Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

THE BEGINNING - MMORPG needs your input

DarkSign

Erudite
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
3,910
Location
Shepardizing caselaw with the F5 button.
Alright. This is the beginning of getting the input of Codexers as to what they like, dont like, hate, want to see, and have dreamt about in an MMORPG.

I realize that Codexers as a general rule hate MMORPGs, but you know RPGs better than anyone on the planet and might be able to help me craft a game that even Codexers would play :lol:

Im going to be sparse with details about the project for now- though I will let you know that the game is set in a PA atmosphere. There is so much that I could say about the game (its in the HUGE game design document that I have recently updated and will be sharing with you very soon.)

What Id like to do is begin to ask a few important questions about what everyone thinks on some very important subjects.

The inaugural question is:

One of the largest problems with MMOs is the XP grind. I am thinking of using a "skill-per-use" system where you dont have to xp, but merely level up your skills via time spent.

Avoid the obvious macroability of exploiting up, what are your thoughts on using XP or skill use to progress your character's advancement?

What alternatives do you Codexers suggest for making the game more fun, but an achievement as well?

Thanks for the discussion,

DarkSign
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
This is assuming you want to make a fun game I'd want to play, rather than the usual "slam dunk" like everquest and its clones:

If you can make a MMORPG where the point of the game is playing it and having fun and not doing any kind of levelling/grind then you'll have already done more than most. The main rule is that if it feels like work, then why put it in a game that we play for fun? That includes camping, grind, "hell levels", very rare monster drops that force you to kill around 1 billion of each creature, doing a repetitive action such as clicking "sew garment" on a menu or chopping a tree ten thousand times, just to see it fail or make something crappy for the first 9999 times or making the player travel huge distances by foot (read HOLDING DOWN A KEY FOR HALF AN HOUR) for months before you can get the only decent transport (hiring horses in DAoC, or buying your own mount), trudging is not fun and is crap. The good bits of MMORPGS are players you like, a decent plot you can dip in and out of, actions which affect change in the world around you, decent administration, PvP and large scale PvP, player/guild/country owned houses/castles that can be bought sold, built or fought for, interesting item crafting. Also let people solo when they want. I don't care about paying a virtual fortune for a special purple dye so I can look like a transvestite paladin (again I remember some scenes from DAoC).

The main rule is take the lead from the good elements of SP RPGs. Don't stretch it out with all the obove crap as that is done to steal money, not to make the game better in any way. People don't buy a game so they spend weeks getting to level 40 so they can do something other than be a lame puny joke that is beaten up on by rats and rabbits, they buy it to be a badass hero from step one.

You should let people explore the skills. Don't let people get screwed over by caps on skill points, if you spend some in say, baking and then find out that you really want to do needlepoint, you don't want to find out that the game only lets you have 300 points in total and your chosen skill can now only go up to 250 because you put 50 in baking.

The bulk of the game should be about playing it with other people and not about levelling. All I ever see in other MMORPGs is people either spending all the time levelling character after character, or getting bored and using it like a chat room.

Include things so people can work in teams like DAoC's realm VS realm combat, and update some sort of story to go with it.

Bit of a rant, but why the hell not.
 

xemous

Arcane
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
1,102
Location
AU
It should have perma death, heaps of strategic options, and fucking heaps of grind and purchasable xp. That would be teh sweeet, ahh wait, theres already this game; eve.
 

sparrowtm

Insert Disk 22
Developer
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
167
Give me permadeath, give me a world which feels like it is not designed to cater to mass-murdering adventurers, and free beer of course. Yes, free beer. And a bartender who I can talk to about all my problems.
 

DarkSign

Erudite
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
3,910
Location
Shepardizing caselaw with the F5 button.
Great start. Rants and raves are welcome of course.

I agree that the process of the game should be fun or either why play it at all. Currently in games people put up with the level grind to a) get to go on high lvl raids and b) to get your character ready for pvp. But I wholeheartedly agree that the middle parts should be fun too.

As far as mounts and walking I semi-agree with you. Fallout didnt give you a car from the start and you had to walk through the wastes which gave you an avenue of exploration. however playing WoW as we speak, I am troubled that you have to wait till lvl 40 to get your mount. Our game will have cars (both old dusty hotrod types and high tech concept cars) which players will be able to purchase and modify. Perhaps you might be able to steal one at an early level.

But there again we come back to the discussion of levels.

Should we use a skill-per-use system where you dont have levels, merely skills at certain proficiencies OR if the gameplay is good enough would it be ok to have a level system ???
 

DarkSign

Erudite
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
3,910
Location
Shepardizing caselaw with the F5 button.
Perhaps...

I hate to be cryptic but as we all know, people who make seemingly impossible claims get flamed, belittled, and flamed again. Let's just say that the project Im working on has the distinct possibility of being produced.

So this is your chance to give me feedback on what you like and what you dont. To finally have the ear of someone.

As Ive said, I have a whole list of questions that ill be posting individually as the previous topics take off.

I look forward to hearing from anyone with an opinion.
 

Ortchel

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
830
As far as MMOs go, the thing that really gets me hooked, even with bad ones, is the ability to make a unique character. Both 'at roll' and in-game. If I have a choice between a game that offers good gameplay and minimal character customization and a game that offers mediocre gameplay and tons of character customization, I'm going to go with the latter. This opinion is usually held by girls, but I think it's a lot more commonplace than most people will admit. Why play an MMO if not to carve out a unique presence and show it off? I'm pretty sure that's the reason they exist.

Besides that, I really enjoyed taming creatures in Star Wars Galaxies.There were just <i>so many</i> and they were all capable of different things. I think that was probably the single most enjoyable feature of that game, if not the only one at all.

I'll go into more detail later, I'm going back to bed now.

p.s. I want motorcycles and rideable Brahmin.
 

DarkSign

Erudite
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
3,910
Location
Shepardizing caselaw with the F5 button.
Since we've already touched on mounts and vehicles...

there will be motorcycles...both chopper/harley badass types and crotchrockets.
there might be sidecars for the cycles as well as some strange concept cycles youve never seen before.

There will also be beasts to be tamed and ridden, as well as flight beasts on paths.

I wont go into pets yet at the moment because Im saving that for a different thread.

Just thought Id give you a peak at the motorcycle info you wanted.


NOW...

as far as the xp vs skill use... what are people thinking? Ok to grind if the grind doesnt feel like work? Or does everyone vastly prefer a skill-per-use-system?
 

Avé

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
468
If you want to see what not to do with a PA mmorpg, try neocron.

But it does have a few goodpoints.

What I'd like is:


FPS movement with a standard 1st/3rd person view

Large open 3d environments,in a very large gameworld(preferably one without zones)
Variable weather & terrain

FPS stlye shooting, like planetside's cone of fire

No technomage/psionic power/magic

Atmosphere is everything, needs very good sound fx, music & environmental effects.

As for skills:

Gained through use, with some obvious omittances(like running, damaging self, etc)
I rather liked Fable's system, where you gained "General" xp that could be spent on anything, as well as XP that could only be spent on a specific subset, depending on what you used to earn the XP.

For example, you kill Cockroach A using a sniper rifle(dexterity), you get 10k general xp, and 2500 dex xp

There should be levels of a sort, but the difference between each level shouldnt be much.
 

almondblight

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
2,628
Wouldn't per use just create a new type of grind? Instead of hitting up ever more powerful creature to level, you'd be constantly practicing "raw fist of death" on rats so the damage for that would go through the roof.

As someone said earlier, to avoid level-grinding make the gameplay fun. You could also time limit experience – say, after half an hour of playtime a day you won't get anymore until you spend a day to digest it, and you can't get more than an hour and a half worths per week. So if someone is grinding, then can only grind at most for a couple hours per week, then they need to find something else to do (IE, playing the game). Probably people would get enough experience doing other things that they wouldn't even care about grinding.

OK, your world is PA, but make sure it's not miles of desert. There's nothing more boring then spending half an hour running across a vast and empty landscape to get somewhere. Make a world that people want to explore.

Allowe politics. People can run for office, and when they get into office they have a certain amount of control, which allows them to add missions. A guy becomes mayor of town A, and sets up a mission for someone to steal a technological advance from town B, or to find a head raider and kill him. Players with farms are complaining because wild brahmin are eating all their crops, but 10 caps on the head of every brahmin brought in. The players in office can also set up trade routes and negotiate technology exchanges, which will affect what players can buy in the town and the price of their goods on the market.

This might be hard to do in a PA game with no centralized power, but I always wanted allowed player killing but with real drawbacks. For instance, a court of law that can try the player, and if he is found guilty his character will be imprisoned for a set amount of time. Or a player doesn't want that, escapes, and becomes a fugitive, unable to return to his home town for fear of being killed by gaurds, and hunting by other players for the bounty on his head.

Also, give players a reason to play besides just getting more. People should have varying and interesting in game purposes, from trading to becoming the top raiding clan to converting everyone to their religion to finding a sacred artifact. You might also want to think about having characters age and eventually die.
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
I'd posted this before, it is a system to eliminate all grind and bring true role playing instead of angsty dark-elves.

Why isn't everything role-playing? If the character has a freedom to do something, then why not design a path for the action. I think role-playing mindset needs to move away from the chat bar, who cares what words you are saying, they don't effect anything. If a player wants to randomly kill people, then fine, single player games always have random bad guys; it is the game's fault for letting them get powerful and having no consequences.

My solution:

A PvP based open world, turn-based MMORPG with permanent death.

Setting

Post-apocalyptic wasteland. Low backstory to get in the way, unknown previous tech level. Life based on towns and camps. A setting where random murderers and gangs would help the setting.

Class/Sub-class/Survival-style based system

Three Classes: Warrior, Sage, Special. Each corresponding to the three skill groups: Combat skills, knowledge skills, and special skills like tracking, stealth, disguise etc...

Each skill group has several skills.

Sub-Classes are different skill combos within each skill group. Classes can cross train between the groups but the maximum level they can get will usually be lower then starting on the parent class for that skill group.

Survival-style choice at start is between town citizen, raider, or wanderer. Towns produce what they need, Raiders take with they need, Wanderers do odd jobs.

Towns can fight each other if they really want to declare war (getting there in a large group would be hard). Raiders can attack towns, wanderers, and other raider clans if they want. Towns and wanderers don't fight (towns can deny entry). Wanderers don't fight each other. To attack someone you aren't supposed to, you would have to switch
styles first.

Wanderers can become a raider or citizen of a certain town according to their actions. Citizens can become wanderers. Raiders can become wanderers if their reputation is good enough (didn't kill people, completed some contracts). Towns grow, wanderers take jobs, and raiders have mobile camps and limited production.

Starting out/ in game world

Instantly start with good abilities (create character that isn't a retard at age 23 and god at 23.5). Single player style advancement from weak to superstrong doesn't work in a multiplayer environment, they want to you waste time.

New character skill level will slowly rise as game goes on to stay competitive.
Skills have a hard-cap (move with time) according to class.
New skills could appear (The game world is actually moving forward)
[Example: As technology increases, throwing spears would become more common then when guns are found, firearms skills slowly becomes more common]

Character creation sets random or pre-set-limits human name, nickname is free.

No magic, no res.
Any skill progress that a player makes in an area is permanent to that player.
At death, the character is gone and is put in player's graveyard menu with journal or whatever.

The sub-class and survival-style of the character is locked out for a month, they have to play a wanderer or opposite style. This also blocks them from doing reputation changing actions for a month.
After a month they can play the sub-class with all of the skill progress they made, and rejoin the locked out survival-style but cannot rejoin their exact previous town or raider clan for an additional month.
The new character must have different name, and will start with unknown reputation.

Towns and Camps

Towns are controlled by the mayor (any class). New players that choose to be a Town Citizen are assigned to a town according to what the town needs (set up by mayor). Constructing buildings, defences, and mining/farming are important. If the town doesn't approve of what a citizen is doing (or not doing) they can cut rations/pay or banish the player from the town.

Towns are run by players and have set rules, being a jerk leads to banishment; killing really requires combat. There would be no pickpocketing (no careless nobles), stealing involves armed robbery and/or assault.

If the character is in his hometown then they get a survivablitity rating increase (having doctors around you also increases this), going to critical condition (unconscience, broken bones) will be more common then death in a guarded town.

Doing stuff

Each Non-combat sub-class covers a lot of areas (knowledge in post-apoc would be gathered among select 'Sages') that they would stay occupied with: teaching others skills, surveying, managing resources, crafting, learning, researching, helping construction, repair and equip people, explore other areas, travel and trade. Sages would be skilled in all those areas (skill min for them would be max for others), sub-classes would be specialized but all could help out in any area, no 'merchant class' just those skilled in managing equipment and examining items.

Fighting and travel is a big part of the world. Trade routes benefit both sides if they can travel around but they have to deal with raiders. And exploring can gain riches and technology.

Progress

Research and artifacts are required to increase technology (real-time days). The landscape changes and revealing new artifacts is left up to developers.
Food and water is needed.
Recovering from a fight uses a doctor, or resting in base.
Limit on how much a skill can gain in a day + hard cap.
Environment barriers that spell death and sickness.

Progress would be based around towns, and town population is limited by food/water. If one town is progressing fast raiders would be alerted. And the weather/water/minerals can go sour in a rich town or turn good in a poor town.

World Map and Turn-based Combat

Travel is done through a worldmap (shrew traveling for hours, as long as there is danger).

Players are asked if they want to enter a combat zone (area on world map or town/camp). Turns would be faction based, so the entire town would move then all raiders, and smaller groups have less time to give all commands (so a single fighter has to think fast and doesn't slow down others). And there would be a limit on more groups walking in. Areas would be small. Escaping would involve comparing different values (non-combat classes get bonuses) and location, time units would be chosen to be put into 'escape' at edge of map and the strength of both sides decides units needed. And charging at someone gives bonus distance (to avoid constant turn, run, turn).

A lone traveler would have to travel on caution mode to help avoid being surrounded, and escape would involve surviving in the fight long enough.

Raiders and Monsters

Raiders could set up circles of cover on the worldmap over land areas and set demands: demand goods, services, or try to surprise attack (forward scouts help).

Players can ask for mercy or offer money (done with tree-branch dialouge) to an attacking group, if they first tried to fight them it would be harder and less raider penatlies for rejecting. Player raiders also can set demands to be paid for mercy.

Critically wounding someone that is offering all they own would have a large reputation effect and a decrease in the raider's skills.
Killing a non-combat class that is not a threat would decrease the raider's skill.

Cutting apart a merchant wouldn't help raider's train their skill and would cause them to lose their fighting edge with over-confidence, decreasing their skill.

So a lone griefer would die trying to attack someone in a town causing no death to others, or would die trying to attack a guarded caravan alone. They would need the backing of a town to get better weapons and skill gaps aren't that important. And killing someone peaceful would hurt his skills (grab items thou). Killing also gives one a reputation which can be good or bad.

Combined with permenant in-game characters (staying at a town under custom AI control while logged-off), and a bounty hunter system, murders would help the gameplay.

Killing a merchant hurts his town and they have to replace him with someone less skilled or wait a month for a new "character" that doesn't have a sales record. Killing a raider would mean one less raider for a month and a possible unknown raider after that.

Beasts are not a big part of the game, only exist past environmental barriers, and usually cause critical wounds to limbs over death.

Special Differences from other MMORPGs

Use of branching diolouge trees between players, making contracts and deals using ingame means. This makes turn-based combat important because deals can be exchanged for ceasefire and talking within a group during the enemies turn is important.

Player created contracts, job offers, and marketplaces easy to access. Players have reputation listed for completed jobs and will bid for work, jobs come from other players.

Town communities have to work to survive and raiders fight together, that is the best way to build friendship. But there is heavy turn-around so everyone has to meet and work with new people, so new players aren't left in the cold and old players can't stay in a shell. There is much less group barriers which stagnants a community.

Justice systems are hard in MMORPGs. I don't think imprisonment should ever be an option, either they can't log in and play their role as a criminal in the game for a while or they stay logged in over night and clear time. This is why I think harsh settings help MMORPGs because banishment from a town would mean facing the dangers outside or the death penalty would be in wide use because resources are too rare to spend on jails.
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
This is another piece I wrote, MMORPGs need capitalism. MMORPGs now are thousands of dictators getting everything.

From an economic point of view, Problems with MMORPGs

Unlimited animals.
Selling items to a store does not reflect supply and demand, static prices.
Selling goods from the animals produces unlimited currency (or you stupidly get instant money for killing), no one mints the money. Unlimited inflation.

No real ownership rights on most goods.
Most of the world exists in the wilderness and first extraction rule applies.
It is the tragedy of the commons, thousands of people are trying to over-extract respawning creatures and time becomes a more important resource.

Players kill as many as they personality can, because: there is no need to invest in future population of monsters, any you let go is just benefiting someone else at your loss.

Another problem with MMORPGs is that it makes the scarce resource of time a zero-sum game. Doing things as fast as possible usually makes it slower for others. In the aim of giving everyone everything, comparative advantage is destroyed and replaced with first extraction and everyone is screwed.

What do the hunters need? The people that use bots desire: In-game money, in-game fame and power, and/or real money.

The last one is the only one based on supply and demand! As more people sell game items the price will go down, which in turn will mean more camping and bots to keep the same income.

In-game money and character power given in exchange for time is automatic and maximized the more they exploit, time becomes even more precious when they are charged for it.

The exploiter has no in-game needs and the game imposes none.

This the biggest problem in MMORPGs. The player needs no one and everything is commonly owned for extraction, exploiting is the best thing to do in pursuing your goals. MMORPGs will never become complex without scarce resources and comparative advantage. PVP adds an element to this. The exploiter mite need to hire player guards.

Why don't we let the exploiter declare ownership over an area and have guards go after people that enter. How about we throw monster breeding code in instead of respawning. Looks like the exploiter can't kill everything in sight now. What if a purely player-made item comes out that increases breeding, but it requires land to grow. Looks like the player is forced to buy the item from other players if he still wants to maximize killing monsters. Both can persue comparative advantage and trade, both winning.

You can exploit the mindless game but you can't control other people and the trade must be agreed to by both parties.

Privatization and scarce goods can produce more cooperation and interaction then ever thought possible, and make things many times more interesting then any other MMORPG.
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
I like the idea of banishment as it would force players into a criminal community to survive as raiders, and further promote conflict and politics, making the world more interesting for all.
 

dunduks

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
389
Fez said:
I like the idea of banishment as it would force players into a criminal community to survive as raiders, and further promote conflict and politics, making the world more interesting for all.
Actually it could work like this: PvP is allowed everywhere, but unless reported - you would not get flagged as a killer, although this rises the problem with respawning, becouse the one who was killed would go and report it, even if he/she would not be able to do so ofiicially he could spread info around by simply chatting, however that could be worked out that unless you got proof that someone killed other, claims would be false :?
It really would be nice if this game would feature full scale player involment, starting from governments, traders to army and police. The idea of combat like planetside is also quite nice, plus you could include hand to hand combat similar to ONI.
 

Sovy Kurosei

Erudite
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
1,535
Human Shield:

What exactly are you trying to solve by saying that MMORPGs need capitalism? Actually, for that matter, what exactly are you trying to say in the first place?

I am also curious as to why you are saying that there are unlimited animals or mobs. The mobs are limited. There is a carrying capacity (maximum number of mobs in a given area, a given for todays MMORPGs) and time is needed for mobs to respawn when they are killed.

Poorly done article, probably be better off if you responded to factual economic problems present in MMORPGs today instead of... whatever the Hell that it is that you were talking about.
 

Ortchel

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
830
No more commie MMOs!

Human Shield sez:
BETTER DEAD THAN RED
 

Toyzferall

Novice
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
13
Location
Behind you.
I'm loving the idea of full, open PvP, but with reprecussions involving the actual game world's communnity. When I first started reading about Star Wars: Galaxies, I was imagining a bounty hunter marching into a bar, blasting some random Rebel because the Imps wanted him dead and hired the hunter, then booking it out of there before the authorities came. Y'know, scenes like in the movies. Unfortunately, the game doesn't work like that.

But if we can manage this, that would be awesome. I mean, most of the point of Fallout was that, sure, it's a dangerous world due to the radiation, hazardous areas, old broken technology, and such. There were monsters and dangerous animals, too. But the main danger? Your fellow man. Everyone seemed to have their own agenda, and there were multiple groups always at odds with one another, and even some hasty alliances. If we can set that up... I wouldn't care if the game had no combat BUT PvP. I'm all about some custom player factions.

The XP? Grinding is lame, but... I prefer a skill point/skill increase by use mixed with a level system. Leveling would... Y'know, increase a few things in general, like HP and such... Maybe give you a few points to spend on stats or skills, but then otherwise have a by-use skill system. Actually, for an example, I really loved the way Ultima Online handled things. Even your STATS were increased on a by-use basis. Also, they had a cap... I enjoy caps, because without them, at high levels, everyone would be the same: totally maxed in everything. Ugh. But, see, the way UO handled it... If you didn't use something for long enough, your skill points in it would atrophy away. You could lock a certain number of skills, so that they wouldn't drop even if you forgot to use them for a while. So, with this system, you could lock all of the skills you want, and those would eventually max while the skills you didn't want would die off. I think the highest you could get a skill was 100, and I think total you were allowed 700 points, so you lock seven skills, and max those. Heck, with this system, you could even do some crazy mix-and-matching. Like 6 skills at 100, then two at 50, etc. I really liked it, since this way you were NEVER locked into one specific pattern or "class."

That reminds me, no classes. Back to skill/level progression, I REALLY liked how Silent Storm runs things, too. Minus the classes, but, y'know.

As mentioned before, character customization. I'd have to say that my favorite MMO is City of Heroes, simply because I have STILL yet to see two heroes that look alike, and the decently active roleplaying and fanfic/etc. groups surrounding it.

Who was it that mentioned we play to be a badass from the get-go? I agree. No rats. No pussy enemies at all. Also, no totally stupid newbie weapons/armor. Wooden swords? Also, either do away with rares or make them more practical. Rare hunting blows, in ANY game. It also usually doesn't make any sense.

I'm not sure what kind of combat system you're planning... But regardless, I have to say... Vehicular combat. Car chases. Damn that's good stuff. Also, grenades. And a chainsaw. And some kind of sawn-off shotgun. Also, where's the akimbo beretta love? Dual-weilding guns seems to still be an FPS-only thing, and even then it's new. We should've been able to go John Woo since Fallout!

Hey, you asked. You ask, I rant. If I can think of anything else I'll be sure to come back and bitch some more.
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
The difference in PC should be in how they play, not what some lame level cap forced them into, and atrophy of stats is shit. If this is supposed to be a proper PA like Fallout then it should be ablout what gangs/groups you are with, the politics and the weapon/gun you hold. The social and barter system should be emphasised more than anything else. Having mainly PvP would be good with this. No magic please. I wouldn't mind if there were no levels and they kept it so everyone had to live in a more realistic world, a well trained marine can't take a headshot from a .45 any better than Joe public. I want to have to watch my back from anyone, be it a tribal with a spear or middling with his 10mm or a vet with a minigun.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
DarkSign said:
Perhaps...

I hate to be cryptic but as we all know, people who make seemingly impossible claims get flamed, belittled, and flamed again. Let's just say that the project Im working on has the distinct possibility of being produced.

So this is your chance to give me feedback on what you like and what you dont. To finally have the ear of someone.

As Ive said, I have a whole list of questions that ill be posting individually as the previous topics take off.

I look forward to hearing from anyone with an opinion.

Dont tell me you live in michigan and your ex girlfriend killed herself over you.

I guess it is a small world, if so.

One thing I would like to see is a world where you travel sort of like fallout.

Currently there are two ways things work - you are "fought to the death by magpies" the second you step outside of town which is just ludicrous, or you are trudging around endlessly.

Combat areas and encounters that worked like the fallout map would be nice for a multiplayer game.


Another thing I'd like to see is having relatively few people on one game instance - maybe just a few parties working an area at most.

Nothing like seeing 100 demigods standing around at the edge of town to break any illusion of a coherent world.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Also for PvP.

I am not against people executing newbies once in a while, but there should be consequences. Like a bounty that acrues on characters that murder other characters without challenging them to a duel first.

Then characters who wanted to be bounty hunters could check the most wanter list, and take them out, and it should be permanent death, and they should have occasional hitsquads of computer controlled bounty hnters try to take them out.

That way people can play the villain, but not easily camp out and slay every new character.

Basically true outlaws will REALLY be outlaws. They will not be able to set foot int he more civilized towns without being blown away, and maybe a few outlaw camps might exist where they can trade goods, but they would not be entirely safe there either.
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
The bounty system could work something like this:

If you annoy someone or you kill them then you or anyone can put in some money against your name, which will go into a pot, and the pot will just keep getting bigger every time someone adds in some more cash when you piss them off, making you a bigger and more tempting target. It'd mean that newbies would be hardly worth the effort and vets would become a big prize and would actually have some excitement from the hunters. One you get killed the pot is given as a prize and is emptied.
 

Avé

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
468
Turn based PVP mmo?

God, that game would get like TWO total players.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Fez said:
The bounty system could work something like this:

If you annoy someone or you kill them then you or anyone can put in some money against your name, which will go into a pot, and the pot will just keep getting bigger every time someone adds in some more cash when you piss them off, making you a bigger and more tempting target. It'd mean that newbies would be hardly worth the effort and vets would become a big prize and would actually have some excitement from the hunters. One you get killed the pot is given as a prize and is emptied.

That is a good idea.

Some sort of permadeath, or else every time you die you lose some portion of your skills. For a newbie it would be meaningless to die, but for a vet losing 5 skill points means hours of work getting them back.
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
Sovy Kurosei said:
Human Shield:

What exactly are you trying to solve by saying that MMORPGs need capitalism? Actually, for that matter, what exactly are you trying to say in the first place?

I am also curious as to why you are saying that there are unlimited animals or mobs. The mobs are limited. There is a carrying capacity (maximum number of mobs in a given area, a given for todays MMORPGs) and time is needed for mobs to respawn when they are killed.

Poorly done article, probably be better off if you responded to factual economic problems present in MMORPGs today instead of... whatever the Hell that it is that you were talking about.

Limited things don't respawn, I already wrote about time issue.

MMORPGs need capitalism because that way trading and working together is how you progress and not grinding.

Avè said:
Turn based PVP mmo?

God, that game would get like TWO total players.

Like Gunbound?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom