tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6493746554246625397.post3600086841489215859..comments2008-08-29T17:04:29.594+01:00Comments on Of Ice and Fire: On the Impact of PvPChangling bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17319790792209346325noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6493746554246625397.post-81057135982964667422008-02-06T02:36:00.000+00:002008-02-06T02:36:00.000+00:00I'm not so sure that an artificial "game reset" me...I'm not so sure that an artificial "game reset" mechanism is needed.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying there wouldn't be a problem which the game reset seeks to solve, just that there are possibly alternative solutions to the problem.<BR/><BR/>The problem, I'm assuming you imply, is that most games have a rich-get-richer dynamic, where the faction with some advantage gains power which has a positive feedback loop to produce more advantage again and eventually the game arrives at some equilibrium where one über-faction dominates all the others.<BR/><BR/>As an alternative to game resets, could the game be designed with other dynamic effects which only kick in once a faction grows large (or is severely oppressed)? Large factions could succumb to internal politics and split into two smaller factions, or a large empire could grow fat and lazy and then corrupt and then get whomped by lean and mean barbarians, and meanwhile small oppressed factions could resort to guerrilla warfare, have folk heroes emerge, and offer up all the boons and bounty of the kingdom if only some brave adventurer would save them (ie. give bigger rewards for quests as compared to the quests from the fat empire).<BR/><BR/>Build in enough effects like this and instead of the game world stabilizing with some equilibrium, it will teeter and totter and be in regular flux.<BR/><BR/>I especially like the prospect of the number and existence of factions being in flux - the lore of most games include that element over and over again.Garumoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01729693136868673971noreply@blogger.com