PDA

View Full Version : Player *shared* cities and strongholds


Gongora
01-24-2011, 12:20 PM
Is there an ability to control a city or place with another player that you would both share and upgrade as a team/party effort.

Or if not can you give another player rights to run your city while your offline or lend your units to your friend while your offline to help him out?

Another question is maybe in the future would it be an idea to have an instance with 2 allied cities side by side (assuming there are not now) to increase your chances of growing stronger without being pounded back to square one?

Noel Bohac
01-24-2011, 01:29 PM
It is a great question to be honest, I am not sure if this is something the devs have thought about or are doing, but I definitly like the idea. At least in your own "alliance" you would be able to do something when your buddy isn't there.

Ofcourse there is one drawback, someone who isn't in an alliance or partnership, but then again being in an alliance should be something of an edge because you are working togather for a common goal. The only downfall here is , how do you control the option for backstabbing? Say your 'buddy' becomes your enemy. The current system (from my understanding) would allow a buddy to backstab you in the alliance without really kicking you badly because say he had control of your def while you where gone.

Always look at the pro's and con's, I still like the idea, just need a counter to the backstab issue and sadly I don't see it. Because in the end, if I can control your units while you are gone and want you out of the game. I can just order those units when attacked to sit in one place, charge your archers and leave your cav in the back etc. Purposly open your gate to your city etc..

Great in concept, but definitly need to look at both sides of the coin on it.

-Guardious

furanlost
01-24-2011, 01:54 PM
I'd have to agree with guardious. It is a great concept but execution will be difficult. Though it could be reserved as an option for people that trust one another. Sure that would limit the system down at first to basically friends/guild mates from other games, but as people build friendships in and out of game those numbers would improve.

Putkonen
01-24-2011, 02:45 PM
Is there an ability to control a city or place with another player that you would both share and upgrade as a team/party effort.

Or if not can you give another player rights to run your city while your offline or lend your units to your friend while your offline to help him out?

Another question is maybe in the future would it be an idea to have an instance with 2 allied cities side by side (assuming there are not now) to increase your chances of growing stronger without being pounded back to square one?

A thread has been already been forged out of this concept, atleast including some parts of it, also a lot of discussion has been gone through about this subject, if interested, you probably should check this out: http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2111

VanguardX
01-24-2011, 06:39 PM
Is there an ability to control a city or place with another player that you would both share and upgrade as a team/party effort...

This is a good question, and has sparked a question of my own.

What mechanism is in place to prevent a team from operating as a singular kingdom 24 hours per day?

Example: 2 people living in the same home (husband/wife), and both operating the same kingdom (sharing it). The wife plays the kingdom for 8 hours per day while the husband is at work, then when he gets home, the husband plays 8 hours. Thus granting this team a total play time of 16 hours per day of active game time.

How is a single player supposed to compete against something like that?

Account sharing could get really way out of hand for a game of this type. This is an MMO game after all, and naturally some people will do exactly this, or even worse, like a team of 5 sharing one account, for a full 24 hour/7 day per week kingdom building scheme.

After considering this, I would suggest some kind of limitation on how much resource, income, and production can be built through active game play. A time limit of some sort that a kingdom can operate as an online kingdom in regards to resource, income, production, and skill gains.

In other words- after a kingdom is played for (X) hours, all resource, income, production, and skill gains revert to an equal amount as if the kingdom were in offline gain mode.

Gongora
01-24-2011, 06:55 PM
To be honest this is very common, where one household will share an account or there are some people that will be on this game who do not work for whatever reason. Those people alone will have the upper hand, nothing really can be done about that unless there was some kind of lvl or progress limit for each day.

Another popular thing I have seen with this is many people own more than one good pc in their house, some with 2-3 PC's at one desk area. This could be used to run 2-3 accounts which all could be supporting one another, not sure if this is against the rules as they would own 3 accounts and pay for them.

Something to keep in mind!

Noel Bohac
01-24-2011, 07:44 PM
I get it, but no matter what someone could find a loop-hole. I think it will be up to the community to call foul on someone. For instances about the houshold having more then one comp. I know many people who live togather as roomates, maybe they all want to be on the same server on the same side. Makes sense right? So if you where to limit this , you would end up having people not want to get it because they can't join their friends etc etc.. The list goes on.

So in the end, when talking about exploits, I think it will be the community that puts people in their place. Now as far as exploits in the actual game engine IE finding a way to dupe gold or something. That should be monitored by the company and community, both helping each other respectivly.

My thoughts on it anyways,

-Guardious

billy341
01-31-2011, 07:06 AM
im sure there will be guild utilization, its an mmo afterall.

xarxez
01-31-2011, 08:07 AM
That would be awesome as I could imagine me and a friend cooperating against others..

Think of an orc player and a elf player.. the orcs go 100% offensive and elfs 100`% defensive so when I am offline both are defended but still he can use my army to take over teritory..

And if he would backstab me my army would automatically be sent back or something liek that? or maybe its like if he decideds to backstab me he cant attack me in a amount of time and that gives my units time to defend?

raulicio
01-31-2011, 08:29 AM
i'm sry, but this attitude is not right. There will always be players, playing like 10 hours a day all alone aka. hard core gamers, and the others with only a few hours gamplay a day. That nis online gaming. It's not totally fair, but that is it. You cannot limit one player to help another.
Account sharing is another thing, that you cannot control.
But there has to be a lot connection between players, it's a great thing when players work together to achive greater things. That's how things work in the real world and everywhere. For example 5 different players with differenc accs. they form an economical alliance, becaouse one has surplus in wood, the other in something else, etc. later they can make this alliance bigger and bigger, to form a strong kingdom. And of course u can be upset, because u simply cannot compete with them.
I mean that's the key essence of playing online...

LiTos456
01-31-2011, 10:17 AM
And of course u can be upset, because u simply cannot compete with them.

Yeah and then you make your own alliance and grow it and compete with them.
And there will be blood!

Raulaun
01-31-2011, 10:25 AM
And there will be blood!

Or there will be cake.

There are many obvious things that need to be dealt with, as the game is in beta. However, playtime limitations don't really matter, as someone who is online gets attacked more often, as opposed to someone who logs in an hour a day and manages his resources. Being online more has a bigger risk/reward factor.

master0p
01-31-2011, 11:47 AM
Or there will be cake.

There are many obvious things that need to be dealt with, as the game is in beta. However, playtime limitations don't really matter, as someone who is online gets attacked more often, as opposed to someone who logs in an hour a day and manages his resources. Being online more has a bigger risk/reward factor.

I agree.

I readed some posts about accounts that can be controlled by friends while your offline.
I dont think people need a "sitter" or someone who can control your account.
It would totally make things more imbalanced IMO.
1 account with people rouletting makes it active almost 24/hours.
Would be like travian... :S

I think everyone just should control theyre own account.
And ofcourse if you need aid , help or want to get stronger make friends and join guilds/alliances. Just like every other MMO's.

Dracus
01-31-2011, 03:45 PM
My real question about cities and strongholds is when you conquer the city of another player will you control the city and add it to your empire? or you can only control one city and you just raze the players city to the ground. In other words please tell me this game does not turn into a game where you have 29034923940239043 cities and the management is just ridiculous.

master0p
01-31-2011, 04:43 PM
My real question about cities and strongholds is when you conquer the city of another player will you control the city and add it to your empire? or you can only control one city and you just raze the players city to the ground. In other words please tell me this game does not turn into a game where you have 29034923940239043 cities and the management is just ridiculous.

if you attack a NPC city or a player city and you win the battle, you get resources depening on the cities wealth. But probably alot!
After that the city will return back to the owners.

I dont know if the city will be totally ruined and you have to build up from scratch or that you only need to repair...

But yeah i hate the idea of having so many cities.. but that isn't going to happen in this game.

Dracus
01-31-2011, 05:13 PM
if you attack a NPC city or a player city and you win the battle, you get resources depening on the cities wealth. But probably alot!
After that the city will return back to the owners.

I dont know if the city will be totally ruined and you have to build up from scratch or that you only need to repair...

But yeah i hate the idea of having so many cities.. but that isn't going to happen in this game.

Ok, It somewhat does answer my question, and I am definitely with you on having 1 city or few. With this said what penalties will there be for being defeated? and will there be any sort of fame or ranking determined with wins?

Vigilus
01-31-2011, 05:44 PM
Yeah and then you make your own alliance and grow it and compete with them.
And there will be blood!

It depends upon what people define as an alliance, and what perspective developers take on how to balance single player play with multiplayer play.
By alliance I assume you mean the standard mmo join guild/faction/group.

From personal experience, I would say most gamers like to succeed in both single player and multiplayer ventures, so this presents a series of trade offs between the two extremes of favored play.
Developers have to worry about the extremists because IF they find the most successful way of play IN their extreme niche(which is very difficult to playtest), than the herd will follow and soon you will have a broken online game on your hands.
Such things as being able to group in mmos have been experimented successfully with, as it increases the scale (usually) of what the encounter can be, and better justifies the expenditure of developer time and money on a project. WoW focuses more on single player play than many mmos, and hence seperating themselves from the pack by having the sheer financial backing of Vivendi to appeal to solitary gamers.
I feel for dawn of fantasy to succeed developers need to focus more on balancing the game for multiplayer than for single player, the importance of expanding the social interaction options is WHERE THE DEVELOPERS CAN LEAVE THEIR MARK IN THE GAMING WORLD, and still stay in their meager budget. :)
Also reinforcing positive social interaction in an experimental social system would be a way to attempt to create a positive culture surrounding the game play, which will then be able to further entice new players to the game.

food for thought :)

Potato21
01-31-2011, 06:23 PM
i'm sry, but this attitude is not right. There will always be players, playing like 10 hours a day all alone aka. hard core gamers, and the others with only a few hours gamplay a day. That nis online gaming. It's not totally fair, but that is it. You cannot limit one player to help another.
Account sharing is another thing, that you cannot control.
But there has to be a lot connection between players, it's a great thing when players work together to achive greater things. That's how things work in the real world and everywhere. For example 5 different players with differenc accs. they form an economical alliance, becaouse one has surplus in wood, the other in something else, etc. later they can make this alliance bigger and bigger, to form a strong kingdom. And of course u can be upset, because u simply cannot compete with them.
I mean that's the key essence of playing online...

Yeah, but really stopping these sorts of alliances would be hindering the potential of the game. There should be safeguards of some sorts to protect new players from a conglomerate of superpowers, but overall, if the game prevents super powers from forming, then there really isnt much of a point to the game being an MMORTS. I want to see huge superpowers form, only to be taken down by the next one!

Dracus
01-31-2011, 06:34 PM
Yeah, but really stopping these sorts of alliances would be hindering the potential of the game. There should be safeguards of some sorts to protect new players from a conglomerate of superpowers, but overall, if the game prevents super powers from forming, then there really isnt much of a point to the game being an MMORTS. I want to see huge superpowers form, only to be taken down by the next one!

I agree with potato here. Having too much protection is a bad thing. I do encourage a griefing nature of protection however I would like to see a game where super power can actually dominate a realm or server. If people do not like the super power then they should make another super power to destroy that one. Or maybe even an alliance of different guilds.

In other words it be nice to have a diplomacy of its own in each realm or server.

wiredpenguin
02-03-2011, 11:33 PM
I agree with potato here. Having too much protection is a bad thing. I do encourage a griefing nature of protection however I would like to see a game where super power can actually dominate a realm or server. If people do not like the super power then they should make another super power to destroy that one. Or maybe even an alliance of different guilds.

In other words it be nice to have a diplomacy of its own in each realm or server.

I agree with Potato and Draco here. I don't care for much "protection" in my online games (EVE taught me to do without them and she is a harsh mistress but you learn her lessons well or die...a lot). I think there should be some checks and balances but having the ability to form such overwhelming forces can lead to some very epic battles when opposing powers collide.

Noel Bohac
02-04-2011, 01:29 AM
Sense my last posting (I wasn't part of Reverie and we didn't have much information posted publicly like we do now. So what I can say is the following...

The underdogs (usually starting players or those decimated to pretty much oblivion ) will be safer from the huge vast armies that will roam the map. In time players will get to know the ways to identify such and see that village over there as "no threat" and an attack would do no good and there would be a good chance they couldn't be attacked to begin with. It will be more like..

"Ok, I see that new nation just starting there, hmm maybe I should see if he wants in the alliance?"

"Maybe I should do some inquires to my buddies and see if anyone knows him."

" Maybe I should send a tell and say "watch your step in my neck of the woods friend""

... and so much more

Alliances and having huge battles is what we are all about. It would be silly to limit the players abilities to form such. This comes down to (as many are starting to post) just like your standard MMO, looking at the aspects of pvp a bit more. When you try to take on a mission or keep (like in daoc (dark age of camelot for those that played it) ) you would call upon your alliance (an organized group of guilds ) to work together to take on the keep as you know this is the only way you can take one down effectively.

Now there are strike teams, infiltrators and spys that would head out prior usually to determine strenghts etc of the opposing force. Same thing here, you can have alliances and attempt to define what your best options are.

Will you send out a decoy to another target and throw the other forces off? Will you pay off someone not in the alliance but has a strong position to help you out? Maybe this person is all by themselves but after attempt after attempt you just couldn't un-lodge him or her. Would that be a good concept to pay them on the side in resources to help your cause? Would that person come back and tell others that you made this deal and back-stab you?

Ahh the list goes on and on, think the bigger picture. You might start out as a small fish in a large ocean but sooner or later you will have an effect on the world around you. Having a hard time getting a foothold? Maybe making peace with a neighbor might help? See what I am getting at. In DOF it's in the player's hands (where it should be) and that is why I joined the team. The game will be best combination of a persistent world , resources, rts etc etc ever to exists in our strategy genre.

As you noticed, I didn't say anything directly about this game's mechanics ATM because again I sadly can't. We would love to but as you know still working on the refining process of getting everything the best we can so things change from day to day. However the reference to daoc is pretty much hand in hand and this information (if you dig threw the forums ) is there to see.

However , what I did write here should give you guys some good insight into what you can expect,. the mechanics are there for a good persistent world to flourish, it will be up to the players to make it happen!



These are "my personal opinions" and in no way reflect those to Reverie World Studios, 505 games or any subsidiarity there in. (If I were a rich man, lada deda deda dum!)