EmperorPingu Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 This is really an extension of @DrManatee's suggestion relating to tweaking of block placement protection rules in dungeons. I am supportive of the idea that alternative methods be sought for the protection of regions necessary for story progression and development. I don't like that certain blocks cannot (without code) be interacted with inherently by itself. There is the intrusion factor of how I might want to interact with the world, but there is also the immersion breaking factor - "Do you mean to say I can't have that one piece of flint next to you my good man?" I think rather than having the hardlock of being expressly forbidden from digging the dirt blocks around a "traveller" who never moves..., we should instead be greeted perhaps with some kind of softer lock. Perhaps we should have the ability to break the traders wagon or remove blocks from that region (instead of acting like the blocks are claimed) - and in doing so, we instead anger the trader perhaps? A lot of this could arguably be solved with a revamping of the NPC trader mechanic entirely - such as entity vehicles (with the traders) physically moving from time to time (one in game day they there, the next they are not). Perhaps having a move in depth trader/vilager mechanic somewhat reminiscent (but heavens forbid the same) as minecraft, where building suitable settlements could attract villagers (or enable the ability to attempt to convince wandering travllers to settle)? I think there's a lot more that can be done to address the npc components of the game - I'll have to put in some in depth thought into it another time, but for now a quick fix could be as simple as changing the behaviour of the npc themselves to get angry with the player for messing up their stuff, rather than hardlocking the blocks because the trader wants to claim the grass underneath their wagon like they're ever gonna use it. 1
LadyWYT Posted January 6 Report Posted January 6 1 hour ago, EmperorPingu said: A lot of this could arguably be solved with a revamping of the NPC trader mechanic entirely - such as entity vehicles (with the traders) physically moving from time to time (one in game day they there, the next they are not). Perhaps having a move in depth trader/vilager mechanic somewhat reminiscent (but heavens forbid the same) as minecraft, where building suitable settlements could attract villagers (or enable the ability to attempt to convince wandering travllers to settle)? As far as I know, traders are supposed to be getting reworked a bit next game, and will have more unique abodes than the wagons we're so used to seeing. Traders that have already spawned in wagons though, I'd wager, will still continue to exist as-is in older worlds. I wouldn't include a village-building mechanic, as that defeats the "lonely survive in the wilderness" vibe the game has, but I wouldn't mind seeing traders occur in small groups as a rarer find. 1 hour ago, EmperorPingu said: I think there's a lot more that can be done to address the npc components of the game - I'll have to put in some in depth thought into it another time, but for now a quick fix could be as simple as changing the behaviour of the npc themselves to get angry with the player for messing up their stuff, rather than hardlocking the blocks because the trader wants to claim the grass underneath their wagon like they're ever gonna use it. I wouldn't be surprised if we get more depth to NPC interactions later on in development. However, I think the hard limits on behavior exist for a couple different reasons: 1. The claim system that protects trader land is the same system that protects story locations and, to my knowledge, player claims as well. While I do like @Bruno Willis's idea of making dungeon claims a bit different to provide more interactivity, you don't want the player to be tampering with things too much or they will break it or potentially confuse themselves on what they're actually supposed to interact with. Or they will strip it bare of decor/resources(like what happens in Minecraft), which isn't really ideal either. 2. NPCs respawning after death isn't realistic or particularly immersive either, but the mechanic serves a very important function in the game. A common thing players will do in videogames is kill NPCs to see what loot they drop, and what effect such an action otherwise has. While it would be nice to have a reputation system, realistically, committing a murder like that should absolutely get the player banned from any kind of civilization and shot on sight should they ever show their face in public, with a more expensive fix than just paying a bit of money or spending a few days in jail as a penalty. However, given how much time and effort it takes the player to actually find civilization, such a system makes it very easy for the player to "ruin" their game simply by indulging typical player curiosity. 1 hour ago, EmperorPingu said: I don't like that certain blocks cannot (without code) be interacted with inherently by itself. There is the intrusion factor of how I might want to interact with the world, but there is also the immersion breaking factor - "Do you mean to say I can't have that one piece of flint next to you my good man?" Honestly, I'm not really a fan of the limitations myself sometimes, but I can understand why they're there. I wouldn't necessarily mind more wiggle room regarding block placement, however, it's the kind of change I'm quite wary of making, given what I wrote above. The mechanic might not be the most immersive, but it does help tremendously in protecting players from themselves. 1
EmperorPingu Posted January 6 Author Report Posted January 6 @LadyWYT Oh for sure, and I'm with you on many of these points. I actually tried addressing this issue a long time ago when I was still playing minecraft... (bare with me, there is a point to it)... So I've never been a fan of claims - even on minecraft, my favourite type of server would be one where players could grief, scam (in game), and steal from others, and it would be up to the players to defend themselves or form alliances in order to defend themselves (essentially "Anarchy" but without the hacking - I really felt the chaotic "Anarchic" social elements of such a setup made the experience utterly fascinating, brutal, but ultimately addictive). The problem as you could imagine is that on such servers it wouldn't take much to destroy a player - it really was as much as finding their base and it was game over for their entire build they may have spent literal months on - game over in seconds for being discovered. I didn't like that extremity of the gameplay either, and I felt a player should be able to defend their base from intruders even if it was discovered. The problem is the players to have the opportunity to infiltrate or raid bases, but not for it to be game over immedietly just for discovery - so neither "claims" nor the status quo were entirely ideal for this. There was also the added problem of: how could a player defend their base if they were offline whilst there base was being attacked? Also, any placed blocks could be mined up or destroyed really quickly in comparison to the time it took to build. Closest to some kind of compromise I noticed was on some servers they had "factions". In this mode, players would be able to team up and defend a communal base that non-faction members couldn't interact with in the claimed area, but they could attack externally (such as by making tnt cannons and what have you). I still don't have a solution to being able to defend ones base offline or make more difficult the griefing of another's build, but the problem does feel related to the one being discussed regarding the protection of areas needed for general in game progression. I guess as before I once thought that created blocks could be a lot more difficult to harvest than natural blocks. Dungeons themselves could have the excuse of being made of a different kind of material for lore reasons, and that material itself is either unharvestable or really difficult to obtain perhaps? I'm not sure what the right answer is for this one honestly. I do like the idea of an immersive civilisation thingy though lol
Recommended Posts