Destruction of your city?

[GPS51]

Well it has been stated that a player will not be destroyed completely but will simply rebuild after each siege. But not much more then this is known currently.

[Khan kreiger]

Im glad you dont get completly destroyed, first time i played evony(Just like tribal wars) iv been playing till my security was up and as soon as it was everyone kept on attacking me and it was jsut no fun and i started a new one and the same thing happened, but now i have a newer one that hasnt been hit once and im booming, so i would like it if the creators keep it as this since there will be many players and clans that will be fighting

[SoCalDistortion]

Am I the only one here that would like to see complete and total destruction as a feature?- Once you are wiped out and have no survivors that can effectively found a new city, you are done.

I would urge Reverie at some point make a hard-core last man standing mode. Once one faction or kingdom reins supreme, the game ends and that particular server starts anew.

For players who don't log in for 10 days, perhaps their city breaks out into revolt. If the revolt is not squashed, the city becomes a NPC controlled kingdom that can be attacked by other real players.

I have a lot of thoughts on this but I think readers of the forum get the gist.

[GPS51]

It sounds like there is only going to be 1 server from what the devs have said. We have voiced a lot of ideas for a multiserver DOF world . Feel free to voice your opinion!

[u_have_krabs]

Originally Posted by SoCalDistortion

Am I the only one here that would like to see complete and total destruction as a feature?- Once you are wiped out and have no survivors that can effectively found a new city, you are done.

I would urge Reverie at some point make a hard-core last man standing mode. Once one faction or kingdom reins supreme, the game ends and that particular server starts anew.

For players who don't log in for 10 days, perhaps their city breaks out into revolt. If the revolt is not squashed, the city becomes a NPC controlled kingdom that can be attacked by other real players.

I have a lot of thoughts on this but I think readers of the forum get the gist.

Pretty much. What are talking about would require a lot of balancing and potential 'bullying' on servers that would turn away a lot of players. What you are suggesting is for the really hardcore market.

The second suggetion of a different mode that players who want to do that, could (this could work). But most people wont want to play what you mentioned as they would get tired of restarting there kingdom.

What you are suggesting for normal play is like playing any game and you are 20 hrs in then you get killed and you have to start the whole entire game over.

[SoCalDistortion]

Originally Posted by u_have_krabs

Pretty much. What are talking about would require a lot of balancing and potential 'bullying' on servers that would turn away a lot of players. What you are suggesting is for the really hardcore market.

The second suggetion of a different mode that players who want to do that, could (this could work). But most people wont want to play what you mentioned as they would get tired of restarting there kingdom.

What you are suggesting for normal play is like playing any game and you are 20 hrs in then you get killed and you have to start the whole entire game over.

To each his own.

Would be a nice to have a choice... hardcore vs carebear mode. Players could play both modes at the same time on different servers.

Just as you say that most people would not want to play what I mentioned, I could see people getting bored of a game that does not allow full take-over or destruction. Heck...Look at Tribal Wars. It is pretty hardcore for what it is and has a VERY large following.

Reverie- Please take a look at developing a hardcore mode for one of your servers. For me, it would make what looks to be a good game much more epic!

[Darathor]

I think that it could work like the hardcore mode choice in Diablo 2. If you choose to be on hardcore, once your city is completely destroyed, you have to start over. Now you can have both of them on one server if Reverie wanted to. It would just be a choice. Now this might lead to some problems, but maybe not, at least if you couldn't tell if someone else chose hardcore or not. Otherwise people might decide to specifically prey on hardcore players and destroy their city while never being able to lose their own.

[Geomancer]

Some interesting ideas, but from a company standpoint I'm not sure where this would go. You say that you want utter destruction as an option - I suspect that you expect to do more destroying and less being destroyed. That's fine, but if you're one of the destroyed and you don't like restarting, that's a lost player for the company.

I understand the desire to add "edge" by increasing failure penalties - I played Utopia for years, and Aegis for almost 2 years as well - but ultimately that will drive away a lot of interest. People talk about how awful WoW is for it's carebear approach, but it's blowing other MMOs out of the water and has had a longer run of high enrollment, as well. Fewer people want imminent death than want the ability to hold onto what they've created. From a corporate standpoint, carebear works - Blizzard makes the GDP of small nations on the (apparently correct) premise that more "carebear" sustains business better. Yes, that may be different if the idea of no monthly fees holds up, but thus far it seems to be the correct way of thought (e.g. Utopia's peak at 125k people or so, Tribal Wars' 225k or so, etc. vs WoW's 11 million). Remember that more people are willing to risk everything when the game is free; fewer people are willing to pay for a game that forces them to restart!

That said, from a hardcore standpoint, it doesn't. At this stage, DoF is such an unknown that it may not take off without some portion of the hardcore gaming population accepting it long enough to bring in casuals. The question becomes, how do you make it dangerous enough for the more hardcore gamers, but friendly enough not to drive off casuals? I suspect that permanent province death is not an option here.

The multiserver approach is the best to resolve this - a hardcore mode with province reset potential, and a more casual mode where a loss is an inconvenience but not a game-ruining experience for those that don't want to die. The only problem I see is maintaining an extra server adds cost for a game that has had some funding issues (iirc). This may be a plan down the road.

If multiserver, however, then reset provinces must remain on the hardcore server. You shouldn't be able to have two provinces on the same server (competitive advantage of trade, perfect coordination, etc.). Sure, roommates and RL friends can get close, but in my experience it's just a bit unfair. Beyond that, though, by starting on the hardcore server, you implicitly accept "grave consequence" upon death. If, first time you die, you jump ship to the other server, you're basically saying "I wanted to be able to grief others, but having it done to me is no fun!" I'm ok with that if you drop the hardcore province and have one on the relaxed server, but it seems cheap to do it in a way that gets you two provinces on the same server.

Anyway, that's my first-pass set of thoughts. I don't really have a good understanding of what Reverie wants, but I think from a business standpoint, you have to err on the side of casual rather than hardcore. Having both available would be nice, though.

Cheers, all.

[Josh Warner]

Originally Posted by SoCalDistortion

To each his own.

Would be a nice to have a choice... hardcore vs carebear mode. Players could play both modes at the same time on different servers.

Just as you say that most people would not want to play what I mentioned, I could see people getting bored of a game that does not allow full take-over or destruction. Heck...Look at Tribal Wars. It is pretty hardcore for what it is and has a VERY large following.

Reverie- Please take a look at developing a hardcore mode for one of your servers. For me, it would make what looks to be a good game much more epic!

There are better ways to provide high risk high reward than fragmenting our player base and taking the time to rework the entire game around permanent death, without that redesign permanent death would break the rest of the game the way it is designed. It would also make any and all DLC/microtransactions far far less valuable, why spend extra money if you can die and lose it all. From a business standpoint it's a very bad idea unless we have significantly more players come to the game than we expect because the effort and money invested would not be proportional to the interest. And from a player standpoint - there wouldn't be enough interest in this mode for it to reach a critical mass of players required to keep it alive.

As I mentioned in your other thread on the subject, there are other, better ways to add high Risk high Reward elements than permanent death. I strongly suggest you think about and suggest some realistic additions if you want that high risk/reward gameplay, permanent death just isn't feasible.


A guild controlled objective, that when owned makes your members/the objective open to attack from any guild. Attacking guilds would be able to capture the objective, be it a special city, a mine, a port whatever. Or a war method, lets say War declarations cost a flat one time sum and an additional daily, weekly or monthly upkeep and it allows you to attack whoever you want in the opposing guild as well as destroy buildings/take more resources etc. There's plenty of things to add to make it attractive for a hardcore crowd without totally alienating regular players, and using a gimmick that causes the playerbase to rapidly kill itself off.

And just for the record, I've played SB, Ladder D2, Darkfall and even some oldschool perma death MUDs plus many others. I know hardcore, and I love it, the game can have plenty of things a player like me would want without such a gimmick.