This suggestion is in regard to Multiplayer Survival.
It's a common question: How will the game end? How long will it take? As I understand, there are two divided concepts.
1. A game of Survival lasts somewhere between 30 minutes and 2 hours. It is a quick game, to be ended relatively succinctly and then repeated all over again. 2. A server with Survival applied will last for a long time, as in the length of a Creative server. It could last nearly forever as long as the server doesn't need a reset -- long enough that people are worried about totally running out of important resources.
Which one?
I'm hoping for a system that is flexible, and works somewhere in the middle. Currently I'm thinking about it in terms of a game lasting for approximately a week? However, it could be adapted to short games or infinitely long ones.
It's a combination of CONFLICTING GLOBAL GOALS with ADAPTABLE INDIVIDUAL GOALS. Let's move on to describe, in detail, each type of goal and how they come about. Please do point out glaring flaws, as I have yet to write these things so I'm not sure how well they're going to turn out!
[CGG] Conflicting Global Goals.
At the start of a game, a number of global goals are stated. These should be relatively large-scale goals, all of which are equally possible and likely to attract the same number of players. Additionally, the goals should work against one another.
Here is a bad example:
Goal #1: Construct a 3*3*3 solid diamond block. That requires 243 diamond ore.
Goal #2: Kill the dragon (lol). Remember, this is only an example. Doing so might requires a few full sets of diamond equipment for multiple brave combatants.
As such, there would be fighting over diamond supply.
[AIG] Adaptable Individual Goals.
At the start of a game and possibly throughout, a player may choose a title -- or be given a few goals.
Again, look forward to a bad example:
Game starts.
Ab chooses the "murderer" path. Cd chooses the "miner" path.
Ab gets a few goals such as "Acquire a sword". "Murder 2 players". "Murder a player without taking any damage". "Murder a player with fire". "Deal damage to a player who drowns within 5 minutes".
Cd also gets a few goals, like "Acquire a pick". "Mine diamond ore". "Mine over 100 blocks of stone". (Not as good examples)
These two players may be rewarded for other things, but the "path" or "title" that they pick will end up guiding their actions without forcing their hand and making them sub-par at other tasks.
Importantly, no role should force the player's hand, ever. Although you may pick the "murderer" class (or possibly named "killer"), you could easily be only a defender from other killers.
The "miner" who gains points for mining materials -- especially rare materials -- would obviously be inclined to mine, but achieving his global goal should be the most important thing, and even deciding to something other than mining for a while should not be punished.
In expanding the AIG concept, there may be a few subcategories under each category.
Killer will get points for killing, naturally.
> A Murderer simply gets a small bonus applied to every player-kill made. More kills = more points, period.
> A Defender gets bonus points for killing any Killer, or anyone who has killed -- and gets no points otherwise.
> An Assassin gets bonus points for making a kill without taking any damage.
Unfortunately, I'm worried this concept falls flat when it comes to a lot of other things.
I'm unsure as to how one would grant points for things like mining and building, and especially for helping people.
How does that work?
It's things like these that make me doubt the credibility of any point-granting system.
---> Regardless, musings for this sort of thing don't stop here. Imagine four roles (Killer, Miner, Builder, ???), each with four specializations. For every role, you pick one specialization, and among all four roles you pick one to be your focus. A multiplier is applied to the role you choose, and then each specialization applies further special multipliers. To remind you of your path, any action you take will provide you with a number that informs you as to how well that action conformed to the choices you made. There is no penalizing a miner who kills, or a builder who mines -- they simply won't be rewarded as much and as such will have a slight preference towards their specialized activity.
This system is kind of complicated, though.
Other ideas:
Rewards for collecting and planting saplings to full tree adulthood, as a "Gardener"; staying away from other players, as a "Loner" (while still trying to help your chosen CGG along from a distance?); or simply killing mobs, as a "Hunter".
CGGs combined with AIGs.
Every player is allowed to align himself with a certain CGG. If this is done, you might get double (or triple? regardless, a large bonus) points for the completion of the chosen CGG but gain no points for any other. If it is not, you benefit no matter which CGG is completed.
If you do choose to focus on a CGG, you should get more points depending on how much consecutive time you have spent focused on it. Upon changing your focus, every CGG will start off with a 0x multiplier, and work its way up from there. This is to prevent a last-second CGG switch -- your best tactic, if you are already focused elsewhere, is to fight against the current CGG's completion.
Additionally, some global goals might have a timer during which goals cannot be switched. For example, if the goal "build a diamond block (3*3*3) is completed, it may need to be protected for a few minutes.
Every player picks an AIG focus. This may tend to agree with a certain CGG more than another, but nothing is stopping them from choosing to focus on a CGG. For example the "miner" AIG focus might work better with the Diamond Block CGG example given above, but Cd could still choose to align with the Dragon-Killing CGG if he'd like to provide his diamond to fighters instead, and even help fight the dragon himself!
Another player, Ef might have chosen a path that rewards him more for killing mobs and generally dealing damage to mobs, but could still choose to support the Diamond Block CGG rather than the at first obvious Dragon-Killing global goal, in an effort to protect miners and crafters alike from the mobs who might get in the way of their goal.
Final Endgame Rewards, Rankings?
Points granted are based on CGG alignment and AIG completion.
I don't know if they'd have any purpose at all besides "look at me, I did well!"
I'm not really supportive of long-term inter-server, inter-game rewards.
Support for freedom.
I'm not even sure if some system that makes the game end, that grants points or declares victors, is a good thing at all. Minecraft works beautifully without any of these things (I'm almost certain the way points, as they are now, will change).
This thread isn't about discussing whether or not we should have a game's end condition, or a points system at all; it's about what we can do to make such a thing viable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to see forum posts saying "how do i kill dragon" with replies reading "lol"."
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
Both are such good ideas, I hope they would both be integrated somehow. Each one could be tweaked with server options, too.
You could have Builder options like use 15 wood. I don't see an end to the ideas you can use this for... You could even use ratios. As time increases, the amount of material you would have to get/use increases.
I don't like AIG so much. It seems like it pushes people into predefined roles, and makes players grind achievements. (As it is basically an achievement system that exists within a server.) I'd like to think that people could play roleless if they wished too; they would just likely be less effective. If your AIG concept allows this without punishment, or without reward for sticking to one, linear role, then it just seems superfluous.
I do like the first suggestion though. It sounds a bit like how Civ works, with it's goals? You'd be able to turn goals on or off at server creation, having any combination you want, or none at all? I really like that idea.
After the goal is met, you could see a ranking screen, much like in Civ, that shows a score for each player, compiled based off of lots of different pieces of info, and then the server would just keep going; either allowing the players to complete other goals, or just to play without any goals.
I definitely felt the first idea was stronger. The main issue I see with it is that if two groups of people are both trying for the same goal and one fails while the other succeeds, members from both groups will count as having succeeded. I suppose it's not too bad, however, and it's not as though those groups would have any reason to fight against one another.
---> Concisely: It is a bit like Civ, yes; however your victory is kind of somewhat global. The goal is to split the server into rough 'teams' based upon the goals' completion.
The individual goals, on the other hand, are something I'm iffy on -- but I'm sure there's some way to do it well. Really, the focus of it was to complement the first idea. There needs to be a good reason for a split between people who want to aim for one global goal over any other. Certainly there's room for that among differences in any case.
In any case, I've been concerned about superfluous against too useful. Points are superfluous but just about anything else would be too useful. I was looking for a good way to make people more likely to fit into a role (not a specific role like 'guy who cuts wood' but one rather more varied and slightly complex) without applying actual benefits, and I figured point rewards were a pretty decent way to go about it.
I would love to see a victory information screen such as that. It should save it for you though ('last game' results), in case you're not around when the game "ends" and the server restarts, should it choose to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to see forum posts saying "how do i kill dragon" with replies reading "lol"."
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
The point is that this goal, upon completion, is completed globally. This is a way to avoid requiring players to divide themselves into teams.
If both you, Ladon, and I decide to focus on the global goal of Build a 3*3*3 Diamond Block and the goal is completed, we both "win", even if we had nothing to do with one another.
I know it's not perfect, but it means you don't have to worry about who's on what 'team', and who is working towards what.
Also: Simply because a person can only pick one "role" doesn't stop them from doing any of the other things. Points are relatively... heh, "pointless". Just because you get more points for killing doesn't mean you can't mine, build or explore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to see forum posts saying "how do i kill dragon" with replies reading "lol"."
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
Hum. Well, while I still feel teams would be a solution to most of these issues, I'll play along...
If you want to avoid set teams for players, you could still have "team zones". Notch mentioned implementing flags that claims a set area of the map. Not only could these stop mob's from spawning, they could be set to a colour.
Using your example, of building a cube of diamonds blocks, if the cube is built in the red zone, the red "team" win, while if the cube is built in the blue zone, the blue "team" wins. You could build in either zone of you like.
Having one global goal would work as people would be fighting over the diamond to place in in their zone or even stealing out of other's zones.
You could also have multiple global goals that could be completed in the zones, each goal being worth one point. If there were ten various goals on the map while a "team" wins with 5 points, than the "teams" could complete any five of the ten goals to win. Maybe some of these goals conflict with other goals.
The issue I see with this is that everyone will just start working on zone with the most points in an attempt to "win".
Again, just having official teams would work to solve most of these problems.
Hum. Well, while I still feel teams would be a solution to most of these issues, I'll play along...
[..]
Again, just having official teams would work to solve most of these problems.
What issues? What problems?
I'm not solving anything -- just providing a possible answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?"
Team zones.
This whole suggestion is just a different way of going about doing teams, except instead of using a menu, you're using geological location. It makes it easier for people to unbalance teams.
The issue I see with this is that everyone will just start working on zone with the most points in an attempt to "win".
Which is why there's a timer on switching global goal focus :smile.gif:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to see forum posts saying "how do i kill dragon" with replies reading "lol"."
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
This whole suggestion is just a different way of going about doing teams, except instead of using a menu, you're using geological location. It makes it easier for people to unbalance teams.
So is your global goal idea. The people who are working on Goal A are essentially in team A, the people who are working on Goal B are on team B. When people work together in a group, it's called a team.
Quote from jockmo42 »
I don't care if there's a goal, and if we have to have one, it shouldn't end the game. Games should last exactly as long as you want.
I assume there will be servers that have open-ended survival games (with no teams) as well as servers that run tournament-style games with goals and scoring (with balanced teams).
So is your global goal idea. The people who are working on Goal A are essentially in team A, the people who are working on Goal B are on team B. When people work together in a group, it's called a team.
So why should you bother creating coded teams?
When people work together in a group, it can be called a team, yes.
The 'team zone' concept is more fundamentally flawed, though, because it allows for people to rush into the soon-to-be-'victory zone' at the last second. If you base team allegiance on location... then what about scouts, those who like to explore, or those who have decided to attack another location, or those who have mined too deep? They won't be awarded victory, even if every effort they have made has been towards the certain goal -- and unlike the CGG focus system, there's nothing they can do about it aside from not doing the things that they want to do.
The concept of divided goals means that everyone can freely navigate their way around the rules of the world, and all teams will form naturally -- without need for a menu, text command, or specific object crafting and placement.
jockmo: I certainly understand where you're coming from and I'm uncomfortable with the concept of a goal ending the game. But at the same time there needs to be some kind of server reset (as resources will eventually run dry), and goals such as these won't attract quite as much conflict as I'd like them to (my opinion on the matter) if after one goal is completed you can still proceed to complete your own focal goal.
If you don't want the game to end: sabotage? :biggrin.gif: // Might be too tough to figure out where they're doing the goal, though depending on the goal it'd be really tough to hide it. The goals should require the involvement of at least a few players -- perhaps the diamond block should also require sunlight to be shining directly onto it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to see forum posts saying "how do i kill dragon" with replies reading "lol"."
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
If you base team allegiance on location... then what about scouts...
You misunderstood. Players wouldn't have teams no matter where they stand, the zones would simply check for winning conditions within themselves.
Using your example again, if you built the 3x3x3 diamond cube out of a zone, nothing will happen; if you build the cube in the red zone the red zone "wins"; if you build it in the blue, the blue zone "wins". If you're helping build the structure in the red zone and it gets competed the game will end with "Red Wins". You are now happy because you were working in the red zone. Only you and your zone-mates know how much you helped. If the blue zone seems to be winning, you can either go work in the blue zone to help or go sabotage the structure in the blue zone.
I like the zones idea, and its similar to something I was going to suggest, however, I suggest that it should be done similar to the door zone ideas.
If a door, enclosed by blocks, is built it creates a zone. The door starts out unlocked, but a key can be crafted for it. Once a key is crafted, only those who have the key can enter the door, and you may only craft a new key if you already have a key.
Doors would protect against mob spawns, but could also be used to associate teams, and house goals. Anyone with a key for your door is on your team.
Maybe the original lock crafter could have a padlock or something that, when used to attack anyone who has a key for your door, would destroy their key, removing them from the team?
2. A server with Survival applied will last for a long time, as in the length of a Creative server. It could last nearly forever as long as the server doesn't need a reset -- long enough that people are worried about totally running out of important resources.
This most represents how I wish for survival to run. However, I do see the value of an overarching goal that provides something to work for (or against) and provides closure to a game. I believe these two differing ideas can be reconciled by fleshing out this idea.
Quote from Droqen »
Goal #1: Construct a 3*3*3 solid diamond block. That requires 243 diamond ore.
You have to build some sort of artifact that when completed will bring about the end of the world. This can range from a simple diamond cube like above on the easiest difficulty to an elaborate abstract design made of many different exotic materials on the hardest difficulty. Maybe these structures can even be randomized, requiring you to first acquire blue prints from completing another goal (killing dragon? (lol)).
Now, how exactly does this game ending condition reconcile with maintaining a persistent open ended world? I said the completion of the artifact would bring about the end of the world, as opposed to just saying it would end the game, for a reason, not just dramatic effect. Completing said artifact would set off a series of disasters. Earthquakes, hurricanes, and volcanism would devastate and then reshape the landscape, while replenishing mineral and other resources. Many player-made structures would be completely destroyed, others in ruins, and maybe the extremely rare building would survive almost unscathed. If it is unfeasible for this to occur in-game in real time (probably), it could be simulated by generating a new map using the old one as a base. Once the new map is up and running, the end condition would reset and you would still be on the same (though radically changed) map. Player inventory should probably be emptied though.
I feel the above would create an interesting game dynamic by making the "winning" condition be an act of evil (destroying the world). Players would divide into groups dedicated to either creating the doomsday artifact or preventing its completion. It might even provide a legitimate outlet for "griefers" (why waste time wrecking one person's building when I can ruin everything?). To maintain an open-ended environment and give players time to pursue their own goals, this isn't something that should happen often. It should take a least a week to gather the necessary material to create the artifact, possibly followed by having to keep it intact for a certain amount of time.
----
On an unrelated note, for those advocating the idea of official "teams", I have to say I detest the idea. Groups of players should form organically. Also, what if I want to play as a crazy hermit living in a cave working towards my own strange goals? I will be very unhappy if I'm forced into such a binary concept as "Team A" vs "Team B".
It's a common question: How will the game end? How long will it take? As I understand, there are two divided concepts.
1. A game of Survival lasts somewhere between 30 minutes and 2 hours. It is a quick game, to be ended relatively succinctly and then repeated all over again.
2. A server with Survival applied will last for a long time, as in the length of a Creative server. It could last nearly forever as long as the server doesn't need a reset -- long enough that people are worried about totally running out of important resources.
Which one?
I'm hoping for a system that is flexible, and works somewhere in the middle. Currently I'm thinking about it in terms of a game lasting for approximately a week? However, it could be adapted to short games or infinitely long ones.
It's a combination of CONFLICTING GLOBAL GOALS with ADAPTABLE INDIVIDUAL GOALS. Let's move on to describe, in detail, each type of goal and how they come about. Please do point out glaring flaws, as I have yet to write these things so I'm not sure how well they're going to turn out!
[CGG] Conflicting Global Goals.
At the start of a game, a number of global goals are stated. These should be relatively large-scale goals, all of which are equally possible and likely to attract the same number of players. Additionally, the goals should work against one another.
Here is a bad example:
Goal #1: Construct a 3*3*3 solid diamond block. That requires 243 diamond ore.
Goal #2: Kill the dragon (lol). Remember, this is only an example. Doing so might requires a few full sets of diamond equipment for multiple brave combatants.
As such, there would be fighting over diamond supply.
[AIG] Adaptable Individual Goals.
At the start of a game and possibly throughout, a player may choose a title -- or be given a few goals.
Again, look forward to a bad example:
Game starts.
Ab chooses the "murderer" path. Cd chooses the "miner" path.
Ab gets a few goals such as "Acquire a sword". "Murder 2 players". "Murder a player without taking any damage". "Murder a player with fire". "Deal damage to a player who drowns within 5 minutes".
Cd also gets a few goals, like "Acquire a pick". "Mine diamond ore". "Mine over 100 blocks of stone". (Not as good examples)
These two players may be rewarded for other things, but the "path" or "title" that they pick will end up guiding their actions without forcing their hand and making them sub-par at other tasks.
Importantly, no role should force the player's hand, ever. Although you may pick the "murderer" class (or possibly named "killer"), you could easily be only a defender from other killers.
The "miner" who gains points for mining materials -- especially rare materials -- would obviously be inclined to mine, but achieving his global goal should be the most important thing, and even deciding to something other than mining for a while should not be punished.
In expanding the AIG concept, there may be a few subcategories under each category.
Killer will get points for killing, naturally.
> A Murderer simply gets a small bonus applied to every player-kill made. More kills = more points, period.
> A Defender gets bonus points for killing any Killer, or anyone who has killed -- and gets no points otherwise.
> An Assassin gets bonus points for making a kill without taking any damage.
Unfortunately, I'm worried this concept falls flat when it comes to a lot of other things.
I'm unsure as to how one would grant points for things like mining and building, and especially for helping people.
How does that work?
It's things like these that make me doubt the credibility of any point-granting system.
---> Regardless, musings for this sort of thing don't stop here. Imagine four roles (Killer, Miner, Builder, ???), each with four specializations. For every role, you pick one specialization, and among all four roles you pick one to be your focus. A multiplier is applied to the role you choose, and then each specialization applies further special multipliers. To remind you of your path, any action you take will provide you with a number that informs you as to how well that action conformed to the choices you made. There is no penalizing a miner who kills, or a builder who mines -- they simply won't be rewarded as much and as such will have a slight preference towards their specialized activity.
This system is kind of complicated, though.
Other ideas:
Rewards for collecting and planting saplings to full tree adulthood, as a "Gardener"; staying away from other players, as a "Loner" (while still trying to help your chosen CGG along from a distance?); or simply killing mobs, as a "Hunter".
CGGs combined with AIGs.
Every player is allowed to align himself with a certain CGG. If this is done, you might get double (or triple? regardless, a large bonus) points for the completion of the chosen CGG but gain no points for any other. If it is not, you benefit no matter which CGG is completed.
If you do choose to focus on a CGG, you should get more points depending on how much consecutive time you have spent focused on it. Upon changing your focus, every CGG will start off with a 0x multiplier, and work its way up from there. This is to prevent a last-second CGG switch -- your best tactic, if you are already focused elsewhere, is to fight against the current CGG's completion.
Additionally, some global goals might have a timer during which goals cannot be switched. For example, if the goal "build a diamond block (3*3*3) is completed, it may need to be protected for a few minutes.
Every player picks an AIG focus. This may tend to agree with a certain CGG more than another, but nothing is stopping them from choosing to focus on a CGG. For example the "miner" AIG focus might work better with the Diamond Block CGG example given above, but Cd could still choose to align with the Dragon-Killing CGG if he'd like to provide his diamond to fighters instead, and even help fight the dragon himself!
Another player, Ef might have chosen a path that rewards him more for killing mobs and generally dealing damage to mobs, but could still choose to support the Diamond Block CGG rather than the at first obvious Dragon-Killing global goal, in an effort to protect miners and crafters alike from the mobs who might get in the way of their goal.
Final Endgame Rewards, Rankings?
Points granted are based on CGG alignment and AIG completion.
I don't know if they'd have any purpose at all besides "look at me, I did well!"
I'm not really supportive of long-term inter-server, inter-game rewards.
Support for freedom.
I'm not even sure if some system that makes the game end, that grants points or declares victors, is a good thing at all. Minecraft works beautifully without any of these things (I'm almost certain the way points, as they are now, will change).
This thread isn't about discussing whether or not we should have a game's end condition, or a points system at all; it's about what we can do to make such a thing viable.
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
Both are such good ideas, I hope they would both be integrated somehow. Each one could be tweaked with server options, too.
You could have Builder options like use 15 wood. I don't see an end to the ideas you can use this for... You could even use ratios. As time increases, the amount of material you would have to get/use increases.
I do like the first suggestion though. It sounds a bit like how Civ works, with it's goals? You'd be able to turn goals on or off at server creation, having any combination you want, or none at all? I really like that idea.
After the goal is met, you could see a ranking screen, much like in Civ, that shows a score for each player, compiled based off of lots of different pieces of info, and then the server would just keep going; either allowing the players to complete other goals, or just to play without any goals.
---> Concisely: It is a bit like Civ, yes; however your victory is kind of somewhat global. The goal is to split the server into rough 'teams' based upon the goals' completion.
The individual goals, on the other hand, are something I'm iffy on -- but I'm sure there's some way to do it well. Really, the focus of it was to complement the first idea. There needs to be a good reason for a split between people who want to aim for one global goal over any other. Certainly there's room for that among differences in any case.
In any case, I've been concerned about superfluous against too useful. Points are superfluous but just about anything else would be too useful. I was looking for a good way to make people more likely to fit into a role (not a specific role like 'guy who cuts wood' but one rather more varied and slightly complex) without applying actual benefits, and I figured point rewards were a pretty decent way to go about it.
I would love to see a victory information screen such as that. It should save it for you though ('last game' results), in case you're not around when the game "ends" and the server restarts, should it choose to.
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
And a player can be anything. There's not a thing stopping you.
This would promote no conflict -- no competitiveness.
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
You said a person could only be one.
And how would it cause less competition?
If both you, Ladon, and I decide to focus on the global goal of Build a 3*3*3 Diamond Block and the goal is completed, we both "win", even if we had nothing to do with one another.
I know it's not perfect, but it means you don't have to worry about who's on what 'team', and who is working towards what.
Also: Simply because a person can only pick one "role" doesn't stop them from doing any of the other things. Points are relatively... heh, "pointless". Just because you get more points for killing doesn't mean you can't mine, build or explore.
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
If you want to avoid set teams for players, you could still have "team zones". Notch mentioned implementing flags that claims a set area of the map. Not only could these stop mob's from spawning, they could be set to a colour.
Using your example, of building a cube of diamonds blocks, if the cube is built in the red zone, the red "team" win, while if the cube is built in the blue zone, the blue "team" wins. You could build in either zone of you like.
Having one global goal would work as people would be fighting over the diamond to place in in their zone or even stealing out of other's zones.
You could also have multiple global goals that could be completed in the zones, each goal being worth one point. If there were ten various goals on the map while a "team" wins with 5 points, than the "teams" could complete any five of the ten goals to win. Maybe some of these goals conflict with other goals.
The issue I see with this is that everyone will just start working on zone with the most points in an attempt to "win".
Again, just having official teams would work to solve most of these problems.
What issues? What problems?
I'm not solving anything -- just providing a possible answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?"
This whole suggestion is just a different way of going about doing teams, except instead of using a menu, you're using geological location. It makes it easier for people to unbalance teams.
Which is why there's a timer on switching global goal focus :smile.gif:
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything here, but I don't like the idea of predefined goals placed on me in a game like this.
"Don't be a smartass."
"More like smartgrass am I right?"
So is your global goal idea. The people who are working on Goal A are essentially in team A, the people who are working on Goal B are on team B. When people work together in a group, it's called a team.
I assume there will be servers that have open-ended survival games (with no teams) as well as servers that run tournament-style games with goals and scoring (with balanced teams).
So why should you bother creating coded teams?
When people work together in a group, it can be called a team, yes.
The 'team zone' concept is more fundamentally flawed, though, because it allows for people to rush into the soon-to-be-'victory zone' at the last second. If you base team allegiance on location... then what about scouts, those who like to explore, or those who have decided to attack another location, or those who have mined too deep? They won't be awarded victory, even if every effort they have made has been towards the certain goal -- and unlike the CGG focus system, there's nothing they can do about it aside from not doing the things that they want to do.
The concept of divided goals means that everyone can freely navigate their way around the rules of the world, and all teams will form naturally -- without need for a menu, text command, or specific object crafting and placement.
jockmo: I certainly understand where you're coming from and I'm uncomfortable with the concept of a goal ending the game. But at the same time there needs to be some kind of server reset (as resources will eventually run dry), and goals such as these won't attract quite as much conflict as I'd like them to (my opinion on the matter) if after one goal is completed you can still proceed to complete your own focal goal.
If you don't want the game to end: sabotage? :biggrin.gif: // Might be too tough to figure out where they're doing the goal, though depending on the goal it'd be really tough to hide it. The goals should require the involvement of at least a few players -- perhaps the diamond block should also require sunlight to be shining directly onto it.
---> vede claimed Notch said this (and it is awesome).
You misunderstood. Players wouldn't have teams no matter where they stand, the zones would simply check for winning conditions within themselves.
Using your example again, if you built the 3x3x3 diamond cube out of a zone, nothing will happen; if you build the cube in the red zone the red zone "wins"; if you build it in the blue, the blue zone "wins". If you're helping build the structure in the red zone and it gets competed the game will end with "Red Wins". You are now happy because you were working in the red zone. Only you and your zone-mates know how much you helped. If the blue zone seems to be winning, you can either go work in the blue zone to help or go sabotage the structure in the blue zone.
If a door, enclosed by blocks, is built it creates a zone. The door starts out unlocked, but a key can be crafted for it. Once a key is crafted, only those who have the key can enter the door, and you may only craft a new key if you already have a key.
Doors would protect against mob spawns, but could also be used to associate teams, and house goals. Anyone with a key for your door is on your team.
Maybe the original lock crafter could have a padlock or something that, when used to attack anyone who has a key for your door, would destroy their key, removing them from the team?
This most represents how I wish for survival to run. However, I do see the value of an overarching goal that provides something to work for (or against) and provides closure to a game. I believe these two differing ideas can be reconciled by fleshing out this idea.
You have to build some sort of artifact that when completed will bring about the end of the world. This can range from a simple diamond cube like above on the easiest difficulty to an elaborate abstract design made of many different exotic materials on the hardest difficulty. Maybe these structures can even be randomized, requiring you to first acquire blue prints from completing another goal (killing dragon? (lol)).
Now, how exactly does this game ending condition reconcile with maintaining a persistent open ended world? I said the completion of the artifact would bring about the end of the world, as opposed to just saying it would end the game, for a reason, not just dramatic effect. Completing said artifact would set off a series of disasters. Earthquakes, hurricanes, and volcanism would devastate and then reshape the landscape, while replenishing mineral and other resources. Many player-made structures would be completely destroyed, others in ruins, and maybe the extremely rare building would survive almost unscathed. If it is unfeasible for this to occur in-game in real time (probably), it could be simulated by generating a new map using the old one as a base. Once the new map is up and running, the end condition would reset and you would still be on the same (though radically changed) map. Player inventory should probably be emptied though.
I feel the above would create an interesting game dynamic by making the "winning" condition be an act of evil (destroying the world). Players would divide into groups dedicated to either creating the doomsday artifact or preventing its completion. It might even provide a legitimate outlet for "griefers" (why waste time wrecking one person's building when I can ruin everything?). To maintain an open-ended environment and give players time to pursue their own goals, this isn't something that should happen often. It should take a least a week to gather the necessary material to create the artifact, possibly followed by having to keep it intact for a certain amount of time.
----
On an unrelated note, for those advocating the idea of official "teams", I have to say I detest the idea. Groups of players should form organically. Also, what if I want to play as a crazy hermit living in a cave working towards my own strange goals? I will be very unhappy if I'm forced into such a binary concept as "Team A" vs "Team B".