PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Bogo on December 13, 2003, 06:15:49 pm
-
I\'ve never played an mmorpg before so I\'m not sure how this\'ll go over, but while watching my friends play FFXI I thought this might be cool - wars.
I figure people could go out and start their own cities, and become kings of that city. Over time they would grow and gain inhabitants, and be a bustling little town, sort of like the ones premade by the developers, except these are controled completely by the players/king. Then I was thinking someone else built their own town not too far, and decided to take over this one. So this other guy asks people to join his army, and whoever joins gets matching armor, new weaponry, perhaps some training. Then one day the attack is mounted and the army marches toward the town. The other town had word of an amasssing army so they too built their own, and then you have this big war going on for who knows how long, but eventually one town is going down/getting taken over, or an armistis is called or who knows what. Perhaps there could be catapults and battering rams involved. People could also hire assassins to maybe infiltrate the enemy town and try to take out the leader. I dunno... just my 2 cents.
Dynamic worlds. My friend who played/plays EQ said it starts to stagnate and get boring after awhile because there are places he can\'t go because of his race/religion and there are so many rules on pvp.
-
What if one city would attack another, while its soldiers are offline or something?
-
haha maybe warfaring between the border lands.
-
huge warfare could happen but not between towns. your in a giant stalagtite. i dont think anyone is gonna be too interested in fighting other towns cus ur all kind of one nation... and what about talad and laanx. i dont dont think gods would let everyone fight like that... :(
-
Originally posted by whemyfield
and what about talad and laanx. i dont dont think gods would let everyone fight like that... :(
He may have a point there
like when Talad stoped fights between Enkidukais and Ylians...
-
of course i have a point, i always have a point! :D
-
Mah God Talos don\'t mind the fighting.... :D
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by whemyfield
and what about talad and laanx. i dont dont think gods would let everyone fight like that... :(
He may have a point there
like when Talad stoped fights between Enkidukais and Ylians...
you forgot that Laanx is one major biatch in these days.
-
hey you shut your mouth. even though my laanx worshiping guild is over doesnt mean that laanx isnt awesome.. X(
-
Originally posted by Altharion
you forgot that Laanx is one major biatch in these days.
oh yes, I mean only Talad is being cool guy
But this Laanx.... Laanx might even want to start some war...
-
The way I see it, there shouldn\'t be any city vs. city war. People would put too much time and effort into building a city just to have it taken over by another city with more people.
That kind of thing should be left for the surface. I think the world up there should be as open and free-reign as people make it. If people want wars on the surface to gain more land, let there be wars. But leave Yliakum to its peace.
-
OOOOOOOOOOR
Guilds can attack city guards(NPC\'s), and if all guards are killed the city is under that Guild\'s control.
Everything in the city will be cheaper for THAT particular guild, and the Guild Leader can choose prices for his city, and he gets
Oh, how many percent of the profits that he makes through the people that buy things. still 25% off for guild members though...
Then...other guilds can attack the city. OH ME OH MY.
Lots of sacking.
Is this game still Anti-PvP?
-
PlaneShift has never been \"anti-PvP\". Anti-PK, yes, but PvP is an essential part of any MMORPG and will be accomodated for in future releases.
-
Originally posted by whemyfield
huge warfare could happen but not between towns. your in a giant stalagtite. i dont think anyone is gonna be too interested in fighting other towns cus ur all kind of one nation... and what about talad and laanx. i dont dont think gods would let everyone fight like that... :(
I aggree, no city take-over. Maby just temporalry ocupation.. :D
-
Originally posted by Lee\'kayr
OOOOOOOOOOR
Guilds can attack city guards(NPC\'s), and if all guards are killed the city is under that Guild\'s control.
Everything in the city will be cheaper for THAT particular guild, and the Guild Leader can choose prices for his city, and he gets
Oh, how many percent of the profits that he makes through the people that buy things. still 25% off for guild members though...
Then...other guilds can attack the city. OH ME OH MY.
Lots of sacking.
Is this game still Anti-PvP?
What about good guilds, I mean especially lawful-good
Do you think they would do such thing for power?
hey, I like Xandria\'s idea :)
-
Originally posted by Mogura
PlaneShift has never been \"anti-PvP\". Anti-PK, yes, but PvP is an essential part of any MMORPG and will be accomodated for in future releases.
thats no fun you shoud be able to kill him atleast make him fall in a coma.
-
For those people out there that want major battles there should be major tournaments held. Like there are 2 sides and well if your side wins u maybe get a share of some $ or so. I know there are soo many flaws to this idea plz don\'t name them but use this as a ground peice maybe build on it and improve it.
-
[/QUOTE]
thats no fun you shoud be able to kill him atleast make him fall in a coma.
[/QUOTE]
i wonder how deaths in the game will be handle?
-
Originally posted by zedd_owd
i wonder how deaths in the game will be handle?
That has been asked here not long ago...
I still stick to the thing that you\'ll go to some afterlife world... I don\'t remember where I heard that tho... :/
-
A slight modification is all that\'s needed..... wage war on npc cities instead.
For example, we can have a castle run by an army of evil barbarian types. They set up a perimteter guarded by archers in tower. The only way to get through is by picking off the archers, using siege weapons to ram the gates open, to go over the walls, and so forth....
Like any other aspects of combat gameplay, it needs to be focused upon to be any fun at all, so the castle idea can be left out for now.
Personally if I was the designer I\'d make a priority list (critical, very important, usefull, optional) on the gameplay aspects.
Once I see something really neat, I\'d have everyone work on that aspect so that it will be the best it can be before moving on to something else.
Anyway...
-
A city could be taken under sige by a large amount of monsters or the monsters could try to setup a kind of out post which the players would not want and so they try to put a stop to it.
There could be quest that\'s needed to be done as well as the pure lets kill all the monsters!
Maybe find some thing that can destroy the portal opened by the monsters. Then get it to the portal and destroy the monsters portal. There could be several portals that need be destroyed, at the same time other players are keeping the monsters at bay.
May be some objectives for the players who are waring with the monsters stop a bridge from been captured or destroyed. Or stop a large construct been built by the monsters.
All in all great fun!!!!!!!!!! :D
Well I\'m sure you get the idea! :rolleyes:
-
having wars in an mmorpg game is not a bad idea i think as it adds a new demension the game. :D
i was wondering how the victors will be rewarded more exp, money,items, towns ?????
-
i wonderin how the wars could be arranged. What if there was a way to start a battlee as big as the ones in Lord of the Rings. A truely epic scale. All of it could be done with proper planing! Have one person at one end on a huge tower looking over the battle. The person looking over tells his 5 generals what the problems are from his tower using private messenging. The generals tell 9 parts of the army they control what they need to do. then that part corresponds. Now also i think you should get more money on not how many people you kill but how well you follow the directions. Going braveheart may not be such a good idea because from your view you may be kicking a**. But in the real perspective a giant dragon platoon has had it and is about to roast all of your peers away! Following directions should be a big part of waging huge climactic wars.
P.S. to correspond with another thread i have wars should be waged in places where laanx and talad have no influence. If ya dont know what im talkin about check out \"the most unique idea ever!\" by me Whemyfield!
-
Just a thought...
If large amounts of monsters/attackers are trying to storm the city, it would be cool if you as a defender could make use of city defences such as siege weapons etc. Eg. Your character could man a repeating crossbow on the city walls, be in charge of firing, loading it, etc. There could be ballistas, catapults, all sorts of neat stuff :D
-
Hey, guys... I don?t think these ideas are good, because this game will be turning into a RTS game, not a mmorpg this way...
It?s better to enforce rpg?s and d&d elements that rts... thats my opinion.
-
But the war can be planned in such away that role playing must be done.
First in order to win the war certain quests must be forefilled, your standard quest stuff here for anyone who wants to take party to this side of the war as I said earlier.
Second, IF your part of the defences yeah there will be lots of fighting but as above there must be leaders, planing, coperation lots of interaction between the players with proper goals \"hold the bridge the monsters must not take it!\" or \"hinder the monsters from building the siege machines until we have support from the flyers!\" There could be tasks here to complete or figured out but all in all it would not be just hordes and hordes of monsters with people bashing an attack button!
A large attack on a city of players or war on players must also give plenty of notice so we would need some kind of seer who would reveal omens! letting us know of the on coming darkness!(of course posting it on the web site would be good ;) )
Also in order for the war not to get out of hand, say the players fail badly and now PS world is doomed to be over run with monsters!! 8o Some thing must be put in place so that this does not happen and the monsters leave or retreat after giving us a good wipping!(maybe we will have lost much of the cities food and goods, weapons etc)
An army of good ncps might just show up and chase them off no fighting happens between the two ncp armies they just rush away and are too fast for the player to keep up with maybe they vanish into the monsters portal.
These wars would also be rare but big events!
It wont be an RTS game! sure for the war it will come into play but wars are events that happen every so often and only the players who wish too command and plan will see any sort of strategy the monsters and their own!!
:rolleyes:
In the end don\'t just right off the idea of war or large scale battles as long as there is a way for the technology to let us play without large lag and so forth. We can come up with a way to make it all fit in with the PS world and game!
Eh that goes for most ideas too there just has to be enogh players to want it to work!!!!
-
This way it could be, but each player command ONE character, not many, just the character and its familiars and summons.
-
What if one city would attack another, while its soldiers are offline or something?
True. Very true. Although a city or civilization would not attack when the soldiers are offline. Normally they would gather soldiers, and would not attack if they have too little. I\'m am impressed by you\'re knowledge of the Battlefield, Draklar Az\'randal. But you have much to learn.
-
This way it could be, but each player command ONE character, not many, just the character and its familiars and summons.
Arthureloi when commanding others this is meant as to give orders for other players to carry out, It\'s still up to the player who has recieved the order with what they do, but you\'re all on the same team right!
A leader is picked and the leader trys to guide the players aginst the monsters, but a player can decide not to carry out an order if they feel it is wrong or that the setting has changed since the order was given and is no longer valid.
So anyway your right, a player only controls the one character. This is also what I have been thinking all along . But a Player can be a General or captin or whatever and Co-ordinate the other players. ;)
-
thats why there shouldn\'t becity vs. city just guild battles and smaller battles. where u control only ur char. and there are other players around u fighting with or against u
-
i really like dexlans idea it is really good wit the generals and stuff but yet it is still controled by many players
-
A system like this is aleady done in ShadowBane. Guilds create their own towns complete with shops, hotels, guards, ect... And these towns can engage in wars against one another.
Troops are supplied by trained NPC charcaters and PC.
To train NPC characters, kings have to pay for them and their upkeep through the Kingdoms economy which grows through trade and tribute. As the city becomes more prosperous it begins to grow.
Vital siege engines could be supplied through engineers who have to be trained in woodworking, alchemy, ect... The engines built could include Mangonels, Trebuchets, Rams, Seige towers, and ladders.
But what about costal cities? Ones with open ports. Those could set up intresting types of battles in which the invading army pours into the city via ships and landingcraft and fight on from there. (It looked cool in Lord of The Rings anyways.)
Yet another Idea. Why should a kingdom have only one city? Mabye if a city reached a certain level of wealth, it could pay some huge amount of money to settle and start a new city, or fort. This could allow kingdoms to make discernable borders and such which could set up wars that were more like lenghty campaigns.
-
on the faq on the planeshift site it says :
I died and lost all my stuff, can I have it back?
After dying your char will travel in the Death Realm, and if you can get out of there you will have your items and money back.
heres the link: http://www.planeshift.it/community_faq.html
-
yup, this is todays update to the CVS:
- On death spawns a player above the npcroom. Temporarly used to simulate death.
so if you die you will be spawned to another place(the npcroom now, will be the deathrealms later).
-
You have to find the way out of the place you are spawned in when you die right? i hope they dont make it too hard!
-
Back to the main topic.
So anyway your right, a player only controls the one character. This is also what I have been thinking all along . But a Player can be a General or captin or whatever and Co-ordinate the other players.
How would a player be elected a General, Captain, or whatever? Perhaps having a specific rank in a guild would affect this, but perhaps also your character could have \"merit points.\" Merit points, basically, are points you get for achieving goals, obeying orders, having orders carried out successfully, etc. You could compare who has the most merit, and then these people could be promoted if they wish. Just a basic description of an idea, but what do you think?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But what about costal cities? Ones with open ports. Those could set up intresting types of battles in which the invading army pours into the city via ships and landingcraft and fight on from there. (It looked cool in Lord of The Rings anyways.)
It would also be interesting to have naval battles and underwater battles, although I believe those would be rare as the land is an underground stalactite. The lower two levels of the stalactite, I believe, are submerged in water at times, so coastal cities may actually be underwater cities. An interesting idea, though, although I doubt that it can be used in terms of actual, large-scale invasions on transport ships.
Yet another Idea. Why should a kingdom have only one city? Mabye if a city reached a certain level of wealth, it could pay some huge amount of money to settle and start a new city, or fort. This could allow kingdoms to make discernable borders and such which could set up wars that were more like lenghty campaigns.
Actually, I think that the game is not going to give the players actual power in the government.
-
Yet another Idea. Why should a kingdom have only one city? Mabye if a city reached a certain level of wealth, it could pay some huge amount of money to settle and start a new city, or fort. This could allow kingdoms to make discernable borders and such which could set up wars that were more like lenghty campaigns.
Actually, I think that the game is not going to give the players actual power in the government.
Well it could be done sort of. For example their could be the preset cities that will be in the game, but perhaps these cities could be \"ruled\" by guilds. The ruling guilds reaps the benifets of city income but if the city is conquered in war, then it\'s \"ownership\" would be passed on to the winning guild. just another thought.
-
Well it could be done sort of. For example their could be the preset cities that will be in the game, but perhaps these cities could be \"ruled\" by guilds. The ruling guilds reaps the benifets of city income but if the city is conquered in war, then it\'s \"ownership\" would be passed on to the winning guild. just another thought.
Actually, technically, the players would still control the cities. Also, the government described in the \"Settings\" section of the Planeshift website rules the cities and gets the income, not the guilds. Still, individual guilds could be charged with the protection of cities and get paid to do so. Guild members would pretty much patrol the streets, guard the cities, arrest miscreants, etc. Just an idea differing in some aspects from yours. Anyway, what does everybody think of this?
-
First of all, the beggining players would have to take a city by force. Most players I suspect would make friends to help them conquer the cities. Unless the begginers start with their own,puny, bite-sized \"city\", they would have to take a loooong time to get to the right level in order to conquer a city. Soon, after the skirmish, that player would have to build an army,barracks, a security force, and so on. Then, summoning his/her power as a strategist, that player would start and assualt to a city of their choice. The outcome of the battle is not by luck,but by skill.
-
First of all, the beggining players would have to take a city by force. Most players I suspect would make friends to help them conquer the cities. Unless the begginers start with their own,puny, bite-sized \"city\", they would have to take a loooong time to get to the right level in order to conquer a city. Soon, after the skirmish, that player would have to build an army,barracks, a security force, and so on. Then, summoning his/her power as a strategist, that player would start and assualt to a city of their choice. The outcome of the battle is not by luck,but by skill.
I doubt that you will be able to conquer cities and actually be able to build things - as said earlier, this is a RPG, not a RTS. Secondly, this pretty much turns the inner stalactite into civil war. I was under the impression that Yliakum was not in anarchy. Also, conquering cities by force is not the most effective way of getting cities - as stated in Sun Tzu\'s Art of War , attacking cities is the worst way of getting them, as \"the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.\" A strategist is more skillful if they manage to do that than if they captured a city through force. Anyway, this game is about role-playing, not strategy, so we probably won\'t see much in the way of actually governing cities and commanding armies.
-
Hrm... perhaps a system could work out like this...
-NPC\'s are the \'basic\' low-rank soldiers
-Some invading NPC army lays seige to City A
-City A is a player city
-Numerous small quests are formed automatically for the seige
-The seige is scheduled on the website
-Players may operate seige weapons, experience from them is shared
-
either way I\'d like to see some sort of large scale battles like the ones in ShadowBane. Governement or not the prospect of hundreds of soldiers collided head on in the battle field is something that would seem natural to a fantasy, rpg type of genre which is rarely ever potrayed. It would definetly help distinguish Planeshift from other mmorpg.
-
-NPC\'s are the \'basic\' low-rank soldiers
Perhaps there could be ranks within the ranks of NPCs, such as in RTS games. As in terms of advancements of units, such as in Age of Empires II. The basic unit is a Militia, but you can upgrade it to Men-at-Arms, and then Long Swordsman, Two-Handed Swordsman, and finally Champion, after you advance to the required age and pay the required price. Something like that could be used to determine how powerful NPC soldiers are, such as Spearman, Bowman, Ranger, and Troll.
-Some invading NPC army lays seige to City A
-City A is a player city
If City A is a player city, I am assuming that there are at least a certain amount of players in the city at the time of the siege. Also, perhaps NPCs can use siege weapons. Could there also, perhaps, be traitors among the people in City A, so that they open the gates to the NPC army?
-Numerous small quests are formed automatically for the seige
-The siege is scheduled on the website
-Players may operate seige weapons, experience from them is shared
As for the siege being scheduled on the website, perhaps that can only happen if a player happens to find that information. I mean, it would be more realistic for someone to know when the enemy attacks if they have spies, not a big message saying \"Hi! I\'m Bob. I\'m going to attack you with a big army of Trolls! Good-bye!\" Surprise attacks would be fun.
As for numerous small quests, I like the idea. If someone wanted to betray their fellow city-mates, then that could be a quest. \"Open the gates at 12:30 AM.\" Or \"Steal enemy plans.\" Things like that.
As for operating siege weapons, as I said before, perhaps invading NPCs can also use them. Also, the ability to \'sabotage machines\' could be implemented.