Overworld and Adventures

To give an idea of the size of the world, Geti mentioned on IRC the overworld being 32x32 tiles, with each map being say 128x64. He also suggested that large civilizations will grow to the size of 3x3 tiles

 

Awesome thanks for the info. If it is only 32x32 then I'd imagine the group system for larger armies being represented by a single icon would be the most likely path to take, so you don't have hundreds of sprites colliding with each other on the overworld.

 

The problem with that would be superiour clans / kingdoms joining a server and insta-taking it over D:

 

Eh, I think all characters should constrained to the server where they were born, to keep the worlds consistent. A single world/server's history is gonna be way more reasonable if high level people aren't teleporting in all the time and screwing up things.

 

yes, and then the lvl 9001 guy who is a bomb specialist blows up the entire map

 

I wouldn't want just one big server. A lot of people are going to be playing it a lot of different ways. I don't want a persistent version of senseless clan deathmatch, and I know a lot of people that don't want this either. So there should be different servers to appeal to everyone's likings...and yeah with that comes a persistent character on that server alone, like Bracket said.

 

GUI-wise, are adventure servers and deathmatch servers going to be on the same server screen?

 

you say liberate the communist cities.. but who are you liberating them from? or do you mean from the communists ie everyone living there and literally liberating the city itself whilst leaving no one alive? im guessing you dont totally understand communism.. especially if its in a game and people join by choice

 

Whenever I host my own roleplaying server of Overworld, I will have events take place on the server with "event characters" and such. What this means is that someone, who is a good roleplayer(might have to apply for it), will be given an automatic powerful character that will play the role of the main antagonist or protagonist in the world.

For example, and event might take place that goes like this - An evil overlord rises to power and begins his conquest of much of the land, spreading evil and cutting down all those who stand in his way. (Generic example, I know)

This evil overlord will be a lot more powerful than other players, and it will force players to band together and roleplay in order to defeat him and restore peace. Of course there may be players that choose to join the overlord as well, if that suits them. And there will also be hero characters to match the evil ones.

My server will just be very story driven.

 

I would love to be in that server.

 

I agree but maybe these events could be put into the game so randomly an ai monster or powerful warrior legion could rise up. Maybe even natural disasters and the like. do you think you really need heros to rise against them? Might that make the kingdoms less inclined to get involved, maybe instead make powerful items be available during these times which would add a further incentive to joining the fight. This could be like a quest to kill a necromancer which would reward the victorious with the power to rase the dead but also end the plague of zombies that would affect all kingdoms. what do you think?

Also i was thinking as far as resources go i thought the currency for a kingdom could be actual gold not coins and they would have to pay out a certain amount of food and gold over time to the people in the kingdom. Maybe if there were npc farmers or workers as well as people to defend who can maintain the economy while people are offline also i was thinking that resources would have to be transported from the farms to your town.
Also there could be trading with npc villages like the ones Geti mentioned to boost the kingdoms economy.

 

Eh, a good roleplayer playing the Necromancer would be much more interesting and challenging than an AI Necromancer. The heroes will rise up naturally, but they will also have a big chance of dying since the Necromancer would be legitimately dangerous, since he'd be a real player. I'm seeing it more as a fun, but challenging simulation than a Happy Adventure Fun Time where everybody wins.

Heck, a king might raise an army to fight the necromancer, and he might actually win, without the help of some hero. How revolutionary that would be. >_>

 

Having AI like that I believe has been said, in the dev blog Geti mentions going to slay a powerful necromancer. The problem with AI is that they are only limited to what they are programmed to do...but a human adversary is scary, unpredictable, and constantly adapting.

I do like the idea of weather and stuff, but that's up to the devs to put in (although I don't see why it just couldn't be roleplayed as something that happened)

And finally, if you were to have a villain character, naturally you would need a hero or someone of the sorts. Heroes are defined by what they do, and technically anyone could rise up to that challenge. Any player that excels and leads courageously would be branded a hero in my book, and (assuming my character were weaker) I would follow him into battle against evil any day.

Also it won't always be as simple as good vs. evil events, although that is generally the underlying theme.

I hope the game isn't too focused on who has the better equipment and better at grinding to a higher level, and more so who has more skill. I want a high level character to actually be afraid of fighting a group of low level bandits by himself. This leaves room for underdog scenarios, and everyone loves those xD

 

I mean liberate the cities that are plagued with communism. As someone was saying they will hold executions to enforce their law. It was a simple example.

Like Bracket said, it just wouldn't be natural to have an AI villain. It would be more natural to have an actual person, with actual feelings, to play. AI soldiers? Definitely. This villain just wouldn't fit without an evil army to enforce his rule.

 

I had a thought about a potential skill system that would be realistic and work well with role play, but also would really support grinding for skill levels (just like real life supports grinding for skill levels). My idea was that the more you DO an action, the better your character gets at doing the action.

Swing your sword around a lot and your character would gradually get a little faster (and stronger) at swinging. Run around a lot and your character would gradually be able to run a little faster. Equipment would also affect your weight, durability, and damage.*1 Then you would have training camps with people sparring to raise the power of their characters. Again, that would be accurate for roleplay, but, like in real life, the person who spends the most time just repeating the action would end up having the best character, and the 99%*2 that didn't grind would protest that. xP

Maybe the effects of the training would be minor enough that even at max level, you could be weighed down by a few high-player-skill, low-char-skill players. A highly trained, highly SKILLED player could be a huge force on the battlefield.
This idea is growing on me now....

*1 In case it's not obvious, I've never programmed a game. Or programmed much of anything. What I'm suggesting is probably very complex and tedious to make etc. etc. I just like brainstorming concepts for an ultimate game.
*2 all real life commentary not guaranteed to be backed by real life knowledge

 

I like this mostly. It would mean that players would HAVE to interact in order to progress and becoming stronger, instead of someone running off on their own and grinding to become insanely strong. And interaction is the driving force behind roleplaying.
Also, sparring is just fun in general