Ok, since we are the content. Would not it be awesome if we could create our own dungeons or encounters. Not sure how it worked, but something like:
1 - cave entrance in game - You tie your entrance to it, the cave can have more than 1 player made dungeon. Player selects which one they want to go in.
2 - player uses an ingame dungeon maker, CoH had something like this. You get a certain amount of gold or something that you can use to make your dungeon. Based on the dungeon level you select and amount of gold, you get a choice of monsters to put in it.
I do not know, just kinda thinking out loud :)
Goblin Squad Member
|
From the blog post Adventure in the river kingdoms
We have a vision of one more kind of PvE content; for historical reasons, we'll call it a "module." This is a scripted, fully designed adventure suitable for some number of characters of some specified power level. Some of these modules will likely be available to everyone for free. Others may be obtained via the use of in-game microtransaction currency. Modules you unlock would likely be instanced content available to just those characters you wish to adventure with, meaning each group that unlocks a given module will experience it as though it exists exclsuvely for them. (We have had discussions about how, even within instanced module content, there could be common areas that allow multiple groups to interact. Only time will tell how this concept develops and unfolds.)For such instanced content, offering persistence is tricky. We want you to have the sense that the world changes based on your own successes or failures, and it would break that immersion if you could potentially play the same exact module multiple times. How we untangle that will be a challenge for the development team.
And there's even the chance that you might be able to create your own module content for other players—perhaps even on a for-profit basis. Imagine an "app store" for Pathfinder adventures! It's speculative at this point, but we want you to know that we see the potential, and we are just as interested as you in finding a way to get there.
So it seems your idea isn't off the radar for GW, they've been thinking of it for a while but haven't necessarily decided or determined if it is possible or can quite fit within the game model.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
CoH had something called the Architect system which was like the X-men's danger room. You made virtual missions for other players to try. Really good missions (judged by a combination of players and devs) gave some sort of in-game currency back to the module creator and the in mission rewards were more tangible for the people running the mission.
It was a great idea and pretty robust. But it was limited by the existing code and the age of the game. (Also it was an afterthought added several years after the games initial release). I imagine, though, that instanced missions that provide a reward for the mission creator as well as the player would be very well received by the community as well as move the burden of adding content away from the devs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is a good idea, but likely will not see implementation at first. They'll have to work to make sure it isn't a gold-grind dungeon, basically one where you enter a room full of goblins conveniently in fireball formation, with a chest full of gold just behind them. In many games with the option to create your own dungeon/level, I've seen this ruin the game. I'm fairly sure you would have to try and sell your idea to Goblinworks and then produce it. But again, that is likely at least a year or two after launch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is a good idea, but likely will not see implementation at first. They'll have to work to make sure it isn't a gold-grind dungeon, basically one where you enter a room full of goblins conveniently in fireball formation, with a chest full of gold just behind them. In many games with the option to create your own dungeon/level, I've seen this ruin the game. I'm fairly sure you would have to try and sell your idea to Goblinworks and then produce it. But again, that is likely at least a year or two after launch.
IMO, modules should not have loot at all, doubly so for player made modules.
The reason GM created modules probably shouldn't, is simply their infinitely repeatable and absolute safety factor. (considering they are from a central hub, they would be the only content with an absolute 100% safe to and from), as well as more or less the only content that is designed to be repeated indefinently.
By comparison the world dungeons, will be out in the world, where there is danger of monsters, player bandits etc... the route too and from, if you are killed en-route you could very easily lose your possesions as you could be looted by another player.
Module on the other hand, you won't die outside since that's going to be in a town, if you die inside... well nobody other than your party has a possibility to see your corpse... thus the risk factor is essentially next to none, as a result, the reward also needs to be next to none.
That of course is just the issue with GM made modules, player made modules have all of that, plus the issue of players intentionally making modules easy to be used as a loot farm.
IMO the solid solution to this, is easy. Modules could be the magical illusionary equivalent of the star trek holodeck. In game GM modules could be used for quests, NPC reputation, merit badge requirements etc... Player modules could be used as charter/settlement entry tests. You guys say you function well as a team, well once you clear our company we can know that for sure. Companies could even do events where the first group to clear X module gets a special weapon or prize (the prize should be provided by the group offering the contest).
All things that add the use, the flavor and the fun of modules and even give them a purpose, without creating infinitely re-usable loot/gold faucets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In CoH they got around the gold factory pretty easily...
The average mission was good for only player mission script - that is, the rewards were seperate from the larger game. To have your mission elligable to be a real mission you had to (a) have X number of players play the mission. (b) have Y number of players nominate the missions as a candidate for a real mission and (c) have a dev (or devs) approve it as a real mission. Only then did the XP count and you got tangible rewards.
Only about 1 mission in 1000 made this cut, but the players who had their missions make the cut had a steady (if not extensive) stream of gold coming in from players playing them (you got a few in-game currency per person who played the mission).
The missions that were dev-approved were clearly marked and at the top of the mission lists. I should also add that each player could only host a limited number of publicly available missions (I think it was three). So you couldn't spam the devs with missions (you could, however have as many non-public missions as you'd like, but they were just for kicks and didn't mean anything or give you anything. They were however great to test out different builds, especially on the test server.)
I don't think anyone is expecting this to be in the v1.0 release of the game. CoH added this functionality something like 4-5 years in, and after a lot of internal debate. But it proved to be popular, successful and I think it empowered some percentage of the community to experience a limited portion of the development process.
|
I like the idea of making our own modules and even include storylines or just challanges and puzzles, but I agree with above that the fun of playing these modules should be the only cost/benefit to them.
And they should have a rating system that includes multiple ratings, overall, difficulty (both combat and puzzle), and story.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing COH failed to get around was the farmability of their maps, in the first weekend of architect there were probably more max level characters created than the game's history. And still 90% of the active missions are ticket farming so people can roll for rare recipes and easy xp, effectively devaluing a lot of previous game activities. If a system is created it needs to be completely disconnected from the main game(badge progression, loot and money) until that specific system has potential to bring in enough income that a handful of staff members can be appointed to evaluate the creations and approve them for popular usage with connections to the game economy.
If players are given the ability to create maps, there will be some that are tailor made to quickly fulfill badge requirements, if the maps are connected to the game on more than a story telling basis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Clearly this would be way down the line, not even close to where priorities should be now or at launch. Still, it'd be cool to see integration between the mmo and pen and paper gaming in this regard. Like if the really popular user-made dungeons became actual published modules. I'm always for games redefining the nature of their playability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing COH failed to get around was the farmability of their maps, in the first weekend of architect there were probably more max level characters created than the game's history. And still 90% of the active missions are ticket farming so people can roll for rare recipes and easy xp, effectively devaluing a lot of previous game activities. If a system is created it needs to be completely disconnected from the main game(badge progression, loot and money) until that specific system has potential to bring in enough income that a handful of staff members can be appointed to evaluate the creations and approve them for popular usage with connections to the game economy.
If players are given the ability to create maps, there will be some that are tailor made to quickly fulfill badge requirements, if the maps are connected to the game on more than a story telling basis.
IMO most badge requirements shouldn't be set places, nor the world be a permanant static design. IE merit badges shouldn't be, kill 10 orcs from the top of mount bilitath, they should be more along the lines of kill 30 enemies using the technique you learned for your last badge. IMO the enemies should not be stationary, nor should enemies that are regularly killed in a spot continue to respawn there. if 10 adventurers a day, kill 10 orcs on mount billitath for 6 months... there shouldn't be any orcs up there... by day 2 any survivors there should realize with 100 casualties a day, it's time to move.
Quests that are go to location X, should not be expected to be difficult, because even without an ingame mapping system, people will just go to the forums/wiki. In the information age, anything discovered by 100 people, is publicly accesible common knowledge in a week. Whether the game mechanics spread it or not, is irrelevant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Dungeons are going to be key features of the Exploration and Adventure game. They are perfect content for mini-stories/lore (to be see in the Thornkeep book/pdf soon). A quick Q: Will some dungeons become part of a few major arcing stories in game, that was mentioned somewhere, as another larger layer of story in the game to explore?
Additionally the potential to create puzzles in the dungeons is important also: Environmental traps, hazards, mazes, shifting switches, doors and keys, magical enchantments, negotiate/haggle with diabolical denizens etc.. that require skills and application of skills to solve.
If GW can create dungeons and mix different ingredients in them, that is a good template before player modules could be rolled out in the distant future.
Not to mention the meta-function of dungeons as PvE faucets?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm conflicted regarding skill use in dungeons. While I really like the idea of needing a varied party with different abilities to make it through a dungeon (lock picking and trap detecting for the thief, a riddling contest for the wizard, supporting a collapsing beam for the fighter, ect...) I wonder about the logistics. Even with the relative simplicity of the holy trinity, it can take hours to find an appropriate group in most mmos. I don't want to be waiting outside a dungeon for twenty minutes because no one in our party bothered taking a specific skill.
Ideally, I think you should be able to force your way through with any party composition, but you'll occasionally make things harder on yourself or lose out on some treasure, IE- "Since no one was able to pick the lock, you were forced to take the side passage and nearly killed by ghouls."
This way it would still be nice to have a varied group, but not 100% required.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the best solution is to have a Green Path that any party can bull their way through, regardless of group composition. Then have a number of Side Passages that require specific skills, abilities, tools, or knowledge. No group should expect to be able to hit 100% of the Side Passages, and the Side Passages shouldn't be so valuable that a group feels like it's being cheated by not being able to access some of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm conflicted regarding skill use in dungeons. While I really like the idea of needing a varied party with different abilities to make it through a dungeon (lock picking and trap detecting for the thief, a riddling contest for the wizard, supporting a collapsing beam for the fighter, ect...) I wonder about the logistics. Even with the relative simplicity of the holy trinity, it can take hours to find an appropriate group in most mmos. I don't want to be waiting outside a dungeon for twenty minutes because no one in our party bothered taking a specific skill.
Ideally, I think you should be able to force your way through with any party composition, but you'll occasionally make things harder on yourself or lose out on some treasure, IE- "Since no one was able to pick the lock, you were forced to take the side passage and nearly killed by ghouls."
This way it would still be nice to have a varied group, but not 100% required.
That's what happens in the normal mmo dungeon. But I think the influence of roguelikes on how regular dungeons work can be a clever implementation, (eg FTL) and I think dungeons if they act a bit like nodes -> instanced content, I presume the regular dungeon content in PfO can be randomized over a bunch of different criteria and different strength of parameters?
If that is part of the design, then you can a have a lengthy list of criteria in the dungeon and part chance on any given group and how effective they are for that PARTICULAR dungeon, but perhaps a group might specialize in 'dungeoneering' and therefore have a wider spread of skills that increase their chances for any given dungeon that pops?
Second as Nihimon says, a "green path" could lead to a normal reward as well as anything encountered along the way, but there could be bigger rewards/challenges requiring more skill/tougher problems for the group.
The great thing about roguelikes is the random events mean the content can be surprising and unpredictable and reusable much more. No 100% optimal build/group can be maxed if the range is wide enough? There's the consideration of the timer, the aggregate level of the group and how that affects the generation of the dungeon... but uncertain on those details atm.
By contrast perhaps there will be major dungeons such as Thornkeep and these are a bit more permanent in the problems they pose, as another type of dungeon, more like a boss dungeon?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason why an instance needs to be 'completable' by any given makeup of group.
Let's consider the instanced content not as small theme parks, or things that you 'do', but as a type of place that you go. There are things that you can do there, but there's nothing hidden in a golden chest at the 'end'. Or maybe there is, but you don't automatically know that before you enter.
|
|
Yeah, maybe that chest was looted alreday, but there still might be other stuff hanging around. Oh and look at the Goblins comic for some awesome dungeon trap ideas.
Also I liked how mabinogi had randomized dungeons. Each one had a theme bu the layout changed every time you went in and you had to give something at the alter entrance to get in and the dungeon would be different based on what you dropped, having different difficulties and monsters and such. Usually more expensive stuff was a more difficult dungeon, etc.
They could also be used for storytelling by dropping quest items on the alter, though goblinworks probably won't do much of that, but it would be a good way to implement the player made dungeons. To make a dungeon a player drops a special "Dungeon Craft" ticket then when he is finished he can sell tickets to his creation that others simply drop on the alter to any dungeon and they appear in that player's creation.