Goblin Squad Member
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwQqtf86qOc its fascinating.
Nice link Xaer. I think its an excellent example of why each person in the process needs to have an equivalent level of skill to produce a certain quality of item. If one of them makes a mistake or isnt skilled enough, the whole product becomes flawed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only way I can see where one could increase the quality of the end product of a step is to use more materials for that single higher quality product. Well that what happens in the real world mining and refining industry.Right, a way to refine material again to increase quality at the cost of quantity. As iron-poor as Japan was, they worked to make the most of what they had and the result didn't come out like a goblin dogslicer.
Japan was iron poor in that they had little of it, but what they used for katanas was very pure (i.e. QL300 ish). Admittedly they used a lot to make one sword but it was good quality to start with. And they only used the best part of the refined material (where the oxidation of the material was precisely right).
In game terms they started with approx 100 pounds of QL300 iron ore and ended up with 15 pounds of QL300 iron and 45 pounds of QL280(+/-15) iron. This example is of course highly inaccurate in relation to reality, I haven't looked up the precise formula (or any at all). I doubt that the devs are going to give mixed quality refinement results, but still QL300 iron ore is necessary for QL300 Iron ingots.
As to using a lot of QL50 iron to make a tiny amount of QL100 iron, and eventually a microscopic amount of QL300 iron. If GW went that route QL300 wouldn't be rare anymore (after a sufficient amount of time). In the end it would cheapen what a QL300 product meant. QL300 products are supposed to be works of art, presumably unique as well, and incredibly difficult to produce. One could argue that given sufficient time they could become uncommon (instead of rare) but the time frame would be a LOT higher (like 20x higher) than allowing purification to raise quality.
I like the system GW has stated in their blog. It rewards every player involved for their investment and a weak link in the chain produces a weaker product.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would argue that in game terms they started with QL100 or less iron ore. The craftsman who made the weapon though was of high enough skill (at least in some cases) that it resulted in a high quality weapon. This simply doesn't fit the game model unless the craftsman is also an enchanter.
Assuming your hypothesis on the quality of the iron is correct (I am not a geologist and have no idea what the iron quality in specific regions of Japan is like), you could look at it like this: The "easy" (i.e. low refining skill) way to make steel requires Q150 iron, but this more advanced method only requires Q75 iron. Then the swordsmith is also using an advanced design which actually requires only Q75 steel. The final result is a blade as good as the regular ones made from Q150 steel by the "easy" process & design, but only needs Q75 steel.
I'm not saying it would be a good idea to have such recipes in the game (since that would allow more skilled crafters to undercut less skilled crafters in the basic-quality goods segment by using more advanced, cheaper production techniques), but it would be consistent with the crafting model.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you suggesting that a master gemcutter would be able to make perfect gemstones from flawed uncut stones?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. A master gemcutter might know more tricks in getting the most out of flawed uncut stones, though, and produce something of more value than someone who wasn't as skilled.
Again, though, I'm not sure that's necessarily a good idea for PFO to include that option for master crafters, in order to leave some options for less skilled crafters.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Are you suggesting that a master gemcutter would be able to make perfect gemstones from flawed uncut stones?They can certainly improve the total value by cutting and faceting them without the flawed parts. They're art, not tools.
How much industrial-grade diamond do you need to make the crown jewels? How much pest-nibbled lettuce do you have to go through to make a high-quality salad?
The quality of the raw materials typically sets a cap on the quality of the finished product.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@George Velez:
There won't likely be a blog about crafting for a while - we've pretty thoroughly covered the state of the game design for crafting.
When you are ready to expand on what has been shared so far it would be helpful to learn whether there will be a place for spells other than enchantment in crafting.
Specifically, I'm interested whether Druid spells like 'shape wood' and 'shape stone' will be useful in crafting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
I would very much like to see one skill combining with another for more crafting variety. I don't suggest making one combination exclusively better, just offer more variables.
For instance, your druid mason might be able to produce stone blocks for your settlement wall faster using his 'shape stone' spells in concert with his mason skills than a mason of the same skill using only mason skills. Could the mason do it as fast? Sure, with more mason experience. It seems a decent balance in the amount of time spent training the skills.
SL200 Druid w/ shape stone = 200SL Mason = SL100 Druid w/ shape stone + SL100 Mason.
If that seems to allow the druid to encroach on the mason's area of expertise too much, perhaps the Druid's use of 'shape stone' provides only a modifier to the speed of production.
Given the myriad of skills, I hope to see a great deal of skill overlap rather than 100 skills operating in isolation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Different quality items are imo great for the game. I liked the way the used it in DAoC. The item qualities went from like 95-100%. They higher quality items made the magic on them work more often. 100% item procced its fire damage about twice as often as the 99% item, thus causing the higher qaulity being worth more money and the higher skill sought after.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have spent 90 minutes reading/scanning this thread and I see the Quality of an item differently. Sticking with D&D/Pathfinder Tabletop concepts, the quality of an item would determine if the item is Normal or Masterwork. If the crafting attempt is successful, the item would be a Normal Item. If the entire process (Harvesting/Refining/Crafting) involved higher quality material, refining and skills, the item would have a chance of being Masterwork.
Now with a scale of 1-300, the concept of Normal and Masterwork can be expanded somewhat for better flavor, but you still need to have Normal be the "Norm".
Therefore, you could have the following Quality breakdown:
Final Quality 1-100 = Normal Item. It is tempting to introduce a chance of item flaws here based on final quality. But to make material/skills less than 100 useful & marketable, flaws should not be linked to Final Quality. If you want to have Item Flaws, base it on the final item creation skill roll. If the crafting roll it close, but not quite a true success (i.e., within 10%), it might produce an item with a single Flaw. Also, using the crafting roll means that anyone can produce a flawed item and the harder the recipe, the higher the chance.
Final Quality 101-199 = Normal Item plus a Chance of a single Masterwork Bonus. The percentage chance would be Final Quality-100, or 1-99% chance.
Final Quality 200 = Masterwork Item (1 Masterwork Bonus)
Final Quality 201-299 = Masterwork Item (1 Masterwork Bonus) plus a chance of being Double-Masterwork (a second Bonus). The percentage chance would be Final Quality-200, or 1-99% chance.
Final Quality 300 = Double-Masterwork Item (2 Masterwork Bonuses)
Using this system would allow materials, components and skills below 100 to be utilized without penalty. However, if you wanted to make a Masterwork item, you need to find the best raw materials and consult the best people. A Double-Masterwork item would be a true masterpiece indeed.
Masterwork Bonuses should be things like (25% less weight, +1 to Hit, +1 to Damage, +1 to AC verses a single attack type (Piercing/Slashing/Bludgeoning), +25% to Range, etc. A MW bonus should be selectable at the completion of the creation process by the crafter. Masterwork bonuses should never be equal to or replace a magical enchantment. Even in the rare case of a Double-Masterwork item having a +1 to Hit and a +1 to Damage, they are not Magical bonuses and would not hit creatures that are immune to non-magical damage. Only an +1 enchantment or better can do that.
In D&D Tabletop, in order to enchant an item, it must be Masterwork Quality and Masterwork Bonus go away when the item is enchanted. So a +1 to Hit MW bonus would be replaced by a +1 to Hit & Damage Enchantment. It should not stack. I really think this concept needs to be continued in PFO.
Finally, the quality of material/component/item should be a general descriptor. The numeric quality of the material/component/item should only be visible through the Appraise Skill and should never become part of the description. It should have to be appraised by each person looking at it. And if Appraisal always had a chance of failure, you might need to have it appraised by multiple people to get an accurate assessment. Which means that you need to have appraisers that you can trust because they can always lie to you.
Quality should just be designated as follows:
For Materials & Components:
- No Designation (1-100): i.e., Iron Ore
- Superior (101-200): i.e., Superior Iron Ore
- Exceptional (201-300): i.e., Exception Iron Ore
For Finished Items
- No Designation (No MW Bonuses): Silvered Shortsword
- Superior (1 MW Bonus): Superior Silvered Shortsword
- Exceptional (2 MW Bonuses): Exceptional Silvered Shortsword
This is what I envisioned when I read the crafting system.
Comments?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nice job. Or...wonderful job. :)
I like that an item has to be of very high quality to enchant. Though enchanters may be tempted to complain that it limits how many items they can make, it also controls the glut of magic items on the market. To balance that, I hope the magic items generated by loot remains low, or else the enchantment skill will become useless. I do prefer to have nearly everything in the game craftable, including the best magic (unless you're talking true relics and artifacts).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nice job. Or...wonderful job. :)
I like that an item has to be of very high quality to enchant. Though enchanters may be tempted to complain that it limits how many items they can make, it also controls the glut of magic items on the market. To balance that, I hope the magic items generated by loot remains low, or else the enchantment skill will become useless. I do prefer to have nearly everything in the game craftable, including the best magic (unless you're talking true relics and artifacts).
The problem with that is that it will take a long time before items start being made that can be enchantable, making enchanters useless until the game has progressed.
Enchants could improve over time just like harvesting, refining, and crafting. Enchants from enchanters might have a quality level that goes from 1-300, with the max quality level an item can be enchanted with equals the item's quality level. A QL50 weapon can only be enchanted up to a QL50 enchant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not seeing that as a problem unless we are going to be facing creatures that cannot be hit by unenchanted weapons. We will only have so many threads to bind at the start. We will be unable to use advanced weapons until we are advanced ourselves (or rahter, our characters are). Our characters will not have opposition meriting enchanted weaponry until they are advanced enough to have a real need for enchanted weaponry, accessories, and armor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When players start hitting max level in 2.5 years you want to be seeing them start to create or wield the most powerful items in the game. Not players just starting on leveling up their enchanting.
If enchanting has a narrow window of increasing in power then I can see waiting until late game for magical items to show up.
Here's my view on enchanting. Every GM plays their campaigns differently. When I run a campaign players will start to see their first enchanted weapons around 3rd level. A +1 short sword or +1 chain mail. By the time they hit 5th or 6th level they might see a +1 dagger of returning (essentially a +2 item). I try to keep it at a pace of 2.5 to 3 levels before they start to see more powerful items.
Nice job. Or...wonderful job. :)
Thank you.
I like that an item has to be of very high quality to enchant. Though enchanters may be tempted to complain that it limits how many items they can make, it also controls the glut of magic items on the market. To balance that, I hope the magic items generated by loot remains low, or else the enchantment skill will become useless. I do prefer to have nearly everything in the game craftable, including the best magic (unless you're talking true relics and artifacts).
In tabletop Pathfinder, there are different Item Creation Feats that are available at different levels. The Brew Potion Feat should be a separate Skill Tree called Alchemy and the Scribe Scroll should likewise be a separate Skill Tree called Scribe. All the other Magic Item Creation Feats should be in the Enchanter Skill Tree. However, I would makes some modification for greater flexibility and flavor for a MMO. My suggestions for the Enchantment Feat Tree might look something like this:
Suggested Enchantment Feats [XP Cost] (Requirements)
Embed Spell Effect - produces a single use magic items (i.e., Feather Tokens) [2,000]
Recharge Item - powers up an item with charges [2,000]
Enchant Weapon 1 [8,000]
Enchant Weapon 2 [16,000] (Requires Enchant Weapon 1)
Enchant Weapon 3 [32,000] (Requires Enchant Weapon 2)
Enchant Weapon 4 [64,000] (Requires Enchant Weapon 3)
Enchant Weapon 5 [128,000] (Requires Enchant Weapon 4)
Enchant Armor 1 [8,000]
Enchant Armor 2 [16,000] (Requires Enchant Armor 1)
Enchant Armor 3 [32,000] (Requires Enchant Armor 2)
Enchant Armor 4 [64,000] (Requires Enchant Armor 3)
Enchant Armor 5 [128,000] (Requires Enchant Armor 4)
Imbue Charges 1 [8,000] (Requires Imbue Spell Effect)
Imbue Charges 2 [16,000] (Requires Imbue Charges 1)
Imbue Charges 3 [32,000] (Requires Imbue Charges 2)
Imbue Charges 4 [64,000] (Requires Imbue Charges 3)
Imbue Charges 5 [128,000] (Requires Imbue Charges 4)
Imbue Permanency 1 [265,000] (Requires Imbue Charges 5)
This Feat Tree would allow any magic item to be crafted (except potions & scrolls) and would take 17.15 months to gain all the Feats in the tree, if you work on nothing else. The shortest XP path to +5 Weapons or +5 Armor would take 3.4 months provided Training Halls, materials and components were available at the right time. The shortest XP path to making Permanency Items would be about 6.9 months. However, with Charged and Permanency Items, the Enchanter must also know the spells to be embedded, which will take away some XP to learn.
It would also be great if items had to progress through each stage of improvement to in order to make them the best.
Dagger Example
+1 Dagger Requires a Masterwork Dagger as a component
+2 Dagger Requires a +1 Dagger as a component
+3 Dagger Requires a +2 Dagger as a component
+4 Dagger Requires a +3 Dagger as a component
+5 Dagger Requires a +4 Dagger as a component
Cloak of Invisibility Example
Cloak of Invisibility w/ 20 charges Requires a Masterwork Cloak as a component
Cloak of Invisibility w/ 40 charges Requires one with 20 charges as a component
Cloak of Invisibility w/ 60 charges Requires one with 40 charges as a component
Cloak of Invisibility w/ 80 charges Requires one with 60 charges as a component
Cloak of Invisibility w/ 100 charges Requires one with 80 charges as a component
Cloak of Invisibility w/ Permanency Requires one with 100 charges as a component
There would also be a small chance of critical failure that risks destroying all the components. This creates an item sink that helps keeps the economy in check
Comments?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
There would also be a small chance of critical failure that risks destroying all the components. This creates an item sink that helps keeps the economy in check.
This system has been tried extensively in MMOs and found wanting. It doesn't do much to control the economy, and it disproportionately hurts new crafters (who may not have a lot of access to components) where a random failure will be devastating, and is essentially meaningless to people who craft in bulk, who will see enough trials to get the expected percentage of failure and just factor it into their costs.
There would also be a small chance of critical failure that risks destroying all the components. This creates an item sink that helps keeps the economy in check.This system has been tried extensively in MMOs and found wanting. It doesn't do much to control the economy, and it disproportionately hurts new crafters (who may not have a lot of access to components) where a random failure will be devastating, and is essentially meaningless to people who craft in bulk, who will see enough trials to get the expected percentage of failure and just factor it into their costs.
Great point Ryan. No sense making it harder for the lower level PCs. So nixing the small chance of failure, what do you think about enchanting building in stages?
@Urlord the Wonderful
Are you leaving out other rare components for the sake of simplicity at this point?
Yes, exactly. To me, it's a given that other materials would be required in addition to the main component. The higher level the recipe, the more valuable/rare the additional materials should be.
I like having a chance for an item to fail, after all we all have days where no matter what you do it all ends up looking like a pile of dung. Perhaps if an item "fails" all components aren't just lost, what about if the item is created, just at a low quality level?
I like Urlord's idea, it seems like a good place to plan from, but I'm fairly sure the Devs have created a structure already that encompasses these ideas.
I favor the idea that a crafter can try to craft an item that's above their skill level with a realistic chance of actually creating the item. Say a crafter with a skill of 75 tries crafting an item that requires a skill of 90, they would stand a better chance of being successful then if the same skill 75 crafter tried to craft an item that required a skill of 110. A realistic progression is what I'm saying. I see it as testing your skill and if you succeed the items quality is moderate as opposed to the standard level of quality a skill 115 crafter would get crafting an item requiring a skill of 110.
I do like the idea that using more of a material will result in an item that has a better quality then just using the minimum amount of material.
I favor the idea that a crafter can try to craft an item that's above their skill level with a realistic chance of actually creating the item.
I wouldn't mind there being a chance of failure if the crafter knowingly tried to make something beyond his skill.
I think these are counter to the system that GW has presented (correct me if I am wrong). I support NOT being able to create anything above your skill level. If a Recipe requires a skill level of 90, then you have to wait until you attain level 90 before you can attempt it. This creates a distinct line in the sand of "yes you can" and "no you can't" for crafting. It also gives concrete goals for PCs to aspire to. Finally, it allows GW complete control over when certain levels of equipment will be available in the game based on how long players have been playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I like Urlord's idea, it seems like a good place to plan from, but I'm fairly sure the Devs have created a structure already that encompasses these ideas...
I am very glad to say that if we use Urlord's elegant proposal as a starting point for enchantment and just run with it, if we stray too awfully far from where the devs are taking the design we will hear about it, and that will help us better understand anyway.
I favor the idea that a crafter can try to craft an item that's above their skill level with a realistic chance of actually creating the item.I wouldn't mind there being a chance of failure if the crafter knowingly tried to make something beyond his skill.I think these are counter to the system that GW has presented (correct me if I am wrong). I support NOT being able to create anything above your skill level. If a Recipe requires a skill level of 90, then you have to wait until you attain level 90 before you can attempt it. This creates a distinct line in the sand of "yes you can" and "no you can't" for crafting. It also gives concrete goals for PCs to aspire to. Finally, it allows GW complete control over when certain levels of equipment will be available in the game based on how long players have been playing.
I think your right, ah well strike that idea then :p. oh btw, Thomas Covenant would hate having wonderful associated with him ;). I take it you'll be a miner?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I favor the idea that a crafter can try to craft an item that's above their skill level with a realistic chance of actually creating the item.I wouldn't mind there being a chance of failure if the crafter knowingly tried to make something beyond his skill.I think these are counter to the system that GW has presented (correct me if I am wrong). I support NOT being able to create anything above your skill level.
You're correct, and I could have been clearer. I'm not advocating being able to craft a Recipe that requires Skill Level 100 when you're Skill Level is only 90. I'm suggesting that crafting a Recipe 100 when you're 100 might be fraught with danger, while doing so when your Skill Level is 115 should essentially never fail. I would expect to have to acquire appropriate gear or upgrades in order to craft the very highest level recipes with essentially guaranteed success.
So, "beyond his skill" didn't really mean "above his skill level", although it's obviously clear why most people would probably read it that way. Instead, I intended it to mean "difficult", with difficulty being determined by the relative difference between Player Skill Level and Recipe Skill Level, with the chance of failure only existing within a fairly narrow window - say 10-15%.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think about enchanting building in stages?
I think it's pretty close to the plan. Crafting various gear will require various combinations of character ability, crafting materials and access to buildings. There may also be some kind of recipe or blueprint requirement too. Character ability is a function of skill training and achievement.
The more specialized we make something the more room we give ourselves to stretch out the time required before a character has "mastered" that thing. Making crafting a really big fractal space is a goal of the design because we want to give those players who wish to obtain mastery a lot of intermediate goals to set and reach along the way.
I think it's pretty close to the plan. Crafting various gear will require various combinations of character ability, crafting materials and access to buildings. There may also be some kind of recipe or blueprint requirement too. Character ability is a function of skill training and achievement.
Fantastic!
I imagine the concept of "Crafting Tools" will be incorporated into the rating of the "Settlement Building" in order to encourage Crafting PCs to invest into Settlement/Guild Buildings instead of investing in and carrying around personal tools.
The more a group of Crafting PCs lobby for upgrade to a particular Settlement Build (through the Settlement Lord I assume), the higher the upkeep for that build, thus the need for more guild members and or higher Guild Dues paid to the Lord.
This has sparked another train of thoughts/questions, but I will put that in a separate thread so we don't get off topic here.
Oh the intrigue I am imagining already...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I favor the idea that a crafter can try to craft an item that's above their skill level with a realistic chance of actually creating the item.I wouldn't mind there being a chance of failure if the crafter knowingly tried to make something beyond his skill.I think these are counter to the system that GW has presented (correct me if I am wrong). I support NOT being able to create anything above your skill level. If a Recipe requires a skill level of 90, then you have to wait until you attain level 90 before you can attempt it. This creates a distinct line in the sand of "yes you can" and "no you can't" for crafting. It also gives concrete goals for PCs to aspire to. Finally, it allows GW complete control over when certain levels of equipment will be available in the game based on how long players have been playing.
I think there's a point when you can pull off a difficult job with excessive time and waste, and a point when you've squeezed out mistakes and inefficiencies to the point that the job is trivial. That's how things move from cutting edge science, to prototyping, to market release, and eventually to ubiquitous tech. Making it so the attempt to craft far beyond your skill takes so long and is so wasteful of materials that you spend more to create the item than what you could buy it for will provide a soft cap on what crafters will bother trying to make at any given skill level. Then there's no reason to put in an artificial hard cap.
Honestly, I still really like the chance of producing cursed items. Maybe you can try to craft something higher-level, but there's also a chance you produce a cursed item without knowing it. It could lead to some fun conflicts where you accidentally sell a cursed item to someone and they think you did it deliberately (or where you get paid to actually do it deliberately).
It gives an element of scamming, but cursed items will still be rare enough (and hard enough to identify) that there probably won't be hundreds of griefers running around trying to pawn them off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kobold Cleaver's mention of people trying to scam others by the sale (or gifting) of cursed items brings up another question. How easily will people be able to identify the quality and/or magical bonuses/abilities of an item? I doubt most untrained eyes could tell good steel from bad (too soft, too brittle, etc.) simply by looking at it. How much more unlikely are you to discern a magic item's ability without some specially trained skill or spell? It's one thing to detect that it's magic and something different to know what the magical properties are.
Some other games made the ability to identify quality and magical properties either skills or magical spells. In Ultima Online, they have a skill called arms lore which tells you the item's effective AC or damage rating and its condition (amount of wear). For magic items, you had to employ an identification wand or the identification skill at one point.
For PFO, I'm guessing ID spells might be possible for the magic, but I'd like to see the quality of the item be discernible by a skill, unless GW decides to let anyone know one or both of these simply by clicking on the item. Personally, I like minor skills. I think they can have more of an appeal than people would suspect and the need for them creates another layer of player interaction - you might have people who make part of their income simply by identifying items for others. Another question would be, once an item is ID'ed, is it readable by anyone?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Realism is relative to the setting. Magic items in general are unrealistic, but in fiction you can aim for internal consistency or verisimilitude. GW seems to be building the fiction in such a way that necessary MMO mechanics are explained by something in the setting.
I guess the biggest example is character death. An MMO that includes PvP and permanent character death is probably unmarketable. Most of a decade before LotRO came out, Sierra had the license to produce Middle Earth Online and were going to try permadeath. That linked story does show that there were more complex management problems that ended up killing the game, but the permadeath aspect is also called out as being "crazy". GW has worked player resurrection into their fiction by saying that PCs are marked by the goddess Pharasma.
Following that and some other examples, it seems that what looks like breaks in the story for game mechanic needs will actually be given an in-story cause.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW has worked player resurrection into their fiction by saying that PCs are market by the goddess Pharasma.Wait a minute...she's marketing us? No wonder she's letting us resurrect - she's making a profit off it!
I know it was a typo, but it was too fun to pass up. :)
Call it a Freudian typo, since we were on the topic of the game economy. :P
I expanded the overall idea of that post into a separate thread so I wouldn't get too far off topic.
[Lore] The meta-story behind PFO could explain game mechanics which seem unrealistic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Realistically, any system other than full disclosure is simply not feasible. You'll be able to sort items in the market by quality.
Another reason I wouldn't have gone with auction houses. Allowing businesses to sell by reputation would be more interesting. Those with the skill to Appraise items being better able to get the better deals, c'est la vie.
Realism is relative to the setting. Magic items in general are unrealistic, but in fiction you can aim for internal consistency or verisimilitude. GW seems to be building the fiction in such a way that necessary MMO mechanics are explained by something in the setting.
I guess the biggest example is character death. An MMO that includes PvP and permanent character death is probably unmarketable. Most of a decade before LotRO came out, Sierra had the license to produce Middle Earth Online and were going to try permadeath. That linked story does show that there were more complex management problems that ended up killing the game, but the permadeath aspect is also called out as being "crazy". GW has worked player resurrection into their fiction by saying that PCs are marked by the goddess Pharasma.
Following that and some other examples, it seems that what looks like breaks in the story for game mechanic needs will actually be given an in-story cause.
I'm certainly not saying that perma death is a good thing to include in a MMO, but in early 2000's, 2002 to be exact, word of a game going into development swept the game world. That game included perma death. It was explained that characters would have offspring which, upon a players death one would be chosen to replace the character and would grow rather quickly until they could take over as the players character. The "game" also had a lot of other unique things like the world starting with nothing, the players had to build everything, everything in the world could be torn down by players. I'm sure I'm forgetting many other things, but the result was that this "game" got a LOT of attention, tons of followers and a few fan sites. Even mention on the budding gaming sites like Stratics and Allakhazam's. Sadly this game was Dawn. I'm sure a few people here remember the game that wasn't. Dawn turned out to be a hoax, total fiction from some guy in Florida. But whether people were really interested in the game, or just for novelty s sake, perma death didn't hamper the massive attention that Dawn got. Now it might not be a viable concept in the long term, but Dawn would have succeeded in generating the initial mega-spike in subscribers that games like Wow rely on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That game included perma death. It was explained that characters would have offspring which, upon a players death one would be chosen to replace the character and would grow rather quickly until they could take over as the players character.
That sounds like another way of doing not-for-keeps death. I think MEO was also considering some kind of lineage inheritance system. If you made an CRPG based on Paranoia, you would just have a clone replace your character.
Better yet, make a science fiction MMO out of Eclipse Phase in which your consciousness can be backed up and transferred into different bodies (biological or synthetic).
The "game" also had a lot of other unique things like the world starting with nothing, the players had to build everything, everything in the world could be torn down by players.
That part sounds like PFO, where settlements can suffer permadeath.