| Author |
New suggestion - pagoda / giants |
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 |  Posted: 19-10-2008 20:59
How about a mechanism for opening these, independent of number of players online?
Pagoda maybe isn't necessary as it opens fairly regularly, but it seems to me a shame that the giants area goes to waste. I'd love to play that area more often, and outside of a bash.
|
Miek
pioneer
Joined: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 315 | Posted: 19-10-2008 21:22
yeah that'd be good addition
/zedar
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 31-10-2008 18:34
I read an article by Richard somewhere (I cannot for the life of me find it again) which in effect said that there was a relationship between the number of players in the game and the size of the land, which made the game playable and enjoyable. This is why the Giants and the Pag open up when more players come in.
With this in mind, I wonder if it would not be better if the areas (other than the original MUDi Land and and Valley) which open at the start, be be chosen by random. Let me explain. The main surface land (North and South of the Cottage and the Valley) would always be open (it would have to be) but all other areas might be open or shut depending on numbers. So it would be possible to start a game with the Giants' open say and the Formal Garden not.
I have no idea if this would be possible technically or not, but it would bring in a bit of variety and enable us to play in areas we cannot normally get to.
[ This Message was edited by: royston on 31-10-2008 18:40 ]
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 31-10-2008 21:56
So you mean have an area that alternates with giants/pagoda so that we get to see each area regularly, but the overall size of the land stays the same?
Interesting possibility, could be considered quite a radical change though for existing areas to suddenly become inaccessible. Would change the dynamic where those areas contain important items of kit, or items used for puzzles in different areas. I was discussing this with Throwaway in the tearoom while writing this, and he suggested that the dwarf citadel could be interchangeable with pagoda without any big consequences that we could think of. Still quite a radical change though.
As for Richard's point that you mentioned, I can see the need for the Land to increase as the number of players goes up, but is the reverse true? I don't see a bigger Land as really having a negative impact on a small number of players. If there's too much to do for the number of players, the area can just be ignored.
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 31-10-2008 22:13
I wasn't thinking of regular alternatives as much as bringing a random choice of say three areas which would be inaccessable when few players are on.
Clearly an element of frustration would be brought in if certain kit were not available. But this would surely stretch players.
I would also suggest that Redwoods be treated in the same way and removing the existing 'key' to opening it up.
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 31-10-2008 22:17
I think though that Redwood in its current form serves as a good example of why having an optional extra area does no harm to the game. Most players are barely aware of it, and I certainly cant think of a time it had a negative impact on the game (other than bashes - but there are countless other ways to disrupt a bash for players who are that way inclined).
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 31-10-2008 22:24
Like you say, the trouble with Redwoods is that it is suprising how few people know about it. And only about three players know how to open it up. So we get little chance of going there and acquiring the skill to get past the rocs and swamping the large ovate T.
_________________
|
