I was wondering after scanning through the forums, about the not being able to attack offline people. How does this effect people in the middle of attacking and they just log out or force shutdown.
Also I was wondering if you could just go around attacking or if both people have to agree upon it. If you can just go around attacking, is it possible to just go attack someone and to avoid retalliation just log off and every time they are ready to attack you again you just keep logging off.
I hate asking questions about things that are already probably already asked, either I'm tired/blind and can't see it or it's well hidden.
I think you get an option when attacked to fight the battle or not but if you choose not to you have to pay the player gold. And also if you log off in the middle of a fight it counts as a surrender and you have to pay the other person aswell
I had a concern that people would just log off to avoid having to fight as well - but I think an interesting mechanic could be put in here to avoid this type of thing... and to get rid of some cities established by players who either forget about them, stop playing, or are on some other kind of leave to where it'd be nearly impossible to conquer their territory since they're never online... we already have siege - but there several parts to a siege:
1) Setting up camp; getting troops ready, readying siege equipment, etc.
2) Waiting for an opportune time to strike (ie, passive siege/blockade of city while waiting)
If we cannot attack players who are offline, then why not have a passive siege (stage 2) that triggers an auto-surrender of the city after X number of hours/days, whatever. Kingdoms could actually be cleaned up this way if a person were to ever quit, take an extended break, etc.
And for those of us who go on vacations... there could be some sort of mode or whatever you could check on/off - for a set period of time only to prevent abuse from those not on vacation, exam week, whatever - if you are going to go on vacation so that your cities cannot be taken in the fashion described above. No one wants their kingdom conquered while you're downing margaritas in Cancun - or whatever you do/go on vacation. :P
Wuldor pretty much nailed it for you willy. My understanding is that all PvP is consensual, to a point. A dialog will come up, allowing you to accept or decline any attack, but declining will require a payment of tribute to the attacker. The payment will essentially scale with how difficult it would be to fend off that attack: A challenging opponent will require less tribute to pay off, while I weaker one will require more. This is basically an anti-harassment method, as players who vastly outgun you will not really gain anything from your declining to fight, and thus will have no incentive to repeatedly challenge weaker players.
Merku, based on how I understand the game to work, there's really no reason to prune the game of inactive cities as you're suggesting--there isn't a limited amount of land that everyone's vying for and if someone wasn't online, you'd really never know they were there at all. For all intents and purposes, a players' kingdom does not exist (to other players) unless you already know that it's there--we don't share borders on a giant grid like some games approach it. Instead, we all see a World Map on which only NPC cities and our own city (and perhaps the city of each friend and guildmate) is represented, and unless we specifically look for a player's city or engage in random matchmaking, we won't know someone else is there until we attack them. This keeps the map from becoming completely filled with player cities to the point that you can't even see it anymore.
If you look at screenshots of the current World Map, you'll see that displaying every player's city really just isn't a feasible goal for DoF, or any game that I can think of.
You sir know your stuff indeed :) well said.
Yes, I agree with Noel.
Consider the current model, minus the MMO aspect:
We have a relatively large game world with various campaigns (with various lengths), quests, etc... a great new spin on grand RTS. You have your neutral cities, AI enemies, and yourself. Divide, conquer, etc. BfME2 meets Total War. Certainly not bad.
Add basic multiplayer functionality:
Now we've expanded the possibilities of the above: we already have skirmish mode with 4-6 players (I understand this is still under debate). Great. Now, what of the larger-scale war mode such as the current MMO parts? Now we have a great LAN party. With the player world only so large, though, what kind of numbers per-map, and then maps-per server (assuming servers are region based and not map based) can we come to expect for maximum player interaction and server stability?
Add MMO component:
For a truly "Massive" multiplayer experience, I imagine at least several hundreds/several thousand players in a server. With the restrictions on the game map - let's say... for argument, a couple hundred players. By a typical MMO distinction, this seems like a pretty small amount per server. It might be the only manageable number, which is what I think your post was explaining, but it's still rather small.
I'm just guessing as to the player number per server, but I can't imagine - given the limited space in the game world, and without making things crowded - that the game will have that "massive" feel as far as the gaming population per server - but will instead come out more in the large-scale RTS side, ala Total War - just with multiplayer support. The 'massive' component then coming from the battles, strategy, etc. The traditional MMO mechanic of many people, then - would either be lost or, as your post explains, buried unless you know people - or however it is decided that you would interact with random MMO players.
If a dev could comment on the technical side of this, I think that would help. :P
I can certainly see your concern Merku. The MMORTS genre as a whole suffers from a dichotomy between having a truly seamless, persistent world and preventing everyone from crashing into one another in some cacophonous mess akin to a bag of Skittles on a summer sidewalk.
On the one hand, we have our seamless, persistent MMORTS world--the golden egg of studios like Reverie. Ideally, there would be one huge map that represented a grand world, with different regions, colorful scenery, and plenty of places to explore, expand, and exploit. There would be room for infinite amounts of player settlement and interaction--everyone would essentially be able to create their own little kingdom next to their friends' kingdoms, and everyone could build an army, exploring the uncharted wastes of Mythador. Everyone could be (and would be!) where they wanted to be and their kingdom would be the idyllic starting point for their auspicious new branch of their parent civilization.
The technical limitations, however, would be staggering.
To accommodate and coordinate so many players would be an impossible task. Not everyone could be near their friends or where they wanted to be, and imagine the sheer geographical expanses needed to house thousands of people on one server! To sate the expansionistic hunger of her children, mother earth would need HUGE... TRACTS OF LAND.
Then, on the other hand, we have the perfectly graceful and coordinated MMORTS world, where representational maps like the one in DoF work perfectly because there are really only a few player cities on the map at all anyway. We and our small microcosm of close companions and guildmates can shape the world as we see fit without it needing to be ridiculously huge--there's more than enough space for everyone here. We can adventure and plunder and grow and succeed, and everyone has a fair share of what's available. Even if my city is across the world from my best friend Jimmy's, it doesn't matter--this is our Mythador, and here, everyone wins!
But where is everyone else?
Here we've lost the essence of the MMO meta-genre in favor of basic LAN play. While we're all perfectly happy in our little corners, it turns out there's really no one else there. It's just us and our friends, and there's no challenge, no mystery, no intrigue. The world is exactly as we want it--so why are we even playing in the first place?
Sure, we can expand it to a couple hundred people like you said, but if DoF became as popular as WoW, there's just no way you and your best friends and your guild would ever populate the same server. The sampling size is simply too small. Even WoW uses the server approach--with more than 200 servers!--and even some of those are too full for players to join their friends on.
Dawn of Fantasy is doing the best with what the genre can offer, and then some. Someone will need to brainstorm a huge innovation before we see the marriage between a massive, seamless world and a smooth gameplay experience for everyone involved, but as it stands, DoF offers us a world where everyone can coexist on the same map without it being an ugly, melted ball of Skittles.
And I'm just fine with that.
And Noel & Henry, I'm flattered... And also glad to know I'm not completely off-base/misleading people lol. Just thought I'd make your jobs a little bit easier where possible.
|All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:52 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2001-2011 Reverie World Studios INC. All Rights Reserved.