Unknown2006-08-12 21:45:42
As some of you have noticed, I'm guilty of hijacking the Nexus Worlds thread. So, to make up for that, I've created a thread here for the discussion about conflict, events, and other gameplay matters that the players and Divine have been talking about.
Summaries of the points which were brought up:
Dynamic conflict:
Though I also think that Lusternia as a whole should move away from automation as the basis of conflict. Instead I would like to see more dynamic conflicts.
A dynamic conflict is simply a conflict that has an end and a beginning, a battle that has a specific purpose. In other words the war is only the means to the end rather than the end itself.
However, I also like Daevos' idea of quests that really can accomplish something forever, it would be grand, and involve a lot of RP opportunity.
Permanence doesn't even have to mean a permanent change to mechanics... The conflict could forever change the flavor of the area--the denizens take on an attitude sympathetic to the victorious side, for example. It still allows conflict without ever driving an org into the ground.
Events:
Player initiated events as an alternative to conflict based on game mechanics:
Players know the results of various quests in advance, and choose which one to do based on the knowledge of their rewards. But if that order was reversed, and players chose their reward first (e.g., Tainting the Star Council ), then initiated research, talk with the Divine, do whatever's necessary to obtain it, and is rewarded after a month or even longer with, say a custom barracks with the room descriptions, room plans, building purpose, all supplied by the players themselves, then the world would be more dynamic.
I like events that get started by players (by talking through mobs, finding something unusual, etc) far cooler than, say, a mob speaking up for itself.... I just get a real cool feeling if I talk with a mob, and then something develops out of this.
...it would be nice to see (in addition to things like nexus worlds) actual events that promote conflict. Take the sea quests as an example. Raising Marilynth and Ladantine would have been extremely fun if they were events that took place once... but they weren't. They were quests that had to be done continuously, were perceived by many people as a grind, and have now basically been removed from the game (or, their impact has been).
Sure, that's a great idea if players can come up ideas that could be implemented and is fair and balanced. I'd actually prefer that players come up with things they'd want to defend. Note that what would NOT be acceptable are things like "tainting the Star Council" or specifically harming other player orgs or changing predetermined plots/directions.
Multiple-outcome events:
I actually view as being intrinsically linked to dynamic plots, which is something that I feel is lacking in the game currently. I can look at every event in this game, and know without a shred of doubt that upwards of 90% of them had a preordained outcome, and that's actually depressing.
And even if it isn't 'totally' open-ended, you could still allow for two or three possible predetermined outcomes based on which choices players make as the event runs its course. Much better than fixing them into one unavoidable goal.
I've bit my tongue before whenever players start talking about events with words like "no preordained outcome" or "freeform" or "organic", but I'll just now come out and say that these events never work. Yes, I know it sounds awesome that an event is "open ended", but I have never seen it pulled off.
My expereince has been that storylines get tangled, admin get bogged down trying to furious code/set up new development points, players get pissed off that nothing happens for stretches of time when admin are doing just that, admin get pissed off that what they just spent hours (or more) working on doesn't get used, plot meanders in directions that are dead-end, players lose interest and just want to go off and do something else, admin lose interest and begin resenting the event, and on and on and on.
Hey, I LOVE events with 2-3 possible outcomes. We've certainly done it before and we'll do it again!
Anyway, I hope the Divine and the players will continue to discuss this important topic in this thread. Especially, the Divine, since we players don't know much about what goes on from your point of view.
EDIT: Whoa, I previewed the post and it came out fine, but when I posted it the quotes got messed up. Sorry about this.
Another edit: Hmm, it seems that there's a limit to the amount of quotes there can be in one post
Summaries of the points which were brought up:
Dynamic conflict:
QUOTE(Daevos @ Aug 11 2006)
Though I also think that Lusternia as a whole should move away from automation as the basis of conflict. Instead I would like to see more dynamic conflicts.
A dynamic conflict is simply a conflict that has an end and a beginning, a battle that has a specific purpose. In other words the war is only the means to the end rather than the end itself.
QUOTE(Ashteru @ Aug 12 2006)
However, I also like Daevos' idea of quests that really can accomplish something forever, it would be grand, and involve a lot of RP opportunity.
QUOTE(Xavius @ Aug 12 2006)
Permanence doesn't even have to mean a permanent change to mechanics... The conflict could forever change the flavor of the area--the denizens take on an attitude sympathetic to the victorious side, for example. It still allows conflict without ever driving an org into the ground.
Events:
Player initiated events as an alternative to conflict based on game mechanics:
QUOTE(Nax @ Aug 12 2006)
Players know the results of various quests in advance, and choose which one to do based on the knowledge of their rewards. But if that order was reversed, and players chose their reward first (e.g., Tainting the Star Council ), then initiated research, talk with the Divine, do whatever's necessary to obtain it, and is rewarded after a month or even longer with, say a custom barracks with the room descriptions, room plans, building purpose, all supplied by the players themselves, then the world would be more dynamic.
QUOTE(Ashteru @ Aug 12 2006)
I like events that get started by players (by talking through mobs, finding something unusual, etc) far cooler than, say, a mob speaking up for itself.... I just get a real cool feeling if I talk with a mob, and then something develops out of this.
QUOTE(Shamarah @ Aug 12 2006)
...it would be nice to see (in addition to things like nexus worlds) actual events that promote conflict. Take the sea quests as an example. Raising Marilynth and Ladantine would have been extremely fun if they were events that took place once... but they weren't. They were quests that had to be done continuously, were perceived by many people as a grind, and have now basically been removed from the game (or, their impact has been).
QUOTE(Estarra @ Aug 12 2006)
Sure, that's a great idea if players can come up ideas that could be implemented and is fair and balanced. I'd actually prefer that players come up with things they'd want to defend. Note that what would NOT be acceptable are things like "tainting the Star Council" or specifically harming other player orgs or changing predetermined plots/directions.
Multiple-outcome events:
QUOTE(Daevos @ Aug 12 2006)
I actually view as being intrinsically linked to dynamic plots, which is something that I feel is lacking in the game currently. I can look at every event in this game, and know without a shred of doubt that upwards of 90% of them had a preordained outcome, and that's actually depressing.
QUOTE(Temporary_Guido @ Aug 12 2006)
And even if it isn't 'totally' open-ended, you could still allow for two or three possible predetermined outcomes based on which choices players make as the event runs its course. Much better than fixing them into one unavoidable goal.
QUOTE(Estarra @ Aug 12 2006)
I've bit my tongue before whenever players start talking about events with words like "no preordained outcome" or "freeform" or "organic", but I'll just now come out and say that these events never work. Yes, I know it sounds awesome that an event is "open ended", but I have never seen it pulled off.
My expereince has been that storylines get tangled, admin get bogged down trying to furious code/set up new development points, players get pissed off that nothing happens for stretches of time when admin are doing just that, admin get pissed off that what they just spent hours (or more) working on doesn't get used, plot meanders in directions that are dead-end, players lose interest and just want to go off and do something else, admin lose interest and begin resenting the event, and on and on and on.
Hey, I LOVE events with 2-3 possible outcomes. We've certainly done it before and we'll do it again!
Anyway, I hope the Divine and the players will continue to discuss this important topic in this thread. Especially, the Divine, since we players don't know much about what goes on from your point of view.
EDIT: Whoa, I previewed the post and it came out fine, but when I posted it the quotes got messed up. Sorry about this.
Another edit: Hmm, it seems that there's a limit to the amount of quotes there can be in one post
Unknown2006-08-12 21:57:32
This is Vadriel's reply to events with permanent effects (added here because of the quote limit in posts)
I think it's worth pointing out that from an admin standpoint it takes months of work to design and implement something like the sea quests... due to the time involved in their creation and implementation, they are extremely irregular.
Not all events are ground breaking or earth shattering in nature. If they were, I think they'd quickly become mundane and boring.
QUOTE(Vadriel @ Aug 12 2006)
I think it's worth pointing out that from an admin standpoint it takes months of work to design and implement something like the sea quests... due to the time involved in their creation and implementation, they are extremely irregular.
Not all events are ground breaking or earth shattering in nature. If they were, I think they'd quickly become mundane and boring.
Verithrax2006-08-13 00:00:08
Two ways a freeform event could develop:
Firstly, the event could develop almost exclusively through roleplay. You'd have very little coding to do; mostly, teh administration would act by impersonating NPCs and roleplaying, and by use of their Divine personas.
Secondly, the event involves very little coding, but the event's freeform outcome defines what coding will be done for a less freeform event somewhere far ahead in development. If not throwing events on a railroad is not an option, don't do it for the overarching plot.
Firstly, the event could develop almost exclusively through roleplay. You'd have very little coding to do; mostly, teh administration would act by impersonating NPCs and roleplaying, and by use of their Divine personas.
Secondly, the event involves very little coding, but the event's freeform outcome defines what coding will be done for a less freeform event somewhere far ahead in development. If not throwing events on a railroad is not an option, don't do it for the overarching plot.
Unknown2006-08-13 00:34:52
I don't know if I like the thought of permanent changes from coded events.
On the one hand, I can see how it will be interesting and exciting, and potentially move along the story of Lusternia, if done carefully.
On the other, I'm not sure I like the thought of possibly forcing coded changes on other organizations due entirely to an extremely brief (relative to the game's long-term story) event in which only a small segment of the population will have a significant chance to influence the outcome. Additionally, coded changes by the admin have in the past sometimes suffered from not really aligning with the existing framework set up by players... causing significant problems when a perceptual or real shift is forced on them by harried coders just trying to keep up with what another organization is trying to do. If you are encouraging events which are almost totally player-based, and the outcomes are determined by the players of each org choosing their own results, then that would not be as much a problem. But somehow I get the impression this is about admin-run events.
Personally, I would actually like less coded conflict mechanisms, and more open-ended areas and entities. The Shallach Ruins is perhaps a poor, but suitable example... you have an area that can be claimed RP-wise by one set of players and events can spring from the interactions of other groups with those mobiles and area, even if there aren't coded quests to harm/help them, or whatever. It's a poor example because Shallach is pretty well aligned to one org above others, even if some don't agree.
I don't think the answer is tons of global admin-run events, even though a few occasionally is nice. What is better is more potential to interact personally with another org's loyals, areas, and interests... and from that a greater series of player-initiated 'events' that might only have the barest involvement by divine. At the moment, its hard to do anything noticeable to or with another org without a huge raid that is completely undone in under a month due to the nature of conflict quests.
What if we could (with great difficulty and rarity) kidnap certain loyals and demand ransom? What if there was a neutral area that could give benefits to every org, depending on who claimed it? What if there were semi-neutral areas that actually changed when cycled through forest/wyrd/flood/taint? Hell, what if demesnes actually MEANT something other than tactical advantage in combat? What if killing certain mobiles in neutral areas changed your whole organizations relationship with certain groups? And so on.
Edit: With the kidnapping, I mean some combination of multiple influencers/dramatists being able to 'capture' non-significant mobiles for a time until rescued. Not big individual quests for each mobile.
On the one hand, I can see how it will be interesting and exciting, and potentially move along the story of Lusternia, if done carefully.
On the other, I'm not sure I like the thought of possibly forcing coded changes on other organizations due entirely to an extremely brief (relative to the game's long-term story) event in which only a small segment of the population will have a significant chance to influence the outcome. Additionally, coded changes by the admin have in the past sometimes suffered from not really aligning with the existing framework set up by players... causing significant problems when a perceptual or real shift is forced on them by harried coders just trying to keep up with what another organization is trying to do. If you are encouraging events which are almost totally player-based, and the outcomes are determined by the players of each org choosing their own results, then that would not be as much a problem. But somehow I get the impression this is about admin-run events.
Personally, I would actually like less coded conflict mechanisms, and more open-ended areas and entities. The Shallach Ruins is perhaps a poor, but suitable example... you have an area that can be claimed RP-wise by one set of players and events can spring from the interactions of other groups with those mobiles and area, even if there aren't coded quests to harm/help them, or whatever. It's a poor example because Shallach is pretty well aligned to one org above others, even if some don't agree.
I don't think the answer is tons of global admin-run events, even though a few occasionally is nice. What is better is more potential to interact personally with another org's loyals, areas, and interests... and from that a greater series of player-initiated 'events' that might only have the barest involvement by divine. At the moment, its hard to do anything noticeable to or with another org without a huge raid that is completely undone in under a month due to the nature of conflict quests.
What if we could (with great difficulty and rarity) kidnap certain loyals and demand ransom? What if there was a neutral area that could give benefits to every org, depending on who claimed it? What if there were semi-neutral areas that actually changed when cycled through forest/wyrd/flood/taint? Hell, what if demesnes actually MEANT something other than tactical advantage in combat? What if killing certain mobiles in neutral areas changed your whole organizations relationship with certain groups? And so on.
Edit: With the kidnapping, I mean some combination of multiple influencers/dramatists being able to 'capture' non-significant mobiles for a time until rescued. Not big individual quests for each mobile.
Unknown2006-08-13 03:04:50
QUOTE(Avaer @ Aug 13 2006, 12:34 AM) 318577
What is better is more potential to interact personally with another org's loyals, areas, and interests... and from that a greater series of player-initiated 'events' that might only have the barest involvement by divine. At the moment, its hard to do anything noticeable to or with another org without a huge raid that is completely undone in under a month due to the nature of conflict quests.
What if we could (with great difficulty and rarity) kidnap certain loyals and demand ransom? What if there was a neutral area that could give benefits to every org, depending on who claimed it? What if there were semi-neutral areas that actually changed when cycled through forest/wyrd/flood/taint? Hell, what if demesnes actually MEANT something other than tactical advantage in combat? What if killing certain mobiles in neutral areas changed your whole organizations relationship with certain groups? And so on.
I agree. Conflict by quest mechanics restrict RP and gameplay - the (former) Sea Battle or Faethorn quest, for example, forced Celest and Magnagora, and Serenwilde and Glomdoring, to be enemies. There's no mechanics for Serenwilde to directly harm Celest, for example. I like the direction Lusternia is taking, moving away from conflict quests involving opposed communities, because that allows more opportunity for alliances and enmity to develop between organizations which were formerly kept apart by the quests. I'm not saying that Celest and Magnagora should be buddies with each other, of course, but that their relationship should be decided by roleplay and economics, not by quests themselves.
As for terrain changes, I was surprised to find out that a forced terrain change goes away after a while - I'd always thought of a demesne and forced terrain changes as part of an organization's "zone of control" - that is, where the water ended, Celest's rule ended; where the Taint stopped, Magnagora's empire stops. I think demesnes can be easily turned into something more meaningful than a tactical advantage without much of a mechanical change - it's mainly the player's perception that decides what they are. Maybe if demesnes or forced terrain gave their own random emotes now and then - like the current messages that a player sees when in the mountains about witnessing the awe of creation - that would help with their meaning.
