classic questing

[DustyPorViva]

On a classic-type server, there is a quest. How would you prefer it? Serverside, or clientside? I'll explain:

Serverside questing would mean all scripts are written in serverside, therefor everyone can participate and effect others. For example, there is a block. If I push it, you see me push it and its position moves for you as well.

Clientside means everything will be local to you. If you push a block, no one else sees the block move, just you.

Pro/cons:
- Serverside: participation and community effort. People will be able to help each other out. The down side is though that this will happen whether you want help or not. If I enter a level with a puzzle and someone else was already there and just about finished, you have no puzzle to solve. Sometimes people may like this as it makes it way easier, but sometimes someone really does want to try out the puzzle.

- Clientside: You get the whole experience. You don't miss a beat. However, being Graal is an online game it is kind of contradictory to... well, the setting. Even if you want help, no one will be able to -- bar giving you verbal instructions. It eliminates the feeling of being able to tackle something together in an online community.


Theoretical/In planning:
Party questing. Quests are generated separately. Therefor, if you enter a quest, and someone else enters the quest right before you, you'll never see each other because you are both in different levels that have been 'cloned'. However, you can begin a party with a group of people and the levels are opened to all players in the party, therefor you can all participate in completing it together. However, because of this levels would be temporary to reduce build-up, so if you enter a quest and complete half, and then come back a week later, you'll most likely have to start over. Same as if you start a quest with a party and then quit the party and attempt it by yourself(because of the way the whole thing would be handled).

[Crono]

if 1 was clientside, 5 was party, and 10 was serverside, I'd pick around 7.5.

[MysticX2X]

Well depends on the type of quest. Single player quests should be clientside. Not very sure on the party quest idea. If you mean requiring multiple people to complete the quest, sure serverside.

[salesman]

I would like to see a server successfully include all three.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by MysticX2X

Well depends on the type of quest. Single player quests should be clientside. Not very sure on the party quest idea. If you mean requiring multiple people to complete the quest, sure serverside.

I don't mean you'd need a party to complete a quest, but the ability for a party to complete the quest together, to make things easier.

There may, however, be some quests that would require a party of 4 to complete or such. Mainly optional, and of course that's a huge maybe. If there were quests like that, there wouldn't be many as I don't like the idea of limiting new players by having them find other players willing to help them. However, if the prize was something not unique, like say a gralat gift or some sort of temporary boost, it would encourage players to complete it more than once, therefor giving newer players a chance to as well... however I imagine that veterans would rather party with familiar people instead of newbies. Then again, those who aren't in cliques and such would be able to work together as well.

[maximus_asinus]

I like quests where you have to work as a group to achieve a goal (Stefan's quest on Graal2001), BUT I would much rather all quests have a possibility of just a single player (or a group 2) to complete a quest themselves. It was frustrating trying to do Stefan's quest because you needed 4 people and a bomy (I think) to complete the quest. After a fair amount of people had completed the quest, you would very rarely find others willing to help you if they had the reward.

I liked it when you were questing and found a random newbie along the way and then worked with them to complete the quest. Hope you don't implement that party system.

[unknown]

I think it's pretty cool to party with friends, even if they have or you have done the quests.

[kia345]

Party would be awesome. Clientside would be lonely at times. Serverside would be lame, with people coming in just to ruin the experience.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by maximus_asinus

I liked it when you were questing and found a random newbie along the way and then worked with them to complete the quest. Hope you don't implement that party system.

The party system would be completely optional. You could simply do the quest on your lonesome, or if you'd like a little help, start a party to tackle it. It allows the possibilities to let players approach the game like a single-player game, but allow them the option of doing so with other players if they want. There would be no 'you NEED a party of 4 to complete this quest' scenarios in the main 'story'.

However, like I stated in my previous post, I would possibly consider some optional quests for full parties. However, these would not be part of the main story and thus no major prizes like fullhearts or major items would be won from it.

Right now either going clientside or serverside would be MUCH simpler... however I'd love to somehow find a way to make the party system without duplicating levels. eg, synchronize all NPCs for players in a party, but not for other players who happen to be in the level.

[maximus_asinus]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

The party system would be completely optional. You could simply do the quest on your lonesome, or if you'd like a little help, start a party to tackle it. It allows the possibilities to let players approach the game like a single-player game, but allow them the option of doing so with other players if they want. There would be no 'you NEED a party of 4 to complete this quest' scenarios in the main 'story'.

I think the ideal option would be designing the quests for a single player but with multiple shortcuts if you're playing with a party (like two levers you could pull that would open a gate). Players could enter the quest alone, but if they stumble upon a lone newbie who is also progressing through the same quest, they could take advantage of some of these shortcuts.

Players who choose to quest alone shouldn't be stuck playing alone for the majority of the quest. Quest levels don't need to be duplicated or sealed to isolated one party or player, it should be open to all players to promote player interaction.

If I am stuck halfway through a quest and can't progress through a certain point, it would be nice if I could mass "hey I am stuck at X position in this quest, could someone head down and help me?" or maybe even wait for another player to come through to help me out. Your option would completely disable that, and would be incredibly frustrating to the players who might fall into the "I am stuck" scenerio. I wouldn't want to redo an entire quest!

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by maximus_asinus

I think the ideal option would be designing the quests for a single player but with multiple shortcuts if you're playing with a party (like two levers you could pull that would open a gate). Players could enter the quest alone, but if they stumble upon a lone newbie who is also progressing through the same quest, they could take advantage of some of these shortcuts.

Players who choose to quest alone shouldn't be stuck playing alone for the majority of the quest. Quest levels don't need to be duplicated or sealed to isolated one party or player, it should be open to all players to promote player interaction.

If I am stuck halfway through a quest and can't progress through a certain point, it would be nice if I could mass "hey I am stuck at X position in this quest, could someone head down and help me?" or maybe even wait for another player to come through to help me out. Your option would completely disable that, and would be incredibly frustrating to the players who might fall into the "I am stuck" scenerio. I wouldn't want to redo an entire quest!

Indeed, hence my last sentence. I would love to find out a way to make partying as dynamic and hassle-free as possible. Syncing NPCs to parties may be a chore, however, if even possible. If it turns out possible, what I'll do is I'll set NPCs to link to 'leaders' in a party. This would be the first player in a party to enter a level(so if other players from the party enter the level later, they will see what the first player has been doing), and if a party is started in the middle of a quest, whoever started the party.

Or, what I may do if I go route of duplicating levels, is name the 'clones' after the player. And when in a party, the party always enters the clones of the party leader. Therefor, if I'm in a quest and stuck, I can start a party and when back-up comes, they will enter my instance of the quest instead of their own. However, I am much in favor of figuring out some way of syncing rather than creating instances.

[Luda]

Could make the quests harder when you have a party, like baddies having more hp or more baddies spawning?

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Luda

Could make the quests harder when you have a party, like baddies having more hp or more baddies spawning?

Honestly, I don't really like the idea of that. Mainly because I would like an incentive for players to party, and simply balancing factors between single-player questing and party questing would possibly make it pointless to party. This would also give the players a choice to either enjoy a more difficult setting or to lighten the load a bit if they really are having a hard time. I don't want to FORCE the player to have a frustratingly difficult time on a quest.

[kia345]

A party shouldn't encourage the players to "stick together" though. I'd like to see a division of labor of sorts. You go hunt for some keys, you look for a map or something, you tackle those mini bosses, and you solve that puzzle. Not just everyone mob up and run through the quest.

[Luda]

Four Swords for quest ideas? :O