Guildquests (i'm here again but more thought out this time)
#21
fs_deciever11
Posted 10 August 2008 - 19:17
#22
fs_gatticus
Posted 10 August 2008 - 20:19
• A private mercenary (which is based upon the guildlevel at the time of completion, note not too powerfull nor too weak). But in order to get the ability to use this mercenary, you first need a structure called barracks. A structure that you can only build through the guildquests, so you need to get the barracks unlocked before you can use this mercenary. The barracks could have one upgrade so that it can house two mercs. But the more mercs it houses the higher the upkeep cost (prices no idea about of the upkeep). The guildfounder then can hire the unlocked merc to house into the barracks or fire one that remains in the buildings.
I think this is agreat idea and great way to solve some of the complainst about not being able to hire Mercs and the mercs would be relatively level appropriate for the guild. You could have to complete a "Find the Architect" Quest in order to build the Barracks structure. Then when your guild increase in overall guild level and you outgrow your 2 "Indenture Merc" (Or whatever you call them) then you can complete the quests for two more and fire the old ones. Maybe the structure maintenance cost should go up as the average Merc level goes also (modifier). Great idea!
#23
fs_tyrnok
Posted 10 August 2008 - 21:39
#24
Posted 11 August 2008 - 03:41
#25
fs_sadnezz
Posted 11 August 2008 - 04:08
#26
fs_tawniteamo
Posted 11 August 2008 - 04:42
#27
fs_gatticus
Posted 11 August 2008 - 14:59
#28
Posted 11 August 2008 - 15:49
#29
fs_devinegod
Posted 11 August 2008 - 17:22
#30
fs_paymon
Posted 12 August 2008 - 02:36
#31
Posted 12 August 2008 - 10:44
Wonderfully thought out, though i see just one potential issue (and nope, i actually think hard relics or SEs shouldn't be left out... if you are unlucky and you get the blue chasm, as an example, well, amen, will go better next time; why should we always win easy in this game?).
The problem is linking certain difficulty variables on the quest "generator" to the guild level. Two guilds may be both at level 200, but while one has many low level players, the other one might have only a small bunch of very high level ones. It's quite a common sight around. These two hypothetical guilds will have a very different ability to reach certain realms, attack-defend certain relics or kill certain SEs, etc.
The variable should be linked someway to take into account the highest level active player in the guild and an average of all the player levels.
This is something that would be quite hard to code, and still would leave several possible issues (a single player rising the average level of the guild is in vacation, and most quest generated aren't faceable by the other guilders, as an example).
The best solution, and also the easiest to code, would be imho by presenting a further choice when selecting your weekly quest(s): the chance of choosing between a certain number of categories (let's say 3 just for the sake of explanation) that will refer to a different generator suited for low-mid or high level guilds. A theorically "small" guild but composed of few high level players could then try (still at their risk of course) an higher generator category, while a "big" guild with, let's say, most of their high level players off for a while could always go for a lower level one to be safe, and so on.
That way you "only" have to code that basic generator with just a few variants, without having to go crazy in coding a way to make 'em automatically adapt to a certain guild/player level.
Hmmm, didn't think about that one, good you pointed it out.
I also like the option of giving guilds the option between low, mid and high categories. Nonetheless if it would be this way, rewards have to be accordingly too.
Altough thumb ups for this suggestion you made on the idea
#32
Posted 15 August 2008 - 11:27
New idea for a reward.
Recipes that can only be obtained through guildquests
Components can be a reward
Plants can be a reward
#33
fs_k00lb1rd67
Posted 15 August 2008 - 15:16
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
