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

squirrelz

Testers
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About squirrelz

  • Rank
    Hatchling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Just my 10 cents, but I think the overall point (especially if we are being zerg conscious) is that the battle HAS to end at some point. The more damage you remove (i.e heal as opposed to mitigate) the less defensive minded or intelligent you have to be. This is a huge net gain to the zerg force - removes the need for focus and strategy and replaces it with the never-ending recycling of damaged to renewed player combatants. Removal of healing compels strategic (defensive) thinking. There are a lot of good ideas on this thread (damage mitigation, slow personal heals and reasonable regen buffs sound promising). Keep in mind, though, any reversing of damage is essentially a method of "forgiveness" for failed tactics. Of course at the same time, you have to keep things interesting -- don't want to sit around for 30 minutes before you can become active again. The answer is somewhere in between and hopefully mixed the concepts of 1) home-field advantage, 2) allowing small groups to succeed, and 3) rewarding superior tactics.
  2. If friendly fire and legitimate structural blocking / line-of-sight are a go, that's a great start. Environmental strategy has to be there for smaller groups to survive. Really interested to see how this all develops.
  3. Damn wish I could find the old UO pictures circa 1997-98 of the deer antler hat KGB zergs... sadly lost, but not forgotten. Sean any old picks of us / them back in the day? Send em my way if you can find.
  4. Bravo on the idea. Sounds like a great option for the numerous occasional players - should be plenty of work with the likely frequent need of territory and trade protection (lots of short term, repeatable projects). 20% tithe on all successfully delivered caravans to market sounds about right. Good way to secure a cache of resources without necessarily having to do the grunt work.
  5. Werd. Did someone say bacon?
  6. Just a quick thought I wanted to jot down and this could be developed in a number of ways: I. As a class could follow something along the lines of the historical Shadowbane Warlock archetype: A. Psionic style character type with a variety of single and multi-target "enabling buffs" / defensive "disabling debuffs" or direct damage psychic attacks. B: Potential skill development lines could be hugely varied between offensive, defensive (active and passive) bonuses from a combat perspective. C: From a non-combat or utility perspective, this archetype could add efficiency or cost bonuses to building, crafting and trade disciplines in what you might call a "Master Planner" line -- something of a "design lead" type role. D: Following the utility perspective, if limitations were placed such that Mastermind buffs could not be stacked at any given time, a smaller guild or group with the more skilled Mastermind could secure an advantage against the larger group both in real time combat situations and in the overall ecosystem (from any basis you want to apply it to: trade, resource efficiency etc). Due to the fact that small vs large group balancing has very limited options, this may be a valuable path to consider. II. As a discipline (as opposed to a class): would follow the same logic as above, however tapered to a more specific skill set that might include: A. Enhancements to crafting, building or trade (time, cost, resource efficiency, increasing allowable cart loads etc) B: Advantage/Disadvantage offsets to a variety of combat situations C: Lots of risk vs reward options here - if the discipline was expanded to multiple focus areas, it could be a 2 discipline slot.This could allow for increased focus on a more limited skill line - i.e could further specialize or "bonus" a set of desired skills such as crafting, combat skills and so on. Because it takes from the allowable discipline limit, the focus would then be on enhancement of the other 1 or 2 disciplines. So, a "modifier" or "focus" discipline if you will -- if I just want to be the greatest archer ever to grace the field and want nothing to do with anything else in the game, perhaps my choice would be Archer (base) / Mastermind (discipline).
  7. DOH LOL missed the early bird twice now! =(
  8. Why not have a game where all options are on the table? I.E. the game is open enough that players can create whatever they want... in the game itself. Want a safehold? The option to build and man a city with NPC guards should be possible [Think SB but with way better NPC AI]. Want arena combat? The option to build an arena and host tournaments should be an option. [Many of us did this in UO]. Open source is the way to go. So the only real goal would be to create the elements of an ecosystem, or "natural law" as it were (what exists and the relationship between all of the parts). The downfall of most games (for me) is the cookie cutter approach where everything is already defined at the start: ~You are a fighter, you can only use A,B and C. There is no advantage for intelligence and wisdom for you. You are large yet suffer no movement or defensive penalties.~ The classless system of UO (fully skill based) was waaay more interesting. You never quite knew exactly what you were running in to (albeit the options were somewhat limited). IMO, every game since has attempted to "perfect" what did not need perfecting. You cannot cure the ills of human nature with a new set of rules - you simply create a space where nature takes its course and evolves based on the will of the playerbase. Let the players govern and police themselves - simply provide the tools. IOW just make everything dynamic, that way the game builds continuously (as opposed to something that is finished/in-stone at creation -- we all know this never happens anyway). The only rule is freedom and balance - everything is possible; everything has a cost. As far as game mechanics, skills and the like... I honestly lean heavily to the original UO method but with a multitude more development options (with a point cap). Every player I know / have ever played with has ALWAYS said the same -- "man, I wish they would just bring a new version of original UO back". Why don't you? But with a consciousness of open frontier as oposed to "controls" to appease those elusive "paying customers" =). Life has enough rules and limitations already... why play with more?
  9. As far as reputation goes (sorry this will stray from the thread intent), I definitely miss the old UO paperdoll reputation identifiers... "The Unsavory CrakHedd JenKinZ" with bright green knee high boots, a red feather hat, black cape and his skivvies... and he's peeking in your bag. Which brings to mind... the oh so overlooked fostering of community comedy. UO had comedy tools in spades. Amazing how much fun came out of a dye tub and a trunk full of tailored clothes.
  10. Those GIFs are hysterical...
×
×
  • Create New...