Originally posted by jakin

Originally posted by mike470

I may have missed it, but where are you getting open PvP from?    I believe these battles would take place in the colleseum (please correct if I am wrong). 

I may have misread, but no open PvP will be taking place between guilds.

I'm not getting it from anywhere in particular - just stating an opinion.  MMOs tend to morph and change as they develop so no open PvP one day might not remain true throughout development.

I see what you mean, but usually open PvP is a decision they make in the beginning of the development process.  Also, it is rather clear that it is more of a RPGers game than a PvPers game.  They also said the pvp would be in colleseums. (from what I remember in the posts)

3)  Buy out another Guild

Could this not cause a monopoly of some sort?  What if some players want to just be in a casual guild that doesn't have an intense schedule but does have powerful characters and they get bought out?  I think players choose a guild for a reason and that shouldn't have to change without them having a choice in it.

Originally posted by jagust05

3)  Buy out another Guild

 

Could this not cause a monopoly of some sort?  What if some players want to just be in a casual guild that doesn't have an intense schedule but does have powerful characters and they get bought out?  I think players choose a guild for a reason and that shouldn't have to change without them having a choice in it.

Hmm, I see what you mean.  What could be possible is this-

1) The leader would have to tell the news that an offer is being put up to buy the guild

2) They would then have to take a vote, say 4/5 of the guild must agree to do this.

3) If agreed- the guild is sold and they split the money

3B) If disagreed- the guild remains standing and is not sold.

Now of course someone cannot just walk right in and buy the guild (I would hope).  I would guess that if 4/5 the guild voted "yes" to sell the guild, then it was not a very good guild anyway.

It is completely optional to sell the guild.

---Of course I am going off assumptions, since we have not recieved any new news on the way guilds will be....yet..----

Originally posted by mike470

 

Originally posted by jagust05

3)  Buy out another Guild

 

Could this not cause a monopoly of some sort?  What if some players want to just be in a casual guild that doesn't have an intense schedule but does have powerful characters and they get bought out?  I think players choose a guild for a reason and that shouldn't have to change without them having a choice in it.

 

Hmm, I see what you mean.  What could be possible is this-

1) The leader would have to tell the news that an offer is being put up to buy the guild

2) They would then have to take a vote, say 4/5 of the guild must agree to do this.

3) If agreed- the guild is sold and they split the money

3B) If disagreed- the guild remains standing and is not sold.

 

Now of course someone cannot just walk right in and buy the guild (I would hope).  I would guess that if 4/5 the guild voted "yes" to sell the guild, then it was not a very good guild anyway.

It is completely optional to sell the guild.

---Of course I am going off assumptions, since we have not recieved any new news on the way guilds will be....yet..----

There is also the issue of people selling off their guild, splitting the money, and then just leaving the new guild. In general, i don't like the idea of being able to buy out another guild. I'm also confused as to why a guild would want to purchase other guilds. If a guild wants to get bigger, alliances between guilds should suffice. But if guilds are buying out other guilds to get rid of competition, i think this would make a great opportunity for some creative game elements here. Instead of letting guilds get rid of other guilds with money, how about say increasing the compeition between them. Perhaps they would compete to see which guild could comeplete a quest first. And the winning guild would rise in rank, and the losing guild would lose rank. And if a guild demotes to a low enough of a rank, it must disband or something. This assuming that CoS will allow guilds to get rid of other guilds.

I also hope its not too late for any extra suggestions for guilds. These are just random suggestions.

1.) Guilds can have favor with NPC's. For example, Guild A save's village B. Village B feels indepted to Guild A, and gives discounts to guild A, but increases prices to enemies of Guild A.

2.)Guilds can work together in the casting of extremely complex spells, such as creating a giant portal that summons a demon to attack enemy guilds and enemy guild affiliated towns/villages.

3.) Playing on the Guilds having facor with NPC's, how about some guild politics too. Like if a guild is popular with the majority of the NPC nation, they can become mayor, or if they have good relations with an NPC mayor, they can influence the NPC mayor's decisions.

4.) Guild hall's should have bulletin boards!!! Members can post new notes on the board, rearrange the notes on the board, and Guild leaders can post news on the boards and stuff.

5.) And finally, how about world events in which Guilds must chose which side to take, thus creating competition and interaction between guilds. For example, there is a rebellion in city C, guilds must choose to either stop the rebellion or add fuel to it to keep it going or do nothing. If the rebellion is sucessful, then the guilds that aided in the rebellion can gain favor and power. The guilds that resisted are shunned, and are hated by the NPC's.

The debate about selling Guilds does raise a question. Many guilds seem to have a lifespan. Start small grow quite quickly stabilize for a month or 3 then slowly decline as some members get attracted to a new game or the most active players leave the rest behind and look for high level guilds doing end game stuff.

What is needed is a way for small declining guild which still has a core of dedicated members to merge with another guild smoothly and with dignity. Perhaps officers retain status in merge, the leadership issue is addressed. possibly it could be possible to change the guild name and select which guild house the newly formed guild will use.

Originally posted by Jatar

Mike470 is correct, partly we wanted to see if there was much interest in a dynamic world game that is primarily quest based.  The sheer quantity of emails we have received supporting this idea is encouraging.   It seems there are a LOT of players wanting to break out of the old mold and try something new.  Our hard work has not been in vain. 

 

However, there are many areas of our game that could benefit from additional discussion.  One of these would be player Abilities.  Although we have the player Abilities system designed, it is in no way written in stone at this juncture.  Here are just a couple  issues we have to face:

1) We are allowing players to seek any new Ability they want.  This gives players the freedom to plan ahead and create the character of their choice.  The issue: will this be too confusing or difficult for the casual player?  If the answer is yes, in what ways could we do this, yet make it easy for casual players to understand and enjoy?

2) Once they have an Ability, we are allowing player to improve these Abilities with both study and practice, without cap.   The issue: Eventuall god like characters that unbalance the game.  In what ways should we limit the growth of players (if at all)?

 

We already have solutions for these problems, but it might be interesting to hear from players  and see their solutions or alternate options. 

Another completely different area worth discussing is death.  We are currently planning some penalties for death.  However, we are also planning on offering players more than one way of paying those penalties.  Rather than explain our exact plans, we would love to hear people weigh in on the idea of 'free' death vs. death penalties, and how sever they think penalties (if any)  should be to make the game intersting, without making it annoying.

Additionally, we have only just opened discussion on the game.  Over time we will be adding new information that will then spark new discussion about how the game should and will work.  We value everyone's opinion, and do take the time to read them all.

Jatar

 

1) Seeking out Abilities is a good startring point and I cannot see any problem here, people will take an interest if there is a benefit.

Base Abilities should initially be gained in through conversation with NPC or university charachters, these then being improved or learned through use or from NPCs (a well known MUD mechanic) Teaching and Learning abilities should be a must and is a good community builder. All abilities should work on a time sync where you build up knowledge and then have to let it sink in thus limiting abuse. Abilities should be avaiulable as dependency on other abilities from NPCs dependent on level or (core attributes not sure if strength intel dex type attributes exist but I would have these as bonuses when leveling so you have a metric for certain abilities to become available through as well as all other methods above.

2) All abilities should be learneable the benefit curve as you become hiogn level can be exponential so eay to control. Having lots of learnt abilities enables options, having them all may not save you from a sword thrust so lots of abilities isnt an issue if you apply learn and soak in that learning to increase ability then you limit what people can acheive ...

With sucha  large world i would expect godlike chars to inhabit god like areas and the dynamic quest system should cater for this , limiting to small groups will limit god like behaviour.

Death should impact on yet learnt ability xp that that has not yet soaked in look to dragonrealms MUD for this system works well. faction/ notoriety hits there must be penalty force a player to reduce points in learned abilities. The penalties should be situational dependent on reward:-

Wandering death =travel penalty

Storyline = faction hit with the region

Reward Quests = Ability Hit

And so on and so on , random death effects.

If the gameplay is immersive enough people wont notice penalties.

Jatar if you want feedback on anything I will always have time to spare for this subject just drop me a mail.

Originally posted by mike470

 

Originally posted by jakin

Originally posted by mike470

I may have missed it, but where are you getting open PvP from?    I believe these battles would take place in the colleseum (please correct if I am wrong). 

I may have misread, but no open PvP will be taking place between guilds.

I'm not getting it from anywhere in particular - just stating an opinion.  MMOs tend to morph and change as they develop so no open PvP one day might not remain true throughout development.

 

I see what you mean, but usually open PvP is a decision they make in the beginning of the development process.  Also, it is rather clear that it is more of a RPGers game than a PvPers game.  They also said the pvp would be in colleseums. (from what I remember in the posts)

PvP is an arena game the overall game is PvE instancing and dynamic quests generated on player acheivements, excelent read the site they have design fundamentals. Instancing / max group size of 8, PvE

you want thoughts on abilities

What is an ability? It means something you can do if you want to. normally you cannot gain an ability. a deaf person has not the ability to hear and no amount of training will restore that ability. you have the ability to swim or ride a horse but must learn the skill. Not all swimmers can swim the same distance or speed since the level of their ability to swim varies. abilities are set at birth (character generation) and they cannot change. At least I have never thought of a game character becoming deaf or losing limbs permanently. So players could allocate a weighting to a range of abilities during character generation although this would be limited to prevent creation of useless templates. This will prevent "god like" characters since they would limited in skill level they have the ability to reach.

The thing players increase is skills.  Skill levels are limited by abilities for example a good sense of smell and keen eyesight is essential for becoming a master hunter or scout.  some stats can be increased by training such as strength, dexterity, stamina etc.

Skills should increase by using them and be boosted by training but are limited by ability, for example the ability to concentrate would limit magic users eventual limit or the power of the spells you could learn, but not stop a player learning spells,

I must admit that sorting out what is an ability a stat and a skill could be fun.

see, smell, hear, determination, courage, concentration, stubboness, intelligence, commonsense would be abilities

you could have weakness's fear of hights, enclosed places, water, darkness, light

stats which can change strength, dexterity, stamina

skills such as swimming, rideing, weapons, spells etc

Also not sure where character levels fit in since this usually boosts stats in a totally artificial way

this should be really cool

Originally posted by Greymain

 you want thoughts on abilities

Players have no idea when they start what they will eventually find fun and engaging in the game.  If they're forced to pick those limits at the start there is a very good chance they will limit themselves from something they find fun - which basically means they get to reroll or roll an alt.

((Sidebar - I'm really hoping that there are absolutely no alts involved in the game.  Alts are a terrible mechanic that add nothing to the community and give dev teams the illusion of there being more content than there really is.  "Level an alt" is not an acceptable gameplay choice to me - it's simply a way of recycling content.  Design the ability / skill system such that a single character can have any and all skills available - whether at the same time (as in EVE) or sequentially (as in UO) and leave alts and all their problems in the past.))

There is certainly a good mechanic in the vein of physical attributes (dexterity, strength, toughness, etc) modifying skills (swordplay, damage, resistance to weather effects, etc) but there should be a set of "skills" which allow modification of the base physical attributes with training.

There could be an element of "genetic prowess" that is set at character birth - where a given player finds certain attributes increase more easily than others, or that certain skills come easier than others - but there should be ways for players to reach the same level of prowess as others - even if not genetically gifted to that area (it'd just take them longer / more effort).

Originally posted by jakin

 

Originally posted by Greymain

 you want thoughts on abilities

I really don't think that choosing skill limits at character creation (which is what I think you're saying overall) is a very good idea.

 

Players have no idea when they start what they will eventually find fun and engaging in the game.  If they're forced to pick those limits at the start there is a very good chance they will limit themselves from something they find fun - which basically means they get to reroll or roll an alt.

((Sidebar - I'm really hoping that there are absolutely no alts involved in the game.  Alts are a terrible mechanic that add nothing to the community and give dev teams the illusion of there being more content than there really is.  "Level an alt" is not an acceptable gameplay choice to me - it's simply a way of recycling content.  Design the ability / skill system such that a single character can have any and all skills available - whether at the same time (as in EVE) or sequentially (as in UO) and leave alts and all their problems in the past.))

There is certainly a good mechanic in the vein of physical attributes (dexterity, strength, toughness, etc) modifying skills (swordplay, damage, resistance to weather effects, etc) but there should be a set of "skills" which allow modification of the base physical attributes with training.

There could be an element of "genetic prowess" that is set at character birth - where a given player finds certain attributes increase more easily than others, or that certain skills come easier than others - but there should be ways for players to reach the same level of prowess as others - even if not genetically gifted to that area (it'd just take them longer / more effort).

Nicely put , this is exactly the approach I would like to see, they do keep refering to abilities (but they are meaning skills ).
I agree with the alt scenario, but have seen no mention yet with regards to degrading skills/abilities which needs to be in place for the no alts to work.

Trying to think but in the context of this game here not sure alts would cause a major issue. And people will always buy two copies of the game and trade in most circumstances so it's a difficult one to administer.

I personally prefer to have one main charachter and spend all my time on that so the ability to learn lots of abilities really appeals.

Originally posted by Isane

Trying to think but in the context of this game here not sure alts would cause a major issue. And people will always buy two copies of the game and trade in most circumstances so it's a difficult one to administer.

I personally prefer to have one main charachter and spend all my time on that so the ability to learn lots of abilities really appeals.

I don't get too fussed about people buying two copies as it's a self-limiting problem (there aren't that many players overall that are willing to pay for multiple accounts) and it's quite common even in games that have alts.

I've seen posts from the EVE head producer saying that given the system they have in place (single shard, skill based), if he had it to do over again he'd never allow there to be more than one character per account.  That right there says a great deal.

Well, on the subject of offering more than one character to a player...

This is not a simple issue.  I would like to address one thing before talking about this, in Citadel of Sorcery your character has access to ALL Abilities in the game.   There is no reason to have to play two alternate characters in order to get different Abilities.  If you want archer abilities, go get them.   If you want to toss fireballs, go learn that spell.  There are challenges to achieving various abilities, but no restrictions.  

Now, as to offering multiple characters per account... we will be offering this option.   There are reasons why this is a good idea.  First, no one is required to do this, and since you CAN get any set of abilities for your character, many of the reasons for using multiple characters goes away.   But there are some remaining reasons.   Once example, I know players who belong to a big guild and most often want to interact with their guild members... but not always.  Sometimes they don't want to be social, and they don't want their guild members to feel affronted, so they simply use an alternate character that does not belong to that guild when they are feeling anti-social. 

Or... no matter how much we try (and let me tell you, we are going the extra mile to allow higher level characters to play with lower level)  there is still some limit to how far apart character levels can be and still have an enjoyable experience when grouped.   However, players can use an alternate character to play with friends just starting the game.

The end of this discussion for us was simple, make it so that a player is not forced to use an alternate character to experience any portion of the game, but don't stop them from doing so.  You will find this kind of philosophy in may portions of the game design.  Just like doing a quest solo vs. grouped.   We do not stop players from doing either one, we give them the choice on every quest.

Understandable choice - but with the positives come the negatives (muleing, griefing, scamming, antisocial behavior, etc).

The main problem with the implementation of alts is that there is almost never any accountability for actions taken on an alternate character. 

Generally speaking, the only thing of worth in a MMO is your "name".  Your reputation in the community as someone others want to spend their leisure time in the presence of.  Alts are frequently used to do unsavory things (still within the ToS of course) that would otherwise tarnish the reputation of the main.

I would strongly suggest considering a means by which alts are easily identifiable as linked to their main account (or put another way, that all characters on an account can be identified as linked).  Common surnames, common family crest, or what have you.

This would still permit the advantages you stated without opening the door as wide to abuse of the alt capability (through at least allowing the community the ability to judge the player by their own actions rather than hiding behind a temporary and faceless alt identity).

My 2 cents.

Well, like you said, I'm sure that the alt will be connected with the main account.  This is because it is P2P, so I'm guessing that with each subscription you get, say, 3 character slots. 

Say the person is harrassing someone using an alt account.  Well, the character itself will be banned, but so will the whole subscription.  So this means that if one character is banned, so are all the rest.

The only thing wrong with this is that the person could pay for an extra sub...but that's unlikely.

Did I get that right, Jatar?

Originally posted by mike470

Well, like you said, I'm sure that the alt will be connected with the main account.  This is because it is P2P, so I'm guessing that with each subscription you get, say, 3 character slots. 

Say the person is harrassing someone using an alt account.  Well, the character itself will be banned, but so will the whole subscription.  So this means that if one character is banned, so are all the rest.

The only thing wrong with this is that the person could pay for an extra sub...but that's unlikely.

Did I get that right, Jatar?

Of course the alts will be connected at the account level - but that information is only available to MMOM and not the playerbase.  As such, if a given player is using their alt slots in an unsavory way that is not against the ToS (and thus doesn't warrent a ban) the playerbase has no means by which to hold the player accountable for those actions.

For instance, take killstealing and spawn camping (though I realize this specific instance may not apply in CoS).  A player may wish to engage in such anti-social behaviors, but doing so would ruin the reputation of his character and possibly his guild.  With an alt slot that is unconnected to his main character, he could simply level an alt and steal / camp for whatever he likes.  At the end of the day the alt is disposable and the main has benefited without any damage to it's reputation.

If the alt carries a unique last name that identifies it as belonging to a given main - the behavior becomes less appealing as the player will suffer any repercussions regardless of which character is currently being played.

While it remains possible for players to buy second accounts to do such things, at least in that instance there is another sub price going to MMOM (possibly offsetting the GM time that will very likely be used) and it's somewhat self-limiting due to cost (whereas an alt slot is free and easy).

That's all I'm saying.

Originally posted by jakin

 

 

Originally posted by mike470

Well, like you said, I'm sure that the alt will be connected with the main account.  This is because it is P2P, so I'm guessing that with each subscription you get, say, 3 character slots. 

Say the person is harrassing someone using an alt account.  Well, the character itself will be banned, but so will the whole subscription.  So this means that if one character is banned, so are all the rest.

The only thing wrong with this is that the person could pay for an extra sub...but that's unlikely.

Did I get that right, Jatar?

Not really the point I was getting at.

 

 

 

Of course the alts will be connected at the account level - but that information is only available to MMOM and not the playerbase.  As such, if a given player is using their alt slots in an unsavory way that is not against the ToS (and thus doesn't warrent a ban) the playerbase has no means by which to hold the player accountable for those actions.

For instance, take killstealing and spawn camping (though I realize this specific instance may not apply in CoS).  A player may wish to engage in such anti-social behaviors, but doing so would ruin the reputation of his character and possibly his guild.  With an alt slot that is unconnected to his main character, he could simply level an alt and steal / camp for whatever he likes.  At the end of the day the alt is disposable and the main has benefited without any damage to it's reputation.

If the alt carries a unique last name that identifies it as belonging to a given main - the behavior becomes less appealing as the player will suffer any repercussions regardless of which character is currently being played.

While it remains possible for players to buy second accounts to do such things, at least in that instance there is another sub price going to MMOM (possibly offsetting the GM time that will very likely be used) and it's somewhat self-limiting due to cost (whereas an alt slot is free and easy).

That's all I'm saying.

While I see what you're getting at, it is not really that big of a deal.  This problem will go for all games, so I fail to see why you make it seem like such a big deal here.  So it hurts their rep, so they decide to do it on an alt account.  It is the players choice, and (as long as the rules are not being broken) it really isn't that big of a deal.

While I understand your concern, alt accounts will also be put to good use.  People who are in an anti social mood will be able to play their character and do their quest line, so it is a plus. 

Allowing players to know which alts are linked defeats a part of the reason for having them.  However, we do offer players a robust method of handling players who annoy them.   You can ignore them at various levels, including all their Atls if you wish (even though you may not know which are their Alts).  Thus, if you are annoyed by a player you may choose to never see, hear or even know they exist, including all their alternate accounts.   This is the ultimate form of player punishment for bad behavior, and they can't hide behind alternate accounts.  However, due to this there is no need to keep good players from having alternate accounts, or using them with anonymity.

I like to have Alts, I find I learn how to play the game with my first character then experiment with my second  alt. My third Alt is most likely to become my Main character. If slots allow another Alt becomes my banker. depending on grouping rules the might be a low level Alt to play with new members. If I end up as Guild Master then that would most likely require another Alt that lives in the guild house.

Alts and their misuse lead onto another Hot subject that of character naming. It seems to me tha C0S is a bit more RPG than a lot of recent games and so perhaps needs a strong naming policy.

I would like 4 names for a character  Title,  Player forename, Player Clan name and guild  Name

The title would have to be earned

The two Player name combination should be unique to extend the options to use popular names like Hawk or Strongbow

Guild name would not have to be the full Guild title a guild could agree on a guild name ie "The Grand Order of the wild Rose" could adopt "wildrose" as the guild suffix to members names.

I always spend time naming my characters and It can be frustrating for those joining an established game as it seems all the preferred names are taken. Many game companies retain names for the life of the game even those of players who have quit. They are kept in hopes that they can persuade them to rejoin. I think they should be made available 12 months after a player has quit.

There are a number of Name generators on the internet. Such a program could be used to help those with little time and limited imagination to produce an acceptable name.

Seems to me, if the quest system is as intricate as we are being led to believe, alts will be an absolute necessity.

If everything you do affects how the quest engine "writes" your future, you might very well want several characters with different "pasts."

A lot of people would enjoy having one "good" and one "evil" at the very least.

Reputation with the various factions in the game is either important or it's not.  If it's not, then the game isn't what they are promising.