Will it ever be possible to capture a town/area?

[_______________kabir]

One of the main things that bugs me about PvP (and the storyline) is that I don't feel like it matters. I have participated in a couple of GM lead raids on 2H0, just to try to get into the story and do a little group PvP. In both cases the outcome was the same: we held 2H0 for a little while, then the guards started respawning and taking us down. Sure, if we'd been better organized, etc. we could have held out longer, but it raised an interesting point (which I've brought up here before, but I'm still looking for an answer from FC):

Even if I go in with a huge group of Clanners and we "take over" 2H0 it will only be ours until we leave. There's no actual way to capture (or liberate, depending on your point of view) the town. The guards won't turn into Clan guards, the shops won't switch sides, etc.

It seems to me that it would be about 100 times easier to make players feel involved in the story if we could see our actions reflected in changes to the world. Not individual actions, but group actions. Even poorly organized ones, so long as they are effective they should be recognized by the game.

News stories about "raids", etc. are great, and do add depth and context for us to RP, but the fact remains that in-game actions are essentially meaningless in-game in the long run.

Allowing players to alter the political landscape via battles, etc. would provide instant feedback to let us know we are really involved. Individuals who played even a small part would feel gratified (or embittered, if on the losing side) and certainly feel far more involved than they do now.

This sort of thing, of course, isn't an over-night or even next-week feature, but as I've never heard FC mention anything about it I'm a bit worried that it's not even being considered.

I know that FC will be changing around the supression gas as the story progresses, but if that doesn't lead to the possiblity of territory/resources/etc. changing hands than I can't see how it's much beyond another place to die and a stage to hold a couple of select (and very likely not world-changing in the way I'm talking about) events.

Gaute, I know you're a busy man, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about having player activity reflected in the landscape (political or otherwise) very much, and I think I'm not alone in that.

[______________Yazule]

Here is the problem I see.

They say the storyline on RK1 and RK2 will be exactly the same, they will not differ.

This says that they already know what happens, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Example

Maybe they have OT and clans becoming allies to fight a mighty foe (both the new static and the storyline kind of suggest that along with the trash king *go talk to him some time about "The New"*)

You dont want to allie with the clan/omni scum? TOO BAD, they are telling the story, your just a follow the leader player.

I think they should rethink this as it does not seem like the way to go. Let the story adapt to players instead of directing them into the roles that they were "meant" to fit into.

This was one of the things about UO that I loved. Each shard had its own history and flavor even if they all started from the same base point. I would assume the same holds true for EQ, but in UO player erected houses to castles actually creating unique landscapes.

I dont want this game to be UO.. so dont tell me to go back there (I would in a heartbeat if the eyecandy was as nice) but I am just compairing a POSITIVE thing about a game I played that could possibly be of some benifit as an example.

[_______________kabir]

Originally posted by Yazule
Here is the problem I see.



They say the storyline on RK1 and RK2 will be exactly the same, they will not differ.



This says that they already know what happens, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Honestly, I suspect that the issue you're talking about is a symptom of the technical problem, which is that AO can't handle a dynamic world right now. Though I could be very wrong about this, especially given FC's history as storytellers (see The Longest Journey).

In any case, allowing for a player changable world would lead to an almost immediate split between RK-1 and RK-2, you're right about that. I think you're also right that that would be a good thing

[______________Othgar]

Originally posted by kabir
One of the main things that bugs me about PvP (and the storyline) is that I don't feel like it matters. I have participated in a couple of GM lead raids on 2H0, just to try to get into the story and do a little group PvP. In both cases the outcome was the same: we held 2H0 for a little while, then the guards started respawning and taking us down. Sure, if we'd been better organized, etc. we could have held out longer, but it raised an interesting point (which I've brought up here before, but I'm still looking for an answer from FC):

Even if I go in with a huge group of Clanners and we "take over" 2H0 it will only be ours until we leave. There's no actual way to capture (or liberate, depending on your point of view) the town. The guards won't turn into Clan guards, the shops won't switch sides, etc.

It seems to me that it would be about 100 times easier to make players feel involved in the story if we could see our actions reflected in changes to the world. Not individual actions, but group actions. Even poorly organized ones, so long as they are effective they should be recognized by the game.

News stories about "raids", etc. are great, and do add depth and context for us to RP, but the fact remains that in-game actions are essentially meaningless in-game in the long run.

Allowing players to alter the political landscape via battles, etc. would provide instant feedback to let us know we are really involved. Individuals who played even a small part would feel gratified (or embittered, if on the losing side) and certainly feel far more involved than they do now.

This sort of thing, of course, isn't an over-night or even next-week feature, but as I've never heard FC mention anything about it I'm a bit worried that it's not even being considered.

I know that FC will be changing around the supression gas as the story progresses, but if that doesn't lead to the possiblity of territory/resources/etc. changing hands than I can't see how it's much beyond another place to die and a stage to hold a couple of select (and very likely not world-changing in the way I'm talking about) events.

Gaute, I know you're a busy man, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about having player activity reflected in the landscape (political or otherwise) very much, and I think I'm not alone in that.

I have to say that I think this could be a lot of fun... Say you stage a raid then kill all guards and keep them killed for a period of time they eventually spawn on the same side as the killers. Also I would suggest that as the last guard is killed that the suppression field goes to 25% and stays that way until the last guard is converted to the other side thus finalizing the change. I think it could be very interesting to see that happen in a 75% zone, that way it would give others that dont or havent ventured into a 0% or 25% zone a chance to enjoy another aspect of the game and since it would be based on all guards being killed to make the change in gas level it would also give them time to leave the area if they didnt want to help defend it. It will never happen but an interesting idea none the less.

[______________Scorus]

*bump*

[_____________ToexTag]

I think that the lack of attention @ the arena and also in Clan vs. Omni is becuase there are no permanent consequenses. I think that people need to see how they can change things in the world. The idea of Cities and Towns changing sides is a wonderful Idea. Obviously FC will need to regulate so that a bunch of Clanners dont log on when not too many peeps are in Omni and capture the city. Plus have organized armies or something. Come on. What's going on?? FC doesn't give shiznit about this crap. Come on look @ Patch 13, they screwed up Nanotechs and a whole bunch of crap.