View Full Version : Starting out in UTT2
This thread is all about what to expect when starting in UTT2 in terms of areas you can begin in.
The current module has a race based starting system, which overall is very good as it lets you begin in an area relevant to your race. The problem though is that this system creates a lot of redundant and underused areas. Players can be quite considerably seperated too.
In UTT2, the approach towards areas is to make them slightly smaller and much more activity concentrated so the areas feel more 'alive' and so that there is an increased likelihood of meeting other characters. So a lot of quest givers, merchants, etc, are all concentrated to one area.
This means that we have decided to get rid of the race based start system and go with a very simple system which also ties into our much tougher death system. There are less starting points, so this means players will not go for the old trick of dying to get somewhere faster :P
This is the current setup for starting locations, which are now faction and level based.
GOOD and NEUTRAL:
Bree (Any Level)
Tharbad (Level 5+)
Rohan (Level 8+)
Rivendell (Level 8+)
Erebor (Level 8+)
Esgaroth (Level 8+)
Lorien (To be arranged)
Gondor (Level 15+)
EVIL:
Dol Guldur (Any Level)
Tharbad (Level 5+)
Isengard (Level 8+)
Mordor (Level 15+)
Harad (To be arranged)
Easterling Lands (To be arranged)
The level requirements run in parallel with the minimum level requirements for the quests in the areas. Good faction characters have more options than evil, but then Middle Earth had more regions under the control of 'good' people at this time.
I really do question the logic in having the only place which offers quests for everyone to be a low level area.
Same applies in making Bree a place where evil people cant be.
Neutral people can only stay neutral by doing some bad and some good, or by doing nothing of relevance to either cause. By doing it this way you more or less force the neutral people to do good as they will be isolate from the evils most of their character levels. Tharbad is most likely not of interest after level 15 and then where will the neutrals meet with the evil? Rohan? Isengard?
It doesn't really make a lot interaction between neutral and evil and that is a shame in my oppinion.
My point is, Esgaroth shouldnt be a good/neutral area but a free area, as should Bree. Otherwise you are taking away the "choices" of the neutral if they dont seek it out (a thing a mercenairy might do but a druid likely wont)
Its simply because evil have no tolerance for people who 'dont take sides'. Thats why there is admittedly, bugger all support for neutral and always will be.
Though UTT2 contains a lot less alignment penalties for neutral characters. The neutral paths are very much identical to those of good. Its kind of my attempt to make Untold tales a 2 alignment game, by merging neutral into good.
The first start areas (bree and dol guldur) are seperate because of roleplaying issues with new characters. Its been a problem ever since we started. You have some psychotic maniac plotting death and destruction in bree when he can barely beat up a badger. We have had all sorts of trouble too in the past with new players being set upon by higher level evils and being put off from the game.
I'd wait till you play the game before passing judgement - I've watched tests and I think the seperations are brilliant. Its a really well themed start for new players - Evil can actually do evil faction quests and feel like they are having an impact. Good characters who start in Bree will soon find themselves assisting the dunedain.
Tharbad certainly wouldn't be of interest after level 15, seeing as its supposed to occupy those of level 5-8/9. Thats why i've set area start requirements in parallel with the minimum requirement for quests, so players can try the quests immediately as the area becomes avaialble to them.
Bree will remain neutral because of its instability. (Im sure this has ben discussed before). There is no 'official' good presence there and it can be argued that some of the guards were corrupt, and Bill Ferny was in leauge with Sharkey (who was actually Saruman).
Esgaroth remains neutral because of its general isolation from all the strife in the world at this period in time. If an evil character were to walk into these areas, how do the locals know he/she is evil? They have to interact first. Of course, with increased DM involvement, DMs will posess npc's in neutral areas who know them to be bad and will maybe raise alarms or try to shoo them away.
My argument for merging good and neutral is simple; The evil attitude was 'join us or perish'. A good example of this was Gloin's recollection of the Mouth Of Sauron approaching him and asking for the whereabouts of the ring and for their assistance in its capture. The Dwarves were at this time largely neutral, unconcerned with these matters. If the Dwarves refused to assist, they were warned off their destruction. But still they refused and became enemies with Mordor.
Its another issue of simplicity. If our faction system isnt broke, theres no point in fixing it.
I also think that it is very rare even in real life for any character, or organisation, to remain neutral for long. In the end you always end up leaning more one way simply by the circumstances you find yourself in, and 9/10 times as soon as you do that the "other side" usualy considers you in the enemy camp... puff.. there goes your neutrality.
I think this is even more true of middle earth which has for the most part a very clear cut black and white perspective of good and evil. In such an environment anyone who wanted to take the neutral path would find it very difficult to maintain it for long, unless they live a very isolated and cacooned life (I dont think the game would be much fun if thats how you played your character).
LOTR doesn't lend itself to neutrality easily.... just like human nature;)
I think the limited starting areas will actually be vital in UTT2. The world is tougher, money is scarcer. We've had people in other threads worried about how they will meet people. These starting areas will make that all the easier. And considering how parties will become all the more necessary they will certainly facilitate meeting others and partying with them.
DM_Longbeard
01-12-2004, 13:59
Evil and Good need to be well seperated IMO.
This way meetings are less frequent between these players which makes the encounters these two factions have a lot more interesting.
I never liked the idea myself of neutral towns, unless they are totally neutral. In which case they need to have a law of no arms in public (put your weapons away) and disable PvP for those areas.
Evil should feel that they are pretty much safe from meeting any goods in their own territory... eg Mirkwood. And likewise for the goods... eg Lorien.
Anyone stepping out of the bounds of their territory into non-associated or enemy territory should feel like they should be watching their step all the way.
So I would have some definite boundaries in the world... one side evil, the other good... with no mans land in between.
Less meetings between good and evil.... then they become special.
LB
Kev... don't see the shire in your list:O ???
I have the areas, but need to flesh them out with things to do. May take a while to do.
*coughs*
Lorien? Thats a big place to start off in, you should pinpoint the location to Caras Galadon. heh, Lorien is a large place, its not just a single city. :P - I know im annoying.
My fear was that Bree and Esgaroth were in with the good faction, when that aint the case then i dont see a point in evil's being unable to start of in Esgaroth. You gave your reason for Bree and i can see it could be trouble and thus find it a valid reason, but i cant see it with Esgaroth. At this time people have already made their alliances.
Neutral people could be adventures who are in it for the ride, the thrill of combat, the coins they gain. Mercenairies, for hire to whoever pays the most (at the moment) could also be a great example of neutral players, they might be very selfish which some would describe as evil but as they dont work for making the world a worse place (or better) they cant really be put to either side in my oppinion. I think that justifies a place for evil and good people to meet neutrals. That said, yes. Evil people wouldn't let neutral people into their own towns, just like good people wouldn't let a potential spy into theirs, you dont seem to make that call though.
I find it very unlikely that any billybob (not the smith :p) can just come wandering into Rivendell and get shelter without the elves would be watching him carefully and telling him you can go here and here but stay away from Elrond and the libraries (or whatever).
My point is, if you dont like neutral players much then try for force them to make a choice as they would be forced in the world. All good and evil towns are closed to everyone who aint either good or evil.
Of the two, Bree is the most neutral starting locale. The Lakemen of Esgaroth had a pretty good relationship with Erebor and in the War of the Ring fought alongside them in the north.
Maybe we need to come up with a neutral starting area of our own devising. The far north (Framsburg maybe) or on the edge of Rhun or Dorwinion (who were a nation of merchants so allied to enlightened self-interest first and foremost).
A frontier style town or villiage with low key security (if any) on the edge of Rhun sounds good to me. Welcome to the wild wild east. Swordfight at the OK tavern, etc. All factions welcome.
Just a thought. :P
Evil can start in Dol Guldur, which is a few mins run from esgaroth. Personally I hate factions, so this system gives me less of a headache. Keeps everyone happy. :D
...Perhaps - a healing house in each town, can be a temple, a hut, maybe a dark cave. The char goes and talks with the healer, who does a preyer to the appropriate Valar creating an inherrant link. Thus when you die and respawn, or reset and respawn you start in this place. Chars could then start the game in one area appropriate to the character or race, then if you manage to travel to another neutral of freindly place you can base youself there.
This would eliminate the need for any script at startup for deciding where to begin.
I think this is a big step towards being a persistant world and have been assured by LB it would be easily implemented.
A nice event, upon reaching a new town the party all see the local healer or shaman, perhaps the DM takes control of the healer and makes the party work before accepting them to the town, perhaps some places you have to do some deeds for the town before they accept you. Upon being accepted, you have another place you can work from, and you've had to work to get it - you had to get there firstly, then you might have to do something for the healer or mayor before they let you establish yourself there. Its all good fer RP, not too hard, and a makes gettin to a new place quite an adventure - as it would be!
Argon Balros
02-12-2004, 11:42
another idea whenever you enter an area you recive a corosponding token so after reset you go back to the same area. also if you die you should go back to the nearest friendly healing house.
am i getting this wrong.
obviously when you die you go to the halls of mandos, then when you return to the world its at this 'linked location'.
ok. how about after a reset. will it be possible to return to the linked area without first going through the halls, after all you dont die on reset and the halls are meant pretty exclusively for dead people :)
I think that if its possible it would help the coherence and realism of the world, at the moment we often meet up in the halls and decide where to enter the world together after a reset. This should be a rarer occurrence where two defeated heroes find themselves meeting in the temporarily hereafter. :P
What do you think. Is this a possibility or am i barking up the wrong pillar
Its possible, i know it have been done on other servers (City Of Arabel to name one). Question is how much scripting is required and if its worth it, i wouldn't think it is too bad but then again, i haven't used the nwn scripting system and from what i hear its close to C, which i haven't used either so
DM_Longbeard
05-12-2004, 13:34
Yes possible, and not too hard....
Needs a little setting up but it is definitely feasible.
All these scripts.... melting my head.... escalating in numbers.
Someone hand me an Aulė's i think me heads going to explode.
LB
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.2 Copyright © 2010 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.