Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 87
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    In space
    Posts
    5,428
    DISCLAIMER: It's too easy when reading passionate statements to misinterpret the nature of that passion, reading it as something like anger or retaliation. Please know that there is no such sentiment in this case. I feel strongly, I use strong words, strong examples, but I mean no offense. This is all in the hopes of making my points as clear as they can be while emphasizing how serious I am about them. This is all in the name of debate. There is no tone that you should be reading, and if I didn't respect you I wouldn't take the time respond so thoroughly.

    Love,

    Zak


    If you have another angle, I'm happy to hear it. But none of the arguments you've put forward have convinced me. I just get disappointed when someone just throws in the towel. Yes, I'm passionate about this idea, but I'm willing to change if you can give me an argument which really speaks to me. Saying that we're chasing away casual gamers doesn't do that, especially when I don't agree with the assertion in the first place as to why we're scaring them off.


    • We can't let all guild members decide whether there will be war. Invariably, someone's wife would stand in the way of ever declaring open warfare.
    • That said, I'm fine with there being some sort of voting system, but it the actual decision needs to remain within the hands of leadership.
    • You could easily allow players to hold an honor-system in which unanimous or majority votes would be used, but we shouldn't be forcing that on the guild leadership. Run a guild and you'll know why. I have run a very small guild of about a dozen players who seemingly could never agree on anything. A dear friend of mine runs one of the more prestigious guilds on our WoW server and you should see the crap he deals with.
    • People will be drawn to those guilds that uphold their personal play style and I believe we have a responsibility to give them that freedom.
    • Yes, devastating things can happen with leadership. I've had guild leaders clean out the guild bank and/or kick everyone out for no reason. I've been kicked from guilds simply for not being online for a scheduled raid. It just happens. If that scares you, then get to know the guild leadership before you join. The important thing is that the designers of WoW didn't try to force fairness down the guild leader's throat, nor should they.
    • Insure your property like a responsible little landowner and very little of this would concern you. You'd wake up and find your land gone, but a nice $30,000 settlement in the mailbox. Depending on how good the insurance was, you might be able to set up shop just as nice as before someplace else.


    Evony, the free to play RTS, already has the very mechanic I'm discussing in place and it works pretty well. It's just that in Evony, land is all you have. Here, you have a practically invulnerable character.

    My problem with your argument is that we can either let people make intelligent decisions that work well for them and leave the possibility for more challenge-oriented players to experience rewarding high-risk environments, or just pull the ability away altogether out of preemptive fear of scaring away the casual gamer, thereby taking that freedom away from everyone right from the start. And you can easily cripple ambitious gameplay if you always say - with every decision made - that each individual aspect should be tailored to the casual gamer.


    • Why have levels? Casual gamers don't have time to level and it just makes the new casual gamers feel inadequate next to the maxed-out players.
    • Why have lands that can be lost? Casual gamers don't have time to defend it, making them feel inadequate.
    • Why have lands at all? Since we're not talking about land being a free right on joining (40 acres and a mule!), then it's a pretty safe assumption that casual gamers who only log in once a week or month will likely never attain the resources to own land, will feel inadequate, and will quit.
    • Why have difficult raids that require groups? Casual games don't have time to be involved enough for that level of strategy, making them feel inadequate and inspiring them to quit.
    • Why force people to learn skills to make the really killer gear? Casual gamers can't be bothered to invest that kind of time, making them feel inadequate next to those who have such gear, and inspiring them to quit.
    • Why have really powerful gear drops in dungeons? Casual gamers will never get it, as they don't have the time to invest in teaming up to defeat the dungeon, resulting in further inadequacy.
    • Why have vast zones? Casual gamers won't ever get out and explore it all, and will feel overwhelmed, like the land is just too big to see it all, so they'll quit.
    • Why have achievements? They'll just make casual gamers who don't have the time or skill to complete them feel inadequate and make them quit.
    • Why have PvP? Casual gamers will probably never be good enough to compete against more hardcore players, so it would just scare them off.
    • Why have an MMO? Casual gamers are already having plenty of fun with Angry Birds and Plants vs. Zombies, aren't they?


    You may think I'm going overboard here, but I can sincerely see any of these topics coming up if we want to start defending casual gameplay in any given area of development. As far as I'm concerned, the casual gamers are already defended in this case. They have have their land, they can make their own guild, or stick with a guild that isn't warmongering. They can also set up to automatically drop that guild in the event that war is declared.

    For what it's worth, I think we can safely assume that casual gamers will play with intelligence and will make the decisions that are right for them. I think if we remove or diminish bold ideas out of imagined fear, we're not even giving these casual gamers a chance to rise to the challenge. The least we could do is try it and see, and maybe change it if too many people didn't like it.

    Hell, maybe you're right. Maybe the majority of the gameplay world is inherently afraid of the games they play and the stress of potential loss (even if based on their own decisions) is so daunting that we should remove their ability to make these decisions altogether.

    Look, I realize this may be bad for business, but if you want to sway me from something I'm really passionate about, you HAVE to bring your A-Game. So far, I'm just not convinced that this problem isn't something that wouldn't be solved at the gamer level.

    Perhaps I'm just that out of touch.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,140
    I have my "all your base are belong to us" macro set up in anticipation.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    In space
    Posts
    5,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Toastage View Post
    I have my "all your base are belong to us" macro set up in anticipation.
    Aww, come on, Toby! Surely you have something more meaningful than that to add to the conversation. What are your thoughts on controlling/raiding lands?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,529
    Zak,

    I feel like you are misinterpreting my words, as I am sure you feel that your words are, and will continue to be misinterpreted. Such is the nature of this form of communication.

    I also want to make it clear that I hadn't realized that you had posted about this, either of the two times, when I finally posted. I was just responding to Lee.

    You wrote,
    “You can argue until nightfall that you can't model real-life in a game, but you can allow for real-world decisions to take place within the game. ”
    I am assuming that you were referring to my post here. Let me sate clearly, that I never had any doubt that anybody here didn't understand that a game must work differently than real life. I also understand, and agree, that there is room, and an importance, to allowing for real-world decisions to take place in a game. I was merely stating that we most take pains to weave those two ideas, into something that works well in a game.

    I know that we often rush to extremes in order to express our points, as we feel if we don't do that, our points will go missed in their subtleties. I do assume that you are also thinking in more subtle ways then you are expressing, however sense all I can see of your though process is what you post, I have to say I am uncomfortable in the extremes that you have expressed so far.

    It would seem you are saying that there is only the hard core gamer, and the casual. Your definition of what constitutes a casual gamer is much more sever than how I would define it. It would seem by what you are saying, that to not be a casual gamer, that you must play the game everyday.

    To me someone that plays every weekend for an extended time, is no casual gamer, they may not be a hard core gamer, but they are still committed to the game, and are clearly a big fan of it.

    So, I would ask you, must a gamer play every day to be deemed worthy of being factored in, with any consideration, for their ability to, realistically, partake in such big parts of the game?

    Is it how many hours a day that decides the players value to your consideration, or is it hours they put into it a week? What if they play for 14 to 20 hours over the weekend as and average? To me that sounds pretty hard core. I mean maybe somebody only works 4 days a week, but has no time for diversion in those four days. That leaves them with 3 days to play the game like crazy 80 percent of the time, if they are so inclined. Should they not be able to have fun with the war mechanic out of some lingering, emotional, principle that only the daily players deserve to partake in war?


    I feel like I understand more then I am sure you think I do about how you are thinking about this, Zak. You are passionate about it a concept that speaks to you. In truth it speaks to me too, but I also look very hard to the realistic implications to peoples real lives, and therefor seek to find ways of keeping the initial intent, that cool concept in it's basic form, intact as much as possible, while still opening the idea up so that more people can realistically enjoy and partake of it, even if it is at a greatly reduced level, which I agree that it not only needs to be, but also should be.

    Yes lets reward players that put in the most time and effort, but at the same time lets try and lessen the destructive burden to the player base with less time on their hands less they feel crushed by that burden.

    I feel you are always jumping to either we have this crazy hardcore, unyielding mentality, or we will just be stuck with a casual game, Zak. I don't want it to be a casual game that rewards everybody the same, and has no real depth. But there are middle grounds my friend.

    I feel that you are coming a cross as being set on these high principles, and closing your minds openness as for looking around to see if we can maintain what you like about the idea, while still opening it up for more people to enjoy. I mean if both sets of people can be happy with a compromise then isn't that what we should shoot for? Isn't that worth entertaining and even striving to figure out, rather then just saying, well we shouldn't even try to figure out something that might work for both, as the other players don't really deserve it? If someone said you could have your cake and eat it too, would you turn them down?

    Is your issue that you don't think it can be done in a way that works for everyone, or that you don't think is should be done in a way that works for everyone?

    It seems that you are afraid that any compromise here would result in complete collapse into casual game. It is, log on every few hours ruthlessness, or it is the Sims, or angry birds.


    I have spent a lot of time thinking of my own game ideas, and discussing them with friends, and one thing that I have learned, is that a compromise is not always a lesser idea. It is not always given up something that you wanted for something that both parties can live with. Sometimes I argue an idea that I think is great and someone tells me why it wouldn't work for them and then in trying to find a solution to that issue, I end up coming up with something that I realize was much better then my initial idea. The compromise has only strengthened the idea both for me and my friend, because it is simply more thought out.


    I have a lot of idea, and I am sure others will as well, as to what we could to make this work for everyone. All I ask is that we seriously entertain, and indeed seek out other ideas, before we fall in love with a concept and decide that is the only way to do it, and that any alterations to it would be sacrilegious.


    Note:

    Personally, I have no problem with someone that has not log in for a month, to simply lose all land. In fact I am in favor of the idea at the moment. I just bring that up to show you that I am not as severely on the other side as you might think I am Zak. I just don't think the game needs to go out of its way to become completely what I would call, obsession based game play, both because of its ethical concerns, as well as the depletion of fun in the name of realism.

    I am also for guild leaders to be able to kick players from their guild at a whim. In fact I was under the impression that this was already the standard way it worked.


    Another Note:

    Judge, for the love of all things 3dbuzz, keep counter pointing. Don't leave it all for me alone. You are in many ways expressing my own points in you post, and doing a good job of it. You would be doing know one any favors by not challenging their ideas. That is how groups help to improve an idea. It does not matter what they chose to do in the end, only that we have are say and give them the chance to think on our perspectives. But it goes both ways, they need to challenge our ideas as well, until we both have an understanding of each others ideas and counter points, and end with nothing left to be said.


    Note:

    I see now that Zak has posted yet again and nothing I have said above is in response to your latest post but I am just going to post now and I will read and deal with your new post later if I find reason to. This post is long enough as it is. It is ready to be entered in to the thread.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    38
    lol thanks Buzz and Zak (EDIT: and Wolf), I appreciate it, I guess I just didn't want to been seen as someone beating a dead horse, and it's not that ive thrown in the towel, I feel like I've expressed my opinions as best I can. Sometimes its hard to display evidence for an argument when based in theory. EG will casual players go for this or not? Frankly neither side can say yes or no. Certainly not without a lot more input from others. The only thing I can draw from is personal experience from numerous years of MMO playing, running guilds, etc.

    If I was to take a purely personal opinion that only concerned myself, I would say this is a fantastic idea.

    However, if I try to look at this with a more rounded point of view of the general player base that I have come to know over years, or if I was looking for the most financial return. I think this idea needs to be refined much more, so casual players don't always become the first casualty. Using Evony as you have mentioned above, which I played to great extent (and thankfully no longer). The first victims to fall in war are not the hardcore/decision makers/warmongers (who generally rarely fall), its the casual/easy targets that get obliterated first. And as such, either you are a serious player on Evony, or you tend to avoid the game. Also, the nature of guilds is they are not purely built on ambition alone but on the social aspects of the guild.

    It's not that I think every single thing should be designed with casual players as the focus, like the list you produced, but we can keep them in mind. I think we should develop mechanics, where regardless of how casual you are, all you need is time. Whether it takes you a year to do it, fine, it might take a hardcore player 2 weeks to do. Certainly as far as the very best rewards, like the best equipment etc, should be left for end game raiding, casual players understand that these days, and that is the sacrifice they make. But here, not only do they not have raiding, but if they want to be able to join friends in a hardcore guild, they have to in a way, give up real estate. So the question I put back to you, is what ARE we offering casual players, if now that is 2 major mechanics they potential miss out on.

    I know you say the player should choose a different guild. But using myself as an example (and I think this would translate to many different people, whether it be a neighbor, father, brother, school friend, cousin, son, etc, etc), if I was not in the 3DBuzz MMO class, and came to it as a totally new customer, and saw that my playstyle impacted on a wife/friend/neighbor/etc who played purely just to keep in touch, have a common interest, etc. I would pick another game. Where I could still do what I wanted, without impacting them. I don't think these types of customers/players, are at all uncommon, and because of this, I think its a large slice of the pie we are cutting ourselves out of, and this is just the very first mechanic.

    I think we should keep the mechanic, because I agree, we shouldn't stamp bold ideas into the ground, otherwise we will have a cookie cutter MMO. However I think the idea needs to be refined. So casual players who join a guild to play with friends, aren't the first (and sometimes the only) casualties.
    Last edited by Judge; 05-16-2011 at 10:26 PM.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    In space
    Posts
    5,428
    Wolfknightly -

    Your post seems like a lot of effort to basically say I'm thinking about this the wrong way, while offering no real meat on the subject matter itself. So that's interesting.

    Really, if there wasn't any open mindedness or outside-the-box thinking over here, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You've already seen on the videos and here that I'm ready and willing to shift my ideas around in the presence of a compelling counterpoint.

    Thus far, none has been presented. I still love you guys, really. But what I'm hearing is that you basically want it all - I want to be able to have land and have PvP, but my land should never be in danger, even if my guild is at war. I just don't agree.

    The rest of this is for anyone in general, but Judge, please read carefully -

    I'm talking about war. Not a pillow fight or a squabble. All. Out. Warfare. One group of people looking at another group of people and saying, "Hey, we're coming to take you down. Yes, you. All of you. And your land. And your sheep."

    But go back and read the entire list of stipulations I made regarding the matter and you'll see that the problems you're presenting will in all likelihood take care of themselves and need not be regulated at design time.

    For war to be engaged, there needs to be a declaration and an acceptance. Both parties need to say that they want each others' heads. Outside of that, it's just hostilities, which simply leaves opposite ends open to attack on their characters, not their lands. Think about the implications of that, with both parties knowing full well that they could lose their lands, their guild members could lose their lands, or that guild members against the idea could up and quit.

    But further, let's also assume that the greater portion of the game players will feel deeply attached to their real estate and will be terrified at the idea of losing their land. This is a safe assumption, agreed? Combine these two points and sprinkle some common sense on top of it; what does this mean for the game world?

    No, seriously. Stop and think about it. What does it really mean?

    It means that war will be a relative rarity. It means that people won't really want to engage in war that often because they'll either piss off and lose their guild members or they could end up simply losing the war and therefore their land. It means that right out of the box, war isn't the natural state.

    And it's not meant to be.

    My whole point is that you should avoid forcing rules down the players throats if it's not necessary. Yes, you may end up in a guild that decides to go to war, and you may not want to take part. But this war is a serious thing. If you don't support it, you really would be better off striking out on your own or finding the guild that's right for you.

    As for your friends being in the guild and them not wanting to be included (or vice versa, you not wanting to take part in a war involving your friend's guild) then remember that these are your friends. Drop the guild and ask your friend to get you back in when truce has been called. It happens all the time, and if you had a mechanic where land was this valuable, it's pretty easy to surmise that if your friend could get you in once, he'd get you in again.

    If you're worried about having some sort of negative effect on your family/friends/neighbors, then start up a guild particular to the purpose.

    I sincerely think that most folks will be attached to their land and not want to lose it, and the only exceptions will be the bored elder content devourers who can't think of anything else to do. Yes, it's possible that your guild leader could be deranged and may randomly declare war, but remember that it would have to be accepted by the other party for it to be an issue, and do you really want to be part of a guild led by such a person?

    Of course not.


    For me, this all boils down to the first point I made in my very first post. All of these problems will come out in the wash if we let them and do not require some hidden and unrealistic rule set.

    EDIT:

    As for the wife being upset about having to drop the guild, can anyone give me an example of how being in 2 different guilds must be preventative of being able to play together? It's never been that way in the games I've played, so a description would help.

    Further, I feel like I'm reading a lot of "This needs rethinking" and "I don't agree with this," but I listed off a very solid set of requirements and stipulations on how I think the system would work. If you don't agree, provide something similar. Show me what you mean rather than just wasting time with a lecture on open-mindedness. The discussion, the ideas, and the game will grow much more quickly. Thanks.
    Last edited by Zak; 05-17-2011 at 12:46 AM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    38
    I do understand what you are saying Zak, and I hope you are right.

    For me, there needs to be something in between "hostilities" aka ganking, and no holds barred. It needs to offer more than all or nothing.

    As a side note, will hostile be a setting for guilds? and if hostile is required for you to gank others in a guild, does that mean players outside of this can't gank each other in the game? eg players not in a guild. Will there be contested zones? How is PvP going to be handled outside of guild mechanics? I know that is a massive subject in itself, but my point is, if it is intended that there will be contested zones, factions, ganking, individual PvP flagging. It means there is nothing between normal play, and all out war, since everyone can already gank each other through the normal rule set.

    To me, there is room in the middle, for a hostile action. What if there was a "mid" setting for guild wars, where one guild can declare without approval from the other guild, where guild land can be attacked (but can't be captured), personal land is safe. And if guilds what to step it up to full on war, they are free to do so. Because if the only time you can be aggressive, is for both sides have to agree, you are right, wars might not happen very often at all. It seems unrealistic that the 2 states offered is peace, or all out war (unless you are not going to allow ganking outside of guilds), there is usually a lot of actions in real life that is used between these 2 states. Eg embargo's, demilitarized zones, sanctions, blockades, etc.

    EDIT: To address your question about how playing in 2 different guilds make a difference between my wife, it allows us to join in on the same conversations in guild, make the same friends, and it makes my life easier . I am sure the same would go for any 2 friends etc. Rarely do 2 friends start playing and then join different guilds. You are making guilds very goal orientated, but I would suggest the roots of guilds came about in MMO's more out of social necessity.

    In addition, from what I got from those RD Real Estate videos, unless it was discussed in the other videos, was it was intended to keep guild and personal land separate, unless I'm mistaken. So I made my contributions from there. Now that you have written down how guild PvP works, I would like to know specifically what guild hostility settings allow for what PvP rights.
    Last edited by Judge; 05-17-2011 at 03:43 AM.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,529
    Judge,

    It is only beating a dead horse if you are not adding any new points to the argument, or if the other person is uninterested in what you have to say. If you are out of points to make that is cool, but you can still stay open to coming up with new ones later. Someone my make a point that hasn't been made yet which may make you think of something else to say.


    Zak,

    First off let me start by saying, your disclaimer is also my disclaimer.

    I think your list of arguments, that start with, “Why have levels?”, has some merit to it, but it is also quite out of proportion to the issue that it is countering. Simply put, not all things are equal.

    It is true that you will never be able to please everybody, and I would go even further to say that you will also never completely please anyone, even your self. Such is life. It is not about it being all things to all people.

    I do not want to dumb the game down. I understand and agree why there needs to be reasons to put time into the game to achieve things. I would never suggest that someone that plays two hours a month or less should be just as likely to become king of the world as someone that plays all the time. That makes no sense at all, and for many reasons that need not be spelled out.

    Trust me, I have no intention of turning this into the Sims or whatever casual game you want to enter into the blank. Nothing I will suggest is with the intent of striping it down to a casual game.

    You have also added something into the idea that was not expressed during the round table, that have also helped to improve the system already, without destroying it. All I want to do is to discuss adding more such things to do more of the same. I am talking about the automatic drop from the warring guild. A nice touch, but I believe I have a better solution. I also like the idea of insurance, as you have pointed out. This is another great example of adding in things to improve the system without destroying it. I hope you will be open to more such ideas.


    I did not start with solutions, in part, because I think it is important to first speak as to what the issues are with what has been presented so far. Well I have done what I can to present the issues, along with what Judge has said, so that is really all that I can do. I know that you understand what we are each saying, but I don't think that it has hit you in a personal way. I think that your personal perspective has narrowed you vision a bit, as to what it would be like to be in someone else's shoes. I am also sure that what you are envisioning fit perfectly into you personally play style and therefore seems like a system that needs no alterations. As I have said before, I want to work to keep what you like most about it while allowing others to have some small taste of it. Just a taste, Zak! You can spare them a taste can't you?

    Anyway I can't make you see the merit of my argument, no matter how much I may want to. But at least you are aware of what it is at this point.


    One big issue is that you guys have yet to discuss how long it will take to destroy buildings and or crops, nor have you discussed how long that it will take to capture a territory. This is extremely important to have a sense of for this discussion we are having.

    Lets say you are thinking that it will take one hour to destroy a building. If the player is off line and then gets an email that they are being attacked, how long before they can start up there game and then travel to there land, not to mention gather a party to fight back. What if the fastest that they can get there will be after the invaders have killed or destroyed all of the guards and defenses of that land? If they are all dead or destroyed by the time you get there then they can't help you defend it and it will be just you against the invaders. If the fastest you can get there would still leave your property in ruin then you have a problem.


    Let us forget about the guilds for a moment, lets say that you are not in a guild but are a land owner. What is not clear, by what has been stated so far, is what player in their right mind would but their land in the high risk inviting everyone that likes to brake things to go to town on it? What could the crops yield to you if they were stolen each day from you?

    Are you envisioning a system where the player merely sits in there land and turns their risk up to high and waits, and then turns it make down to low when they log off? Or are you thinking that they will actually leave it on high risk when they log off? If the latter, then how will that land ever be there when they log back on? Even if they just sleep and then play the game all summer because they are kids, how will they make it through the night?


    Right now the system that you are describing doesn't even seem like it will appeal to the hardcore gamer. So will you give them time to log back in? That was why I brought up the idea of having to warn someone 24 hours before the attackers could start their attack, or a agreed upon earlier time. Right now there is no safety in playing everyday. You would have to literally stay at your computer all day and night for that system to work for you. That is not hard core, that is just poor design.

    Now I am sure you wouldn't leave it this way, but I am just working with what you have given me so far, and nobody brought up that it was and issue that would need to be worked out later. In fact everything that was discussed seemed to imply that everyone at the meeting was thinking of the system as if the player was always connected to the game. Saying things like “If a player doesn't want to stay in a guild that has just declared war then they can just leave it.” Why would you even assume that they would be on line, at home, or awake at the time? I was really surprised nobody mentioned that, with all the other minute details that the group would go into for most everything else. Maybe you guys thought it went without saying that something needed to be adjusted there at some point to account for the human realities of the situation. But Zak has been arguing that it could work fine as is, so I am working off that as well.


    Why does it have to be one size that needs to fit all? Either everybody needs to be hardcore or everything will be casual?


    Here are some of my ideas:

    Fist off I think that Judge was right about the loss of guild land being able to be a big enough hit on its own.

    You also have to decide what the benefits of having player owned land over that of guild land. Why would you want to have guild land over just a collection of player land?

    My suggestion is that there would be much better benefits to having guild land. Ideas for this would be, a greater yield from farms, as well as the ability to create better fortified structures, and improved guards and defenses. It could even give out more buffs or other benefits to the guild members. The more land you have the better the benefits. Maybe you level faster with more guild land. I don't know, there are many things you could do with it. Maybe players can't own or build their own towns, but guilds can. A good guild town could be filled with shops, altogether, so that you don't have to walk forever to reach someones far away isolated shop on the private land they own.

    Another idea is for there to be a limit on player own land, that is not their guild land. Why should one person be able to hoard all the land anyway?

    Another idea would be for a player to either be able to donate land to their guild, or at least connect it to the guild in a way that will make it help them and their guild in a greater way with the price of making it open for capture.

    Maybe you could just hold on to one main and small chuck of land that can not be attacked it is set to low and that scale, so you can lose without having to lose everything.


    Here is a different idea.

    Why not have there be degrees of guild membership? So that you have high risk and low for your membership.

    If you are low risk then you land is not in jeopardy when your guild goes to war, but you are also not able to enter into enemy territory and help them destroy and or capture that land.

    If you really wanted to, you could say that if the low risk guild member is not already in the guild territory when they are attacked they will not be able to enter into it to help defend.

    Maybe the low risk payers don't even get the rewards, for their guild owning more land, that the high risk members do.

    There are just SO many things that can be done, that do nothing to make it a causal game it isn't even funny.

    That way they can still be part of a guild that has their friends in it, but they also won't spoil anything for anyone else. How has this hurt anything? All it has done, as far as I can see, is made more people happy, without making less people happy.


    Another idea,

    Why not let the warring guilds agree on times of day, and even days that they can attack and capture land from each other? Can you imagine a world where you can play a video game, hold a job or go to school, AND sleep? As crazy as that sounds I think some people might actually like it.



    Now I just came up with those ideas on my own, as one man. Just think what we could do to work this out in a great way if we all put are heads together and looked for solutions before discounting other considerations out of principle for the thing. You may not see the need to fix it, but others do, and if it can be fixed without braking anything, then why not at least try and see if it can be done before moving on? Unless you just want to make the hardest core game you can think of, and only want to please those players.



    PS.

    Zak, I am still waiting for some sort of measurement of, roughly, how much hours a week one must but into one game, before they graduate from the lowly status of causal gamer. I only ask this because your notion of what constitutes a casual gamer is obviously vastly different from mine, and as such I have no means for understanding what the word means to you. It is kind of like when people say family values. It is meaningless without a common reference point. What family? The Manson family?


    Note:

    I see that you have posted more Zak,

    I like the threat of losing land Zak, I really, really, really do! I just want to be there for the chance of defending it. Do you know what I mean? I am not so afraid of losing my land as I am in not having the chance to be there to defend it. If I lose, or my guild loses then we lose. But I want to be involved.

    As I stated above I wanted to fist let you know what my issues were as a saw them, before getting into my thoughts for fixes.

    I am not saying that you are wrong, only that you are leaving a lot of people out of big features of your game. I feel like you are needlessly discounting them. I understand that from your view point what you are saying is awesome, and it is awesome, I get that, I just think it is flawed in it's current state without refinement.

    As for anything about open mindedness, it is only that you seem to not be interested in including the less hard core gamer into the fun. I don't know this is true but it reads that way to me. But I get your point about needing to hear ideas about how to fix it or it is all just conceptual. I had always intended to get to the ideas though, as I stated I would.

    Zak, let me just say for the record, I hold you in very high regard. I am very impressed by, what I would say is a brilliance in thought, and your ability to express yourself both in elegance of words and in clearness of meaning, and I know that you are very capable of both thinking outside the box, and having an open mind. If I didn't think you had an open mind I would not bother with all the time that I have put into this, which by the way is now considerable. But even the greatest of minds can still get narrowed in there vision. Perhaps this time it is you, and perhaps it is me.

    But I am really trying to look at it from your side as well as mine. I don't just care about my side. Both are very important to me. In fact you side is more important to me then that of my own. We are not here to make my game, we are here to make yours, and Jason's game. I am simple trying to help it be all that it can be, and include as many people as it can without degradation to the main vision. And so I will be your Jiminy Cricket, talking in your ear until you have had enough of me and or make your final decision.
    Last edited by Wolfknightly; 05-17-2011 at 01:36 PM.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Zak View Post
    Aww, come on, Toby! Surely you have something more meaningful than that to add to the conversation. What are your thoughts on controlling/raiding lands?
    haha sorry was just passing through

    I love the idea of controlling land and gaining resources etc from the land you own and other various mechanics that could come out of it. My only worry is whether the mechanics will be strong enough to pull people in because if there aren't enough people doing it, it'll flop pretty hard. Also I could see it turning in to a "see who's offline and go landgrabbing" type thing. I'd maybe suggest doing something similar at a larger faction level with cities and towns to see whether its something people gravitate towards and then look in to more micro management...if that makes sense.

    But I love the thought of building up your plot of land with resource gathering and defensive mechanics and having areas spawning higher concentrations of ore or wood etc. Sounds like a bit like a minecraft mmo

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfknightly View Post
    But I am really trying to look at it from your side as well as mine. I don't just care about my side. Both are very important to me. In fact you side is more important to me then that of my own. We are not here to make my game, we are here to make yours, and Jason's game. I am simple trying to help it be all that it can be, and include as many people as it can without degradation to the main vision. And so I will be your Jiminy Cricket, talking in your ear until you have had enough of me and or make your final decision.
    Yes, this sums up my thoughts as well. I take time to weigh my arguments from both points of view, and put forth my opinion as constructively as I can. If I was just interested in mechanics that suited only myself, id say, make it you can rob their houses too :P

    I am not saying you are just interested in mechanics that just suits you Zak, I trust you are bigger than that, so if you reject my advice, I am not hurt by it, and I accept the decision. This isn't a fight I am trying to win. I am here purely in the interest of making a great game with my pretty vast game experience in dozens of MMO's. I am a team player, and if what I say is rejected for reason, then that's fine.

    I know you have a much much better idea of how everything is going to fit together in the big picture, so I trust you in your decisions, and unfortunately, some of my feedback might suffer because I don't have access to what you have as a draft of how all PvP will work, so it's hard to comment on one aspect of it, and on face value, its was casual unfriendly. But since you have expanded on some of the points of how the mechanics work in the declarations etc. I see it isn't as unfriendly as I first thought, however, I think there is some tweaking that can be done, but again, I need to know more about individual world PvP, and how that fits into the proposed "hostile" guild setting I think you mentioned in an earlier post.
    Last edited by Judge; 05-17-2011 at 04:15 AM.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •