Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

FREE SOFTWARE GIVEAWAY

We have 4 x Pro Licences (valued at $59 each) for 2d modular animation software Spriter to give away in this Thursday's GDNet Direct email newsletter.


Read more in this forum topic or make sure you're signed up (from the right-hand sidebar on the homepage) and read Thursday's newsletter to get in the running!


New RPG Idea!


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.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
21 replies to this topic

#1 Run_The_Shadows   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 634

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 05:47 PM

I was thinking what was wrong with my fave CRPG, Fallout 2. I thought, and i thought some more. Then i figured it out! Its just no fun when i''m running around in Advanced Power Armor and 150+ Hitpoints. The baddies don''t even TOUCH me. So i thought of a way to fix this major problem in almost all (C/MMO)RPGs in some way or another. A few simple, basic rules. --YOU DO NOT GAIN F**KING HITPOINTS! --ARMOR IS NOT INVULNERABLE AND DEGRADES UNDER HEAVY FIRE! --A WOUND WILL BLEED UNTIL BANDAGED! --THE BADDIES HAVE THE SAME WEAPONS OR BETTER AT ANY POINT! Anyway, thoughts on these radical ideas? or do you need me to clarify them with less Caps Lock? -Run_The_Shadows -Run_The_Shadows@excite.com

Sponsor:

#2 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 5066

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 05:57 PM

quote:
Original post by Run_The_Shadows

--ARMOR IS NOT INVULNERABLE AND DEGRADES UNDER HEAVY FIRE!
--A WOUND WILL BLEED UNTIL BANDAGED!
--THE BADDIES HAVE THE SAME WEAPONS OR BETTER AT ANY POINT!



Have you ever played Seventh Saga? The average monster is as tough as you are, and you die all the time. That''s no fun either.


#3 Landfish   Members   -  Reputation: 288

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 08:00 PM

Know what would happen R_T_S? People would stop picking fights with everything that moved. I think you''re on to something...

"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates

#4 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 08:11 PM

But that''s no fun! I do that here all the time!

( But seriously, Landfish is right, that WOULD stop you from picking a fight unless you saw no other way to resolve the situation. Of course, then the game must provide an alternate resolution of the problem or you''re stuck dying every ten seconds )

Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

#5 Captain Goatse   Banned   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 08:25 PM

I think the funnest part in RPG is to pick fights against everything. Think about Fallout or Diablo without useless fights?
It''s fun to fight in rpgs and it gives you feeling that you char is good when you smash army of bandits. I don''t know would that be fun, then, probably not. In my opinion fighting belongs to increase-attribute rgps as fist in your eye

Time comes, time goes and I only am.

#6 Captain Goatse   Banned   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 08:29 PM

Hey, there are RPGS without figths -> Adventure games and they aren''t fun. Probably Adventures with attributes and exp.

#7 Nazrix   Members   -  Reputation: 307

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 09:19 PM

Ironically enough, we''ve all spent the last 2 months debating upon why RPGs could be more than a bunch of fighting, and what more they have to offer than an adventure game with killing stuff.

#8 Ingenu   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 09:24 PM

ARch@on RPG are not fighting games.
If you want to fight, play diablo, but don''t call diablo a RPG it''s not the case.
You don''t have any plots, story, nor role to play.

This is just mega monster bashing.
(or somathing like that)

Actually, in my RPG rules you don''t gain hit points.
Armors are damaged.
You must heal yourself or you''ll die of your wounds.
Weapons are damaged too. (well depending how you used them)

Armor is heavy and affect you.

Ennemies (boss and powerfull others) weapons are as powerfull as yours.
Some ennemies are nearly invincible, so their is another way to solve the situation.

Combat is the worst thing you can get into. (like in real life, you don''t often like to make your life in danger)
But you won''t lost a battle if you''re smart.

However combat are spectacular (?) and fun.
(Hey, this is still a Computer RPG, so you must find it fun somewhere, and I know it won''t be by playing a game)

Hyper realist games are far from good IMO.

-* So many things to do, so few time to spend *-

#9 Niphty   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 10:23 PM

Ok, a dose of reality:

First off, armor doesn''t just "DAMAGE" it has certain things to it that matter. Now, let''s go with Fallout as an example. Power armor merely offers you protection by basically wrapping you in some kinda uranium-enriched armor casing with powered hydraulics to assit in movement. This is roughly the armor of today''s M1A2 Abrams battle tank. Depleated Uranium Enriched armor is HIGHLY expensive and HIGHLY portective. Let''s take a look at shell size vs damage impact on this armor..
Glock 9 mm, insignificant.
UZI 9 mm, insignificant with chances you''ll catch a bullet bouncing off.
.357 magnum, slight scratch.
.44 magnum, see .357 magnum.
.50 cal machine gun, see .44 magnum.

Ok, so we''ve established that small-arms fire is useless against this type of armor. Now, heavy stuff..
Mortar, slight dent
Hellfire Missle, dent with possible internal component damage, no armor pierced
Armor-piercing Missle, big dent with internal damage, possible breech of armor depending on warhead
Nuke, do i really need to tell you?

Now, the thing you have to realize is that the ability of this armor to resist motion is massive. Anything NOT designed to pierce armor will likely not have any effect. An armor-piercing missle is a specific design which tries to puncture the armor with a thin needle-like structure on the front, to allow the blast to rip into the pre-made hole. So, how does this matter in Fallout? well.. power armor can bounce gunfire all over when it hits the armor. 95% of the missles aimed at tanks aim for the base of the turrent. that''s the weak spot. So in a game, you have to have people able to shoot the weak spots In games like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, you aim for the head or neck. The real question is:
How do you account for aiming in an RPG where the player is NOT the character directly?
One solution is to have real-time combat with first person perspective. That way people swing at things. However, unless you used some advanced mouse tracking system, it''d still be useless. Let''s say a fighter comes up to goblin and attacks. The front-end goes to first person mode. You click the left button to mean attack with weapon in left hand, and you drag the mouse across where you want the strike to go. The computer judges the mouse movements and strikes there. This all has to be done real-time, mind you. That way, when the player sees and opening, they can counter-strike with deadly accuracy. On things other than humaniods, you have to know their weakness and strike there, lest you fall victim of not knowing what to do This uses no character skills, and allows the player the ability to actually control the character. This is but one solution, and uses a massive processor to do it.. and is currently impossible to do in MMORPGs

Invincible enemies are an old, used up excuse to things. if i can''t be invincible, neither can the enemy. We''ll use Star Wars: Phantom Menace here. There''s a part where you''re rescuing the Queen, and you''re Obi-won. You run around the city finding tanks along the way. Even with a rocket launcher, these tanks don''t die. They''re FAKE. the programmers/designers left them out of the code to make it easy on them. You''re supposed to go around them. Well, why can''t they be killed? they got blown up left and right in the movie! That''s just plain stupid to say "well, let''s make it invincible because that''s not how we want the player to go about things". It''s sad, and makes people sick. It''s nowhere near reality and just shows how LAZY the programmers and designers are. It also shows that a company is more concerned with churning out half-done projects which hold little to no interest after about 30 minutes. You want to be like this? fine.. but get off gamedev.net, because here we''re trying to change how the industry works.. not support it.

J

#10 Captain Goatse   Banned   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2000 - 12:29 AM

If RPGs should be role-playing is it roleplaying to run around and solve quests? I think that''s directly from adventure games, except you get experience and your skills are main factors in quests. So, role-playing is taking role as bar tender or shop keeper and I haven''t seen any single CRPG where you could have done that. It''s different in live roleplaying games(those guys are really freaky, they book whole hotels and shoot each others in there with crappy bullet guns) or normal p''n''p games, but in those the idea is still to waste some monsters and save the prince & stuff.

Hey Niphty, in Fallout, power armor helps to evade hits, if I recall right Advanced Power Armor MK 2 gives you 35 points of ac which is directly off from to hit. If I remember right I haven''t ever seen policeman "evading" a bullet by his kevlar west, but I have seen how policeman doesn''t get hurt when shoot, because of this west.

So armors bring protection, they are not for dodging bullets.

Time comes, time goes and I only am.

#11 Niphty   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2000 - 04:08 AM

quote:
Original post by Arche@on
So armors bring protection, they are not for dodging bullets.



Not true. Mobility is a MASSIVE factor in success rate. Medieval knights in plate armor is a big example. They were winched up in the air and sat down on a horse. If they fell off, they couldn''t get up. Why? The armor was restrictive. Many people in plate armor didn''t die of direct wounds, they died of not being able to get outta the armor before the wound was inflicted. Case in point: You club someone in plate armor. The armor would be dented. Enough dents could hinder mobility and perhaps even effect some sort of paralasis to the knight since they oft could not bend joints after they were struck. Don''t try to contest me on this, my girlfriend is a minor in medieval studies and i get to hear ALL about it
Power armor was powered to help mobility. Part of your AC in D&D was a bonus for dexterity. The more you could move naturally, the harder it is to hit you. However, once hit.. the armor''s rating actually took effect when determining damage to you in Fallout. The AC was the mere chance of you getting hurt.. be it because you dodged or because your armor absorbed the impact.
Police get broken ribs all the time from the vests. They also get whelts from hell. Why? the kevlar doesn''t stop the physical impact of the bullet.. it merely spreads the impact over a larger area, which in turn lessens the impact wound. The bullet itself is caught in the kevlar due to the nature of kevlar to have a high tensile strength. Many times a bullet could still go through the kevlar, but hits the iron plate protecting the mid-chest area. This is critical for close-range shots, as they can still pierce kevlar. I watched a discovery channel special on it Kevlar spreads the impact over a large area and blunts the tip of the bullet which helps stop it''s movement through the vest. All of the velocity impact IS absorbed by the body and it DOES hurt like hell. I''ve seen several shows of Cops where they get shot in the vest and swear they''re dead before they realize they''re still alive. It''s a freaking miracle these vests exist and can do what they do.. but they still can''t lessen the impact any.. merely stop the projectile and spread the impact over a greater area.
With this kind of solution, people live.. but it still hurts in some way. Unless you dodge a bullet, you''re going to get some pain. Many games have an unclear method for how to determine hit vs miss and damage vs armor penetration. D&D is one of these. Either the armor takes ALL the damage, or none of it. So a more advanced system of looking at armor coverage and whatnot is needed in games in my opinion. But then again, i''m an arsenal expert I just sort of "see" physics in action whenever i think about things like this. I know WHY things work the way the do in these respects.. it''s some sorta talent i have Which is why i''m so crazed about cars.. i can literally see them blasting through the air and aerodynamics taking effect on them F1 racing RULES!

The point about RPG games and adventure aspects is lost to me. There''s no real sense of what an RPG is, as Landfish has exposed.. so it''s a moot point. What exactly is an RPG? I''d like to ask some magazines that.. since they constantly give out "RPG of the year" awards. Harvest moon is an RPG. LOL!

J

#12 Captain Goatse   Banned   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2000 - 04:40 AM

I though we were talking about reality. You took good example from MBT(Main Battle Tank, currently M1Ax Abrams). See, noone is faster than bullet, that mobility thing can help with melee blows from clubs and stuff, but when someone shoots you and you and you are up, there is no way to dodge that if it''s hitting.

A bullet from Steyer M9(Average 9mm pistol with 9mm Luger)comes 317m/s which compared to humans reaction time(average 0.7s, not counting the time which it takes you to dodge). OK now someone shoots me with this gun while I''m looting Software store at Planet Hardware, he is 317 meters away from me, apparently he rolls natural 20(Ehheheh, Ad&d) and hits, the bullet leaves me 0.3 seconds to dodge which is impossible!

The bullet either goes near by or then it goes down to your chest and bents''n''cracs every rib you got. See, when someone shoots you with horizontal whip cannon, you hear nice sound when it passes by and in army they teach that when you hear sound you gotta duck&cover, which is wrong, well not exactly because you can suspect that whoever wants to hurt you wants to kill you and there are 100 bullets coming right behind the bullet you just heard.

And second thing is that then Leather Jacket should have better AC than Combat Armor, because combat armor is way much heavier and clumsier. (I doubt that even high tech mobilized armor is better than anything)

In futuristic games armors shouldn''t add evading/dodging bonus, because it''s not from the armor if you get hit, It''s from your skills. I like the way it''s in Jagged Alliance 2.

>
>i''m an arsenal expert
>

Yeah I don''t doub that you are, but why didn''t you take such a simple thing that reactions. If you have seen someone evading a bullet in anyother place than in James Bond please tell me, That guy has extremely well trained reactions.

We ain''t living in the Matrix, so you can''t dodge this.
I think I proofed well enough why armors can''t proviede any dodging abilites, unless they are supereme alien armors.


Time comes, time goes and I only am.

#13 Niphty   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2000 - 11:46 AM

The armor doesn''t provide any more mobility, it''s all a matter of how resrictive it is.. or unrestrictive Sorry if i didn''t convey that properly, i merely meant to say that games tend to lump dodging and armor damage absorption into a single category, which is.. of course.. wrong

As for reaction times.. that''s got to be based on the player''s stats. Uhmm.. what was that stupid movie.. Remo something.. lol. He was trained by a "zen master" to dodge bullets. he could supposedly ''hear'' when someone was pulling the trigger and thus learned to evade them. It''s an instinctual response though, you couldn''t control it properly.. if you had to THINK at all, then you''re dead with a bullet.

Armor improving mobility doesn''t need to be alien, it needs to be magical If you think about it, a kid with a disease preventing him from walking would benefit from some kinda power armor which could help him move. This is the only instance in which power armor or something like it IMPROVES motion. Say if you break a leg, having the power armor might mean you could keep going, because you need not move the leg in order to move the suit. I could think up reasons like that all day The point is, the don''t hinder motion.

Another fault is that many games don''t account for the fact that the armor is BIGGER than you are. It doesn''t increase the size of your body any, which would also determine if you got hit. I mean, if you dodge and get out of the way normally, adding an extra inch might mean the difference.

As for your Matrix comment.. why not? The game is a fantasy world.. do with it as you will! If your game features some kind of mentalist or something which is capable of slowing down time, then it''s acceptable. Look at Interview with a Vampire if you need an example of people moving faster than normal elsewhere in the realm of fantasy! I believe that is all..

J

#14 Dade 11   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 06:32 AM

I like the idea, more realistic action. Hey, what if you have the enemies try to attack your head but they won''t always succed and sometimes hit your body, or arm.

Dade 11

#15 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 06:44 AM

I''d have them go for the balls... much more effective..


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

#16 Silvermyst   Members   -  Reputation: 113

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 06:57 AM

I think realistic combat wouldn''t hurt ''rpg'' games in any way.

Right now, playing Everquest, players will fight creatures they KNOW they can beat. Well, in realistic combat, that would still be valid. Players that want to fight, will fight things/beings that they know they can beat, or at least are pretty sure they can beat.

Realistic combat would just make players seek out targets that are slightly weaker than themselves (or a lot weaker).

IF you HAVE to use an experience-system, where you used to give say 100 ep for a creature the player fought (without realistic combat), now just give that same 100 ep or less for the weaker creature the player fights (the less the better).

Result? A more realistic combat, that will leave the player/character with a lot more satisfaction.

When wolves in rpg games become real dangers, imagine how players would feel about attacking dragons!

And one more thing this realistic (read: tougher) combat would do, is make players band together. They don''t HAVE to team up, but in teaming up they will be able to fight bigger monsters...maybe even a Grizzly Bear

And I really do think that to make the current rpgs more than just hack''n''slash SOME sort of system should be developed to make combat more of a tactic strategy game (I think Asheron''s Call has something that might be a start of this, where you can choose to attack with a lot of power or with a lot of speed, and you can choose to aim high or low I think).
Let players set up hotkeys for different attackforms, maybe even include the good ol'' combo attacks (player finds out that against certain monsters, a good tactic is to first attack fast, piercing, then attack with powerful overhead swipes followed by a routine in which the player attacks with a left ''backhand'' swipe, then a right swipe, and then another overhead swipe).

This might make ''rpg'' a little bit like Killer Instinct and all those other fight-games, but...so what? Isn''t fighting supposed to be like that? And I''m not talking about ''special attacks'' and such, just basic sword techniques. I''m sure NIFTY can describe a few fighting styles to us

Silvermyst


#17 Silvermyst   Members   -  Reputation: 113

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 06:59 AM

PS Anyone that''s ever played Prince Of Persia knows how much fun it is to manually dodge a sword. And also anyone that''s played Everquest knows how boring it is to just press ''autoattack'' and wait for the poor creature you''re fighting to die.

Come on...make swordfighting interesting!

Swashbucklers unite!

#18 eng3d   Members   -  Reputation: 91

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 07:02 AM

Bad Idea!.

Example :
Player :lara lara lara (singing)
Ogre (low category, shotting with a ultra-low-ammo pistol) :shooot!.
Player :uggg. this hit in the head.. dead!
GAME OVER.

not fair?.

If you like some real, the perfection is the reality itself!.
You want no-reality :Space adventure,medieval,etc. And the main point in the all games is the playable capacity.

Some armor was invulnerable. For example kevlar armor with a simple shot (of course not a explosive) is "invulnerable".
And the medieval armor, many was invulnerable but deformable.

Diablo is a incomplete RPG but it is funny!. True RPG is a Final Fantasy Saga, when the characters have "live", and you fell when the ally-char dead!.
And you GAIN hp!. Is not the same a marine (high hp) with a fatboy (low hp), but the fatboy may reach to be a marine.
MP is the same.


-eng3d.softhome.net-

#19 Roderik   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 07:23 AM

I am all for a "more dangerous" combat system, simply because it makes the player think more carefully about what he does; combined with the fact that killing somebody without a reason probably has bad consequences, this guarantees for a far higher niveau of "role-playing", since you are forced to think about a way around problems and you "respect" your enemys more. Just look at Fallout: A really good game, but once you've got the power-armor and a plasma rifle (or maybe even sooner), nearly nothing in the world is really dangerous for you, so why bother? You just slaughter everything that's in your way. Well, I guess I don't really say anything new here, just wanted to tell you my opinion on the subject (and raise my message count ).

Edited by - Roderik on June 29, 2000 2:29:13 PM

#20 Jerry Lynn   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 07:46 AM

I think that what would improve RPG''s is if there were fewer battles, but the battles were larger, more complicated, and had more ''story value''.

Even in action films (which are mostly about battles) there are only a few battles, but they have signifiant impacts on the plot line. Think how boring a film or story would be if it was 90% random battles against oponents that basically amounted to cannon foder.

Of course that gets you into the issue of non-combat oriented experience systems to allow character growth...




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