A critique on the game, from an experienced player

[Jfloyd]

I've been playing since the first world, and have watched the game develop into what it is now.

I'm going to write a general summary of what I think of the game, what should change, and what I, as a player, expect from my devs.

When I first started, the game had only one grid, and about 50 active players, with about 1000 signed up.
To me, the game played on everything I loved about sandbox games, minus infinite amounts of content.
Instead, that was replaced by the sense of adventure, and even the sense of duty that we had by testing the game.
Then, it wasn't about power, just doing things.

The second map came along, with villages, water, supergrids, new stats , and MUCH more terrain.
It was all of the players dreams come true. Everything was new, and the sense of adventure and duty increased.
Power started to take over though, because things like mines and quality spots became more important. It gave
the game plenty of meaning though. It let us set goals, like finding a 70+ quality spot, and things like that.
Of course, there were the complaints over drowning, and the occasion bug here and there, because people didn't
seem to get that we were just testing it, but you, Jorb and Loftar, made it feel like a real game.

The third map was exciting as well. With even MORE land to explore, it balanced things out with the chance to have
more mines and resources. The disadvantage was that people could still hoard all the resources they needed for themselves.
Trade rarely happened unless two lesser powers converged to try and get what they needed, which isn't hard.

In world 4, I don't expect anything to change, as the Dev's said.
I'd like to see the following features come about, as the game changes though:

-Further resource separation, to encourage trade.
-More practical ways to have trade, be it easier to build roads, or advanced village communication

-More terrains, that focus on certain resources, but aren't easy to find all in one spot.

-More low and mid game content, other than just grinding to make a village.
~ Be it villages become mid-game, and cities are what people strive for.
~OR, lesser forms of authority come about such as hamlets/etc.
~Ways for people to specialize without having to have such high skills, without it being over-powered. (Possibly relevant to who uses the item/specialization, where say, someone with 20 cooking makes a dish that for someone in his Hamlet. That person would appreciate the dish as if it were HQ, whereas someone from a village/city would dislike it)

-More modes of transportation, so teleportation isn't the end-all solution

Overall, the game is turning out quiet well. I appreciate the time and effort that the devs have put into this 'project' of theirs.
I hope that it has turned out as they wished and expected.

[Thijssnl]

Interesting read, no critics on it at the moment

[Grelf]

-Further resource separation, to encourage trade.
-More practical ways to have trade, be it easier to build roads, or advanced village communication
-More terrains, that focus on certain resources, but aren't easy to find all in one spot.

Yes, please. It makes no sense that a single group of people can get access to every single resource and need no peaceful interactions with other villages. This incentives people on being jerks. Also, even if realism is not the focus, it's nothing like that on real life either. No person can get access to everything without trade. And yes, more incentive for communication and easier means for transportation also seem to be very urgent.

-More low and mid game content, other than just grinding to make a village.
~ Be it villages become mid-game, and cities are what people strive for.
~OR, lesser forms of authority come about such as hamlets/etc.
~Ways for people to specialize without having to have such high skills, without it being over-powered. (Possibly relevant to who uses the item/specialization, where say, someone with 20 cooking makes a dish that for someone in his Hamlet. That person would appreciate the dish as if it were HQ, whereas someone from a village/city would dislike it)

I completely agree. Everyone has to have an important role in the game, otherwise it won't work. You can't have a successful MMO sandbox game if only one small group of people catch the spotlights and the rest can't affect the world in any possible way. Again, this is because people are able to get everything by themselves. If it weren't like that people would be nicer to strangers and would also seek to interact and trade more. If everyone gets an important role, everyone will be happy. And yes, grinding sucks, no one likes it.

[naerymdan2]

Many people, me included, like being basically hermits and shun contact, friendly or otherwise. So while I agree a better separation of resources would incite trade and interactions, do not use game mechanics to force people to do something they do not like to be able to play at all.

This reminds me too much of EverQuest 2's beginning: impossible to solo at all, but in a team, the smallest error from any teammate immediately meant death for everyone (any one other than tank aggroing or tank dying, failed combo).

Right now, the scarcity and monopoly of mines creates the trade, in exchange for food/silk. I really wonder what kind of separation of resources would impact only large communes while not changing the game significantly for single players... huge minimum radius for special tools/buildings? Like a maximum of one "wood burning" building per super grid? So you HAVE to trade for charcoal or something like that? I wonder.

[Haba]

Trade in W3 was more active than ever. I'd say it is more the question of making the management of trade hubs easier and having a few more luxury goods that newbies can contribute to.

[sir0die]

if they want to tstimulate trade, make it so you cant steal from barter stands.

[Grelf]

Many people, me included, like being basically hermits and shun contact, friendly or otherwise. So while I agree a better separation of resources would incite trade and interactions, do not use game mechanics to force people to do something they do not like to be able to play at all.

This reminds me too much of EverQuest 2's beginning: impossible to solo at all, but in a team, the smallest error from any teammate immediately meant death for everyone (any one other than tank aggroing or tank dying, failed combo).

Right now, the scarcity and monopoly of mines creates the trade, in exchange for food/silk. I really wonder what kind of separation of resources would impact only large communes while not changing the game significantly for single players... huge minimum radius for special tools/buildings? Like a maximum of one "wood burning" building per super grid? So you HAVE to trade for charcoal or something like that? I wonder.

People can live as hermits just fine, but they just can't expect to get access to the über best equipments of the game that require various different resources without trade. It's like that in real life. You don't have access to everything in a single place. And it's not much different from now in that sense, really, since most hermits in W3 didn't have any mines to begin with.

[Gray]

I suggest that one of the goals as a group would be to increase the size of your settlement.
You found a hamlet, get more people, more structures and authority and it raises to village then city etc...

[Seren_Elder]

yeah

i think once you get enough auth bar, expands into town

then city

i believe emberwood (only 16ish plots) had about 800k authority

[Bonnie]

since most hermits in W3 didn't have any mines to begin with.

I wonder how true this is. I was a hermit for most of my life and and I had 3 mines.