A dev told me that if you get enough players of the same race together that you can start a religion and possibly summon a god like Bristlebane.
EQ Never
- Thread starter Convo
- Start date
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
Goons and their ilk would create new characters on every server just to blow up cities. So it wouldn't matter even if the majority of a server wanted the city to exist, outsiders would come in and prevent the founding.
That is kinda SOEs fault for spoiling the ending of the Halas story line. I don't think it means that every RC is gonna end in a predictable way or that the good guys will always win. I bet there will be RCs with twists and ones where the good guys go in and try to accomplish something and get stomped and it opens a new T5 area or something.
But ya story bricks is what needs to be good for the real sandbox shit to happen. RCs are just a cool way to tell the story of the game rather than doing it with retarded dailies like WoW does or just having a half built city forever like FV.
But ya story bricks is what needs to be good for the real sandbox shit to happen. RCs are just a cool way to tell the story of the game rather than doing it with retarded dailies like WoW does or just having a half built city forever like FV.
Lenas
Trump's Staff
- 7,496
- 2,233
Yeah that's what I was getting at. When I'm summoned with a RC, I don't want to immediately know how it's going to pan out. I'm assuming the Halas storyline had to spoiled just so they could address some of the questions about whether or not players could determine the outcome via side-choosing.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
I'm totally with you here. I definitely want to have the option to positively align myself with strictly-NPC factions and see some meaningful result come from it.
Big Flex
Fitness Fascist
- 4,314
- 3,166
Teekey
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 3,644
- -6,335
Ravishing
Uninspiring Title
- 8,452
- 3,577
I agree it should be able to fail... I also think a good compromise is to be able to re-trigger rallying calls. So if it takes 3 months and it eventually fails, maybe there is a 1 month cooldown or some special conditions must be met to re-trigger it, in which case another 3 months would need to go by before the final outcome is determined. This way servers have a real choice and won't feel like they missed out by failing, since they could technically still succeed the event later on. I'd love to see some servers with almost no cities completed and others where everything has been successful, THAT would be quite a dynamic world imo. It would also allow players to experience something they might have missed, just go on a server that has yet to complete the event successfully.
This is more along the lines of what I'd expect and actually think could and should be implemented (as I realize I'm a subset of a subset of players , and would love to be the lone outpost of evil or good on a PVP world that is overrun by the enemy or at least molded into the enemy faction style) , but I would think even the general mmo player would enjoy every server being truly at least a little different and for the outcomes to not ever be "guaranteed" every time.
Just seems a complete waste of the system if they put it on those kind of rails.
True , how would they stop us from simply making a stand to continually kill the enemy and not allow them to build X city (complete the event ) , other than some ridiculous thing like a timer where it just happens, which would really , really suck on a PVP ruleset server.
I could very much spend many , many days harassing the enemy lines trying to accomplish such an event and enjoy every bit of it.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
They implied you could essentially stop progress if the server was so motivated (unlike AQ which had an auto-complete timer) whether this will stay in release who knows.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
Yeah, but doesn't that speak to a weakness in Storybricks? I mean, from what I've seen, the program is supposed to be, literally, about bricks of predispositions you put into your AI. So changing a brick, changes all the other bricks also in the "AI Wall". Slipping in "Halas thwarted", "Halas is a backwater shit pile" and "Halas Built" into a later NPC's brick, should account for differences in the structure of the server, without needing to tailor make the story--because the NPC's should alter their own reaction.
And I know, even then, tacking on changes make each subsequent change more complex--like if you have a class release that is dependent on Barbs, at a later date, a server without Halas can't have it. But what if they could? What if you just made sure your team wrote down a "Story Development" in every Rallying Call. So for Halas, what NEEDS to happen is "Barbarians". This way, you can create the Barb's regardless of Halas, but HOW they exist in the world would appear very different.
Anyway, I completely understand your point, and I agree with you--just pointing out that supposedly the SB system was supposed to make up for this very kind of dynamic nature, I believe.
Teekey
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 3,644
- -6,335
I bet there is an eventual auto-complete no matter what. Like you said, they'll probably end up adding Barbarians after some humans split from Qeynos and settle in Halas.
Can't do that if 1/4 the servers have people trying to prevent Halas from being founded, and preventing that server from playing a race isn't much of an option.
I think you hit it with the "will it stay in release".
The devs very well might have every intention of it being like that and then the screams/crying on the forum because Timmy's city can't get built because of the meanies is hurting his gameplay cause them to cave.
Here's to hoping at least some servers will be allowed more "freedom" for this sort of thing.