Author Topic: seige weapons  (Read 7106 times)

rosmerelmer

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #75 on: August 19, 2005, 11:03:59 am »
if we do this, why not call the game:

planeshift: battlegrounds

:D

if you have really cool photoshop tutorials don\'t be afraid to pm me!

zkin

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #76 on: August 24, 2005, 08:47:55 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2005, 08:48:23 pm by zkin »
Zkin of Insandustries
Founder of the Circle of Mages (retired)

rosmerelmer

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #77 on: August 24, 2005, 09:20:47 pm »
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

if you have really cool photoshop tutorials don\'t be afraid to pm me!

Neryam

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 363
  • Knight Avatar of the Guild Knights
    • View Profile
    • Dragon Peak
(No subject)
« Reply #78 on: August 26, 2005, 10:33:25 am »
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
Vis vires est haud claustrum ut animus. Power is no bar to the Heart.
Guild Knights will return. When I feel like it.


zkin

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
"Multi-game"
« Reply #79 on: August 26, 2005, 08:48:21 pm »
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.
Zkin of Insandustries
Founder of the Circle of Mages (retired)

Neryam

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 363
  • Knight Avatar of the Guild Knights
    • View Profile
    • Dragon Peak
(No subject)
« Reply #80 on: August 27, 2005, 02:39:31 am »
Hmm... but there would be no dividing line right? Cause then it would be fine.. :D
Vis vires est haud claustrum ut animus. Power is no bar to the Heart.
Guild Knights will return. When I feel like it.


Ivniciix

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #81 on: August 31, 2005, 03:02:47 am »
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! :)

Neryam

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 363
  • Knight Avatar of the Guild Knights
    • View Profile
    • Dragon Peak
(No subject)
« Reply #82 on: August 31, 2005, 01:58:19 pm »
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..
Vis vires est haud claustrum ut animus. Power is no bar to the Heart.
Guild Knights will return. When I feel like it.


zkin

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Siege
« Reply #83 on: September 01, 2005, 12:55:04 am »
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.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2005, 01:00:33 am by zkin »
Zkin of Insandustries
Founder of the Circle of Mages (retired)

Ivniciix

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #84 on: September 01, 2005, 03:10:10 am »
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!

zkin

  • Traveller
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
...
« Reply #85 on: September 01, 2005, 07:23:23 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2005, 07:24:24 pm by zkin »
Zkin of Insandustries
Founder of the Circle of Mages (retired)