PDA

View Full Version : End-Game


matthewdelello
08-17-2011, 09:01 AM
If I am to assume correctly, sieging computer towns in MP will only yield resources and no change of land exists.

If this is the case, what is the end game?

After a few days of trading resources, moving resources around -- I just flat out don't need more resources for my one village. What's the purpose of the sieging endgame if it only yields more resources for your one village?

This post is only about sieging computers, not players. Thanks.

Please correct where necessary,

Best,
MD

Alex Walz
08-17-2011, 12:16 PM
For starters, the game has been significantly sped up for the beta to compensate for the server resets, so building a town will take much longer.

And then the end game comes in completing the campaign and any available side quests, teaming up and forming a guild that can compete with other guilds for dominance, and the achievement system - and of course, kicking some ass. :cool:

Rudedawg
08-21-2011, 03:45 PM
I have played other games like this and left shortly thereafter specifically because of no "end game".

Without destructible assets that have a significant impact on game play there is no reason to play for longer than a month or two.

And as game dev's if you tihnk otherwise you are sadly mistaken.

imo what is needed is a mechanism in place where you / your guild / your alliance can conquor the known world - this is what would draw players.

I had mentioned in another thread is that I'm not even sure if I was offline for a day if I would want to come back to my city gone.

So what it takes is some creative out of the box thinking, like:

If your city is taken over / razed while you are offline you retain 75% of your resources / build time / units and you can rebuild - with significantly less build times in a new location.

This may not be the solution - but as stated the problem requires out of the box thinking.

If this is going to be another carebear - nothing I do really matters kind of game - I won't be playing it.

Bladestorm99
08-21-2011, 06:28 PM
No need to be picky, its still a beta, but you do raise a point, there is a need to have this destructible world, where you can conquer and destroy enemy players town, capture the ork kingdom, this could be done with temporary online season campaigns, each season had its own objectives and achievements. And so fort.

But give them some slack, they deserve it, they did hand us a great beta for us to playtest, and im loving it ^^

andreicde
08-21-2011, 06:56 PM
I disagree with the destruction of enemy players towns.this is too brutal for some players.what if a player spends money to build a nice city and he has to go for a few days?he comes back and his hundred dollars are gone because a jerk decided to destroy him. They should make different types of servers for hardscore players and the rest. Just because you dont mind having your city destroyed doesn't mean others won't. Plus people are rushing when they are talking about end game. They keep forgetting this isn't gonna take a few days only.

Yes we should have a system where guilds could control big castles and get bonuses in pvp or just in general. Say a guild that controls a big castle can collect the money from the other NPC towns if people trade there but can also use them to improve the big cities in case someone decides to take it. For example they pay a certain amount of gold and they can improve the levels of the existing guards or they add a few extra troops in that castle.The options are endless.

Another thing I would suggest would be a special land on the world map where players could attack each other at will and where for every fight won you can get say some chests which contain resources,items for the hero and other stuff.

Lunks
08-21-2011, 07:59 PM
There needs to be an end-game and that is a valid question. I have yet to see an answer, unless guild-based achievements and completing the storyline while in multiplayer mode is the end-game.

So what is the point of fighting if you have nothing to lose and little to gain. Is this truly MMORTS or RTS with chat feature, matchmaking/coop and social interface.

End-Game as an afterthought rarely turns out well.

Enlightener
08-23-2011, 01:15 PM
Destroyable towns would be a great feature that would ultimately separate (even more ) DoF from a regular RTS

But that would also be a great risk.
For starters, the game will support micro-transactions ( i'm assuming it will ) and as it was mentioned , no one likes to see their money and time literaly gone to ashes.

On the other hand , without a way to siege/loot other player's towns, the game will quickly become very dull .

That being said i dont think the devs should discard the option to add this game feature .

Idea : Make players able to attack each other , this is the ultimate and most efective way to turn the game into a real MMORTS!!

After a town is attacked , the attacker should get a decent amount of resources but not all the resources that exist in town . ( Example: 75 % of a town's resources . Even if the army has enough space to carry more than that .)To help defenders protect their resources , there should be a building to hide a small amount of resources , much like a text browser RTS game has.

Buildings and walls can be damaged by attacking units , but will never be destroyed, instead they will become inactive and the defending player will need to repair the building for a small cost . Id say like 15% the initial cost .

For units i dont see how can they be " Revived " after a battle . They will simply die and players will have to train them again ( normal price ) . There can be, however, a building that can garrison troops like a bunker, but ofcourse they wont be able to defend the city from invadors.


The idea is to try to reach a win-win situation . The attacker must get a good reward from attacks , on the other hand , the defender shouldnt be so serious afected to the point he ends up with nothing.

As for offline play , i have no idea ... pherhaps some sort of bonus for the defending troops

Temudjin
08-24-2011, 12:14 PM
Honestly i actually assumed that towns could get destroyed or at least severely raided. This was the reason i applied for the Open Beta.

I am somewhat disappointed now because i really was looking forward to see some kind of crossover between Age of Empires and Travian.

crazyb0b
08-25-2011, 12:41 PM
One thing I would love to see be put into the game is a Diplomacy type sphere of play (think Illyriad). With it you can increase standings with certain cities that would lower costs/increase the units you can gain/access to "special shops". Be able send spies out and do espionage on other players checking their resources/standing army/defenses/etc. Send assassins out to eliminate opposing hero before battle. You could also use your diplomacy for countering the spies/thieves/assassins that would be sent to your town.

The possibilities are endless.

Konstantin Fomenko
08-25-2011, 01:01 PM
There is joke around the office.

"Question: Ok guys - so on our forums few people want to be able to capture other player towns - there is no time to work this in - what do we do?"
"Answer: Easy - when player creates a town - there is a check mark - 'Do you want to be able to capture player towns?' - if the player says say - we let him play for 20 hours, and on his next login - his town is gone - and there is a big message 'your town been owned by another player, please start again' , that should make them happy!"

All of us want to be able to capture towns - but nobody wants to have their town captured:) Not in a game where you spend weeks building up.

Konstantin Fomenko
08-25-2011, 01:04 PM
As for others suggestions and questions - as is Dawn of Fantasy will be released without and end game, but during the first couple of months after release there will be plenty of end-game content added Guilds, Guild Battles, Guild town ownership e.t.c In addition all the new quests, naval combat, magic system, ability to hold more homelands - all will add to the end game experience.

andreicde
08-25-2011, 03:46 PM
There is joke around the office.

"Question: Ok guys - so on our forums few people want to be able to capture other player towns - there is no time to work this in - what do we do?"
"Answer: Easy - when player creates a town - there is a check mark - 'Do you want to be able to capture player towns?' - if the player says say - we let him play for 20 hours, and on his next login - his town is gone - and there is a big message 'your town been owned by another player, please start again' , that should make them happy!"

All of us want to be able to capture towns - but nobody wants to have their town captured:) Not in a game where you spend weeks building up.

Lol you should totally do that!. On the other hand I kinda am against forced attacks.The reason why I hate travian is that money players can basically destroy the others with constant attacks and by using a bot.While this game doesn't have those features,it would kinda lame to have my city which I spent crazy hours to make it amazing to get destroyed by some ******* who likes to attack players and then laugh when the other players can't do anything against him or against his guild. Besides this is an actual game not just some pictures like in travian. Seeing your city destroyed, even half of it kinda gets your morale down specially when you invested money in it.I say we just add that feature on a hardscore server. It solves the problem.

Lunks
08-25-2011, 06:53 PM
As for others suggestions and questions - as is Dawn of Fantasy will be released without and end game, but during the first couple of months after release there will be plenty of end-game content added Guilds, Guild Battles, Guild town ownership e.t.c In addition all the new quests, naval combat, magic system, ability to hold more homelands - all will add to the end game experience.

I understand the conflict with wanting to take a village but not lose one, but could you elaborate on the ability to hold more homelands?

What will be the perks? I think goals for any guild or faction with the ability to 'Rank' or 'Prove' themselves would be sufficient for the request for Open World PvP.

I'm involved in a small to medium size gaming community (3-4k subscribers) who often times tries out games and gather up members in our community to form a faction. We discuss this as we enjoy game play and would like to find a better MMORTS than SHK.

Thanks again for the info and any elaborations on the ability to hold more homelands (or as many people call it open world pvp, endgame, etc).

Lunks

Shadanwolf
08-28-2011, 01:05 PM
Might I suggest devs look(if you haven't already) at Dark Age of Camelot. In that world there are three factions......and areas of realm vs realm conflict(for keeps and towers,realm relics)....and there are real vs realm conflict free areas. There is not personal property destruction.....just fighting and dieing in small and large numbers in a persistent 24/7 world.

The end game.....the constant back and forth struggle to control and dominate the rvr territory. The game has been going for about 10 years.There may be some good end game ideas there.

andreicde
08-30-2011, 04:52 PM
Might I suggest devs look(if you haven't already) at Dark Age of Camelot. In that world there are three factions......and areas of realm vs realm conflict(for keeps and towers,realm relics)....and there are real vs realm conflict free areas. There is not personal property destruction.....just fighting and dieing in small and large numbers in a persistent 24/7 world.

The end game.....the constant back and forth struggle to control and dominate the rvr territory. The game has been going for about 10 years.There may be some good end game ideas there.

It's actually harder to implant that thing in something like Dof.Although I would be glad if they make pvp areas where keeping relics and stuff would grants bonuses to the winning faction.Since they plan to implant a hero customization I bet they could grants bonuses and gifts to the faction that controls the area.There is a system I suggest which I saw in a browser game but I'm not sure if it would work here. Basically if you can control say an area , the faction can add units of their own in that zone to patrol it and in the castles to defend against opponents.

Shadanwolf
08-30-2011, 06:07 PM
There has to be a strong reason to pvp fight. Just picking on your neighbor is weak.FALLEN EARTH suffers from the same lack of direction....pointless pvp.

Brian Shingles
08-30-2011, 06:52 PM
There has to be a strong reason to pvp fight. Just picking on your neighbor is weak

There is a fair amount of pvp as part of the quest storylines and winning pvp battles gets you rewards such as Gold and Influence, so that should give people reason enough to engage in pvp battles.

Also, some people just want to watch the world burn, so even if you don't attack your neighbours, you'll still have to defend yourself in pvp at some point.

Septimius Severus
09-02-2011, 03:04 PM
I agree that so far the endgame does not look very exciting.
I also agree that having your hometown razed to the ground will cause many people to rage quit.

A solution could be to add some NPC "hometowns" that players can conquer and add to their empire.
Every time one of these cities is successfully sieged it changes hands.
This way players and guilds can enjoy forging empires consisting of many cities, without having to risk losing the home city they invested so much time into.

Just a thought.

Shadanwolf
09-02-2011, 03:19 PM
The answer.....THE FRONTIER...a large place where guilds or factions can build towns......and fight over them and loose them etc etc. its not you personal city...its a place you can choose to invest in and help build and defend....and destroy... if it there other groups town you wish to attack. Put resources there that reward occupation. Perhaps settlements there throw off gold for this or that guild.Problem solved.

Madir
09-04-2011, 01:05 AM
Also, some people just want to watch the world burn, so even if you don't attack your neighbours, you'll still have to defend yourself in pvp at some point.

What you loose if don't defend yourself, e.g. if you are offline for a week?

King dreaganor
09-05-2011, 11:56 AM
this problem can be fixed easely :D (and sorry for my bad english grammer :P)
it only need a little change on the map.
if you make a specifik land on the map where players can attack each other and conquer each other cities than evrybody will be happy you wil keep your home town that will be save from attacks and you can still attack each other.
you can make a story about this that king of the human, elfs and orcs don't want it that the inhibitants of there lands attack each other cities but that there is a holy land that can be reache by ships that need to be conquered for a special reason you can imagine your self.
than you can have guild wars and al that stuff.
and evrybody will be happy because your home town is save and you still can conquer a whole land :D