PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Deddarus on February 14, 2004, 09:26:36 am
-
ok i know this is a long way off but if we manage to get a town wars system going can we have seige weapons please (i believe DAOC had the sort of things im thinking of)
eg
moveable catapults that require multiple players to operate
portable ladders
humpty-dumptys (no not the egg...the nursery rhyme never was about an egg)
trebuchets (that can be packed/unpacked)
pots of boiling oil
battering rams
ooooohh... oooh + if we do get projectile seige weps can we have cool features like being able to fling diseased cows (yes this was an actual medieavel tactic) and player corpses
just imagine... u r sitting on yer pile of gold gathered from raping + pillaging in a distant town when suddenly the corpse of your friend (who was left there as a scout) comes flying over the wall and lands at your feet... shortly before a large thudding sound preceeds the main gate splintering into a thousand pieces and a huge army of very pissed off ppl come charging in with a look in their eyes that suggests they have an inkling what your spleen might taste like and are curious to find out if they are right
-
uhhh... this is a wish-list for things that might be possible some time in the close future, not for things that might be possible when computers are able to simulate reality perfectly. And what exactly would being able to use a catapult add to them game? by the time that could bedeveloped would could easily have spells that work much better, or systems of econmics where you don\'t have to wander around killing people to gain money...
-
this is not beyond the realms of possibility in a MMORPG ... its been done in DAOC and as i stated at the top, these would be a factor if we introduced town wars (ie.. u besiege a town... the populace needs food which they get from some dairy cows inside.. u fling over a deseased cow... dairy cows die... populace starves... etc)
trust me.. i have some idea of what is possible within a computer game... i do have a degree in computer game development u know :)
-
ah yes, flinging enemy kran corpses at their towns
or tie some captured dwarves, put \'em on fire while they\'re still alive and do same
yes, what a view, what a mayhem :]
-
I would like to do siege weapons in a future release. I think it is probably at least 2 releases away (after CB) though.
- Venge
-
*speechless*
-
That is good news indeed! But beware, I am fearing PS may soon become too much of a good thing... :O
-
Originally posted by zabeal
uhhh... this is a wish-list for things that might be possible some time in the close future
actually, this is a wish list for the final game, wich will take many years to complete(even CB will only be alpha)
Wish list
What you would like to see in the final game?
-
someone asked what the point of the catapult will be
well in daoc and shadowbane (shadowbane\'s system is better imo) walls and such have like 30 million health points and a spell can do like 30 dammage to them. as you can guess you\'ll be there along time but a catapult and stuff can maybe dammage the wall for a half million points. it will still take you a while but not as long
imo i think everything should be assembled on site, the only exception would be that a battering ram should beable to be constructed a bit behind the front lines and then moved up, but not too far back. its much more fun if you have to avoid the town defenders while building instead of ammassing an army of catapults and over running the town before anyone can come to its aid
-
Im pretty sure that Deddarus is an age of empires 2 fan or an Empires: dawn of the modern world fan.... most of those features are found in those games, but these games and ideas are excellent but maybe destructable buildings and possible terrain would require lots of programming?
-
why do we need seige weapons? all you need to do is take 1 strong mage on a flying creature, and set him high in the sky above the town with some defending archers flying around him. Then you let him cast a few meteor spells on the town/castle. Then you open de door and start looting cause nothing will survive that:P
-
Originally posted by Xanaroth
why do we need seige weapons? all you need to do is take 1 strong mage on a flying creature, and set him high in the sky above the town with some defending archers flying around him. Then you let him cast a few meteor spells on the town/castle. Then you open de door and start looting cause nothing will survive that:P
Because it is unrealistic to have one mage tear down an entire cities defenses-not to mention that would be boring with very few roleplaying options. I personally think it would be more fun to set up a catapult, launch some rocks and then go running into battle with a bunch of other idiots.
-
then where are the mages for? a mages spell is supposed to be strong, enormous and being cast from a distance. Maybe i was a bit enthousiastic, but if a mage cant cast powerfull spells, then where DOES the strength of a mage lie?
Spells like Meteor have to be in a wizards arsenal anyway, so why dont use them for attacking castles etc. as well??
-
What are mages for? Umm...what are merchants for, or warriors, or any class in the game? And don\'t you think it would be a bit unbalancing if a Mage could tear apart a city solo while a warrior couldn\'t tear down one building. Your idea limits the game choices so much it would be a disaster. Mages are for characters who want to play as a magical person and not use many weapons in their attacks. No where in any class description will you see \"Mages are the powerful creatures meant for tearing down cities.\"
I don\'t understand how you would prefer having mages cast a spell to tear a city down over having an army with a catapult. Mages are not all-powerful. Any game that had mages that could tear down entire cities would be grossly unbalanced. Why do you think it would be more fun having a mage sit on top of a city and tearing it apart as opposed to having an all out siege warfare? I just don\'t get it.
-
Originally posted by Xanaroth
then where are the mages for? a mages spell is supposed to be strong, enormous and being cast from a distance. Maybe i was a bit enthousiastic, but if a mage cant cast powerfull spells, then where DOES the strength of a mage lie?
Spells like Meteor have to be in a wizards arsenal anyway, so why dont use them for attacking castles etc. as well??
Siege= Distant attack
Mage\'s spell = Range attack
Therefore, Range attack < Distant attack
uh...make sense? If a mage does manage to get close enough to the walls to cast his \"Meteor\" and \"Blizzards\", he\'ll get r@ped by the archers on the walls. Or even as he gets close b cos the archers r on higher ground.
-
*imagines how lord of the rings woulda turned out if 1 lil nazgaul (sp?) wiped out gondor with a wave of his hand*
anyways... some points
Seige weapons would require destructable buildings.. however these should be limited to towns involved in town wars (dont wanna see hydlaa smashed to bits.... nor do i wanna see a player log on after being away from a day or so to find his much loved log cabin is now a pile of matchsticks cos some evil git (looks at draklar) decided it would be funny to test his new catapult)
tying in this idea... seige weapons should be constructed in a special building in a town (that is involved in town wars) and would take serveral ppl to move them....they would be very slow + drain the players stamina a lot due to their size
as for mages.... would be too unbalaned to let them solo a building let alone a city.... however they could blow the crapola outta a seige weapon, thus they have an important role in town wars and seige weapons will need an escort to protect them
-
if destructable towns were allowed, again i think it should borrow from shadowbanes system where seiges actually take real life days from begining to end, not minutes
-
I dont see how these \"town wars\" could ever be created... It just wouldn\'t work in this type of game...
-
yes i agree... cos if we do have seieges i want to be able to cut off a towns food supply + fling poisned cow corpses over the walls to get rid of any animals they have inside for food... i wanna poison their water supply + cut off their regular shipment of ores so they cant repair their armour.... i wanna stop them from getting any wood so they run out of arrows and cant make seige weapons
basically i want proper seiges not just... hmm if i leave the city im gonna have to run for it a bit
would also like to make it essential for player run towns to stockpile and manage the stockpiles effectively in case of a seige (ie store up some food + dont let citizens take too much)
i also wanna see spies, saboteurs and thieves getting involved
ie..
spy goes into enemy town... reports on their stores of food
saboteur sneaks in and poisons/curses certain foods (some would be easier to do than others)
thief goes in and steals remaining good food
next day.... big scary army appears with seige weps and surrounds city covering all exits, lil stream going into town is poisoned... anyone leaving is killed and their bodies flung back over the wall.... army sits for a couple of days stopping all flow of ppl and goods in and out of town.... spy goes in (claiming to be 1 of the ppl who inevitably tried to escape.. but was caught.. stripped of his clothes, which the spy is now wearing, + killed)... finds out condition of populace... reports that they all have low stamina due to starvation, that their arrows are nearly spent + their shields are battered but they cant repair em cos they dont have the resources...
enter the battering ram...... the doors are obliterated and the opposing army (which has enjoyed the luxury of 5 banquets a day,... brough to them from all friendly towns etc... + has a plethora of smiths working night + day to repair their stuff.. and fletchers making new arrows etc).... and they surge in beating 7 shades of crap out of all the half starved ppl... then turn their seige weps onto the town treasury.... break it down... grab as much gold as they can carry and march off home triumphant :P
*realises that went into a bit of a rant*
hehe i luv seiges
-
icefalcon, what do you mean it wont work in this game?
-
I believe there is a saying around these forums... \"Look before you post...\"
The idea on town sieges has been very extensively discussed here (http://planeshift.oodlz.com/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=6797&boardid=11) .
A few other threads are on this as well, but the linked thread has the most replies. Of course, some are off-topic and others do not have that much detail, while others have too much detail...
I feel as if someone is a Stronghold fan... \"What a stench!\" *Cow flung over wall*
Now, to make things brief - Who will command the armies, and what will the armies consist of? Why bother engaging in civil war, when enemies can easily take over from outside? Politics and outside forces can easily play a large role in this. Do not get too carried away by \"delusions of grandeur.\"
-
cow flung over wall comes from it being an often used tactic in medieveal seige warfare
as fir who would command the armies... this sort of battle would take place in either town war or guild war scenarios.. in which case it would be the mayor (or a commander he appointed) or the guild leader
armies would consist of players... preferably (if the commandr is good) arranged into suitable groups of mages, archers(and other ranged weapons) and close combat types... with each group having a healer or 2 as support... might also be a mounted group..... and a group of ppl manning the seige weapons
support untis would be onsight smiths for repairs, cooks to supply food, fletchers, quarriers (if stone becomes a resource).. maybe some mages charging glyphs
some players would be needed to fill a small number of specialist jobs such as theiving, sabotage, espionage etc
dont quite get yer meaning of the civil war comment... 1 town would be inside, under seige, the other town would be outside laying seige.... the point of it is that in a town war system there would be a treasury to loot, or a threat to reduce, or an economy to ruin.... thus attacking a town would be beneficial to the other town (if successfull)... laying seige (as history tells us) is one of the most effective ways of attacking a heavily defended town (in times of war the mayor could lock the town gates.. or maybe guards could stop enemy town civilians entering.. at least armed)... thus seiges would have a point
as for politics... yes u could launch a lengthy campaign of convincing players to vote u in as the next mayor so that eventually once u r in power u can take all the gold out of the treasury and deposit it into your original town... but surely that is a lot more longwinded and far less fun than seiges
anyways.. when it boils down to it.. its an idea... and in my experience of game design its always best to start off with \"delusions of grandeur.\" as no matter what the starting point of the design it will always loose a lot in the devlopment.. (i back up this comment with 3 years of study into a degree in computer game devlopment and 2 years working for electronic arts)
-
if you want that, you might as well bring in balista\'s those giant wanna-be crossbows that launches enormous spears.
-
could do... dont see y not... as long as they are balanced properly
-
hmm... they will be verry strong, easilly penetratable for walls and armor, but because it projectile is very heavy and wont be able to get long range, it will have to get real close, like within 30 meters or so of its target, making it easy to spot and dodge.
-
About the civil war comment I made... To clarify, you start in the underground city of Yliakum, which is a large, underground region which you can read much more about on the main website, under the settings page.
anyways.. when it boils down to it.. its an idea... and in my experience of game design its always best to start off with \"delusions of grandeur.\" as no matter what the starting point of the design it will always loose a lot in the devlopment.. (i back up this comment with 3 years of study into a degree in computer game devlopment and 2 years working for electronic arts)
Well, I suppose \"delusions of granduer\" can be of help, if in the beginning as a vision of what you want a game to be like...
as for politics... yes u could launch a lengthy campaign of convincing players to vote u in as the next mayor so that eventually once u r in power u can take all the gold out of the treasury and deposit it into your original town... but surely that is a lot more longwinded and far less fun than seiges
There are a few problems with that tactic... The main one being revolt. Nobody will like having the treasury drained for some campagin, unless they are bgin paid for it or gain from it in some way. Not many, at least. It is more longwinded, yes, but sieges, in medieval times, were long, hot, bloody, and very costly. An assault on a castle usually turned out to be a wait as to who\'s food supply would run out first. Disease becomes a \"big\" factor. Rats did too. These are just a few of the points that come up when launching a campaign, and there are surely much more. Such as Weather, Defection, Doctrine, and several more things. And spies could lie.
I am pretty sure there are posts floating around here on guild wars and politics, which I am too lazy to search for now.
if you want that, you might as well bring in balista\'s those giant wanna-be crossbows that launches enormous spears.
hmm... they will be verry strong, easilly penetratable for walls and armor, but because it projectile is very heavy and wont be able to get long range, it will have to get real close, like within 30 meters or so of its target, making it easy to spot and dodge.
Spears are lighter than stones, and yet catapults, for examples, or trebuchets, laucnch their projectiles from a very long distance. Also, a ballista would have a strong amount of force released, and would thusly be able to launch a spear fromfar away. Also, if a ballista had close range, it would NOT be cost effective. Battering rams would be more effectinve at knocking down walls, and longbows for piercing armor. Plus longbow arrows may or may not be faster than ballisa bolts. Crossbows are effective for piercing armor as well, I think. Magic, too.
Basically, what I am trying to say is the ballista needs a longer range. Otherwise, it would be useless. Send in a group of swift-footed cavalry from behind, and the ballista is dead.
-
you pierce armour with crossbows, not normal bows.
You\'d rather need to find gap in armour to kill someone with a longbow.
At least I think so.
ehh... this discussion gets a bit detailed :P
-
In the Battle of Agincourt, a few thousand longbowmen defeated several thousand armored knights. The hill was muddy and had stakes in it. Now, even with that, how could a few thosand longbowmen, even if they were English, defeat heavily armored knights if their arrows were useless? They were aided by a couple thousand footmen, but unless French knights were incompetent fools... Well, they were fools... But longbows can still pierce armor. I think.
http://www.archers.org/longbow.htm
Yes, this is getting rather detailed.
-
you are forgetting that they to get from behind, they would have to first pay a visit to the catapults and trebuchets, then to their defenders, then face the archers arrows and the ballistas and when they survive all that they still need to fight the defenders from the ballista. it aint that easy to get from behind...
-
Originally posted by Draklar
you pierce armour with crossbows, not normal bows.
You\'d rather need to find gap in armour to kill someone with a longbow.
At least I think so.
ehh... this discussion gets a bit detailed :P
I think the same, crossbows can pierce armor as well as longbows, but crossbows are more for the metal-kind armors, and longbows more for the leather-kind armors... you know what i mean.
-
Ok you guys, history lesson. :D There were different kinds of arrows used by those longbowmen, some kinds pierced armor, some slid into joints in the armor, and some were even designed to kill the horse. However, as a rule, crossbow bolts are much more effective and accurate at piercing armor.
-
what if it was a underground base or castle how would you go about seiging that I wonder?
-
well, you just look where the celing of the base is near the surface, then you start using the catapult and throw rocks on that place, pounding, pounding, pounding on their roof, untill it cracks and everything (including the pile of stones) falls down into the base, killing everyone beneath it.
Then you get your archers and mages and start shooting at the poor people that survived, because they will be verry low and so wont be able to shoot their arrows high enough to hit your own people.
-
Originally posted by Phinehas
Ok you guys, history lesson. :D There were different kinds of arrows used by those longbowmen, some kinds pierced armor, some slid into joints in the armor, and some were even designed to kill the horse. However, as a rule, crossbow bolts are much more effective and accurate at piercing armor.
What you said is correct for the average.
A bow depends on the bowman, a crossbow do not. A crossbow man offers roughly the same attack power as a well trained bowman. A strong, good Archer has the same effective range as a crossbowman, roughly the same piercing abiliy and the archer can shoot faster.
The problem lies in the strong, good. You need to spend allot more time in training the archer to be as good as a crossbowman. So the armies mostly decieded to go with the crossbowman if they dont already had good archers.
-
I\'d rather just say screw catapults and other crap and use a battering ram if there is casualities oh well thats apart of war >:D
-
or just no weapons at all, just 1 huge empty field, with on both sides the armies and then just run into eachother like a medievil battle.
-
I think that defeats the whole purpose of attacking a town...Anyway, in response to the underground siege question: The entire setting is underground, aint really an issue.
I must say, I think guilds warring for towns is ridiculous. The reason a guild is a guild is because people share a common interest in something and wish to help eachother out. Guilds are NOT nations. Therefore, I think guild wars should be fought within towns, with people attacking eachother in the streets competing for terratory and such. To have siege warfare, it should be declared by a leader of great power, say a king perhaps. There is a large difference between a guild and a nation. Lets keep it that way.
(P.S. In response to the battering ram comment, with ridding the game of catapults: You said casualties are a part of war. Well, so are siege weapons )
-
People...please, town wars dont work in this type of game, a siege takes TIME...thats what makes a siege work, it cuts off the supplies to the city. This is a game, we dont need supplies to survive, and we could simply jump over the wall of the city and leave... there is no point in sieges. Also, what would happen when people log off? People arent gonna sit on their comp and in the game outside a city wall trying to outlast the opponent. As you can see, a realistic sirge system will not, and never will work in a computer game.
-
Originally posted by Vengeance
I would like to do siege weapons in a future release. I think it is probably at least 2 releases away (after CB) though.
- Venge
i think they gonna try anyway m8 :P
-
Some of you have to get it through your heads that this is a game not real life, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE!! There are no limits in what you can do...Maybe they won\'t do it because they don\'t know how or it takes to long to make or it just isn\'t what they want WHATEVER!! But nothing is impossible on a game! You all base stuff on history like this whole bowman and crap well this is a game with people that look like cats and stuff it isn\'t exactly REAL LIFE its a whole new AMAZING WORLD where dreams become somewhat reality for us :)
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
Some of you have to get it through your heads that this is a game not real life, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE!! There are no limits in what you can do...Maybe they won\'t do it because they don\'t know how or it takes to long to make or it just isn\'t what they want WHATEVER!! But nothing is impossible on a game! You all base stuff on history like this whole bowman and crap well this is a game with people that look like cats and stuff it isn\'t exactly REAL LIFE its a whole new AMAZING WORLD where dreams become somewhat reality for us :)
i agree. it is a game, and we will just have to site back, relax and have a drink, awaiting the nxt release and see what kind of ideas will come, and which ideas will be left aside not be be put in to the game, or for later use.
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
Some of you have to get it through your heads that this is a game not real life, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE!! There are no limits in what you can do...Maybe they won\'t do it because they don\'t know how or it takes to long to make or it just isn\'t what they want WHATEVER!! But nothing is impossible on a game! You all base stuff on history like this whole bowman and crap well this is a game with people that look like cats and stuff it isn\'t exactly REAL LIFE its a whole new AMAZING WORLD where dreams become somewhat reality for us :)
Wohoo! Let\'s have a needle that\'s really expensive but can pierce any metal!
My point is: A certain amount of realism must be maitained. Obviously nobody\'s going to be a peasant farmer, but we can\'t just screw realistic things rather than study them.
-
No not everything is possible, we can create new items and themes, we can defy gravity, we can travel through space at 3 times light speed in computer games, but a Siege will NOT work because people are free to LEAVE and turn their comp OFF. What will happen to a siege if eveyone has to leave and log off?!?
-
Seige is very impossibel just not 24/7 not everyone is going to log off during every seige some would work just fine others wouldn\'t! Depends on the players on and what time it is!
-
Umm, anyone who says seiges can\'t be done, you need a lesson in MMORPGs. Not only has it been done, but it had been done fairly succesfully (not perfect). Ever heard of ShadowBane or even DAoC; realm vs realm? I wish people knew what they were talking about before they posted...
Also, in response of the players logging off and stuff, well duh! It is just a factor added to sieges that must be worked around. It takes time, resources, and much planning to get a large number of people to create a siege. Of course people will log off, so what? IceFalcon: Are you trying to tell me you believe all players involved in a siege would have to log off at the same time? That is ridiculous. You have nothing close to a valid point.
Raids are very similar to siege in that you must have a large number of people committed to meet and do a certain task at a certain time. In other words, if you can make a 40 person raid, why not a 40 person siege?
-
A dumb Question; ?There is diferents Laws in PlaneShift? I mean, imaginate for a second;
You and your pals are for the Kyle Town (is a example), and you want to attack Loxon City, OK, your attack is a totally victory, the City\'s Door Fallen and you and your pals enter the City, kill the citienz and Steal al of you see, ?And Them What? You and you pals are going to be criminals in totally PlaneShift? ?Or only you are going to be wanted in Loxon City? Or ?Your party are going to be Heroes of Kyle Town? ?What\'s going to happen? TELL ME!!!
-
Wohoo! Let\'s have a needle that\'s really expensive but can pierce any metal!
that can be arranged! Ofcourse there needs to be some boundaries but when i say everything is possible, im not saying everything that is possible will be done. Just making sure it is known that if they wanted to have things happen it will happen!
-
icefalcon please, do your reserch, i\'m very close to telling you to stfu.
DAOC had realm vs realm, and although it wasnt a full seige system, it was a start. Shadowbane had a full seige system and it worked damn well. first off, by seiges taking more than a day i ment you declare a seige (basically place the bane on a tree in SB). then there is a 3 day countdown in which the attacker tries to weeken the enemy but cant destroy the town compleately until the three days are up. this gives you 3 days to plan your time to actually be on, and trust me people will be on. and stragizing is half the fun, the trick is to try to time it when your guild will be on and the defenders will not.
as far as the realism, today\'s computer\'s cant give you that. they are just too damn slow to give you a grand terrain scean and thousands of people hacking and slashing etc, but a few hundred at a time they can do
way back to the armor vs arrows discussion, armor can repel normal arrows, if constructed properly, but are defenceless to armor piercing arrows. note crossbows fire bolts, not arrows and almost always pierce armor (my crossbow can pierce 3 layers of titanium chainmail)
-
What About Flying Away If You Have A Megara/Ptedoradactyl Or Just Going \"UnderGround\" For Example \'Your Town Is Under Siege, You Have Been Cut Out Of Food And Water, What Do You Do? I\'ll Tell You What I Will Do, Fly Away Or Go UnderGround, Wouldn\'t You?
-
no i think most of us would like to think we have a back bone and we would stay in the fight untill the bloody end. :P
-
many great ideas here but i don\'t think it will work due to ps lame respawn system - you get killed under some battle but you soon get out from the death realm take all the stuff back and begin fighting again
also, wormtail the battle of agincourt was lost by the french due to disorganisation the french crossbowmen was suposed to cover french knights who attacked the flanks of the bowmen and then they would have sent in the foot army
however the english was defending a passage that just got smaller and smaller the longer you got into it, that caused chaos amongst the french which meant that lots of infantry was killed by being ran over by their comerades and that the crossbowmen never came to cover.
the cavalry had armor that the arrows couldn\'t penetrate but the horses didn\'t and without the cover from the crossbowmen the cavalary easely fell.
the infantry was disorganised and many fell and couldnt get up due to the sticky soil and thei heavy armors the sticky soil also made it very hard to walk with the armors.
the english longbowmen had other weapons than their bows and engaged the remaining french infantry in close combat.
the frenchs armor and the sticky soil made them very unagile and slow thus the english, who didnt wear any armor and was fast and agile could defeat the remaining french easily.
the english arrows couldn\'t penetrate the french plate mails but the enlish won by choosing the right ground.
-
i didnt think they had decided on a respawn system...
ithink thats a pretty good respawn system considering it has to be realistic as possible.... no one will ressurect you for no reason...monsters and people in the middle of a war arent gonna bother with items...yah if you lose a fight one on one i can understand how youd lose weapons...but what i dont understand is if people have flying creatures why would they bother sieging just bomb...
-
I just read a website that stated quite explicitly that the effectiveness of longbows was grossly exaggerated...
Anyway, after reading that site, I have to agree with you, Korzan. But the bulk of the French army consisted of mounted knights, and had very little infantry. The unorganized mass of mounted French cavalry charged up the hill, were slowed down by stakes and mud, and fell from arrows hitting the horses - as you stated before.
I believe that, if my memory serves correctly, that the French hired Geneose crossbowmen foward to hit the longbowmen. From the front! And then, the poor crossbowmen were trampled by impatient knights just hoping for glory. The English did not suffer the same problem as King Henry V (I think) ordered the English knights to dismount.
I severely doubt that the French placed even a respectable emphasis on infantry, as they were obssessed with knights. Agincourt showed them just how effective masses of knights were on muddy hills full of stakes and English longbows.
Of course it\'s been a long time since I read about even the Hundred Years\' War in general, so I could be wrong about many things, but I am sure the French just loved their knights then. They did, at least learn before the end of the war that cannons were (much) more effective.
As for the respawn system, the battle would probably be over by the time you get out of the Death Realm. So no harm should be done, really. Just a loss of time.
-
most of the richest or most powerful people would have winged creatures anyway......maybe some people would get stuck at the walls but the battle will be over pretty quickly with people who are able to fly....
-
I have an idea there would be war games when you had to protect the king and the invaders would try to kill him.
-
yeah it could be cool if you live in different towns and then they get in war
then a town could have a mayor/admin who could decide what to build
}there has just been a war between 2 towns and in 1 town all walls have been destroyed then the mayor wants the walls to be build again and you can help build them{
i just hope it will be the FREE mmorpg of my dreams :D
-
Originally posted by Seru
A dumb Question; ?There is diferents Laws in PlaneShift? I mean, imaginate for a second;
You and your pals are for the Kyle Town (is a example), and you want to attack Loxon City, OK, your attack is a totally victory, the City\'s Door Fallen and you and your pals enter the City, kill the citienz and Steal al of you see, ?And Them What? You and you pals are going to be criminals in totally PlaneShift? ?Or only you are going to be wanted in Loxon City? Or ?Your party are going to be Heroes of Kyle Town? ?What\'s going to happen? TELL ME!!!
From What I got Seru has a point(I think). If an army goes around attacking towns for only to gain more resources, its going to be frowned upon. And surely it won\'t take long before the invaders are destroyed by a greater army.
Also not all towns are going to have very tall walls or walls at all, so siege weapons won\'t be neccessary. All you would need is archers and infantry.
-
As far as the people logging off thing have both sides of a seige have npcs so once a sige is started there will always be someone there and it can be continued by anyone who wants to join. 8)
-
Originally posted by Ineluke
As far as the people logging off thing have both sides of a seige have npcs so once a sige is started there will always be someone there and it can be continued by anyone who wants to join. 8)
I don\'t really like the Idea of having NPCs in a siege attack. I\'m not sure why but I guess the idea is if they are just computers, you can send them off and they don\'t care if they die,even the computers don\'t care if they die, while human characters will be able to think and react, like \"our commander is an idiot, we need to get rid of him and get somone else in charge\" or it\'s too dangerous to do that. Other wise, I doubt people worry much about their actions if it\'s only cannon fodder for the commander to send to their deaths.
And as far as people logging off and on, it would be like people deserting the army or new renforcements coming to battle field, if everyone logs off at the say time its like they deserted and the other side would be victorious. Having NPCs isn\'t really realistic in that they don\'t have to eat, sleep, or even get tired of fighting and decide to leave.
-
You should see the NPC troops thread, http://planeshift.oodlz.com/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=9154&boardid=11&styleid=3&sid=80168986d5a87d0d3690569cade8f204 all this is discussed in the later pages
-
The mechanics, for such a thing to happen would require major amounts of models, huge amounts of redesign on existing models. It\'s insane enough to let people build castles, or even the prospect. This game should have been built in topgraphic/isographic tiles. So much of this would have much easier to implement. It\'s great to dream, I\'ve set out over the years to try such things myself, but when it all comes down to implementing the design, you kick yourself for not keeping it simple. This would be one of those major sidetracked ideas, that\'s already grossly frowned upon.
The effects this would have on other players is unimaginable. It could result in the eventual death of the entire world. A collapseable economy is hard enough to think about. Those issues are already brought up abounds in other threads.
I have to ask. Why would you want to seige a town? What would be the effects of say laying seige to Hydlaa Plaza (SP?). The against side on this one has some serious pull, despite going against a Senior Dev. ;)
The creatures aren\'t even large enough to warrant siege equipment. The implementation of physics, skills required, and what an imbalance it would create. I think this response violates the basic laws that govern PS. This would require an entire rewrite of rules, and how characters are permitted to interact with the environment. Mainly PKing. What good is attacking a town, when you have to \'challenge\' each character to see if they accept it or not. That\'s unheard of.
Like in already brought up posts in this thread, that would be like the final battle in Lord of the Rings:The Two Towers when all the orcs, assembling have to ask each of the elves, and inhabitants if it\'s okay to fight. The inhabitants decide no it\'s not okay, despite the blatant superiority at the time.
I\'ll have to side with no go people on this one... Or a serious overhaul on rules. And I think PKing should be implemented. But in certain areas, which might make seiging totally viable. After all 2 realeases at least, could be 20 years from now.
-
If we are to put a \"siege\" system into this game (which I must admit is an appealing idea for me, if difficult to implement), I think a good place to start would be to create some objects (wall, doors, ect.) that can be destroyed, and allow mages access to spells specifically designed to destroy fortifications/items/the big, expensive sword your opponent is holding (I.E. \"Sunder\")). It seems to me a good (and currently realistic) way to start, and we can improve from there.
(Hmm... Mages get \"greater mass sundering\", Fighters get \"light catapult of maiming +12\"... sounds good to me... :])
-
Lol hehe :P Yes I really like this idea. It would indeed be extremely cool. However, I don\'t think permanant game towns such as hydlaa or ojadeva should be able to be seiged. I mean, those towns are everybody\'s towns. What would be better would be to have wars between guild buildings/castles and guild towns, that would only allow wars between guilds powerful enough (And wealthy enough) To build those things. Only those towns would have potential to be in a guild war, so yo can only buy guild/town war seige things to be bought in those towns. That way you dont have to be in a war to \"gear up for a war\".
:D
Oh and about the over-time 3 day war thing? That would work well because any large guild has a bunch of people on at all times and so members could be destroying a town continuously fighting for days at a time.. Until every opposing character is driven out! I don\'t think you would be waiting for the enemy to run out of supplies tho.. You would be knocking down the walls, poisoning things sold in stores and sending diseased cows over the wall immediatlely I should think.
-
Well where to start.. ah yes, iv played many and by many i mean MANY games that have siege. Its usually at a set time every week by GM\'s.
- In some games it may be for taking control of a castle. (The castle would have the benefits of controlling the taxes which you would get if people bought items in town)
- People would look in respect to you as you had the castle in control.
- You would have to defend the castle every week. It wouldnt necesarily have to be for days, but could take for 1 hour. Its never gonna be real enough in a game.
- As for the siege weapons, Venge already gave the heads up in 2 releases.
- Finally, personally i think its possible.
-
ok im just thinking from an ingame pint of view here but ...
seeing as you have to have an almighty amount of ram to play this game now and it still hasnt got everything in it ... how the hell do you think a damn seige is going to affect this ?
the lag monsters will tear apart the ground and drag both sides down into the hell they came from.
range < distance < all < lag
so unless somthing can be done to kindaspeed thegame up a bit and have it less laggy than im not sure how good a seige idea is.
agreed it would be so damn fun * thinks of the manic 64 player wars( catapults and all) on savage * but in this instance im not sure howgood an idea it is.
savage was built around that style of thing so it is meant to handle wars and lots of players, which it does very well indeed. But im not sure if planeshift is up to the job.
-
Lag is actually pretty minimal on my computer when I run PS on it and its about 3 years old. I cant imagine how well it would run if I was to buy a new one next year or something. Maybe upgrade an individual part of my comp or something.
-
What he means by lag is, I think, that there is a half-second transmission delay between the U.S. and Europe. While Planeshift is designed to compensate for this quite well, in a siege, half a second can make the difference between being able to dodge the catapult stone or not. :(
However, I expect that by the time a full siege system is put into Planeshift, the \"Internet 2\" project will be finished, and between that and the global satellite network delays will probably become less than 1/8 of a second. In fact, FTL communications could even be developed well within the next 100 years! (I\'m talking split-photon comms)
As for making primary towns immune, I definitely agree with that idea. I also think that a \"portal\" system would not hurt, so that players can get around cities under siege, but that the \"king\" of a city should be able to block entry through the portal in his city (but not escaping players, and if he blocks entry, nothing should be able to come through, for good or for bad).
I think that one way of making main towns immune would be not to prohibit sieges, but to give the towns \"force shields\" that block all damage and some truly devastating and wide-effecting weapons (All AI or GM controlled).
-
Oh I see what you mean. Split second whatever.. must really suck cause I dont have that hehe. But i do definetly wana upgrade from DSL which is fast to Cable which is even faster. Plus i need a new computer. But i mean, the comp im running on is so awesome it was like top of the line 3 years back so really im having no trouble with it.
-
Originally posted by Externals
Lag is actually pretty minimal on my computer when I run PS on it and its about 3 years old. I cant imagine how well it would run if I was to buy a new one next year or something. Maybe upgrade an individual part of my comp or something.
yeah i dont get lag on my computer. it only in hyddalla. and there its just insane...
but im just thinking that that would make evrything a whole lot more prone to lag.
-
Yeah it might lag when there\'s fireballs flyign everywhere and 50 players on each side running around and blowing up catapults and mages flying on pteausaurs and burinating puny archers on the castle walls who are shooting down the invading swordsmen and
But don\'t worry, 2 releases later we\'ll all have diffrent computers that are no more than 3 years old which we will buy a few years from now.... If you get what I mean so everybody\'s computers should be a lot more powerful. :D
Yeah I don\'t think anybody wants to see Hydlaa a smoking ruin because of a guild war between say, the Dragon Council and the Klryos of Fury.. :P
-
Hehe, yea but i think most people want the guild wars and sieges to take place outside the main main areas of the game so they wouldnt all be a big wreakage.
-
I don\'t think the Guild towns/castles/buildings should be built in a main area anyway, too obstructive and.. you know.. Land value is too high :P
Okay mabye you can but 1,000,000 tria per square meter. :P Anyway, those things should be out of the way anyway, in hills or feilds or mountains designed for player buildings and towns and whatevers.
-
Hey, there\'s a thought: How much, precisely, should such a castle cost?
Personally, I think that any guild with more than, oh, 20 or 200 players should get a *basic* castle for free. Any *upgrades* they should have to pay for themselves. However, smaller guilds or powerful players should also have the opportunity to build their own castles, be it at some huge price.
Another line of thought might be that, if the price ends up too high, players may ignore the castle system altogether in favor of better arms and armor. The price needs to be prohibitive to single players, but not too expensive for guilds or groups.
Another idea I had: If Planeshift is to have guild castles, then those guilds are also going to need treasuries with which to build and maintain them. I think that guilds should be given a member taxation system (with the limit that they may not tax more than 5 or 10% of the players income). This will both allow for money with which to improve a castle, but also allow there to be a vault in each castle that can be raided.
On further note, I can imagine that players would be upset if some very powerful player just went around capturing other player\'s guilds. Thus, I think that really powerful players should be prevented from raiding other players that are considerably weaker than them. I also think that capturing a castle should be temporary, expensive, difficult, or maybe even impossible.
Another possibility might be that you could make a siege expensive, so that players will avoid doing it unless the gains will be greater than the costs, or they have a vendetta against their target.
Whew! (pant, pant, pant...) 8)
-
If this idea is possible and from wot i hear it is then we should do it :P
-
@zkin: Or the castle would be so prohibitively expensive that nothing but a large guild pooling all of its member\'s money would be able to afford it.. like, say, 1-2 million tria? :D (Hey, for a guild with 50 active members 1 mil is only 20k per person!)
Sure, there could be a vault to act as the guild bank. Also say only guilds can buy seige weapons inside their twn or an allied guild\'s town and so the powerful player would have no access to these weapons.. and anyway a guild with only weak players deserves to be taken over anyway :P but as someone earlier said, a castle or town would be impossible to take over without some seige weapons cause they would have far too much health..
Yeah, seiges should be expensive in equipment, time and life.. :]
-
if we do this, why not call the game:
planeshift: battlegrounds
:D
-
Y-yes... I think about 0.5 to 0.75 million tria should be about right for a very basic castle. Thus, the price should prohibit a single player from being able to afford it, but a group of 10-20 players, with time and effort, could save up enough.
Also, making a \"Planeshift: Battlegrounds\" game sounds like a good idea to me. What I mean is, Planeshift could be split into two different \"Games\"; a \"Guildwars\" protion and a \"Normal\" portion. In \"Normal\" mode, the player may wander around with his character normally, but in \"Guildwars\" mode, the player can build and maintain castles, lays siege to other castles, and command armies of NPCs. Thus, the two games can be intertwined, but without horribly unbalancing either portion.
-
sounds great! but what i ment with \'battlegrounds\' is that thats the name of the new WoW expansion pack. were you fight with groups of people vs eachother
-
Well... having two separate games wouldn\'t wrok so well I think.. you should be able to blend both seamlessly with each other, I mean it would be better if you can do pretty much everything without having to create 3 diffrent characters. :D
Ahhh 1-2 million too much? :] Well yeah.. mabye the would buy a castle of grand proportions.. and 5 million would build you a city plus an enourmous grand castle.. :D
-
Er... What I meant was that the two \"games\" would still be the same game, but each \"game\" would simply be a different way of playing PS.
-
Hmm... but there would be no dividing line right? Cause then it would be fine.. :D
-
The primary consideration in any mass-player event is going to be lag. The more Free-for-all the action is allowed to be, the more crowding and the more lag. Perhaps, this won\'t be as much of an issue by the time all the levels \"inside\" are finished and something like seiges and player towns are considered for the surface...but only perhaps.
As has been stated eleswhere in this thread, an actual seige took a very long time and had little \"action\" going on that would keep players occupied or offer much enjoyment. The only part that really makes for a fun game experience is the final assault.
Forgetting about Player vs Player city assaults for now, let\'s just look at what a PvE \"seige\" could be. Firstly, I see them as the last part of a series of linked quests. These quests would be accepted and undertaken by either one guild or a group of guilds with teams within one guild or individual guilds completing different quests such as assembling materials, building and postioning seige weapons, protecting them, \"recruiting\" troops, scouting, spying, etc. This could take days or even a week or more to complete.
Once all the preliminary quests were completed, the guild(s) would be instructed to assemble and begin the final assault. The \"prep\" work and intitial parts of the seige having been carried out in the pre-quests. Each guild, if many were involved, or guild leader, if one was involved, would be assigned particular tasks by the quest giver. These might be on a menu where the guild leader could assign individual teams to each task or, with multiple guilds involved, chosen from a list the quest npc shared with the guild leaders. These would be the actual attack orders: take the South Gate etc and would also \"progress\" or advance and change as each goal was achieved.
Upon final victory, Honor or Bravery points would be distributed, the npc leaders would be executed or exiled, spoils would be shared and everyone goes home....until the next time. It would also be possible to stage these \"seiges\" in several places with greater and greater prep required and difficulty in the final assualt...and provide lots of valid RP possiblilites.
One big advantage to this is that it spreads the action around thus reducing lag. Another is that it allows many small \"rewards\" to be built into the whole, larger scheme. A third is that it would allow for quests of varying difficulty to be included so lower level players could participate and not just the very high level.
Additionally, no players hard earned town is destroyed. I frankly consider that sort of activity (player town vs player town seiges) to be so destructive as to be a really good reason for people to stop playing any game. Not to mention that the winners soon become an unstoppable juggernaut. Shadowbane being a perfect example. If you want to have big PvP battles, have them in open ground somewhere even up to and including the building of temporary palisades and whatever other mechana of war you want to employ.
That looks like more than my two cents worth but since it\'s an open source project, you get a discount! :)
-
Well.. I don\'t know... PVE seiges wouldn\'t be as grand and exciting I would think. It would just be like a bunch of battles spread apart :/
I don\'t think lag would be THAT much of a problem, Ive gone on 20-player ulbernaut hunts before and it doesn\'t lag in the slightest bit..
Although that thing about the PVP seiges being so destructive and the winner becoming a juggernaut has merit.. hmm :diamond:
It would encourage giant alliances to defeat the large guild though.. and even encourage non-guild freelancers to take a crack! Could be a grand and epic bttle..
-
Well... you certianly have a very good and valid point. I think it is a good idea, and I would love to see it, but a big factor in what can and cannot be easily put into an MMORPG is \"matinence\". I fear that it would be difficult to avoid GMs or Devs having to spend hours or even days preparing for each such siege, and since many *different* people are each going to want their *own* siege, the time constraints quickly become prohititive. Thus, it is neccessary to make as much of the content of an MMORPG self-generating. The eaisiest way to do this so that things are different and non-repetitive (and, for that matter, realistic), is to make events depend on or be generated by other players. While an MMORPG only has a handful of Devs and GMs, the players in a game are very plentiful. Thus, we come to the topic of PvP...
PvP is a dangerous and scary concept in many ways. Direct conflict between players means that someone is going to lose, and someone is going to win, the later of which takes no small fee from the former. No player wants to lose things. However, it is possible to twist PvP so that, while players still fight indirectly, the loser does not lose anything *personally*, but the winner still gains something. This is the kind of siege system I could dream of.
What I am suggesting is more or less what I have suggested previously (with a few twists):
- Each player has a treasury.
- A player may attack another player once a day (thus, a player will only use this precious attack if he knows he will gain more than he will lose; this should help prevent \"The Strong vs. The Weak\" issues).
- If he is victorious, he steals a flat 15% of the defenders treasury (no margin of success, no bonuses)
- The defender does not have to pay for repairs (This, while it may not seem realistic, is mostly true for any raid; in small battles, the object is to get in and out quickly, before the target can react. Thus, siege engines and other highly damaging equipment are usually not used.)
- Once a week, a player may declare \"War\", and in that situation, both the attacker and defender may lose things, and in LARGE quantities. The attacker should be at a severe disadvantage for this, to discourage randomly doing it for \"fun\".
- Castles may not be captured, only ransacked.
-
Quote:
\"... a big factor in what can and cannot be easily put into an MMORPG is \"matinence\". I fear that it would be difficult to avoid GMs or Devs having to spend hours or even days preparing for each such siege...\"
That\'s not really the way I see it structured. There shouldn\'t be any GM intervention neccesary rather it would simply do a series of linked quests with a few unique screens involved for players to select or allocate out the various quests and stages of the seige. The actual seige city would be a constant part of the game that was \"dormant\" or served other purposes until some group finished the \"pre-quests\" and started an actual final assault.
You do bring up a possible problem in that two or more groups might reach the point of staging a final assault at the same time. If the are was \"instanced\" then it\'s not a problem. If it wasn\'t/isn\'t then I suppose they\'d just have to queue up and wait for the guys that were there first before their quest request was accepted by the final quest giver. I guess in an uninstance situation that means they might \"interfere\" but if their quest wasn\'t operating yet, they could really do anything but kill a few defenders without having any negative impact on the team currently doing the quest.
Instancing is the best thing to happen to MMORPG\'s...ever!
-
Oh, yes-regarding lag (I forgot to mention this):
Part of the idea of setting up two co-existant \"games\" or modes of play (one for normal play, one for sieges) is that, in the context of the second \"game\"/mode of play, the designers can set up the UI in such a way as to be more efficient for that way of playing. The UI can also be designed to be more user friendly for a player trying to run a siege, another big bonus.
What I mean is, in \"siege mode\", the game can take an overhead view of the world, and in that overhead view, the high resolution images normally avalible in \"normal mode\" would be wasted. So, the game can use different lower-rez models for characters and buildings alike in \"siege mode\". End result: game still runs smoothly.