collapse

Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: City Discussion  (Read 24527 times)

Offline Link6746

  • Neonate
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Reputation: 302
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2010, 01:31:56 AM »
I think personally that multiple cities is a good idea, but on launch there should only be one city- Each city should have wilderness between them (the first having wilderness Around it at launch), and be added (along with more wilderness space) with each expansion (which due to CCP's normal procedure you'd expect to be free and part of an update)

This would allow the benefits of both single-city and multi-city options at once in the later stages, and allow the launch-included city to be as large as a real one (potentially a megacity like L.A. and suburbs, or N.Y. given the estimated release date)

Offline Don Strudel

  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Reputation: 475
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2010, 02:00:37 AM »
This would allow the benefits of both single-city and multi-city options at once in the later stages, and allow the launch-included city to be as large as a real one (potentially a megacity like L.A. and suburbs, or N.Y. given the estimated release date)
What is the point of having multiple cities? What does it add to the game?

A single city can have all the same stuff that multiple cities can have. Multiple princes? Rewrite the setting to accommodate them in one city. Complex politics? We already have several thousand estimated players; politics will flow naturally out of that.

There is no point to having multiple cities. It would take away development from more important things.
Let's face it, Humans Are Bastards, and the only reason the Crapsack World we live in has a semblance of civility and law is fear of reprisal.

Offline Mir

  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Reputation: 282
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2010, 02:13:46 AM »
The problem is that, as far as we know, the players are, by and large, going to be Vampires (and as the game expands post-launch, probably other supernaturals).  A hundred thousand Vampires in a single city is a bit excessive.  Multiple large cities could work (if they actually have the resources to create a game world that big), or having a one-city world with multiple servers, with the more typical server population of 2-5K, could also keep the mortal-to-supernatural ratio looking right.  I personally think the multi-server option is more feasible.
Again, an MMOG has different needs than a tabletop game. You are the only people who would care that there are too many vampires. It is a non-issue.

If we followed your hardcore view, we'd have hundreds of cities 200 acres in size each, and no one would care what happens on other servers. The point of having a single city is that it allows for events to affect everyone. For example, EVE Online is the only MMOG that has its own newsfeed.
Well, no; if we followed my view, we'd have one city of realistic scale, but have twenty or thirty servers. 

And come now, wanting multiple servers with a population cap of 5K or so is hardly hardcore.  Hardcore is wanting to have a single server, but wanting each individual city on that server to harbor a population of no more than 50 Vampires (a oppinion held by at least a couple people on these boards).

It's true, the MMO will change things of the setting to make it fit better in an MMO; this is inevitable, and proper.  That being said, there should be effort made to try and keep the general feel of the setting, even when the specifics are being altered.  Trying to maintain that whole "one Vampire to every 100,000 mortals" thing would be ridiculous, but a degree of rarity is appropriate to the setting; if we're running into gangs of Vampires on every street corner, something has gone wrong in the game design.

Offline Valamyr

  • Kindred
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Reputation: 378
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2010, 04:11:24 AM »
I prefer one huge, detailled city myself, because you can only have so much hand-generated content.

You CAN fill in with random content like in EVE, but what works in space is ugly in RPG games.

So my preference is: make a really big city, make it really good, do not use separate servers, but instead: just instance everything. The difference is that you can then move freely between instances, giving you the possibility to always be with your friends, and of a single economy and set of political events.

The drawback is that it harms continuity and makes it easy for players to "hide", but hey. Im OK with that. Its a MUCH better idea than "sharding". Probably instanced and coded, this system would allow for limitless growth, AND would also have the advantage of limitless shrinkage if the game is not played as much as expected. To need to merge things; it'd all be done on the fly.

Its the only solution for "one game space" I can think of aside from randomly generating every area... and I dont like that. I suppose "Guild Wars" is a reasonable example of an online game with an instancing model like I suggest.

Im also in favor of wilderness areas, obviously. Now thats something that can be randomly generated a bit more effectively than a city space...

Offline _username

  • Got Stront?
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 6732
  • Reputation: 874
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2010, 04:50:51 AM »
On the one hand, a realistic population ratio would mean that you could wander the streets for months without running into other Kindred.  Great for atmosphere, but bad for story...unless you have an ST to tie everything together.

On the other hand, a single shard would mean that a disproportionate number of pedestrians are Kindred.  However, single-shard persistent worlds tend to balance out their own population densities over time.  In Eve there are some 5000 settled solar systems, and another few thousand wormhole (sporadically accessible) systems.  People clump together around trade hubs, in-game events and border regions (like hi/lo borders and lo/null borders).  In Jita there are often 1200 people logged in, and upwards to 100 of them are clustered around the undock point outside of 4-4.  Another 300 are inside.  At the same time, there are many hundreds of 0.0 systems that are empty.  You could park a heavy interdictor on a gate all day and not see a single person.  I want WoD to be the same way...like in real life, population centers can be built based on geography (New Orleans), border regions (Denver) or due to some political necessity (Salt Lake City).
LUNA NOBIS PROVIDET

Offline Don Strudel

  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Reputation: 475
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2010, 04:57:28 AM »
Instancing doesn't work for PVP-oriented games. It's designed to allow people to run through dungeons without competing with other players. The whole point of World of Darkness is competition with other factions for wealth and power and territory, and not simply through combat, but through political and economic manipulation.

You cannot simply instance player housing; players should be able to carve out their own fiefdoms and hunting grounds where others should not trespass. It offers a more tantalizing reward to the player.
Let's face it, Humans Are Bastards, and the only reason the Crapsack World we live in has a semblance of civility and law is fear of reprisal.

Offline _username

  • Got Stront?
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 6732
  • Reputation: 874
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2010, 05:04:17 AM »
You cannot simply instance player housing; players should be able to carve out their own fiefdoms and hunting grounds where others should not trespass. It offers a more tantalizing reward to the player.
Good point.  Reminds me of mining in Eve.  But you know...it's alliances using lethal force to defend their Ice Fields, rather than a Cainite and his ghouls using lethal force to preserve their Herd.  Same principle, though.
LUNA NOBIS PROVIDET

Offline Valamyr

  • Kindred
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Reputation: 378
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2010, 05:32:13 AM »
Instancing doesn't work for PVP-oriented games. It's designed to allow people to run through dungeons without competing with other players. The whole point of World of Darkness is competition with other factions for wealth and power and territory, and not simply through combat, but through political and economic manipulation.

You cannot simply instance player housing; players should be able to carve out their own fiefdoms and hunting grounds where others should not trespass. It offers a more tantalizing reward to the player.

Thats an acceptable argument, except I don't want WOD to be PVP-oriented 'THAT WAY'. At all.

Not only do I want instanced player housing, but I want social and physical PVP to occur mostly within mutual consent framework. Thats the best recipe for long-term success. Allow players to win and lose some things through fighting each other, but make fighting each other easy to avoid so that people who don't like that aspect of the game do not have to engage in it. Fairly different from canon PNP? Yes. A winning MMO strategy? YES. Most fun to play in the long run? HELL YEAH!

Offline _username

  • Got Stront?
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 6732
  • Reputation: 874
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2010, 05:53:36 AM »
Sounds like the people in NPC corps, living in hi-sec and ensuring 5km+ separation from everybody else's cans at all times.  CONCORD is your friend.







Or they'll kill you on sight, with with no chance to tank or cloak.  Your best bet is to run away, screaming your last will and testament to whichever corpies are on TeamSpeak at the time.

You mileage may vary.
LUNA NOBIS PROVIDET

Offline Valamyr

  • Kindred
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Reputation: 378
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2010, 08:09:08 AM »
Unfortunately I dont understand EVEspeak  :p

Offline Dark_Ghost

  • Fledgling
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Reputation: 215
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2010, 09:32:21 AM »
This would allow the benefits of both single-city and multi-city options at once in the later stages, and allow the launch-included city to be as large as a real one (potentially a megacity like L.A. and suburbs, or N.Y. given the estimated release date)
What is the point of having multiple cities? What does it add to the game?

A single city can have all the same stuff that multiple cities can have. Multiple princes? Rewrite the setting to accommodate them in one city. Complex politics? We already have several thousand estimated players; politics will flow naturally out of that.

There is no point to having multiple cities. It would take away development from more important things.

more important things? the MOST important thing in the World of Darkness was the city you played in. princes, primogen, entire sects came and went, but the cities were where you fought and died, they were where the story was, they were characters unto themselves.

Eve is one server, yes, but it still has different regions, different security ratings. I am fairly cretin that CCP can add multiple cities. I KNOW white wolf will push for them as they are HUGE places of storyline, development, NPCs of all types. Until we see design document leaks or a dev blog, i'd bet on seeing multiple cities.

Offline Dark_Ghost

  • Fledgling
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Reputation: 215
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2010, 09:39:03 AM »
Instancing doesn't work for PVP-oriented games. It's designed to allow people to run through dungeons without competing with other players. The whole point of World of Darkness is competition with other factions for wealth and power and territory, and not simply through combat, but through political and economic manipulation.

You cannot simply instance player housing; players should be able to carve out their own fiefdoms and hunting grounds where others should not trespass. It offers a more tantalizing reward to the player.

that doesn't work for mmo's real people have real lives in the real world. they can't stay logged on to protect their lands, like a vampire living in the WoD world would be able to.. now if we can hire guards, or make ghouls or create our own armies of whatever to guard our properties then what the hell. as long as we have the tools to protect said assets then i would be cool with it.

I don't think that having instanced content would be bad, but i don't think that all content should be instanced. there needs to be some danger and such.

Offline Kian

  • Fledgling
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Reputation: 215
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2010, 09:41:58 AM »
What is the point of having multiple cities? What does it add to the game?

A single city can have all the same stuff that multiple cities can have. Multiple princes? Rewrite the setting to accommodate them in one city. Complex politics? We already have several thousand estimated players; politics will flow naturally out of that.

There is no point to having multiple cities. It would take away development from more important things.
Whats the point of having a single city? What does it add to the game?
Multiple cities can have all the same stuff as a single city...only multiplied  :razz:
No point to having one city, it would detract from the World of Darkness.

They could even be going the route of having a starter city depending on which sect you belong to and have other cities where the sects are trying to take control. I guess we'll all be left to speculate for some time but to add to my point above - its not called City of Darkness...
=P

Offline Ashtone

  • Fledgling
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Reputation: 222
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2010, 07:00:26 PM »
I would like to see one well detailed city to start with. it could have multiple different areas done in rings, like eve, with low risk areas with more security in and around the centre, going in to no mans land around the outskirts and edge of the city. that way i think the low or no security areas, like in eve, will be fairly empty, especially if there is a severe death penalty. if its a big enough city, it wont seem overpopulated to start with, ccp could release another city maybe 6 months to a year after launch or as the games population grows.

Offline PGM1961

  • Apprentice Imagineer
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1527
  • Reputation: 961
Re: Why multiple cities are a bad idea: they don't scale well
« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2010, 08:51:07 PM »
They could even be going the route of having a starter city depending on which sect you belong to and have other cities where the sects are trying to take control. I guess we'll all be left to speculate for some time but to add to my point above - its not called City of Darkness...

Exactly.  I don't expect there to be only 1 vampire per 100,000 mortals, like in PnP... but I don't want everyone I meet on the street to be a vampire, either.  To keep the flavor of the World of Darkness, there have to be multiple cities, and mortals have to outnumber vampires, even if it's only a 10-1 ratio.  The whole point of the Masquerade is "Humans outnumber us; we must keep our existence secret."

It is also important for individual vampires to be able to make a difference in their city, if they are successful enough.  If there's only one city and 10,000 vampires are vying for control of the city's police department, who has control?  An alliance of 500 vampires cannot become Prince of Mega-City, or even just the city's Primogen.  People have stated numerous times in this forum that they don't want the WODMMO to be "WOW with fangs."  Well, I'll come right out and say that I don't want it to be "EVE Online with Fangs", either.  When I ask who the Prince of the city is, I don't want the answer to be, "Oh, the Fangula Conglomerate runs this city."

The reason that the "(Insert city name) by Night" books were so popular is that each city had its own flavor.  If CCP wants to start with one city, that's okay; but there have to be more than one as the game progresses.  Nobody expects each city to be the size of New York City or Los Angeles; they can feel big, without being true scale.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2010, 09:26:14 PM by PGM1961 »
An honorable man will still do the right thing, even when he knows there is no chance that he will be caught and punished for doing wrong... and even if it costs him dearly.

 

* Game Files