Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Grafiska

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Grafiska

  • Rank
    Hatchling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South-East UK
  1. I don't think it would be too hard to implement a system that means people don't get paid if they don't do the thing, you just need a sort of artificial middleman based on certain conditions. This way would mean that the possible ways you can implement this system don't have that much scope, but it saves time wasted and keeps some semblance of order to things. I'll use two of your examples, if you want to hire a smaller guild to go take a minor objective for you within a certain timeframe, it could literally be something that takes the money/items you've offered from you at the start, and if at least someone from <random guild name> is at the keeporwhatever when it's taken, they get paid! If the time you gave them to do it in runs out/some other group of players takes the location, you get your stuff back. Hire a bodyguard for an hour? Same thing, that gold is stored somewhere in the ether and that player has to stay within X distance of you/make sure you don't die for the hour or something and then they're given their money. If they wander off to do something/turn on you when attacked/generally renege then you get your gold back and they wasted their time. I love the idea, works for crafting and stuff too if you want it - create the contract (maybe with materials) and someone else picks it up and crafts it, leaves it for you/sends it to your bank or whatever and gets paid - and just adds security to interactions like this that can be so much fun. Why would you bother to leave a system open to negative abuse when there is an alternative option? If anyone else already posted with this then my bad/of course all I said could need refining but you get the idea.
  2. Check it: How about on launch you randomly award a cosmetic item to just enough people that when you've been playing a while and are getting into things, fighting monsters as a cool Centaur or crafting some sweet gearz for your guild, you see a character stroll by with some earbuds in, or wearing a watch, and it's just enough to make you be like "Wait, what?" and break the immersion just a tiny bit. There can be just enough of them that if you go to check out a rad screenshot you took, maybe mid-battle while you're crushing your enemies and feeling like an old-timey fantastical badass, and you look closely you can see a Dwarf wearing Ray-Bans or an Elf with a neck-tie on and you realise how silly the whole thing is.
  3. I didn't read the rest of the thread because I'm a jerk, but it was my assumption that the win would be calculated based on something like who has the most resources gathered/territory owned/military force or something like that at the end of the allotted campaign time. Either that for a time-out or 100% domination of every point on the map by one faction, or a surrender agreed by the majority of the players on the losing side to force an early campaign victory. Note: I don't think 100% map domination is too insane a win condition if you're playing over (a) month(s), with solid tactics and some good player skill if you can keep pushing forward, take the majority of the map, work up to a decent average gear level amongst your players and keep applying pressure to the enemy you should be able to get them to a point where you're just in their base and wipe them out, or you've taken everything around them and blocked off their access to resources enough that they're stuck in inferior gear and cornered. WILD SPECULATION IS THE GREATEST.
  4. This might not necessarily be what it means to me now, but it's certainly what I'd LIKE it to mean. Specialist for offensive utility with stuns/debuffs/slows/roots and all that jazz and Support characters for defensive stuff, buffs/shields/dispels and so on.
  5. Correct! Feminism is about equality of the sexes (initially by empowering women, but in no way limited to that since about the second wave) not man-hating I'd say misandry is involved, sure, but if a practice like this comes from anywhere then it's just an intense matriarchal culture and tradition taken kinda to the extreme. I mean to say that misandry is what this is, but it sounds like it's the sort of behaviour/tradition that's a societal thing. Misandry as a product of a matriarchal society, like misogyny is a product of our patriarchal one.
  6. Wings for full flight? Or more of an escape/super-jump/glide sort of thing? As other people have mentioned too, with collision you're going to be FORCED to play alone/away from the bulk of your force.
  7. I think the trend towards fewer skills (provided there's variety there) is really a good thing. The fact that you now don't have to learn like thirty different keybinds doesn't lower the skill ceiling all that much, I'd say that all it does is lower the skill FLOOR. Making the barrier for entry really low is a great thing, it makes the game accessible, keeps it alive, encourages competition at all levels. Your super 1337 players still get REALLY good at using the 8-10 skills on their bars, and then other factors become a much bigger part of the meta. I mean things like positioning, juking casts, team coordination, clicking in exactly the right places and just knowing all the absolutely tiny little minutia of the game's mechanics. I'd also like to say that often the limited set of skills you have in a particular fight is forcibly limited because you can only choose a certain amount of skills from a wider pool, if you make these decisions meaningful enough (having to choose between skills of equal usefulness depending on situations) you get a much more interesting and varied landscape of builds. So coming up against, for example's sake, a warrior type class in 1v1 three times in a row there's a possibility for the set of skills they're running with to be different each time. As I'm writing that, I realise that you can often in fact have almost the same amount of skills to learn as in traditional MMOs. You may just only see a small number of them in action in a given fight, but as you can't know what you'll come up against then a good/experienced player will know what a class/archetype has at their disposal and be ready to counter it no matter what. Lastly, I'm sure none of us can deny that DOTA has an insanely high skill cap, and they're REALLY limited in terms of skills/straight combat mechanics.
  8. Runescape had a lot of the problems you mentioned, and paid for it in the PVP community I think. Running/teleporting was rampant at lower/less serious levels, and clans most always place restrictions on their fights as to what you could/could not use. Being able to do absolutely anything at all in that game was way too dependent on your player's wealth, and I think it was pretty damaging to most every part of the experience.
  9. I would be so happy to play a support character that can spawn temporary walls as protection from projectiles/manipulate enemy movements and stuff. Just saying, if that might be a thing then I might be pretty dang delighted.
  10. So apt that your avatar would be a gold dollar sign too
×
×
  • Create New...