Trending Games | The Crew | Landmark | Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor | WildStar

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,850,609 Users Online:0
Games:732  Posts:6,223,929
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » Dynamic worlds: Slow it down.

17 posts found
  robert4818

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 4/14/03
Posts: 661

"Everyone is born with just a spark of madness. You mustn't lose it."

--Robin Williams

 
OP  4/21/13 8:22:10 PM#1

I love dynamic worlds.  Been pining for them from the earliest days of EQ1.  In that sense, I loved the steps forward that GW2 took in their game towards making their world feel dynamic.  However, due to the pace of their dynamic event system, the game didn't quite work the way it should have in my opinion.

Large Dynamic changes should go at a slower pace.  Not the actual events themselves.  But the changes wrought on the world should be slower.  Why?  Because that makes the world feel a little less schizophrenic.  GW2, by creating a sort of tug of war set up in most of its dynamic content made it seem more like a beach with waves.  (I.E. even though the waves constantly go back and forth, the beach still feels the same.)  The little bits about the game zones change, but its never very long before the other side comes back, and the world still feels static, just in a different way.

Dynamic changes need to slow down, so that players can get a chance to get used to them.  That way when things do change, if feels different.  Also, by slowing down the changes, it actually gives players more of a feel of acomplishment.  

As such, there should be different feels and time tables on how dynamic content works.  Think of it like russian dolls.  Open one up, and there's another one inside.  In this case, we are talking about dynamics.  

Your fast paced GW2 stuff, should be something akin to a battlefield.  Changing back and forth quickly, until one side manages to "win" rather dramaticaly, once that "win" happens, something bigger happens (such as a fortress changing hands).  As that happens, the lower dynamic changes.  It may still be happening fast, but it changes to something like shoring defenses, gathering supplies, etc.  The area isn't the same as the battlefield was.  After a period of time (week, 2?)  this style of defense changes, and perhaps we go back into a battle field concept. 

At this point the zone would have 3 large phases it rotates through.  Battlefield, Good Guys Win, Bad Guys Win.  Each with its own "active time events" that change the small world, but push things towards a much slower, but larger style change.

 

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

  Axehilt

Novice Member

Joined: 5/09/09
Posts: 7213

4/21/13 8:29:46 PM#2

As long as it doesn't involve replacing the other stuff.  Basically a game should have:

  • Dynamic combat: during an encounter dynamic things happen which require different reactions (or are the consequences of your actions.)
  • Dynamic sessions: during a play session, you can change pieces of the game world.  GW2 events or RIFT invasions are this way.
  • Long-term dynamic: the broader stuff you're talking about which takes several days or longer to achieve.
 
  JasonJ

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/19/13
Posts: 414

4/21/13 8:36:16 PM#3
GW2 can do what it does because of the continual flow of new content streaming in that has been putting every game on the market to shame. A game hasnt been receiving content updates on this scale since Asherons Call.
  Vorch

Hard Core Member

Joined: 9/18/11
Posts: 808

4/21/13 8:43:50 PM#4

I would like to see GW2 and other games have serious consequences for DEs being completed or failed. The biggest consequence so far is that certain Waypoints become contested.

 

Crafters and merchants in cities not available, items not available for sale, increased buy prices and lower sell prices for merchants, etc.

 

And there need to be more dynamic events with out any combat that occur in "safe zones" (cities like lion's arch, dvinity's reach, etc.) That way there is something going on EVERYWHERE.

 

Just my two cents: GW2 goes in the right direction, but they need more consequences. Perhaps adding more sandbox elements (player input) would help as well.

"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days— those are now the only two states you’ll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2

  Lovely_Laly

Novice Member

Joined: 11/02/10
Posts: 736

game is also real

4/21/13 8:48:05 PM#5

I loved dynamic events at Rift beta, but they changed it later.

at GW2 idea was not bad, but seems to me that Devs are scared of all gold farmer and who knows what else (may be just of low cash shop use), that why all the best DE were nerfed already.

Also may be at GW2 it was only DE and nothing else to do. Lvl adjustment is also bull sh to me, as it make you feel constant noob from one part (no feeling of achievement of lvling), not adjust to the point to make anyone equal from other part. So this stuff was too hypocrite to me.

I would prefer to see a world with normal stuff to do, like quests or similar occupation, story line, dungeons and dynamic events time to time (can be planned or 100% random, or need item X to activate)

try before buy, even if it's a game to avoid bad surprises.
Worst surprises for me: Aion, GW2

  robert4818

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 4/14/03
Posts: 661

"Everyone is born with just a spark of madness. You mustn't lose it."

--Robin Williams

 
OP  4/21/13 8:53:08 PM#6
Originally posted by Axehilt

As long as it doesn't involve replacing the other stuff.  Basically a game should have:

  • Dynamic combat: during an encounter dynamic things happen which require different reactions (or are the consequences of your actions.)
  • Dynamic sessions: during a play session, you can change pieces of the game world.  GW2 events or RIFT invasions are this way.
  • Long-term dynamic: the broader stuff you're talking about which takes several days or longer to achieve.
 

Exactly,  my thought is that this belongs in tiers.

Lower Tiered stuff affects how higher tier changes over time.  Higher Tiers dictate what lower tier's are available.

 

I.E.  An active session (Events/invasions) are a series of encounters.  Winning, losing those individual encounters help determine whether you win/lose the event.  However, the event/invasion dictates what encounters you are actually going to be facing.

When we step that up to grander scale things.  Events (and their outcomes) influence whether two countries go to war, or make a trade agreement.  A country thats at war will have a very different set of events that happen compared to one that's just made a trade agreement.  

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

  robert4818

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 4/14/03
Posts: 661

"Everyone is born with just a spark of madness. You mustn't lose it."

--Robin Williams

 
OP  4/21/13 8:56:04 PM#7
Originally posted by Lovely_Laly

I loved dynamic events at Rift beta, but they changed it later.

at GW2 idea was not bad, but seems to me that Devs are scared of all gold farmer and who knows what else (may be just of low cash shop use), that why all the best DE were nerfed already.

Also may be at GW2 it was only DE and nothing else to do. Lvl adjustment is also bull sh to me, as it make you feel constant noob from one part (no feeling of achievement of lvling), not adjust to the point to make anyone equal from other part. So this stuff was too hypocrite to me.

I would prefer to see a world with normal stuff to do, like quests or similar occupation, story line, dungeons and dynamic events time to time (can be planned or 100% random, or need item X to activate)

Don't get me wrong.  I think GW2's PVE became a "One trick pony" with the Hearts and ATE's going on, but nothing else.  I think those two ideas were wonderful, but not enough to build a game around by itself.

Standard quests would have been great.

And, in this sort of set up, they become a part of the dynamic world as well.  Quests can help (just like events) in determining how the larger world changes, and what quests are available depend on the state of the world itself. 

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

  Vorch

Hard Core Member

Joined: 9/18/11
Posts: 808

4/21/13 9:04:28 PM#8
Originally posted by Lovely_Laly

I loved dynamic events at Rift beta, but they changed it later.

at GW2 idea was not bad, but seems to me that Devs are scared of all gold farmer and who knows what else (may be just of low cash shop use), that why all the best DE were nerfed already.

Also may be at GW2 it was only DE and nothing else to do. Lvl adjustment is also bull sh to me, as it make you feel constant noob from one part (no feeling of achievement of lvling), not adjust to the point to make anyone equal from other part. So this stuff was too hypocrite to me.

I would prefer to see a world with normal stuff to do, like quests or similar occupation, story line, dungeons and dynamic events time to time (can be planned or 100% random, or need item X to activate)

"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days— those are now the only two states you’ll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2

  JasonJ

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/19/13
Posts: 414

4/21/13 9:07:20 PM#9
Originally posted by Vorch

I would like to see GW2 and other games have serious consequences for DEs being completed or failed. The biggest consequence so far is that certain Waypoints become contested.

 

Crafters and merchants in cities not available, items not available for sale, increased buy prices and lower sell prices for merchants, etc.

There is a lot more to DEs failing than waypoints becoming contested.

Kessex Hills, from Fort Salma all the way south to the Overlords Greatcamp.

If the Greatcamp DE is not done and then the leader DE afterwards, the Harathi will start to build up in numbers and attack the Wallwatcher camp. If that camp is taken by the Harathi, their numbers will start to build up again and they will start to set up Seige weapons on the west side of Fort Salma and start bombarding the outskirts of town. Also, they will start attacking the bridge to the southeast of Fort Salma triggering a DE to defend it from being blown up, if players are there to defend it and they fail, the bridge is destroyed, if no players are there, the bridge wont be destroyed but instead taken over by the Harathi and then they start setting up seige weapons at the bridge, and start bombarding the east side of Fort Salma...

this vastly changes the entire area from failed DEs and its a low level zone...in the high end zones many of the DEs have a larger impact especially in Orr where not only are area's taken over but it also builds up the amount of undead in the area as well as corrupting shrines which make traversing the area a royal PITA.

  Vorch

Hard Core Member

Joined: 9/18/11
Posts: 808

4/21/13 9:13:31 PM#10
Originally posted by JasonJ
Originally posted by Vorch

I would like to see GW2 and other games have serious consequences for DEs being completed or failed. The biggest consequence so far is that certain Waypoints become contested.

 

Crafters and merchants in cities not available, items not available for sale, increased buy prices and lower sell prices for merchants, etc.

There is a lot more to DEs failing than waypoints becoming contested.

Kessex Hills, from Fort Salma all the way south to the Overlords Greatcamp.

If the Greatcamp DE is not done and then the leader DE afterwards, the Harathi will start to build up in numbers and attack the Wallwatcher camp. If that camp is taken by the Harathi, their numbers will start to build up again and they will start to set up Seige weapons on the west side of Fort Salma and start bombarding the outskirts of town. Also, they will start attacking the bridge to the southeast of Fort Salma triggering a DE to defend it from being blown up, if players are there to defend it and they fail, the bridge is destroyed, if no players are there, the bridge wont be destroyed but instead taken over by the Harathi and then they start setting up seige weapons at the bridge, and start bombarding the east side of Fort Salma...

this vastly changes the entire area from failed DEs and its a low level zone...in the high end zones many of the DEs have a larger impact especially in Orr where not only are area's taken over but it also builds up the amount of undead in the area as well as corrupting shrines which make traversing the area a royal PITA.

I guess what I'd like is for the effects of one zone to translate to other zones, ESPECIALLY main cities.

If I'm hanging out in the Grove, for instance, and there is an event within the city about fortifying the defenses against undead, I'd wonder why the hell there are undead in the city. It could be because an event chain in Caledon forest has constantly failed.

Or if bandits burn down the town outside of Lion's Arch in Gendarran Fields, you may see prices rise in LA because it is riskier for goods to travel to the city.

Stuff like that.

Don't get me wrong, GW2 takes a step in the right direction and I have little doubt that they will perfect their DE creation as time goes on, but this is the sort of thing I'd like to see in the future.

"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days— those are now the only two states you’ll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13309

4/21/13 9:15:09 PM#11
Right now in Guild Wars 2, a dynamic event can succeed or fail on the basis that at least one player is there or no one is there.  That makes it possible for an event to readily succeed sometimes and fail other times.  If you make events a lot slower so that success or failure is the average of what happens over the course of a day, then most particular events will either almost invariably succeed or almost invariably fail.  In that case, you end up with a "dynamic" world with events locked into the same success or failure state for months at a time.  Would that really be more dynamic than what we have now?
  Aerowyn

Novice Member

Joined: 2/20/12
Posts: 7969

4/21/13 9:20:48 PM#12
Originally posted by Quizzical
Right now in Guild Wars 2, a dynamic event can succeed or fail on the basis that at least one player is there or no one is there.  That makes it possible for an event to readily succeed sometimes and fail other times.  If you make events a lot slower so that success or failure is the average of what happens over the course of a day, then most particular events will either almost invariably succeed or almost invariably fail.  In that case, you end up with a "dynamic" world with events locked into the same success or failure state for months at a time.  Would that really be more dynamic than what we have now?

which is one reason they probably don't do it that way.. say a giant destroys a town well that's all well and good for the people who got to see it but if it stays destroyed for several days than what is going on in the meantime? say you can help rebuild the town.. how long should that take? it's a hard thing for a dev to balance and find some sort of middle ground 

I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg

  maplestone

Novice Member

Joined: 12/10/08
Posts: 3109

4/21/13 10:07:46 PM#13
Originally posted by Aerowyn

which is one reason they probably don't do it that way.. say a giant destroys a town well that's all well and good for the people who got to see it but if it stays destroyed for several days than what is going on in the meantime? say you can help rebuild the town.. how long should that take? it's a hard thing for a dev to balance and find some sort of middle ground 

Event hierarchies.  A campaign spawns battles, battles spawn skirmishes, skirmishes spawn encounters.  Encounters take a few minutes to resolve and affect the outcome of skirmishes.  Skirmishes take a few hours to resolves and affect the outcome of battles.  Battles take a few days to resolve and affect the outcome of campaigns.  Campaigns take a few months to resolve.

  robert4818

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 4/14/03
Posts: 661

"Everyone is born with just a spark of madness. You mustn't lose it."

--Robin Williams

 
OP  4/22/13 7:49:35 AM#14
Originally posted by maplestone
Originally posted by Aerowyn

which is one reason they probably don't do it that way.. say a giant destroys a town well that's all well and good for the people who got to see it but if it stays destroyed for several days than what is going on in the meantime? say you can help rebuild the town.. how long should that take? it's a hard thing for a dev to balance and find some sort of middle ground 

Event hierarchies.  A campaign spawns battles, battles spawn skirmishes, skirmishes spawn encounters.  Encounters take a few minutes to resolve and affect the outcome of skirmishes.  Skirmishes take a few hours to resolves and affect the outcome of battles.  Battles take a few days to resolve and affect the outcome of campaigns.  Campaigns take a few months to resolve.

Exactly.

Plus, the philosophy being that the tiers of Skirmishes, battles, and campaigns, can extend beyond a battlefield to something political, or other type of competetive arena (trade)

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

  Aerowyn

Novice Member

Joined: 2/20/12
Posts: 7969

4/22/13 7:55:27 AM#15
Originally posted by robert4818
Originally posted by maplestone
Originally posted by Aerowyn

which is one reason they probably don't do it that way.. say a giant destroys a town well that's all well and good for the people who got to see it but if it stays destroyed for several days than what is going on in the meantime? say you can help rebuild the town.. how long should that take? it's a hard thing for a dev to balance and find some sort of middle ground 

Event hierarchies.  A campaign spawns battles, battles spawn skirmishes, skirmishes spawn encounters.  Encounters take a few minutes to resolve and affect the outcome of skirmishes.  Skirmishes take a few hours to resolves and affect the outcome of battles.  Battles take a few days to resolve and affect the outcome of campaigns.  Campaigns take a few months to resolve.

Exactly.

Plus, the philosophy being that the tiers of Skirmishes, battles, and campaigns, can extend beyond a battlefield to something political, or other type of competetive arena (trade)

 

its a good idea but still think we are a ways a way from entire MMOs being designed like this.. Most are still doing basic kill x find x quest design... Gw2 I feel is a first big step but hope some developers can take it further..its a lot of work to make a game designed like this compared to the static kill x stuff. .but hope more don't just settle with the "easy" route

I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg

  MMOExposed

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 6/17/10
Posts: 5979

4/22/13 8:43:41 AM#16
Originally posted by robert4818

I love dynamic worlds.  Been pining for them from the earliest days of EQ1.  In that sense, I loved the steps forward that GW2 took in their game towards making their world feel dynamic.  However, due to the pace of their dynamic event system, the game didn't quite work the way it should have in my opinion.

Large Dynamic changes should go at a slower pace.  Not the actual events themselves.  But the changes wrought on the world should be slower.  Why?  Because that makes the world feel a little less schizophrenic.  GW2, by creating a sort of tug of war set up in most of its dynamic content made it seem more like a beach with waves.  (I.E. even though the waves constantly go back and forth, the beach still feels the same.)  The little bits about the game zones change, but its never very long before the other side comes back, and the world still feels static, just in a different way.

Dynamic changes need to slow down, so that players can get a chance to get used to them.  That way when things do change, if feels different.  Also, by slowing down the changes, it actually gives players more of a feel of acomplishment.  

As such, there should be different feels and time tables on how dynamic content works.  Think of it like russian dolls.  Open one up, and there's another one inside.  In this case, we are talking about dynamics.  

Your fast paced GW2 stuff, should be something akin to a battlefield.  Changing back and forth quickly, until one side manages to "win" rather dramaticaly, once that "win" happens, something bigger happens (such as a fortress changing hands).  As that happens, the lower dynamic changes.  It may still be happening fast, but it changes to something like shoring defenses, gathering supplies, etc.  The area isn't the same as the battlefield was.  After a period of time (week, 2?)  this style of defense changes, and perhaps we go back into a battle field concept. 

At this point the zone would have 3 large phases it rotates through.  Battlefield, Good Guys Win, Bad Guys Win.  Each with its own "active time events" that change the small world, but push things towards a much slower, but larger style change.

 

Problem here that you are overlooking is the reason the developers made it this way. So people can level up. Slower events means less Exp-per-second. People will skip them if they feel the reward isnt up to the time dedication, and go back to doing whats the most effective. like hearts or something.

I understand what you are saying, but thats not the way to handle it.

  robert4818

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 4/14/03
Posts: 661

"Everyone is born with just a spark of madness. You mustn't lose it."

--Robin Williams

 
OP  4/22/13 6:14:23 PM#17
Originally posted by MMOExposed
Originally posted by robert4818

I love dynamic worlds.  Been pining for them from the earliest days of EQ1.  In that sense, I loved the steps forward that GW2 took in their game towards making their world feel dynamic.  However, due to the pace of their dynamic event system, the game didn't quite work the way it should have in my opinion.

Large Dynamic changes should go at a slower pace.  Not the actual events themselves.  But the changes wrought on the world should be slower.  Why?  Because that makes the world feel a little less schizophrenic.  GW2, by creating a sort of tug of war set up in most of its dynamic content made it seem more like a beach with waves.  (I.E. even though the waves constantly go back and forth, the beach still feels the same.)  The little bits about the game zones change, but its never very long before the other side comes back, and the world still feels static, just in a different way.

Dynamic changes need to slow down, so that players can get a chance to get used to them.  That way when things do change, if feels different.  Also, by slowing down the changes, it actually gives players more of a feel of acomplishment.  

As such, there should be different feels and time tables on how dynamic content works.  Think of it like russian dolls.  Open one up, and there's another one inside.  In this case, we are talking about dynamics.  

Your fast paced GW2 stuff, should be something akin to a battlefield.  Changing back and forth quickly, until one side manages to "win" rather dramaticaly, once that "win" happens, something bigger happens (such as a fortress changing hands).  As that happens, the lower dynamic changes.  It may still be happening fast, but it changes to something like shoring defenses, gathering supplies, etc.  The area isn't the same as the battlefield was.  After a period of time (week, 2?)  this style of defense changes, and perhaps we go back into a battle field concept. 

At this point the zone would have 3 large phases it rotates through.  Battlefield, Good Guys Win, Bad Guys Win.  Each with its own "active time events" that change the small world, but push things towards a much slower, but larger style change.

 

Problem here that you are overlooking is the reason the developers made it this way. So people can level up. Slower events means less Exp-per-second. People will skip them if they feel the reward isnt up to the time dedication, and go back to doing whats the most effective. like hearts or something.

I understand what you are saying, but thats not the way to handle it.

I think you missed something.  Its not that the events need to slow down, but that the changes need to slow down.  If  a zone feels like its in constant flux between 2 states, it feels just as static as if nothing changed.  

So long, and thanks for all the fish!