Development Cycle Archive
Thread: In-Concept Open Discussion
TheMDude wrote:
Responses inorange because I'm too lazy to break up the quotes.
Tinkergirl wrote:
Q - Playercities are dead, why not have apartments in the NPC cities to bring life to them?
A - You complain that player cities are dead (you mention being used to the bustle of Coronet), well, what reason would people have to leave the NPC cities if they could live, work, sell and everything in an NPC city? Doing so would only make your complaint about empty playercities worse.
Well, I think that if apartments were only in NPC cities, it would raise the bar for player citycommunitycommitment. If such an alternative was available, the people who weren't that loyal to their city would pack up and move to the NPC towns, leaving the cities that actually have significant, dedicated peoplestanding. Guilds, PAs, or just huge groups that really want to make a community will flourish, while more casual groups will pushed to try harder or fold. I think that's good for everybody involved.
I'm going to guess that you're involved with a player city community. If not, imagine that you're part of a player city with a whole lot friends you like. Thatand you'vespent so much time dedicated to the city.If NPC citys got apartments and shops tomorrow, would you abandon your town?
I've been involved with a couple of player cities now - mayoress of one, and friendly outsider to another. I see your point about player cities being filled with people who don't really subscribe to the playercity life. I'd wonder though, with all the new players coming in (I see quite a few every day) - they might never find out about playercities to decide if they would like to be part of one. Sometimes you have to be part of it to realise you like it.
And I can see your 'survival of the fittest city' idea; it's a valid point and one that I can't really argue with (No matter how much I'd like to)
Q - Playercities have no security - how can we keep bad player out?
A - There are more ways of dissuading a 'bad' player to leave a playercity, than an NPC city. At least you can stop them using your facitlities. No wat of doing that in an NPC city (and there shouldn't be).
Yes you're right. There are more ways to dissuade bad players from player cities, but as you also said, that's the way it should be. NPC cities are for everybody. But I think that it would be a nice perk for player city residents to have some real order in a PC town. Some jerk is stomping around with his huge creature? kick him out. Some guy is spamming? kick him out. People are fighting in what's supposed to be a peaceful city? kick him out.
Let's hope that when the devs reinstate city warn, it works for everybody.
I can certainly see the appeal of some real 'policing' power in playercities, I mean, that's what citywarn was for in the first place. However, the devs walk a fine line with citywarn, the same people that some feel should be rightfully booted out of a city, can get into (abusive) power in another city. I'd like to know if the 'kicking' out that you describe would be a tef, a teleport or something else. How would you stop people abusing that power? (Or would you leave it as survival again?)
Q - How can you trust a mayor not to destroy the city on their way out?
A - Pick a good one
If such a voting system is put in then good. For now though, any angry Mayor can tear the town apart on a whim and that's a problem.
I do understand that a mayor has a previously unparralled (sp) amount of power over the play experience of other players. The ability to set taxes, deny housing rights and even remove their local facilities is an unbelieveable jump in the possibilities for people who wantto disgruntle their citizens. However
I'd re-suggest putting a voting system in for deleting facilities like banks, etc. However, I can already hear the concerns this might raise - what if a city is trying to 'tighten it's belt' before the coming maintenance period after overspending, and the citizens cannot be found in time?
Other than that, I'd imagine your 'survival of the fittest city' will come into play here - a good city will vote in a responsible mayor and flourish. A good city would barely flinch if a mayor lashed out like that. It is wobbly cities that would be utterly devestated in such an instance - and you seem to think they should dissolve into the mists anyway.
Q - Why don't player cities look like NPC cities? Can we get paved roads at least?
A - Well, apart from the fact that a paid level/world builder or 12 have sat lovingly creating the NPC cities long before the game went live...
Fair enough. I just hope that if the devs can flatten land to make camps, lairs and bases, they can do the same for cities.
They can flatten the land, but have you noticed that the texture of the land beneath remains the same? And if you were (hypothetically) to place a camp right next to a building, the land height might go crazy to say the least. Imagine if your city was built on a terraced hill - a few people place buildings on various levels. Then, you flatten the ground to make a paved area- where is the height of the paving? Is it at the ground level of the first piece of paving you lay? What if you placed at the top of the hill - would the 'world' then move up to flatten to that height? What if you had built a house beneath that level - would your house be buried under paving? (And if the reverse was true, and you paved the bottom of the hill, I know player houses are artificially tall to account for height differences, but they can only go so far.)
Okay, now I've been thinking about it, and here is how I think pricing should go. No specific costs here, but a ladder from lowest to highest costing places to stay/take up shop.
Player Cities.
If the cost of NPC city living is just too much for people, then they could just take the path of least resistance and set up shop or plop down a home(ormaybe an apartment)in a player city. This would be an incentive for people to just not go running into Coronet at the first sign of NPC building apartments and shops.
Hotels.
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=38100
Only usable as single room storage, these hotels would cost low enough for a newbie to pay for but too high for any person to reasonably stick around at.
Low income buildings.
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=38101
Pretty much scrapping bottom of the barrel here. For newbies and people who just like the 'ghetto life.'These would be used only as single houses or shops.
Lower Middle buildings.
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=38102
For people who aren't poor enough to get a lower house but aren't rich enough to get an upper middle house. These buildings could be used as two floor shops, on shop on top of the otheror onehouse on top of the other.
Upper Middle buildings.
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=38103
These should be the buildings that just about everybody could afford (since they're so many of them around). They could either be used as two floor shops, one shop of on top ofthe otheror one apartment on top of the other.
High class skyscrapers.
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=38105
This would be the highest (literally) you could go. Only the richest would be able to take up a home or shop in the Coronet skyline. Full of apartments and big shops, it would truely be the center of the city like every downtown area should be.
What do you think?
I see where you're going with the different types of housing (and believe me, I'd love to live in 'the slums'), but I still believe that what you're talking about could be done in a playercity. I'm a great believer that playercities will get more and more to play with as time goes on - I'd like to see trees, for example (placed like lampposts) - but if people abandon the playercities to go to the NPC cities, the onus will be less on the devs to improve the (apparently less popular) playercities.
It's almost like one of those 'invention efficiency' graphs - if you don't stick with the inneficient, newer invention, it will never have the chance to improve beyond the polished, but static older model. Or maybe I'm just losing the plot
(Well done on getting the screen shots, though 
)
I have to agree with Crazy somewhat, I was bored with EQ so when DAOC came out I joined it. Well it was identical to what is happening with SWG. By this I mean, player races, realms, equipment totally unbalanced. Here's an example ie my Ranger a Lurikeem was at the top level allowed for a battlefield, had the best weapons, armour and arrows you could get for his level.
Thus he should have been boss hog on that field, a force to be reckoned with. Well it would take me 3+ shots with a bow to kill any player wether equal or lesser con. Then an Albion Assisin who conned dark blue to me, who I had of conned red to him, kills me with one arrow, one shot, not once but three times this happend, yet it always took me 3+ shots to kill him. More importantly though was the damage he did with the one shot was 25% more than what my Elderich aka Wiz who was 5 levels higher could do. So I contacted customer service etc about this, recieved no responses etc so said okay adios, quit, turned the game into the used game store.
Its very scarey but SWG seems to be following this very same path for some reason. All I can think is that they launched the game prematurely knowing it wasnt ready figureing as DAOC we'll fix it as we go, but get monies comming in now type of thing. Now I dont know what DAOC is like now, nor do I care, as once I experience something like that I'm finished as in RL, you go to a store to buy something have a bad exp you dont go back right. But I think your going to find similiar problems with War Craft, or any other new games comming out.
The Thing about SWG is that it has the built in ability to keep on Improving. The Dev's can keep creating and adding on addtional events, creatures, loots, quests, professions, etc etc, over time. Yeah its a pain in a ass to have to wait or hit a wall in terms of "what should I do now in game?" But seriously, I still find the game extremely fun, granted I'm disappointed with a number of things going on in the game such as loot, missions and constant bugs, but I'm willing to keep playing and see how they deal with it. The new publish is supposed to come out this week, and promises to add a bunch of new stuff, and hopefully fix a bunch of bugs and errors.
Though I never played Everquest, I did hear quite a few stories from people who did about how buggy and frustrating the game was when it first came out. Well, same story here It seems. Just remember that this game hasn't even been out a year, only since last June. This means it s extremely young game, its giant in its size and possibilites. Maybe some of you have reached your creative limit with the game, fine; I guess that means it time for you to move on to other games. But maybe you were just pkaying it too much, I mean I play a couple hours 4 or 5 days a week and man, I haven't gotten anywhere yet, just having fun.
I'm sure there are alot of frustrated players out there like the one that started this topic, and I agree with some of the issues he had about this game, such as loot,and diversity of weapons and armor (which Iwould hope would be expanded with addtional publishes and the Expansion).But in terms of a comparison with Diablo II: That gamesimply become a orgy of hacking. There really isn't anything to do except get to Level 99 and obtain the best Exceptional Unique gear you can get for your character. On top of that the game is brutally static, it always has been. The expansion was great for a month, a new act, two new classes, bunch of new weapons (really just new names and abilities for weapons that already existed in the game - no new types of weapons, just unique ones), but other thanthat, really isn't much too it.
And then thereis thegeneral qualityof players on Diablo II. Holy God. It is isn't some Korean guy demanding I give him items (GVE ITM PPLLLZZZZZZ) its the jerk offswho thrive on makingother peoples gaming hell, by coming into games (likely with hacks turned on turbo) and going hostile with everyone and seeking them out. Now sometimes PVPis fun right? Well in Diablo it quickly becomes disgusting, espeically if you're corpse popped, in which caseyou lose all your gear to a horde of scanveging players, who will likely keep it. Look at SWG players, generally nicepeople, some jerks of course but for the most part everyone seems to be just playing for fun. The items are player made, meaning there really isnt a serious point ot stealing and keeping stuff from another player, just doesn't seem to happen that often unlikeDiablo II where to object of game is obtain the best items by whatever cost (including uning Ebal and PayPal).
So giveSWG some time,obviously$15 a month isnt a big deal to pay, so wait until the expansion comes out this year andsee what happens, you can always cancel your subscription for a couplemonths and come back on later, that what I did and I love the game so much more than the first month I played it.
I've read about the next patch fixing vehicle 'Store' issues. Doesit includefixing personal vehicle disappearances?
My friends and I have experience our bikes disappearing mutiple times on a single trip - while fighting, visiting vendors etc. We had to pick up Scout skills just so we can make camps, else we'd have to run all the way to the nearest town!
Now that I have reached my skill point limit, I have to drop my Scout tree to proceed further in my profession. I am getting worried and it frustrates me on why we cangenerate vehicles only in camps etc. IMHO, it doesn't add any value to the gaming experience, just a major hassle.
Why not just limit vehicle generation to non-combat situations and on solid ground when out in the field?
Regards,
Mukkie, Tarquinas