This game won't appeal to me.

[Konstantin Fomenko]

I can`t think of a single MMORPG out-there in which your character can die while your away. The concept just doesn`t make sense to me. But if someone really insists, perhaps they`d be able to file a petition online and have one of world moderators destroy their town while they sleep.

[Darvin]

I think there needs to be a fair balance between the two views. A world where your character or kingdom can be killed or destroyed permeanently while you're away simply wouldn't be fun. On the other hand, I do feel that the player and his assets shouldn't be in a complete stasis for the duration. There needs to be a consistant interaction with the world, things always changing and developing.

I feel that MMO's really need to deal with this issue to move forward and produce a dynamic world that still flows while you're away, without being unfair.

[The Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by Darvin

I think there needs to be a fair balance between the two views. A world where your character or kingdom can be killed or destroyed permeanently while you're away simply wouldn't be fun. On the other hand, I do feel that the player and his assets shouldn't be in a complete stasis for the duration. There needs to be a consistant interaction with the world, things always changing and developing.

I feel that MMO's really need to deal with this issue to move forward and produce a dynamic world that still flows while you're away, without being unfair.

Good point. That way you feel defeat but are still alive.

[Ryan Zelazny]

Originally Posted by Darvin

I think there needs to be a fair balance between the two views. A world where your character or kingdom can be killed or destroyed permeanently while you're away simply wouldn't be fun. On the other hand, I do feel that the player and his assets shouldn't be in a complete stasis for the duration. There needs to be a consistant interaction with the world, things always changing and developing.

I feel that MMO's really need to deal with this issue to move forward and produce a dynamic world that still flows while you're away, without being unfair.

A problem with creating a game that penilizes you for not being online is the fact that you have to encourage people to log off. If you've ever played WoW or GuildWars, they actually tell you to log off and take a break after about 2 hours.

MMO play can be quite addicting, and so you have to give people advantages for logging off, if it be higher healing rates, or extra experience depending on how long they've been logged off. Not sure if this is a moral concern by developers, or an actual requirement, but it's something we are looking into.

[Darvin]

When did I say there should be penalties for logging off? I merely said the world should continue to interact with the player. Believe me when I say I know the problem with games where you have to stay logged on to be successful. I was recently play-testing a multiplayer web-game that was in a sense a MMO. It turned out that wars were won by the aggressor 100% of the time, because first strike was always decisive.

Anyways, I think the "real" MMO that captures an immersive world perfectly without impacting those who are logged off is possible. It's just a matter of figuring out how to do it right.

[The Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by Darvin

When did I say there should be penalties for logging off? I merely said the world should continue to interact with the player. Believe me when I say I know the problem with games where you have to stay logged on to be successful. I was recently play-testing a multiplayer web-game that was in a sense a MMO. It turned out that wars were won by the aggressor 100% of the time, because first strike was always decisive.

Anyways, I think the "real" MMO that captures an immersive world perfectly without impacting those who are logged off is possible. It's just a matter of figuring out how to do it right.

Yeah agreed. I see nothing wrong with video game addictions.

[Darvin]

Well, I do think he's right in that the game shouldn't make people feel like they have to come back to it, even at the cost of their own personal lives. An addiction at that level is dangerous, or at very least unhealthy.

[The Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by Darvin

Well, I do think he's right in that the game shouldn't make people feel like they have to come back to it, even at the cost of their own personal lives. An addiction at that level is dangerous, or at very least unhealthy.

Are you guys saying then that my stuff could be destroyed while I'm away or something? And Darvin, I didn't mean that addicted. Lol.

[WhiteHawk]

Well, there is a game that has a system that works like this, according to their website:

"The World
Strategically, a given world is divided into a 200 x 150 grid map. Each grid represents a single province (assuming it’s land).

Provinces that are not surrounded by friendly territory can become contested at a rate of up to 25% of the player’s total territory per day. For example, if a player’s territory is a single long line of 9 territories, then any 2 of them can become contested per day. However, if that same player’s society is shaped in a 3 x 3 grid, the center most province cannot become contested because it is surrounded by friendly territories.

Moreover, players can also join up with other players to form empires. Territories controlled by someone in the same empire are counted as friendly territories.

If someone attacks one of your provinces while you are not on-line, someone from your empire can take control of your forces (players can also set which members of the empire have this privilege or can set a certain imperial points threshold) to defend your province. If they are successful, they can win imperial points which help them gain standing in the empire and provide other bonuses. If no one is available to defend your society while you’re off-line, the computer AI will be quite effective at doing it.

Border provinces can be fortified with expeditionary forces and defensive structures so that they are more defensible during the player’s absence."

I will not say what game this is because I am not sure if I am allowed, since it could be considered advertising.

[The Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by WhiteHawk

Well, there is a game that has a system that works like this, according to their website:

"The World
Strategically, a given world is divided into a 200 x 150 grid map. Each grid represents a single province (assuming it’s land).

Provinces that are not surrounded by friendly territory can become contested at a rate of up to 25% of the player’s total territory per day. For example, if a player’s territory is a single long line of 9 territories, then any 2 of them can become contested per day. However, if that same player’s society is shaped in a 3 x 3 grid, the center most province cannot become contested because it is surrounded by friendly territories.

Moreover, players can also join up with other players to form empires. Territories controlled by someone in the same empire are counted as friendly territories.

If someone attacks one of your provinces while you are not on-line, someone from your empire can take control of your forces (players can also set which members of the empire have this privilege or can set a certain imperial points threshold) to defend your province. If they are successful, they can win imperial points which help them gain standing in the empire and provide other bonuses. If no one is available to defend your society while you’re off-line, the computer AI will be quite effective at doing it.

Border provinces can be fortified with expeditionary forces and defensive structures so that they are more defensible during the player’s absence."

I will not say what game this is because I am not sure if I am allowed, since it could be considered advertising.

I like the whole empire forming thing. I still think it is unfair though because what if all your mates are noobs? Then you would be screwed.