Curse

balmung · Jun 11, 2005, 07:05 PM // 19:05

i remember in Earth and Beyond when you did quest for a certain faction you would gain point in that faction, however you could lose points in another faction that is against the one you just gained points in.

for example if you did some quests for the white mantle you would gain their favor but lose favor of the shinning blade. they even did it so if you have a low enough faction that they would be hostile towards you and attack you, or if you had a good enough faction they would come to your aid.

in addition to that if you have a low enough faction to be in the red (or hostile) you could not enter their towns or even buy things from them. vice versa if you had a really good faction you would get discounts and access to other quests.

it would be really hard to implement now but would definently be cool to see. that way you could choose you side and make it a better RGP. i know arena net does not like to call it an RPG persay but it is =D

DarrenJasper · Jun 11, 2005, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Can you elaborate on what you think this would add to the game, besides "man itd b cool"?

Rhombus · Jun 12, 2005, 02:08 PM // 14:08

i think it would give some extra depth, because then you wouldn't fee you're playing the same game over agian when u play with a second, third or even fourth character.

balmung · Jun 12, 2005, 08:46 PM // 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrenJasper

Can you elaborate on what you think this would add to the game, besides "man itd b cool"?

i didn't have time to say alot im at work, that's when i browse the forum.

however here are a few examples

1)one of the biggest thing RPGs is the role play itself. like star wars knights of the old republic, or Ad&d all had good, neutral and evil alignments. when d&d mmo comes out i might just quit playing guild wars if they allow alignments of evil as well. not that i would choose it but its makes the game alot more diverse.

2) remember the ambassador outside? ambassador zhan or something. what if you were good with his faction and the faction in ascalon. then you used that to help create a treaty?

3)the thing is you are forced to join the white mantle and then the shinning blade, but what if i didn't want to change, why can't there be a seperate white mantel missions that coincides with the shinning blade missions. that could even make it possible in some cases to do PVP MISSIONS. what if after you ascended for example, now your allegiance actually matters or even throught the game.

4)in ffxi as well there was a thing called conquest points. kingdoms faught for control on areas, like guilds in the story. if there was factions you could fight, like for exmaple alongside the shinning blade to knock the white mantle out of that area. there were however certain areas that could not be taken like there home, that way the factions are never really destroyed and would allow them to rebuild, especially for those who wanted to be white mantel instead.

then you add rewards to belonging to one faction over another. perhaps specific classes, elite skills or just reguls skills alongside different armor that would allow you to look they your faction. but then again thats why they added guilds and guild halls huh, with the capes right? to belong to a completely human faction or guild and perhaps allegiance to your guild is your only allegiance that matters you shouldn't be torn between them. in the end its all just an idea i saw in a few others games that were alot of fun and added that little something extra to it, like disco rooms in earth and beyond lol.. that made the game right there was the secret disco rooms on jenquai stations. anyways, it dosn't have to be implemented in anyway the same as those games its just a possibility to improve gameplay.

PVP missions sounds like the best way to really implement it, i am kind of writing this out of order working on different ideas but that would be hella fun. actually im going to make a seperate just for it.

Drakron · Jun 12, 2005, 09:16 PM // 21:16

Nice idea but that is one that eventually screws story progression since in order to have that there cannot be "good guys" or "bad guys", just fractions.

That means a major rework of the entire PvE areas with having to implement diferent starting areas since it makes no sense to start in Ascalon fighting the Charr if we are going to be White Mantle, the only ones that fought the Charr pre-searing were Ascalon with the rest of the nations adapting a turtle strategy.

What we eventually end up with a static world (the biggest MMORPG issue) since they cannot make players that want to play in one side to see their side have to lose and vanish from the game world.

The idea looks nice and good but problem is the implementation that is hell with having so many varients avaible, right now spawn points depend of the quest logs so what would happen if player X had a log saying the White Mantle is winning as player Y had a log saying the Charr had complety overrun Ascalon and were outside the Gates of Kytra ... that cannot happen and so there had to be a true persistent world were player choices affected the world changes with leads again to the fact they cannot remove a fraction from the gameworld and so any "advantage" a fraction would have would be a very ninor cosmetic alteration that would lead to a static world.

Oh and dont think D&D Online is going to be diferent, you might have a aligment option but what its going to affect is the spells you have access and how spells and weapons are going to affect you ... they might throw in some quests for evil aligned player but they are going to lack any impact in the gameworld since MMORPGs are a equal playing field for all players.

balmung · Jun 12, 2005, 09:43 PM // 21:43

yeah i know what you mean, implementation would be really hard, but they don't have to implement it backwards just forwards and make it for the next chapters. if done right it could make this game alot better, not to say i dont like it now. i've been pretty addicted since i started playing.

Willow · Jun 12, 2005, 10:40 PM // 22:40

There's no reason why a future expansion couldn't have a 'mission tree'- after each mission, you essentially have a choice of two missions- and the one you don't do is lost to you.

I think the biggest con to this is that it requires, say, 24-30 missions to get 8 missions for 3 factions each. I might rather have all 25 missions for my character!

Flame · Jun 12, 2005, 11:12 PM // 23:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willow

There's no reason why a future expansion couldn't have a 'mission tree'- after each mission, you essentially have a choice of two missions- and the one you don't do is lost to you.

I think the biggest con to this is that it requires, say, 24-30 missions to get 8 missions for 3 factions each. I might rather have all 25 missions for my character!

The mission tree would be interesting, but I feel that ArenaNet considered carefully before they created their missions. Tell me, if you were on your fourth mission, there would be 1/8 of the players past that point which are actually able to come to that mission, which means longer spamming "LFG!" and hoping for Monks. ANet probably wanted to wait until they have a large player base.

Drakron · Jun 12, 2005, 11:17 PM // 23:17

Missions are designed for co-op in mind, there are henchies but they were designed to be a backup in case of players shortage, not to be taken.

Fractions throw a monkey wretch into mission and quest design because maps work in spawn points, if I have a active mission in a area and I enter it the map then the spawn point is activated and that works for all players in the group, if I dont have a quest in that map but another player does it activates the spawn point.

If you make fraction missions and players decided to team up but have diferent fractions then they are going to run into each other quests spawn points and suddenly you have a player that is in the White Mantle fraction killing White Mantles because the other player is on a mission that spawns those White Mantle NPCs as hostile.

This is not a single player game were multiple options are a valid choice since there is only one player to trigger spawn points and its possible to create multi paths since the player can only take one and never go back, we can reply missions and the whole game works as a big co-op world.

balmung · Jun 12, 2005, 11:26 PM // 23:26

if there were 25 missions you could still do all 25 with my idea. in every missions there is what 2 sides to each? you still goto the same area you just start in a different area and have different objectives. you dont really have to create new missions just change the objectives and make it PvP =D PvE with a twist so you could choose the other side and try to stop the other people from completing the missions.

for example you could be with the shinning blade when they capture the chosen ones from the white mantel. so your objectives are basically to recuse the chosen and then take them to where ever. on the flipside you try to take the chosen successfully to the goal point and dont let the shinning blade take them.

the only forseable problem is what happens to the losing team if you make it PvP. you could change the bonus so that the winning team gets the bonus and the losing team still completes mission and can goto the next area. i mean the storyline could even still be the same.

ManadartheHealer · Jun 13, 2005, 12:17 AM // 00:17

It could be interesting...but I feel this is "iffy". It may be rather hard to implement and may lead to further shortages of groups, etc. But, if the missions are PvP, they will be infinitely harder than before.

Drakron · Jun 13, 2005, 12:34 AM // 00:34

It breaks the storyline, if the Chosen are "rescued" from the Blade there is no Bloodstone, no switching sides and so no Scepter meaning no Desert, no Ascention, no Glint and no Ring of Fire (since that is all linked to the storyline) without a major rework for each fraction and lets be frank here, the only fractions in the game are White Mantle, Shinning Blades, Charr, Stone Summit, Dwarves and Ascalon (I am keeping the undead out of this).

The game is also not build into a fraction system, nobody can try to be friendly with the Charr anymore they can help the Stone Summit ... there are no missions around then and the only time there is a definite switch sides is going with the Blades and that happens because of the Bloodstone.

Doing so would force many braching storylines and with the system in place that just makes a mess if two (or more) players that are following diferent paths decide to team up and take on a mission, it would play havok with the team since right now we can select who we side with, the only time the game forces teaming is pre-searing.

The idea is not bad (its good) if the game was build around a fraction system but its not and implementing it means to scrap core elements of the game.

Flame · Jun 13, 2005, 12:59 AM // 00:59

Faction system. Not Fraction.

The only factions it would make sense to join would be Stone Summit vs. Deldrimor, White Mantle vs. Shining Blade. The amount of work required just isn't worth it. Maybe in a future expansion, there will be an area with a bunch of "Neutral" factions, so that there isn't one that is good and one bad.

DarrenJasper · Jun 13, 2005, 02:36 AM // 02:36

I have to laugh a little when people call this an RPG... I don't know of any other online RPG where everyone is roleplaying the same character.

Drakron · Jun 13, 2005, 02:50 AM // 02:50

I see you never played Final Fantasy V,VI,VII,VIII, IX, X and X-2 ...

Or Daggerfall, Morrowind, .hack ...

DarrenJasper · Jun 13, 2005, 04:27 AM // 04:27

Okay excuse me Kreskin, I thought it was clear I meant online RPGs but I guess that was presumptuous. Let me append.

balmung · Jun 13, 2005, 11:58 PM // 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drakron

It breaks the storyline, if the Chosen are "rescued" from the Blade there is no Bloodstone, no switching sides and so no Scepter meaning no Desert, no Ascention, no Glint and no Ring of Fire (since that is all linked to the storyline) without a major rework for each fraction and lets be frank here, the only fractions in the game are White Mantle, Shinning Blades, Charr, Stone Summit, Dwarves and Ascalon (I am keeping the undead out of this).

First of all and i've said it many times, to implement this after ascending. I agree its just not nor should happen in the beginning, rewriting the existing storyline wouldn't make sense. Which means you are skipping alot of work because late game there are not as many factions. I am also not talking about necesarily doing every faction just the big ones, because some just do not have any politcal goal of destroying the whole world or on the flip side saving it, or even are big enough to justify it. There are side quests in any game that in many cases you go through it and never deal with it again. Then there are the bigger overall missions. For example just because i stopped to eat pizza doesn't mean you make a whole story out of me eating, its a fleeting moment. However the scene where i am robbing a bank or something lasts alot longer because it is just naturally more important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drakon

The game is also not build into a fraction system, nobody can try to be friendly with the Charr anymore they can help the Stone Summit ... there are no missions around then and the only time there is a definite switch sides is going with the Blades and that happens because of the Bloodstone.

Doing so would force many braching storylines and with the system in place that just makes a mess if two (or more) players that are following diferent paths decide to team up and take on a mission, it would play havok with the team since right now we can select who we side with, the only time the game forces teaming is pre-searing.

Again i meant this for the next chapter, possibly not even going to be part of the known world. there will probably be a new continent or something. i mean in real life terms the guild wars world is pretty small. if someone can walk from one town to another in what 30mins? thats crazy, they would have to be only miles part from each other. in fact that would put the know world currently close to the size of like alaska or maybe australia. they have alot more area they could add.

they also do not need to add missions for each faction just 2 more than likely would cover it, and keep it simple for 1 side vs another side, but that can also be per area/continent. thus the storyline is driven by just the 2 ultimately which it already is in each chapter. there could still be alot more smaller factions that are tied to the bigger ones.

Now ultimately about the fundamental problem of if one group succeeds and another fails. how does the storyline progress for the other group? let me ask you this. how can thousands of people complete the same quest/mission? how can a storyline progress if you as a hero did not do the mission yet? thats because just like when you live town you are really living in your own private world. you are asking for logic which wasn't there to begin with. the logic of it is, is the simple fact that for your character nothing happens until you do it, and that the world litteraly revolves around you. Now because this game and countless RPGs use the same logic, it is within that the possiblity exists for different storylines for different characters. Which means you can most definitely have different factions and have different storylines evolve for different players. just because you made it to the crystal desert by going with the shinning blade does not mean you could not have gone their because the white mantle followed them.

now someone asked that would mess up the sides, like if you are one faction and your friend is another and you would like to complete the mission together on the same side. well logically in the RP world a lawful good paladin for example would never party with a chaotic evil paladin. if you played true RPGs like D&D you could understand how that works and the ways around it. there are consequences for everything in life why can't your faction have consequences like not being able to party with the opposing team unless you mean to change sides. the only way the 2 above paladins would party was if the good or bad paladin had enough charisma to change the other paladins beliefs. anyways i gtg back to work i'll follow up later.

Phaedrus · Jun 14, 2005, 12:05 AM // 00:05

If this were a mmorpg, this would be a great idea.

It's not. It's just going to make PvP players bitter about the grind they'd have to do to get everything from every tree, and it's going to make PvE players who like the simplicity of the game regret their decision in buying into it.

[ ]