CLOK BBS

interaction and dynamiclly created content and roleplay. (Longest BBS post title ever.)

I have been meaning to post this for some time. This is not a criticism of the current state of the game, nor its long term goals, but merely a suggestion on how to create interactive sytems for dynamic content and why I believe it is important.

As a playerbase expands, it is unsustainable to expect the GM staff to always set the stage for world changing events or roleplay. Nor is it always possible for a character to be able to respond timely or appropriately for things to take place. This is not to say it isn't appreciated or should be replaced entirely in leiu of.

Dynamically created content could be described as creating tangible measureable opposing goals between groups of people. The interactions and teamwork between these two oppossing forces create roleplay, politics, and create spring boards for more GM driven content ( or more dynamic content ) without needing direct GM involvement (except for the initial programming and design to set up the "sandbox").

This is sometimes known as Faction vs Faction or Realm vs Realm. A very basic example of this type of design can be seen in the MUD currently: The druid user being harmed by the clear cutting of forests creates a goal for the druid. While not really creating one for the artisan (unless your character is into wanton destruction of trees for some reason, i suppose). This is not a perfect example but its the closest thing I can use to describe.

Here are some ideas and examples that might better explain what I'm talking about:

1. Create a task for traders that effects markets in a way that makes an incentive for them to be completed beyond their own personal gain while allowing an incentive for other players to impede such a task. For example, a task might be created for the trader to take a contract to escort a caravan from city A to city B in that city A and city B's markets 'empty out' and are now able to buy more raw goods when completed. At the same time, through the rumour system or some other mechanic inform the thieves guild of a lucrative caravan train getting ready to leave that can be hijacked for a percentage of the raw materials if it is destroyed.

This creates two opposing goals that incentivize players working together. Traders or thieves could hire mercs and a team based game would be played out that has a tangible game changing effect on the way markets work. It might also be an incentive for cities to create treaties or pacts against other cities to impede their ability to create weapons or armor. This is just a basic example, but it illustrates how opposing team based goals create 'events' in of themselves and the RP it might spurn through competition and politics.

2. Create a mechanic for nether users to assemble totems or other altars so that their nether magic is more potent in a given area. The side effect would be that it spawns lost souls and a templars or monks skills are degraded thus giving the Templar or monks or just the general populace a reason to try to destroy them.


This is just a prelude, I will be adding more ideas and expanding on them and I fully encourage suggestions and ideas for more team or solo based competitive objectives.

Please try to come up with tasks or situations where a group of players would want to accomplish something, and why another opposing group would want to stop them and what its effect could be for either groups succeeding or failing and making it a measurable tangible effect on in game mechanics. What we're aiming for is creating a sandbox that would encourage or spur alliances, politics or other events in relation to these basic opposing goals.

I think that this idea hs a lot of potential, however, I don't feel that there is enough counterbalance in terms of the guilds. I grant thieves/artisans and Rook/church, however, I can't seem to, and this might be just me, come up with an opposition to elemancers, Dwaden, Eutasa, Mercenary.

Great post, I appreciate your input, I should also mention that the goals intents dont need to create outright conflict. They could just be competitive goals between the cities/guilds/groups that grant some sort of in game effect. Lets the brainstorm commence!

merin wrote:I think that this idea hs a lot of potential, however, I don't feel that there is enough counterbalance in terms of the guilds. I grant thieves/artisans and Rook/church, however, I can't seem to, and this might be just me, come up with an opposition to elemancers, Dwaden, Eutasa, Mercenary.

It doesn't have to be limited to guild vs guild. The Corvites could be having a picnic and Elystole would show up to crash the party. Can you say "target rich environment?"

What immediately comes to mind is fighting over resources: Like if after mining was overhauled there were only one or two locations that had certain things and these locations could be held by certain people or groups. It could be as simple as player-owned mines contending with would-be claim jumpers once mining rooms can actually be mined out. It could be more complicated like claiming a complex in the name of one group or another and posting guards. Or maybe the next time there's a celestium drop someone has to actually claim the site and hold it long enough to extract the material from the crater.

The biggest problem I see is that CLOK isn't a PvP MUD. It isn't balanced for PvP and, honestly, the vast majority of the playerbase seems annoyed when it happens.

Elystole wrote:Or maybe the next time there's a celestium drop someone has to actually claim the site and hold it long enough to extract the material from the crater.

Excellent example! Expand on this!

Elystole wrote:The biggest problem I see is that CLOK isn't a PvP MUD. It isn't balanced for PvP and, honestly, the vast majority of the playerbase seems annoyed when it happens.

I think players are annoyed with PvP when its for no good reason. If players are given a good reason and an objective they are working towards then they are less likely to be irritated and need to realize that it is part of the game. I am however, not saying this should devolve into simply a PvP match and encourage ways to limit that.

I think the lack of objectives and goals is what actually leads to the wanton random PvP because thats all they have to work towards and eventually the victim and the perpetrator get frustrated or bored. IE Acarin.

it's also worth noting that not all guilds need direct opposition. some will remain neutral in most events, allowing their members to take sides as they wish. though i can think most guilds have some sort of objective or goals. in the pursuit of those goals they may find themselves in conflict with other groups towns or even beings. once group objectives were set, it would be fairly easy to sit back and watch things domino on their own. perhaps with a little GM intervention here and there to stir the pot, or just to realign goals and set guild policies from time to time.

baerden wrote:

Elystole wrote:Or maybe the next time there's a celestium drop someone has to actually claim the site and hold it long enough to extract the material from the crater.

Excellent example! Expand on this!

It could be anything, like an ancient ruin that needs to be excavated before it is accessible, but celestium just came to mind as something that people would fight over, something that requires work to get, and something that would be a one-time event instead of something that eventually becomes stale. Basically, a meteor falls form the sky and impacts somewhere in the Lost Lands. It's valuable, but it's also half-buried in the bottom of a crater. Technically, all you have to do to get it is dig it out, but that's considerably more difficult when someone else shows up saying that they'll be the ones to dig it out. You're going to need people to do the digging (and preferably a few of them or it is going to take forever), and you're going to want people around to make sure you don't get pushed off the site.

If it were something like an ancient ruin that was discovered, it's a similar situation: We've found the entrance, but we can't actually get to the goods with all this dirt and debris in the way. Whoever clears the debris gets first crack at ransacking the site for treasure. If we wanted something more repeatable than a meteor (a once every several centuries, maybe, event) or discovering ruins, maybe it is just a pre-Quarantine cache someone found. The original finders were run off by bandits, infested, nethrim, etc. so now the goodies are up for grabs. Do the treasure hunters fight for control of the site? Do they team up to deal with whatever nastiness is in the area? Do they fight among themselves while a third party sneaks in to steal the treasure right out from under their noses? It could be interesting.

baerden wrote:

Elystole wrote:The biggest problem I see is that CLOK isn't a PvP MUD. It isn't balanced for PvP and, honestly, the vast majority of the playerbase seems annoyed when it happens.

I think players are annoyed with PvP when its for no good reason. If players are given a good reason and an objective they are working towards then they are less likely to be irritated and need to realize that it is part of the game. I am however, not saying this should devolve into simply a PvP match and encourage ways to limit that.

I think the lack of objectives and goals is what actually leads to the wanton random PvP because thats all they have to work towards and eventually the victim and the perpetrator get frustrated or bored. IE Acarin.

I too am leery of the "pointless deathmatch" effect I've experienced on other PvP MUDs or MMORPGs where we have things to fight over but none of it really matters. Nothing ever changes, so we're just fighting to fight. That's why I'd probably stay away from fighting over static things like mines in favor of special events. I also think a few things need to be settled before we look at PvP. The new death mechanics probably need to be finished first. Otherwise we'll have people departing and jumping right back into the fray like they just respawned in Quake.

And people getting frustrated or bored is something I try to be sensitive about especially since I play a PvP character. I've said it before in tells, but I'll also post it here: If PvP starts to interfere with your (general "you," this isn't directed at Baerden) enjoyment of the game, let me know. I'll probably back off so that you can go back to having fun, so long as it can be done without compromising my character's integrity. Sometimes that means a slight change to how you play (there's a reason you got killed, so let's talk about that), but in most cases I don't want my competition to run off and stop playing. It's not much of a conflict without both sides.

We have a few concepts along these lines that are brewing. Some are more PvP, some are more PvE. With most, we want to make it so that there isn't really any easily-identifiable "right" or "good" team/faction/side to be on, so that the conflict can be more interesting and not one-sided.

Please continue to discuss and brainstorm.

I was thinking of territorial battles.
A possible example could include the Dunwyr wanting yet more territory, and it happens that a group of Grummer who moved into the Lost Lands wants that very territory to use for their own projects.
This will bring out some dialogue among those who can relate to the nature side of things (included but not limited to the Udemi) as well as those who would like to see more technological advancement in the Lost Lands.

Baerden and I have talked about this, literally, for a year or more. Sounds amazing. Goals to work towards for each city/guild; results in RP and self-satisfaction. Opens the road for new guilds or groups (BANDITS!!!).

Good ideas going around. Four thumbs up (yes, I am Sheeva from Mortal Kombat)

Not to presume knowledge of their goals, but just as an example; perhaps the Hyra could desire to extend the borders of their land beyond the Stone Canyon, and would claim a portion of the land outside, building crude dwellings and facilities. They would continue to be openly hostile to any who trespass, and one could decide to try and destroy their structures and drive them back into the canyon, or to defend the Hyra from such people. Or of course, one could choose to simply stay out of the conflict completely.

Similar to the nether totem or altar idea and the tasks related to hauntings, there might be some sort of thaumaturgic variety, or perhaps some rite or consecration utilizing the aid of Serafina. Some effort to preemptively keep a region free of taint and haunting. Sorcery might be less effective and more difficult to channel here, and nethrim would suffer energy loss over time. This would encourage users of sorcery and tainted individuals to seek out and remove this effect, and would thereby cause interesting contention where both sides of the argument can understandably be sympathized with.

Bandit camps or forts could form, with the ability for individuals to somehow win favor with them, perhaps by bribing, an utilize some minor facilities such as purchase of very basic supplies such as food and firestones, a relatively safe resting area, and perhaps an infirmary or some workshops. Even perhaps a way to hire a shady sellsword for an hour as a temporary minion. The camps would, however, spawn brigands and thieves to terrorize passersby - anyone who has not bought their way into peaceful relations with them. Thus some individuals would prefer to keep these camps or forts safe in order to enjoy the facilities offered, while others would be moved to destroy them and clear out the presence of brigands.

To expand on the idea of a bandit camp, it could progress in stages:

Small Camp. It is composed of a group of tents and relatively low number of NPCs. At this point it is easiest to earn one's way into peaceful relations with a low-sum bribe. This camp offers no facilities or benefits, other than perhaps a lightly-guarded area to rest. One can, however, donate riln, food, lumber, metal, weapons, bandages and medical herbs, and so forth to speed the camp up to its next stage.

Small Fort. There are walls of sharpened logs and a gate. The fort now has an infirmary, and very basic supplies for sale: food, drink, firestones. It also has areas for NPC repairs. Again, resources can be given to speed progression to the next stage.

Large Fort: The fort now has guard towers armed with archers or gunmen, and more facilities: Purchase of basic weapons, armor, and tools. Purchase of crates of stolen goods at far below average market price. Purchase of illegal commodities that can be sold for high prices in town markets, with a chance of getting caught to have the illegal goods confiscated and a fine and jail time given. Hiring of temporary sellswords available. Workshops available for forging, tanning, and so forth.

There could be variants on the same idea:
Brigands
A local warlord seeking to establish power in the Lost Lands
Dunwyr
Hyra
Lucid independent infested
Lucid canim
A powerful sorcerer building up a force of nethrim (not wanting to be in the shadow of Lord Winston of the Corvus Outpost)

The gates and structures would have to be destructable somehow. The ideal would be the ability to use torches and oil to light them on fire, as I cannot see us destroying an entire fort with swords and shields. Naturally, elemancers would be particularly useful for destroying these structures with fire, boulders, flaming boulders, lightning, and such.

These camps or forts would serve well as refuges for those who are disliked by the major towns and hamlets. Those wishing to play more aggresive and conscience-lacking thieves, warriors, and such would benefit greatly from these areas, and would therefore have much incentive to fight to keep them safe, to put effort into repairing and upkeeping, and so on.

Good ideas in this thread. Keep them coming!

Bump.

How about bumping with more ideas/discussion?

I think team based objectives are an interesting idea, and certainly work for a large, RP-free game like WOW, but I'm not sure they really fit clok. For starters there aren't many "teams" as such. Many guilds have many members with very different goals. Very few guilds are diametrically opposed to one another. For instance, I'm not at all convinced that the Rook Parlor and the Church are opposing groups, or that individual players would go along with any sort of artificial conflict between them.

It's one thing if RP and events lead to something like the raid on that outpost (staying vague), but personally I wouldn't want repetitive, mechanically created conflict in Clok (there's loads of other MUDs if I wanted that).

*Maybe* it'd be neat if some individual thief or, say, outrider tasks had this kind of thing, but I still think it might lead to out-of-character behavior.

Skah wrote:I think team based objectives are an interesting idea, and certainly work for a large, RP-free game like WOW, but I'm not sure they really fit clok. For starters there aren't many "teams" as such. Many guilds have many members with very different goals. Very few guilds are diametrically opposed to one another. For instance, I'm not at all convinced that the Rook Parlor and the Church are opposing groups, or that individual players would go along with any sort of artificial conflict between them.

It's one thing if RP and events lead to something like the raid on that outpost (staying vague), but personally I wouldn't want repetitive, mechanically created conflict in Clok (there's loads of other MUDs if I wanted that).

*Maybe* it'd be neat if some individual thief or, say, outrider tasks had this kind of thing, but I still think it might lead to out-of-character behavior.

You are misunderstanding the concept. This is not meant to be some WOW raid instance where teams are neatly defined. Each goal should be modular and the character (depending on roleplay) should be able to choose if they want to participate and to what extent.

The entire idea is to have goals that cause interaction in a grind heavy game. The goal is not the feature, the interaction it causes is. All goals should be based on expected IC reaction based on lore and common sense.

If you read the first post, I state very clearly that these activities do not necessarily need to be guild based.

Earlier this week a discussion came up about repairing houses versus just paying rent. Someone stated that repairing houses isn't a feature you'd be all that interested in. Again focusing on the short term mechanic and failing to understand the goal and consequence of the mechanic.

The real 'feature' in making you repair your house is that you create a market for lumber, planks, and someone with the skills to repair. This gives people something to 'do' with those skills and causes interaction. Again, the repair mechanic is the primary facilitator, but the real feature is creating a real market for good and services thusly creating opportunities for player to player interaction. A simple pay my rent to keep my house mechanic does none of these things except solve the basic problem of how to recycle housing so that other players can get a chance to own one should you be absent long enough not to pay rent.

Good design looks at the long game, not just the short game.

I am totally digging that home maintenance idea. Don't want to do it yourself (I know I wouldn't)? Pay someone else to do it for you. No PCs around willing to do it for a long while? We'll toss in NPCs now and then to cover in those cases.

I've been thinking about something along these lines recently, though what I thought of was admittedly simpler. I think it would be cool to have group guild tasks. You could 'ask <leader> about group task' and if there aren't enough people the leader will 'note your interest' until there are enough interested parties to do a group task together.

The only example coming to mind at the moment is a play for mummers. When they get 3-5 assembled they get assigned to go to a specific location to perform a play together, or perform a group musical number. I imagine similar ideas could be assembled for other guilds, or even across guilds for artisan/merc or udemi/utasa type events.