I really just hate reading. Not to mention it's generic unintersting story. So I really don't want to do any more quests line.
Public quests such as GW2 or warhammer online is fine. Because it don't involve reading.
That's my take of things.
Come on you have to like reading, what is this? If the story was good would you read it, it seems maybe not? Reading is quicker than listening to a voice over and if more information is put in it allows for more nuance. You have to break the ding, ding ding! addiction.
I really just hate reading. Not to mention it's generic unintersting story. So I really don't want to do any more quests line.
Public quests such as GW2 or warhammer online is fine. Because it don't involve reading.
That's my take of things.
Come on you have to like reading, what is this? If the story was good would you read it, it seems maybe not? Reading is quicker than listening to a voice over and if more information is put in it allows for more nuance. You have to break the ding, ding ding! addiction.
I definitely enjoy reading better , more times than not the voice over are 1 just plane bad or 2 not what you expected and just not fit the npc, both just ruining an immersion factor imo.
I think this idea of limiting level progression is interesting in theory, but not sure in practice it would work. I think many people need to be progressing in some type of skill to feel they are getting stronger within the game world.
I am not a big fan of on the rails themeparks, but at the same time, its hard to imagine a game world where at least some skills are not progressing/improving over time.
(snip)
I agree with you on this point. I'd like to see progression for any gained skill or ability, on top of Cameltosis's idea of horizontal progression and learning new abilities. However, I could do without progression of learned abilities since I want a new type of worldly game where exploration, and a lot of other ways to play, are enhanced (and not restricted by the level zone formulas of current designs).
My thinking is that you could start at a 50% capability and work your way up to 100%. And you'd always be getting new skills/abilities to work on, too. There's a variety of similar-feeling ways to do this, and I'm not too particular on how.
I think an interesting possibility might be having abilities add to other abilities so that learning both makes one of them perform better. And having abilities interconnected like a spider web so that there's a lot of this going on.
I really just hate reading. Not to mention it's generic unintersting story. So I really don't want to do any more quests line.
Public quests such as GW2 or warhammer online is fine. Because it don't involve reading.
That's my take of things.
Come on you have to like reading, what is this? If the story was good would you read it, it seems maybe not? Reading is quicker than listening to a voice over and if more information is put in it allows for more nuance. You have to break the ding, ding ding! addiction.
I definitely enjoy reading better , more times than not the voice over are 1 just plane bad or 2 not what you expected and just not fit the npc, both just ruining an immersion factor imo.
I don't mind voice over as long as it is good acting, and there's the rub. But regardless of voice over or reading, if the script is not good the game creaks along.
Player progression is then more about unlocking more options, like new specs or new gear sets with different set bonuses etc. Beating the harder content is then more about playing better as well as choosing the right meta-options for the content.
Do away with "supermarket" hubs that serve as one-stop-shops for all
the player's needs. Local trainers have their own unique skills to
teach, local traders / crafters their own unique trades and crafts. Players who
learn blacksmithing from the dwarves make distinctly different items
than those who learn it from humans. Or elves. And these differences
have to be significant to present a player with meaningful options and
tradeoffs. Again, consider how this ties to the unique challenges
different zone and enemy types present.
I like this idea, and have had similar in the past.
Don't be too quick to do away with local hubs, they still serve a valuable purpose in terms of bringing players together.
But, an idea I had was that organisations would have their own training regimens and style. As a player, you could join those organisations and then receive specific training from them. For example, you join the city guard in a human city, and they teach you standard sword+board techniques for defending the wall.
Then later, you visit some master thieves, gain their trust. They can then teach you further sword+board skills, more focused on solo dualing, or 1vsmany fights.
Part of what I wanted with this idea was to have the training of skills be more than just "buy skill, add to skill bar". I would like there to be a training arena (or similar), and when you get taught a skill, you actually have to use it properly in the training arena before you've fully learned it. For example, if they give you a taunt skill for tanking, there should be a training exercise where you have to hold aggro for 5 minutes whilst some DPS NPCs beat on your target.
Training exercises with one organisation (like City Guard) would be very different to other organisations. Like, the City Guard would be more focused on teamwork and fighting as a unit, whereas a thieves guild would have training exercises more focused on solo fighting and stuff.
One of my ideas from the past is that your ideas can be extended out into the explorable world.
To set the stage, in a "worldly" game, it makes sense that your trainers and their organizations somehow, sometimes, learn of new abilities to train.
So while the game can start with the ideas you have mentioned, there can be more out there. Adding new content of this sort can be done too.
My idea is that Players can learn something new from their adventures, and then bring them back to teach to organizations and guilds, so that they can then teach to others.
So; - a warrior type might learn a new way to hold their weapon or shield for strategic advantage, from seeing it used while fighting new MOB elites. - A Blacksmith might learn how to build a better forge from ancient ruins, or new ingredients to make their fires hotter. - A mason-builder might learn how to build an archway, and then a vaulted ceiling. - An alchemist might learn of new ingredients and how to prepare them. Or new materials to make their equipment out of, more refined burners, etc. - etc.
Some of these things might be "trainable" by studying an item that's out in the world, rather than from a person/NPC/MOB.
I agree with you on this point. I'd like to see progression for any gained skill or ability, on top of Cameltosis's idea of horizontal progression and learning new abilities. However, I could do without progression of learned abilities since I want a new type of worldly game where exploration, and a lot of other ways to play, are enhanced (and not restricted by the level zone formulas of current designs).
My thinking is that you could start at a 50% capability and work your way up to 100%. And you'd always be getting new skills/abilities to work on, too. There's a variety of similar-feeling ways to do this, and I'm not too particular on how.
I think an interesting possibility might be having abilities add to other abilities so that learning both makes one of them perform better. And having abilities interconnected like a spider web so that there's a lot of this going on.
Have you read up on the intended way that skills are going to work in Camelot Unchained?
Instead of unlocking skills, you unlock skill components. You then create your own skills out of those components. The more components you use, the higher the resource costs / cooldowns.
I've no idea how the system will work out in reality, but if it works as intended then it seems like a really great way to put the power in the player's hands. Like, if you unlock the flame component, it's ur choice whether or not to add a fire component to every skill you already have, or just some, or none at all.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I agree with you on this point. I'd like to see progression for any gained skill or ability, on top of Cameltosis's idea of horizontal progression and learning new abilities. However, I could do without progression of learned abilities since I want a new type of worldly game where exploration, and a lot of other ways to play, are enhanced (and not restricted by the level zone formulas of current designs).
My thinking is that you could start at a 50% capability and work your way up to 100%. And you'd always be getting new skills/abilities to work on, too. There's a variety of similar-feeling ways to do this, and I'm not too particular on how.
I think an interesting possibility might be having abilities add to other abilities so that learning both makes one of them perform better. And having abilities interconnected like a spider web so that there's a lot of this going on.
Have you read up on the intended way that skills are going to work in Camelot Unchained?
Instead of unlocking skills, you unlock skill components. You then create your own skills out of those components. The more components you use, the higher the resource costs / cooldowns.
I've no idea how the system will work out in reality, but if it works as intended then it seems like a really great way to put the power in the player's hands. Like, if you unlock the flame component, it's ur choice whether or not to add a fire component to every skill you already have, or just some, or none at all.
Are there limits to this? I mean, it's hard to picture a fire component to stealth. I'm at their site now so I hope I can find out more about this.
Edit to add...caravans! lol.
I'm going to spend more time on this than I thought. I have a sinking feeling about power gaps, though.
Edit 2: Horizontal progression? When did this happen? Color me more interested.
Final Edit (for now anyways): I'm liking what I see so far. Very much. But I have a lot to read and comprehend yet.
I think this idea of limiting level progression is interesting in theory, but not sure in practice it would work. I think many people need to be progressing in some type of skill to feel they are getting stronger within the game world. I am not a big fan of on the rails themeparks, but at the same time, its hard to imagine a game world where at least some skills are not progressing/improving over time.
I agree, progression is essential. As I mentioned earlier, a game needs objectives and a means to achieve them. What you are correctly pointing out is the need for players to sense that they are in fact progressing towards those objectives. I don't mind any system that can do this, even levels, so long as they are designed in service of the game. What I mean by that is, if a progression metric like levels and character stats is tacked on without being carefully woven into the game, it won't take long for the game to feel like a hamster wheel that just gives you bigger and bigger numbers. It becomes too shallow.
Having all mobs with completely static health could be a problem.
I do like the idea of mobs getting more complex in different areas, where the deeper/further you go, the harder/complex it gets, that way people with different skill levels (outside the game) can explore until the content becomes too challenging for the group, then they move horizontally within that area where they feel comfortable at the max challenge for their particular group.
Again, I completely agree. I didn't mean to imply such a rigid design that sets all health (or stats in general) as static. In fact, there could be systems that vary mob health in very interesting ways, like mobs that get agitated and more aggressive at night, essentially hitting harder, but also having a lower hit chance because of poor vision. Enemies in one area can be better equipped, with their supplies granting them a higher health pool, more armor, sharper blades, etc. I just don't want the lazy fix of giving a mob 1000 more health and damage and calling it good. I've played plenty of games where my mid level character fighting mid level enemies was an indistinguishable experience from my high level character fighting high level enemies, barring a new spell or two. But by all means, an ogre should be singularly tougher than a gnome.
Are not some games doing this already thou, with Mythic dungeons etc..? Maybe the health is not static, but I dont see that as a signficant difference.
Oh, there is some of this, particularly in structured encounters, absolutely. But there are so many ways to implement this in the wider virtual world that could lend itself to exploration.
Don't be too quick to do away with local hubs, they still serve a valuable purpose in terms of bringing players together.
Absolutely. When writing these ideas down, it's easy to sound like I'm taking a more extreme position than I mean to. I'm not suggesting we totally dismantle any existing systems, though I'm not opposed to alternatives to some either. I think there is a balance to be struck between providing enough in a hub to draw people in and help bring them together versus putting everything they'd ever need there so that everyone and their giant, shiny mount are parked 90% of the time in the middle of the town square.
But, an idea I had was that organisations would have their own training regimens and style. As a player, you could join those organisations and then receive specific training from them. For example, you join the city guard in a human city, and they teach you standard sword+board techniques for defending the wall.
Then later, you visit some master thieves, gain their trust. They can then teach you further sword+board skills, more focused on solo dualing, or 1vsmany fights.
Part of what I wanted with this idea was to have the training of skills be more than just "buy skill, add to skill bar". I would like there to be a training arena (or similar), and when you get taught a skill, you actually have to use it properly in the training arena before you've fully learned it. For example, if they give you a taunt skill for tanking, there should be a training exercise where you have to hold aggro for 5 minutes whilst some DPS NPCs beat on your target.
Training exercises with one organisation (like City Guard) would be very different to other organisations. Like, the City Guard would be more focused on teamwork and fighting as a unit, whereas a thieves guild would have training exercises more focused on solo fighting and stuff.
I love ideas like this because they feed into the history and lore of the world, breathing life into it. It's a game's version of "show, don't tell". You could tell me these are the soldiers protecting the pass from marauding riders, or show me by having them use and teach skills useful against mounted attacks. But I like to extend this notion of "show, don't tell" to how we approach design itself.
Let's take your example of expanding training to be more than just buying a skill. We can have a training sequence that involves doing some actions to simulate the act of actually learning the skill. We just need to be careful that this doesn't end up feeling like the game telling the player that their character had to "train" to learn this skill. Rarely are these types of tasks in games truly difficult or challenging, and so they feel like the game just wants you to jump through some hoops. On the other hand, if the training task is made very challenging, it can feel like a frustrating chore. Instead, I like to think back from the player and not forward from the developer. What does the player want from this? How do they feel when engaging with this system?
In your example, I would want to feel like I'm truly building a connection with the soldiers, that I am learning skills they've honed in practice, skills that they rely on. That's what the process of learning the skill should put me through. Again, it doesn't have to be this way or that way, and there are many ways to make fun experiences. The answers to these are about more than just "quest" design, but how the game is fundamentally designed.
So as just one possibility, say you categorize skills into families, grouped by basic components. Taunting could be, I don't know, let's say a very "attention-drawing" shout. So a taunt, a battle cry, and an intimidating roar can all be unique skills that do different things, but they all derive from the base component skill we'll call "shout". Everyone can shout. It is there, in your list of skills from day one. Maybe it does some basic thing like startle critters or increase your aggro range by a bit causing mobs to notice you from farther out. Now, you join a regiment and want to learn how they perform their taunt. You put your shout skill with your other actions and use it the way you would a taunt, while training with them and while out fighting along side them. Gradually, your shout develops until you are able to add taunt as its own, "trained" skill (you still retain the basic ability to shout, of course). This could tie into advice they give you on timing your taunt or who to taunt, and the more accurately you follow that advice with your shout the faster you develop taunting.
All I mean by this example is that the solution to giving a player the feeling that a skill is really earned or learned can be in how the skill system itself is designed and how that plays with the skill training and acquisition or leveling systems. In my opinion, good implementation comes down to seeing how a given system or idea interacts with all the other systems to give rise to an experience, and carrying that idea into the design of all the game systems so that the player has a cohesive experience.
I agree with you on this point. I'd like to see progression for any gained skill or ability, on top of Cameltosis's idea of horizontal progression and learning new abilities. However, I could do without progression of learned abilities since I want a new type of worldly game where exploration, and a lot of other ways to play, are enhanced (and not restricted by the level zone formulas of current designs).
My thinking is that you could start at a 50% capability and work your way up to 100%. And you'd always be getting new skills/abilities to work on, too. There's a variety of similar-feeling ways to do this, and I'm not too particular on how.
I think an interesting possibility might be having abilities add to other abilities so that learning both makes one of them perform better. And having abilities interconnected like a spider web so that there's a lot of this going on.
Agreed. There are many ways to go about this. I like the idea of layering on or connecting between abilities. Perhaps it's not just having the ability, but some behind-the-scene record of skill usage that represents your "fighting style" or "tendencies". So, when you then learn something knew, it comes tweaked in your flavor. I'd also like that to extend to the "crafting" element of the game, as that is something that I feel can fuel exploration. I believe you mentioned in another post the idea of bringing skills back to teach the local trainer. I like that. I think it could be extended as well.
Bring back your worn out sword (assuming there's meaningful item wear and tear in the game) and give it to a blacksmith (ideally another player) for repairs. As the blacksmith works on your weapons, which have been damaged in unique ways due to how you use them and what you fight with them, that blacksmith becomes better at making weapons for that use case. It's a way of interconnecting one player's experience with another, much like how you were suggesting with abilities, where one player's choice in what to fight and how can unlock new bonuses and abilities for another player through this type of interaction.
Exploration for the blacksmith, here, can mean seeking out unique and interesting adventurers to see if there's something to be learned from examining and repairing their equipment. There are so many possible ways to create meaningful interactions between players and the world for them to explore, and I really believe that is what draws us to these forums and these worlds.
My idea is that Players can learn something new from their adventures, and then bring them back to teach to organizations and guilds, so that they can then teach to others.
Player progression is then more about unlocking more options, like new specs or new gear sets with different set bonuses etc. Beating the harder content is then more about playing better as well as choosing the right meta-options for the content.
Do away with "supermarket" hubs that serve as one-stop-shops for all
the player's needs. Local trainers have their own unique skills to
teach, local traders / crafters their own unique trades and crafts. Players who
learn blacksmithing from the dwarves make distinctly different items
than those who learn it from humans. Or elves. And these differences
have to be significant to present a player with meaningful options and
tradeoffs. Again, consider how this ties to the unique challenges
different zone and enemy types present.
I like this idea, and have had similar in the past.
Don't be too quick to do away with local hubs, they still serve a valuable purpose in terms of bringing players together.
But, an idea I had was that organisations would have their own training regimens and style. As a player, you could join those organisations and then receive specific training from them. For example, you join the city guard in a human city, and they teach you standard sword+board techniques for defending the wall.
Then later, you visit some master thieves, gain their trust. They can then teach you further sword+board skills, more focused on solo dualing, or 1vsmany fights.
Part of what I wanted with this idea was to have the training of skills be more than just "buy skill, add to skill bar". I would like there to be a training arena (or similar), and when you get taught a skill, you actually have to use it properly in the training arena before you've fully learned it. For example, if they give you a taunt skill for tanking, there should be a training exercise where you have to hold aggro for 5 minutes whilst some DPS NPCs beat on your target.
Training exercises with one organisation (like City Guard) would be very different to other organisations. Like, the City Guard would be more focused on teamwork and fighting as a unit, whereas a thieves guild would have training exercises more focused on solo fighting and stuff.
One of my ideas from the past is that your ideas can be extended out into the explorable world.
To set the stage, in a "worldly" game, it makes sense that your trainers and their organizations somehow, sometimes, learn of new abilities to train.
So while the game can start with the ideas you have mentioned, there can be more out there. Adding new content of this sort can be done too.
My idea is that Players can learn something new from their adventures, and then bring them back to teach to organizations and guilds, so that they can then teach to others.
So; - a warrior type might learn a new way to hold their weapon or shield for strategic advantage, from seeing it used while fighting new MOB elites. - A Blacksmith might learn how to build a better forge from ancient ruins, or new ingredients to make their fires hotter. - A mason-builder might learn how to build an archway, and then a vaulted ceiling. - An alchemist might learn of new ingredients and how to prepare them. Or new materials to make their equipment out of, more refined burners, etc. - etc.
Some of these things might be "trainable" by studying an item that's out in the world, rather than from a person/NPC/MOB.
Vanguard did stuff like that relative to crafting , I recall a few if us guiding a crafter to a remote island and defnding her so she could study/learn a Cornerstone needed for Guildhall construction . Was lots of things like that in Vanguard
Player progression is then more about unlocking more options, like new specs or new gear sets with different set bonuses etc. Beating the harder content is then more about playing better as well as choosing the right meta-options for the content.
Do away with "supermarket" hubs that serve as one-stop-shops for all
the player's needs. Local trainers have their own unique skills to
teach, local traders / crafters their own unique trades and crafts. Players who
learn blacksmithing from the dwarves make distinctly different items
than those who learn it from humans. Or elves. And these differences
have to be significant to present a player with meaningful options and
tradeoffs. Again, consider how this ties to the unique challenges
different zone and enemy types present.
I like this idea, and have had similar in the past.
Don't be too quick to do away with local hubs, they still serve a valuable purpose in terms of bringing players together.
But, an idea I had was that organisations would have their own training regimens and style. As a player, you could join those organisations and then receive specific training from them. For example, you join the city guard in a human city, and they teach you standard sword+board techniques for defending the wall.
Then later, you visit some master thieves, gain their trust. They can then teach you further sword+board skills, more focused on solo dualing, or 1vsmany fights.
Part of what I wanted with this idea was to have the training of skills be more than just "buy skill, add to skill bar". I would like there to be a training arena (or similar), and when you get taught a skill, you actually have to use it properly in the training arena before you've fully learned it. For example, if they give you a taunt skill for tanking, there should be a training exercise where you have to hold aggro for 5 minutes whilst some DPS NPCs beat on your target.
Training exercises with one organisation (like City Guard) would be very different to other organisations. Like, the City Guard would be more focused on teamwork and fighting as a unit, whereas a thieves guild would have training exercises more focused on solo fighting and stuff.
One of my ideas from the past is that your ideas can be extended out into the explorable world.
To set the stage, in a "worldly" game, it makes sense that your trainers and their organizations somehow, sometimes, learn of new abilities to train.
So while the game can start with the ideas you have mentioned, there can be more out there. Adding new content of this sort can be done too.
My idea is that Players can learn something new from their adventures, and then bring them back to teach to organizations and guilds, so that they can then teach to others.
So; - a warrior type might learn a new way to hold their weapon or shield for strategic advantage, from seeing it used while fighting new MOB elites. - A Blacksmith might learn how to build a better forge from ancient ruins, or new ingredients to make their fires hotter. - A mason-builder might learn how to build an archway, and then a vaulted ceiling. - An alchemist might learn of new ingredients and how to prepare them. Or new materials to make their equipment out of, more refined burners, etc. - etc.
Some of these things might be "trainable" by studying an item that's out in the world, rather than from a person/NPC/MOB.
Vanguard did stuff like that relative to crafting , I recall a few if us guiding a crafter to a remote island and defnding her so she could study/learn a Cornerstone needed for Guildhall construction . Was lots of things like that in Vanguard
I only played a little of Vanguard, so I didn't know this. I did like some of Vanguard from what I saw. I was delighted to see a Dragon flying overhead in the second zone, around a mountain peak. That's fantastic that they did that!
Are there limits to this? I mean, it's hard to picture a fire component to stealth. I'm at their site now so I hope I can find out more about this.
Edit to add...caravans! lol.
I'm going to spend more time on this than I thought. I have a sinking feeling about power gaps, though.
Edit 2: Horizontal progression? When did this happen? Color me more interested.
Final Edit (for now anyways): I'm liking what I see so far. Very much. But I have a lot to read and comprehend yet.
Lol, yeh.
You begin to see that despite 10+ years of waiting and no sign of release, im still interested in CU. They've got some great ideas!
The one thing that has me cautious is the classes. They seem like they'll be toooo heavy on "roles." But they also could be less heavy (a good thing). It's wait and see on this, for me.
Yes, now you got me interested too. I loved what I read about caravans. And if that's how they think, good things may come about.
The running movement has to change. I do not roleplay dorks. lol
Money is a huge problem, obviously. I hope it all works out. Maybe I can be in an explorer's guild with some of you, some day. I'd like that.
Someone Said: "Instead of unlocking skills, you unlock skill components. You then create your own skills out of those components. The more components you use, the higher the resource costs / cooldowns."
This sounds like EQ2. What do you mean higher the cost? I run out of power faster or I gain power faster during combat? Am I losing the resources I gathered to craft the skill? Do I have to have 3000 timber in my bag to cast a fire bolt? Is that fire bolt going to use all 3000 timber on one cast? If the answer is yes to most of these questions, then I have to say I'll stick with Minecraft. CU better give the player a pack pony to gather resources cause I'm not wasting my life gathering shrubs to cast spells without being paid to with real money. I feel like I'm being abused by a grinder from grinder who is holding an amazon FBA grudge and can't afford custom shipping charges to obtain resources to character build. Please clarify....
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Someone Said: "Instead of unlocking skills, you unlock skill components. You then create your own skills out of those components. The more components you use, the higher the resource costs / cooldowns."
This sounds like EQ2. What do you mean higher the cost? I run out of power faster or I gain power faster during combat? Am I losing the resources I gathered to craft the skill? Do I have to have 3000 timber in my bag to cast a fire bolt? Is that fire bolt going to use all 3000 timber on one cast? If the answer is yes to most of these questions, then I have to say I'll stick with Minecraft. CU better give the player a pack pony to gather resources cause I'm not wasting my life gathering shrubs to cast spells without being paid to with real money. I feel like I'm being abused by a grinder from grinder who is holding an amazon FBA grudge and can't afford custom shipping charges to obtain resources to character build. Please clarify....
Well, we don't have specific details yet, but from what MJ has said, the more components you add the a skill, the higher the resource cost (power / mana) and/or the longer the cooldown.
So, I might have created a "double-slash" skill, that hits twice with weapon damage. Costs 50 power, 5 second cooldown.
Then, I unlock a fire component, and decide to add it to my double-slash skill. It now hits twice, but hits for fire damage, rather than weapon damage. Costs 60 power, 5 second CD.
Perhaps that's not enough. I also want a fire-dot. So, I also add that to double-slash, but now it costs 80 power and has a 20 second cooldown.
I don't think there will be any sort of timber cost to skills. The resources mentioned are purely personal (energy/mana/power/whatever u call it). That said, the game is also going to have a full player-run economy, as well as a dedicated crafter class. So, I wouldn't be surprised if archers needed to craft their own arrows. I guess it depends how old school vs modern they are feeling!
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Comments
I'd like to see progression for any gained skill or ability, on top of Cameltosis's idea of horizontal progression and learning new abilities.
However, I could do without progression of learned abilities since I want a new type of worldly game where exploration, and a lot of other ways to play, are enhanced (and not restricted by the level zone formulas of current designs).
My thinking is that you could start at a 50% capability and work your way up to 100%. And you'd always be getting new skills/abilities to work on, too.
There's a variety of similar-feeling ways to do this, and I'm not too particular on how.
I think an interesting possibility might be having abilities add to other abilities so that learning both makes one of them perform better. And having abilities interconnected like a spider web so that there's a lot of this going on.
Once upon a time....
To set the stage, in a "worldly" game, it makes sense that your trainers and their organizations somehow, sometimes, learn of new abilities to train.
So while the game can start with the ideas you have mentioned, there can be more out there. Adding new content of this sort can be done too.
My idea is that Players can learn something new from their adventures, and then bring them back to teach to organizations and guilds, so that they can then teach to others.
So;
- a warrior type might learn a new way to hold their weapon or shield for strategic advantage, from seeing it used while fighting new MOB elites.
- A Blacksmith might learn how to build a better forge from ancient ruins, or new ingredients to make their fires hotter.
- A mason-builder might learn how to build an archway, and then a vaulted ceiling.
- An alchemist might learn of new ingredients and how to prepare them. Or new materials to make their equipment out of, more refined burners, etc.
- etc.
Some of these things might be "trainable" by studying an item that's out in the world, rather than from a person/NPC/MOB.
Once upon a time....
I mean, it's hard to picture a fire component to stealth.
I'm at their site now so I hope I can find out more about this.
Edit to add...caravans! lol.
I'm going to spend more time on this than I thought.
I have a sinking feeling about power gaps, though.
Edit 2:
Horizontal progression? When did this happen?
Color me more interested.
Final Edit (for now anyways):
I'm liking what I see so far. Very much. But I have a lot to read and comprehend yet.
Once upon a time....
Again, I completely agree. I didn't mean to imply such a rigid design that sets all health (or stats in general) as static. In fact, there could be systems that vary mob health in very interesting ways, like mobs that get agitated and more aggressive at night, essentially hitting harder, but also having a lower hit chance because of poor vision. Enemies in one area can be better equipped, with their supplies granting them a higher health pool, more armor, sharper blades, etc. I just don't want the lazy fix of giving a mob 1000 more health and damage and calling it good. I've played plenty of games where my mid level character fighting mid level enemies was an indistinguishable experience from my high level character fighting high level enemies, barring a new spell or two. But by all means, an ogre should be singularly tougher than a gnome.
Oh, there is some of this, particularly in structured encounters, absolutely. But there are so many ways to implement this in the wider virtual world that could lend itself to exploration.
That's fantastic that they did that!
Once upon a time....
They seem like they'll be toooo heavy on "roles."
But they also could be less heavy (a good thing). It's wait and see on this, for me.
Yes, now you got me interested too. I loved what I read about caravans. And if that's how they think, good things may come about.
The running movement has to change. I do not roleplay dorks. lol
Money is a huge problem, obviously. I hope it all works out. Maybe I can be in an explorer's guild with some of you, some day. I'd like that.
Once upon a time....
"Instead of unlocking skills, you unlock skill components. You then create your own skills out of those components. The more components you use, the higher the resource costs / cooldowns."
This sounds like EQ2. What do you mean higher the cost? I run out of power faster or I gain power faster during combat? Am I losing the resources I gathered to craft the skill? Do I have to have 3000 timber in my bag to cast a fire bolt? Is that fire bolt going to use all 3000 timber on one cast? If the answer is yes to most of these questions, then I have to say I'll stick with Minecraft. CU better give the player a pack pony to gather resources cause I'm not wasting my life gathering shrubs to cast spells without being paid to with real money. I feel like I'm being abused by a grinder from grinder who is holding an amazon FBA grudge and can't afford custom shipping charges to obtain resources to character build.
Please clarify....
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.