PDA

View Full Version : Destruction of your city?


SoCalDistortion
07-29-2010, 08:11 PM
It is my understanding that a player cannot be completely wiped out. I hope this is not the case as I rather enjoy the challenge of keeping my kingdom/empire together...The chance of being completely annihilated gives the game an edge. Kingdoms rise and fall in real life...why not have that mimicked in this game?

At the very least I hope the devs adopted a system similar to that of tribal wars---where you start anew in some far off land away from the person(s) who destroyed you?

I've searched the FAQ and see no concrete answers on this issue other than some resources can be plundered and some city buildings can be destroyed.

Gruber12
07-29-2010, 09:36 PM
Changing location should be a option for the player, having a new location everytime you lose a siege will make any form of a clan and diplomacy with other players useless

GPS51
07-29-2010, 09:46 PM
Well it has been stated that a player will not be destroyed completely but will simply rebuild after each siege. But not much more then this is known currently.

Khan kreiger
07-30-2010, 11:11 AM
Im glad you dont get completly destroyed, first time i played evony(Just like tribal wars) iv been playing till my security was up and as soon as it was everyone kept on attacking me and it was jsut no fun and i started a new one and the same thing happened, but now i have a newer one that hasnt been hit once and im booming, so i would like it if the creators keep it as this since there will be many players and clans that will be fighting

SoCalDistortion
07-31-2010, 09:57 AM
Am I the only one here that would like to see complete and total destruction as a feature?- Once you are wiped out and have no survivors that can effectively found a new city, you are done.

I would urge Reverie at some point make a hard-core last man standing mode. Once one faction or kingdom reins supreme, the game ends and that particular server starts anew.

For players who don't log in for 10 days, perhaps their city breaks out into revolt. If the revolt is not squashed, the city becomes a NPC controlled kingdom that can be attacked by other real players.

I have a lot of thoughts on this but I think readers of the forum get the gist.

GPS51
07-31-2010, 11:17 AM
It sounds like there is only going to be 1 server from what the devs have said. We have voiced a lot of ideas for a multiserver DOF world :) . Feel free to voice your opinion!

Henry Martin
07-31-2010, 11:33 AM
Am I the only one here that would like to see complete and total destruction as a feature?- Once you are wiped out and have no survivors that can effectively found a new city, you are done.

I would urge Reverie at some point make a hard-core last man standing mode. Once one faction or kingdom reins supreme, the game ends and that particular server starts anew.

For players who don't log in for 10 days, perhaps their city breaks out into revolt. If the revolt is not squashed, the city becomes a NPC controlled kingdom that can be attacked by other real players.

I have a lot of thoughts on this but I think readers of the forum get the gist.

Pretty much. What are talking about would require a lot of balancing and potential 'bullying' on servers that would turn away a lot of players. What you are suggesting is for the really hardcore market.

The second suggetion of a different mode that players who want to do that, could (this could work). But most people wont want to play what you mentioned as they would get tired of restarting there kingdom.

What you are suggesting for normal play is like playing any game and you are 20 hrs in then you get killed and you have to start the whole entire game over.

SoCalDistortion
07-31-2010, 12:16 PM
Pretty much. What are talking about would require a lot of balancing and potential 'bullying' on servers that would turn away a lot of players. What you are suggesting is for the really hardcore market.

The second suggetion of a different mode that players who want to do that, could (this could work). But most people wont want to play what you mentioned as they would get tired of restarting there kingdom.

What you are suggesting for normal play is like playing any game and you are 20 hrs in then you get killed and you have to start the whole entire game over.

To each his own.

Would be a nice to have a choice... hardcore vs carebear mode. Players could play both modes at the same time on different servers.

Just as you say that most people would not want to play what I mentioned, I could see people getting bored of a game that does not allow full take-over or destruction. Heck...Look at Tribal Wars. It is pretty hardcore for what it is and has a VERY large following.

Reverie- Please take a look at developing a hardcore mode for one of your servers. For me, it would make what looks to be a good game much more epic! :D

Darathor
07-31-2010, 12:48 PM
I think that it could work like the hardcore mode choice in Diablo 2. If you choose to be on hardcore, once your city is completely destroyed, you have to start over. Now you can have both of them on one server if Reverie wanted to. It would just be a choice. Now this might lead to some problems, but maybe not, at least if you couldn't tell if someone else chose hardcore or not. Otherwise people might decide to specifically prey on hardcore players and destroy their city while never being able to lose their own.

Geomancer
07-31-2010, 04:06 PM
Some interesting ideas, but from a company standpoint I'm not sure where this would go. You say that you want utter destruction as an option - I suspect that you expect to do more destroying and less being destroyed. That's fine, but if you're one of the destroyed and you don't like restarting, that's a lost player for the company.

I understand the desire to add "edge" by increasing failure penalties - I played Utopia for years, and Aegis for almost 2 years as well - but ultimately that will drive away a lot of interest. People talk about how awful WoW is for it's carebear approach, but it's blowing other MMOs out of the water and has had a longer run of high enrollment, as well. Fewer people want imminent death than want the ability to hold onto what they've created. From a corporate standpoint, carebear works - Blizzard makes the GDP of small nations on the (apparently correct) premise that more "carebear" sustains business better. Yes, that may be different if the idea of no monthly fees holds up, but thus far it seems to be the correct way of thought (e.g. Utopia's peak at 125k people or so, Tribal Wars' 225k or so, etc. vs WoW's 11 million). Remember that more people are willing to risk everything when the game is free; fewer people are willing to pay for a game that forces them to restart!

That said, from a hardcore standpoint, it doesn't. At this stage, DoF is such an unknown that it may not take off without some portion of the hardcore gaming population accepting it long enough to bring in casuals. The question becomes, how do you make it dangerous enough for the more hardcore gamers, but friendly enough not to drive off casuals? I suspect that permanent province death is not an option here.

The multiserver approach is the best to resolve this - a hardcore mode with province reset potential, and a more casual mode where a loss is an inconvenience but not a game-ruining experience for those that don't want to die. The only problem I see is maintaining an extra server adds cost for a game that has had some funding issues (iirc). <shrug> This may be a plan down the road.

If multiserver, however, then reset provinces must remain on the hardcore server. You shouldn't be able to have two provinces on the same server (competitive advantage of trade, perfect coordination, etc.). Sure, roommates and RL friends can get close, but in my experience it's just a bit unfair. Beyond that, though, by starting on the hardcore server, you implicitly accept "grave consequence" upon death. If, first time you die, you jump ship to the other server, you're basically saying "I wanted to be able to grief others, but having it done to me is no fun!" I'm ok with that if you drop the hardcore province and have one on the relaxed server, but it seems cheap to do it in a way that gets you two provinces on the same server.

Anyway, that's my first-pass set of thoughts. I don't really have a good understanding of what Reverie wants, but I think from a business standpoint, you have to err on the side of casual rather than hardcore. Having both available would be nice, though.

Cheers, all.

SoCalDistortion
07-31-2010, 07:03 PM
Some interesting ideas, but from a company standpoint I'm not sure where this would go. You say that you want utter destruction as an option - I suspect that you expect to do more destroying and less being destroyed. That's fine, but if you're one of the destroyed and you don't like restarting, that's a lost player for the company.

Actually, I consider myself an honor-gamer. I suspect that in this game I would be relatively passive until I found a suitable alliance that kinda takes on a protectorate role. I'm not the girefer type if this is what you were thinking. Like many, I would probably get squashed in a hardcore mode unless I was to rally some friends together and form a tight-knit alliance of like-minded people who know strategy.:)

I still would prefer Hardcore as I believe there would be a greater emphasis on alliances and communication. It can be argued that a Hardcore mode actually enhances Dawn of Fantasy's player community.

Geomancer
08-01-2010, 06:12 PM
Preface: I completely agree with the idea of having a server where players can be killed off, but I absolutely feel that IF there will only be one server, then the server can't have province deaths and still be a good business move for Reverie.

I make no claims of understanding your playstyle, but I believe that you aren't a griefer. ;) I do know that nice, reasonable people can drift into griefer mindsets when they've had a bad day, so when a game permits that kind of conduct, those kinds of people can tear apart a couple weaker provinces - I also know that griefers flock to games that allow them to grief others. If a small alliance decides they want to "go out in a blaze", they can tear apart dozens of provinces (this happened in Aegis a couple times while I was playing). I worry that we have a small community right now and that it may be harder to grow that community with province-death and reset as a common issue. I could be wrong, though.

If Reverie has the resources to support multiple servers, the obvious solution is to have province death on a small portion of those servers. I'd be interested in seeing how the populations vary. If it holds true to current WoW populations, it'll be about 30-35% in the more hardcore style, 65-70% on the no-player-death servers. I still think in a single-server approach, it's better to go with the no-player-death option, but if they opt for 2 servers, I agree that one should be player-death positive.

I think you're right about the greater alliances and communications aspect for the player-death positive approach, but again in my experience that can lead very quickly to a bully faction and victim province landscape.

Consider this anecdote - I had a friend who was pre-med in college at a school where the bottom 10% were guaranteed an F. After the first test, the people in the bottom 10% dropped the class. That meant the next group would get Fs...so they would drop the class too. After the second test, the class rank was more solid, so the next couple groups would drop. By the end of the semester, classes only had around 30-40% of their initial enrollment.

In a college setting, this <can> be economic - they pay for the class again in the spring. For a game, it isn't - those who drop just move on to something more rewarding for them. It might guarantee that the people who are left <really> love the game, but it won't help word-of-mouth advertisement, and it will probably hurt business significantly.

blackfang
08-02-2010, 01:38 AM
I love being able to build myself up, but one i buildt myself up then i love to just charge my enemies and kill them all off and take their villages. That would be awesome but a bit too hard i guess:( So my opinion to this would be a little bit of both or alot of one:)

Tamiel
08-02-2010, 04:40 PM
Personally i think that you should have a home city off in some magical place you cant attack where you can build up forces to then "migrate" to the main land founding a city but it has plenty of troops to defend and the challenge is keeping a foothold on the mainland.

But thats just my idea.

Josh Warner
08-05-2010, 04:02 PM
To each his own.

Would be a nice to have a choice... hardcore vs carebear mode. Players could play both modes at the same time on different servers.

Just as you say that most people would not want to play what I mentioned, I could see people getting bored of a game that does not allow full take-over or destruction. Heck...Look at Tribal Wars. It is pretty hardcore for what it is and has a VERY large following.

Reverie- Please take a look at developing a hardcore mode for one of your servers. For me, it would make what looks to be a good game much more epic! :D

There are better ways to provide high risk high reward than fragmenting our player base and taking the time to rework the entire game around permanent death, without that redesign permanent death would break the rest of the game the way it is designed. It would also make any and all DLC/microtransactions far far less valuable, why spend extra money if you can die and lose it all. From a business standpoint it's a very bad idea unless we have significantly more players come to the game than we expect because the effort and money invested would not be proportional to the interest. And from a player standpoint - there wouldn't be enough interest in this mode for it to reach a critical mass of players required to keep it alive.

As I mentioned in your other thread on the subject, there are other, better ways to add high Risk high Reward elements than permanent death. I strongly suggest you think about and suggest some realistic additions if you want that high risk/reward gameplay, permanent death just isn't feasible.


A guild controlled objective, that when owned makes your members/the objective open to attack from any guild. Attacking guilds would be able to capture the objective, be it a special city, a mine, a port whatever. Or a war method, lets say War declarations cost a flat one time sum and an additional daily, weekly or monthly upkeep and it allows you to attack whoever you want in the opposing guild as well as destroy buildings/take more resources etc. There's plenty of things to add to make it attractive for a hardcore crowd without totally alienating regular players, and using a gimmick that causes the playerbase to rapidly kill itself off.

And just for the record, I've played SB, Ladder D2, Darkfall and even some oldschool perma death MUDs plus many others. I know hardcore, and I love it, the game can have plenty of things a player like me would want without such a gimmick.