Post by musashi on Feb 19, 2014 0:34:30 GMT -5
Fair enough. I guess when I entertain this idea, I think about a more highly agile approach. Hammer out the core system, get it working, get a dozen people or so interested, and build up as you go. Entertaining ideas about the class system gets me going more so than anything else, I suppose.
1) How do players keep active?
I actually don't mind the way Armageddon does this, albeit I do have some reservations. You can be a crafter. You can be a hunter. Your hunter can team up with a crafter and form their own mini-guild. This seems reasonable, and I would strive to emulate it in my own (hypothetical) game. Armageddon has Nobles who are high-society members with vast resources and plot power. This is good, and I would probably strive to emulate it as well. Armageddon has military organizations who have need of fighters. Me rikey. Emulate. etc.
I think the problem Arm has in this regard is that they're completely fixed on maintaining their clans JUST the way they are, which leads to a "no" mentality that is often complained about. They rarely let a character get promoted past the lower 1/3 of his Clan's organizational scheme so that they can have their finger on the button should anyone get mildly creative or ambitious. Submit another master craft, throw another party, rinse, repeat... How fun! (not)
With city states this makes more sense because the're massively powerful locations ruled by massively powerful Sorcerer Kings who will not only trample on your ambitions, but also the ambitions of the army you brought with you. With merchant houses, this makes less sense. The game would be a lot more conflict heavy and thus fun if merchant houses were smaller, and more flexible. Allowed to organized take overs like captains of industry used to do in the 1800s. Small armies, amoral and illegal business practices. Creativity and conflict at its finest, for almost no IMM cost. (Of course this could lead to Red Fang-esque game imbalance, and I could simply be talking out of my ass. -- only one way to find out.)
2) How do you handle PKing?
Also don't mind the way Arm handles this. If someone is just griefing, deal with them in a fitting manner. If a warning stops them, let it be. If that doesn't work, perhaps oust them to the playerbase as a bad man (via rumor or whatever) and let them deal with him. If all else fails... well, there's always a bigger fish. Load him up and let him deal with it. (In an extreme case.) I'm also a fan of the Delerak treatment, however that can be seen as a "reward" in some respects.
One caveat here is that I would like a clearly defined appeal doctrine. Ie, if they truly think one imm handled their situation wrong, allow them to counter-argue and appeal to other imms, rather than allowing them to fall subject to Nyr bullying with no path of recourse.
3) Forum rules.
Really don't care this far ahead. I would like to keep current events and secrets out of the spotlight as much as possible, but the game mechanics should be made plain enough that people shouldn't have to go through OOC channels just to understand how to raise their skills. Forum's not a huge concern.
4) Game world
Start with one civilization and enough wilderness to keep players busy. Sprinkle resources and outposts/smaller cities far enough away from the gates to make traveling worth while and/or necessary. Add as you go, if the playerbase becomes large enough to warrant it, add another city. Add enough infrastructure to make each city an interesting place to play, and try to give players means to earn a living without leaving the gates.
I think my philosophy on how to drive clans was largely discussed in point one. I think scaling down the Merchant house is a good way to drive competition and conflict. Maybe drop a resource in the pit and let them fight over it. Could lead to a monopoly, but as long as there are a few good and ambitious players willing to butt heads with one another it could be fun. Without seeing it in action there's simply no way of knowing...
5) Curtail griefing
See #2.
6) What is cheating?
Exploiting glitches for gain. Consistently behaving in unrealistic fashions for coded benefit. Blatant abuse of OOC knowledge IG. The usual RPI stuff.
1) How do players keep active?
I actually don't mind the way Armageddon does this, albeit I do have some reservations. You can be a crafter. You can be a hunter. Your hunter can team up with a crafter and form their own mini-guild. This seems reasonable, and I would strive to emulate it in my own (hypothetical) game. Armageddon has Nobles who are high-society members with vast resources and plot power. This is good, and I would probably strive to emulate it as well. Armageddon has military organizations who have need of fighters. Me rikey. Emulate. etc.
I think the problem Arm has in this regard is that they're completely fixed on maintaining their clans JUST the way they are, which leads to a "no" mentality that is often complained about. They rarely let a character get promoted past the lower 1/3 of his Clan's organizational scheme so that they can have their finger on the button should anyone get mildly creative or ambitious. Submit another master craft, throw another party, rinse, repeat... How fun! (not)
With city states this makes more sense because the're massively powerful locations ruled by massively powerful Sorcerer Kings who will not only trample on your ambitions, but also the ambitions of the army you brought with you. With merchant houses, this makes less sense. The game would be a lot more conflict heavy and thus fun if merchant houses were smaller, and more flexible. Allowed to organized take overs like captains of industry used to do in the 1800s. Small armies, amoral and illegal business practices. Creativity and conflict at its finest, for almost no IMM cost. (Of course this could lead to Red Fang-esque game imbalance, and I could simply be talking out of my ass. -- only one way to find out.)
2) How do you handle PKing?
Also don't mind the way Arm handles this. If someone is just griefing, deal with them in a fitting manner. If a warning stops them, let it be. If that doesn't work, perhaps oust them to the playerbase as a bad man (via rumor or whatever) and let them deal with him. If all else fails... well, there's always a bigger fish. Load him up and let him deal with it. (In an extreme case.) I'm also a fan of the Delerak treatment, however that can be seen as a "reward" in some respects.
One caveat here is that I would like a clearly defined appeal doctrine. Ie, if they truly think one imm handled their situation wrong, allow them to counter-argue and appeal to other imms, rather than allowing them to fall subject to Nyr bullying with no path of recourse.
3) Forum rules.
Really don't care this far ahead. I would like to keep current events and secrets out of the spotlight as much as possible, but the game mechanics should be made plain enough that people shouldn't have to go through OOC channels just to understand how to raise their skills. Forum's not a huge concern.
4) Game world
Start with one civilization and enough wilderness to keep players busy. Sprinkle resources and outposts/smaller cities far enough away from the gates to make traveling worth while and/or necessary. Add as you go, if the playerbase becomes large enough to warrant it, add another city. Add enough infrastructure to make each city an interesting place to play, and try to give players means to earn a living without leaving the gates.
I think my philosophy on how to drive clans was largely discussed in point one. I think scaling down the Merchant house is a good way to drive competition and conflict. Maybe drop a resource in the pit and let them fight over it. Could lead to a monopoly, but as long as there are a few good and ambitious players willing to butt heads with one another it could be fun. Without seeing it in action there's simply no way of knowing...
5) Curtail griefing
See #2.
6) What is cheating?
Exploiting glitches for gain. Consistently behaving in unrealistic fashions for coded benefit. Blatant abuse of OOC knowledge IG. The usual RPI stuff.
