
IE a shrine of Sarenrae will draw more farmer NPCs, some CE shrines may grant you more soldiers to mount better stronger attacks and defense, but occasionally these NPCs may revolt and attempt to take over their own cities.
Actually come to think of it NPCs could be the one way to actually ensure that if evil grants extra power, that they do have the in-fighting that Ryan mentioned to balance it. Players themselves it is imposible to control or force in-fighting to tear them appart when they get too strong. Take goonswarm in eve, Goonswarm is very clearly a CE organization, yet they stand behind their leader and follow orders and have as little or less infighting than any of the less evil organizations around them.
If evil kingdoms have occasional uprisings of their own NPC troops, of which assuming their members manage to dispatch all of them with ease, afterwards they have less troops (due to them having to kill their own men), leaving them vulnerable to attack from their enemies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel that if one wishes to field NPC armies, they must be directly drawn from an NPC population, and that losses in manpower will not be easily recuperated.
Absolutely. Excellent point.
NPCs could be the one way to actually ensure that if evil grants extra power, that they do have the in-fighting that Ryan mentioned to balance it.
Brilliant! Evil should devour itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually come to think of it NPCs could be the one way to actually ensure that if evil grants extra power, that they do have the in-fighting that Ryan mentioned to balance it. Players themselves it is imposible to control or force in-fighting to tear them appart when they get too strong.If evil kingdoms have occasional uprisings of their own NPC troops, of which assuming their members manage to dispatch all of them with ease, afterwards they have less troops (due to them having to kill their own men), leaving them vulnerable to attack from their enemies.
Holy cats, that is brilliant! I really like that idea. Only thing I'd double check on is making sure they don't drop outrageous loot. Don't want to make a revolution a good thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hoping for play-based battlefield without large amounts of NPC. As in DAoC, although more than 3 kingdoms. With peace pacts and danger to the own kingdom if you take out all the players in war.
To start a war with another kingdom must be a big and dangerous thing, at the risk of a third kingdom sees the chance to attacking those who left their own city gates without enough defense (only NPC's).
If you have decided to attack you should not be able to have hordes of NPC's in the front line just because you have more money than the kingdom you are attacking. The key to it all is to get the players to feel loyalty and honor for his own kingdom, whether it is attacking or defending. And it should, in my own opinion, not be bought for gold.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, what about the company that focuses mostly on making a metric ton of platinum per day? Should they get steamrolled by the company that focuses only on combat? Hire-able NPC's I feel are a must, from caravan guards to city guards, to armies. While players are good, they can't sit around all day to do something. An army lets you do that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, what about the company that focuses mostly on making a metric ton of platinum per day? Should they get steamrolled by the company that focuses only on combat? Hire-able NPC's I feel are a must, from caravan guards to city guards, to armies. While players are good, they can't sit around all day to do something. An army lets you do that.
I would say both sides of the arguement have strong pro's and cons. Even without NPC's a majorly rich city can afford player sellswords if it comes to it. Exactly what my chartered company will be specializing in being.
In addition the rich strong company will also have better gear to offset skill differences, and judging by the blog descriptions, no matter what characters are going to have to either be able to fight, or be used to co-operating with someone who can. Significant harvesting operations will attract dangerous monsters, dungeon delving will obviously require combat, pure crafting is going to involve getting your resources from someone. Making money will require being able to get things killed, and being capable of getting things killed will require money/resources (whether that money is needed to equip yourself, have potions, armors, wands, weapons etc... or to compensate someone else for the wear and tear on their armor, weapons, consumed potions + Time).
The strongest companies are neither going to be the factions that focus purely on money, nor the ones that focus purely on combat. Neither role can succeed without the other. The dominant groups, will be the ones who balance the 2 tasks the strongest.
That being said I do see large amounts of room in tactics and depth with manpower as a limited resource, keeping NPCs fed, housed and happy, balancing out how many troops on battle, defense, harvesting, crafting etc... creates a huge level of depth to the game that I imagine could make things significantly more exciting in every category. I do not believe these NPCs should be extremely strong, they should be a perk that gives the combatants with more/better troops an edge and the ability to win a fight in which they would otherwise be outmatched, not be capable of say holding off an invading force while 100% of the players defending are out picking flowers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fore example:
Human Peasant Pikemen: 4 points each
Light armor proficiency: 1 point per man
Proficiency with some martial reach weapon: 3 Points per manElite Elven Archers: 7 points each
Light armor proficiency: 1 point per man
Longbow Proficiency: 3 Points per man
Improved longbow training: 3 points per manEach point could represent 1 gold or something similar: Leaders of kingdoms could pump out troops to their specifications, raising and training them on base and paying for them based off their numbers and skill.
You are missing a huge opportunity IMO. Pay should be based of their training specialty and experience. But they should only come with very crappy weapons related to their profession.
Rather than equipping them through the point system, I would like to see armor-smiths, weapon-smiths etc. creating their gear, ammo, food, etc. That is going to help drive the crafting economy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, what about the company that focuses mostly on making a metric ton of platinum per day? Should they get steamrolled by the company that focuses only on combat? Hire-able NPC's I feel are a must, from caravan guards to city guards, to armies. While players are good, they can't sit around all day to do something. An army lets you do that.
Limit the number of NPCs that can be hired to go to war and limit the number of NPCs that can guard an town after town or keep size. Let the defending army NPC respawn after X minutes but not the attacking.
Pacts such as between the two neighboring kingdoms to protect each other must be more fun than being able to buy 1000 NPC guards. Or the other way, two kingdoms go to war together against a greater enemy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, what about the company that focuses mostly on making a metric ton of platinum per day? Should they get steamrolled by the company that focuses only on combat? Hire-able NPC's I feel are a must, from caravan guards to city guards, to armies. While players are good, they can't sit around all day to do something. An army lets you do that.Limit the number of NPCs that can be hired to go to war and limit the number of NPCs that can guard an town after town or keep size. Let the defending army NPC respawn after X minutes but not the attacking.
Pacts such as between the two neighboring kingdoms to protect each other must be more fun than being able to buy 1000 NPC guards. Or the other way, two kingdoms go to war together against a greater enemy.
Almost completely agree with you on that, minus the defenders respawning. IMO if they are to be done, NPCs should be a resource, which can be gained and lost. Gained via baracks and other structures in town, in your town, or lost due to battle, food shortages, or just general poor quality of the town (IE you should make your town somewhere people want to live, buildings like taverns could increase the population growth rate etc...) etc... In a war, both sides should be bleeding resources. Winning through attrition should be possible on offense and defense.
Assuming towns A and B are entirely equal, 20 attackers from A hit 20 guards from B, both completely wipe eachother out (with the help from PCs on both sides) it should take roughly the same amount of time for both towns to replace their lost men. However A does have some travel time to cover new soldiers will obviously be starting in their home town, thus when B has gained 20 soldiers and sends them off to march in, A may be up to 22 guards in the defending area, as the 2 extra attackers that spawned, will be too late to the party to bother being sent in.
Fore example:
Human Peasant Pikemen: 4 points each
Light armor proficiency: 1 point per man
Proficiency with some martial reach weapon: 3 Points per manElite Elven Archers: 7 points each
Light armor proficiency: 1 point per man
Longbow Proficiency: 3 Points per man
Improved longbow training: 3 points per manEach point could represent 1 gold or something similar: Leaders of kingdoms could pump out troops to their specifications, raising and training them on base and paying for them based off their numbers and skill.
You are missing a huge opportunity IMO. Pay should be based of their training specialty and experience. But they should only come with very crappy weapons related to their profession.
Rather than equipping them through the point system, I would like to see armor-smiths, weapon-smiths etc. creating their gear, ammo, food, etc. That is going to help drive the crafting economy.
This is an excellent point, and would create a more realistic economy within the game, as opposed to the max-quality-only economy that exists in most MMOs, where no blacksmith will create simple gear. Maintenance should be a realistically proportional cost of fielding an army, while manpower, training, and equipment should not be lumped into the same value.