As I’ve said on our Forums and in other places, we’re trying to create a system that will not appeal to everybody, but one that is interesting and exciting to a wide range of players. If we can do that, then the same system will also work for our Orders. You can have a slow progression system without making it grindy by forcing people to craft thousands of arrows, or beat up on a rock until their wrists fall off, etc.Īs always, it boils down to whether we can make this rather unique approach to leveling up a character in a computer-based RPG work for our Backers and players. Now, the larger and/or more active Orders can earn the rewards faster, but the key to making the entire system work is that our game is not intended to be grindy, in any way. They don’t have to be successful at it (though it doesn’t hurt) to earn most of the same rewards that larger, more successful Orders can earn. Now, what does active mean? In our Realm Rewards system, it means that they show up and try to play the game, whether as crafters or combatants. One of the things we are doing with these rewards is to allow Orders to earn them, over time, simply by being an active Order in the game. Secondly, our Order progression rewards function in a similar way to our overall Realm Rewards, in that progression can be earned in multiple ways. That’s a pretty big change from other systems that have been used over the years. For example, none of the progression rewards give an Order an advantage in combat. Mark Jacobs: Funny how things change, right? In looking at our system, the progression we have planned for Orders is quite different, in a lot of ways, from other similar systems, even ones that I have worked on myself. Tell me I’m wrong! Tell me your progression system is based on time and not size/grind/power? And even then, how will newbie guilds compete? Orders are getting a lot of stuff - shops, property, banks, guild halls, clothing marks, and a deep progression system - and I’m deeply worried that a small order is just not going to be able to compete. Now that I’ve seen the fleshed-out doc, I suspect the opposite. Massively OP: When I read the first version of this document, I suspected large guilds that enjoy their role as MMO content gatekeepers would freak out that they weren’t being pandered to, that there wasn’t much to differentiate small orders from permanent warbands. It’s a whopper, but it’s worth reading for a glimpse into what could be the future of MMO community planning. You put Jacobs in a virtual room with me and my questions go on forever, and damn if he doesn’t answer them exhaustively. Fair warning: While Camelot Unchained’s document is almost 6000 words, this interview itself is close to 4000. I strongly urge you to check out the original doc first, as the interview assumes knowledge of the basic terminology and structure of the game. There’s even a Star Trek quote and a bonus question about Warhammer Online’s development and CU’s budget at the end!
#Camelot unchained tuatha how to
That’s the goal, anyway!ĬU boss and MMORPG veteran developer Mark Jacobs, whom many of you know personally thanks to his ubiquity in our comments section, gamely answered about a thousand of my questions over the weekend, which we’ve compiled into an absurdly long interview about how to properly smush together all these groups into a social system sandwich that makes everybody happy. But there are more layers to contend with, including perma-groups or mini-guilds (Permanent Warbands), as well as project-oriented raids (Campaigns), all designed in the service of an ambitious RvR-centered MMO that makes space for soloers and small guilds by not over- or under-privileging the largest teams in the genre. Parts of those social systems will look familiar to MMO players, such as groups (Warbands), guilds (Orders), and raids (Battlegroups). Over the weekend, the studio behind crowdfunded RvR MMORPG Camelot Unchained released a hefty chunk of its ongoing beta one document, revealing extensive insight into the way the game’s social systems will be laid out.
0 kommentar(er)
