Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Levi]

The monster goals are whatever the monster's goals are. It's not up to us how you guys play the non-human population.

Playing as a monster in this game will be as simple as executing a script on that monster, and letting him operate by himself. Or you could opt to control them directly. The scripting system in this game will be extremely accessible to players, and will be relied upon to take care of your characters (human or otherwise) while you are offline.

Oh sweet.  Heh, I didn't have time at work to read the whole kickstarter page, so I didn't see the bits about scripting.  Sounds awesome, scripting is fun.    I'll go read more now.

[werty892]

Excuse me if this was stated in your Kickstarter, but what is your teams previous experience? I noticed on your website that it said the team was composed of professionals from various industries. I'm just curious if they've done any work we could see for ourselves.

Personally, I'm a web developer. I work with ASP.NET MVC framework and develop web applications. I'm also the lead designer behind Topia Online. You can check out the forums and talk to our art team to check out their portfolios, if you'd like.

Ohh and lovely they created a Obsessive player killing scenario too with monsters purchasing better monsters to kill people continuosly.

No. The -option- to kill other players is there. As are consequences. This will be a game driven by the community, and as such, community laws and justice will be the counter balance to rampant murderers. Also, we have mechanics in place to prevent new players from rampantly slaughtering others as they have nothing to lose. We've thought about the balance aspect of it very carefully.

Also, "monsters" purchasing "better monsters" isn't what we're striving toward. Because there are NO NPCs in the game world, the playerbase will make up the entire world's ecology. The behaviors of these monsters will be entirely up to the playerbase. If the Minotaurs want to hang out with the Slimes or whatever, that isn't for us to tell YOU how to play.

There will be violence. There will be characters lost. It happens.

As I said, feel free to come by the forums and ask questions, or see some Sandbox examples of what you can do in Topia. We care about the opinion of those who "don't like the game" as well as fans, as we have to work even harder to make the game fun for you!

Erm, have you heard of haven and hearth? Yeah, the community governs there. And that turned out well.

[Kruniac]

A group of people cannot fight against those five organised players because they lack the ability to enact any influence upon them because of the difference in priorities.

Hense the Law of Concentration

And as I said. That group of players would be "in charge". This isn't a game where some nameless entity creates laws, builds empires, or enacts their will. Players do. The most organized will be an "authority", with multiple groups interacting with each other.

It sounds like you've had experiences in other games which had fairly established systems for player control, and groups of players worked within those groups to dominate everyone else. Here, there are no established systems outside of what the community creates. For instance, a player who has "influence" (An abstract system which is used for nearly everything in the game) in an area can create laws, share those laws with the playerbase, and script hirelings to enforce those laws.

Also, Joe Farmer, as he would be more accepted by the community to barter goods for Influence, would be more likely to have hirelings performing tasks and/or guarding his property than Bill Bandit who preys on the community. Why would anyone want to give power (Influence) to someone who uses it to murder others?

Erm, have you heard of haven and hearth? Yeah, the community governs there. And that turned out well.

Haven and Hearth was still a "concrete" game set in a sandbox world. The community really didn't build everything from scratch. There was heavy incentive to play a "certain way" to gain an advantage. In Topia Online, it's not up to the developers to "decide" how you should play. So we've provided tools for the community to play however they choose.

Again, as Joe Farmer could probably stab Bill Bandit in the stomach, Bill would have to really weigh the risk of violating Joe's property or person. We tried to make the consequence aspect of the game as realistic as possible. You won't have "totally helpless" people (unless they are unarmed, and even then, they could do -something-), or "OMFG WTF BBQ TROLOLOL UBER PKERS". You will have humans (or whatever) who simply take a course of action, and the world reacts accordingly.

As the game's designer, I had to weigh a lot of balance issues and features when coming up with Topia. But I've always felt that if you are <some guy>, and you have <some thing>, and you disregard the possibility of it being taken through <some means>, and you don't protect it through <some means>, then losing it is just a natural course of events.

[Neonivek]

Why would anyone want to give power (Influence) to someone who uses it to murder others?

Because it benefits them greatly and they may not even know.

It sounds like you've had experiences in other games which had fairly established systems for player control, and groups of players worked within those groups to dominate everyone else.

You could say that. Mind you it was a very sophisticated system but what it boiled down too was that the mass was controlled by a few powerful individuals who had power because it benefited the mass and the mass didn't act because they lacked the co-ordination to.

---

I am starting to see how this game is going to be formed. It is whoever creates the first sliver will establish community relations. If I wasn't such a nice person, even if I am destructively negative, I'd almost would like to try to break the game by creating an ingame counter culture that uses its influence to subvert the other.

Though oddly enough... I'd think that would actually improve the game by giving dynamics to the influence system. As of right now it sounds squanderous.

[Thecard]

Well, this actually sounds interesting.  I'm gonna check it out, and let you know what I think after I've seen it!
*Aherm.
Just a tickle, wasn't subtly implying anything.


Alright, so I've looked around at this a little.
It seems like it's going to be sort of a multi-player roguelike.  Is that what you mean by permanent death, that you'll just have to start over with a new character?

Second, y'all are kinda going about making a game kinda weird.  Not in a bad way, necessarily, just... odd.  You're being really fluid, and allowing players to make and script their own stuff?  That sounds like it's going to remove the issue of counter-intuitive controls, and let people customize damn near everything.  I really like that.


But... I am a little bit worried.  I don't think Hobbes was completely wrong when he said "Humanity is naturally dickish." (Yeah, I'm paraphrasing here.)  If you let player govern themselves, you're going to have virtual oppression just like you can have in real life.  That'll result in some areas that are just filled with assholes, and those assholes are going to be pretty strong from fighting so much.

If you don't mind me making a suggestion, then you could always make some kind of central government.  Have it be run by you guys as the king, but let the ranks of whatever police force you have, and a sort of parliament be filled by players.  If you receive reports of your soldiers being assholes, you have others investigate and kill them if they are.  This way, you'd get rid of roving high-level groups that ruin the fun for everyone else by being asses, but you won't be using admin-powers or banning. 
It would make sense in terms of the game because you wouldn't be using bans or anything, you'd limit the douchebaggery that usually comes with power, and the players would still be running the government.  Think of a limited monarchy like Britain, where you're Queen Elizbeth II, and the players are parliament.


I hope what I'm saying helps you improve your game/address concerns of potential players!

[Alkhemia]

I think it might play out more like FOnline 2238 then haven and hearth tbh.

[Matz05]

Huh. Interesting.
I don't play subscription games, but $25 upfront sounds like a nice deal for early adopters.

The question is, how is this going to pan out? Hmm... risk... reward...
I have to think about this.

[Kruniac]

Because it benefits them greatly and they may not even know.

The world size will expand according to the server population. Most players in the game will have at least heard of each other (to a point, in which case small bands of whoever won't be able to get away with anything).

I am starting to see how this game is going to be formed. It is whoever creates the first sliver will establish community relations.

Exactly. On our forums, organizations are already being planned. Some nefarious, others not. The point is - it will be more organized than you might think.

It seems like it's going to be sort of a multi-player roguelike.  Is that what you mean by permanent death, that you'll just have to start over with a new character?

Well, if "roguelike" means "permadeath", then yes. But yes, if your character dies, you lose your character, half of the influence you've invested in properties, (there are reasons for this), and have to roll another one.

You're being really fluid, and allowing players to make and script their own stuff?  That sounds like it's going to remove the issue of counter-intuitive controls, and let people customize damn near everything.  I really like that.

That's the idea. Not only do we encourage scripting their own things, it's what will make the world turn, so to speak.

But... I am a little bit worried.  I don't think Hobbes was completely wrong when he said "Humanity is naturally dickish." (Yeah, I'm paraphrasing here.)  If you let player govern themselves, you're going to have virtual oppression just like you can have in real life.  That'll result in some areas that are just filled with assholes, and those assholes are going to be pretty strong from fighting so much.

If you don't mind me making a suggestion, then you could always make some kind of central government.  Have it be run by you guys as the king, but let the ranks of whatever police force you have, and a sort of parliament be filled by players.  If you receive reports of your soldiers being assholes, you have others investigate and kill them if they are.  This way, you'd get rid of roving high-level groups that ruin the fun for everyone else by being asses, but you won't be using admin-powers or banning.
It would make sense in terms of the game because you wouldn't be using bans or anything, you'd limit the douchebaggery that usually comes with power, and the players would still be running the government.  Think of a limited monarchy like Britain, where you're Queen Elizbeth II, and the players are parliament.

We've discussed this to death in dev meetings, and the ultimate rule we all try to follow with this game's design is that...

It's not our place to tell the players how to play.

It's really that simple. There will be no "high-level" characters running the show, but rather influential people. Again, please consider that this doesn't follow the "formula" of most MMORPGs. There are no levels. There is no grind. There will never be a grind, or "I've been chopping a tree for days so I can kill you better" nonsense. We've steered away from that entirely.

We wanted to create a world where anything is possible. Maybe a player designs a spell that can turn trees into magma or something. That's fine. Maybe there is a law against walking on the grass after midnight during a thunderstorm. Great.

We give the players all of the tools they need to do whatever they want.

[Thecard]

By the way, if you want to make a good impression on the Bay12 community, turning trees into magma is a great place to start. 

[PanH]

By the way, if you want to make a good impression on the Bay12 community, turning trees into magma is a great place to start mandatory. 

Fixed

[Sappho]

This sounds interesting. I'll have to give it a closer look when I have more time. I can see the permadeath thing going either way. In real life, people take great care to protect themselves because if we get hurt or killed or imprisoned, we really lose something. Online, there's always the option to just roll a new character. The risk is quite low in the scheme of things, and so people tend to try things they couldn't in real life, like being a criminal or murderer or just plain being a dick, because what's gonna happen? And if enough of this type of person join the game, permadeath will not work out very well.

On the other hand, it could work out really well if you get good players who treat the game and other players with some respect and see this world for the opportunity it is, to create rather than destroy.

I've seen recently how a game can encourage "nicer" behavior from its players by rewarding it in a tangible way. Glitch did an amazing job of this (I'm still mourning its passing). There were quests to give, help, and be nice to each other, and the overall atmosphere was about fun rather than power. Dickish behavior was not really punished, but there was no advantage to it. I know that this game will not have quests or dev-imposed morality, but I still think it would be possible to gently encourage people to not be assholes. I think this should be considered, at least as a backup plan in case things don't go well at first.

My own personal idea for how to make permadeath work out better is to make death a normal thing, not a "game-over" type scenario where you lose everything. Each regeneration is an opportunity to try something new, and maybe each time you die, you get some new options depending on how long you lived (to prevent people from just killing themselves to rack up points somehow). Maybe people can give each other positive or negative "ratings" or "fame" somehow that counts towards this regeneration. That way people wouldn't get so angry about dying, but still have a motivation to live longer (and therefore not piss people off).

I would love to see a game with some sort of "karma" system implemented. At "birth" you could choose your "dharma" (obviously these ideas would probably be renamed and tweaked), which is your sort of life goal. At first you can choose from two or three randomly selected "beginner" paths, which would be neutral or positive. Becoming a master craftsman or explorer, for example. Actions you take in the game which help you reach this goal give you karma points, and ones that detract from it give you no benefit. So you can choose a different path without being punished, but you won't gain any advantage from it. Each time you regenerate the karma points are used to tweak your dharma for the next life the way you want it and let you try new paths that were closed to you before. Established characters might even get the option to become a master criminal - by that point they've proved themselves as trustworthy members of the game and can be counted on to play their role honestly and without griefing. No path would ever reward anyone for killing, though.

That system might not be the perfect fit for your game, but it's just an idea. If you can find a way to motivate people to live longer and not piss each other off, while making death something that people won't ragequit over, you might get permadeath to work out well.

[Kruniac]

By the way, if you want to make a good impression on the Bay12 community, turning trees into magma is a great place to start. 

The combat system, general insanity, and mechanics implemented in the game are all very Dwarvenly. The fact is, a game like DF inspires. It's inspired me. The magma will flow. ^.^

[Moogie]

I give it 2 weeks before the Chan'ers take over the entire game world and new characters are slaughtered instantly upon creation. I've played Haven & Hearth, so I know how this'll go.

[Kruniac]

I give it 2 weeks before the Chan'ers take over the entire game world and new characters are slaughtered instantly upon creation. I've played Haven & Hearth, so I know how this'll go.

We have systems in place to prevent this type of newbie slaughtering. To a point, however. A new character without a weapon will obviously be more vulnerable than someone with a weapon, and/or armor.

Again, this game is not based on levels or skill values. It's more of a realistic situational game.

New characters aren't going to be slaughtered upon creation.

[Puzzlemaker]

It sounds like a lot of it is going to be pure chaos, but that may be in a good way.

If you have ever played Faces of Mankind, it had a lot of similar ideas in it... And a lot of problems.

Organized groups will always be more powerful simply due to the power of numbers; Unorganized players will be killed one by one, unless they also team up.  So there needs to be protection in place for "Freelancers" and the like.  I mean, not all players would want to join a clan, and there is no reason they should be ganked by roaming gangs.

The solution doesn't have to be "Gamey" either.  Something as simple as warning when a large group of players is nearby.  I just worry it's going to become a "Join up or die" type of thing (Which is often true in reality) but having freedom would be nice.

Also, would it be possible to have a script summon monsters automatically?  How exactly can you earn monster points?

P.S.  Neonivek, Every single thread you are in I see you arguing with people, haha