MS:S map changing, getting around, and traveling

[DarkWasp]

as I could see a low level player getting stranded in a high level area, having joined a high level game

There comes something to mind, what about a "level restriction" which kicks in 5 minutes after mapchange or something so that low level players can't join anymore?

We have discussed internally the possibility of a certain maps having areas within it for different level players. I am sure that it will be better for certain high level maps to be dedicated entirely to the high levels though.

A level restriction could work, giving players a reason to level up so they can try the map. I still think we're going to have to do something a little fancy with the servers to really pull off the desired effect.

In MS:C there are a number of level 15s and such out there with Tork Bows. In MS:S we're going to try to prevent such a thing. So the idea of low level players following in the shadow in 4 high level players rushing down Egyptian corridors and looting high level chests... not in the plans for MS:S. If we cut low levels out with a level restriction, they are burdened by the high level's desire to run elite content.

So here's another one of my crazy server ideas that could make level restrictions work:

Say we had 6 dedicated servers - 3 World Servers and 3 Dungeon Servers.
-The World Servers prevent players from using votemap/transitioning to areas which one or more players are too low to visit.
-The dungeon servers favor the high levels instead and kick low levels out at transitions they aren't high enough to attend.

OR

Similar to my previous idea but less complex to design, the dungeon servers exclusively run dungeon maps and the world servers could exclusively run world maps.

Again, this is just me brainstorming. I have not yet fully analyzed the consequences of my ideas

 

[Srgnt Rehab]

I like the world servers idea where there is now voting to other zones, but they should definately still have dungeon maps accessable... I would not like to explore to a zone that I can't enter without switching servers. However, dungeon servers ONLY running dungeon maps with the acception of maybe towns sounds like a great idea, so long as there is a way to put a lock on it so that people can't randomly join and grief :? although maybe that won't be a problem in MS:S *stairs off into the sky and mumbles, "a world without griefing."*

 

[Age]

*stairs off into the sky and mumbles, "a world without griefing."*

*Looks up to find the same sensation*
Mmm, nope, not seeing it.

 

[DarkWasp]

Well I generally don't think it would be good to encourage the feeling that the higher level players have more important things to do than lower level players.

So it would be best to eliminate the stigma that newbies should step out of the way for more experienced players to do their stuff. It's definitely a hard thing to do in a system where majority vote decides which map the entire server goes to. Especially when the voting usually goes like:

Go to super hard epic level of superior difficulty? Yes or No
-Level 50 player votes YES
-Level 15 player who has been following the level 50 around for association's sake and free stuff votes YES
-Level 20 player who just wants to play the game votes NO
(Levels are just examples)

However, this is what we have to work with. We're not payed developers working on a release that will have servers funded by the company/publisher.

Maybe we'll come up with an ingenious solution though.

 

[Thothie]

In a game world with a smattering of servers averaging maybe four players per sever, on a good day, I don't think you want to take that approach. Quite the opposite: I think you want to allow interaction between low and high level player as much as possible.

Methods for doing that seen in other games is to work healing and aid spells by percentage, instead of fixed numbers. Adjusting difficulty and treasure by number of players, regardless of level, also helps. This gives incentive to keep the lower level players around, while making them actionably useful. Providing advantages for keeping the lower level character nearby and alive also helps add to the sense of comradely between players.

Twinking is easily mitigated by rigid item requirements, such as those laid out in the example system, coupled with a lack of usable drops for low end players in high end areas.

Powerleveling is harder to mitigate, but the simplest way is to only give XP to those within certain range of the fallen beasties, so the low level players cannot simply sit and absorb XP (an auto-detect AFK flag also helps with this). Some listen server based RPG's also distribute XP based on level, or reduce XP to those who failed to damage the MOB. You want to allow some sort of power leveling to give the lower level character some motivation to stick around as well, however.

Final method is to reduce the power gap between players, or to make the power gaps more equipment based, which works, provided the lower level player still has some ability and motivation to aid the higher level ones.

 

[Orochi]

All of this will be taken into consideration. In the meantime, let us actually get the systems WORKING first before we worry about balance.

As for the level-changing system, it shouldn't be too terribly difficult to work in something like Borderlands has, which IMO was one of the better level-switching systems I've seen. Drop-in co-op seems to be the least obtrusive option available.

Supersoup and I have also been knocking around implementation ideas as well for some sort of fast-travel system and only allowing servers to start on hub areas like towns. Personally, I believe servers should only be allowed to start on these "hub" areas, and at least one person must have "discovered" it before. I know people will piss and moan about something like that, but we've also discussed plans for overhauling the gauntlet system to go along with it; it'll be necessary to keep people from screwing around with the gauntlet maps like they do now. Rest assured, the rewards will be worth the hassle.

 

[ceriux]

i had an idea once, basically put a caravan or something at the start of each map, you could pay to have him take you to the map of your choice, each destination a different price. would help a lil with the economy.

 

[Deantwo]

i had an idea once, basically put a caravan or something at the start of each map, you could pay to have him take you to the map of your choice, each destination a different price. would help a lil with the economy.

paying for fast travel? i am kinda in it to say it's a good idea... at least mostly... just shouldn't be over done and should scale a bit with level and number of people maybe...

also... in Borderlands you can't change to a new area unless everyone is willing... why not try that too? i mean... make it so that either everyone agree for the server to change map... or the people wanting to stay/leave will have to go to another server...
maybe a way for a system to auto split the two groups of peoeple (people wanting to stay... and people wanting to leave) and then make the people leaving auto join a free server that then have changed to the map before joining? don't know if it's possible

 

[Orochi]

It's not, not easily anyway. But MS:C is already set up that way; normal transitions work that way, and the votemap is a majority system.

 

[Deantwo]

It's not, not easily anyway. But MS:C is already set up that way; normal transitions work that way, and the votemap is a majority system.

yeah i guess it won't be easy... but if you could get the servers to communicate... one server could tell the other to change map... and then help the people leave onto that server... that way they don't have to join a server that's in a hub and travel again ^^;

 

[Orochi]

The simple fact is that the Source Engine isn't set up for that kind of server-switching. Ignoring the potential security snafu and authentication nightmare that allowing one server to have control over another would bring, it simply isn't feasible to set up one server for every map we have. I believe Thothie already highlighted why it is a bad idea: who will host it? What if we have too many people? Which server should it go to if there are multiple servers? Point being, it's simply technically infeasible outside of an MMO-style client designed for that purpose.

A drop-in Co-op style system in the vein of Borderlands is what we're aiming for at present. It's been done before, it's been proven to work, and work well. We'll just be doing it with more players.