PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Bnore on January 20, 2003, 01:46:38 pm
-
Well if i meet a guy name man1 and someone named man2 we should be able to ally together to fight together
in this case you should see there HP and there health stat (stone,poision and so on) so you can heal eachother and that way your team works well together but you shouldn\'t share exp. If you all kill a monster thats worth 60 exp give yourself 20 exp man1 20exp and man2 20exp because the 3 of you killed it and with 3 people its easyer to kill then one so it should be 60 exp each. But if man1 and man2 kill something while i ran off to town for some heals then i shouldn\'t get exp because i wasn\'t there
The same kind of deal should go on when guild members party up. Just because your in a guild doesn\'t mean they all work together all the time so you should be able to party up with guild and non guild members
what do you all think?????
-
Well, first of all you shouldn\'t be able to name you character \"man1\" or \"man2\" ;) (just kidding)
Your idea sounds exactly like the 4th coming system where you could share you XP and
see each others HP:)
This is nothing negative, cause it\'s the best ally-system I\'ve ever seen in a game.
If PS had something like it I would be glad :]
-
I agree that a party should share experience but i think that in order to gain your share, you would have to be in the area that the creature was killed, when it was killed. If your party kills a dragon while your slouching on a bar stool you should get nothing while it divides the experience up between the rest of your party, leaving more for them.
-
i totally agree with(pretty, pretty) Princess Aelya, but i do think of what Bnore sais, that its a good thing when the xp gets divided but if like a lvl 50 and a lvl 10 are fighting together that the lvl 10 should get a bit more xp than the lvl 50, well actually now that i\"m reading my message it doesnt make any sence so plz IGNORE this
-
The way it works in other games is you would be able to create a hunting party, group, and the xp is modified by the number of members to the group. the more members you have in a group the more xp can be gained. To keep from powwer leveling a lesser leveled character, the group would only gain xp if they were within 5 levels of each other. That limit grows as power grows. What would happen is the highest level character would get all the xp and the little guys would get nothing. The way this was explained is that since the big guy is doing all the work, the lesser ones gain no xp cuase they havent a clue what was being done.
I haven\'t a clue how the tech guys have this problem worked out for PS though cause there are no levels to limit it by. Best person I can think of that could formulate a solution would be Vengeance.
On a last note just to point out an issue that might be missunderstood, a guild is not a hunting group so just cause you join a guild doesn\'t mean you are partied with them each time you want to hunt. Hunting groups can be made of any players nop matter what their guild status. You could have a group of all guild members or you could have a group of all strangers. It is up to the one that does the invites into that hunting group.
-
while im reading this, id like to say i dont think two guilds at war with each other should be able to form a party together.
-
Mmmmmm Guild War :D
But the Princess is right, there should be restrictions on partys formed, especially is there is a confict between 2 guilds who might be making up that party
Clover *purr* :]
p.s. nice pic Princess
-
The way two warring guilds would not group together is cause they would do damage to each pother and that would do the group no good. Imagin this... Say Gimli is in the Dwarven Hammer guild and Gandoff is in the Mages of Magi guild. The two guilds are warring but both, Gimli and Gandolff are friends with Stryder, Legolas, and Frodo and the three of them ask them to join their hunting group. The group goes out and are attacked by a swarm of Uruh-ki and Gimli being the tank goes out to the front. Gandolf must now do croud controle and goes to mezmerize the attacking Uruh-ki. In doing so, since his and Gimli\'s guild are warring and they have active PvP for each other, Gimli gets mezmerized and can no longer fight. The Uruh-ki then pass his motionless form and attack the rest of the group. Styder is tough but being a ranger he doesnt have the armor that the warrior dwarf has and cant take the pounding from the attacking Uruh-ki. Frodo by no means can even dream about taking damage so he has to slip on the one ring and vanish. This leaves the robe wearing mage, the frail elf, and the light armored ranger to now take on this group of Uruh-ki which they have no hopes of surviving without a tank.
So there you have it. Two warring guild members would be restricted from a hunting group not by any game rule but simply cause the group leader has to think of the entire group\'s survival. Having two members that are set active PvP against each other means one can inadvertantly hurt the other and that is added group damage that is totaly not acceptable.
-
Really cool example, Kendaro :))
Not to mention crystal clear too.
-
Yes i think there should be a rule about being with in 5 levels of each other. And exp should be shared with each other only if you fight together.
But what if 2 groups of people we will say party 1 and party 2 both fight a dragon how would the exp be shared would the team that did the most damage get the exp or would both teams split the exp. Or if a party was fighting a dragon and a player joined the fight but wasn\'t in the party how would the exp be used?????
-
Yes i think there should be a rule about being with in 5 levels of each other.
I completely disagree, because I mainly team up with people for social reasons, not just for gaining exp.
Friends in-game would vary greatly in power and skills.
However, without this, a clever sytem would have to be designed to work out how to share experience.
-
Well I would say the group who attacked the mob first \'owns\' the mob until they stop attacking, or die, or the mob dies.
I don\'t think we should limit the level discrepancies between group members, because there isn\'t a good way to measure that. Imagine a quest where a guild needs to get its level 100 miner and its level 100 smith into the Mines of Moria, but they can barely fight, so they send a protection party along with 3 level 150 fighters, 2 clerics level 165 and 4 mages level 175. That should be allowed, imho.
- Venge
-
if you did it that way then people could take low level characters into hard areas say like a monster with 100,000 exp then the high level characters kill it and the lower levels Power gain off that
That would cause a lot of people to do this sort of thing
And groups with members at level 100 and lvl 150 could be teamed up but the lvl 150\'s would get the exp and the 100\'s wouldn\'t get any...
-
You are too stuck in a mindset with levels and XP, dude...
Free your mind... ;-)
- Venge
-
i think there should be no formal allie system.
Every man should be for himself in a since. In real life all you do to ally with a person is say lets be partners or something, you dont become symezz twins and magicaly share hp and ex.
this idea for the game is kinda stupid.
all you need to do is make it so that whoever is hiting animal gets ex and not whoever kills animal.
edit
-
all you need to do is make it so that whoever is hiting animal gets ex
What about supporting party members like healers and buffs?
-
Actually, I think hitman is kinda right in this case. Noone should be able to just stand by the sideline, and look at 5 warriors taking out Mr. ToughMob, and get XP from it. If you hit the mob, you get XP. If you just look, you don\'t get XP. Fairly simple. :D But of course, I can\'t tell Venge and the others how to make the game... :P
-
Yes, but what about people who are a critical part of the group, but dont actually do damage to the mob.
For example, healers that make sure the tanks dont die in combat. If they do not gain experience, then no-one is going to want to be a healer. That would create an imbalance in-game. Same goes for all other supporting roles in a party.
-
Hmm... Maybe there should be a feature which allows you to share experience, based on what amount of experience you currently have, so we don\'t get those \"level 100\" who powertrain the \"level 1\" people.. In this case, it could just be so people with 1.000.000 experience gets all the experience if he\'s training with someone with 10 experience. Damn I\'m good :D
-
when you group up to go hunting, you just dont get people together and go kill things. You have a comand like /invite and the person you have targeted is sent an option box to accept or to decline. If the person accepts his name is put on a group list on every group member\'s window. along with the name is a health bar so everyone can monitor each other so to know who needs what when. It is this that allows someone that has specialized in healing to sit back and just watch health bars and cast heals as needed, and still get experience when the mob is dead.
Also about who owns a mob... well in a perfect world first come forst serve would do but it isnt effective. Say for example someone wants a skin from a creature so to get his tailoring up. So he is hunting an area for a special creature that drops that skin. He is too high in experience to gain anything from the monster but is collecting skins none the less... He just runs back and forth over the zone this monster lives in and smacking all he sees with his ubber bow or spell... A young group is charging one of these mobs and have declaired attack on it but the big guy gets his arrow in first. He was lsat to target the creature but his bow or magic was faster to the target than the young group could run. The young group not knowing the arrow struck the beast continues to attack and and kills the monster. The guy that shot the arrow did nothing more but since he was first to strike he gets the credit for the kill.
This also brings up another point. If someone were to just run around shooting things with their bow, they would be getting undue credit for kills just because they struck first. So it is in my guess that damage done by the whole should be the way kill credit is awarded. 10 young fighters swinging away would surely out damage over time, one high skilled fighter. Though the high skilled individual could do 1000 in a single blow, the 10 individuals would be doing 150 a piece, in a single blow. 150 x 10 = 1500(I think :p) so they would out damage the one and get the credit like they should have.
-
How about, when you own a mobile, no one else can join in unless they are a member of your party, or until you die.
However, if you choose to \"run\", other people can then join in and take the experience for the kill.
-
first in a whacked sceme like that your bound to have problems.
I think that its just tough nookie for the band of hunters.
second everybody attacking the creature gets ex.
and the band who got cheated out of there ex can just as easily go attack another mob and continue gaining exp.
I\'m sure that high lvl didn\'t do it on purpose . and if low lvls start whining he could probable give them a rare ex potion ur sum\'n.
-
oh an who needs a healer? everybody could just carry there own health.
-
Originally posted by cmhitman
oh an who needs a healer? everybody could just carry there own health.
Hmm simply cause healing potions, to be ballanced would be very pricy and not do half as good as a spell would. Player interaction is the main focuss here. Also not everyone will be herbalists so that would make the price of potions even higher. Sure everyone could just learn a few healing spells but to be good in magic means you dont have the skill to spare in other areas. So either you be good in all things and master of none or you go in one path and look for others that follow a path you didnt. This way you acomidate to each other\'s weekness. So you take several guys/ gals that are proficient fighters, a few that are proficient casters, and some that are proficient healers. Oh and dont forget those that chose a path of support.
In your world you would have everyone very powerfull and fully self relient. Sure in this game you can be very self relient and know all skills but you would grow slower and your experience is stretched thinnly. It will be faster and more productive to only touch on a few skills you like and in a sense create your own type of class, and then find people that suport your play set up. You will grow and master your patch faster this way and then be able to go back and pick up a few more odds and ends skills later.
Since everyone will be suporting everyone else, then experience is shared by all members of the group. Also players will police themselves. If there is a person or group or peersons that is going around and attacking things other groups are attacking(this is called Kill Steeling or simply KSing) the players always have a way of remembering and holding grudges to people of that name. So soon those people have bad reputations and at times they need to find a group, need help with a quest, are looking to buy armor or weapons, are dying and need some assistance, they are left to their own means and are not left to wonder why no one came to their aid. Bad actions are met with bad reactions. Sure two bads dont make a right but from birth we are shown when you do bad things, bad things happen to you.
Now I am not against a group or guild type structure of people that are role playing thugs. People that in groups go out and cause trouble with other players. People that pick on a spacific race or those that follow a certain deity. That go up and in role play like banter, harrass, KS, and flat out torment them because if done right it really isn\'t harmful to the other player. Sure it is a theft of the other person\'s time and experience but all they need do is go to another area. Now if the other group then follows then to the other area then that is player harrassment and should be tolerated.
What I am more talking about is like this. A guild of players that have factored their characters in a thief\'s path. They are cutthroats and thieves that take advantage of others. They move into an area and do their dasterly deeds in that area. as long as it is done in a role play manner and dont specificly pick on a player but treat all equally, then there really isnt much wrong to that.
But I have gone on a tangent and should get back on track here.
-
well i was thinking that for healers to get experience...they get experience by how much the heal on a person DURING COMBAT....if the attackers get xp by hitting it then the mob is bound to damage them so the healer can get xp....this has to be during combat tho or else the healer will go around town and just heal people for xp...
~Renux
-
umm... but what about supporting rouge players?
or players that don\'t want to do all this group stuff?
seems like we\'ll probable get alot of people who\'ll be out of luck because they\'ll have to do all this grouping crap. Originaling all quests should be made one player but allow for a multiplayer quest mode that lets lower levels complete there quests faster, but not gain exp or hp faster. and lets say you get a badge of life ur sum\'n for doing this once. The band then would have to beat the quest once more for each group member.
In my ?world? players will have weakness?s and not be self reliant, because lets face it; in the world we live in you need other humans for just about everything and there is no reason to create a world that differs, it would be both unrealistic and not make for a good mmorpg game. All I?m saying is that players should have the choice to be independent atleast partially
I?m not suggesting this idea to support a band of role playing thugs. I just like to play on my own accord some times.
-
Ok let me see if I can make this any clearer. In a group you are invited into a special new format in which you get xp. This format takes all modifies and then adds a bonus. It takes the xp granted for zone bonus(more dangerous zones have higher zone bonus), the xp that would be yielded from what is killed, the skill level of each individual player(meaning each individual is factored to what the kill would have given them if they were solo), and then adds to this the bonus given by how many are in the group. This new number is then devided umong ALL members of the group no matter what they did for the group (devided on the factor of their skill as stated before). Now this does allow for some people to just join a group and then just sit there and do nothing but still gain xp. This is not a problem cause this would be taking xp from the group that they would have if that person was not there at all. So instead of letting that person be a xp sponge, they will cut that person from the group.
-
The rogue player soloist idea really doesn\'t appeal much to me at all. DAoC has, imo, made a mistake about this and made the game too easy for small groups to play. This has led to a lack of accountability for the players--you can be a jerk and still find small groups or progress on your own. The small group independence has weakened the ability of majority to enforce good behavior on the jerks.
Contrast this with EQ where your reputation is everything, and you really can\'t have fun if you can\'t find groups. I want people to care whether they are getting along with people.
Otherwise we will end up with something a lot like this forum in its tone in the game.
- Venge
-
So, in theory, the bigger the group and the more dangerous the zone would yield the most exp? I get you
now.
But this will only cause people to forge huge alliances.
I see where this all plays into the guild wars aspect of the game but what about the open ended part? the part where any player can make a game of selling potions or giving tours of the landscape to new players or crafting swords?
I think the only thing that should happen when you join a party is that all members get a private chat box that lets them communicate with each other privately to coordinate attacks and what not.
-
You are mixing groups and guilds again. They are two different things.
-
yes but thery\'re functions are much the same. In short some people are likely to go get there guild members rather than go asking around to see if they could get a \"party\" going on (i crack myself up :D ).
-
Combat groups and guilds in fact have very little to do with each other. In fact, it is hard to understand why you think they are related. Guilds provide a steady supply of friends, but hopefully you have friends in the game in many guilds. They do provide an organizational focus, and another level on which to compete besides individual accomplishment, though, and that is why we want them. :-)
We want combat groups so people have motivation to meet other players, behave nicely toward them and cooperate. If you don\'t want a social game, go play a single player game. Same with soloing, imho.
- Venge
-
See,
I want group combat...I guess I just got of on a tangent. It\'s only that I think the way you implement this \"group combat\" shouldn\'t be all rigid and hard coded into the game. It should be implied not forced. like people should realize that they\'ll need help and go get it minus the symez twins like joining of the skills. I think thats really my only qaulm with the setup other than that i\'m just trying to give some healthly alternatives and opposition.
-
if grouping is not hard coded then no one in the group would get xp other than the one doing the most damage. Thats why group features must be coded. So to make sure everyone that is grouping together gets xp no matter what their role in that group.
-
Edit
thats not all true, there should never be just one doing all the work. The game shouldn\'t allow for it. Its all about survival, the mobs would swarm him, team work is needed to stay alive. I\'ve seen the distribution of xp between partying members be done perfectly in games that dont have this symezz twin system. In endless ages even the strongest players would get creamed if they didn\'t have backup. we had to keep the attention of the mob by hitting him so that he\'d change focus on us then the strongest dude would hit the mob just as he was about to kill us low lvl\'s (scratch this, replace with weak plp\'s). We would take turns so that the mob didn\'t always kill us and slothiness (+100 vocab points!) wasn\'t an option, unless you want\'d to die. You see there are ways to solving the problem without adding this symezz twins thing I\'m just asking you look into it and not dismiss (like some vengeful people have) me as a rogue
-
Everyone in this thread keeps jumping back and forth on the issues. As mention in many threads, this game does not have a level based system. It is skill based (like UO) and thus should not have \"XP\". Skill is determined by what you are doing. If you heal someone, then your healing goes up, if you stab something, your fencing goes up, etc. Thus, grouping is really only good for 3 things : Quest Completion (if done as a group then the group gets the reward), communication (group \"say\" features... health bars for your part members), and looting rights to the corpse of the mobs killed by any member of the group. Whether there is a formal system or not, then it makes no difference to your hunting stategies and really only effects those who \"want\" to group together. If you feel like soloing, then I can imagine your progress in the fighting skills will be slow and expensive (heal potions, etc). If you don\'t care about looting rights and quest completion, then non-formal ad-hoc grouping is always an option. Just ask for a backup and don\'t /invite them.
As for resolution of looting rights to a mob, IMO it should depend mainly on the amount of damage done. First strike should only matter if the damage done by contending parties/individuals is the same or fairly close (within a 10% margin).
-
first i\'m asking that this \"informal\" teaming replace the formal teaming and be just as handy.
second mob kills should be first come, first serv
third:
kinshadow, this \"going up\" of a skill wouldn\'t be generalized as leveling why?
-
Originally posted by cmhitman
kinshadow, this \"going up\" of a skill wouldn\'t be generalized as leveling why?
The difference is that there is no generic XP from a kill, thus there is nothing to be shared by the group (beyond the loot) when killing a mob (questing is different). The skill of the fighter hitting the mob is raised because of the mob\'s toughness, while the healer is rasied by the strain of keeping up the fighter\'s hit points/curing posons/etc. Everyone is judged on the performance of the skill. One of the main reasons you group in EQ is that the XP from a kill is distributed among the party members. Thus, in a skill system, your \"leveling\" is not dependent on your ability to find a \"formal\" group. So, if you want informal, then just ask someone to accompany you and don\'t use the system. You don\'t \"loose\" anything in the process.
-
kinshadow is right. XP awards are skill-specific when you have a no-levels game. Those awards will still depend on the difficulty of what you did, of course, and will be spread around the team members.
This means the more team members you have, the less experience you will get personally for achieving the same objective. A group of 6 will gain more from killing a certain mob than a group of 8, in other words.
- Venge