DeletedUser
Also, sometimes you've got to level up 2 or 3 times before you're able to do the next stage of the quest...
- Status
DeletedUser
I think you should re-read my suggestion. Adding more quest will get the developers in an endless loop to keep experienced players occupied. Developers are expensive, and I'd prefer them investing their time in adding more functionality rather than more of the same all the time.
This system will take care of that in a single swoop without any intervention. Add it and you're done, endless supply of quests forever. Simpeler ones, but ones that do motivate us to take lower level jobs.
And if you're level 12 and want to do the quests, go ahead. But I am currently playing at lvl 46 and I did all quests. Now there is absolutely NO motivation whatsoever, anywhere, anytime to do lower level jobs. With this system, there will be, for everyone, anytime and anywhere.
DeletedUser
best idea
DeletedUser
With the current game mechanics, I'm seeing the "random item" thing to be a bit difficult to implement. Quest requirements so far seem to be scripted into the game, not just something you pull out of a hat, and would make your quest-book slow the game down. I say this because you'd have an entire list of links to quest-scripts that would need to load every time you open up the merchant for every task that you have completed. It all adds up.
Do you want a developer to just sit at their computer and create a completely random quest every now and then? Remove them willy-nilly? Small quests like this also have small rewards, so if a single player can make a quest disappear for everybody else, what use is there in even bothering to check in? To fulfill it, even? I also sense chaos for the more idiotic leaders of towns that would kick the entire population for a few-hundred dollars, let alone skill points. Let's be honest, nobody deserves such a fate, especially if their leader really did seem competent enough. Fifty to one is a big difference.
I think it would be much easier to create a medium-large number of these "merchant quests"(maybe around 50) all asking for certain items from jobs ranging anywhere from 100 to 200 points in difficulty(to stick with your low-level requirements, and cover each product), that are not permanently recorded by the game, but are considered a quest-line, which reset after a defined number of days. This way, you not only finish the quest-line and keep the rewards, but you're allowed to do it all over again(Basically after something like a week, a quest you completed will say you no longer completed it). A good number of these quests(if not all of them) can also be scripted to only be able to be accepted/completed on certain days, so if you miss the deadline, you're stuck for another whole week. Following that, they could all be open at the same time with such deadlines, for the reason that every store has items that need to be restocked constantly. This lessens the workload and stress-factor for anybody(from management to random players) exponentially, and goes with your train of thought for the idea. This is just an alternative method to it all - I don't mean to hijack the thread.
Since you do not imply in the main idea whether or not a player absolutely has to be part of a town in order to do the quests, and it is in the benefit of higher-level players, then I assume it is open to everybody. If it is open to everybody, then there are more than enough towns to support such(should each and every town have a merchant). If it is open only to members of that town, then you're looking at a lot of supply and not enough demand. Either way, there will be dictatorship from any possible management, and definitely argument from everyone. I strongly suggest you do not restrict a quest to "whomever gets it first", lest you wish for such idiots as I have mentioned. Then again, a good number of players will be all for weeding out the "weaker-links" and competition, while probably dooming themselves to worlds with a lot more 1-player towns. My alternative, coupled with no restriction, would remove these possible discrepancies and prevent a lot of grief.
I do not mean to sound insulting, but from what I read, I see a lot of things wrong with this whole idea. If I am mistaken, please correct me.
Do you want a developer to just sit at their computer and create a completely random quest every now and then? Remove them willy-nilly? Small quests like this also have small rewards, so if a single player can make a quest disappear for everybody else, what use is there in even bothering to check in? To fulfill it, even? I also sense chaos for the more idiotic leaders of towns that would kick the entire population for a few-hundred dollars, let alone skill points. Let's be honest, nobody deserves such a fate, especially if their leader really did seem competent enough. Fifty to one is a big difference.
I think it would be much easier to create a medium-large number of these "merchant quests"(maybe around 50) all asking for certain items from jobs ranging anywhere from 100 to 200 points in difficulty(to stick with your low-level requirements, and cover each product), that are not permanently recorded by the game, but are considered a quest-line, which reset after a defined number of days. This way, you not only finish the quest-line and keep the rewards, but you're allowed to do it all over again(Basically after something like a week, a quest you completed will say you no longer completed it). A good number of these quests(if not all of them) can also be scripted to only be able to be accepted/completed on certain days, so if you miss the deadline, you're stuck for another whole week. Following that, they could all be open at the same time with such deadlines, for the reason that every store has items that need to be restocked constantly. This lessens the workload and stress-factor for anybody(from management to random players) exponentially, and goes with your train of thought for the idea. This is just an alternative method to it all - I don't mean to hijack the thread.
Since you do not imply in the main idea whether or not a player absolutely has to be part of a town in order to do the quests, and it is in the benefit of higher-level players, then I assume it is open to everybody. If it is open to everybody, then there are more than enough towns to support such(should each and every town have a merchant). If it is open only to members of that town, then you're looking at a lot of supply and not enough demand. Either way, there will be dictatorship from any possible management, and definitely argument from everyone. I strongly suggest you do not restrict a quest to "whomever gets it first", lest you wish for such idiots as I have mentioned. Then again, a good number of players will be all for weeding out the "weaker-links" and competition, while probably dooming themselves to worlds with a lot more 1-player towns. My alternative, coupled with no restriction, would remove these possible discrepancies and prevent a lot of grief.
I do not mean to sound insulting, but from what I read, I see a lot of things wrong with this whole idea. If I am mistaken, please correct me.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I'm not sure I get all of what you are saying, but to reduce eliminate the problem of tons of 1 player towns you could make so the merchant becomes available to only towns with say 10+ members. Also, you could make it so that you have to build a trading post to get a merchant to come. Overall I think it's a good idea.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
not a bad idea
srry if this has been suggested, but what about creating a character for the merchant? it's like the adventurer/soldier in which u need to walk around to find the guy?
srry if this has been suggested, but what about creating a character for the merchant? it's like the adventurer/soldier in which u need to walk around to find the guy?
DeletedUser
no, it makes more cloggs in the server. Anyway, good idea, makes it more varied to do higher and lower jobs to get things needed. Maybe god can browse this on the web.
DeletedUser
A valid suggestion, I say. It just has to have a large variety so it doesn't become a repeating chore. Gathering 15 boards everytime he needs boards was not entirely what I wanted, so random did the job as far as I was concerned.
The reset-thing would tie it in the current system without any problems. But then it might just become a weekly chore, not a random quest appearing every now and then. Really hard quests can supprise and challenge us, and random is always more supprising than a weekly return.
Your arguments on server-load are valid. I can imagine some ways of doing it right, but I don't know the possible server load. Let's leave that kind of thinking to the devs for now.
Why not create about 200 different quest, and make them appear through the merchant-accept-mechanism? It just has to have some random appearance, otherwise it will become a repeating chore eventually.
I've added some simple mechanisms to the description to counter that. Basically base the amount of available quests on player numbers, with one player receiving a single quest a week, while 50-player towns would probably get 200 of them a week. Numbers open for suggestion and server possibilities, of course.
The player HAS to be a MEMBER of the town, to be able to accept it's quests. Non-members have no access. I added it in the description as well. Setting the system up for everyone everywhere is of course idiocy.
The reason I restricted them to the one whom accepts it first is to prevent slower players being stuk with 15 dimes because a faster more active player got all 18 of them slightly faster. That will be VERY frustrating, and therefore it becomes YOUR quest as soon as you bash the accept button AND you don't have another merchant quest open yet. (max 1 active quest per player).
You provided a fine example of constructive critisism, and for that I am thankful. I altered the description to take your points into account.
DeletedUser
You're right, I didn't think that through well enough. I've cruised my way through many a quest series pretty fast, so I can see your point. If the devs can set it up well enough, then there shouldn't be a problem with having such a large amount of quests. Though I'd fear for description quality; it shouldn't really matter to the majority of players if it's all copy-pasted or not.
Quite a few indeed. 200 a week for a 50 player town... On one hand, if the quests are easy enough, that may be four a week for a single player, they could have time to complete them and then some. On the other hand, if they're too hard, you're looking at a short time-span for completing the quest and possibly not being able to present them all for the players of the town to accept.
Now like you said, if it's possible, then creating, say, 1000 of these quests is an option, but first by saving them on a back-up drive. They could be split in half - 500 of them to be used one month, then the other 500 to be used the next. They would continue switching back and forth like this, and would be replacing each other during a monthly update. That would be 250 per fortnight instead of 200 a week, which would be better if there is (at least) a good mix of easy and hard quests being handed out. You would also have to count inactives and uninterested members into the equation. So it would best not to hand too many out at a single time. It may use the same quests, but would be so far apart it wouldn't seem like a chore, and give other members of the towns the chance to do quests from the first batch that they weren't able to before.
The developers have already shown that it is possible to have a quest-line during a certain month only. They can do this per week/fortnight as well. Unless, of course, they were already removing it during the next month's update, as I mentioned before. So it wouldn't be too hard to hand them out a little at a time, or switch them up completely.
So there isn't much of a mad rush at all, then. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Hopefully players will think before they leap, though. On that note, from your new description, there are penalties for not completing the quests you have accepted. It would also be a good idea to receive the same penalties for accepting the quest and then declining it at any time. This way, a player can't scrap it for one they find more interesting, or play "keep-away" with other members of the town.
Thank you. To be honest, I hesitated because I felt as if I was speaking up at the last second. Whether or not the devs could come up with a solution to any problems they find is unknown to me, but I just can't bring myself to give them the benefit of the doubt, ever.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Right, before this is sent off tonight does the proposal at the front page need to be changed?
DeletedUser
With the new fort feature you need products (wood, stone, iron, etc.) to build up a fort building. I think this feature will increase the use of a lot of old jobs.
DeletedUser
wow what a great idea... you really put a lot of thought into this one and it sounds great.
DeletedUser
Interesting... Where did you find this out?
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
lol doh! :laugh:
DeletedUser
good thinking thread
DeletedUser
Maybe I'm just being cynical but I see the requirement of items from low level jobs as an invitation for people to cheat ...
Lots more people are cheating to gain XP from dueling now and we've all seen organized towns with bot builders ... what will prevent more cheating ?
Lots more people are cheating to gain XP from dueling now and we've all seen organized towns with bot builders ... what will prevent more cheating ?
DeletedUser
A well thought idea and I like it.
I have a half baked thought, I'll throw it away and see what the responses are.
Maybe when a quest says "15 wooden boards" you don't neccessarily have to accept it all, you can only accept "5 wooden boards" and make the merchant list change to "10 wooden boards". The larger part of the quest you accept the bigger your reward is. The quest will disappear from the merchant's list when it is finally fully accepted.
After collecting 24 wooden boards once, I doubt I'd go for a merchant quest that requires a large number of products. It may become boring again (a whole week of picking tomatoes, how exciting can it be?
I think I have a suggestion to make it a 3/4ths baked idea... >.>
It may seem similar, but to add even MORE motivation to do smaller, lower level quests (as well as any other quest), have the merchant quests give you a minimum for the product you want and a set reward for that minimum. Let's say you accepted five tobacco leaves, and you would get 50$ and 25 XP (random numbers here), and those were the set rewards. However, if you were to go BEYOND five, and get maybe 15 or something, your money and experience would increase by a certain percentage based on how many times (1.3, 1.7, 2.4, etc...) more products you give to the merchant than required. Also, if you were to fall short of the demand (due to not having enough energy, motivation, too much distance to travel to make it in time, etc.) you could still complete the quest so that the items don't go to waste and your reward would decrease by a certain percentage depending on how many times (.7, .45, .18, etc...) less products you give. That way you could still get SOMETHING out of the quest.
Examples: (The random numbers used above)
Quest: 5 tobacco leaves Reward: 50$ and 25 XP, possibility of hidden item based on difficulty and all that nonsense mentioned with the original pitch.
The time goes by...
Scenario A: You get 5, hand them in, get the set reward.
Scenario B: You can only manage to get three so your reward is reduced to 30$ and 15 XP. (3/5 = .6, .6x50=30$, .6x25=15)
Scenario C: You pull off 15 leaves and hand them all in, your reward is increased to 150$ and 75 XP (15/5=3, 3x50=150, 3x25=75)
Obviously these aren't the kind of numbers that would be given by a tobacco leaf quest. Also, the chance of recieving a hidden item could also increase based on the formula. Also, when completing the quest, you would be given the option of how many you would like to hand in, much like with selling things at the stores. This would be used due to the possibility of getting more than you need and also having a Saloon quest running that requires the same item. You could hand in 5 out of your, say, 8 leaves, and meet the merchant requirements. Then you could turn around and hand in the remaining three to a Saloon questgiver to advance yourself further through your quest storyline nonsense.
a = Number of products handed in
b = Product required
a/b = c = bonus/reduction multiplier
d = set cash reward (if any)
e = set XP reward (if any)
f = Hidden item chance (if any)
So...
Final cash reward = cxd, Final XP reward = cxe, Final hidden item chance = cxf
For irrational decimals when the bonus/reduction multiplier is being calculated, rounding would obviously be used. It'd be odd to recieve 56.23 XP, after all.
I'm mostly sure my math is right... Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
I think this could be finagled into the broad view of the idea. Any thoughts, suggestions, and friendly critisism is greatly appreaciated.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
First off, I oppose bundling in this kind of complication with this proposal. I support keeping proposals fairly simple. After this basic idea makes it into the game, we can see how we like it and formulate additional future proposals based on that, and that's when I'd (potentially) support a modification like your 3/4 baked idea.
Second, I oppose making the reward system a straight multiplier-based system. Doing that means essentially just increasing the rewards of the job itself by some multiplier, for the duration of the quest. Instead, the original suggestion of doing X and getting reward Y is more attractive to me; it makes the X -- whatever it may be, specifically -- somehow more "special" than X-1 or X+1. It makes the player think a bit about whether they have the time to do X before the deadline. It introduces a modest risk (of practically wasting some time/effort if the deadline is missed), and thus some excitement.
I don't entirely object to having some reward for a partial completion of the quest, but it should be at a penalty, not a straight apportionment, IMO. Also, not yet; again, keep the initial proposal simple and let it get implemented before marking it all up with modifications and complications. Of particular value is keeping a proposal within the boundaries of the existing game mechanics and database structures, as that allows for implementation without significant development effort.
I do like your suggestion of choosing how many of a product to turn in, and would definitely support that if we go with a modifcation allowing for turning in some amount other than exactly what was asked for. However, once again, I'd recommend against including that modification yet.
DeletedUser
I say yes nice idea...
- Status