noobgod
Rock Crab
noobgod
Posts: 61
FO Level Status: Non-Rebirth
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 14, 2014 22:40:06 GMT
Post by noobgod on Mar 14, 2014 22:40:06 GMT
So, ive been thinking about whether it will be a medival game or just a time mix between areas i think it would be better if it would be time mixed between areas that way everyone can have a piece of everything, or just time ascend
Because someone had to do it
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 15, 2014 0:48:52 GMT
mdccxxvii likes this
Post by iamallama on Mar 15, 2014 0:48:52 GMT
Right now, we are talking about the setting as "fantasy". That way we aren't tied down to just a single time/place. Not everything has to be medieval, but most will likely resemble that time period.
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 15, 2014 10:23:00 GMT
Post by Der Zerknitterer on Mar 15, 2014 10:23:00 GMT
In a quest(where you must kill a boss) you will get a blackout and you wake up in the future. Then a scientist has some quests for you and after you complete his last quest, he will get an idea how a time machine could work(he says). After completing almost all future-quests he is done building one. He will call you with a smartphone he gave you when you woke up: "Dude, come over here! I have a surprise for ya." Then you can get back into medival(and get a time-jumper badge) and complete the quest with the futuristic sword you got in a quest from the furure.
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 15, 2014 12:17:25 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2014 12:17:25 GMT
I shall bring back a BFG 9K from the future then. That's my futuristic Excalibur.
|
|
Cloud73
Rock Crab
You weren't born to be perfect, You were born to be yourself
Posts: 80
FO Level Status: Ascended
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 21, 2014 1:59:02 GMT
Post by Cloud73 on Mar 21, 2014 1:59:02 GMT
for a sec i thought you were talking about age restrictions
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 21, 2014 2:34:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by iamallama on Mar 21, 2014 2:34:35 GMT
There is another thread somewhere around here about age restrictions. Game will have to be 13+ because of coppa law in US.
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 21, 2014 4:09:19 GMT
Post by mvp on Mar 21, 2014 4:09:19 GMT
I'm just going to throw this out there and say give areas and locations enough content that I take my time to go through them. Give them content and I can and want to come back to.
I'm not going to comment on the idea of "rebirth"-ing to make me experience the same area 2-3 times again, but I do not agree with giving a desert about 5 quests (litote). I'll be honest, I enjoy myself in an exquisite volcanic area doing quests. I enjoy the environment even if it is somewhat pixelated. I do not, however, enjoy being shown the area and quickly dismissed to the next tier. Give us time to enjoy the setting whatever it might be. It not only allows us to be comfortable in where we see fit, it gives players more time to admire the effort you put into your landscape.
I do not know what is planned for the time period or scene, I would like to throw out some food for thought thought and just say going from medieval to robots to aliens in all of 5 minutes does not suit me personally.
At the end of the day, it's just advice. Do whatever you want to do.
|
|
|
Post by PinkCrown on Mar 21, 2014 7:25:53 GMT
Why do people think we hate story =(
We love story, there will be lots of story, there will be side stories, there will be bajillions of quests, there will be story hints that aren't part of quests and are in the environment, there will be game-related Easter eggs, there will be non-game-related Easter eggs.
Lots of us like words, and now that we have full control, you shall have content =)
|
|
Acappella
Rock Crab
Level 120
Posts: 83
FO Level Status: Ascended
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 21, 2014 9:08:13 GMT
Post by Acappella on Mar 21, 2014 9:08:13 GMT
I'm just going to throw this out there and say give areas and locations enough content that I take my time to go through them. Give them content and I can and want to come back to. I'm not going to comment on the idea of "rebirth"-ing to make me experience the same area 2-3 times again, but I do not agree with giving a desert about 5 quests (litote). I'll be honest, I enjoy myself in an exquisite volcanic area doing quests. I enjoy the environment even if it is somewhat pixelated. I do not, however, enjoy being shown the area and quickly dismissed to the next tier. Give us time to enjoy the setting whatever it might be. It not only allows us to be comfortable in where we see fit, it gives players more time to admire the effort you put into your landscape. I do not know what is planned for the time period or scene, I would like to throw out some food for thought thought and just say going from medieval to robots to aliens in all of 5 minutes does not suit me personally. At the end of the day, it's just advice. Do whatever you want to do. A good way for folks to stay in areas is have leveled mobs. ie they are always your level, or your level +/-1or2
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 21, 2014 15:50:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by iamallama on Mar 21, 2014 15:50:01 GMT
How would you handle groups then? If you have a level 10 and a level 20 grouped, when you attack a monster which level is it? If it is an average, if they are not grouped and they see the same monster what level is it? If they later join up does the monster change?
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 21, 2014 17:31:44 GMT
Post by mvp on Mar 21, 2014 17:31:44 GMT
How would you handle groups then? If you have a level 10 and a level 20 grouped, when you attack a monster which level is it? If it is an average, if they are not grouped and they see the same monster what level is it? If they later join up does the monster change? Acappella's idea is near impossible. It would require having npcs grab the level of the attacker then through a thought out formula, output a new level with new stats that would increase the challenge. This would probably cause some sort of server issue as the game continually processes the modifications of all these monsters. Considering groups, I'd imagine it would be the mean of the group that was injected into the formula. I mean.. I guess it's a fine idea in retrospect. It sure makes me appreciate the same mob while I'm continually grinding it until I ding the level cap. I would just never venture off into the uncharted lands with innumerous content that PinkCrown is promising. Do you really want to do that to her work? I think we can all agree that scaling mobs is not the way to go. As an offtopic added note: Grouping is something you want used to the highest extent to promote friendships and bonds between players. Friendships and bonds (as you probably already know) are a big factor at retaining players. By pushing players into groups will thus increase the multitude of relationships on your game and will increase longevity of this new haven. Also a quick (offtopic) question: Is grouping going to have some benefit? In FO, since the XP was split evenly, you would effectively have to be carried for the group to be of any advantage to you. It was communism in leveling since users never actually helped each other in the killing process of mobs but instead just shared the experience.
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 21, 2014 18:06:44 GMT
Post by iamallama on Mar 21, 2014 18:06:44 GMT
Acappella's idea is near impossible. It would require having npcs grab the level of the attacker then through a thought out formula, output a new level with new stats that would increase the challenge. This would probably cause some sort of server issue as the game continually processes the modifications of all these monsters. Considering groups, I'd imagine it would be the mean of the group that was injected into the formula. I mean.. I guess it's a fine idea in retrospect. It sure makes me appreciate the same mob while I'm continually grinding it until I ding the level cap. I would just never venture off into the uncharted lands with innumerous content that PinkCrown is promising. Do you really want to do that to her work? I don't think it would be near impossible. The calculations wouldn't really be that intensive (simple multiplication on 3-4 stats for an entire group of monsters, not each and every monster, but just once for each monster type). And it would actually work well if the game was more like PoE where when you leave town to attack you enter an instance. The calculations could be then done once at the start of the instance and you are done. Also, you couldn't really use the mean. You would have problems with easy power leveling (I guess if you consider that a problem). If two people were level 10 and 20 and all monsters were then around 15, the level 10 could stand by the side, let the level 20 kill easily and collect experience from killing a higher level monster. I guess unless you considered the exp to be based on the mean, but then you would have the level 20 character getting exp for killing a level 15 monster at a higher rate. There are problems on both sides. You could base the exp on min(avg_level, your_level) so both would get I think we can all agree that scaling mobs is not the way to go. Yes. There are too many possible issues. Many will still have to be addressed, but if we can eliminate even one, then it's for the better. As an offtopic added note: Grouping is something you want used to the highest extent to promote friendships and bonds between players. Friendships and bonds (as you probably already know) are a big factor at retaining players. By pushing players into groups will thus increase the multitude of relationships on your game and will increase longevity of this new haven. Also a quick (offtopic) question: Is grouping going to have some benefit? In FO, since the XP was split evenly, you would effectively have to be carried for the group to be of any advantage to you. It was communism in leveling since users never actually helped each other in the killing process of mobs but instead just shared the experience. I personally prefer to play through the game solo and have friends/others to just show off or chat with. Really, I didn't even like being in a guild with others. While it was nice to have some friends to talk to, I didn't like that every time I came on or left it was announced. And as for group benefits. It hasn't been discussed yet. But I do like giving a little extra for groups. It shouldn't be big, but a little is nice. Even just like +10% per additional group member is nice when you need it.
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 21, 2014 18:11:03 GMT
mdccxxvii likes this
Post by PinkCrown on Mar 21, 2014 18:11:03 GMT
Random aside, I'm pretty sure there was something about being in a group of 3 in FO that made it better than killing alone, because although xp was split, there was 'extra xp' added to the initial amount? So as long as everyone was killing at a similar rate, you were all benefiting.
As someone that just sat on their lazy butt I have no idea what the actual numbers were.
I don't think -pushing- players into a groups is a good idea at all, I haaaaate having to group with people, because I just like going at my own pace. Benefits for being in a group = good, forcing people to group = sucky and offputting.
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 21, 2014 18:19:11 GMT
Post by iamallama on Mar 21, 2014 18:19:11 GMT
I agree completely with that PC. I really don't like when you are forced to group to get through a quest. And I don't mean that the next quest is hard and you need help, but more like when the next quest is "To complete this quest, join a group." Forcing never works and only alienates me from wanting to play.
|
|
|
Age
Posted On: Mar 21, 2014 18:21:31 GMT
mdccxxvii likes this
Post by PinkCrown on Mar 21, 2014 18:21:31 GMT
Yeeees.
It's almost on par with those 'invite 10 friends' quests.
With their stupid little quest markers that just stay there on my screen, hovering. Hovering forever at the side, in my way. Taunting me.
|
|