View Full Version : Balance of "Player friendly" vrs "Risk vrs Reward"

01-23-2011, 10:08 AM
I'm sure most of you are familiar with those terms, if you've played a MMO before. Now, this game is unique in that its going to be a persistent RTS, and I think its a good idea to make players immune while offline etc... but I have a few nagging questions-

Obviously the devs don't want to make this game so dangerous to play that you could lose everything you worked for after months of playing, it would not be good for business, and would be very frustrating to new players, especially.

However, I don't think a game full of restrictions and protection mechanics (IE, carebearing it) will make it really seem like a fully immersive re-playable game. I personally want to see my enemy LOSE things they worked for, to see their empire crumble as I get stronger, or conversely, I want to fight for every inch of my own empire as some strong upstart tries to take what I made great for his own, even if it seems bleak and hopeless.

Now, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt.. it should almost always be harder for the attacker to take over player owned land than for a player to defend his own land ( except under certain circumstances). By making players immune- while offline is a great start. Also keeping a safe-zone (Ie a players homeland) immune to being overtly conquered, maybe only raided for a small amount of material items loss.

Expansion in an RTS is the biggest part, who can rule the most (the nice thing about this game being a persistant world is it won't be a zerg-race like most other RTS's). To create conflict for this expansion there needs to be a limited amount of resources, to create tensions between players as they strive for their own glory. Say, for example one player owns a very large amount of land, and has kept three other players from expanding their own realms. One of the players decide to offer a temporary military alliance, to take down the large player with their concerted efforts. The large player is now under increased pressure from all three players working in unison, and must has to bring back a significant amount of his empire. He still owns his home country, and maybe even the land closer to it- but the balance of power is now more balanced, and perhaps all four players will start fighting eachother to expand.

That is just an example, but I think its very possible... Something like "territory staging" would be an awesome idea.. What I mean by that is, say you're homeland is "Stage 0" completely unconquerable, can only be raided and to minimal damage to your land. The next few fiefs next to you are "stage 1" which cannot be attacked easily, except with the enemy having overwhelming numbers, or through long drawn out siege battles, perhaps making it no longer profitable to hold this land. "Stage 2" as something as the outskirts of a kingdom, perhaps with strong fortresses or forts, but with weak country side that is easily pillaged and taken plot by plot.. "stage 3"as something of a vassal state that may not even be strongly associated with your empire, and may not hold up to any prolonged enemy threat...

Obviously these are just examples that would need to be greatly refined and probably would never be able to be implemented, I just write about it to make my point that there is a way to make the game a balanced world where everyone can feel significant, and make a difference on the server (whether for chaos, or order :D) and some players can rise above and feel superior, while having to fight all the harder for that.

If you read all of this, I congratulate you on your endurance, sorry for wall of text. :)

01-24-2011, 11:14 PM
In my opinion this is always a tough thing to decide, It would be harsh to lose everything you have been working on very quickly and see it all go to someone else. But at the same time it adds a thrill to the game that would be hard to replicate in other ways, always knowing that you could be utterly defeated makes you try harder to not lose and fight your way to the top.

To be honest, both choices fit different types of people so its hard to pick something that will suit everyone all the time.

01-24-2011, 11:23 PM
I would definitely like the idea of "staging" or whatever you want to call it to be implemented. Maybe not in this game as released, but in a future expansion perhaps, so that only those that want to play with more risk but a bit more "realism" for an rts, allowing you to expand and conquer like in all other rts games, would play it, and those who don't want to risk losing as much don't need to purchase the expansion/dlc. I agree though, something like this shouldn't be forced on people, and I don't think this would create a problematic fragmentation within the community...especially not for a mmorts.

01-25-2011, 03:15 PM
I like the idea, though it'll take quite a bit of programming to do. Definitely well thought out though, I can see this as a possible expansion. I do want to point out that you probably will basically risk more and more as you grow - what I mean is, as a newbie you won't be as prone to attacks, and as you grow in size and power you'll eventually get to the point where getting in a war with someone could be crucial and end in disaster. So, in other words, with big cities come big responbilities - and big risks. Don't quote me on that just yet though.