PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: Drilixer on July 26, 2003, 09:29:50 pm
-
Will player made buildings be destructible?
-
Couldn\'t you just ask this in the mIRC room?
-
probably :) but its alot more fun to post it here - and I want destructible buildings by the way so as to spice up the guild wars :)
-
Sorry moogie for once I disagree with you, I will make amends later ;( .
Posting something like this on PS forum is better than Mirc cause it is more accessable especially to new people.
However, Dril, you little evil-doer this should have been posted in the Wish list forum! *yanks hard on Drils dogchain whilst slyly peeking at Moogie to see if she likes this*
So get your act together mate! :D
-
If Drilixer wants just this one question answered, he should\'ve asked in the mIRC room at the same time he asked the devs about my building ideas. [Edit: Yes, I was there, I saw you... ;)]
If he wants the topic to be discussed, my thread in the Wishlist forum welcomes anything on the subject of Builders and the Building profession...
So that\'s where I disagree with you. :P
*happily watches Drilixer being dragged around by a chain*
-
*gags* no has attempted to answer the querry in the remotest yet!
-
That would be just as annoying as pking, unless it was like you could set up outposts for use in guild wars, if only those could be detroyed I\'d be all for it.
-
hmmm, how about most buildings are indestructible, but guilds could build a certin number of buildings with less admin restraints than normal? So for a guild war, each team could have a tower that they are defending, and you could knock it down, or get the flag at the top or whatever to win. In otherwords, almost exactly like PKing, but on a larger scale....
-
Well, if a building had allot of HP it should be be able to destruct it.
But then itd be cooler if you can hire NPC\'s for defending your building, and it would be fun if you can build many sorts of walls and a nice gate ^_^.
And if a guild has 200 members around the world, well, then it shouldnt be any problem to defend it right? :)
Then hireing is not needed, but the best would be if you can set-up traps.
Like holes in the ground and if you step on it you fall down and can\'t get out of it, and in 2 mins or so you will lose some health and die there, it should take around 8 minutes :P, thad\'t teach them, and guild members can see the traps so they walk around it ^_^, they can see a red spot or something weird there? :)
-
maybe something in the depths of guild structures determines who has control of them (like the waypoints in the tribes games) so that guilds can fight back and forth over castles and such
-
They did say something about buyable Castles.
But anway, I think anything should be destroyable if it takes several days to seige, or spawns. Or perhaps only certain buildings, like castles, outposts forts; you know, anything with military significance. (And of course they should be captureable too)
-
what would be the benefits of capturing or even possesing a castle though? Do they come with NPC servants/gaurds or are they just pretty?
-
They server as vaults, gatheringspoints etc for guilds. Plus, its always cool to have a castle ;)
-
If you controll a castle you could gain certain bonuses to guild income, or an xp bonus for those who control it... this would add a lot of fighting-over-castles warfare.. so much the better :)
-
I agree with Xalthar - the castles cant just be like \'oh wow that looks cool\' structures that dont really do anything - bonuses for owners and guild memebers who posses castles would be useful - lets discuss possible bonuses
-
Well, what bonuses do buildings give in the read world? It all depends on whats in the building that counts. Maybe for each room there could be one npc, providing work or storing info for the guild/player. I don\'t really see how you can get any \"XP\" bonus for having a building however... even if here was a sensel skill, what would you use it for?
Personaly, I would just like to be able to hold parties at my own castle... get one npc to take coats, anouther to hand out ale, etc.
-
I\'ve been advocating hirable NPC\'s for menial tasks ever since I saw SWG. Of course another bonus might be money if you\'re running a shop, or a tavern/inn.
-
A castle was (and to some degree is) the estate of a wealthy noble, who taxes the people living on his land. So a gold income from controlling the castle would indeed make more sense than an xp bonus..
Yet in Anarchy Online you have the ability to build towers in certain locations, these give you the opportunity to put certain certificates into them, so your guild would gain the bonuses described on the certificates. This could be more melee damage, or more ranged damage, magic damage, more hitpoints, etc. etc.
Also controlling a tower gives the side (in Anarchy there are three sides omni, clan, neutral) an Xp bonus for controlling and maintaining the tower.
Just like nation combat over areas in DAoC.
but since PS hasn\'t got any sides, and only guilds, grand scale warfare as in these games wouldn\'t be possible.. but the small guild vs. guild wars would be a perfect distraction from the menial tasks your character has to do in order to advance in level..
-
Well, suppose I can add my knowledge to this thread... First of all, I doubt it\'ll be possible to destroy NPC houses, but I don\'t know about guild-controlled houses/castles. Could be a fun aspect, but, of course, knocking over a castle isn\'t done by just looking at it. You\'d need catapults and other very heavy firearms. Even those transportable houses with a wooden log inside cant knock over a building. That\'s just plain stupidity which made other gamemakers use them. They can only knock down doors, you know. Anywho, owning a castle doesn\'t bring you wealth in any way. It can be used for stuff that even a tent can be used for, like a storage area for all of you belongings, a guild hideout or even as a place to live in, and run a shop in, just like in UO (Ultima Online). Besides, owning a castle shouldn\'t make you get money, because if you have enough money to just go and buy one, you\'ll allready have a very steady income, and that\'s the truth. :)
-
Originally posted by Gronomist
Well, suppose I can add my knowledge to this thread... First of all, I doubt it\'ll be possible to destroy NPC houses, but I don\'t know about guild-controlled houses/castles. Could be a fun aspect, but, of course, knocking over a castle isn\'t done by just looking at it. You\'d need catapults and other very heavy firearms. Even those transportable houses with a wooden log inside cant knock over a building. That\'s just plain stupidity which made other gamemakers use them. They can only knock down doors, you know. Anywho, owning a castle doesn\'t bring you wealth in any way. It can be used for stuff that even a tent can be used for, like a storage area for all of you belongings, a guild hideout or even as a place to live in, and run a shop in, just like in UO (Ultima Online). Besides, owning a castle shouldn\'t make you get money, because if you have enough money to just go and buy one, you\'ll allready have a very steady income, and that\'s the truth. :)
yeah yeah yeah - we know castles dont make you stronger in real life and we understand that in most games they just look cool and you can drop your items on the floor or in chests/crates/furniture and get it later... but I\'d rather have more than that in this game - we obviously can\'t use the Anarchy Online system, but we could make something like it - what about Mages being able to help builders so that large structures \'buff\' their owners while the owers are within a certain proximity of it and inside of it - During the building process, this could be done via mana and whatever materials are used in the building and could require succesful checks on the mage\'s skill and what spells he/she has.
-
Originally posted by Gronomist
Anywho, owning a castle doesn\'t bring you wealth in any way. It can be used for stuff that even a tent can be used for, like a storage area for all of you belongings, a guild hideout or even as a place to live in, and run a shop in.
Yes! Go realism! Too bad most people around here think that everyhitng has to be fantastic in a game to make it intersting... how often do any of us even get to be in a castle, let alone fight over who posseses it, and thusly controlls the surronding area? I guees if you really wanted to, there could be magic rituals to get magic from the land, and nearby castle owners would always interfer, but thats ... too much like magic the gathering. Yuck.
Go realism! No bonus for buildings!
-
Originally posted by zabeal
Go realism! No bonus for buildings!
I suppose you are one of those people that likes the idea of manditory eating and shitting too.
-
Ugh, theres a limit to what someone should have to deal with... but if you are really into roleplaying, and have to goto the potty in real life, you might as well have your charctor excuse themself to a dark corner too...
-
If a castle is just there for storage... believe me, it will be abandoned in a short time after it\'s completion... If the constructions don\'t give any bonuses, they would be boring and there wouldn\'t be any sense in building them. Yeah yeah, so it could be used as a guild house, but who would spend their time in a stupid castle that hasn\'t really got any features but \"standing-in-a-very-large-room-and-get-bored-as-hell\" when they could be out building their character???
I think that a steady gold income to the guild bank would give you a reason to build a castle..
if there are no bonuses to building such a large construct, you might as well save the money and build a tent... oh sure, so it\'s pretty, but that doesn\'t really matter, because it will get boring to look at.. trust me...
-
Xalthar I agree completely - but it\'s going to be hard for you to beat that into a pure social RPer\'s head. They just don\'t understand that not everyone likes to sit around a camp fire and pretend to be playing the game...
-
Okay Xalathar. Let me make an example...
20 best people in PS go together, form a guild and build a castle.
They get money every hour/day + they make money on whatever profession they are in.
They build another castle and get even more money every hour/day + they make money on whatever profession they\'re in.
And then, they build a third castle, and a fourth etc. etc. untill they have no need to work, as the castles simply just earn enough money to fill the bank account, and seriously. How fun is that?
Yes, yes, you can \"just\" put restrictions so you can only build ONE castle. Well then, what about those really wealthy guilds who wants to show off and buy a castle for each of their upper leaders? Well boohoo, that\'s just too bad for them, or what? That\'s where the question comes into place...
Should we:
a) Allow any guild to only own and operate a maximum of 1 castle/grand structure, and then allow it to make a steady income or,
b) Allow any guild to own as many castles as they have money (as long as it\'s not making a city of castles ie. 1 castle per 100 acres or so), thus removing the castle income...
Besides, I suppose it\'s up to the devs, and not us, since, after all, we don\'t have a say in anything, we can just suggest ideas. :)
-
ok 1 \'grand structure\' to provide income per guild -> castle isn\'t grand enough though - it would have to be an extra special castle
structures that are capable of buffing their owners
and normal generic buildings and tents
(these are the types of buildings divided by effect provided to owner)
-
Pretty interesting ideas but Drilixer what do you have in mind when you are suggesting \"Grand Structures\" because that\'s exactly when you lost me.
Thomas
-
the grand structure would be the official guild hall. They would have to be custom designed for each guild. That is a \'grand structure\' and guilds are limited to only one - but it would provide income for either the guild leader or guild members... whatever the guilds want.
-
Gronomist, I don\'t think a guild having too many castles would be a problem. If these castles have to be defended, whos going to want to defend four? I mean really, how fun would defending a castle be? Maybe a guild could hold one, or two, assuming they have a few players decicated enough to sit around waiting for someone to attack. But 3+ castles? nobody\'s going to want to defend them, like someone else said, players would rather be out building thier characters. I say castles can be a place to rent out shops to NPCs (or players) and a certain income comes back to the owners.
-
it would be nice if you could hire NPC armies to defend your castle :) And animal trainers could bring gigantic monsters back to defend it as well :)
-
i think castles/other big buildings shouldnt directly earn u money just by having them, but u can let out rooms for other ppl to stay in and they have to pay, possibly u could also have workshops/forges which other ppl can use if they pay enugh
-
Well let\'s just hope all those features will be in the final game because I\'m not the kind of guy that like sitting around especially not in a game.
Thomas
-
Originally posted by Furay
i think castles/other big buildings shouldnt directly earn u money just by having them, but u can let out rooms for other ppl to stay in and they have to pay, possibly u could also have workshops/forges which other ppl can use if they pay enugh
being able to \'rent out\' forges would be an interesting idea - although no one would want to do it unless all the forges were pay... or at least all the convienent ones
Being able to set up a smithy right outside a major mine and then rent it out would be fun though...
-
Taking up on what some have already said and adding a bit of ideas from my side I would say that
a) Castles/towers or keeps (I?ll just call all of these castles) are usually built in some strategic position to either defend or may oversee comers and goers. Alternatively castles are the bases of the rich folk who collect the taxes from the immediate area.
b) Castles actually cost money to keep and maintain
c) Castles need to be lived in ? not just by the owner but by defenders, servants and workers (NPCs?)? (These would cost more money as well)
d) If the castle underlies control of some land, it implies patrols and tax collectors and a good avenue for war against your buggering neighbor
e) If the castle was built for strategic purposes, (say it has one of the only three lifts to the next level or the destination of a trade route) travel fees or a wage (in case of say a watch tower manned by PC/NPC mercenaries) would be the source of income to the owner
f) If a castle is attacked and left unmanned, it would effectively be some nice stonework or feature in the game. (Like many have said a castle without an obvious purpose is just a waste of time ? better the tent)
g) Attacking a castle implies siegecraft, siege engines and a huge army ? (Unless I am grossly mistaken, historically to man a successful siege, you the manpower advantage of at least 10:1) Or else a demolition person with some handy C4. In any case not an easy task indeed.
h) Castles are useful to build an army ? it provides a good base for people to gather to and train ? marching forth when the time comes.
i) Finally apart from any implied benefits listed above (taxes and fees) castles may hold structures useful say for research (say a new spell) or manufacturing ((some super magic weapon or something) or simply holding shops taverns or inns or whatever who pay a fee to be there.
Now I have just skimmed the surface of these points but I guess that one could realize that the idea of building manning upkeeping a castle could be thought of as interesting by many.
But it would also imply a whole new dimension in the game mechanics ? where strategy has more value than role-playing.
It would be really nice to have a game which can also cater for stuff like that but my guess is that that would mean a huge amount of work from development?s side. It would surely be worth the hassle if all could enjoy this but thing about the landscape mottled with castles outcrops infesting the place. Making it difficult to own a castle (ie very few will ever have the privilege of building or owning one) will make it not worth the while to go through all the development work.
So my final say is that shops and the like are fine but castles and other ?big? structures should be avoided and left to NPC domain (with the exception of maybe towers). Unless PCs will be allowed to possess siege engines such as catapults or gun powder, Structure demolition should also be avoided (or at least made very difficult)
Finally this is just my opinion and i might be completely wrong about what today\'s developers may come up with and in what time.
-
Yeah what he said... but specifically about they should be handled by NPCs. All castles and large structures should be pre-existing, especially those ones that house the vital lifts and transportation between levels. All the general facilities within\' them should be maintained as well. However, it may be possible, to make it so a guild can take over an existing castle, and get an income from a tax off the services (shopping, transportation) that come from the place. Not sure if the guild would actually be able to control that tax rate... it would be intersting for sure though if they could. And yes you would have to pay for NPC/MOB guards to protect the place (well not have to, but it\'s a pretty good idea), although any of your guild members could also defend in the event of an attack. A \"dungeon\" area of the castle would exist specifically for attacks designed to gain control of the place, away from the general populated area. This way the place is designed to be in constant use by the players, so it\'s value will always be maintained (no destroying the place to capture it) and the only thing that can change is the ownership, which would be represented with just a change of flag with the guilds logo on it. It\'s a good comprimise between realism and gameplay I think.
-
Originally posted by Gronomist
Okay Xalathar. Let me make an example...
20 best people in PS go together, form a guild and build a castle.
They get money every hour/day + they make money on whatever profession they are in.
They build another castle and get even more money every hour/day + they make money on whatever profession they\'re in.
And then, they build a third castle, and a fourth etc. etc. untill they have no need to work, as the castles simply just earn enough money to fill the bank account, and seriously. How fun is that?
Yes, yes, you can \"just\" put restrictions so you can only build ONE castle. Well then, what about those really wealthy guilds who wants to show off and buy a castle for each of their upper leaders? Well boohoo, that\'s just too bad for them, or what? That\'s where the question comes into place...
Should we:
a) Allow any guild to only own and operate a maximum of 1 castle/grand structure, and then allow it to make a steady income or,
b) Allow any guild to own as many castles as they have money (as long as it\'s not making a city of castles ie. 1 castle per 100 acres or so), thus removing the castle income...
Besides, I suppose it\'s up to the devs, and not us, since, after all, we don\'t have a say in anything, we can just suggest ideas. :)
I don\'t agree on setting a limit of one construction. As I get most of my inspirations from my experience with Anarchy, I would like to, once again, take some examples from that most brilliant game:
In Anarchy the most powerful guild is powerful for a reason.. almost every member of that guild are lvl 200, which is the max. They are perfectly able to defend their \"tower\" constructions, and get the bonuses they \"earn\" from defending them...
I would like to know if this is something that\'s supposed to be entertaining to the masses, and not an as-realistic-as-possible rpg that only hardcore fanatics would find enjoyable.. You can\'t just build these constructions everywhere, there should be special zones available for construction, and not like in UO (I am fairly certain you are able to build everywhere) and just build a lump of castle near the mob that drops the most powerful loot.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with a steady gold income to the guild bank...
I am against purely visual constructs.. they make no sense in a mmorpg... I will not leave out that some people might think that to be a good idea, but they are just not the majority, of that I am fairly certain..
-
I agree completely with wedge. You shouldn\'t get money just from taking over a building, it should be a tax of sorts on what npcs are doing- and if PCs can have stores, Iguess you would get a tax on them too.
Hows about we go back to the origianal topic, destruction? Under what conditions do people think these buildings could be damage, considering that most would just have npc stores in them...
-
seems to me like the only thing that could destroy a castle is magic - cant do it with a sword - maybe fire magicks for wood -based structures and earth magicks for stone based structures - a combination of the two would we useful for the high end stuff - actually any elemental damage would work
-
Or maybe burning arrows? :P Anywho, I like the idea of castles (or bigger buildings) start owning land areas, where you could maybe tax the npc shops buying and selling, or maybe some automated drop-taxes if the mobs are to drop gold, or even tax the roads/bridges and stuff. But, of course, it\'d be difficult to do, as the areas you control would have to be calculated and if two borderlines crash they\'d have to give some more land to the person who was there first, and stuff like that, big mess actually. Better not do it until later in development... Let\'s just get the 8+ levels added first, shall we? :D
-
hehe - most suggestions on these forums really need to wait a long time...
-
I like the idea that a guild could have multiple castles/grand stuctures but the thing is: what will be the limit? Will the limit depend on how many big heads? Will the limit depends on the number of members? Hmmm... Big question...
-
I\'d go for member count, but that could be faked, unfortunately. Maybe they\'d have to get a permit?
-
or you get 2 that can be fairly far apart but within the first ones national border. then each additional one should be captured. if you lose a castle then you can build another.
-
how about 1 \'massive\' structure - and any \'massive\' structures beyond that require dev approval. They can get as many log cabins as they want - but the big stuff would have to be monitered.
-
Hmm... 1 guild palace then permits, the best of both worlds + unlimited log cabins. I\'ll back this plan.
-
Oooo I just got an idea... Enchanted Log Cabins! :D Looks like a cartboard box on the outside, but when you jump inside - *WooSH* - You\'d be inside some super secret royal palace/hidden cave where you can meet Aladdin and find a genie and stuff... Right?
:P
-
I can see that - it would require a very skilled mage though to make the inside of a building larger than the outside - such as a palace within a foldable tent :P