Forums-->Ideas and suggestions-->
| Author | How I would implement Adventures/Dungeons/Quests |
|---|
or whatever you want to call them.
Play:
There would be 3-25 locations, which would look like the map we see to start the game (but might depict other environments, like a dungeon). Movement would be via compass rose.
When you enter an area, it might have a message, or an item, but most likely it would contain an opponent. The opponent would be fought normally.
If you failed, the Quest would end. You would receive 1/100 experience, 1/4 of a skill point, and cannot keep any items or treasure gained the the Quest.
If you succeeded in the fight, you would have two choices: continue, or heal. If you chose to heal, you'd go back to the beginning, and your troops would heal normally, but at the same time some of the battle 'rooms' would also rebuild. You can also change what equipment you're using if you heal. If you chose to continue, you would continue normally, except that you would get 3/4 of the mana you spent back (same as for a Hunt).
Time spent travelling, fighting, etc. would not gain you Mana or troops, and your enemies also do not recover during this time. If you choose to Heal, then you must Heal to 100% of troops, although you don't have to get to 100% of Mana (same as a hunt).
If you succeeded in the Quest, you would gain experience as normal up to a maximum of killing every 'room' once (so you can't just kill one room, heal while it rebuilds in part, come back, kill it again, etc.), 1/2 skill point up to the limit of the number of rooms/2, and a set amount of treasure (so any items you got while questing would either be part of the treasure or else you wouldn't get to keep it). Experience and Treasure would be halved if no artifacts were used.
Once you succeeded in the Quest, you would not be able to do the Quest again.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Creating the Quest:
A player level 10 or higher would:
-Create the map of the area.
-Create the goals, the minimum number of artifacts the person would have to carry to get max XP and SP, and the reward.
-Designate the creatures in each area, whether they could be seen by looking at the map (or if it would be an ambush). The player would also designate what rate it healed when the player healed, and any items or messages that might be in the room.
Then the admin would complete manufacturing the quest, and charge the creator an amount approx. equal to the max experience.
At this point, the Quest would be available as a 'playtest'. It would be the same as the real thing, except that no experience, money, or faction points could be gained, and any ammo used would not be spent.
The players who playtest it would post to a forum about it, and decide whether to make it into the working version, if it needed changes, or if it should be thrown out. If it was thrown out, the creator it would lose their money. If it needed changes, the creator would make changes and resubmit it.
Once it was approved, the admin would turn it to working mode. The creator would lose the GP equivalent to the treasure each time somebody succeeded in the quest. The good news is, the creator would also get money equal to the repair cost of all items used in the quest (So if you had a 30 use item, and used it 10 times in the quest, the creator of the quest would get 1/3 of the repair cost of the item).
The objective of the creator would be to get the quest so that it was sufficiently fun and rewarding that people would play it, but at the same time difficult enough that players would end up spending a lot of ammo to do it (or keep trying and failing).
------------------------------------------------------------
So, not only should this be workable, and a lot easier than the admins having to create the quests from scratch, but it makes economic sense. The quests would be revenue-neutral in game terms after their initial cost. Finally, by rewarding failure very little and rewarding success onl | | 4. Any idea should have a purpose and describe the means of it's realization. It should also answer the question: "Why it needs to be done?". | Why it needs to be done:
1. Admins have already promised there would be quests. Don't want to make liars out of them.
2. Recruits people who have several hours in a row to kill, as well as the people who only have 5 minutes an hour.
3. Essential to the long term survival of the site. Eventually, newbies in the duels will be crushed by more experienced people, as the ratio of experienced people gets higher. Then there won't be any newbies, just experienced people with lots of alts. And then they'll find somewhere else to go too. You can try playing the game without ever doing any PVP, but I don't expect that you'll do it for very long. Quests make doing no PVP until you've gotten a lot of skill at fighting battles feasible. And perhaps someday, you'll be able to get all the way to the top level without ever fighting PVP at all. That would get a whole slew of people who don't like playing PVP.
I don't think #2 and #3 are news to the game makers, hence #1.
As for why THIS way:
1. For players, making quests is fun. For admins, it's work. This puts as much of the creation as possible into the players' hands.
2. Uses the existing movement and combat, and the post-combat rules based on Hunting.
3. As much as can be done without violating #2, makes the game have the look and feel of more traditional adventure games.
4. The "go on or heal up" (and then have to fight some of the creatures again) gives an element of strategy as well as tactics.
5. The revenue-neutral aspect of is critical. It means that even if a broken quest slips through, it can't break the game. It will either bankrupt the creator or sit abandoned.
As for the purpose, well, that should be self evident. To have fun, and keep a good game going! | | Any idea should have describe the means of it's realization | I don't understand your statement. I gave a step by step process of what the player who wished to create the quest would do, then what the admins would do, then the playtesters (who would simply be other players). My initial post was too long as it was, I thought. What are you looking for?
A creator's sample input might be:
<Quest Name> Mission to Nowhere. <Quest Success> ITEM Thief's Knuckleduster GOLD 1000
<Location> A <type> Hills <scene> "The Glen of Neverland" <Connects to> B1C7 <Opening Text>"The road to nowhere leads to your NorthWest, but a shortcut to the Northeast can be taken through the woods"
<Location> B <type> Forest <scene> "Forest Ambush" <Connects to> A7D8E2 <Opening Text>"Look out! It's an ambush!"<Army Regrow Rate>100% <Army leader>Wizard 5 <Stack location> 1F <Stack Type> Gargoyle <Stack size> 17 3B Gremlin 20 (etc.) <Success Text> "Well Done! Their campsite is to the East, while your destination lies North." <Success Value> 0
And so forth, with one area or a number of them having a success value totalling 10, which would mean the mission was successfully completed.
Are you looking for pseudocode for the parser of the above? Or perhaps the actual code? Let me know the language and the hooks- I'll see what I can do. | | I think it's a great idea simply because this game has no features and badly needs new ones. I didn't even read the idea, but if I don't like quests than I don't do them. Whatever. I don't know what your problem is Erlemar...is the only thing admins will implement is a bug patch? Why do we need it, already clearly explained. Why do we need tournaments? To make the game interesting. Why to we need quests? To make the game interesting. What...I'm just not following you.... |
Back to topics list
|
