Lore: Faction wars or Lawless?

[Sphere]

A variety of races in the same world would eventually create alliances or wars. What do you want to see?

A PvP world with different cities at wars against each other.

Peace in the universe but once u step out the gate you can get ganked.

A united alleagance of races against an evil lord.

All of the above.

I think before we move on to heroes, we should agree upon the world is a more peaceful or dynamic and war-tained one.

[Shinzon]

Something like EVE did works really well, it has "NPC Factions" that act as starting points, but they themselves don't control all of the territory, making it possible for the players themselves to carve out their own Empires...

[Traceur]

NPCs you mean?

I'd like a diversity: some areas may be filled with tribes, feudal warlords, ruling city-sates & oppressed religious cults all in constant wars.

other areas may be united under a large kingdom or an alliance of those in a time of peace - strong enough to defend itself but not strong enough to continue it's expansion, sort of like a dying empire. it may still have many political intrigue, factions, conflicts and class wars: an assassination there and a mob clash here, a couple of yearly rebellion uprisings, and of course crime, but stay out of politics and avoid getting lost in dark corners and you'll more or less be safe.

i would also like a mix of different eras - not all cultures developed in the same pace: tribal societies side by side with highly traditional ancient-world ones as well as sophisticated urban ones. but on the other hand - don't make it so clear cut which is more advanced: for example, you can give the tribal ones legends hinting at an industrial past and a rebellion with some hints of anarchistic-primitivism ideologies resembling their real life counterparts.

[osteo]

"Something like EVE did works really well, it has "NPC Factions" that act as starting points, but they themselves don't control all of the territory."

Great Idea but This game is not about Gaining territory. If thats your goal to attain as many castles as possible Im sure thats something the devs will definetly make possible. And could be what alot of people choose to do.

Lore: Faction wars or Lawless?

To answer your question Sphere if it wasnt both i would be disappointed cuz Ultima Online was both. Depending on where you went or what you chose to do, for example if you went to a place where thieves were known to go or something like a pirates town then no law would be present and if you just wanted a good fight that would be the place to test your skills. But if you went to the npc castle towns you could join the city factions to fight against that castles arch rival faction. Oh and if you were in town then guess what you would answer to the elite guard if you raised your sword or even said the first syllabol of a offensive magic spell

[Hampo]

Originally Posted by Shinzon

Something like EVE did works really well, it has "NPC Factions" that act as starting points, but they themselves don't control all of the territory, making it possible for the players themselves to carve out their own Empires...

That sounds pretty cool. EvE sounds like a good game but im not into the whole spaceship thing. Something like this would definently work in mortal.

[Sorjak]

NPC factions, yes. But only if players are able to rise to the top of them and maybe eventually take it over.

[Protonix]

There should be plenty of lore to back up player driven racial tension, fighting etc, but the game mechanics should represent open, player driven consequences, not artificial gain some bad karma because you kill an elf while playing an elf type crap.

[Sphere]

The first impression from the Teaser I had was "Gosh, another LOTR MMORPG game?" Cuz the city looks like Minas Tirith and the dark thundering cloud in the background resembles the land of Mordor. It rilly does.

Anyone fancy supreme evil lord in this game?

[Laius]

The idea Traceur brought up about different civilizations being more developed than others is intriguing. I like to think that much of the beauty of the game is going to develop after the game is released. As player guilds form their own cities and form alliances with other player guild cities, wage war against cities, tribes, pirates, or whoever, when all of that develops, then the true beauty of the game will develop. I don't want too much put into NPC cities as the world will be much more realistic if the majority, if not all of the cities, are player run. Obviously, in the beginning that can't be the case. But, what about NPC cities falling to player guilds and becoming player guild cities? Then the entire world will belong to the players, to develop or destroy as they would see fit.

[Landor]

NPC cities falling into player guild hands, hmmmm... sounds like a cool idea.

[KroqGar]

Originally Posted by Landor

NPC cities falling into player guild hands, hmmmm... sounds like a cool idea.

Also sounds like an idea that has WAY too much potential to be abused.

[Landor]

How so?

[KroqGar]

Chances are that the guild leader who would end up in charge of the city would be in command of a fairly successful guild, correct?

Now, with my experiences of being in several rather successful guilds, they are all very self-serving. Most are ruthless in how they do things, and almost everything they do brings some benefit to them. If a leader of one of these guilds took control of a city, it would have dire consequences for anyone who wasn't a guild member. Maybe price gauging, extortion and things of that sort. Maybe you have a quest that needs you to go into that city, but your guild and the guild that owns the city are enemies. Do you jsut give up?

I don't think guilds taking over NPC cities are the way to do things. I think that guilds creating their own from scratch, similar to what Age of Conan is doing, is the way to implement guild cities. It doesn't cause much of a detriment to other players, but also gives power to the guild who makes it.

[admiralnlson]

No wars dictated by the devs please. I don't want MO to be a RvR game.

The only wars that should happen are wars between player alliances, regardless of a race or an allegiance to a NPC entity that dictates who you are supposed to eliminate and who not to.

[Aiten]

Originally Posted by admiralnlson

No wars dictated by the devs please. I don't want MO to be a RvR game.

I want some RVR.
Large scale battles with opposite nations, wearing a military uniform provided, based on rank and previous RVR battle experience and performance.
Battles need to be events though, not daily life ... and players should have a say in the political process that leads to it.

[Traceur]

i think i said it somewhere else, but...

i don't mind if 2 NPC cities in some other end of the gaming world are fighting each other and players can pick a side. as long as it doesn't consume the entire game like in RvR games I'm fine with it. away from the eye, away from the heart.

[KroqGar]

Originally Posted by Aiten

I want some RVR.
Large scale battles with opposite nations, wearing a military uniform provided, based on rank and previous RVR battle experience and performance.
Battles need to be events though, not daily life ... and players should have a say in the political process that leads to it.

I agree, RvR is needed. Even if it's not NPC realms, it's still Realm vs. Realm.

[Laius]

Originally Posted by KroqGar

Chances are that the guild leader who would end up in charge of the city would be in command of a fairly successful guild, correct?

Now, with my experiences of being in several rather successful guilds, they are all very self-serving. Most are ruthless in how they do things, and almost everything they do brings some benefit to them. If a leader of one of these guilds took control of a city, it would have dire consequences for anyone who wasn't a guild member. Maybe price gauging, extortion and things of that sort. Maybe you have a quest that needs you to go into that city, but your guild and the guild that owns the city are enemies. Do you jsut give up?

I don't think guilds taking over NPC cities are the way to do things. I think that guilds creating their own from scratch, similar to what Age of Conan is doing, is the way to implement guild cities. It doesn't cause much of a detriment to other players, but also gives power to the guild who makes it.

That's why you have a large enough world that can keep rogue guilds from getting out of line in that way. If a guild starts abusing it's power by price hiking and road blocks, then they will face an alliance of guilds to remove them from control. Guilds that stay in line, keep reasonable prices, won't face this. That's not to say that a guild that stays in line won't ever see conflict, as the world we live in proves otherwise. Guilds that battle eachother always have to think of the balance, their alliances, who they might provoke, etc. This is only more realistic this way.

And, if a person from an enemy guild can't enter that city, wouldn't that only be realistic?

Before saying "things in the past have been this way", think about where a well planned, political world could go with the idea. Personally, I don't feel that this will be like every other game. I think it has the potential to step out of the normal bounds and reach higher.

[ptr]

I think that guilds creating their own from scratch, similar to what Age of Conan is doing, is the way to implement guild cities.

Instanced cities? No thanks.

I agree, RvR is needed. Even if it's not NPC realms, it's still Realm vs. Realm.

I don't understand why people see RvR as a necessity because WoW has RvR. I would pk you for your comment but you happen to be (insert my "realm" here). Look at Lineage 2 if you want to see how FFA plays out.

Great Idea but This game is not about Gaining territory.

"With enough power, violence or diplomacy, you and your allies will be able to rule an entire nation."

Taken from http://www.mortalonline.com/overview

[KroqGar]

Originally Posted by ptr

Instanced cities? No thanks.

Did I ever say the cities had to be instanced? No. I merely said that they should be able to be able to be built up similarly to AoC. Besides that, I don't see what the problem is of offering instanced cities. It allows for cities to be much more detailed and organic without the extra strain put on the world server.

Originally Posted by ptr

I don't understand why people see RvR as a necessity because WoW has RvR. I would pk you for your comment but you happen to be (insert my "realm" here). Look at Lineage 2 if you want to see how FFA plays out.

By RvR, I meant what was present in DAoC, not WoW. WoW had a form of RvR, but it was a highly PvE focussed, and so wasn't the same as what I'm talking about. DAoC's RvR was very PvP focussed and relied on sieges and other such things to work properly. As for the Free-for-All point, UO's system was very well done and, as I understand it, is going to be what UO is based off of.

If I were you, I'd familiarize yourself with the older MMOs to understand what concepts make a good game.

Originally Posted by ptr

"With enough power, violence or diplomacy, you and your allies will be able to rule an entire nation."

Ever heard of a word called hyperbole? I don't even know why you're quoting this, I never said you shouldn't be able to control cities, or nations. I just said players shouldn't be in control of NPC cities.

[admiralnlson]

Originally Posted by KroqGar

Ever heard of a word called hyperbole? I don't even know why you're quoting this, I never said you shouldn't be able to control cities, or nations. I just said players shouldn't be in control of NPC cities.

That might be because he was not quoting you, but someone else...

Originally Posted by KroqGar

Besides that, I don't see what the problem is of offering instanced cities. It allows for cities to be much more detailed and organic without the extra strain put on the world server.

How do you except people from the outside attacking the city if it's instanced?
Players Cities are the roots for territory control : build them, defend them, rule the land around, siege them, capture them, pillage them, nuke them with artillery.

[Apollo]

Diversity has my vote. Nothing is more attractive in an mmorpg to me than complete chaos on one end of the world and a more civilized and structured society on the other. If I want a place to settle in and hone my skills as a tradesman I would desire a more peaceful and therefor profitable world. But as that may grow dull, send me off to a world in which I have to fight to survive and make something of myself. So yes, Traceur has it yet again....

[Siegfried]

I dislike the idea of instanced cities, fact is games that have a metric ton of instances, of... EVERYTHING, like AOC tend to annoy the everloving hell out of me.

If theres limited space to build, then it just means conflict, either in terms of politics, or in terms of combat. Though most likely combat seeing how most people now are very prone to instant gratification. Why talk it out when you can bludgeon the guy standing in your way and start putting up your little brick wall.

I'm fairly sure in terms of instanced cities (at least thats what we were yammering about around the time he made this post) he means the ones that you cannot attack. Though honestly I know I love a little Copypasta every once in a blue moon, I really don't think we can copy AOC this early.

Anything else that I'd like to comment on has already been said before, and in a more eloquent way than I could ever hope to churn out. So yeah, there we go.

Also completely unrelated, Nlson, I seriously have a hard time taking a dang thing you type seriously thanks to that bloody avatar. However I suppose I can't talk, as mine is honestly no better. Still, nothing throws off the serious-mobile like a little astroboy, I s'pose.

[KroqGar]

Originally Posted by admiralnlson

That might be because he was not quoting you, but someone else...

That makes sense. Was a little difficult to tell, considering the rest of the post was towards me, and I don't recall seeing a name.

Originally Posted by admiralnlson

How do you except people from the outside attacking the city if it's instanced?
Players Cities are the roots for territory control : build them, defend them, rule the land around, siege them, capture them, pillage them, nuke them with artillery.

By instanced cities, I mean something more along the lines of WAR, in terms of the walls and exterior of the city is visible, but as you go through the gates, it becomes instanced. As I said before, it allows the city to be much more alive and detailed without putting strain on the game server, or causing machines to be ridiculously powerful to run properly.

I'm mostly referring to NPC cities, again, as the PC cities don't really need their own servers.

Originally Posted by Siegfried

I dislike the idea of instanced cities, fact is games that have a metric ton of instances, of... EVERYTHING, like AOC tend to annoy the everloving hell out of me.

Commented on that already. And I already asked you for clarification on what you meant exactly.

[Earendel]

Originally Posted by Traceur

NPCs you mean?
I'd like a diversity: some areas may be filled with tribes, feudal warlords, ruling city-sates & oppressed religious cults all in constant wars.

Originally Posted by Traceur

i would also like a mix of different eras - not all cultures developed in the same pace: tribal societies side by side with highly traditional ancient-world ones as well as sophisticated urban ones. but on the other hand - don't make it so clear cut which is more advanced: for example, you can give the tribal ones legends hinting at an industrial past and a rebellion with some hints of anarchistic-primitivism ideologies resembling their real life counterparts.

Diversity is great, the more the better provided drastically different style's aren't forced together in unnatural way. They should be separated by large distances.

By "mix of different eras" I take it you mean different levels of advancement. Eg: In the Victorian era there was a great diversity of levels of advancement worldwide. If you mean that there should be a few pockets of the world that are literally 'from a different time', it's intriguing to say the least, but it could upset people if it's thing from modern or sci-fi worlds. I for one, suddenly lose interest in a fantasy or medieval game once you introduce gunpowder, but I have no problem with super-advanced crystal powered contraptions (PROTOSS).

Originally Posted by Shinzon

Something like EVE did works really well, it has "NPC Factions" that act as starting points, but they themselves don't control all of the territory, making it possible for the players themselves to carve out their own Empires...

I think this is a great idea. With enough players, and a good strategy element to the commander level of play, the world would start to mimic real world mayhem!

Originally Posted by KroqGar

I don't think guilds taking over NPC cities are the way to do things. I think that guilds creating their own from scratch, similar to what Age of Conan is doing, is the way to implement guild cities. It doesn't cause much of a detriment to other players, but also gives power to the guild who makes it.

I agree to a point. You probably shouldn't be able to get to a high enough level in an NPC city to run things, but what happens if you are at war. Would the NPC cities be unbeatable to the point that you cant even scratch their walls? I think that you should be defeat an NPC city if you've got most of the rest of the world on your side, but there should be a good in-game reason why you cant keep it. Ie, an NPC immortal will keep fighting till you leave, so you can breach the walls, steal the treasure, but can't stay for ever.

Originally Posted by KroqGar

Did I ever say the cities had to be instanced? No. I merely said that they should be able to be able to be built up similarly to AoC. Besides that, I don't see what the problem is of offering instanced cities. It allows for cities to be much more detailed and organic without the extra strain put on the world server.

It's one option, but what if you destroy the walls, or climb over them? How would you then bombard the people inside? It would be mush better with a good LOD system an object display priority system. (LOD makes objects less complex as they get further away, an object display priority system, means that if there's too much going on, it decreases the distance that you can see things, and hides less important things, like bottles, barrels, etc).

I'd love it if it was something like a cross between Stronghold for castle building, Medieval Total War 2 for big battles, Oblivion / Soul Calibur for what you actually do in the battle, and Tenchu stealth assassins for infiltrating someone else's castle.

Ninja Wizards!