• Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just \$5!

# Perma-Death and Continuity

Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

85 replies to this topic

### #61MorganE  Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 04 September 2002 - 04:25 PM

Oluseyi it is extremely rude for you to continue attacking other peoples ideas when your "colleague" is trying to change the theme of the post into something more productive.

If you wish to continue the discussion I would be more then happy to discuss why someone who says
quote:
I am a very casual gamer; I''ve probably finished only three of the games I''ve ever played, and I hardly play most of those I currently own *

and was under the impression that
quote:
Current MMORPGs require you to find a safe place to hide out and "sleep" *

is perhaps a poor candidate for any discussion on game design or the discussion of an even more complex subject MMO game design.

You are clearly not reading all the messages on this discussion so I implore you to not disrespect your "co-conspirator" Silvermyst any more.

* These quotes are from a different thread which can be found here

### #62Ironside  Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 04 September 2002 - 04:54 PM

quote:
Original post by Saluk
So yes, for two guys to try to create a mmorpg, they must be crazy idiotic fools. But I think, Mortal, that you have stressed this point enough. If they want to be insane, I don''t think you can convince them otherwise They may surprise us, and if that happens, then so be it. But there isn''t much reason to continue beating the fact that it''s either impossible or near impossible to do into their heads

I’m just trying to do them a service. When you see people about to go off and waste their time and effort on a venture you know from experience is not attainable you do the right thing and try to save them from learning the hard way. Or as in my case you try and they don’t see reason, you give your best appeal and they still don’t see reason. So you figure well ok so they have more ambition then sense but then that’s what world changing is all about. You do your part letting them know what’s ahead of them and then let them have at it.

But then you get a reply post from one of the guys and he’s pretty condescending. Not only that but he tries to imply not only that your assessment of the task is incorrect but also that he is able to succeed where you dare not tread. So you look around the forums to find out just who this guy thinks he is. You know from his rep that he’s kind of an @$$, but then everyone’s an @$$ every now and then. So you start reading through his old posts and you find references to other totally unrealistic games he thinks he can make. Like an MMO sports sim with more features then AC and EQ combined. You find that he is very commandeering and posts as an authority on all topics related to game design. You also find from his posts that he’s fresh out of college. You start wondering about what his credentials are that he is so authoritative. Here is a short list of what you find.

quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
A major problem I have with current MMO offerings is the necessity of intense involvement (I am a very casual gamer; I''ve probably finished only three of the games I''ve ever played, and I hardly play most of those I currently own).
This thread 12th post from the top.

I actually advanced somewhat on a DOS-based incarnation around 1996/97, but that''s all history now

For the record, I''ve developed my share of platformers, and even a 2.5D basketball sim (all lost to the lack of backups).

For me, all I need to do is develop prototype systems that are playable. They may lack the visual polish of professional products or the robust networking code of a Quake... That''s okay. Others can carry on, either inspired by my successes and educated by my failures

So basically what we have here is another LandFish.

Someone who doesn’t even play games that much, implemented something that might have been a basketball sim if it was ever finished (However in recent times he’s taken to referring to it as a completed project), not only that he hasn’t kept up with development technologies so he doesn’t currently have the ability to even program a windows based game with directX/OpenGL. On top of that he expects to command the respect and admiration of others to a point where they will carry on HIS projects. I guess that’s why he’s not worried about the complexities of actually implementing this system.

So despite being insulted from a self aggrandizing moderator with no basis for his aggrandizement other then the sheer volume of his posts, I will take your advice Saluk and humor them.

PERMANENT DEATH QUERY:

1) Can you imagine yourself enjoying a game which features permanent death?
Actually I could see myself playing an mmorpg with permadeath. But I prefer simple gameplay elements. Simplicity is the father of elegence. I would just have permadeath be permadeath. The goal of the game would be to last as long as possible. To make the game fun the gameplay would have to support combat with mixed parties of higher and lower level characters. So that if a high level died he could still hang out with his friends until he caught up again.

2) Describe what you think the positive effects of permanent death could be. What problems could it solve?
Permadeath would make PvP the most exciting thing to ever happen to you in a game. It allready is breathtaking, your stomach get''s all tied in nots, it''s almost like a real fight. You could make that expirence much more exterem by having your invested time on the line

3) Describe what you think the negative effects of permanent death could be. What problems could it create?
Because when you die you have to start over the player will get very upset everytime they die. There needs to be some incentive for them to want to start from scratch once more. Having offspring and breeding and all that jazz just obfusicates the issue. Players will still be pissed when they die regardless of if they have offspring to inhabit or not.

One solution would to only have permadeat for PvP combat but not PvE. If the game permakills you you blame the game. If another player beats you fair and square your more likely to take your lumps and not complain

4) Can you think of any games that feature permanent death?

Diablo in Hardcore mode, but I never played it.

### #63Oluseyi  Staff Emeritus   -  Reputation: 1678

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 04 September 2002 - 05:11 PM

I've tried to be polite, yet honest, throughout this thread. I've responded to people's points of view by stating that I respect and appreciate their opinions, by indicating where I disagree - even though I may clearly be wrong - but some feel in necessary to belabor the point.

There are two major reasons for failure in science, according to Arthur C. Clarke (Profiles of the Future) - failure of nerve and failure of imagination. Failure of imagination is particularly common among supposed experts in a field, because they have deemed (from their extensive experience) that something is absolutely impossible/worthless/etc. The stagnation and insularity that permeates most academic-like disciplines, software development included, leads to a disconnect with new possibilities. Small wonder that many radical advancements come from relative newcomers to a field.

I'm not trying to say why "I'm right and you're wrong", though some will obviously see it as being so (largely my fault, since I have no compunctions about acting like an ass on the internet; a "you don't know me, so fuck you" attitude can backfire...). Big deal. I'm not afraid to be wrong. I'm afraid to be afraid of being wrong; I'm afraid to be so scared of failure that I refuse to take chances. And since I already look like an ass, according to some, I have nothing to lose.

[edited by - Wavinator on September 6, 2002 7:24:05 PM]

### #64Silvermyst  Members   -  Reputation: 113

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2002 - 03:10 AM

MORGANE wrote:
quote:
Oluseyi it is extremely rude for you to continue attacking other peoples ideas when your "colleague" is trying to change the theme of the post into something more productive.

Not trying to undo my own attempt at trying to lead the thread into a new direction, but I read over Oluseyi''s post and couldn''t find anything even slightl resembling ''attacking other peoples ideas''.
quote:
You are clearly not reading all the messages on this discussion so I implore you to not disrespect your "co-conspirator" Silvermyst any more.

I feel like I personally steered the thread down the wrong path with my overly strong attempt at defending the concept. I can''t blame anyone for not reading each and every word of a somewhat heated discussion between two individual posters.

There is no way that Oluseyi disrespected me. Respect is earned. Oluseyi has earned mine by welcoming and answering my endless stream of questions. If anything, I feel like I disrespected him by badly influencing this thread with my endless perm death/PvP talk.

Okay, enough about respect and disrespect, back to the topic at hand...

### #65Silvermyst  Members   -  Reputation: 113

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2002 - 03:22 AM

LET'S CONTINUE!

PERMANENT DEATH QUERY:

1) Can you imagine yourself enjoying a game which features permanent death?

2) Describe what you think the positive effects of permanent death could be. What problems could it solve?

3) Describe what you think the negative effects of permanent death could be. What problems could it create?

4) Can you think of any games that feature permanent death?

RESULTS SO FAR:

1)
-Yes
-Yes

2)
-Increases adrenaline rush during PvP due to higher stakes

3)
-severs character attachment
-needs strong incentive for player to start over again

4)
-Underlight
-Diablo Hardcore
-Rogue (and Rogue-like games such as Angband)
-pretty much any (arcade) game without save feature
-certain FPS mods

[edited by - Silvermyst on September 5, 2002 10:23:21 AM]

### #66CGameProgrammer  Members   -  Reputation: 640

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2002 - 07:23 PM

I don''t see what fresh out of college has to do with anything. Many of us taught ourselves programming before we ever took our first CS course. I''m a junior in college but I''ve been game programming for 6 years.

Also Oluseyi hasn''t been particularly rude or anything, up to this point:

Oluseyi: I''ve tried to be polite, yet honest, throughout this thread. ...So fuck you.

Words fail me.

As for the actual topic of this thread, I think many of us (myself included) are forgetting about the perma part of it. Absolutely none of our ideas has been about permanent death! And I don''t like the egg idea because it''s so non-death-like it''s just an alternate respawning scheme, really.

So I prefer tempdeath - temporary death. Current MMORPGs don''t even have this, as after you die you can pretty much immediately respawn, as far as I understand it (which is not far). My ghost idea involves people who actually die, but can permanently possess someone if that other person willingly sacrifices themselves. That allows for trading for bodies and so on, or people who raise bodies purposely to sell them to high-level dead guys. An MMORPG that encourages more alternate modes of play or more professions is good.

I also like MagicScript''s idea. In his world, people become ghosts too, but they can be sent back into their body and regain life (with some exp loss) if another player performs the ritual to do it. But the player also enchants the items he wears when he dies, although if resurrected and those items are scattered around, he regains his abilities slowly since his essense is spread around.

Although that idea allows for people to become powerful, die, get resurrected by a friend, and repeat (either with the same character or "character farms") to generate high-level equipment. I think his idea can only be balanced if you don''t allow the player to regain his lost abilities until he reclaims his items - as he gets each item back, he can absorb his essense from them, making the item a regular non-magic item. Or, he can choose not to (or have another character wear it) and just wear the magic armor. (Game balance check: Only one person''s spirit can be in an item, and only from one death - you can''t level repeatedly, dying repeatedly, to pump up a weapon to ridiculous power.) You can also give the player absolute knowledge of each of his items'' exact locations in the world (if his spirit resides in the items), so he can hunt down whoever has them (if they were stolen) and reclaim them, to get his abilities back. Of course he can level regularly as well, but absorbing his spirit from his items very quickly helps him level.

This system would actually be a lot like books and movies. In Lord of the Rings, the demon puts his spirit in his ring (without dying, but let''s ignore that point for now). After he dies, he tries to seek out the ring to get his strength back (and its abilities). Also, he always knows where the ring is, he can sense it.

~CGameProgrammer( );

### #67MagicScript  Members   -  Reputation: 290

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 06 September 2002 - 03:49 AM

Good good. Lets ignore the senseless attacks and get this discussion going.

I agree with the points you've made about my idea CGameProgrammer; I hadn't even thought about that. I think the player shouldn't get absolute knowledge. Perhaps he can 'sense' if his items are nearby when he is alive, but while he is still a ghost (before someone resurrets him) he would have absolute knowledge. So, while is a spirit he is most in tune with the 'aura' his items give off, and they are marked specifically. But when he is alive, this 'aura' is barely detectable, so the player only gets hints like "That direction."

I actually have one disagreement, but no solution. I think that a player should be able to regain his abilities even without the items inorder to prevent overly punishing players who get pked and robbed. How or at what rate, and how this would affect the newly created items, I am unsure about. I think the items should only lose their magical enchantments if the oringial owner is actually wearing them so that the attacker (and theif) doesn't lose his very nice enchanted items just because X amount of time has passed.

[edited by - MagicScript on September 6, 2002 12:11:39 PM]

### #68Oluseyi  Staff Emeritus   -  Reputation: 1678

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 06 September 2002 - 07:58 AM

First off, I need to publicly apologize to MorganE (with whom I have had private conversations) and Ironside. Irrespective of what I may have felt, I have a responsibility both personally and as a function of my role here on GameDev.Net, and I failed in it with my inappropriate utterances and actions. Whether I''m "right" or "wrong" (and from whose perspective) is immaterial. I''m sorry.

Secondly, I particularly wish to thank MorganE for his willingness to discuss (again, in private) our misunderstandings and to broaden my mind to certain issues. It''s much appreciated.

Finally, I would like to assure all that if I don''t have anything constructive or useful to say, I''ll shut up!

In light of what has been discussed previously, Silvermyst and I have been reexamining our design structure. Our focus is still fundamentally PvP, but Silvermyst is suggesting a way in which Perma-Death still affects the game but does not dominate it. Where death is more a part of gameplay than just the final outcome of battle. We''ll keep you posted, if you so desire.

### #69 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 06 September 2002 - 08:02 AM

FIX: Ghosts can control/influence NPC/animals. Ex: In lord of the rings, the baddie that always new where the ring was manipulated several people and spirits etc etc to get the ring back. So when you die, you sick a pack-o-monsters on the bastard that gotcha! Or not , Im a big stupid head!

### #70MagicScript  Members   -  Reputation: 290

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 06 September 2002 - 09:53 AM

Bleh, you ruined it by making up and withdrawing. I want to see what we can come up with in terms of well thought out ideas. I like the idea of a ghost having effect on animals or monsters of the wilderness. Perhaps certain more 'evil' monsters would try to lure the ghost and kill it. Or 'weaker' monsters/animals would 'sense' the ghost and be afraid. Allowing a higher level character who died the ability to 'haunt' a forest because his spirit will last for a considerable time.

[edited by - MagicScript on September 6, 2002 6:00:26 PM]

### #71Ironside  Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 06 September 2002 - 11:53 AM

Olusey, no harm done. In all honesty my post was a not so well veiled attack on you. I appreciate someone who is able to objectively analyze a situation and apologize if indeed it is warranted. I offer you the same courtesy in that I took offense too easily and retaliated with an attack on your character to make myself feel better.

We're square in my books. I think the whole thing may have been avoided if we all took time to read each others posts in depth and responded only when we fully comprehended the others issues and perspective. I think Saluk's post is a great example of this.

Edit: I had the "http:\\" prefix but as you see I used "\\" instad of "//" which may have thrown your browser off. Works in IE

[edited by - ironside on September 7, 2002 8:14:29 PM]

### #72Oluseyi  Staff Emeritus   -  Reputation: 1678

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 September 2002 - 10:08 AM

Ironside: Thanks.

Now let me re-state and restart (if possible) the discussion. In private correspondence, Silvermyst and I have found that the primary obstacle to perma-death schemes seems to be the fact that most games of this nature feature human avatars, and human personal success/advancement (very broadly speaking) is measured in terms of possessions, affiliations and physical/intellectual prowess. This makes the death of a human character devastating, because virtually all advancement has been tied to the character in a non-transferrable form (thus giving rise to ideas like account-based storage and so forth).

If a similar game had animal avatars, for whom possessions are a non-issue, then the only problems are affiliations (who you know/knew) and ability. To a certain extent, ability is heritable, meaning if the player can continue the adventure via the offspring, then a certain amount of the parents'' ability/potential is retained. And we all know that - in real life - your father''s friends tend to react favorably towards you, and his enemies adversely. Perhaps some distinguishing birthmark could identify a spawn as decended from a particular progenitor? Or perhaps affiliations could be completely lost?

Also, combat need not always result in death. Our animals are fairly large - some almost dinosaur-sized - and as such mere flesh wounds should not be sufficient cause to kill them. Some injuries may be debilitating (broken limbs) while some may be fatal (broken neck, obviously, but punctured lungs could also lead to death). Some may even lead to loss of consciousness or coma of the avatar, during which time the gamer may wish to use other animals in his/her "stable".

These are just ideas, none set in stone. I think that making the context clear will help many more evaluate the specific considerations of this design, while also noting the limitations of human avatar games with respect to death and its effects may clarify the issues.

### #73Oluseyi  Staff Emeritus   -  Reputation: 1678

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 September 2002 - 10:13 AM

Ironside, thatlink in your sig needs to have an "http://" prefix, otherwise web browsers will interpret the URL as being relative to "http://www.gamedev.net".

### #74Saluk  Members   -  Reputation: 127

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 September 2002 - 11:20 AM

Your remark on flesh wounds Oluseyi gives me a great idea.

Make death permanent, with the option to restart as an offspring. An offspring is given similar genes to its two parents to DEVELOP similarly as it''s parents. This doesn''t mean you start with everything leveled up, and it''s not like losing a bit of experience like dying in everquest. Now, because you can go off of previous generations of experience, the offspring will level faster until it''s roughly the same level of the parent. Your offspring also are born BEFORE you die. When you lay an egg, it is born in, say, 48 hours or so. You have to monitor and keep the egg safe or it wont hatch. Once it hatches, you have to keep the youngling safe. It will not be very protected unless you watch over it. If you die while it''s still young, then you will be able to carry on as the youngling, but it will be very hard to level it up without other adult protection. Once you get the youngling to roughly teenaged level, then you can safely spawn into him upon the parents death, as he can pretty much take care of himself. So its not just a simple, "Lay an egg, and you don''t have to worry about dying anymore" but you have to monitor the egg so its a suitable offspring to play. This also fixes the attachement, because even though you are attached to the adult, if you have to bring the youngling up from a baby this will help you get attached to him before the parent is gone. By the time you need to take over the child, you HAVE grown attached to it.

Now about the flesh wounds. Make each fight not that difficult. You don''t have to worry about getting into a fight and dying. Most fights will only result in "mere flesh wounds". You have A LOT of health. In this way, most scuffles with other players will also not damage you very much in the long run. But, healing in the game is hard. There could be some sort of healing shrine that you must find that changes places every time someone finds it. As you get beat up, and your health slowly lowers, it gets to a point where you ARE in danger of dying. At this point, if you don''t want to die, you need to set out on the long journey to find the healing shrine. You do recover health over time, but you also get older over time, and as you get older your physical traits start to subside, making it harder to recover your strength.

### #75MagicScript  Members   -  Reputation: 290

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 September 2002 - 11:44 AM

But why would the player characters want to fight each other in the first place? If you have ''family'' names than perhaps over feud. Even without this, players will fight either because they have something to gain in attacking (and possibly killing) their fellow players or simply because they are being malicious. Now my question is: when one player in a battle decides he''s had enough and is in danger of dying, what is stopping his enemy from persuing in order to finish the job. In the case of a feud, the likelyhood of one player trying to finish off the other is high. After all, why not kill this enemy of your family. In the event of players trying to gain something from one another, what do you get if your opponent simply runs away (presuming that you let him.) If there is no punishment for ''murder'' then malicious players probably wouldn''t mind killing another player just for the ''fun'' of it. If there is punishment, then the likelyhood of them being satisfied with severly injuring their enemy increases.

The only respite for retreating players would be the enemy''s need to heal.

### #76CGameProgrammer  Members   -  Reputation: 640

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 September 2002 - 12:32 PM

Oluseyi: If a similar game had animal avatars, for whom possessions are a non-issue...

Interesting, but the game will be played by humans, which are material creatures. We like getting nice items. So most players would probably want items in your game.

I suppose one idea is having "items" that you insert into your genes to give you bonuses or abilities, and you can replace them with another if you want, and these will be inherited by your children. So you might find genes that give you a poison bite, or whatever.

You might even have it that the longer the genes remain in you, the more their power grows. So your poison damage would start off slight (or nonexistent) but will increase over time. If you remove the genes, then re-add them, it will start from the beginning (low/no poison). So although people can splice their genes at any time, it pays to keep some for a while.

And rather than having inactivity pay off (instead of the genes becoming more powerful with time), they can just become more powerful each time you level up. This works also for the genes you start with.

And when you reproduce, your children have the same genes you do, but all at level 1. But it''s better than dying because you have to find those genes, so it''s sort of an item transfer.

~CGameProgrammer( );

### #77Oluseyi  Staff Emeritus   -  Reputation: 1678

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 September 2002 - 02:23 PM

A host of interesting replies. I''ll try to do them justice.

Saluk:
Death is permanent, as you suggest, but the health is also tremendous - again, as you suggest. We want players to be encouraged to engage in skirmishes whenever they feel like it and not have to worry excessively about permanently losing their avatar based on a single encounter. It thus becomes the outcome of a series of bad decisions when an avatar dies. The "grief" might even serve as stimulus to do better in subsequent play.

We haven''t really developed the parent-child-egg thing yet, but your ideas on guarding the nest and protecting the young are very interesting. I like them because they also allow the player to grow attached to the offspring and maintains a high level of involvement if a parent avatar dies.

quote:
Original post by MagicScript
But why would the player characters want to fight each other in the first place? If you have ''family'' names than perhaps over feud. Even without this, players will fight either because they have something to gain in attacking (and possibly killing) their fellow players or simply because they are being malicious.

Players are constrained to one of two overarching roles: prey or predators. Our animals (lets call them dinosaurs) are something analogous to herbivorous, largely deriving their sustenance from inanimate "life" (we call them microbes; they''re similar to plankton), but it is possible for a dino to become carnivorous and consume other dinos. Doing so gives a fast rate of growth at the cost of a sort of carcinogenic decay due to a substance in the bloodstreams of the victim, set off after a while. The more a predator dino consumes prey dinos, the more it needs to in order to combat the cancer. It is possible to completely extract the cancer, but at great loss of power and/or size. A dinosaur that becomes a carnivore and later extracts the cancer will now have a greater rate of decay should it return to eating other dinosaurs.

This systems hasn''t quite been perfected and is something completely different that we were planning to run by the public at a later date. The idea is to present the user with choices that have consequences, allow for repentance/change of heart but continued responsibility. For this to work, there has to be some downside to playing a prey throughout so players have a legitimate reason to consider both paths. It is also important to us that players know all the consequences of actions upfront. Finally, the offspring of cancer-infested dragons do not inherit the cancer nor the need to prey; it''s a non-transferrable genetic reaction.

Under this scenario, fighting becomes a matter of life and death. Obviously, predator dinosaurs will seek out weak, beginner prey. To give the beginners a chance, we also make some areas "safe havens" by virtue of the presence of certain (micro)organisms that attack predators quite rapidly, but give them enough time to escape. Another option is that the predators are too big to swim, so water can serve as an effective barrier.

Right now it''s very much a thrown-together scheme, and it will be significantly revised for consistency within the game world as well as for balance.

quote:
Original post by MagicScript
Now my question is: when one player in a battle decides he''s had enough and is in danger of dying, what is stopping his enemy from persuing in order to finish the job?

Other than the safe zones (which we might still eliminate), nothing. The upside to safe zones is that they make the supply of "cancer medicine" for predators fairly scarce, thus ensuring a steady stream of attacks and assaults on prey dinosaurs. (predators can eat what prey can; they wont get as much nutrition from it, nor will it fight their cancers).

Predators will generally seek out mismatches in their favor (not because we constrain them to, but because doing so gives them the greatest chances of victory), making prey less vulnerable as they grow.

quote:
Original post by MagicScript
In the event of players trying to gain something from one another, what do you get if your opponent simply runs away (presuming that you let him.)

This is part of why we''re trying to stay away from items. For one thing, they don''t make much sense in the context of our creatures and world; for another they complicate the rules and balance. Viewed in a certain way, though, there is the possibility of our dinosaurs having some possessions - kinda like how dragons supposedly had hoards of gold and precious stones - but it wouldn''t be other dinosaurs trying to dispossess them. It''d be adventurous little creatures - like hobbits and humans.

There''s no punishment for "murder".

quote:
Original post by CGameProgrammer
Interesting, but the game will be played by humans, which are material creatures. We like getting nice items. So most players would probably want items in your game.

As noted above, we might consider an alternative where there are certain items. It is important to us to ensure that the entire game world and gameplay experience are cohesive and consistent. If items enhance this, then we''ll seriously consider them; if they''re detrimental, they''re gone.

quote:
Original post by CGameProgrammer
I suppose one idea is having "items" that you insert into your genes to give you bonuses or abilities, and you can replace them with another if you want, and these will be inherited by your children. So you might find genes that give you a poison bite, or whatever.

This is an interesting idea. If you don''t mind me adapting it more to a technologically primitive world populated by "low-order" animals (ie, no man) based on science as opposed to Magick, perhaps the consumption of certain herbs/fruits/etc give certain physical/intellectual benefits (increased acuity of hearing, venom?). Finding, controlling and concealing the source of such substances would then be important (and could serve as an item detached from the individual) while some items would eventually be absorbed into the system (much like how some people are immune to certain diseases) in a way that can be inherited.

What do you all think?

### #78CGameProgrammer  Members   -  Reputation: 640

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 September 2002 - 04:31 PM

The problem, as I see it, is that we like to horde items, to be possessive. Bushes that produce fruit with temporary effects can''t really be possessed; it''s never yours, it''s always everyone''s for the taking. It''s a good concept for certain types of games, like in a strategy game where controlling the bushes allows you to buff up yourself or your units. But I don''t think it satisfies our material desires. It would be like a thief coming up to you and stealing your favorite sword.

~CGameProgrammer( );

### #79Oluseyi  Staff Emeritus   -  Reputation: 1678

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 September 2002 - 05:15 PM

quote:
Original post by CGameProgrammer
The problem, as I see it, is that we like to horde items, to be possessive.

I concur, and I also see it as a problem. If we''re asking a player to inhabit a role, then that role may have certain logical restrictions (or actions with repercussions). I mean, what kinds of items can we give a dinosaur to possess? Would the lack of possessions and items cause players not to try/stick with the game?

### #80Saluk  Members   -  Reputation: 127

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 September 2002 - 05:23 PM

Grr, this is starting to sound like a super original game I thought up years ago, involving dinosaurs, and, eggs.

In my old system, the plant eaters were basically a team against the meat eaters. The meat eaters have to eat plant eaters to survive, while plant eaters have to avoid meat eaters to survive. You can mate and prodoce eggs which serve as respawns, although you don''t necesarily get to respawn as you''re offspring. What would happen is, if one team was signifigantly winning, then the other team would grow smaller, and smaller. They would be running out of respawns while you would be ammassing large amounts of eggs. It was kind of set up for one team to wipe out the other. The neat thing is, the plant eaters don''t have to fight to kill off the meat eaters - they only have to avoid them for long enough.

My problem with it being an mmorpg though, was that I couldn''t think of enough for the plant eaters to do. Running from meat eaters might be fun for a while, but really, EVERYONE would want to be a meat eater. I never really solved the problems, although it would probably be GREAT as a non-persistant skirmish game rather than a persistant huge world one.

Your game is sounding like it has the same problem though - if you don''t collect items, what DO you do? Fight things? But if everyone is a herbivore, and you don''t need items that enemies drop, WHY fight at all? To level up just in case someone with cancer comes to get you? Or are there so many monsters out there that getting food is a life-or-death situation anyway?

I see a few great opportunities for gameplay, but I also see A LOT of gameplay missing. Just some things to think about.

Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

PARTNERS