Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See i would love something like the druid and cleric ideas. perhaps bards can increase the morale of your city? A wizard could lend their strength to building buildings, I mean mass bulls strength on all the workers?
while i would like gm involvement, i dont think it will really happen.
I would love to see animal husbandry. This could lead to two parts. The first would be the ability to raise mounts with different stats and for different purposes. So a merchant might want strong tireless draft horses to pull their wagons, but a knight would want stats that would be more useful in combat (like speed for mobility).
Besides horses you could get into exotic and difficult to raise animals as the skill gets higher.
On top of that you could use this system to allow the raising of animal companions. Want an exotic animal companion? Sure but realize that raising one will be a good amount of work and require high skill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd love something like this--a way to enact your faith. So just as you can lose reputation for murdering NPCs, if there was a way to minister to the needs of the people it would be a great way to play my role (not a rep grind, but maybe a kind of PvE play).If I were to choose to roleplay a cleric, it would be very nice to actually be able to do some clerical type stuff ...
The major gods are probably going to each have a church as a faction. You'll should to do stuff like this while working for those.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
I would also like to know what is GW's view on GM events and direct GM involvement in game play that gives players something to do.
My experience is that they tend to end in disaster.
I think we will have some events where people play monsters and are seeded into attacks in some "event" like structure. That's even built into the Kickstarter Rewards. We'll do a few of those and see if people like them, and if they're popular, we'll keep doing them.
Other, more complex things degenerate rapidly. You get small groups of people who have an awesome time and a vast number of people disappointed they couldn't take part. If there are valuable rewards from the event, the disappointment turns to rage.
You have constant complaints of developer misconduct. Players expect devs and GMs to be "the best", but really, they're rarely better than average. So when the really good players gut the dev/GMs it looks like cheating.
These systems don't scale well. This relates to the problem of maximum character density. We don't know what we'll be able to support yet, but it won't be thousands of characters, it will be hundreds. Could be low hundreds. If there are 2,000 - 4,000 people logged into the game, and a sizable percentage try to go to where the event is happening, the servers will fail.
This is a place where there is unrealized potential but the tech just doesn't support it yet and nobody has cracked the game design riddle on how to do it in a way that is fun for a huge number of players. The state of the art is just not suitable for "MMOs".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a place where there is unrealized potential but the tech just doesn't support it yet and nobody has cracked the game design riddle on how to do it in a way that is fun for a huge number of players. The state of the art is just not suitable for "MMOs".
Thanks for the heads-up on this.
I see it more as a legend type of experience that could happen unexpectedly, randomly and so on if you have a small pool of people able to "monster play". It could be a random encounter and a mob with a bit more than sawdust between the ears. Or a mob that speaks a set line and tells players to go some place to find a dungeon. Or a dev who can coordinate an escalation just a little more fine tuned one day.
In small dose it could be good story-telling material of "Tales of the Unexpected".
The time it becomes a server-wide event with rewards and people miss the fair in town... bleaaargh!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
These systems don't scale well. This relates to the problem of maximum character density. We don't know what we'll be able to support yet, but it won't be thousands of characters, it will be hundreds. Could be low hundreds. If there are 2,000 - 4,000 people logged into the game, and a sizable percentage try to go to where the event is happening, the servers will fail.
Articulate the line. My understanding is the manipular legions of the Roman Army were organized with the most powerful infantry with gladius, shield, javelin and pilum on the front line, medium infantry with two pila and shield in the second line, and the lightest infantry (with pikes) were in the third line. This organization worked wonderfully unless flanked. Until the roman army articulated the line they had no way to refuse the flank in any organized way.
A similar approach may address the problem described where the isolated event can be enjoyed by few who have a wonderful time, but the vast majority of players are unable to partake.
If instead of one mega event in a single hex, articulate to raise many small events over a wide area. No stampede: everyone has a local event.
Problem: I don't have a sufficient number of GMs to populate many scattered small events. Response: Turn the problem into advantage.
Almost every player loves the idea of getting to play a mob, especially a boss type mob. Work out a system where taking on the role of a boss mob controlling the tactical deployment and general targeting of automated mobs similar to the way a player can direct units in an RTS war simulation. If the settlement he is attacking falls, then mission accomplished. If the settlement successfully defends then the player-boss mob gets to focus on melee.
Make it a feature. An extension of formation combat (as if I had any idea what your plans are with that). It would be viewed as a reward by the players, and a privilege few would wish to lose access to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan's contextual emote (text/bubble/sound/animation) has appeal: Eg if your avatar falls and injures then a "Argh!! By the seven hells that $%&*!!"
Cold weather and cold water should deplete an avatar also /shivering; chattering of teeth.
Of course heavy armour + water = "*glug* + *glug-glug*".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to have the ability to create a language, that I can then teach to others .
Something along the lines of after X ranks in linguistics you can develop a language and can train others in that language.
In and of itself it developing a special language is not that useful, so you chat about your plans and the guy that worked his way into your settlement and is hidden to hear your plans of who to attack or how you are defending gets to read “Waiodih akdnadf and woeijl vmmmkls” while you and your group are discussing your plans.
Yes I understand, folks will just use microphones, and
other ways to communicate so I do not expect people to actually eaves drop on council meetings, was just painting a picture of what things would look like if you don’t know the language.
Yet if you give groups and formations, and certain areas of your town that use them bonuses like better movement speed ( for raiding parties, ie navy seals and their hand signs), resupply bonuses, anti corruption bonuses ( not like the new thief in your settlement will readily know your towns dialect and language).
Then the use of language as a role play tool would have a definite impact upon each region and the players with in it. Yes there would be a common tongue people could still use, but if everyone in your group took time to learn a certain language I could see that having a lasting effect on the game mechanics.
All though once you learn the basics of the language that is created, I guess you only can do it once, but if your master linguistics continues to improve and the bonuses you grant improve based on how many other people use and teach it then it could have a larger impact upon the world .
Anyway just another idea to toss out there..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These systems don't scale well. This relates to the problem of maximum character density. We don't know what we'll be able to support yet, but it won't be thousands of characters, it will be hundreds. Could be low hundreds. If there are 2,000 - 4,000 people logged into the game, and a sizable percentage try to go to where the event is happening, the servers will fail.
This is a place where there is unrealized potential but the tech just doesn't support it yet and nobody has cracked the game design riddle on how to do it in a way that is fun for a huge number of players. The state of the art is just not suitable for "MMOs".
Almost missed this as its in a role play thread
Question for you
I am in a settlement which you have stated you expect to be aimed at a population of 500 to 1000.
We take the lower number of 500 for the sake of argument.
Another settlement have decided to make war on us and are marching their army over.
What is to stop us just getting all 500 members to log on . Your statement of low hundreds sort of implies that the server is going to fail about then making us in effect unattackable.
Before you say this would never happen can I remind you crashing the node in Eve wasnt exactly an unknown tactic in fleet battles. Yes I am aware of CCP saying that deliberately crashing the node is an exploit but I don't see how you can tell between people rallying their troops to defend and rallying the troops with a view to causing a server fail.
In short a settlement warfare game where the settlements are expected to have 500 to 1000 citizens is often as far as I can see going to cause problems in a game that can only support a number of characters in the low hundreds in one place.
So the question is how do you intend to handle it and prevent situations where one side or another gets an advantage by either crashing the server or (assuming you do something like limit the character numbers per hex as Eve does for systems) do you prevent the exploitation of the known cap by preflooding the area to prevent the other side bringing their troops in?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Test as you Fly; fly as you test. It is all in the system engineering, designing for soft fail, and testing. EE's slow increase before OE is one way to do that test. I can not say they are doing things right. Realistically they can not prove they will not crash. Time will tell.
The approach that is being taken seems to indicate they are aware of what V&V is.
You seem to have a lot of questions that will only be proven when there is release.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Steelwing: Good questions. It would be interesting to hear more about this. I've sort of delayed asking these questions letting the devs figure out what is possible and we're well aways from all that I figure also, but Ryan mentions above:
We don't know what we'll be able to support yet, but it won't be thousands of characters, it will be hundreds. Could be low hundreds. If there are 2,000 - 4,000 people logged into the game, and a sizable percentage try to go to where the event is happening, the servers will fail.
Would it require a War Declaration to be able to get so many numbers into a pitched battle or a siege perhaps??
This could sort of fudge it into being a standard battle - sort of instance but not really an instance.?
I know WH40K: Eternal Crusade and Camelot Unchained are going for large battles. Don't know how big they are expecting: Thousands in total?
Test as you Fly; fly as you test. It is all in the system engineering, designing for soft fail, and testing. EE's slow increase before OE is one way to do that test. I can not say they are doing things right. Realistically they can not prove they will not crash. Time will tell.
The approach that is being taken seems to indicate they are aware of what V&V is.
You seem to have a lot of questions that will only be proven when there is release.
Sorry no test as you fly is not good enough here
Settlement warfare is the KEY feature of this game. The developers should already know what there system will be able to accomplish in this area and how they are going to handle numbers that are greater than the system can handle.
Having a settlement warfare game where each side is only allowed to bring 100 people becomes a pretty useless game for example when you have settlements capable of fielding armies of several hundreds
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would also like to know what is GW's view on GM events and direct GM involvement in game play that gives players something to do.-snip-
These systems don't scale well. This relates to the problem of maximum character density. We don't know what we'll be able to support yet, but it won't be thousands of characters, it will be hundreds. Could be low hundreds. If there are 2,000 - 4,000 people logged into the game, and a sizable percentage try to go to where the event is happening, the servers will fail.
This is a place where there is unrealized potential but the tech just doesn't support it yet and nobody has cracked the game design riddle on how to do it in a way that is fun for a huge number of players. The state of the art is just not suitable for "MMOs".
As above I see it as a problem to AI. We know storybricks will be EQN/L's solution to AI in an MMORPG. But if scaling in an MMO is a problem (for quality AI aka GM's/volunteers) then I don't see it as a system that should scale but should simply exist to fulful the criteria that a virtual world functions as a system as well as a place for players to "simply experience".
So that theory out the way, my suggestion would be:
- Themepark boss mobs eg GW2 Dragons look amazing and huge but are static and boring.
- So, solution is if scaling causes woodstock, then if you have the odd boss mob in a dungeon which limits players in there, you could from time to time have a GM Boss that is legendary and sometimes player unexpectedly attempt to go up against.
=
Settlement warfare is the KEY feature of this game. The developers should already know what there system will be able to accomplish in this area and how they are going to handle numbers that are greater than the system can handle.
Having a settlement warfare game where each side is only allowed to bring 100 people becomes a pretty useless game for example when you have settlements capable of fielding armies of several hundreds
There has been previous discussion on this. Ryan mentioned some time ago that it's very possible to have more players in one area (even Camelot Unchained did a vid to this effect during their ks as "proof of concept"). Here:
-snip- The idea that a modern "massively" multiplayer online game should have a PCU in the 3,500-5,000 range (I'm looking at you, WoW & WoW clones) is ridiculous. WoW was designed in the early part of the 2000s. It's been nearly 10 years since its network topology and database systems were devised, 10 years which have seen the rise of all sorts of better solutions for transaction processors (look into CouchDB, for one example). But since Theme Park MMOs don't gain much value from having large simultaneous server populations or large virtual space population, most of the theme park segment hasn't bothered to try and come up with a better solution. In fact, they're actively developed to avoid large concentrations of players. Can you imagine what some of the shared spaces in WoW would be like if 1,000 characters were all in the same virtual space? They feel excessively crowded with just a few dozen!
I think it appears that say 1,000 would be an upper limit for a fantasy game with other things going on as well. But anything below eg 200 would seem not very successful if "large warfare" is a KEY part of the game??
@AvenaOats
Ryan specifically calls it a problem of "Maximum character density" that does not imply it is an AI problem. Indeed the AI on a large boss mob will put exactly the same amount of strain on the system whether there is 0,1,5 or a 1000 player characters nearby.
I have looked at Camelot unchained and the way they are planning on it. I have no reason to believe that the unity game engine will support a similar approach
When scoping out a game I have to take this statement from Ryan to supersede a statement made a while back and your closing statement is indeed what worries me.
It especially worries me because it potentially negates the benefits of recruiting over a certain value of players. If for instance (and I am not saying the limits will be this low or capping will be the method they use) they were to say no side can bring more than 150 players to a battle then basically any number of players past 150 is a waste to recruit (obviously I am assuming that I can martial all 150 at the same time). Even with allowance for people being unavailable you probably don't need to have more than 250 people and that will put you on level pegging with a settlement of any size in terms of battle.
My contention remains
By now they should know the limitations of their engine. They should have decided how to handle people wanting to bring more to a battle than the system will support. They should have decided how to balance things so that settlements can leverage the support of their citizenship and they do not make recruiting a pointless exercise past a certain point which penalises settlements for their own success.
Further to the points above which I believe they should know. They should be able to tell us
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Steelwing:
On AI for Boss monsters. In themeparks they're top content for phat loot.
But they are just big loot pinatas and don't actually impress, particularly the large ones that can't even move.
So what I'm saying is convert the concept to sandbox.
1) Have a dungeon randomly pop (planned in PFO)
2) Randomly have a dev drive a mob (a balrog etc?) - perhaps 1/1000th of the time. It does not matter!!
3) Wipe players (most probably!)
4) Let the legend spread
5) Let the devs log in and feed the legend whenever they want.
That way you get a real boss concept that provides a story that spreads and adds immersion for barely any extra work. Why not?
@Steelwing:
On AI for Boss monsters. In themeparks they're top content for phat loot.
But they are just big loot pinatas and don't actually impress, particularly the large ones that can't even move.
So what I'm saying is convert the concept to sandbox.
1) Have a dungeon randomly pop (planned in PFO)
2) Randomly have a dev drive a mob (a balrog etc?) - perhaps 1/1000th of the time. It does not matter!!
3) Wipe players (most probably!)
4) Let the legend spread
5) Let the devs log in and feed the legend whenever they want.That way you get a real boss concept that provides a story that spreads and adds immersion for barely any extra work. Why not?
I am not talking about pve content my concern is purely for settlement warfare.
@AvenaOats
Ryan specifically calls it a problem of "Maximum character density" that does not imply it is an AI problem. Indeed the AI on a large boss mob will put exactly the same amount of strain on the system whether there is 0,1,5 or a 1000 player characters nearby.
I have looked at Camelot unchained and the way they are planning on it. I have no reason to believe that the unity game engine will support a similar approach
When scoping out a game I have to take this statement from Ryan to supersede a statement made a while back and your closing statement is indeed what worries me.
It especially worries me because it potentially negates the benefits of recruiting over a certain value of players. If for instance (and I am not saying the limits will be this low or capping will be the method they use) they were to say no side can bring more than 150 players to a battle then basically any number of players past 150 is a waste to recruit (obviously I am assuming that I can martial all 150 at the same time). Even with allowance for people being unavailable you probably don't need to have more than 250 people and that will put you on level pegging with a settlement of any size in terms of battle.
My contention remains
By now they should know the limitations of their engine. They should have decided how to handle people wanting to bring more to a battle than the system will support. They should have decided how to balance things so that settlements can leverage the support of their citizenship and they do not make recruiting a pointless exercise past a certain point which penalises settlements for their own success.
Further to the points above which I believe they should know. They should be able to tell us
Steelwing, I pride myself on being the only one here who knows what I'm talking about. Please leave.
Kidding aside, this is a problem I brought this up with Ryan a while back in terms of poly count. CU is being designed from the ground-up to handle large-scale battles, and they're ensuring that their characters' poly counts are kept low while still looking as good as they can in order to ensure this.
Mark specifically said that this couldn't have been accomplished with the other engines they were looking into INCLUDING the Unity engine. While Ryan informed me that keeping poly count low was at the discretion of the game developers (which I now know it is) it's important to note that Mark turned down Unity specifically because he didn't think it looked good at a low poly (I can only assume). Now, looking at the character models we see in PFO, they look absolutely fantastic (which, as you can imagine, is very troubling).
I don't know what their poly counts are, but I can't imagine an average machine being able to render even close to 100 of them on the same screen at the same time (unless graphic settings are dropped to a minimum, and even then it's still questionable)... You're right, considering Wars/Feuds are such a big part of PFO, I think Ryan and the team will have a large and unexpected problem on their hands when they realize how few of their characters can enter into the same screenspace at the same time without it going to lag-ville (which I can only imagine will be an abysmally low #). Also, with Unsanctioned PvP, just now getting nerfed to s&!%, the focus will be more on these Wars/Feuds and less on the typical Open-World PvP aspect of the game, which I have to conclude will render the game... Screwed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Steelwing: A sounding-board by any other name. /jk :)
I left the other topic to the devs. But Unity is the engine, the back-end networking solution is separate. There are products on the market that scale up "1000's" of players that fit unity amongst other engines. It turns into a question of what the devs want to achieve, however which combines numerous factors eg
@Qallz, indicates in one such question: polycount.
@Qallz, indicates in one such question: polycount.
What are you saying here Oats? :) lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Steelwing: A sounding-board by any other name. /jk :)
I left the other topic to the devs. But Unity is the engine, the back-end networking solution is separate. There are products on the market that scale up "1000's" of players that fit unity amongst other engines. It turns into a question of what the devs want to achieve, however which combines numerous factors eg
@Qallz, indicates in one such question: polycount.
The backend systems are really not the concern. The concern is whether the graphics engine will choke at having several hundred players and all of their spell effects on screen at once.
The backend networking for hundreds or thousands is a problem that was solved many years ago. For example Eve manages it on a regular basis. However spot which of the following problems Eve doesnt have and PfO does
a)Backend networking for players
b)Calculations of ability use results
c)Graphical rendering of hundreds of multi polygon models
To give you a clue it is C) This is the choke point for avatar based games every time. A) and B) do impose a significant burden it is true and Eve does get impacted by them but Eve has something going for it that won't in my view work well in an avatar based game and that is the ability to do Time Dilation. Time in a solar system with a massive fleet battle may slow down to as slow as 10% of normal.
In PfO terms that would be like stretching the six second combat round to last a minute. Personally I am not sure how that would be received in an avatar based game where you could only initiate a couple of abilities a minute.
(Note in Eve once the target is locked you generally hit the fire button once then don't touch it again until the target is dead so your guns firing once per minute instead of 10 times per minute isn't nearly so noticeable to the player)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm with you on how to reconcile: Strong art with Lots of numbers. Seems GW have 2 competing interests to balance:
One additional factor is that we are working very hard to stay true to the high quality art of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Pathfinder characters have significantly higher attention to detail than characters of many other fantasy worlds, and we want to capture and continue that with Pathfinder Online. We believe in making characters you will be excited to play and creatures that will be convincing, imposing, and exciting to fight and encounter, so we are focusing on making a smaller number of better quality characters, and building up the selection over time.
&
The point of mass combat is to take and defend territory. The mechanics for besieging a settlement or breaking a fort or watchtower will be driven by mass combat. The mass combat system is not really appropriate for the experiences you may have on an adventure in a lair, cavern or ruin. Armies require sophisticated logistics as well, so they are not likely to be found roaming randomly around a hex.
What we hope to create is a system where players naturally re-create a lot of real-world military tactics and strategies. We want you to care about terrain, about line of sight, about being flanked, pincered, and encircled. We want to see lines break and reform, units to withdraw and be replaced by fresh troops. We want being a solider to be as fulfilling and interesting a long-term play experience as being an adventurer or a crafter.
If I had to choose, I'd choose less good graphics.
But items are important for visual id on targets in normal group combat and the avatars as opposed to spaceships.
If the solution is some way of making the army game very different from the group game then that could settle the matter ie zone/unit of soliders changes the detail?? I'm not sure.
But looking at CU, they want thousands. Whereas for armies perhaps an army of 200 vs another of 200-250 (+/- 100) is makes better gameplay? I'm not sure.
One additional factor is that we are working very hard to stay true to the high quality art of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Pathfinder characters have significantly higher attention to detail than characters of many other fantasy worlds, and we want to capture and continue that with Pathfinder Online. We believe in making characters you will be excited to play and creatures that will be convincing, imposing, and exciting to fight and encounter, so we are focusing on making a smaller number of better quality characters, and building up the selection over time.
PFO is going to look fantastic. But, when it comes to large Epic battles with a few hundred people on your screen at the same time, it's going to look fantastic as a series of awesome-looking screenshots. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Untested also means it could be better than we fear. Engineers always allow for a substantial margin of error, but error can go both ways. It remains to be seen how much data can transact and how fast the processing will be server-side.
Everything else is client-side. If your PC suxxors there is not a thing in the world the devs can do to improve your framerate.
If I had to choose, I'd choose less good graphics.
But items are important for visual id on targets in normal group combat and the avatars as opposed to spaceships.
If the solution is some way of making the army game very different from the group game then that could settle the matter ie zone/unit of soliders changes the detail?? I'm not sure.
But looking at CU, they want thousands. Whereas for armies perhaps an army of 200 vs another of 200-250 (+/- 100) is makes better gameplay? I'm not sure.
Putting aside CU for a moment, frankly I remain unconvinced even with the tech demo that they will get near a 1000 player avatars in one battle. (The tech demo had a small selection of character models and the combat going on in the video I saw wasn't mass combat but single ability use when avatar's paths intersected.
ie a lot of the character diversity which would be expected in a player army was missing reducing the number of textures needed considerably.
The backend processing was not being stretched as there were a lot less abilities being fired than in a normal battle
A bigger problem from my point of view is if we have a settlement of say 1000 people and we can martial 800 to march as an army we should be able to bring that force to bear and not be limited to some artificial numbers cap. Especially if we are going up against a much smaller settlement say of 260 players where we should have a great advantage.
Untested also means it could be better than we fear.
Have you seen how good those character models look? Also, they haven't made it a point to say that "we're going for many characters on the same screen at the same time", and any time a company doesn't SPECIFICALLY go for that, having a ton of characters on the same screen at the same time turns out to be lag-tastic. To the contrary, they've specifically said that character's looking good "in-line with PFO TT" is what they're going for (see Avena's post).
So, yes, they're screwed when it comes to large battles. One look at the character models will tell you that, I said this on day one. Only reason I'm having this conversation now is that someone else brought it up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's assume they cannot usefully render the characters in massive combat as many project. Mind, they are most likely trying to lowball us, but let's say that turns out to be more accurate than we would prefer.
There are other ways to represent a battle. As one example when engaged in massive combat the GUI transitions to one specifically designed for that mass combat?
We know there are plans for something called 'formation combat'. What if that looks like StarCraft during the battle?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is to stop us just getting all 500 members to log on . Your statement of low hundreds sort of implies that the server is going to fail about then making us in effect unattackable.
I've missed something about your hypothetical: how does crashing the server--deliberately or not--aid your war-effort? When the server's back up, you're still at war, with the settlement as it was at crash, but...you're still at war, with what I presume will be all the accompanying disruptions to your "normal" operations.
What is to stop us just getting all 500 members to log on . Your statement of low hundreds sort of implies that the server is going to fail about then making us in effect unattackable.I've missed something about your hypothetical: how does crashing the server--deliberately or not--aid your war-effort? When the server's back up, you're still at war, with the settlement as it was at crash, but...you're still at war, with what I presume will be all the accompanying disruptions to your "normal" operations.
It is normal practise for many nullsec alliances to have a phone/other means alert system in place so that players can be got on line in a hurry. If every time you come to attack us we get our forces online and the server crashes how many times are you going to continue to try before you give up and go after a more disorganised enemy.
If we were to come here and set up a settlement I can assure you we would use such a system. CTA's in Eve we currently get around 80% or so turn out for an alert
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If every time you come to attack us we get our forces online and the server crashes how many times are you going to continue to try before you give up and go after a more disorganised enemy.
But how long will it be before GW says you're abusing your power to crash the game? It could easily appear you've declared war on PFO, or GW itself; that way lies madness.
If no combination of technology affordably available today will allow GW to keep PFO running, I see no way they won't have some sort of time-compression tech like EVE uses, but I've never yet figured how a player-as-humanoid game can pull that off as "easily" as in player-as-spaceship EVE. Another alternative may be some draconian rule(s) against deliberately crashing the server, which would carry a frightening number of side-issues, of course.
@Jazzlvraz
Sorry don't misunderstand here I am not saying we would be doing it deliberately to crash the system
What I am saying however is that when an army marches on our settlement we would expect from Eve experience most of them to log on and defend. If doing that crashes the server then it is an unfortunate side effect and basically means that we can't be attacked
In eve certainly crashing a server node was on occasion used as a deliberate tactic but we were not one of the groups using it as such. (It should also be noted that Eve is a lot more robust these days)
The reason I raised the issue is the dichotomy between statements from Goblinworks
1) We expect settlements to number 500 to 1000 players
2) We expect the server to be able to handle numbers in the low hundreds* but fail with not much more
*I have generously interpreted this as up to 500, it should however this came out of the mouth of someone with a background in marketing and therefore is probably a high estimate
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can not just be me having this impression... This thread has little or nothing to do with Role Playing support.
From building roads to enhance settlements to Server Capacity have been the primary discussions.
What supports should GW develop to assist us integrating the lore of the setting, race of our characters, alignment of our characters and other factors that enhance our ability or enjoyment in playing Character Roles?
If I want to play a Bandit, what role playing tools might GW develop for me to have the "feel" of living that role?
If I am playing the role of a scholarly wizard, what small "nice to haves" would enhance the role being played?
Maybe we could have non combat skills / feats that enhance the RP vision of our characters.
A scholarly wizard might have to train as a Scribe and / or a Book Binder. These skills could also be a source of interaction, if they were also needed by other characters in other professions.
An herbalist could set up a shop, and he needs to hire a scribe to catalogue his discovered remedies.
Minor non combat skills and abilities often give a bit more flavor to a character, making them more unique.
Back in the day, you could tell a lot about the personality of a wizard being portrayed by the player's choice of cantrips.
It can not just be me having this impression... This thread has little or nothing to do with Role Playing support.
From building roads to enhance settlements to Server Capacity have been the primary discussions.
What supports should GW develop to assist us integrating the lore of the setting, race of our characters, alignment of our characters and other factors that enhance our ability or enjoyment in playing Character Roles?
If I want to play a Bandit, what role playing tools might GW develop for me to have the "feel" of living that role?
If I am playing the role of a scholarly wizard, what small "nice to haves" would enhance the role being played?
Maybe we could have non combat skills / feats that enhance the RP vision of our characters.
A scholarly wizard might have to train as a Scribe and / or a Book Binder. These skills could also be a source of interaction, if they were also needed by other characters in other professions.
An herbalist could set up a shop, and he needs to hire a scribe to catalogue his discovered remedies.
Minor non combat skills and abilities often give a bit more flavor to a character, making them more unique.
Back in the day, you could tell a lot about the personality of a wizard being portrayed by the player's choice of cantrips.
Apologies for the derail mr Bluddwolf, I merely raised my point here because the Dancey post I was quoting was posted here
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@steelwing
This is also a concern of mine. 500 people in one area during large scale pvp is 250 people per side does not seem like a huge number to me (given the huge battles in EVE and what not) and at the 1000 member settlement size i would expect that 1/4 of each settlement showing up + allies could reach 500 without a massive effort.
Heck bunches of evil aligned folks might just show up because they want to join since they wouldnt care about flags so much.
Now if he is saying that in EE thats the number and as the game grow and they add more server power that number will go up, i think thats fine, but I think that a 500 crash limit 5 years from now will hurt the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Steelwing,
I did not mean that as a direct hit on your questions, they are very legitimate, and worthy of their own thread.
This thread has not been on its "rail" for some time now, if it ever was to begin with. It has never been about Character Role Playing, which I believe is the problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I expect EE will be a gradual introduction of formation combat and we will be testing the system , then later we will see settlement vs settlement warfare introduced. Myself , I am more interested in seeing squad to company sized formation engagements ,so a limit of 200 in each army is fine , but what if there are 4 armies from 4 settlements? We will have to wait to see. A dev blog would be nice, but the system wont be in place when EE begins so we may be waiting awhile to find out what GW has done.
@ Bluddwulf , being in an army and fighting battles is not playing a role? I think it will be a major source of roleplaying. I am very interested to know if battles will feel like a fantasy war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apologies for the thread-derail, concerning "Army Battles" they could always elaborate a "Pitched Battle" decided by the leaders ahead of time? Or at least when 2 marching armies meet each other they decide then and there? That seems to hark back to eg The Hundred Years' War for eg?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bluddwulf , being in an army and fighting battles is not playing a role? I think it will be a major source of roleplaying. I am very interested to know if battles will feel like a fantasy war.
Unless you are talking about the differences of race, alignment or region as part of being in an army, then "No" it is not role playing. It is a mechanical function of operating within a profession.
If certain formations were only available to a particular race, alignment or region, that would be role playing.
That could even lead to the creation of training guides for various formations that can be learned by others. At mastery level, a character could actually cross train and learn tactics / formations outside of his normal limitations.
That is role playing! At the character level, but still may bring something to the broader community (settlement). Imagine the selling point of a military commander who has training in the use of several racial, alignment and regional formations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
being in an army and fighting battles is not playing a role? I think it will be a major source of roleplaying. I am very interested to know if battles will feel like a fantasy war.
I'd think that being in an army has the same potential for roleplaying as being a bandit. There's plenty of room there in my view.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
being in an army is just as much role playing as being a bandit can be. In fact if you add a large scale combat system with formations and advantages to that, you can implement the RP of a military within the mechanics. So what you get are the people who will do it because it gives them an edge and helps them win fights, then you will have others who will look at it and go, hey we can have a real militia now and that is part of their RP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bluddwulf , being in an army and fighting battles is not playing a role? I think it will be a major source of roleplaying. I am very interested to know if battles will feel like a fantasy war.Unless you are talking about the differences of race, alignment or region as part of being in an army, then "No" it is not role playing. It is a mechanical function of operating within a profession.
If certain formations were only available to a particular race, alignment or region, that would be role playing.
That could even lead to the creation of training guides for various formations that can be learned by others. At mastery level, a character could actually cross train and learn tactics / formations outside of his normal limitations.
That is role playing! At the character level, but still may bring something to the broader community (settlement). Imagine the selling point of a military commander who has training in the use of several racial, alignment and regional formations.
I said I think it is , you declare it isn't, so that's that, but before we can have the cool stuff you describe we need the 'mechanical function of operating within a profession' to work in a way that 'works', so it is worth talking about the cake as well as the icing. I thought the introduction of formations was a step forward in making PvP combat 'roleplaying' , say a squad of 10 trained and in formation can engage 40 bandits who fight as individuals and beat them, that is roleplaying to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
being in an army is just as much role playing as being a bandit can be.
I'm not making that argument. Role playing a bandit is not just robbing a caravan, that is performing the activities of a bandit.
Role playing is that extra motivation, flare or uniqueness.
Robin the Hood wasn't an interesting character because he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. He was interesting because he was of noble birth and was stripped of his title; He was blind to the plight of the poor and then made to see it; He was suave and daring; He was deadly but not mean spirited, but rather jovial.; etc... (Based on the Errol Flynn movie portrayal).
Role playing is creating a unique character, it is not just playing a professional role.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
im not sure i understand. the same thing can be said of a soldier in a PfO army.
The son of a wealthy noble, Mcperson looks around and is disgusted with the idle debauchery of his friends who have not earned anything in their lives. He does not want to end up like those people. To the shock of his parents and the rest of the nobility he forfeits his name and inheritance rights. He leaves his home with nothing but a change of clothes and a sword he enlists in the army hiding his privileged birth.
Through years of dedication and hard work is promoted through the ranks until he is finally commissioned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
being in an army is just as much role playing as being a bandit can be.I'm not making that argument. Role playing a bandit is not just robbing a caravan, that is performing the activities of a bandit.
Role playing is that extra motivation, flare or uniqueness.
Robin the Hood wasn't an interesting character because he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. He was interesting because he was of noble birth and was stripped of his title; He was blind to the plight of the poor and then made to see it; He was suave and daring; He was deadly but not mean spirited, but rather jovial.; etc... (Based on the Errol Flynn movie portrayal).
Role playing is creating a unique character, it is not just playing a professional role.
Not being allowed into certain towns because your reputation is low certainly will make you feel like a bandit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
being in an army is just as much role playing as being a bandit can be.I'm not making that argument. Role playing a bandit is not just robbing a caravan, that is performing the activities of a bandit.
Role playing is that extra motivation, flare or uniqueness.
Robin the Hood wasn't an interesting character because he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. He was interesting because he was of noble birth and was stripped of his title; He was blind to the plight of the poor and then made to see it; He was suave and daring; He was deadly but not mean spirited, but rather jovial.; etc... (Based on the Errol Flynn movie portrayal).
Role playing is creating a unique character, it is not just playing a professional role.
That's an interesting example ,but I don't see a sandbox being able to make us all Robin hood. In a theme park we could all be Robin Hood but fleshing out our character in PFO isn't something GW can help much with. Talking about how the game system will let us become a band of merry men and let us rob from the rich and give to the poor, that is what GW can deliver. So to me , crowdforging a game mechanic that lets me be the squad of soldiers ( in formation) who go after Robin Hood and talking about how it would work( or not work) is talking about roleplaying support.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not being allowed into certain towns because your reputation is low certainly will make you feel like a bandit.being in an army is just as much role playing as being a bandit can be.I'm not making that argument. Role playing a bandit is not just robbing a caravan, that is performing the activities of a bandit.
Role playing is that extra motivation, flare or uniqueness.
Robin the Hood wasn't an interesting character because he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. He was interesting because he was of noble birth and was stripped of his title; He was blind to the plight of the poor and then made to see it; He was suave and daring; He was deadly but not mean spirited, but rather jovial.; etc... (Based on the Errol Flynn movie portrayal).
Role playing is creating a unique character, it is not just playing a professional role.
Good thing we will have the SAD mechanic which will do nothing to decrease our reputation.
Good thing we will have the SAD mechanic which will do nothing to decrease our reputation.Not being allowed into certain towns because your reputation is low certainly will make you feel like a bandit.being in an army is just as much role playing as being a bandit can be.I'm not making that argument. Role playing a bandit is not just robbing a caravan, that is performing the activities of a bandit.
Role playing is that extra motivation, flare or uniqueness.
Robin the Hood wasn't an interesting character because he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. He was interesting because he was of noble birth and was stripped of his title; He was blind to the plight of the poor and then made to see it; He was suave and daring; He was deadly but not mean spirited, but rather jovial.; etc... (Based on the Errol Flynn movie portrayal).
Role playing is creating a unique character, it is not just playing a professional role.
With all the SAD'ing these guys will be doing, I'd imagine Bludd and Xeen will have the highest reps in the game. lol :P