I don’t think that the villagers should be able to change their class, at the very least he should have to go backwards in the carrier tree to advance up a new route. So that a villager looses experience in total if you choose poorly in the job allocation.
The “beastmaster” looks like basically there is no difference if you go the “hunter” or the “shephard” route and biggest “plus” would be to have a 2in1 profession (completely based on assumptions on the small skill tree released).
Sounds quite good in a city-management game with limited population. Makes just sense to have multiple professions for single units to help balancing queued up jobs etc.
However i would have some concern in regards of the RPG element. I would at least consider on top of that another split up into high-end class/profession that is not “simply” a 2in1 class but has on-top of that a unique flair/speciality.
So basically after “beastmaster” you can chose either a 2in1 class focused on shephard tree (something like “dragon tamer”) or a 2in1 class focused on the hunter aspect (i.e. “dragon hunter”) - this way you still have the benefits of the 2in1 for the city management and some unique flair for the rpg layer.
@Geoffers747 First of all, did yea miss me? I’ve been out on vacation but I’ve been keeping up with the forums through my smart phone!
Anyways, I agree with everything you said. I wouldn’t be too concerned about the classes and the balancing. I think it’s in very good hands and the devs know what they’re doing. I’d expand on why I think that, but you already said it all so it’s a moot point.
Now that coop is established, I hope you plan on playing with me Geoffers. I’m looking forward to it!
Is there any word on how many players can be on a single server?
I would imagine it would depend on how many people your hardware can handle. I don’t think the software would have any issue generating a bigger map to play on. With everything being moddable, even if they set a limit, you could probably write a mod to make it bigger.
Okay if you include aging, and that being the cause of some deaths, there could be guilds. Imagine a smithing guild, starts out with a few basic smiths, but they have apprentices. Imagine that each level would be like 1 -requires 100 xp 2 -requires 800 xp 3 - requires 3000 xp, etc. But one thing, A first generation smith could only get to say… 1500 xp, and his apprentice, after a long time of working under the maxed first gen smith, would reach his max of say 2200 or some random xp number. Anyways, you would want to grow your guild and produce many next gen workers. I’m sure there could be some equation for this, but this is just some idea I’m throwing out there. I hope you like it
I hope you like the concept, the numbers are completely out of my head
Oh you’re back @DAWGaMims, I guess I was just living in false hope that you’d become disinterested and left the forums … Now I have to talk to you and stuff …
Erm, as for playing co-op with you … I have er, dial up, yer that’s it, dial up and won’t be able to connect to you specifically.
As for word on number of people on the server I’ll just go check the multiplayer section of that Q & A I’ve compiled, and OH WHAT DO YA KNOW
good to have you back!
Schweet! I r excited! It would be wonderful if we could have a game completely void of NPF (non-playable factions? lol) and entirely PvP.
We shall see!
You could have 200 theoretically, but the world would need to have like 50 continents. If you have a server that can support a world the size of Jupiter, 200 players would be awesome. Imagine being invaded by a civilization you’ve never even heard of. As for a co-op game, anything above 10 seems a bit excessive, for factioned games though, 200 would be awesome. I guess the real question becomes, what happens when one player is on and the other player isn’t? Does player A’s city disappear? Does the game require that all players be logged in in order to play in that game? What happens when someone builds where player A built his city while his city is disappeared? Does his city turn into a mountain or otherwise immortal? What if he has a sick location and I want to conquer it so I can build there but he quit playing or was deployed or otherwise is absent for a really long time?
But you’re assuming that everyone would have their own city instead of cooperatively managing one settlement. the terminology the devs have been using the describe coop has me worried.
They wouldn’t limit the scope of it to something that narrow. That would be really dumb. Working together is great and all but most gamers are competitive and there’s nothing more competitive than invading each other’s cities.
What if every player was given a set of settlers to control all towards the benefit of one town if you so desired?
Sorry, but that’s definitely not how it’s being described on the KS page; it appears that Radiant already has a pretty specific model in mind for co-op, but of course things are subject to change. I’m still confused about how people have been making the jump from co-op play to PVP play, since the two terms are basically antonyms…
But back on topic, based on Tom’s feedback I think the leveling system will work out smoothly; you give a tool to character and they gain experience at the job, when you gain enough enough experience you can give them a new tool and they jump to the new class. I think that it would sense if XP is earned ‘towards’ a certain tree; so if you worked a carpenter up to a blacksmith and then decided to you need another weaver (or whatever) you couldn’t just give the blacksmith a loom and make them a weaver; you’d have to ‘demote’ them back to a shepherd (or whatever) and have them work their way back up. Maybe jobs should be split by functional area to allow the experience to be tracked?
Wait isn’t this the discussion of the class system?
With the ability to have players in the game with you and also having access to the NPC code, both hostile and non-hostile, it really shouldn’t be hard to write a mod that allows you to make other players hostile. The only real question is whether or not the final feel/style of the game would support a player vs player mode.
I agree with you, I think that each character should develop levels towards the class they are playing and not general levels. Being able to make magic swords doesn’t make you a good physician after all. Also doesn’t make you good at making magic armor in my opinion, I think it should split into specializations for weapon and armor smiths.
Yep, I’m sure that mods to support ‘live’ PvP (vs the City Raid mechanic) could be feasible, perhaps down the road, if Radiant doesn’t add the feature themselves. But many people have been saying ‘yes, co-op multiplayer unlocked, I can’t wait to smash my friend’s cities!’, but that’s just multiplayer, not co-op multiplayer. So I just want to clear up any misunderstanding.
ANYWAY, I agree that better weapons and armor should be a split class if possible, as it definitely is two different skills sets. I think switching to a related class should be easier than switching to a totally unrelated class; going from swordsmith to armorsmith should be easier than going from swordsmith to brewer. It should probably require dropping back to the last ‘common’ requirement to swap jobs; so if both swordsmith and armorsmith derived from blacksmith than you drop back to the blacksmith class and then re-learn the experience needed for armorsmith. If you wanted to go off in a totally different direction you’d have to drop all the way back to laborer.
I’ve been reading the dev’s statements on multiplayer and I think I’m in agreement with you. My problem is that it’s clear that the overwhelming expectation is PVP multiplayer, and the devs know it, yet I haven’t seen them make an explicit statement clarifying the issue. I just am afraid of a HUGE backlash if people don’t get the game they were expecting come Dec. But we’ll see.
Honestly it probably won’t be in the start of the beta. There are SO many things that need to be worked out before you start looking at balance and counters. There can’t be a end-all-be-all best unit in pvp or it turns into who can make the most of them the fastest. It needs to be situational or pvp goes stale quickly. Basically pvp is a mess and I think if it goes in, it will be halfway through the beta period. I’d love to see a d&d meets simcity meets dwarf fortress meets age of empires. What multiplayer will be beyond city sharing is yet to be seen and is 100% speculation. The devs know people want more than just city sharing but a lot of it comes down to logistics. I’ve posted my ideas as far as what issues I think they’ll face somewhere, might have been this thread…
edit: meets settlers of catan, lets throw that one in there too.
edit2: From the KS comments section: Radiant Entertainment- “Keep the comments coming. Please note that the stretch goal is for co-operative multiplayer, co-operative being the important word here. Multiplayer combat is significantly more complicated, and is not part of the stretch goal. Thanks!”
FINALLY we got an answer.
Sucks for a lot of people, but I don’t really care. Never planned on playing coop anyways.
Wait, missed the answer? Que?
I suspected that this was why they haven’t said they would do the more traditional PvP or Coop. I wouldn’t worry too much, though, as I think the more traditional stuff will come eventually. But the devs have said they are focused on giving a quality single player first. Most of the two player has always seemed to be an extension of the single player. Don’t despair all ye who hope for more traditional multiplayer experience. Good things come to those who wait.