A Pocket Full of Ponies

[Skarlath]

In the Silky Venom E3 Mounts Video (http://www.silkyvenom.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3788) we all got to see how mounts currently work in Vanguard's beta. Remember, this is quite possibly subject to change.

Basically it looked like mounts have their own icon and take up a slot in your inventory, much like in previous games such as World of Warcraft. Activating the icon causes the creature to appear beneath you, instantly under your control.

Hopefully this is a basic placeholder system, because I really don't like mounts being handled in this manner. What happened to persistance? My first reason is simply that it isn't very immersive - whipping your hellhound of of your pack for a short run, then stuffing it back into a small bag. Secondly, mounts have their own inventory space, and so you are effectively allowing players to have a backpack within their backpack... which is just a little bit weird.

So rather than dwell on the current system, how do you think mounts should be handled? And ships for that matter, as currently (as of E3 footage) they are stored in your inventory in the same way.

Personally I feel that when it comes to ships, there should be no question. Ships should be pretty much fully persistant. Once created and placed in water they should stay where left. If you moor it at one dock and run across land to another, your ship shouldn't magically be there too. The ship shouldn't ever disappear except when you log out, so as to save some dockside space.

My reasons for feeling this is a good idea are mainly because I like persistance. We can assume that ships in general, especially the larger ones, aren't going to be massively easy to obtain. Therefore it would be nice to keep the waters of Telon complete with fleets of bobbing barges. I feel it requires more thought if players have to be sensible about where they dock their vessel, as opposed to whipping it out whenever they want.

It would definitely make the world feel more... real, if a new friend says, "Yeah, come down to the docks and i'll sail you over to that island. Sure." and leads you down to their proud vessel, as opposed to the multitude of players who would otherwise be carrying their ships around allowing them to whip them out on a whim.

What do persistant vessels mean to the game? Well it means that your ship is no longer an easy 'all access pass', or a shortcut across any body of water. This will mean that even players who own a ship will need to ride ferries from time to time.

A compromise? How splendid! I think that there are some reasons for wanting to let players pull a ship out of thin air whilst at a large docks for example. But I have a way around it! Imagine if docks all around the world ran a clever little system where you could tie up your boat and go to a nearby office and sell them your ship for a token. This token would signify the type of ship you have traded in - trade in a tiny little bathtub, you get the appropriate token. Trade in a massive Thestran galley, you get the appropriate token. These tokens would then be redeemable at any participating dockside - you go to the mooring office and hand in your token, and they give you a ship.

This way, players are pleased by the fact that they can reclaim 'their vessel' at any large docks, and i'm happy because whilst you are in the possession of a ship, it is fully persistant. However there is a catch! What happens to all the cargo on board your ship? ... I haven't worked out how to get around that yet...

Phew, that took a while - now on to mounts. Mounts are a liiittle more tricky, because I feel the issue is a little more hazy...

I would very much like to see fully persistant mounts too. You buy the mount and it will stand there next to you. You could have some commands to control it whilst you aren't mounted - follow me, stop. That sort of thing. When you select it and mount it, it becomes under your control. If you were to dismount and wander off, it would stay where it was.

This would of course mean that as you resurface from a dungeon laden with loot, you can't just pull your mount out of thin air and ride home. You would only be able to do that if you had had the forsight to leave him there.

The negative side of this is of course that people might find it annoying. You would have to keep in mind where you left your mount (though ingame features could help you remember where) and would have to always remember to leave him in appropriate places and such. Some people don't like having to think...

The positive side is of course that I am suddenly very happy. I have a horsey companion who is by my side when I want him, and stays where ever I tell him. I'm the sort of player who would take the time to think through where to leave my mount, and wouldn't be bothered by the fact I couldn't instantly call him to me.

Another feature is in order! How about commands that call your horse to you, so that even from a fairly reasonable distance away, he will come running! Aww..

So that's how I would like it I think. I personally don't think that persistant mounts and ships would become annoying - which is their main flaw if ever there was one.

How would you like mounts and ships to work?

[Razorwire]

I agree I would like to see them as fully persistant or nearly so. I would add something to the ship token system though, I would add a transaction fee for turning your ship into a token so that you can't just do it on a whim.

For horses I would probably prefer a meathod like Epona in Zelda: Ocerina of Time. The horse stays where you left it but you can call the horse and it will come to you after a short delay.

But the problem with both solutions is what happened when speeders were added to SWG. There were fek loads of speeders just cluttering up the area and it was ugly and it was hard to pull your speeder out of the mess as far as I could see (I had quit before speeder were in game). So this becomes a fun vs realism issue and Brad has always said Fun > realism

[Eye Gouge]

It would be nice to have a persistant world with the boats and mounts, but I can't see how it would be possible. Once they become more common everyone will have one and the graphical 'clutter' would be large.

Like Razor I like the calling or sending for a mount. The mount should stay in the vicinity once you've dismounted but once you get to be about 30 yards or so from it, it would wonder off for forage. Then you would have to call it back. Think of it as Gandolf whistling for Shadowfax. It would be done with a whistle that is worn around the neck that is soulbound.

I like the docking idea though. Maybe you could even rent out your vessel with the harbor master.

Anyway those are my thoughts. :D

[Skarlath]

Definitely a good idea on the ship-tokens (adding a fee). You definitely wouldn't want people to do it too freely - the cost wouldn't have to be particularly high, just another small money sink that also adds to realism.

I thought about something similar to calling Epona actually. If Vanguard does just want to keep mounts as items, then I would at least be a little happier if activating the item cause the creature to fade into the world a short way away from you, and run towards you as it did. You could then mount manually. I think it would be better than allowing people to insta-mount.

Of course it would be much better if it was persistant. :)

Persistance + fading isn't a bad idea. If the mount is over a certain distance away then they could start running in the owners direction, and fade out of the world. Depending somewhat on the distance they were left away from the owners position there could then be the pause you desribed, followed by them fading in some distance from the owner and running up to them.

I'd be happy with that... unmounted horses running around in real time after owners calls would be a bit weird...

As for leaving your mounts around and making the place look ugly... hmmm. Well perhaps you can't ride your mount through all areas of a city - maybe as you enter you need to leave it at the front gate or at the stables and go the rest on foot.

This would partly be good because if you are on foot, the city will seem larger - definitely the effect New Targanor should have on you. You then also have the place a little tidier.

Or perhaps if you dismount in a town or outpost the riderless horse will walk slowly towards a water trough - that might be quite good! Your horse would move on its own into a neat and tidy little corner. And in an immersive way too!!


Edit:

Regarding graphical clutter - I remember a while back someone visiting SGO (Woody?) and remarked at how unintrusive mounts scattered around were. Granted whoever it was undoubtedly didn't see it on a 'peak' day, but if the mounts looked natural, really part of the world, then it wouldn't seem so cluttered.

As for cluttering ships... I actually WANT to see that. Back when I lived in Dubai, from time to time I would be over near the Creek - the large river running through the city. The creek was always full of Dhows and such - heading out to see or mooring up - but it was also full of small Abra's - little ferry boats to take you from one side to the other.

You'd walk up to the mass of abras bobbing by the side of the river, and climb aboard whoever beckoned you on in the most considerate way. Once a few people were aboard they would set off across the river! Often the layers of Abras along the edge were often a couple wide, and so to get to one that was able to leave you had to jump from boat to boat until you got to an edge one.

Needless to say, it was fun. People fell in. Especially those tourists (Muahaha!).

But ocean clutter is what it's all about! I want the harbour to feel alive. :D

[Atoyota]

Yup persistance is great...

UO had "regular" persistant mounts that would go "wild" if not stabled. Problem was... stables were starting to take up too much room on the server, so they eventually went to pocket ponies.

All players had to do to keep their mounts from going wild was log out while mounted, and they could have kept stables by restricting players to 3 mounts each... Also charging players more per mount (as a stabling fee). Adding pocket ponies amoung many other "ease of play fixes", ruined immersion for me, and was part of what spoiled UO.

On ships UO had persistant ships, problem was the harbors got clogged and you could not get out to sea...

Ok your idea on tokens is not bad, or logging out and your ship logs with you :D (kinda funny but also works).

Here's my two cents..

Have moorings in harbors as well as docks to tie up. Have NPC's (Moniter) keep certain docks for temporary tie up's (offloadings and loadings).. a no parking zone or... standing only.

Moorings would be one ship per player, and rented. If a ship were not moored it "could anchor" but ships would drift on an anchorage over time. Coastal areas near towns could have player installed moorings, but only in "zoned areas" similar to housing zones.

Shipping channels and or lanes could not be "parked in" or anchored in. Either managed by NPC harbor patrol or (less immersive) water currents.. meaning your ship would drift to sea and be lost if unmaned. Channels should be clearly marked.

So even with this method that allows persistance... some overcrowding could occur, and mooring fees could be raised to counter this. encouraging players to create their own moorings elsewhere away from the harbor.

Lastly... your ship is lost at sea?

This was something I know drove UO GM's crazy... people always lost their boats or fell off them somehow. There should be a way where once per day (RT) you could transport to your ship... in such a way that it would not be something used as a travel exploit. Maybe if your ship met certain conditions of being "lost at sea" (and not stolen).

But yeah, I love persistance... I hate pocket ponies and ships. I can live with them, but I really did like it the "old fashioned way" as it was in UO :)

[Skarlath]

Ooh, clogging. I have a few ideas.

Perhaps along the actual jettyside there could be considered to be a 'mooring zone', and whilst your ship is in this location it incurs costs over time. For example if you pull up next to the jetty for 5 minutes then you lose a small amount of money as a fee for your access. The longer you stay, the more it costs in total, but the cost per minute could be diminishing - you don't want players losing all their money because they forgot about their ship! The fee could be capped after a certain amount.

So that encourages people to pull up to the jetty for whatever reason, and move their ship away again as promptly as possible.

So what about actual ship 'storage' as it were, whilst the ship is in the world and in the harbour, but not in use. Well really players should just leave their ships floating in the harbour. Perhaps in a similar way to the horses in a town moving towards the 'water trough' area, boats in a harbour could after a while float towards the edge to keep them tidy.

If you should want to anchor your ship in the harbour and enter the town then you'll need to be pulling up to the jetty - so who's going to park your ship? Wouldn't it be great if there were some NPC sailors along the docks who would (for a small fee, or perhaps even for free?) climb aboard your ship and take it to a spare 'parking space' out in the harbour. (If we wanted things to be REALLY good, another NPC should row a small boat out to him to bring him back, but even if the NPC disappeared and then reappeared walking back to where he started it would still be good).

Alternatively perhaps you could 'anchor' at a spare 'parking space' out in the harbour and by some means (clicking a particular button) signal for an NPC in a little rowing boat to come out towards you. Once you are in the rowing boat, it could head back the way it came, leaving you on the dockside.

In a similar vein, if you have parked your boat out in the harbour (or had it parked for you) and have finished with your business in town then you might not fancy a swim out to get it. It'd be cool if there were small rowing boat manned by an NPC that would ferry a player to their vessel they owned (and then go back to the dockside once done).

When it come to players blocking eachother in... hmm... I think the best route would be a 'shuffle' effect. Basically at first a ship pushing against another player's ship would have collision. However the inactive ship should then pivot a small amount, allowing the moving ship to kind of slide past. Something like this needs to exist - you just can't allow people the opportunity to block others in.


There are lots of little things that could be done that would all be pretty cool. Would they be worth the development time as opposed to just having ships as items?

I think so. Every MMORPG that I have spent at least a reasonable time playing was good because it had flourish. It had fluff. It went the extra few metres. Those MMORPGs where I have found no such well placed finesse have been the ones I have left at once.

You don't necessarily need a crazily cool docking system, but I think persistant ships are important.

Edit: A longer distance NPC ferry type idea could be used for retrieving ships left loose out at sea - you pay some money, climb aboard and the NPC navigates their smaller vessel straight to yours.

Or perhaps you wouldn't need to go with them? You pay them, two of them set off on a smallish vessel. Perhaps they sail out to the vessel in real time - or maybe just fade out once they are out of the harbour. They then might fade in when near to your vessel (in case someone is watching). They pull up next to your lost ship for a moment, then both set off back towards the harbour. Again, either in real time or they fade out and back in again.

If there was an NPC service like this, and if it did use the fading method, it should still take a fair amount of time to make up for whatever stupid thing you did to lose the ship in the first place. :p

[Atoyota]

Ooh, clogging. I have a few ideas.


Oh yeah harbor taxis... seriously an excellent Idea!

the signal could be a whistle :) and players could spam their whistle in town for jollies, and to show off that they are a boat owner.

So say you pull up to a dock... no fee or anything, you unload/load, and just leave... (in case you forget to tell the npc to park your ship they do it anyways once you'r a set distance away) The NPC's park it like a garage attendant would park your car, and to retrieve it you blow the whistle and they (spawn) go get it.

A fee could be charged but the idea is really a good one.

You'd see your boat sailing up or sailing away, the whistle could have 2 commands... park/retrieve.

Could even work if you sailed to another continent on someone elses ship, and you wanted to sail back on your own ship (for whatever reason) Penalty may be you'd have to wait 30 minutes for your boat instead of 2 :p

Great Idea!!! pats Skarlath on the back :)

[Nubb]

I fear what UO was. Clutter.
House clutter, absolutely destroyed huge areas of the world.
Ship clutter, good luck sailing to sea, because harbors/rivers were choked full of anchored vessels.
Stables, used up resources and were limited (rather early in UO's history) to 3 pets. This hampered tamers who had to stable their critters all over the world in order to keep a good stock.

I love persistance. I want to see horses tied to trees outside a dungeon/tavern/inn/city gates. I want to see ships at anchor in harbors and along rivers. But I certainly don't want to see clutter. Clutter will be the ruin of persistance with ships, horses (and housing). So the devs have to, and no doubt are, keeping that in mind. The simple cure is "pocket ships/mounts", albeit that isn't immersive nor realistic -- but it's a logically easy method to keep clutter at a minimum. Not only is clutter an eyesore and a physical barrier, but it's going to be a resource burden. It's one thing to store 100 ships in 100 players personal data files. It's another to store 100 ships in some global data/world files, and constantly send that info to all players in the area.

So, while I want to see anchored ships and tree-tied horses, I'm really not expecting it other than for brief periods of time (you ride/sail up, tie your mount/anchor your ship, you leave the area, and after a bit your mount/ship fades from global existance (and becomes a pocket-pony/ship)). This is what I expect will occur.

Now, I would like to see a little realism with ships, more so than horses (because a horse, like a canoe, is "small" and more or less portable (it's a companion, more or less)). While you might be able to pack around a raft/canoe and access it at anytime, I just don't buy into owning a ship (assuming larger pocket-ships here, and larger ships... not "personal watercraft" such as a raft of canoe), anchoring in, say, Los Angeles. Riding your pony, walking, flying, or otherwise traveling to, say, San Diego, and pulling your (LA anchored) ship out of your pocket and setting sail for Baja California and points beyond. I'd want some sort of anchorage proximity realism (with a bit of leeway, but not a lot). You're anchored in LA, and are in Ventura (~60miles from LA), well ok the game will stretch realism a little and allow your ship to pop-up within that range. If you want to sail out of San Diego, though which is quite far from your current anchorage, well you have to sail there (or near to it) first.

If nothing else, have a time-based wait on pulling out your pocket-ship. The location you pocketed it ("anchored") is compared to the location you want to use it at, with perhaps modifiers for the ship type (size/speed basically). The distance is calculated and a delay for "auto-sailing" or whatever you want to say it is is determined. "Placing your vessel here will require nn minutes in order to change anchorages...". Or maybe even require some sort of crafting to expediate a change of anchorage (other than you actually sail somewhere to change it). Perhaps your guild needs your ship to transport everyone for a raid. You and some craftsman construct a temporary dock, felling local trees and such, which then allows you to rez (de-pocket) your ship and sail forth to plunder and pillage those norty gnomes that we all desire to, umm, plunder and pillage, and umm.. that other norty task that adventurers do to gnomes, pantless squeeling little squirming gnomes... mmm oooh gnomes.

Thanks,
Nubb

[Atoyota]

I fear what UO was. Clutter.
House clutter, absolutely destroyed huge areas of the world.
Ship clutter, good luck sailing to sea, because harbors/rivers were choked full of anchored vessels.
Stables, used up resources and were limited (rather early in UO's history) to 3 pets. This hampered tamers who had to stable their critters all over the world in order to keep a good stock.


I think stable quota's did'nt hit UO till 2001 and that was 4 years into game. Also to my knowledge Vanguard won't have tamers, or maybe they will (of some sort)?
Logging out on your pet, or your pet logging with you would be a solution there. I don't know if stables will exist in Vanguard, but with 3 in stable, and one in use... that's plenty (per player).


I love persistance. I want to see horses tied to trees outside a dungeon/tavern/inn/city gates. I want to see ships at anchor in harbors and along rivers. But I certainly don't want to see clutter. Clutter will be the ruin of persistance with ships, horses (and housing). So the devs have to, and no doubt are, keeping that in mind. The simple cure is "pocket ships/mounts", albeit that isn't immersive nor realistic -- but it's a logically easy method to keep clutter at a minimum. Not only is clutter an eyesore and a physical barrier, but it's going to be a resource burden. It's one thing to store 100 ships in 100 players personal data files. It's another to store 100 ships in some global data/world files, and constantly send that info to all players in the area.

[/snip]
Boats did'nt really become a problem in UO till about 1999 (2 years into game) with clutter. And even with decks loaded with chests and all sorts of "persistant" belongings... decorations etctra, it never was a lag issue when coming on screen to them (server loading), and that was me on dialup! I had more lag in housing areas when it loaded the contents of homes as you stepped into that screens area. (later solved by making you step on a doorstep to load contents).

But also, pocket ships I'd hate as much as pocket ponies. Skarlath came up with a pretty good anti clutter idea, or we two worked out a reasonable solution...

These days with broadband as the norm, and the town harbor the only area affected, Loading ships graphics is not an issue (I'd see it more as a developer/network issue if a problem existed, this is 2006 afterall)

Esthetics? or personal preferance in regards to clutter and eyesore? That's exactly what it is, a preferance, for you on one hand and I on another. I don't see ships in a harbor as clutter, I see it as vitality, or a "busy port". I see ships parked along the coast, either at anchor or moored, as a sign of population and life. It's evidence to my eyes that we are here, and in that way immersive.

More on clutter, I do think order is important, in that like housing zones, boats should not be left unattended over long periods "anywhere". So again read up in this thread. The clutter issue we did talk about and came up with what seemed a good compromise that did not involve pocketing a ship.

In UO when you pocketed a ship you had to empty the contents, and store them. As Skarlath posted on a pack within a pack.. that would most likely be the case, and a real pain if you prefered "living aboard".

Immersion and the fact this is to be a "core game" suggests to me some of the older ways of doing things, but with foresight. In order to avoid problems the older games faced.

[GuyJantica]

I'd be in favor of something like this:

To moor in a harbor you have to pay the harbor master and your ship "disappears" so as to not cause too much clutter. You'd be charged, of course, but the harbor scene should be based on how many ships are actually moored. For example, there would be x number of ships visible from shore/docks if there were between a and b ships at the harbor master... y if there were between c and d... etc. Also, the sorts of ships visible would depend on the sorts of ships moored. The ships could appear in predetermined places so as to not clog harbors.... YOUR ship could even appear to come from one of the common moorings but really it wasn't there.

Sorry if this is identical to what someone else just posted, but I thought I read through it all... long day.

Cheers,

-GJ

[Atoyota]

Sorry if this is identical to what someone else just posted, but I thought I read through it all... long day.


If you had a harbor taxi/valet service parking your boat, the area boats would be moored from would be seperate from the docking area. This area could be a permanent graphic and your ship would just sail in and blend with it, then come out again when you called for it (via the service).

Sort of like instancing, but to keep an infinite number of boats in a limited area, as a way to eliminate harbor clog or clutter. It still represents persistance, but eliminates the problem.

If that is how i understand your suggestion.. it works for me.

[LostEnder]

Guy's suggestion was about exactly what popped into my head when I thought about this issue. You could have some persistence at the dock, graphically displaying the last however-many ships that were moored there. This should easily scale to the size of the dock.

I also like the idea of ship and mount being callable. Dismount at the dungeon entrance, and your mount stays in the world for a little while, then wanders a bit and fades out. You come out of the dungeon lugging your booty :pirate: whistle for your hellcat, and it comes running up to you. Ships, being inanimate, are a little trickier, since having one move on its own, magic or not, is bad for immersion. Adding an npc bosun :pirate: or other appropriate character whould help a lot. - 10 clutter + 20 immersion

[GnomerBreltik]

I am for a system similar to Guy's but with a bit more realism imo. First for ships, they can only be unsummoned/summoned at a dock, with the idea of a 'example' of persistance in the bay. (i.e. if half the server is using that dock, then it should look full to capacity with ships but not necessarily represent each individual ship) Captains of ships could drop off others near shore but would be out of luck for just leaving their ship adrift in places their arent docks.

Same basic idea for mounts. You have to stable your mount whenever you dismount from it (this would probably only be for after mounted combat was in). A stableboy at the inn watched your horse for a coin, or for adventuring you stable them at the nearest outpost. The stables would look full if there are many folks using the stables, but your individual horse might not appear in a stall, it just has the appearance of a full barn.

This gives an appearance of persistance without the 'cluttered' look that drives most folks nuts.

[Atoyota]

I am for a system similar to Guy's but with a bit more realism imo. First for ships, they can only be unsummoned/summoned at a dock, with the idea of a 'example' of persistance in the bay. (i.e. if half the server is using that dock, then it should look full to capacity with ships but not necessarily represent each individual ship) Captains of ships could drop off others near shore but would be out of luck for just leaving their ship adrift in places their arent docks.


This is how I described a compromise for the harbor taxi idea. Your ship is taken from the dock to an area where all ships are parked, Sails into the area (visual effect) but "fades" or disappears until called.

For realism, an npc would do the parking and retrieving called by a boat whistle boat owners would have. Also this could only happen at NPC docks (I was'nt specific about that before but that was what I had intended).

Outside town harbors, moorings (realistic and persistant), for players that park their boats near an adventure area or dungeon. Areas where for days or weeks a player could park his ship, and for retrieval use and loading it would be neat if an npc longboat was stationed there that could take you to and from your boat (so you would not have to swim or get your feet wet).

I doubt a mooring area would ever fill up, and for order the next available mooring would only be useable. (to keep orderly parking of player ships by players) in a LIFO or FIFO system. Though their would be "lanes" to get your ship out if you left in mid order, and if that happened ships could "bubble sort" to fill the empty slot (slide from one mooring to the next). All done in a persistant manner.


Same basic idea for mounts. You have to stable your mount whenever you dismount from it (this would probably only be for after mounted combat was in). A stableboy at the inn watched your horse for a coin, or for adventuring you stable them at the nearest outpost. The stables would look full if there are many folks using the stables, but your individual horse might not appear in a stall, it just has the appearance of a full barn.

I'd like to see town stables, both player and npc run businesses. I'd also like to see hitching posts for mounts. I don't want to see mounts "indoors" unless a passage is intended for mounted travel, and I'd like to see all mounts in use by players persistant until that player either stables the mount or logs out. I see no reason for "pocket ponies" at all.

I hope mounts have HP's (are mortal), but ressurectable.


This gives an appearance of persistance without the 'cluttered' look that drives most folks nuts.

Again, to some clutter is realism and immersive, to others an eyesore. Riding up to a drop off point for mounts may let you know in advance how "busy" a dungeon or raid area is, and may be advance notice on your ability to have an undisturbed or hampered adventure... Also if you "recognise" some mounts as being owned by your friends... it will tell you they are nearby or in that area. Realism and so called clutter has it's uses and can offer you information on an areas population and activity... be it ships or mounts. Using clutter as information on what and how many people are working in an area is realistic persistance, good information, and community .

In short... clutter to me is not always clutter. Also as in my moorings example clutter can be "ordered or controled".

Persistance should be a priority, but compromise (ships in harbors) is sometimes unavoidable.

[Razorwire]

Persistance should be a priority, but compromise (ships in harbors) is sometimes unavoidable.
Well in the real world you can't just park your car anywhere you want, you can't just park your ship in the middle of the harbor, etc. I think there should be logical in game rules for where you can leave your stuff inside civilized areas. (obviously leaving your ship anchored in some unknown cove is different).

Maybe there should be a chance that your ship/horse would be found by monsters and stolen/destroyed/eaten in the horse's case.

[Atoyota]

Well in the real world you can't just park your car anywhere you want, you can't just park your ship in the middle of the harbor, etc. I think there should be logical in game rules for where you can leave your stuff inside civilized areas. (obviously leaving your ship anchored in some unknown cove is different).

Maybe there should be a chance that your ship/horse would be found by monsters and stolen/destroyed/eaten in the horse's case.

LOL well I hope you read the thread :p I've made some effort describing some orderly ways to manage persistance.

But yeah an odd area out of guard zone (or bind point), to dismount or park a ship (anchor), could be risky... Your ship could get swallowed my Moby Dick, or your mount gobbled up by O'le Griz if you were'nt careful or familiar with the area.

The cases I think this thread is concerned with are community parking areas or dismount spots where leaving your mount or ship is considered safe to do. I'm not sure if bind points are outside guard zones, I'd think as a ressurect spot they would be safe zones with a large enough radius to accomidate mounts that were parked.

Anyways I think I've described (with the help of Skarlath) a way to manage and keep persistance in the game :)

[Skarlath]

I think the 'Mingle Zone' is something I could live with. (I thought i'd give a name to the idea of an area your horse or ship is taken to where it fades out amidst a camouflage of other horses or ships).

I think you need to be careful about the conditions under which your horse or ship is sent to the mingle zone though. No player is going to CHOOSE to have their ship tucked away in the mingle zone when they can just leave it by the docks and don't instruct the NPC 'sailor-valets'.

Maybe when a player leaves their ship anywhere in the harbour (directly at the dock, or out a little way) and the player stands on the dockside area an NPC should approach them and they should be asked whether they want to have their ship anchored in the appropriate area, or whether they would like to be asked again in 5 minutes time. If they select the latter then they will be approached again after 5 minutes - this time the choice is have your ship anchored appropriately OR begin paying mooring fees.

If the player was to leave the dockside area before the NPC talked to them, or before their 5 minutes was up then their ship would be moved to the mingle zone and they would be notified. Initially, on returning the the dockside they would be notified again as to which NPC they need to speak to in order to have their ship brought back to the dock.

However they choose to do ships, this is definitely something that would need some beta attention. :) It'd probably be sensible if, towards the end of the beta, the devs gave EVERYONE a ship - that way you could really see what things would be like a couple of years down the line when ownership is more common.

In fact it would be sensible for them to trial it for a week, sooner rather than later, to get an idea of what degree of solution they are going to need. Perhaps clogging wouldn't end up being a problem once you see peak ownership in action. :)

[Atoyota]

I think the 'Mingle Zone' is something I could live with. (I thought i'd give a name to the idea of an area your horse or ship is taken to where it fades out amidst a camouflage of other horses or ships).
I hope they leave horses persistant, I see no reason to fade or pocket them. I gave a good immersion/community reason in my last post, but to repeat.. Leaving horses persistant provides information on "who" and how many are in a given area to players that are just riding up.

Heck I'l explain with a little story example.

You ride to a bind point for a dungeon with a friend, and you see a group of mounts that you recognise. You know them to be friends (maybe asshats). So you make your decision to ADV there or go elsewhere, based on the sight and recognition of these persistant mounts. Same could be said for boats moored near an island or coastal dungeon, if you knew the owners, you'd decide to stay or move on based on that.


I think you need to be careful about the conditions under which your horse or ship is sent to the mingle zone though. No player is going to CHOOSE to have their ship tucked away in the mingle zone when they can just leave it by the docks and don't instruct the NPC 'sailor-valets'.

Maybe when a player leaves their ship anywhere in the harbour (directly at the dock, or out a little way) and the player stands on the dockside area an NPC should approach them and they should be asked whether they want to have their ship anchored in the appropriate area, or whether they would like to be asked again in 5 minutes time. If they select the latter then they will be approached again after 5 minutes - this time the choice is have your ship anchored appropriately OR begin paying mooring fees.

If the player was to leave the dockside area before the NPC talked to them, or before their 5 minutes was up then their ship would be moved to the mingle zone and they would be notified. Initially, on returning the the dockside they would be notified again as to which NPC they need to speak to in order to have their ship brought back to the dock.
I addressed this also in the thread... but just in a vague way, that if the player left the dock area without having his boat valet parked, the NPC's would do it anyways. An option to leave the boat docked for a "time" could be in a the NPC dockmaster's menu/dialogue, and for a fee :) (that fee could be applied to ships deserted at the docks also) A sign at the docks could warn players not to leave ships unattended, and to check with the dockmaster for "missing ships and property".

For the player that just left and came back all hot and bothered because his boat dissappeared... he'd learn :)


However they choose to do ships, this is definitely something that would need some beta attention. :) It'd probably be sensible if, towards the end of the beta, the devs gave EVERYONE a ship - that way you could really see what things would be like a couple of years down the line when ownership is more common.

In fact it would be sensible for them to trial it for a week, sooner rather than later, to get an idea of what degree of solution they are going to need. Perhaps clogging wouldn't end up being a problem once you see peak ownership in action. :)

Aye a very good idea for SGO to do, make use of it as a little harbor stress test for a week or month.

[Eye Gouge]

Those are some pretty compelling reasons to leave them persistant, Atoyota. It brings a question to mind that I don't think has been answered yet: Is Vanguard going to have any type of crest or coat of arms for players to use?

I know there was some talk about it late last year on the OVF but I don't think there was any type of dev response to it. I think that would be pretty cool if your horse or ship would be able to carry your coat of arms so you could see who is in town( so to speak) by glancing at the ships in dock or the horses at the water trough. ;)

[Atoyota]

Those are some pretty compelling reasons to leave them persistant, Atoyota. It brings a question to mind that I don't think has been answered yet: Is Vanguard going to have any type of crest or coat of arms for players to use?


That could tie in pretty heavily with Diplomacy :p

And anyone that knows me... knows I have a lot to say about that sphere :)

Let's just say i'd hope so, and another excellent reason for persistant mounts :D

[Bounder]

Yeah, I usually have to "no-prize" it in my mind when using the normal pet / mount summoning icons from my pack in games, imagining the icons being some sort of summoning amulet or something.

It would be neat if they could have the pet or mount spawn just out of sight and run to you, arriving at your call, like mentioned, with a no-aggro tag on it until it gets to it's caller or something.

[Skarlath]

Another ... thought, of some description.

I played SOE's Online FPS "Planetside" for a short time. The game has lots of vehicles, both of land and air, to help you in your battles.

When I began playing, I quickly decided I wanted to hone my skills at piloting a "Galaxy", the largest plane-type-vehicle, that was used for transporting team mates. The way vehicles work is that you must collect them from certain 'airship' bases, or bases with garages (from which you can get your tanks and such). Often these bases will be a fair way away from any battle.

As my crew's Galaxy pilot I was in charge of the arrangements for a strike - I had to fetch the airship, organise pickup locations, navigate to the target and set up the right conditions (e.g. not so fast, not too high, so my crew could airdrop down on top of the enemy), as well as be in charge of evacuations and such.

It was really fun. The forward planning that was involved meant that it required some thought and skill. I really enjoyed the whole concept of a large scale plan coming together perfectly.

I have similar hopes for ships in Vanguard, in some ways. The owner of the vessel organises a pick up location, they arrange to route and navigate to the target. Lots of guild-wide coordination involved for whatever the occasion may be - a PvP raid on a PvP server, a dungeon raid, a roleplaying event - whatever.

Whats partly fantastic about persistant ships is that even if everyone owns them, they wont all be in a position to use them. You must still rely on others - on your guildies and such. There must be some planning when you want to move 40 people across an ocean, rather than everyone just turning up and plucking a vessel from the air.

Wouldn't it just be fantastic if a well organised guild could have player owned ships stationed all around the world so that there may well be ocean-going help at all times. If a guild was clever about it, persistance would barely be an inconvenience at all, and would allow well organised guilds to set themselves apart from all others. :)

[Atoyota]

Wouldn't it just be fantastic if a well organised guild could have player owned ships stationed all around the world so that there may well be ocean-going help at all times. If a guild was clever about it, persistance would barely be an inconvenience at all, and would allow well organised guilds to set themselves apart from all others. :)

It certainly would (in some ways) remove haphazard clutter of people spawning "keyed" ships and going as ones and twos, rather than one or two ship owners doing the transporting.

What I mean is... instead of 20 ships, 2-3 ships.

In UO with most people having a ship (because they were key'd and spawnable non persistant types) you'd have a bunch of ships instead of a few...

I guess it boils down to how difficult ships will be to obtain/maintain. How many will own one and or want to because of costs.

Anyways back to the UO example, when I came back to the game after a years hiatus, they had skills scrolls and spawns for them, so The guild I was in would go as a group to try and get scrolls from the spawns. It was a fun activity, but got old after a while...

With about 20 ships hitting a spawn site, and other peoples boats there as well... it got clogged real quick as peeps did not unkey their boat (unspawn it), because in UO corpses were lootable and also decayable... so you'd lose the boat from your pack. Also a lot of "ownerless" boats would be at the site also, as that was a better tactic.. to use an abandoned boat rather than your own.

I guess that what it boils down to is making boats difficult to obtain and maintain, in order to reduce the desire to own them, but not so much so that no one would.

I'd like to think a solo player could manage a ship large enough to accomodate his belongings as a live aboard vessel. Not all players want homes, and some would like a transient lifestyle in game.

So.. another argument for persistance is maintenance.
(serious or casual boat owner)

If a player owned a boat, he'd be tied to it. If it was a pocket boat he would not, he could spawn it and unspawn it at will. A persistant boat requires maintenance, and if a player found a boat meaningful this cost (if not rediculous) would make his boat meaningful, where the casual boat owner would not want this expence, but instead rely on the serious boat owner for transport.

Yup the answer to this is making it meaningful to those it means something to. If you really want a boat, then you need to realise, like anything... it has it's costs.

This philosophy reduces boat population by at least 50% and makes a stronger argument for persistance, and even stronger argument for risk/reward, or effort and satisfaction.

Core philosophy is... we can't have it all, but we can have as much as we "need".

[lagremage]

Just have everything be a spell. I liked how my warlock in WoW simply called forth a demon horse. I also like how I had to do a quest to get it (the level 60 one, that is). The demon horse took up no inventory space and only required mana to summon. I think it could be worked into non-caster classes. Non-caster classes could require an item that they use to cast the spell. So they lose a bag slot but they don't use other resources like mana. Other ideas: Bards could sing a special song, other classes could have a special move, or something. Maybe the berserker could have a special yell (I'm suggesting that since the berserker sounds like a class that would have yelling abilities, but I'm only guessing).

As for ships, well... You cast a spell to store it in some other dimension, then you cast a spell again to get it back. (could go with the item thing again)

This is the most highly edited post in existence, lol.

[Atoyota]

Just have everything be a spell. I liked how my warlock in WoW simply called forth a demon horse. I also like how I had to do a quest to get it (the level 60 one, that is). The demon horse took up no inventory space and only required mana to summon. I think it could be worked into non-caster classes.

As for ships, well... You cast a spell to store it in some other dimension, then you cast a spell again to get it back.

Ok one thing wrong with this that I have'nt as yet mentioned is...

Boats where they don't belong..

In a dungeon cave lake... you walk up and someone has put a boat there. (maybe the AI can't react properly to it).

Stuff like this can be prevented by the dev's but if not... they will happen (count on it).

So a boat should be built, and not collapsed and put in your pocket, or sent to limbo limbo land by a "spell", only to be called upon in some other area...

It's just too "kid'sy" for me... not serious enough.

I guess I'm just hard headed on this, but I really do love persistance, and well it's all just a "slippery slope" to me, when it comes to making a game trivial or serious...

You let one thing in and all of a sudden the doors open to all sorts of compromises...

[lagremage]

Ok one thing wrong with this that I have'nt as yet mentioned is...

Boats where they don't belong..

In a dungeon cave lake... you walk up and someone has put a boat there. (maybe the AI can't react properly to it).

Stuff like this can be prevented by the dev's but if not... they will happen (count on it).

Why wouldn't you want to use a boat in a lake that is inside a cave? If the boat is small enough, then why not? I think it would be cool! You could make little love boats or something, lol. They just need to control what size of boat can be summoned in what type of body of water. The basic rule of thumb could be that it has to be small enough to fit through the entrance (so for most places it might just be a canoe (do you know if we can make things that small?)). Also, in some places, they could make it so that the natural forces in the area negate your spells, so if you want your boat there, you have to sail it in yourself. I think that this sounds like fun!

So a boat should be built, and not collapsed and put in your pocket, or sent to limbo limbo land by a "spell", only to be called upon in some other area...

It's just too "kid'sy" for me... not serious enough.

I guess I'm just hard headed on this, but I really do love persistance, and well it's all just a "slippery slope" to me, when it comes to making a game trivial or serious...

But in my mind, putting your boat in another dimension is persistence.

Persistence in one dimension sounds too cumbersome. I don't want to have to constantly worry about where my boat is. It bugs me in Oblivion that I always forget where my horse is (so I end up using that fast travel thing to make my horse appear at the gate).

[Atoyota]

I've said my piece, I've given all the arguments I feel neccesary.

I guess I'm more of a "pureist" in this regard. (IMO)

Mounts and boats are more immersive to me when persistant, bottom line.

Whatever SGO does... is what I'l have to live with. If they slip on the slope.. (go too far in all regards) for me the game will fail. (for me).

[lagremage]

But ocean clutter is what it's all about! I want the harbour to feel alive. :D

Lol, your idea of a harbour that's alive sounds really foreign to me. I probably would not have been one of those tourists who fell in, because I probably would have passed on crossing the river in the first place! :D

[lagremage]

I've said my piece, I've given all the arguments I feel neccesary.

I guess I'm more of a "pureist" in this regard. (IMO)

Mounts and boats are more immersive to me when persistant, bottom line.

Whatever SGO does... is what I'l have to live with. If they slip on the slope.. (go too far in all regards) for me the game will fail. (for me).

Awww, are you not feeling well today? You're usually more cheerful than that! :D

I guess you just don't feel that other dimensions are persistent. That's OK. Seriously, to me, the idea of other dimensions is perfectly OK. Really, it's all about the story behind stuff. If you show up at a vendor, buy a horse, and all they give you is some item with no story, then it's boring. If, however, they give you an item and tell you all about how it's enchanted to summon forth a slave beast (preferrably a demon, muwahaha) from another dimension, then I'm happy. I'm even happier when it's a spell/move/song/etc. that you have to do a quest for. (I know that they will be purchaseable in Vanguard, though, so I'll have to be happy with that) Also, I like the idea of it walking up to the rider after being summoned, and then the rider gets on it, as opposed to having it just suddenly appear under the rider.

I'm open to the idea of everything staying in the game world's dimension, too, but they had better add in some ability to summon my mount to me, and they better not make it easily killable (easily killed mount that can't be summoned = NOT FUN). The boat thing I can deal with if they have docks (you can only have so many of those, so they'll be easy to keep track of).

P.S.
I wouldn't call you a purist. I would call you a realist.

[Dillgaar]

what about a compromise...

what if you have your ship or your mount and you dismount and the mount/ship remains until you are a certain distance away... then when you want to summon it you have to go to the same general area (within 30 ft or so) to summon it again... otherwise you get a message about not being able to summon it from here.

This way you can still incorporate the "disposability" as it were of the item not sitting around forever with the reality of not having a pocket ship or pony

this way you will have to make certain you know where you left your mount/ship and couldn't just abuse it by poofing it when you were done and resummoning it when you needed it again, you would have to plan ahead.

[lagremage]

That sounds interesting, but there has to be a way to summon or find stuff no matter where you are. Reasons: people who don't play every single night, people who go away on vacation or get sick or whatever, the fact that it plain sucks when you're playing and having fun and then suddenly you realize that you didn't write down the /loc of your horse. I know that other people differ in opinion, but I'm of the opinion that it's a fantasy world and therefore you shouldn't have to do real world things like remember where you parked your car (and heck, even these days, I can at least push the button on my key and have my car honk its horn, making it easier to find).

Edit: Oh yeah and Skar mentioned something about people not liking to have to think about where they left their mount. My post above kind of plays into that, so I'll respond to it now. It's not that people don't like to think, as you put it. It's that people don't like to have to write down location numbers. Seriously, if you're about to go on vacation, do you want to have to worry about where you left your friggin online horse?

[GnomerBreltik]

Wouldn't it just be fantastic if a well organised guild could have player owned ships stationed all around the world so that there may well be ocean-going help at all times. If a guild was clever about it, persistance would barely be an inconvenience at all, and would allow well organised guilds to set themselves apart from all others.

I have been planning this type of thing if ships are persistant since I joined guild and became the Master of the Shipbuilders.

But we are just cool like that :D :pirate:

[Atoyota]

I wouldn't call you a purist. I would call you a realist.

I'm fine with magic/spells/summons it's a fantasy game yes?

There are lines even in fantasy. this is my point, this is how I consider or concieve a game to be pure or "not". Yes to some extent reality, but only so much as to be more immersive or ... like a dream we have connection to reality which gives the dream more impact... makes it more real, but when we disect it we can tell it's a dream because of certain unrealistic aspects of it.

Percistance of "items", your home, your possesions...
If a boat is a home and possesion it should not be pocketable or summonable (it's also a container). A mount should persist as long as you exist (logged on) in the world, (as it's a "living container"). Also like you... should be mortal as you yourself can be killed.

I can't believe I'm called upon to define what is pure about immersion and persistance... it seems so obvious to me!

So let's slide on the slippery slope some...

When you log... your house logs with you... when you walk away your house dissappears... when you want your home elsewhere you summon it and plant it there. Is this cool to you? after all it's fantasy... we can do this right?

Just the other end of the spectrum, but this is how pocket ponies and boats detract from the game... may as well just make us all Gods and forget about all the inbetween stuff.

[Skarlath]

Lol, your idea of a harbour that's alive sounds really foreign to me. I probably would not have been one of those tourists who fell in, because I probably would have passed on crossing the river in the first place! :D

Hehe

A row of docked Abras (http://static.flickr.com/11/17266250_5a9dda3a90_m.jpg)
Hectic mass-ferrying (http://gigitaj.tripod.com/abra1.jpg)
A few layers of Abras building up (http://www.dubai-fotos.de/assets/images/067_a.jpg)
On an orderly day, I guess (http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/cameroon/84/courses/design6/Dbadra8.jpg)
And we're off!! (http://www.datadubai.com/images/creek5.jpg)

I think getting that 'foreign' feeling into the game is very important, especially with the contrasts between continents. You don't want a bland basic system that works 'logically' do you? Naaah! You want some crowding, some activity, some bustle! You want the world to have spirit! :)

[Dillgaar]

That sounds interesting, but there has to be a way to summon or find stuff no matter where you are. Reasons: people who don't play every single night, people who go away on vacation or get sick or whatever, the fact that it plain sucks when you're playing and having fun and then suddenly you realize that you didn't write down the /loc of your horse. I know that other people differ in opinion, but I'm of the opinion that it's a fantasy world and therefore you shouldn't have to do real world things like remember where you parked your car (and heck, even these days, I can at least push the button on my key and have my car honk its horn, making it easier to find).

Edit: Oh yeah and Skar mentioned something about people not liking to have to think about where they left their mount. My post above kind of plays into that, so I'll respond to it now. It's not that people don't like to think, as you put it. It's that people don't like to have to write down location numbers. Seriously, if you're about to go on vacation, do you want to have to worry about where you left your friggin online horse?

No worries in that regard! Just throw a silvery cord (from last I read on the OVF they are still using them) or whatever to find your mount or ship

[Atoyota]

No worries in that regard! Just throw a silvery cord (from last I read on the OVF they are still using them) or whatever to find your mount or ship

LOL I can live with that so long as they are persistant :p

[Skarlath]

If a player owned a boat, he'd be tied to it. If it was a pocket boat he would not, he could spawn it and unspawn it at will. A persistant boat requires maintenance, and if a player found a boat meaningful this cost (if not rediculous) would make his boat meaningful, where the casual boat owner would not want this expence, but instead rely on the serious boat owner for transport.

Quoted because I think this an extremely important point that Atoyota put quite well. :)

Oh yeah and Skar mentioned something about people not liking to have to think about where they left their mount. My post above kind of plays into that, so I'll respond to it now. It's not that people don't like to think, as you put it. It's that people don't like to have to write down location numbers. Seriously, if you're about to go on vacation, do you want to have to worry about where you left your friggin online horse?

As Dill said - a silvery cord, a map icon and a travel journal entry could help make sure you always KNEW where they were... you just wouldn't be able to have immediate use of them. :)

[lagremage]

When you log... your house logs with you... when you walk away your house dissappears... when you want your home elsewhere you summon it and plant it there. Is this cool to you? after all it's fantasy... we can do this right?

Well, maybe, except they haven't defined houses as moveable objects. (at least not that I know of)

Just the other end of the spectrum, but this is how pocket ponies and boats detract from the game... may as well just make us all Gods and forget about all the inbetween stuff.

I don't see it that way. I also think that's stretching it a bit.

[Skarlath]

Well, maybe, except they haven't defined houses as moveable objects. (at least not that I know of)

Well as soon as you are no longer mounted, or jump off of your ship, it becomes as stationary as a house. I agree with Atoyota in that just as you want a persistant house, a persistant ship is desirable too - and for some of the same reasons too.

[Atoyota]

I don't see it that way. I also think that's stretching it a bit.
just stretching or sliding on the slope of triviality...

perspective :)

[lagremage]

Hehe

A row of docked Abras (http://static.flickr.com/11/17266250_5a9dda3a90_m.jpg)
Hectic mass-ferrying (http://gigitaj.tripod.com/abra1.jpg)
A few layers of Abras building up (http://www.dubai-fotos.de/assets/images/067_a.jpg)
On an orderly day, I guess (http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/cameroon/84/courses/design6/Dbadra8.jpg)
And we're off!! (http://www.datadubai.com/images/creek5.jpg)

Awww, they don't all work. :( But the ones that did work are very pretty. Thanks for sharing.

I think getting that 'foreign' feeling into the game is very important, especially with the contrasts between continents.

Maybe. I think it would work well for making contrast between continents.

You don't want a bland basic system that works 'logically' do you? Naaah! You want some crowding, some activity, some bustle! You want the world to have spirit! :)

Not sure what you mean. I live in a sparsely populated country, so seeing 10 people on a dock and two boats = activity, to me. (although there is a nearby marina that often has maybe 25 or so boats in it, but only during the summer, and that is peak season)

This points out a very obvious problem: all of this is 100% subjective. Not all of us will be happy all of the time. :( I just hope that those who end up not happy with whatever Vanguard does, don't end up so unhappy that it ends up being game breaking for them.

[lagremage]

No worries in that regard! Just throw a silvery cord (from last I read on the OVF they are still using them) or whatever to find your mount or ship

Oh cool. I keep forgetting about that silvery cord thing. (I need to see it in action before it will become, ahem, persistent, in my brain, lol)

[Dillgaar]

I think persistant objects are great conceptually, I just can't imagine them being very resource friendly, multiply that by the thousands of people playing at once would be insane

[lagremage]

Well as soon as you are no longer mounted, or jump off of your ship, it becomes as stationary as a house. I agree with Atoyota in that just as you want a persistant house, a persistant ship is desirable too - and for some of the same reasons too.

Horses and ships don't have to be stationary just because you're not there. (only exception is if you tie them down)

[lagremage]

just stretching or sliding on the slope of triviality...

perspective :)

But you're exaggerating things by doing this.

[Atoyota]

This points out a very obvious problem: all of this is 100% subjective. Not all of us will be happy all of the time. :( I just hope that those who end up not happy with whatever Vanguard does, don't end up so happy that it ends up being game breaking for them.

no worries... I'l put up with a lot... I know what a reall MMOrpg is , and what is now the current flavor MMO.

I never saw Vanguard as a WoW, but if they do fall into that trap... I'm sure many will leave.

Ease of play is one thing, but read back to where I described a Dream in this thread. I feel that is all about the concept of a core MMOrpg.

[Atoyota]

But you're exaggerating things by doing this.
yes and exageration is what happens when you slide on slopes and end up in the pit of triviality...

[lagremage]

And one last thing before I head out... I'm sad at the lack of persistence of the spelling of the word persistence. hehe, sorry, couldn't help myself.

But really, I actually do like the ideas presented here. I just wanted to toss in my two cents. However, I would be annoyed if persistent mounts could be killable (no one suggested that they would, but it seems like a logical next step to me). Same with ships - I would be royally pissed if someone could steal my ship, or sink it, or whatever, when I wasn't there. If I can't take my ship to neat places and park it somewhere and have it be safe, then what is the point of taking my ship to neat places? I would rather just stay home. So if they can make persistent ships and mounts stay safe when unattended, I would be happy. (after all, in real life, I can lock my car - doesn't work 100% but in a fantasy world, it should) I would, of course, prefer what you guys like to call pocket ponies, lol, but I like my take better in that they are summoned forth from other dimensions. :D But if they went with fully persistent things, then fine, but give me safe places to leave them.

[lagremage]

yes and exageration is what happens when you slide on slopes and end up in the pit of triviality...

You continue to exaggerate. :D Are you just trying to prove your own point? lol

[lagremage]

no worries... I'l put up with a lot... I know what a reall MMOrpg is , and what is now the current flavor MMO.

I never saw Vanguard as a WoW, but if they do fall into that trap... I'm sure many will leave.

Ease of play is one thing, but read back to where I described a Dream in this thread. I feel that is all about the concept of a core MMOrpg.

Oops, sorry for the stupid typo that you ended up quoting.

[Atoyota]

but give me safe places to leave them.

play your game within the expected risk level and you will be fine.

Risk/reward or stupid play/penalty

Plan your day and work your plan...

Sometimes the unavoidable happens, but life goes on... no unrecoverable errors.

We will all face the same risks and penaltys, and the good thing is... good community will buck you up (not screw you up), when bad things happen.


That's the main lesson I learned in UO, and WHY community is so important... real friends will help you :)

[armsakimbo]

The problem I see with persistent mounts is that they add only a tiny bit amount of coolness (once the novelty wears off they won't matter much at all except to a very few players) at the cost of a great deal of unfun character micro-management and pointless graphical lag. (I don't want game mechanics in place for player characters to urinate or defecate either.) I'd love to see killable mounts, but I doubt there's a reasonable approach to dealing with the huge grief potential, so I'm willing to live without. Without killable mounts mounted combat seems pretty stupid... *sigh*. I'd like to see restrictions on where you can ride/summon your mount (I'm guessing this is either in or in the works, but still think it's worth mentioning.) I'd like to see a tactically significant delay (at least 10 seconds) between summoning your mount and being able to mount up (I don't need realism, but insta-mount just seems grotesquely stupid and lame to me.)

I don't think player owned ships should be persistent, wa-a-a-ay too little bang for the buck there (again, think past the "ooooh! aaahh! that is so-o-o-o kewl!" novelty honeymoon.) Ships shouldn't move on their own, IMO. Where you park it should be where it stays unless you move it or you loan it to another player character who moves it for you (or, I suppose there could be NPCs you could hire to move a ship, if it seemed important to permit that convenience.)

The notion of a player being "tied to his ship" makes for great realism and horse**** MMO design. Unless, of course, you feel that in a "real MMORPG" 99.9973% of all player owned ships should be the property of shared-account guild bots created specificly to own/maintain the ships. Personally, I want to see player character owned ships, rather than ships owned by defacto NPCs that happen to be controlled by associations of players.

But ocean clutter is what it's all about! I want the harbour to feel alive. :D
That's nice. I want to be able to play the game without having to choose between monochrome display at 800x600 with all animations disabled or spending $4000 on a new PC, $10000 on a new central A/C system for my home, and $100/month more for electricity. Also, I want to be able to dock my boat without being extorted by some guild of asshats who've decided that they "own" the port. :p

[Atoyota]

{snip}

That's nice. I want to be able to play the game without having to choose between monochrome display at 800x600 with all animations disabled or spending $4000 on a new PC, $10000 on a new central A/C system for my home, and $100/month more for electricity. Also, I want to be able to dock my boat without being extorted by some guild of asshats who've decided that they "own" the port. :p

Your last point is about the only one worth commenting on, but Skarlath and I covered the blocked port problem in the thread.

I'l just throw a few general comments out on the rest of your post.

I think you skimmed the thread if you've read it at all, I gave very strong arguments for persistance that are beyond "novelty or coolness that would wear off" (agreed).

As far as lag or graphic issues, you don't have an argument there. Even in 1997, mounts and ships had little impact on my dialup 486/66 PC. Can't remember how much RAM I had but was'nt much. Let's remember this is 2006, and broadband for most of us. Graphics are more detailed, but it's all relative.

It was complaints like these that lead us to trivial games, instancing, a no loss small cash and time penalty for death (also trivial).

I don't think most of us are waiting here for another WoW, and I don't feel that is what SGO set out to develop, or rather that would not be the Vision intended.

You can avoid risking your mount, it may require a walk to the dungeon... but to leave it safely at a bind point is a small price to pay for possible inconvenience.

I am glad to hear you are for mounted combat.. and with that you do wish to see killable mounts, but I would'nt worry about griefing... SGO can handle that. If not they can ask me :)

Oh well.. I'l fight to have persistance if and when it matters, and in these I feel it does.

[armsakimbo]

As far as lag or graphic issues, you don't have an argument there. Even in 1997, mounts and ships had little impact on my dialup 486/66 PC. Can't remember how much RAM I had but was'nt much. Let's remember this is 2006, and broadband for most of us. Graphics are more detailed, but it's all relative.
I was referring to client-side graphics "lag", not connection issues.

It was complaints like these that lead us to trivial games, instancing, a no loss small cash and time penalty for death (also trivial).
I find it ironic that you accuse me of not reading the thread and then reply in a way that gives the appearance you didn't actually read even the portion of my post you quoted.

"Make the game playable on affordable hardware" (paraphrase of what I said, note the direct reference to RL $$ expense) is in no way equivalent to "Trivialize the game." (paraphrase of your response.)

Oh well.. I'l fight to have persistance if and when it matters, and in these I feel it does.
And I'll fight against anything that threatens to cripple the playability of the game in the name of minor realism enhancements.

Edit: pruned the cranky bits and some extraneous stuff, replaced a word with one that said what I meant to say. Edits are in italics (except deleted bits, which are now invisible :p).

[Fadetree]

You can put me down for full persistence. Even bank accounts should be local, imo, and you should have to open them in person if you want them. Now, paid courier services with some kind of travel delay ( maybe via other players as a service ) can be useful, as well as player-run ( and protected ) banks and storage vaults. Reference: the Knights Templar during the crusades....

Probably for playability puposes everyone should start out with 1 guaranteed bank account ( ie., can't be raided and looted ) at their home town...but thats it. Other accounts out in the big bad world need to be protected, and the owners need to be trusted. Y'know, like in the real world.

[Atoyota]

I was referring to client-side graphics "lag", not connection issues.


I find it ironic that you accuse me of not reading the thread and then reply in a way that gives the appearance you didn't actually read even the portion of my post you quoted.


Ok, do I need to research cut and paste every issue this thread had answers for that you ignored? (I can)

Please read the thread and save me the headache of disabling your arguments :)



"Make the game playable on affordable hardware" (paraphrase of what I said, note the direct reference to RL $$ expense) is in no way equivalent to "Trivialize the game." (paraphrase of your response.)

Is affordable hardware the advertised minimum requirement? If so do you expect optimum performance at the highest levels on such a configuration? (I have a life too, bills and a mortgage)

I did say in this thread (and Again I can cut and paste this) that in UO.. I had a 486/66 with maybe 8 megs ram, on a dialup...

The only loading issues I ever had was when I walked into an area that had houses loaded with goods... and that was because the client (at that time) loaded all the houses AND the contents!

The fix was when you hit that part of the "zone" it loaded just the houses... to get the contents you had to step on the doorstep. When I did (usually vendor shopping), I did suffer lag as the contents of that "tower or castle" loaded.

Boats in vesper never gave me any lag, I don't see any issue here. (again nearly ten years ago and dialup) it's all relative in regards to detail and hardware and bandwidth, but I feel the hardware/bandwidth side has outpaced these arguments anyways.



And I'll fight against anything that threatens to cripple the playability of the game in the name of minor realism enhancements.

Again.. I see it as convenience you fight for, or triviality. You can define realism as taking damage when you are hit, an exageration you may say, but one of my arguments on where does it end? (once you start crossing lines that are'nt neccesary).


Edit: pruned the cranky bits and some extraneous stuff, replaced a word with one that said what I meant to say. Edits are in italics (except deleted bits, which are now invisible :p).

no need to hide anything, unless it's not fit to be seen.

I'm cool, I don't agree... but it's ok.

[armsakimbo]

Ok, do I need to research cut and paste every issue this thread had answers for that you ignored? (I can)

Please read the thread and save me the headache of disabling your arguments :)
You know, we're both quoting and typing here, but I see very little evidence of any conversation going on...

Again.. I see it as convenience you fight for, or triviality. You can define realism as taking damage when you are hit, an exageration you may say, but one of my arguments on where does it end? (once you start crossing lines that are'nt neccesary).
Convenience? I suppose you could put it that way. If you consider being able to play the game more-or-less as intended without being required to make a last minute investment in thousands of dollars of state of the art equipment to be a question of convenience. It seems a rather deceptive way to phrase it though, more like political spin-doctoring than honest conversation, so I really don't think it's appropriate.

(Just in case the above is somehow unclear, let me point out that "state of the art" means exactly what it says. An equivalent alternate phrasing would be "the latest and greatest".)

I'm really not at all clear as to what opinion(s) you believe I am trying to express here. I am, in fact, baffled. As far as I can tell, you are claiming that playability issues (i.e. avoidable graphics lag, and gratuitous opportunities for grief play in a PvE game) should be considered challenges that prevent the gameplay from being trivialized. That is so bizarre that I can't believe you are actually trying to say it, so I am left trying to figure out just what it is you're reading into my posts.

Basicly I see this whole thing as a huge cost at multiple levels on both the provider side (initial dev time, testing, and then once you go live the CS mess would not be pretty), and also the consumer side (graphical lag turning the game into a slide-show, and extensive opportunities for difficult/impossible to prove griefplay top my list), all for a gain in "realism" affecting only a small portion of gameplay.

I'm not talking convenience issues here. First, that's mostly subjective. And second, it's plain to me from my EQ experience (July '99 thru April '05) that the game won't be good unless we're all frequently "inconvenienced" in various minor ways. My complaint with the ideas being pushed in the thread has to do with playability. It's not fun when the game becomes a slideshow, and I assure you that it will not be fun for the overwhelming majority of Vanguard players if we're required to deal with asshattery and the threat of asshattery all the time (this is a PvE game, remember?). Fortunately, Brad seems committed to "fun > realism".

no need to hide anything, unless it's not fit to be seen.

I'm cool, I don't agree... but it's ok.
Eh, I just removed some sarcasm and inuendo that might have been ok in the Volcano. No call for it here really, this is a pretty genteel forum.

[Skarlath]

:)

I didn't get time to thoroughly read the last backwards-and-forwards, but from what I skimmed I think a distinction needs to be made.

Arms - Atoyota isn't advocating an existing game being smothered in realism, or even that Vanguard should start making a bee-line for the 'absolute realism' side of things, but rather that a game that is heavily seated in realistic mechanics is something he would like to play.

The importance of this is of course that some of your more recent arguement seems to work along the lines of "it doesn't have a place in Vanguard", and the grand scheme of realism doesn't. But certain small features could be designed to add more depth to gameplay. 'tis all. :)

[armsakimbo]

:)

I didn't get time to thoroughly read the last backwards-and-forwards, but from what I skimmed I think a distinction needs to be made.

...
Bah! Spoilsport! How dare you try to ruin a perfectly good argument! Don't listen to Skarlath, Atoyota. He's the devil I tell you! Go ahead, try once again to convince me of the error of my ways. I promise you that I'll misunderstand something in your post, so we can keep the flame alive (maybe several somethings, who knows...)

Down with the voice of moderation!!! :pirate:

[Atoyota]

:)

I didn't get time to thoroughly read the last backwards-and-forwards, but from what I skimmed I think a distinction needs to be made.

Arms - Atoyota isn't advocating an existing game being smothered in realism, or even that Vanguard should start making a bee-line for the 'absolute realism' side of things, but rather that a game that is heavily seated in realistic mechanics is something he would like to play.

The importance of this is of course that some of your more recent arguement seems to work along the lines of "it doesn't have a place in Vanguard", and the grand scheme of realism doesn't. But certain small features could be designed to add more depth to gameplay. 'tis all. :)

Ok forgive me but I think you went over my head with that.. read it twice and did'nt understand you aither time.

Are you saying I was setting rules for the game? or just defining and defending my arguments? Because when I feel I'm correct on an issue I'm very stubborn.

His argument over performance, the one he carried over in his last post, seemed one more to his personal and individual needs, as if he expected everything to work well on minimum required spec's.

I can relate to that, but... I would rather sacrifice some performance (if indeed it was an issue) to have "useful" realism. Useful and also immersive.

Persistance as I described it earlier in the thread, also has it's uses... (information on who is in the area by what ship or mount is seen (persistant) at moorings or bind point)

Like the Sherif that rides up to the saloon, and see's the Gunslingers horse at the hitch. We see it and know... there's gonna be a gunfight at the OK corral :p

Silly but.. that's really what it means. You know he's there before he knows you are. Just one example.


I feel that is a very strong argument.

[Atoyota]

Down with the voice of moderation!!! :pirate:

LOL missed your post..

It's ok arms. I do understand your point on performance.
People cried about it all the time in UO
They cried about a lot of things, eventually the dev's listened and well... that game has been ruined (forever).

I lost GM swords because of camping skill (what created a trivialisation on character development)

Too many PK's (created Trammel)

too many tamed pets (your issue)(pocket ponies)

UO like EQ, was a great game till it went down the tubes. The trends resulted in games with instancing, and all sorts of compromises that ended up with a game like WoW, that is on it's face a good game, but has no lasting hold on subscribers. (I was one)

Persistance is ok so long as clutter (actually clog) is not a problem. persistance is rather nice for many reasons.

Community is a big one.. a huge one.

How can you live aboard a ship if it's not persistant, be a pirate, amoung pirates...

I can't say what SGO will do, I know (you know) what I'd like them to do.

We may disagree, but it's ok.

[armsakimbo]

His argument over performance, the one he carried over in his last post, seemed one more to his personal and individual needs, as if he expected everything to work well on minimum required spec's.
Turn that on its head, sir. My argument is against designing or tuning the game to the desires of the privileged few. I won't be playing on a rig with minimum specs (I know better than that), but neither will it be state of the art. And if Vanguard's going to have anywhere near the size of audience Sigil's aiming for that's going to be typical.

As for "useful" realism, it's pretty clear that "useful" is in the eye of the beholder. What you apparently consider highly valuable, I find highly questionable. And the specific example you give of its usefulness:
Like the Sherif that rides up to the saloon, and see's the Gunslingers horse at the hitch. We see it and know... there's gonna be a gunfight at the OK corral :p

Silly but.. that's really what it means. You know he's there before he knows you are. Just one example.
Is rather plainly a PvP consideration, something that should have negligeable weight in designing a PvE game. Sure, it'd be cool for RP immersion as well, until 357 horses crowded at a 10 meter rail destroyed that immersion. While you could certainly restrict the number of "parking spots", forced dispersion of the players would create an impediment to in-game community development (much as instancing does), a cost that all on its own far outweighs any likely benefit.

I feel that is a very strong argument.
Sure it is. But strength in isolation does not imply anything about strength in confrontation. No game design concept or implementation mechanic stands alone. Any choice's advantages must outweigh not only its drawbacks, but as well its net benefit must stand against the alternatives that it supplants. I just don't see that with mount/boat persistence in a PvE MMORPG.

[armsakimbo]

LOL missed your post..
Heh, same.

How can you live aboard a ship if it's not persistant, be a pirate, amoung pirates...
Now, I'll agree that persistent ships you could live aboard and use as a base for adventuring would be beyond cool. In a game where seaborne exploration and/or piracy were really big (i.e. vitally important to the lore and the vision), you simply couldn't do without 'em. But, I think that's beyond the scope of Vanguard.

Personally, I think that that persistent mounts/ships would be so disruptive to common MMORPG design assumptions that you'd have to make it one of your game's central design elements very early in the process. That's the only way your dev team is going to have the time to discover enough of the implications to make a good job of it.

[Atoyota]

Turn that on its head, sir. My argument is against designing or tuning the game to the desires of the privileged few. I won't be playing on a rig with minimum specs (I know better than that), but neither will it be state of the art. And if Vanguard's going to have anywhere near the size of audience Sigil's aiming for that's going to be typical.
ok since we are no longer talking about performance, we can get on to the other points you make against persistance.


Is rather plainly a PvP consideration, something that should have negligeable weight in designing a PvE game. Sure, it'd be cool for RP immersion as well, until 357 horses crowded at a 10 meter rail destroyed that immersion. While you could certainly restrict the number of "parking spots", forced dispersion of the players would create an impediment to in-game community development (much as instancing does), a cost that all on its own far outweighs any likely benefit.

(moved this to reply to both)
As for "useful" realism, it's pretty clear that "useful" is in the eye of the beholder. What you apparently consider highly valuable, I find highly questionable. And the specific example you give of its usefulness:

357 horses is as much an exageration as how I defined realism and triviality earlier in our "back and forth" (100 is more likely on any given day for a major raid or dungeon)

But.. using my information as a position for persistance, would'nt you think twice about adventuring in an area where 357 horses were parked? (if you took the time to count them?)would'nt that be useful, rather than fighting your way in through respawn to see a guild convention and the dungeon looted and your time wasted?

You see, my PvP example was just one example of many.

Last point you made on forced parking for 357 horses.

I'd think if the dungeon could accomodate 357 raiders (PC's), the dev's should enlarge the parking lot. Similar to 357 customers all trying to buy a slurpy from the 7/11 (each in his or her own car).

It would be unimmersive to see 357 cars at a 7/11, but stranger things have happened. Could be that the slurpys were free, and winning lottery tickets were a sure thing there.



Sure it is. But strength in isolation does not imply anything about strength in confrontation. No game design concept or implementation mechanic stands alone. Any choice's advantages must outweigh not only its drawbacks, but as well its net benefit must stand against the alternatives that it supplants. I just don't see that with mount/boat persistence in a PvE MMORPG.

I know, maybe you've never experienced it. I have.

Well Granted... in UO you could ride anywhere, in buildings and dungeons, and mounted or unmounted fighting was the same. It was when we gathered for guild meetings, as we arrived we knew who was there. I'd like to know who would be in a dungeon, in much the same way. Or who was moored in an area, or if they had moved. Also I'd love the option of living on my boat rather than a house.

I feel that my position on information is still very strong, that for many it is also very immersive, and performance should not be an issue. Only one area is of a concern to me, and that is clogged ports or blocked routes.

Last quote :) I'l use it because it's just my sence of humor here... nothing implied by it.

So we agree to disagree.

LOL gotta love it :p

[armsakimbo]

So we agree to disagree.
I believe we have found a point of agreement there. :D

I'm thinking that what remains to be said is simply this:
lol, you can never go wrong with the pirate smiley :pirate: Arr!

[lagremage]

Hey Atoyota, I think you need to remember that this is Vanguard, not UO. :D I never played UO and honestly, I really have no interest in it. Also, I have zero interest in pvp, so making anything more realistic just to please the pvp crowd would actually really turn me off. No offense, or anything - it's just that one thing that's really clear here is that we're all coming from completely different backgrounds and therefore we all have totally different ideas of how things should be done. My background includes old-fashioned MUDs, EQ, and WoW, in that order, with a bit of CoV mixed in.

Oh and the idea of knowing who is in an area when you pull up... I have always been fond of simply typing /who. I find this perfectly realistic (had to say that since I know you'll argue that it's unrealistic, lol). After all, it's a computer game, so there should be computer commands. Pretty much the one and only reason why I started playing MUDs was because they were like the ultimate form of nerdiness. I didn't play them because they were fantasy games, I played them because they were computer games. Same with EQ when I got it - I got it because it was a computer game. (same with WoW, same with...etc.)

...and last but not least, the idea of 357 (or whatever) horses parked outside a pub sounds realistic to me. Thing is, it's a town, so there will automatically be more people there. At a dungeon, no, I would not expect that many, but at a town with vendors and banks and such, yeah, I would expect that. *has painful memories of the horrible clutter in WoW because of how people liked to congregate* Also, if horses were persistent and could be killed, I would expect people to leave them in town when they aren't even there themselves, so the numbers could get even worse.

[Severoth]

Well, as for immersiveness, the item in your backpack could be a whistle that plays a pitch that only your mount recognizes. When you click your whistle, your mount comes running to you from the obscure pasture/oasis, where he/she was grazing while you go about on foot.

Is it really that big of an immersion breaker?

As for the "bag in bags," your mount's saddleags are the extra inventory, and you can only access them where you can summon your mount. What's so immersive-breaking about this?

It makes me think of Gandalf calling Shadowfax, the king of horses, to his help.

[Atoyota]

As for the "bag in bags," your mount's saddleags are the extra inventory, and you can only access them where you can summon your mount. What's so immersive-breaking about this?

It makes me think of Gandalf calling Shadowfax, the king of horses, to his help.

Nah I can't see bags in bags when your mount has a very large inventory (as suggested or implied).

As for lagremage and anyone else, you don't want an option to live aboard a boat?

Yup I came from UO, an oldschool game. It was extremely immersive for me and I've been looking to fill that void for quite a while. Not just a "first kiss" raptuor (sp) kind of thing either. A game with real consequences, and environement. Persistance being a large part of the environment for me.

PvP? well I do plan on that ruleset, but it's not what it's all about for me. It adds the "extra dimension" I like in an MMO. (I suck at PvP actually)

So some are in my camp, some are not. I've given my reasons that I feel most everyone except the /who crowd can understand.

nuff said :p

[lagremage]

Lol, Atoyota, I'm hoping that the game will find good enough middle ground to please us all. :)

[Atoyota]

Lol, Atoyota, I'm hoping that the game will find good enough middle ground to please us all. :)

np man same here...

I mean if performance is not an issue? why not?
I can see more people appreciating it over time than hating it, again if there is no negligable performance issue.

(besides parked ponies and boats will be in safe zones (normally))

[Skarlath]

np man same here...

Psstt, Lagre isn't a bloke!

[Atoyota]

Psstt, Lagre isn't a bloke!

ok ok... well either way sex is not the issue here :p

Man woman... all the same to me :)

[lagremage]

Lol people say "man" here all the time, regardless of what gender the person actually is, so it never stands out to me. (things like "Man, it's so hot today!" or "Wow, man, that's amazing" and stuff like that) Actually, I think it's finally starting to fall out of fashion, but it still gets used a lot.

BTW, my name reveals my gender. I actually chose this stupid-sounding name because if you drop the final e and spell it backwards, you get gamergal. I only added the e on to make it something that one could pronounce (and egamergal, or e-gamergal, also describes me quite well, as I prefer electronic games).

Anyway, that's the end of this minor derail. Back to our regularly scheduled programming!

[JAdams]

Hey, that's pretty cool! :)

[Bolshoi]

I'm lazy and didn't read through 8 pages of posts, so I'll just spit out my idea and crawl back in my corner.

Personally, I am hoping ships will work like the housing, where you'll be able to make/buy stuff and decorate the inside of your ship however you want to. I was thinking that maybe your ship would have its own crew, so when you park it at a dock and take off, the crew might take the ship out without you. But when you get to another dock, you could send off a signal and, after a short delay, the ship will come steering into the dock. Much like the Epona idea from earlier.

......
/crawls back in corner

[Atoyota]

Could be like that if they get to making ships really large, as in the WoW transport vessels. That would be seriously cool!

Also why persistance is one of my hopes. (note I'm saying hope here, not "requirement"). But yeah I love all sorts of persistance, and I've seen it in UO. I've also seen problems because of it. There have been ideas posted here that can deal with them.

Anyways it's up to SGO, I'd love it, not everyone would, and that's the thing that makes developing difficult (Balance). Also wieghed in is performance, and is it worth it.

I doubt I'l get my wishes... but I gave my 59 cents worth of opinions here :D

[Skarlath]

Could be like that if they get to making ships really large, as in the WoW transport vessels. That would be seriously cool!

The largest of the Qalian and Thestran vessels are about as large as the ship-ferries in WoW (as you may have seen/will see in E3 videos). I'm not sure about going below deck in Vanguard... I sure hope you can!

[Atoyota]

The largest of the Qalian and Thestran vessels are about as large as the ship-ferries in WoW (as you may have seen/will see in E3 videos). I'm not sure about going below deck in Vanguard... I sure hope you can!

oh man... what's the point of a flat deck vessel that large then? I mean if you can't go below decks... it sucks! (go for the smaller boat instead)

Seriously I have two fantasys for Vanguard... one is a stone tower (mini keep), and the other a large ocean going vessel (with 3 deck levels). Of course both serious long term goals and also requiring upkeep to maintain and keep them. I may only be able to manage one or the other (expences). That would be a hard choice but realistic. Boats in RL are Big Time money sinks.

Would be awesome having your "Captains qtrs", "Guest qtrs", Living space on mid deck, and below all stowage. Also on main decks some stowagw for sails (LOL) and rigging.

I better get Brad a subscription to SAIL magazine so he can get his artists to work!
rotflmao!

[GnomerBreltik]

It will likely be a bit difficult at very low levels (say, sub-10), but beyond that it will certainly happen. There will be NPC run ships that lower level players can use to travel from one continent to another, and then, more and more as the game matures, a huge number of player owned ships and other vehicles that lower level players should have access to (e.g. you pay for a ride, or someone is nice and lets you tag along, etc.).

That said, we did realize going in that by making it such that different races start in different continents that some people may be seperated for a bit of time. To minimize this, we made a lot of playable races and very different ones at that, such that I think most people will choose to create races that start on the same continent and still have a lot of options in terms of what race they want their character to be.

Looks like there will be NPC ship ferry between continents after all. I just hope that they make PC built ships faster and make it cost a bit of money to ride the NPC ones.:pirate:

[armsakimbo]

Would be awesome having your "Captains qtrs", "Guest qtrs", Living space on mid deck, and below all stowage. Also on main decks some stowagw for sails (LOL) and rigging.
Heh, sounds like you want a lo-tech Traveller MMORPG. (Or maybe you don't care about the tech?) At least, your comments remind me of the one Traveller campaign we had in my old gaming group. Going pirate is fun, but going privateer in order to prey on pirates and slavers is fun squared! :pirate:^^:pirate:

Hmmmm, the opportunity to do that might even make persistent ships worth the pain. Hmmmm, how to minimize the pain (i.e. have my cake and eat it too)...
- distinguish "ship" from "boat" (boats being ordinary vehicles, whether they're seaworthy or not is irrelevant)
- make ships a spectacularly expensive to build and maintain blend of outpost and caravan (i.e. if you log off while aboard ship you'll appear aboard ship when you log in, if you die adventuring away from the ship you respawn at the ship, special: if the ship is destroyed your bindpoint becomes the ship's last port of call)

[Atoyota]

Hmmmm, the opportunity to do that might even make persistent ships worth the pain. Hmmmm, how to minimize the pain (i.e. have my cake and eat it too)...


LOL
As long as we are dreaming here :)

Persistance is persistance (to me), either or, no middle ground.

On a Big Ship (and this is a serious problem), when you take it out, it persists, if you anchor outside a safe zone you are at risk to damage (either npc critter or player pirates). So logging out of game in a really bad spot is not a good idea.

So yeah it's tough persistance, but I'm still a fan.

You could insta log on this "thing" as it's a "mobile home", and could require a crew and possibly co-owner to help you manage it. The crew could act as some deterant to critters, but I fear not effective enough against players.

Being big it would be tough and could take large hits and keep on ticking. (just expensive to repair, so hopefully you can craft repairs). Should be able to handle 24 hours of constant beatings before it sinks (just a time element to allow a player to log if he absolutely had to).

It'd be just soo cool taking 20 or so guests out for an island adventure, and using it as a "hold" for loot. Doing repairs in out of the way islands from lumber and hemp harvested.

I wonder if you had magical control of the "elements" like "wind" you could get a speed buff on the boat? (calling in storm clouds so you could raise the spinnaker?) LOL

Yeah big boats would be cool as a trade/cargo business... as a raider or pirate vessel, or in factional PvP as part of an invading fleet of Big Ships... wild stuff! :)

[CyclopsSlayer]

Sadly, while I really like persistence, would love to see everything stay in game. Just imagine being able to walk from one continent to another over the mass of parked boats. The mounts, stacked up 30 deep all the way around a town...

[Atoyota]

Sadly, while I really like persistence, would love to see everything stay in game. Just imagine being able to walk from one continent to another over the mass of parked boats. The mounts, stacked up 30 deep all the way around a town...

We've discussed it.. solutions exist.

Big ships in that fantasy I just posted could persist a day or maybe a few days.. but not without repair. So you'd have to move it eventually to a safe mooring. Also cost being an issue, and tied to your boat another issue, not many would go for it. With not many going for it, boat populations are'nt that bad.

Now with pocket boats.. and it being easy to own one.. plenty would exist, and at times clog harbors and channels, if for some reason a lot of people wanted to be at sea in an area.

Key to persistance is making it expensive, but meaningful. Pocketed items are more trivial to me.. Mounts included.

But I've debated my arse off in this thread, so no more :p

[Skarlath]

I wonder if you had magical control of the "elements" like "wind" you could get a speed buff on the boat? (calling in storm clouds so you could raise the spinnaker?)

Druids will be able to effect the wind in Vanguard, and will therefore be able to assist their boat's movement :)

[Miggy]

Druids will be able to effect the wind in Vanguard, and will therefore be able to assist their boat's movement :)

Oddly with this and the comment you're quoting, I suddenly had the Captain Planet theme tune pop into my head.

[Bolshoi]

Oddly with this and the comment you're quoting, I suddenly had the Captain Planet theme tune pop into my head.

And the rangers will have the power of Heart, and can make animals friendly.

[Atoyota]

I think all magical classes may have some element control ability :)

edit: not all... but not just druids (phoey!)

[armsakimbo]

It'll all be fine just as long as Warriors have the power of Jagged Steel and can make all Diplomats friendly. :pirate:

[Skarlath]

I think all magical classes may have some element control ability :)

edit: not all... but not just druids (phoey!)

Perhaps... but it should be kept as special as possible! I would be fine with it if only druids could do it. If any other classes are able to there better be a DAMN good reason why the skies are listening to them.

[Atoyota]

Perhaps... but it should be kept as special as possible! I would be fine with it if only druids could do it. If any other classes are able to there better be a DAMN good reason why the skies are listening to them.
Sorcerers?

I can see them having good reasons!

Damn tree huggin druids!

[armsakimbo]

Damn tree huggin druids!
If I were a tree, I'm not at all sure I'd want to be hugged by some unwashed yahoo whose stock-in-trade is fire and lightning. :eek:

[Atoyota]

Don't forget Brimstone!

I can also summon a wind to shed the dead leaves you insist on clinging to.

[Mac_XVII]

We've discussed it.. solutions exist.

Big ships in that fantasy I just posted could persist a day or maybe a few days.. but not without repair. So you'd have to move it eventually to a safe mooring. Also cost being an issue, and tied to your boat another issue, not many would go for it. With not many going for it, boat populations are'nt that bad.

Now with pocket boats.. and it being easy to own one.. plenty would exist, and at times clog harbors and channels, if for some reason a lot of people wanted to be at sea in an area.

Key to persistance is making it expensive, but meaningful. Pocketed items are more trivial to me.. Mounts included.

Good ideas, just add this one:

PvP: destroy persistant boats / mounts. Having guards would add to the cost, and the chance that by leaving your boat out of storage could get it destroyed by a PK type. If you don't like 30 horses parked out front of a bar and they are blocking the entrance, kill a couple dozen of them! :twisted:

[Atoyota]

Good ideas, just add this one:

PvP: destroy persistant boats / mounts. Having guards would add to the cost, and the chance that by leaving your boat out of storage could get it destroyed by a PK type. If you don't like 30 horses parked out front of a bar and they are blocking the entrance, kill a couple dozen of them! :twisted:

LOL... would'nt want to kill peeps ponies, but I'm certainly used to PvP (played UO pre EQ 1997-2001).

peeps did kill mounts and pack mounts but not in guard zones :p

[Skarlath]

Good ideas, just add this one:

PvP: destroy persistant boats / mounts. Having guards would add to the cost, and the chance that by leaving your boat out of storage could get it destroyed by a PK type. If you don't like 30 horses parked out front of a bar and they are blocking the entrance, kill a couple dozen of them! :twisted:

Muahaha! Hehehe, that would be fun. :twisted:

[Marissa]

PvP: destroy persistant boats / mounts. Having guards would add to the cost, and the chance that by leaving your boat out of storage could get it destroyed by a PK type. If you don't like 30 horses parked out front of a bar and they are blocking the entrance, kill a couple dozen of them! :twisted:

Oh my... EQ1 memories coming back. Run for it!

Bank in that dwarven town in Butcherblock (name slipped me). Have a human or a barbarian standing near the entrance and you can't get to the bankers unless the person moves.

Maybe you will be able to 'push' people and horses and such. :cool:

[GnomerBreltik]

Oh my... EQ1 memories coming back. Run for it!

Bank in that dwarven town in Butcherblock (name slipped me). Have a human or a barbarian standing near the entrance and you can't get to the bankers unless the person moves.

Kaladim.

I remember those days too, but being a gnome I could sometimes find ways into the areas behind the bankers.:pirate:

[Skarlath]

Maybe you will be able to 'push' people and horses and such. :cool:

Similar - I think Brad once said that they intend to have an initial collision with the other player and then you'll kinda sliiiide past them, so that people can't block others in. :)

[Marissa]

Similar - I think Brad once said that they intend to have an initial collision with the other player and then you'll kinda sliiiide past them, so that people can't block others in. :)

Yay!

And of course we should keep a contest of how many people we can sliiide into one house at the same time.

Let's party! Have a nice weekend all!