Posts made by Roccandil

Maintenance could be something like a continuing mana reserve, or even HP (in the case perhaps of undead/demon pets).

So, a player with many pets might have much less mana to spend on spells/abilities, and be more vulnerable to attack.

I see two kinds of stretch content: scaling existing mechanics (adding new levels, mobs, dungeons, continents, etc.), and adding new mechanics (fishing, taming, etc.).

As a developer, I wouldn't mind seeing expansion of existing mechanics wait until after launch, but I think I'd want to see as many unique mechanics as possible in place and balanced before launch.

Having multiple pets/companions reminds me of BGII, where members of your party would randomly have conversations (sometimes extremely hilarious ones), depending on which companions you had selected.

As long as having pets in a fight isn't OP and a requirement to compete (like Atlas), I'm good!

Given that Arboreus itself attacks evil-aligned players who venture there, it seems reasonable that the tamable creatures on it wouldn't be easily tamed (if at all) by evil-aligned players.

Cool topic!

On Arboreus, I'd create a wingless, herbivorous dragon, that can combine bio-chemicals stored in chambers in a large, horn-like structure on its head to breathe fire.

That's secondarily a defense mechanism, but primarily a way to unlock tasty seeds from huge, otherwise uncrackable, fire-tree cones, representing a symbiotic relationship with the forest.

I hope if nothing else, our houses will be safe zones: I don't want to feel like I have to be constantly logging into the game to see if I'm going to lose everything. That burned me out on Atlas.

I really like that I can walk away from Albion, and not feel like anything I care about is going to be looted or decay.

The exception in Albion is the requirement to defend guild-owned territory, and that seems like a good balance, since a guild as a single entity has the ability to be "alive" in the game world all the time (if well run).

@Gothix said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:

Example 1:

• make the logistical cost of owning multiple cities high and not easy to maintain
• but do not limit how many cities is guild allowed to own (if they succeed being geniouses at logistics)

Example 2:

• give smaller guilds a nice GUI to easily form alliances in need, when attacked by large guild, and make an alliance GUI to help communication between smaller guilds helping them organize easier
• but do not forcibly impose small guild member limit so larger gaming communities can not play together

Example 3:

• impose taxes on profit, and make logistics of larger enterprises more demanding, and those of small crafts less demanding
• but do not limit how large enterprise one can grow, and how much he is allowed to earn (if successful)

Example 4:

• make movement of larger groups more visible (NPCs around the world will see them and spread the word, a large army never moves around undetected), this will help the cities become aware of possible invasions in advance
• but do not prevent the large invasions all together by limiting them by game mechanics somehow

Example 5:

• let players have some hiding skills and tools, so small groups can outsmart larger groups sometimes (guerilla fighting)
• but do not mechanically give extra strength and power to smaller groups, simply because they are smaller

Example 6:

• let players have a lots of options for where to find resources
• but do not mechanically prevent a larger group of people owning and controlling a certain world area if they organize well

---

People should be told that they are required to work (and compete) for resources, and not expect for game mechanics to simply hand them over, because, hey, they "do not have the mood to compete".

I like what you say here, but if I were a developer, I'd want to keep the hard limits available if I needed them to prevent new players from being squeezed out.

So, I'd avoid artificial limitations as much as I could, but I wouldn't rule them out.

@Gothix said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:

@Roccandil said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:

If one bully takes everyone else's toys

...then others should organize, plan a tactic (use some brain work and logistics) to take the toys back.

---

Btw. someone is not a "bully" simply because he played smarter from others and managed to acquire those toys (resources). The main aim of this game (Fractured) is not to share the resources, but to compete for them...

This is why you can not ask for mechanical limitations that would force the sharing and equality... this is not such game...

It's not a question of forcing equality, but of preventing long-term exclusion of content.

Albion Online is in that situation: new guilds have almost no chance to break in to own territory, even though the developers are trying to make that possible. The massive 8000+ member alliances easily dominate, and the only practical way to experience endgame content is to join them.

That's -not- a good thing if you want to keep new people playing (and blaming new players/guilds for not being good enough is shortsighted, and bad for business).

@Gothix said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:

If some people will "suck at playing" it should be their own problem in a sandbox game. They should learn to play instead of asking for game to be converted to a theme park with various limits that insure balance.

Thank you for understanding.

Actually, I don't understand. Even a real sandbox can't exist without rules allowing emergent gameplay:

• A boundary (the box)
• Sand (follows its own extremely complex rules)
• Tools/toys (for moving sand around, or moving around on sand)
• Possibly water (to harden sand and allow more construction types with molds, and whatnot)

Is anyone disputing that reality?

Rather, what we're actually talking about is sharing the sandbox with others!

If one bully takes everyone else's toys, the ability for everyone else to use the sandbox becomes artificially limited. That's the problem. As you said:

We want to play a game that does not limit the possibilities.

Blaming the victims for not being good enough, well, I probably shouldn't say more, I might violate forum rules....

Hmm. I'm not sure I see Steampunk as mixing timelines. Technology generally springs from necessity, but it doesn't seem likely that the beastmen or the demons would ever need or want to use advanced technology, no matter how much time passed over the centuries, since both races have significant innate, divine, and magical power available to them.

Humans, on the other hand, are weak in comparison, thus it makes sense they would try to compete via technology. In that vein, steampunk tech seems a reasonable development.

I also note that the human Lich transformation could again be called an attempt to bridge a power gap (perhaps even allowing unlimited lifespans to better pursue technological advancement), whereas the Angel and Abomination transformations seem more about karma reversal.

The counter to what I'm saying is magic: if humans have enough access to arcane power, they might pursue magic-based tech instead of steam (spellpunk? ).

Even so, that's competing in kind against the magic of Beastmen and Demons, whom I'd expect to be experienced in the arcane arts, whereas steampunk tech may be more likely to present military problems Beastmen and Demons have yet to encounter or defend against.

@Znirf said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:

Last, if a guild will succeed to conquest a settlement, it will force the losers to pay taxes and ONLY if they won't be able to do that the city will pass to the winners.

Will the taxes be set by the victor (as opposed to the game itself)? If so, are there any limits?

I'd like to see pseudo-random dungeons, that spawn when open-world conditions are met. For instance, spawn a dire bear dungeon when X number of bears are killed.

@Whisper

Good question! If I had to solve the problem, I'd look at the following:

• Logistics. Make it hard to project power, and easy to defend the home/town/castle (which has the advantage of being true to RL).
• As others have pointed out, limit guild and alliance sizes: or make them progressively more costly to maintain (again, representing a kind of logistics).

Continuing the above thread, one inherent aspect of MMOs that's foisted on developers is instant communications across the MMO world: it's like FTL comms everywhere. In RL medieval settings, the communication lag across massive distances would make unification far more difficult.

Representing that by hugely increasing maintenance costs for bigger guilds/alliances seems reasonable: "bigger" meaning more members and/or more territory controlled. (You don't meet your payments, your alliance disbands!)

@Jetah

Hmm. If true, I consider that a very bad thing.

@Tuoni

I see your point, though I wonder how much that would hurt markets. I'd guess some basic progression could be bought in Fractured, or at least supported (buying certain raw materials instead of finding them), but that wouldn't be repetitive: craft X item once with Y materials, and you're done with that task.

Albion does let you buy a lot of progression!

@Jetah

I'm hoping the draw to PvP is more than simply PvP for the sake of PvP. Albion Online has scarce resources in PvP zones, for instance, and ownership of territory is valuable.

Maybe another way to put it is that I'm hoping PvP will be a means to an end, and not simply the end.

@Jetah

PvP for the sake of PvP will certainly attract some people, but I'm hoping for more than that.

Wurm Online has wooden boats you can't burn, and it kinda sucks, so I'd be up for some general flammability.

(On the other hand, the environmental manipulation you can do in, what is it, Divinity II Original Sin? is extremely impressive!)

Shoulda known steampunk liches would already be a thing!