So I am re-watching one of the Twitch streams on Youtube from June of 2016 where they are fighting in the Black Dagger Keep. One of the things that sticks out to me is the juxtaposition of the wooden parts vs. the stone parts. What it feels like to me is that the Black Daggers found this run-down abandoned keep and built it back up for their use using wood since it was easier, and cheaper, to work with than stone. Some of the parts look very "slapped together"-ish. This is all a good thing.
What this lead me to think about, and decide to gather opinions on....
Given that Brad has stated that he is building "a world not a game", what do you think about the idea of areas that change over time. As an example, you come across a set of ruins in a zone that you're playing through and you eventually move over to a different area. You come back, days/weeks/months/years later and find that those ruins are now "built up into something" and some higher level mobs are now calling it home. Say something along the level that you are at now, to give you some content in that "lower level area" to fight now that you are a higher level. Or maybe some "event" triggers a "move in and build" of a set of ruins. Or maybe an "event" that if you lose, another force establishes a strong-hold in the area.
Thoughts on ideas like this?
Edited to add: The idea being to make it a "living world" that morphs over time rather than just a static non-changing world.
I was really looking forward to this exact thing you describe in EQNext before it took a dive. While the procedural programming seems to be there for these kind of events, The amount of time it would take to remake the mesh and texture for an entire area doesn’t seem well invested since you are not gaining new area, simply repurposing old area. If they could find a way to stretch Unity to procedurally generate mesh within a boundary (to maintain base environment), then this might be possible. But I don’t think this was their original plan. I think they want you to run by those old ruins after many seasons of battle and reminisce on the memories you had their.
Kargen said: I was really looking forward to this exact thing you describe in EQNext before took a dive. While the procedural programming seems to be there for these kind of events, The amount of time if would take to remake the mesh and texture for an entire area doesn’t seem well invested since you are not gaining new area, simply repurposing old area. If they could find a way to stretch until to procedurally generate mesh within a boundary (to maintain base environment), then this might be possible. But I don’t think this was their original plan. I think they want you to run by those old ruins after many seasons of battle and reminisce on the memories you had their.
I get what you're saying, and you're probably correct, but in my mind, something like a set of ruins being taken over by "raiders" and re-purposed for their keep would make for a more natural and living world. In the real world, something that would require a minimal effort to repurposed gets repurposed quite frequently, sometimes to the detrement of the original item. An example being when Egyptian peasants began "stealing" stone from the pyramids to build their homes.
One of the things that they have said is that they will have multi-level content in each zone, so this could, potentially, play into, or extend, that.
I like the idea of areas evolving over time. That's exactly the kind of thing that makes a world more believable.
As for the art and the capabilities of Unity... VR is putting a lot of dev time into making custom tools that allow the world builders to create a lot of content in a short period of time. It's been discussed multiple times in the streams. They pretty much have to build those robust tools because they are relying on a small team to build a lot of content.
From what they've shown, even a year or more ago, deformation and painting of terrains is relatively simple. In the most recent tech video they talk about how they are using robust tools to paint custom textures very quickly and easily on geometry assets.
All that leads me to believe that it would not be an enormous strain on the team to modify a region. Honestly I'd think it'd take considerably more time to build the backstory, build the concept imagery so that it's consistent and makes sense in the location, write the dialogues/quests/interactions than it would to impliment the art.
Anyway, I do love the idea. And I think it would be ideal if this notion were applied so as to help bring new life into areas that were consistently ignored or outgrown by the players. Places that, for whatever reason, just didn't spark a lot of interest from the players could be revamped to draw a larger consumption.
Feyshtey said:I like the idea of areas evolving over time. That's exactly the kind of thing that makes a world more believable.
As for the art and the capabilities of Unity... VR is putting a lot of dev time into making custom tools that allow the world builders to create a lot of content in a short period of time. It's been discussed multiple times in the streams. They pretty much have to build those robust tools because they are relying on a small team to build a lot of content.
From what they've shown, even a year or more ago, deformation and painting of terrains is relatively simple. In the most recent tech video they talk about how they are using robust tools to paint custom textures very quickly and easily on geometry assets.
All that leads me to believe that it would not be an enormous strain on the team to modify a region. Honestly I'd think it'd take considerably more time to build the backstory, build the concept imagery so that it's consistent and makes sense in the location, write the dialogues/quests/interactions than it would to impliment the art.
Anyway, I do love the idea. And I think it would be ideal if this notion were applied so as to help bring new life into areas that were consistently ignored or outgrown by the players. Places that, for whatever reason, just didn't spark a lot of interest from the players could be revamped to draw a larger consumption.
This could also be used to add "entrances" or "zone connectors" for expansins. Who says new expansion content has to "be a boat ride away"?
As an example, Dwarves come in and take over the ruins of a castle somewhere and rennovate it for their use. Maybe in doing that they discover an underground cavern that turns out to be an underground castle. Maybe they "woke something up" down there as a part of that, much to their regret. Now you have UNDEAD Dwarves in the castle, plus the cavern underneath. Maybe that cavern has an undreground "city system" in it.
I like this idea, and I see it kind of like the existing mechanic in the grimling wars in EQ? where you could turn the tides of battle to have another type o...fmob... take over the area. It was fun for tradeskills because you could have sonic wolves take over- and get a bumch of meats and hides and then kill the matriarch or nameds and have the owlbears move in. or not kill the named in order to keep the one species up. Like the rockhopper caves- always great for steady stream of hides if you showed a small amount of stewardship to keep the nameds alive- the rest would respawn and you would have another source to harvest.
ButI see your idea like an evolving one. For instance, here is a small orc camp, 3 orcs, a campfire, one tent. if those orcs aren't harrassed for whatever reason, in time they would become 5 orcs, 3 tents and 2 campfires one with a cookpot on top- and then a small base with walls. If still left unattended, a similar orc camp would be greated ahead of the base- sort of like encroachment. like those two camps of orcs in the first stream near thronefast with Aradune's first bad pull (sorry! Aradune- but its what I remember!) that looked like two small orc bases about to merge into one larger orc fortress. Instead of one open pass through the center, it would have gates on either end and be sealed.
But more to your point if the orcs were conquered and the base destroyed, if a bunch of halflings decided to make a NPC/Gypsy (lets con/rip-off/play with the thronefast humans) camp- they would build on those ruins of the orc camp and put their own style- like artowrk, or thatched/tile roofs.
Likewise the same for any random set of ruins- even undead ruins unbeknownst to the Maurading NPCs. marauding NPS. would create a fort on ruins, not knowing they were haunted. the spirits rise at night and kill all the marauders- but like the fort, so take it over at night. some goblins come by during the day and see the dead orcs, but like the fort and take it over- untill night ( or moonphase or whatever if the Devs wanted to keep a particular monster ina certain place for a time)
if I get the idea correcty.
Manouk said:I like this idea, and I see it kind of like the existing mechanic in the grimling wars in EQ? where you could turn the tides of battle to have another type o...fmob... take over the area. It was fun for tradeskills because you could have sonic wolves take over- and get a bumch of meats and hides and then kill the matriarch or nameds and have the owlbears move in. or not kill the named in order to keep the one species up. Like the rockhopper caves- always great for steady stream of hides if you showed a small amount of stewardship to keep the nameds alive- the rest would respawn and you would have another source to harvest.
ButI see your idea like an evolving one. For instance, here is a small orc camp, 3 orcs, a campfire, one tent. if those orcs aren't harrassed for whatever reason, in time they would become 5 orcs, 3 tents and 2 campfires one with a cookpot on top- and then a small base with walls. If still left unattended, a similar orc camp would be greated ahead of the base- sort of like encroachment. like those two camps of orcs in the first stream near thronefast with Aradune's first bad pull (sorry! Aradune- but its what I remember!) that looked like two small orc bases about to merge into one larger orc fortress. Instead of one open pass through the center, it would have gates on either end and be sealed.
But more to your point if the orcs were conquered and the base destroyed, if a bunch of halflings decided to make a NPC/Gypsy (lets con/rip-off/play with the thronefast humans) camp- they would build on those ruins of the orc camp and put their own style- like artowrk, or thatched/tile roofs.
Likewise the same for any random set of ruins- even undead ruins unbeknownst to the Maurading NPCs. marauding NPS. would create a fort on ruins, not knowing they were haunted. the spirits rise at night and kill all the marauders- but like the fort, so take it over at night. some goblins come by during the day and see the dead orcs, but like the fort and take it over- untill night ( or moonphase or whatever if the Devs wanted to keep a particular monster ina certain place for a time)
if I get the idea correcty.
A shade bit aggressive to what I was originally thinking, but the basic premise is exactly what I had in mind. Not only could it open up new encounters, there could be the potential for it to open up/unlock new content as well.
I'm onboard with the living world concept like most of us are :)
I'd love to see this work a few different ways.
1) If adventurers remove a threat from an "civilized" area (like near a town or something), that town might grow and build up slowly over time - at least, until a new threat appears
2) If adventurers defeat the master of a place (like the mad wizard in his tower), that tower might fall into disrepair over time... until a new master moves in, anyway.
3) If a band of bandits move into a ruin, as in Kalok's example, over time they repair it for their own purposes.
Side note: My guild in Wildstar was the Black Dagger Society. (We went with that for a few reasons, but mostly because everyone liked to abbreviate guild names and thus call our guild BDS, which we could pronounce as "badass" and feel very clever). I'm sure there's no relation but it's a funny coincidence :)
Anyway, I'm generally in support of a living world. I think the challenge is in having enough content so that you can get away with players only doing something once, and then in determining the pace of change once that thing is done. So for example if my guild beats the mad wizard in his tower, what do other guilds get to do? How long before a new boss moves into the tower? Presumably you'd want some time to show the effects of the change, so it shouldn't be tomorrow. Like most things, it's all in the implementation.
Nephele said:I'm onboard with the living world concept like most of us are :)
I'd love to see this work a few different ways.
1) If adventurers remove a threat from an "civilized" area (like near a town or something), that town might grow and build up slowly over time - at least, until a new threat appears
2) If adventurers defeat the master of a place (like the mad wizard in his tower), that tower might fall into disrepair over time... until a new master moves in, anyway.
3) If a band of bandits move into a ruin, as in Kalok's example, over time they repair it for their own purposes.
Side note: My guild in Wildstar was the Black Dagger Society. (We went with that for a few reasons, but mostly because everyone liked to abbreviate guild names and thus call our guild BDS, which we could pronounce as "badass" and feel very clever). I'm sure there's no relation but it's a funny coincidence :)
Anyway, I'm generally in support of a living world. I think the challenge is in having enough content so that you can get away with players only doing something once, and then in determining the pace of change once that thing is done. So for example if my guild beats the mad wizard in his tower, what do other guilds get to do? How long before a new boss moves into the tower? Presumably you'd want some time to show the effects of the change, so it shouldn't be tomorrow. Like most things, it's all in the implementation.
For your wizard's tower idea, maybe you can't defeat him. Maybe when he gets close to dying he does some sort of emergency evac, thus ending the encounter and losing the tower. Maybe at some time in the future, after planning and scheming, he attempts a come-back to that tower. Or, maybe he takes over another tower/ruin and builds that up. That could be a way to recycle content.
EQ had some aspects like this. They did the great Froglok migration.
Also they had the Hollowshade Moor War which was one of the most amazing (and never-known) mechanics in EQ.
EQN promised to do exactly this and make an ever-evolving world that would change, based upon player behaviors and actions.
Personally I don't like too much of this - I like the world somewhat staying the same. I think expansions are the way for the world to evolve.
fazool said:EQ had some aspects like this. They did the great Froglok migration.
Also they had the Hollowshade Moor War which was one of the most amazing (and never-known) mechanics in EQ.
EQN promised to do exactly this and make an ever-evolving world that would change, based upon player behaviors and actions.
Personally I don't like too much of this - I like the world somewhat staying the same. I think expansions are the way for the world to evolve.
I get that. I'm not talking about major evolutions. Just like incremental things here and there.
Kalok said:fazool said:EQ had some aspects like this. They did the great Froglok migration.
Also they had the Hollowshade Moor War which was one of the most amazing (and never-known) mechanics in EQ.
EQN promised to do exactly this and make an ever-evolving world that would change, based upon player behaviors and actions.
Personally I don't like too much of this - I like the world somewhat staying the same. I think expansions are the way for the world to evolve.
I get that. I'm not talking about major evolutions. Just like incremental things here and there.
Sounds like you been watching ashes of creation videos. This type of idea would work if people only had one character per account and the character ages and lost stats and died forcing people to progeny, new toon and continue in the new world thats been modified. But consider the developer work required to redo areas. If we never go back to the orginal state then its a one off on the developer work which is less ROI. Also more work for same areas and less work on new areas. And if it is repeatable as in back to the orginal state then its becomes less immersive, predicatble and borning.
Brad has mentioned special events like the giant example in another thread but those are not modifing the world permanently. The ingame time is a myth basically if characters don't die off so the game world is really only the span of a single character life and should be designed as such.
Zeem said:Kalok said:fazool said:EQ had some aspects like this. They did the great Froglok migration.
Also they had the Hollowshade Moor War which was one of the most amazing (and never-known) mechanics in EQ.
EQN promised to do exactly this and make an ever-evolving world that would change, based upon player behaviors and actions.
Personally I don't like too much of this - I like the world somewhat staying the same. I think expansions are the way for the world to evolve.
I get that. I'm not talking about major evolutions. Just like incremental things here and there.
Sounds like you been watching ashes of creation videos. This type of idea would work if people only had one character per account and the character ages and lost stats and died forcing people to progeny, new toon and continue in the new world thats been modified. But consider the developer work required to redo areas. If we never go back to the orginal state then its a one off on the developer work which is less ROI. Also more work for same areas and less work on new areas. And if it is repeatable as in back to the orginal state then its becomes less immersive, predicatble and borning.
Brad has mentioned special events like the giant example in another thread but those are not modifing the world permanently. The ingame time is a myth basically if characters don't die off so the game world is really only the span of a single character life and should be designed as such.
What is 'Ashes of Creation'? I stated in my first post what I was watching.
Brad has also said that they have procedural elements in the game as well. Procedural elements would make this easier than you imply in yourr post, especially where these things are adding new content, as outlined in my "new undergroudn area" post earlier.
Kalok said:Zeem said:Kalok said:fazool said:EQ had some aspects like this. They did the great Froglok migration.
Also they had the Hollowshade Moor War which was one of the most amazing (and never-known) mechanics in EQ.
EQN promised to do exactly this and make an ever-evolving world that would change, based upon player behaviors and actions.
Personally I don't like too much of this - I like the world somewhat staying the same. I think expansions are the way for the world to evolve.
I get that. I'm not talking about major evolutions. Just like incremental things here and there.
Sounds like you been watching ashes of creation videos. This type of idea would work if people only had one character per account and the character ages and lost stats and died forcing people to progeny, new toon and continue in the new world thats been modified. But consider the developer work required to redo areas. If we never go back to the orginal state then its a one off on the developer work which is less ROI. Also more work for same areas and less work on new areas. And if it is repeatable as in back to the orginal state then its becomes less immersive, predicatble and borning.
Brad has mentioned special events like the giant example in another thread but those are not modifing the world permanently. The ingame time is a myth basically if characters don't die off so the game world is really only the span of a single character life and should be designed as such.
What is 'Ashes of Creation'? I stated in my first post what I was watching.
Brad has also said that they have procedural elements in the game as well. Procedural elements would make this easier than you imply in yourr post, especially where these things are adding new content, as outlined in my "new undergroudn area" post earlier.
You missed my point entirely. Permanent vs repeatable changes is my argument.
Zeem said:Kalok said:Zeem said:Kalok said:fazool said:EQ had some aspects like this. They did the great Froglok migration.
Also they had the Hollowshade Moor War which was one of the most amazing (and never-known) mechanics in EQ.
EQN promised to do exactly this and make an ever-evolving world that would change, based upon player behaviors and actions.
Personally I don't like too much of this - I like the world somewhat staying the same. I think expansions are the way for the world to evolve.
I get that. I'm not talking about major evolutions. Just like incremental things here and there.
Sounds like you been watching ashes of creation videos. This type of idea would work if people only had one character per account and the character ages and lost stats and died forcing people to progeny, new toon and continue in the new world thats been modified. But consider the developer work required to redo areas. If we never go back to the orginal state then its a one off on the developer work which is less ROI. Also more work for same areas and less work on new areas. And if it is repeatable as in back to the orginal state then its becomes less immersive, predicatble and borning.
Brad has mentioned special events like the giant example in another thread but those are not modifing the world permanently. The ingame time is a myth basically if characters don't die off so the game world is really only the span of a single character life and should be designed as such.
What is 'Ashes of Creation'? I stated in my first post what I was watching.
Brad has also said that they have procedural elements in the game as well. Procedural elements would make this easier than you imply in yourr post, especially where these things are adding new content, as outlined in my "new undergroudn area" post earlier.
You missed my point entirely. Permanent vs repeatable changes is my argument.
And you missed mine. In one of the videos Brad talks about not wanting the world to be a "Greoundhog Day" type of thing where it's the same thing over and over again.
Based on what I was seeing with the video I was watching it looks like "repurposing" ruins for events and what-not would solve that.
This is the video that makes it look like the Black Daggers repurposed an existing keep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oNVecHjiJI
This is the video where he talks about not wanting Pantheon to be a "Groundhog Day". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slWD1F7_WUM
These are the videos I watched today before posting my thoughts about a "living world" and soliciting thoughts from others.
I am all over every aspect of this idea, including adapting it to NPC's, organizations and the structures of various factions.
I am very happy that Pantheon will not be a Groundhog Day and anything to spice it up is welcome imo
(also, I just built my gaming PC for Pantheon a little while ago and everything looks good... bring on the testing!)
Kalok said:
And you missed mine. In one of the videos Brad talks about not wanting the world to be a "Greoundhog Day" type of thing where it's the same thing over and over again.
Based on what I was seeing with the video I was watching it looks like "repurposing" ruins for events and what-not would solve that.
This is the video that makes it look like the Black Daggers repurposed an existing keep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oNVecHjiJI
This is the video where he talks about not wanting Pantheon to be a "Groundhog Day". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slWD1F7_WUM
These are the videos I watched today before posting my thoughts about a "living world" and soliciting thoughts from others.
And I agree but I was answering your thread. I think to have a real "living world" we can't have immortal characters running around. If the world changes permanently then we lose nostalgia on replaying areas. If characters aged and died then losing areas that have nostalgia would be accepted and become memories just like IRL with stories from our parnets and grandparnets.
But I want to clarify I'm talking about perment changes to the game world not events or NPC moving from one place to another and using procedureal code to generate a new enviroment.
I'm all for what brad has described and npc AI moving about the zone in result to player intervention but what I am not for is what ashes of creation has mentioned about player hubs. All that is scripted and repetableable based on certain events. Id rather see npcs responding to other npcs and players and then randomly they move to certain predefined areas but nothing is repeatble and predictable. I hope that makes sence, sometimes its hard for me to express an idea without several iterations of dialog.
Zeem said:Kalok said:
And you missed mine. In one of the videos Brad talks about not wanting the world to be a "Greoundhog Day" type of thing where it's the same thing over and over again.
Based on what I was seeing with the video I was watching it looks like "repurposing" ruins for events and what-not would solve that.
This is the video that makes it look like the Black Daggers repurposed an existing keep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oNVecHjiJI
This is the video where he talks about not wanting Pantheon to be a "Groundhog Day". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slWD1F7_WUM
These are the videos I watched today before posting my thoughts about a "living world" and soliciting thoughts from others.And I agree but I was answering your thread. I think to have a real "living world" we can't have immortal characters running around. If the world changes permanently then we lose nostalgia on replaying areas. If characters aged and died then losing areas that have nostalgia would be accepted and become memories just like IRL with stories from our parnets and grandparnets.
But I want to clarify I'm talking about perment changes to the game world not events or NPC moving from one place to another and using procedureal code to generate a new enviroment.
I'm all for what brad has described and npc AI moving about the zone in result to player intervention but what I am not for is what ashes of creation has mentioned about player hubs. All that is scripted and repetableable based on certain events. Id rather see npcs responding to other npcs and players and then randomly they move to certain predefined areas but nothing is repeatble and predictable. I hope that makes sence.
Who said ANYTHING about immortal characters?? I know I didn't. The whole world doesn't have to change "permaanently". I was talking about pieces of it, that don't have to be a permanent change. There are permanent changes to the world when expansion packs come along, so I don't see what the problem is, even if there are.
Kalok said:Zeem said:Kalok said:
And you missed mine. In one of the videos Brad talks about not wanting the world to be a "Greoundhog Day" type of thing where it's the same thing over and over again.
Based on what I was seeing with the video I was watching it looks like "repurposing" ruins for events and what-not would solve that.
This is the video that makes it look like the Black Daggers repurposed an existing keep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oNVecHjiJI
This is the video where he talks about not wanting Pantheon to be a "Groundhog Day". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slWD1F7_WUM
These are the videos I watched today before posting my thoughts about a "living world" and soliciting thoughts from others.And I agree but I was answering your thread. I think to have a real "living world" we can't have immortal characters running around. If the world changes permanently then we lose nostalgia on replaying areas. If characters aged and died then losing areas that have nostalgia would be accepted and become memories just like IRL with stories from our parnets and grandparnets.
But I want to clarify I'm talking about perment changes to the game world not events or NPC moving from one place to another and using procedureal code to generate a new enviroment.
I'm all for what brad has described and npc AI moving about the zone in result to player intervention but what I am not for is what ashes of creation has mentioned about player hubs. All that is scripted and repetableable based on certain events. Id rather see npcs responding to other npcs and players and then randomly they move to certain predefined areas but nothing is repeatble and predictable. I hope that makes sence.
Who said ANYTHING about immortal characters?? I know I didn't. The whole world doesn't have to change "permaanently". I was talking about pieces of it, that don't have to be a permanent change. There are permanent changes to the world when expansion packs come along, so I don't see what the problem is, even if there are.
Well our player character live forever in the timeline, so they are immortal.
Eh I guess I'm not getting across. I'm talking about one thing and you the next. These are my thoughts on a "living world" not so much exactly what you started the thread with.
But I'll mod myself out of this. I made my opinion. Cheers.
I'm too lazy to find the post, but it was about The Sleeper in EQ. The general consensus was that those who woke the sleeper, and consequently played fast and loose with the loot table, were looked upon unfavorably. Nobody liked the idea of loot and experiences being denied to them that were, heretofore, available for the population at large.
My question is, how is this different?
Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with the idea and agree with the concept, but I still don't see much of a difference. If you go to Black Dagger Keep one day, kill the mobs therein and loot THE "Black Dagger" from a named mob, then that becomes a reason for others to level and group there down the road. If I go there, two months later, and find all those mobs, all that loot, and that experience taken away and replaced with something else, would I be justified in being upset with that? It's not YOUR fault, like the situation with The Sleeper is the fault of those who wake it, but it's still an experience missed for the sake of creating a more living and breathing world - ergo, I don't see much of a difference between the two ideas.
Part of the allure of MMO's is following in the footsteps of others, finding what they found and, maybe, finding something they didn't find. Replace those steps with something new every few months, and that allure goes away. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? I dunno, just offering up my perspective here.
Tralyan said:I'm too lazy to find the post, but it was about The Sleeper in EQ. The general consensus was that those who woke the sleeper, and consequently played fast and loose with the loot table, were looked upon unfavorably. Nobody liked the idea of loot and experiences being denied to them that were, heretofore, available for the population at large.
My question is, how is this different?
Don't get me wrong, I'm on board with the idea and agree with the concept, but I still don't see much of a difference. If you go to Black Dagger Keep one day, kill the mobs therein and loot THE "Black Dagger" from a named mob, then that becomes a reason for others to level and group there down the road. If I go there, two months later, and find all those mobs, all that loot, and that experience taken away and replaced with something else, would I be justified in being upset with that? It's not YOUR fault, like the situation with The Sleeper is the fault of those who wake it, but it's still an experience missed for the sake of creating a more living and breathing world - ergo, I don't see much of a difference between the two ideas.
Part of the allure of MMO's is following in the footsteps of others, finding what they found and, maybe, finding something they didn't find. Replace those steps with something new every few months, and that allure goes away. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? I dunno, just offering up my perspective here.
There was NOTHING in my post about loot, lott tables, or anything even remotely close. My post was about a "living world" that changes from time to time. You're comparing bananas to pickup trucks. They're not even remotely close to the same. Nothing in my post mentioned names mobs either. In addition, Black Dagger Keep is a place that already exists in-game and has been in video.
The purpose is to create a dynamic world that isn't, as Brad put it, "Groundhog Day" over and over again.
Who says that a "ruin becoming a keep" has to happem only once? Mobs move into a ruint, turn it into a keep, are defeated, it becomes a ruin again over time. Then over time more mobs move in, turn it into a keep..... Wash, rinse, repeat.
Kalok said:You come back, days/weeks/months/years later and find that those ruins are now "built up into something" and some higher level mobs are now calling it home. Say something along the level that you are at now, to give you some content in that "lower level area" to fight now that you are a higher level. Or maybe some "event" triggers a "move in and build" of a set of ruins. Or maybe an "event" that if you lose, another force establishes a strong-hold in the area.
Thoughts on ideas like this?
Unfortunately, that has the implications added to it that these "higher level mobs" would also be, oh ..I dunno ... different? And as such, would carry different loot.
No need to get so defensive, fella. You want thoughts and ideas, you get thoughts and ideas. As I said, I agree with the concept, but see that it could be problematic in the long run.
Now, if we take it as a more of a revolving door approach, where the rewards earned from a particular place that changes over time are, stat-wise, the same but have different names and skins, that would make it interesting. I like the idea of story changing, the scenery changing, and the experience changing - not a fan of the rewards changing along with them. Higher level mobs would change those rewards, whether in experience or items.
Tralyan said:Kalok said:You come back, days/weeks/months/years later and find that those ruins are now "built up into something" and some higher level mobs are now calling it home. Say something along the level that you are at now, to give you some content in that "lower level area" to fight now that you are a higher level. Or maybe some "event" triggers a "move in and build" of a set of ruins. Or maybe an "event" that if you lose, another force establishes a strong-hold in the area.
Thoughts on ideas like this?
Unfortunately, that has the implications added to it that these "higher level mobs" would also be, oh ..I dunno ... different? And as such, would carry different loot.
No need to get so defensive, fella. You want thoughts and ideas, you get thoughts and ideas. As I said, I agree with the concept, but see that it could be problematic in the long run.
Now, if we take it as a more of a revolving door approach, where the rewards earned from a particular place that changes over time are, stat-wise, the same but have different names and skins, that would make it interesting. I like the idea of story changing, the scenery changing, and the experience changing - not a fan of the rewards changing along with them. Higher level mobs would change those rewards, whether in experience or items.
I'm not being defensive at all... You're making stuff up out of thin air and saying that I said or implied it.
There are ALREADY going to be higher level mobs in the lower level zones. Brad and company has already stated this. They want to give higher level people a reason to come back to the lower level areas. Just because there are higher level mobs, even for an "invasion force" doesn't mean that they have to carry anything special that the higher level mobs in the zone are already carrying. In addition, they have already said that they want "weapon diversity" as well, which means that not everyone is going to loot the same thing all the time. To quote them, "We don't want a thousand Sword of Yahkesha's. We want people to have unique items." This can play into that as well.
I don't really pull my ideas that I post here out of thin air. I'm usually posting them right after something in a video of gameplay from the VR Youtube channel. I specifically thought of this because of the video with the keep full of the Black Daggers, and its appearance, and the face that they also mentioned that there would be higher level content in the same areas as lower level content.
On further reflection, this could even be tied into the perception system. For instance, you're traveling around in Thronefast and "over hear" the guards "talking" about alot of strange goings on out near the ruins near whatever. You go to check it out and see mobs that are higher level than the regular content in the area and pass it along to your higher level friends/guildmates.