quixadhal
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,473
Joined: Oct 17, 2007
|
#16 id:37901 Posted Nov 20, 2009, 4:19 pm
|
Erok said:I have a few different zone types (haven, quest, and arena), heavily based on how Guild Wars works. And I don't care what Bartle thinks of instancing (I think the guy gets more credit/deference than deserved - actually reminds me of the countless people who claim responsibility for the internet).
Haven zones are singleton safe zones (i.e., no combat allowed). These are typically home towns, that link together quest zones, where players shop, socialize, and organize into groups.
Quest zones are PvE and instanced on a per group basis. One group cannot interfere with another, and mobiles are not able to leave a quest zone. The zone loads when a group enters it, and unloads when they leave it. A nice side-effect is that there is no such thing as spawning (and thus camping).
Arena zones are PvP (and optionally PvE) and I haven't yet decided if they will be instanced or not. If instanced, it would be for a pair of teams. If singleton, it's your team versus all others.
I would probalby make arena zones instanced, since that's structured combat. If you have open world PvP zones, those would be best non-instanced, since you want everyone to find everyone else. :)
Along the same lines, Everquest II did a clever thing when they launched. All of their zones are instanced, but they instance by population. When a zone population exceeds a certain number, a new copy is spawned. They provided objects in the zones (and later, menu options) to allow you to go to a particular copy so you could join your friends. Most MUDs are (alas) not going to have problems with lag and overpopulation, but that was a nice way to handle it transparently.
|
......................... 
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 6,913
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#17 id:37918 Posted Nov 20, 2009, 6:52 pm
|
Mudder said:My example wasn't meant to be within the instanced zone but outside the zone. RP does not stop and change with a new area. If your hometown burned to the ground - it is gone. When you enter a new village, your hometown is still gone. However with this implementation, your hometown would still exist, and be totally fine, to other players. To me it makes no sense. Why be able to impact your environment if it doesn't affect anyone or anything else?
How does a world work in which players can raze entire zones to nothing? Are you building more zones by hand to replace the destroyed ones? Are players just as able to create towns as they are to destroy them?
|
|
|
Scandum
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,404
Joined: Aug 8, 2006
|
#18 id:37923 Posted Nov 20, 2009, 7:28 pm
|
David Haley said:How does a world work in which players can raze entire zones to nothing? Are you building more zones by hand to replace the destroyed ones? Are players just as able to create towns as they are to destroy them?
The most obvious solution would be to have NPCs rebuild towns, but it'd make sense to let players create more generic destructible content as well. So the world would be elastic, for lack of a better term.
|
|
|
Mudder
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 279
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
|
#19 id:37924 Posted Nov 20, 2009, 7:35 pm
|
Like Scandum said, NPCs would slowly repopulate and rebuild areas that are "messed up." Also destroying an entire village would surely not be an easy feat - It would require a small army depending on the size of the village. The village if destroyed would remain there, just be burned down and crappy for awhile. Perhaps it would even unlock certain things like a secret passageway that was normally almost impossible to find.
I'm still simply brainstorming this so I'm not even sure how it would work. I'm pushing it back further until I am more familiar with C++ (I have a few books to buy/read)
|
......................... A wise man once said:Never underestimate a newbie coder and the sheer amount of spare time they may accumulate.
RaM Fire Development Team. ROM from C to C++
|
|
|
|
quixadhal
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,473
Joined: Oct 17, 2007
|
#21 id:37934 Posted Nov 20, 2009, 11:04 pm
|
You guys underestimate the destructive potential of a bored player. :)
You might think having NPC's rebuild the city over time would be cool. In reality, the city gets burned to the ground, and then bored players camp it, killing the NPC's as they try to rebuild, and burning any buildings that do mange to go back up. Why? Same reason they camp your corpse on the PvP server... because it amuses them to screw up YOUR play time.
That's why I think quest-driven (or perhaps even event-driven) instancing would work for this kind of thing. If you were present for the burning of the village, it's burned down. You get to see it slowly rebuilt over time (or not). Everyone else still sees it fully functional and can help defend it (or help burn it) themselves without waiting for it to be restored.
Which is less "RP"?
Bob sees the village in flames and comments about it to Ted, who walks to a vendor and buys him the sword he can't get.
OR
Bob sees the village burn. Bob and Ted go there later and see NPC's trying to rebuild it. They log off and come back 2 days later, and notice the NPC's are still working but haven't accomplished anything. Then Maxtor rides up and slaughters the villagers, tossing a torch into the partially rebuilt structure and rides off. Weeks later, the village remains ruins.
OR
The village is burned down and players are allowed to rebuild it. Bob and Ted return to find a smurf village hut nestled in between a Starbucks and a Spaceport. A mutant gorilla in a tuxedo welcomes them and gives them each a laser pistol that does 50000000 points of damage per shot.
*smile*
|
.........................
|
|
Scandum
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,404
Joined: Aug 8, 2006
|
#22 id:37936 Posted Nov 21, 2009, 12:00 am
|
quixadhal said:You guys underestimate the destructive potential of a bored player. :)
You might think having NPC's rebuild the city over time would be cool. In reality, the city gets burned to the ground, and then bored players camp it, killing the NPC's as they try to rebuild, and burning any buildings that do mange to go back up. Why? Same reason they camp your corpse on the PvP server... because it amuses them to screw up YOUR play time.
You're comparing apples and pears. Players will tire of destroying villages quickly, and bored assholes don't engage in boring repetitive acts. The reason people camp corpses is because it's easy, effortless, and a lot more fun to screw with people directly rather than indirectly.
|
|
|
Mudder
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 279
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
|
#23 id:37937 Posted Nov 21, 2009, 12:05 am
|
I think what you and I are talking about are essentially two very different MUDs. I think your ideas work best in yours, while not so well in mine.
The ability to destroy a village would certainly need to be harder than simply tossing a torch as you ride by. Villagers would need to actively defend, stop fires, children should flee, and soldiers should come to assist (if they are part of a kingdom.)
EDIT: If people really wanted a village destroyed so badly they worked around the clock to make sure it's currently on fire... Then the village shouldn't be rebuilt. Perhaps it would motivate certain players to fight back and help the village flourish.
Also, how awesome would it be if the child that ran away and survived remembered you when he grew up and was determined to hunt down and kill you.
|
......................... A wise man once said:Never underestimate a newbie coder and the sheer amount of spare time they may accumulate.
RaM Fire Development Team. ROM from C to C++
Last edited Nov 21, 2009, 12:07 am by Mudder
|
|
Lobotomy
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 378
Joined: Jul 18, 2008
|
#24 id:37938 Posted Nov 21, 2009, 12:15 am
|
quixadhal said:You guys underestimate the destructive potential of a bored player. :)
You might think having NPC's rebuild the city over time would be cool. In reality, the city gets burned to the ground, and then bored players camp it, killing the NPC's as they try to rebuild, and burning any buildings that do mange to go back up. Why? Same reason they camp your corpse on the PvP server... because it amuses them to screw up YOUR play time.
I fail to see how the actions of such players are any less valid than those of any other players. So long as a person is playing within the boundaries of the implementation and rules, there is no way for them to be playing the game "wrong".
Edit: Also, I highly dislike your mistaken idea that the destructive actions of players equates to them being bored and/or griefers. Some people prefer to play the villain in a game just as other people prefer to play the hero.
|
Last edited Nov 21, 2009, 12:20 am by Lobotomy
|
|
quixadhal
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,473
Joined: Oct 17, 2007
|
#25 id:37941 Posted Nov 21, 2009, 1:21 am
|
Lobotomy, I didn't say it was necessarily "wrong", however when your actions grant you a moment of amusement and destroy someone else's entire evening, perhaps it's not "right" either.
Point is... it's far easier to destroy than to create. True in life, true in games.
In a real RP environment (read: pen-and-paper, face-to-face gaming), I love playing dark characters. One of my favorite D&D characters displayed himself to the party as a fighter, and concealed the fact that he was a mage AND a thief as well. The mage part was allowed to show through over time, but all thief activity was done alone or without the party's knowledge (via notes to the DM). I didn't exactly work against the party, but I did manipulate things towards my character's goals on many occasions.
Unfortunately, that kind of flexibility isn't really possible in a computer RPG. Most games, and especially the Diku-style ones we've been talking about, break down to "kill N things" or "fetch me a spoon" quests, with levels and gear as player end-goals, rather than mechanisms to help them enjoy the content. In that case, you burning down a village for amusement is cool, but it also might prevent others from advancing through the content.
One way to improve the situtation is to provide alternate quest lines that only occur in the destroyed state. In that case, at least players can continue to progress, however some will prefer to choose one set of quests over another (assuming they even know the two sets run in parallel). I guess you just need to be sure you have plenty of content so there are alternatives.
Another way is to provide instancing, so that only people involved in creating the abnormal state get to see the abnormal state. On the plus side, players don't interfere with each other. On the minus side, you don't get to see someone else's handiwork.
Oh, and Mudder, you may be right there. Instancing isn't a magic bullet that solves all the problems. I think it's a useful tool though, and if you build your game engine to support it (or modify Diku), you gain the ability to use it where appropriate. If you hate instancing, just don't turn it on and you'll have a single public instance, everywhere.
|
.........................
|
|
Mudder
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 279
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
|
#26 id:37943 Posted Nov 21, 2009, 2:31 am
|
That last part I like. I would completely agree - I see no reason not to support it, even if you don't use it. I'm not a fan of limiting the options. :)
|
......................... A wise man once said:Never underestimate a newbie coder and the sheer amount of spare time they may accumulate.
RaM Fire Development Team. ROM from C to C++
|
|
Lobotomy
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 378
Joined: Jul 18, 2008
|
#27 id:37944 Posted Nov 21, 2009, 3:36 am
|
quixadhal said:Lobotomy, I didn't say it was necessarily "wrong", however when your actions grant you a moment of amusement and destroy someone else's entire evening, perhaps it's not "right" either.
What you are saying applies equally to all sides.
quixadhal said:Point is... it's far easier to destroy than to create. True in life, true in games.
The ease of destruction vs creation in a game is a conscious implementation choice on the part of its developers. If they choose to make destruction easier then that is how it is but not how it has to be.
|
|
|
|
|
KaVir
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,638
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
|
#29 id:37949 Posted Nov 21, 2009, 9:03 am
|
Lobotomy said:quixadhal said:You guys underestimate the destructive potential of a bored player. :)
You might think having NPC's rebuild the city over time would be cool. In reality, the city gets burned to the ground, and then bored players camp it, killing the NPC's as they try to rebuild, and burning any buildings that do mange to go back up. Why? Same reason they camp your corpse on the PvP server... because it amuses them to screw up YOUR play time.
I fail to see how the actions of such players are any less valid than those of any other players. So long as a person is playing within the boundaries of the implementation and rules, there is no way for them to be playing the game "wrong".
Although I mostly agree with your viewpoint, I think the part I've emphasised is what quixadhal's post seemed to be addressing, and I agree with him as well. Many players really do enjoy destroying things (which IMO is a perfectly valid attitute), and so the boundaries of your implementation and rules should be based on the assumption that the players will be as destructive as possible.
Having the village automatically rebuild doesn't feel quite right to me, either. I would rather see the mud create a new village somewhere else in the world, preferably one that was different to the previous village so that it feels like less of a respawn. This is also the approach I'm currently working on (although I do also have a quest that involves destroying a village in an instance, and another village that rebuilds itself).
|
......................... KaVir at God Wars II: godwars2.org 3000 Roomless world. Manual combat. Endless possibilities.
|
|
Scandum
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,404
Joined: Aug 8, 2006
|
#30 id:37951 Posted Nov 21, 2009, 12:27 pm
|
quixadhal said:Point is... it's far easier to destroy than to create. True in life, true in games.
With automatic rebuilding the opposite would be true for players, that is, it takes effort to destroy, and no effort for things to be rebuild.
|
|
|
