I never said it was easy(ok maybe I did). All I meant was that you could keep a lot of stuff on the client, and keep some stuff on the server. Certainly emulating your own os and such could probably work in such wonders, but like you said, its only the cheaters that share that aren''t cool. I also said to bluff, hide, and cover. Using these techniques should stop about 99% of all people. The other 1% are persistant. If your veiws on this say that there WILL be cheats, then at least there won''t be many. It also has to be dealt with before hand, but it does help to fix them after they are there too.
Personally, though, I think checking stuff, and even making limits where there should be(or seems no need to be) some. Take for example a racing game. Technically you can only go 218 mph according to the physics, but putting a limit so if X > 218 then X = 218. That is of course one example, with the command on the server side(all checks there, all but one anyhow), you should cut down on a lot of speed cheats right? Or is there some easy way around this?
What happens when you log off?
Author
Well thanks for your opinions, and I assure you that security will be a big concern for us. But lets try to bring this thread back on topic:
What happens when you log off?
Thanks all,
Fireball
What happens when you log off?
Thanks all,
Fireball
What happens when I log off? I (character) cease to exist. This is because I think that strategy games don''t lend themselves to MMOGs. They require constant management and withouth that manager, the empire crumbles. Someone goes on vacation for a week (it does happen)? They come back to a crumbled empire, with their former allies picking at the pieces.
There are options though. One empire isn''t run by one person. Run the empires as collectives and the game multi-tiered. Gain more experience, get more power in the empire. Whoever has the most experience has the chance to play whatever position that they want and so forth. Some people may just want to play a Battleship, others may want to ''run the show'' as it would be. It would be a multi-tiered game, with an ''over comander'' running the overall strategy, front admirals handling the different fronts of the war, fleet admirals running their fleets and captains running their ships. This way you can have every level of the game. While running a ship you get the most experience, mattering on your success level, when running a fleet, you get slightly less, while running a front, you get less and when running the whole show you get NONE. This way you won''t end up with a very small number of people running each empire, positions would rotate.
Also make penalties for breaking treaties, if the over commander orders war with an ally, he loses a bunch of points (call it 25%), front commanders lose slightly less (20%), fleet commanders lose less (15%) and ship commanders lose the least (10%). This means that there is a penalty for breaking alliances (as there should be) and there is a chance that someone could take over the person''s position when they do that, since they would be losing their experience. Also, it''s possible that if the person is removed from his position (someone else with higher experience takes his position) the alliance can be salvaged, thus foiling the offender''s plans, though the offended empire could just jump the offending empire and suffer no penalties.
Anyway, this means that you never need AI to run the entire empire, only small ships (frigates, destroyers)... which could be handled by the client computers that are in ''command'' of those ships (the nearest ship of command quality), though if there are no ships nearby there would have to be backup AI that would extricate the ships from an offensive situation (to the nearest base) or continue fighting in a defensive situation. It would significantly drop your AI needs though to almost non-existant.
Well... if you don''t make that game, I will. I really like those ideas and I''ve thought that they would work out well for a Star Fleet Battles adaptation for the internet.
There are options though. One empire isn''t run by one person. Run the empires as collectives and the game multi-tiered. Gain more experience, get more power in the empire. Whoever has the most experience has the chance to play whatever position that they want and so forth. Some people may just want to play a Battleship, others may want to ''run the show'' as it would be. It would be a multi-tiered game, with an ''over comander'' running the overall strategy, front admirals handling the different fronts of the war, fleet admirals running their fleets and captains running their ships. This way you can have every level of the game. While running a ship you get the most experience, mattering on your success level, when running a fleet, you get slightly less, while running a front, you get less and when running the whole show you get NONE. This way you won''t end up with a very small number of people running each empire, positions would rotate.
Also make penalties for breaking treaties, if the over commander orders war with an ally, he loses a bunch of points (call it 25%), front commanders lose slightly less (20%), fleet commanders lose less (15%) and ship commanders lose the least (10%). This means that there is a penalty for breaking alliances (as there should be) and there is a chance that someone could take over the person''s position when they do that, since they would be losing their experience. Also, it''s possible that if the person is removed from his position (someone else with higher experience takes his position) the alliance can be salvaged, thus foiling the offender''s plans, though the offended empire could just jump the offending empire and suffer no penalties.
Anyway, this means that you never need AI to run the entire empire, only small ships (frigates, destroyers)... which could be handled by the client computers that are in ''command'' of those ships (the nearest ship of command quality), though if there are no ships nearby there would have to be backup AI that would extricate the ships from an offensive situation (to the nearest base) or continue fighting in a defensive situation. It would significantly drop your AI needs though to almost non-existant.
Well... if you don''t make that game, I will. I really like those ideas and I''ve thought that they would work out well for a Star Fleet Battles adaptation for the internet.
Author
Well, we already have a storyline, and many options. We aren't about to change the whole style of the game, because of one aspect. There are many problems to be encountered in dev, you just have to work with them, and around them. But thanks for the info though
Thanks,
Fireball
[edited by - fire_ball on August 5, 2002 1:39:13 PM]
Thanks,
Fireball
[edited by - fire_ball on August 5, 2002 1:39:13 PM]
I wasn''t suggesting making it a Star Fleet Battles game. If you read that sentence and disregarded the rest of my post then nevermind...
OK, I''ll give this another shot.
First of all, the reason that I think that RTSs don''t lend themselves to MMOGs is because there is no cooperation. Sure, there are alliances and so forth, but that''s not really cooperation, that''s just two guys joining forces long enough to beat the crap out of a bunch of other people, then beating the crap out of each-other. How many relationships did they develop over the course of doing that? One? Wow... They only probably encountered a few dozen people on their way to galactic conquest.
With the tiered model that I proposed (no matter the setting/storyline), you end up with a large number (hundreds, if not thousands) of players working together against other empires. This means that they are developing that which will addict them to the game and keep them playing for long periodds of time... relationships.
The game that your team is looking at making, from what I can see, is looking like a ''me and my empire (same entity, btw) against the universe''. With the one that I''m proposing, it''s ''me, my 500(0) closest buddies and our empire against the other empires''.
You stop playing a multiplayer game online and it''s just that you don''t get to keep on fighting against other people and odds are that you''re losing anyway ( >50% of the people out there lose in multiplayer strategy games), so what do you care if you abandon a losing position? If you quit a multiplayer empire, you are abandoning your friends, don''t get to be involved with the conquests anymore, don''t get to go chat on the imperial forums, etc... you lose a community.
Online games are about building communities of gamers who want to hang out with each-other, play together, live, die and laugh together. With a game you''re creating a few hundred opponents.
You have a choice between making a game and building a community of gamers.
Do you think UO is still going strong after 4 years or so because it''s competetive or because these people built relationships that they enjoy and value?
The worst part about the model that you''re proposing is that it''s a game of elimination. Once you''re beat, you''re out of the game, what are you going to do, restart fresh? The people who started when you originally started are going to be bigger and nastier and will kick the living snot out of you nine times a day without blinking. They''ve got probing forces bigger than your entire fleet! Sounds futile, doesn''t it? I thought so too.
First of all, the reason that I think that RTSs don''t lend themselves to MMOGs is because there is no cooperation. Sure, there are alliances and so forth, but that''s not really cooperation, that''s just two guys joining forces long enough to beat the crap out of a bunch of other people, then beating the crap out of each-other. How many relationships did they develop over the course of doing that? One? Wow... They only probably encountered a few dozen people on their way to galactic conquest.
With the tiered model that I proposed (no matter the setting/storyline), you end up with a large number (hundreds, if not thousands) of players working together against other empires. This means that they are developing that which will addict them to the game and keep them playing for long periodds of time... relationships.
The game that your team is looking at making, from what I can see, is looking like a ''me and my empire (same entity, btw) against the universe''. With the one that I''m proposing, it''s ''me, my 500(0) closest buddies and our empire against the other empires''.
You stop playing a multiplayer game online and it''s just that you don''t get to keep on fighting against other people and odds are that you''re losing anyway ( >50% of the people out there lose in multiplayer strategy games), so what do you care if you abandon a losing position? If you quit a multiplayer empire, you are abandoning your friends, don''t get to be involved with the conquests anymore, don''t get to go chat on the imperial forums, etc... you lose a community.
Online games are about building communities of gamers who want to hang out with each-other, play together, live, die and laugh together. With a game you''re creating a few hundred opponents.
You have a choice between making a game and building a community of gamers.
Do you think UO is still going strong after 4 years or so because it''s competetive or because these people built relationships that they enjoy and value?
The worst part about the model that you''re proposing is that it''s a game of elimination. Once you''re beat, you''re out of the game, what are you going to do, restart fresh? The people who started when you originally started are going to be bigger and nastier and will kick the living snot out of you nine times a day without blinking. They''ve got probing forces bigger than your entire fleet! Sounds futile, doesn''t it? I thought so too.
Author
Why not just have the OPTION, of merging empires? That way this game could satisfy everyone That is a good idea though, thanks for the info.
That is a good idea though, thanks for the info.
I already suggested this before but:
It''s not very hard making people dependent on each other. You give the one resources the other doesn''t have and the other way around. A way to get them (the resources) would be by attacking the other, but since players don''t ''die'' after 1 or 2 attacks, and universal domination isn''t very likely, one might try to work together with another player, just to become bigger.
What I''m trying to say is that you can''t defeat every single player in the game. The only supreme objective that leaves, is becoming the biggest. And since you''re not forced to kill your ''neighbours'' to achieve this goal, active trade/research/military cooperation isn''t such a bad idea.
(this has nothing to do with the offline issue though
)
----------
Visit http://www.endoentertainment.tk, http://www.halfdemon.tk and http://www.thedarklands.tk
It''s not very hard making people dependent on each other. You give the one resources the other doesn''t have and the other way around. A way to get them (the resources) would be by attacking the other, but since players don''t ''die'' after 1 or 2 attacks, and universal domination isn''t very likely, one might try to work together with another player, just to become bigger.
What I''m trying to say is that you can''t defeat every single player in the game. The only supreme objective that leaves, is becoming the biggest. And since you''re not forced to kill your ''neighbours'' to achieve this goal, active trade/research/military cooperation isn''t such a bad idea.
(this has nothing to do with the offline issue though
) ----------
Visit http://www.endoentertainment.tk, http://www.halfdemon.tk and http://www.thedarklands.tk
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
