ImmoralAtheist

Members
  • Content count

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

118 Neutral

About ImmoralAtheist

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Play without save/load

    Here's my personal opinions/experiences on these matters. [quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1335532703' post='4935373'] You are right, but you are also so very wrong. In Gothic 3, I had just cleared out an entire area of Shadowbeasts, Bisons, and two Dragons. I probably spent 30 minutes up to an hour to get this stuff done, and there's absolutely no autosave or quicksave in the game. Then suddenly, a bugged Wild Boar went through the mountain itself, because the pathfinding in Gothic 3 is absolutely horrendous. And Wild Boars had, early on, a bugged attack that was impossible to get away from, so they could sometimes spam-attack you to death, no matter how strong you were. Suffice to say that I was not very happy that day. Personally, I agree that Quicksave breaks immersion because it's a conscious action. [/quote] There's definitely a quicksave in that game. If I remember correctly they often encourage you to save often (load screen tips). I really liked the Gothic 3 quicksave as it has 3 or 5 quick save slots, where you'll overwrite the oldest one. Much better than the regular just one (like in Skyrim). I quickly learned from Gothic 2 that it's a good idea to save often, and it's a good idea to use several save slots. Going into the menu and saving does break immersion (particulary in Gothic 3 where it changed music track), but quicksave quickly develops into something reflexish. One advantage is that I decide when the game makes a sudden hiccup/lag due to saving. I disable autosaving because I really dislike unexpected lags in the middle of a battle. [quote name='DrMadolite' timestamp='1335532703' post='4935373'] But I'm all for [i]Autosaving[/i] and I actually feel that any game that should have it and doesn't, are broken games. Personally, I prefer the consta-save of the Diablo series and of MMOs.[/quote] These systems depend on a respawn system which really makes a big change in the game universe. I would not find it immersive to respawn after death in the gothic games. There's no lore about it, and nor should it. Gothic games tried to be somewhat "realistic". It's not a game where 90% of the items are "magical". I don't think a respawn system would fit at all. Crysis had normal save anywhere you want. In crysis 2 they changed that to automatic saves, which works smoothly because they made the open world, into a linear one, with it's "action bubbles". The game was very dissapointing. [quote name='PyroDragn' timestamp='1335661341' post='4935727'] One issue to consider is something that has already been mentioned in this thread. If you introduce this limited-save mode, you will inherently be introducing a new mechanic[/quote] Indeed. It was in farcry where I really really thought about saving. A big part of the game time went into replaying from an earlier save, just so that I could improve the situation in my later saves. I can't say I that particular part was very immersive.
  2. I will comment the suggestions by hughinn as a mix with the world of goo system as suggested by [i]Stormynature[/i]. [quote name='hughinn' timestamp='1334168691' post='4930330'] Just creating some basic variables like density of a metal and how long the weapon is [/quote] It would be possible to customize the sword frame yourself. You could set width and length of the blade, and also how width varies from root to end of the sword. Width could go from broad to narrow as it reaches the tip, or it could maintain most of it's width, and then suddenly lead into a tip at near the end of the sword. Width could also increase. Another is if the blade is curved. You can make it very complex. The materials could themselves be player crafted/gathered and with unique properties. Some issues I see with this, is categorizing the different blades. Having a set of different materials (wood, iron, steel, obsidian, etc.) simplifies the categorizing scheme into fixed categories. Additionaly it may be advisable to reduce amount of items with custom parameters. A player will usually have no more than a few swords, but lots of crafting materials. Just picking out the materials you want could be very time consuming (or buying), if every material has custom parameters. I'd imagine that if the sword was unsucessful, then you'd want to salvage the materials (you won't get a full return). Number of items with custom parameters should not be to high. Also, in the world of goo scenario there will always be minor differences, as you won't place stuff at the exact same location, and also (like in World of goo) the construction can have movements. Actually, I believe the calculations behind this are quite expensive, and something which you probably can't do serverside. The building process may have to be done locally, and once completed the server can test the construction. Locally the construction would be constantly tested so that you yourself can see the attributes realtime. The player would click finish, and a still image of the construction would be taken, which will be used in testing. There are problems with this, as someone could alter the game, so that they sent copies, or slightly altered copies of a very good design. [quote name='Stormynature' timestamp='1334169252' post='4930332'] Using a combination of both your ideas into one would be a nice trick to do imo. Either of you have any ideas how you would do that in making of an Axe for example? [/quote] I don't think "striking the hammer at a certain time" goo ball construction fits well together. Anyways, in the world of goo scenario. An axe could for instance consist of a wooden shaft, and an iron blade. The frame would then require wood goo balls in the shaft area, and iron goo balls in the blade area. I intended that a goo ball will represent a material. If yoiu have 30 iron materials, and you can use up to 20 iron materials in the axe design, then you will have 20 iron goo balls at your disposal. If you use all 20 iron goo balls when making the axe, then you have consumed 20 iron materials. You now only have 10 iron materials remaining. If you try to make a new axe, you will only have 10 iron goo balls at your disposal which is probably to little to make a decent axe. When making the design, it should be possible to remove goo balls from the construction. If you notice that some goo balls should be placed differently, then you can remove them, but at the risk of loosing the goo balls you remove. This is however far better than loosing many more goo balls (materials) into something which is doomed to be a bad design.
  3. [quote name='Stormynature' timestamp='1334011625' post='4929692'] Using the above example as a guide I would be interested in other “crafting” professions can people think of that could work in a similar vein [/quote] Not exactly breeding based, but something different. Have you played world of goo? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW00TRa0_qo&feature=related[/media] Imagine crafting a sword with goo balls. You are given a frame (walls enclosing a sword frame?). It will be put to certain tests (particulary tests for hardness and durability), and the results of these tests will determine the stats of the sword. A crafter will have to gain profficiency crafting a type of item. The higher his level in crafting that type of item, the more/better goo balls he has at his disposal. Still it is up to the player to actually craft a good design, and it can't be copied, meaning every single sword will have to be handcrafted in this way. The best designs will be available on the net, but there would still be minor variations. An unusually good result would sell for a lot. It's also possible to make the best designs quite difficult to accomplish, so that many might decide to use a suboptimal design which has a higher chance of actually producing something useful, so that they won't waste expensive raw materials. For swords, I see general types of swords. [i]sword, long sword, two-hander, dagge[/i]r (can be many more). Each of these types will have their own frame. Additionaly they will be subdivided into group of materials used. This could be wood, iron, obsidian or steel swords. When creating an iron sword, you will be able to use your iron (in the form of goo balls) to craft your iron sword. The higher level the crafter is, the more goo balls can max be used (and pherhaps some other stuff). Items with cheap materials (wood), could be given a frame with walls, acting as a very good support structure. Items with good materials could get a gradually poorer support structure. However, you also gain means to help your structure. It could be baloons, keeping your structure from falling, or goo balls (materials) which is meant for building your own support structure (probably much cheaper than the actual materials used in the sword). A score could be given to the final product, and they could be named [i]"fine iron sword"[/i], [i]"dull iron sword"[/i] and so on. You could also give an iron sword, a slightly different graphical appearance based on it's quality. I've thought of possible mini games for crafting before without coming up with something very good, but I believe this world of goo mixed with crafting has good potential.
  4. Character advancement

    [quote name='HNikolas' timestamp='1333979462' post='4929553'] [quote name='ImmoralAtheist' timestamp='1333971628' post='4929517'] Here's some of my ideas. You could make it so that every skill is learn by doing but that there's a level cap how how much you can train in each skill. You need special skill points, and these can be gained through time, xp system (for each level), or doing certain special stuff (missions), or a combination of these. These skill points could be used on a skill to raise it's level cap. Say skills go from 0-100. Unupgraded they are capped at lvl 30. You can spend a skill point to upgrade a skill to the next stage, and thereby raising the level cap to 40. Depending on how important a skill is, it may require different amount of skill points to upgrade. Skill points can also be specialized into categories. Some are for gathering, other for combat. They could also be catecorized into eary stage or late upgrade. Normal skill points might upgrade 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, 60-70 while gold skill points are needed for 70-80, 80-90, 90-100. Normal skill points could be limitless so that in time you could train every skill up to atleast lvl 70. Gold skill points could be limited, and a player must carefully choose what he want to specialize in. This would be somewhat similar to the Witcher with its bronze, silver and gold talents. You could do most bronze upgrades, but only a few gold upgrades. [/quote] If I understand you correctly: Player could level a certain skill some levels without needing any additional skill upgrades? After reaching the point, he unlocks the ability to use skill upgrades on the skill which in turn allows him to level the skill more by X levels? If thats so I like it very much. Very good suggestion and it has a time based factor too which is great and exactly what I wanted. Did you thought this idea yourself or is there a game I could see it in practice? [/quote] Yes that's basically right (I think). I'm renaming skill points to talent points (like in Witcher) for less confusion. Earning talent points, and gaining levels in skills are two separate things. Just like in Skyrim you level up skills by using them. However you can not train them up to 100. You can increase them to some cap (say lvl 30). You can raise this level cap by spending talent points on a specific skill. A talent point might raise the level cap of herb gathering from 30 to 40. You can still spend it, although you have not yet reached lvl 30 in herb gathering. Talent points may also do other things. In Skyrim they could have the perk system, and also this level cap. upgrading perks in a skill tree will raise the level cap of that skill. Pherhaps more important is the categorizing of talent points. It takes lots of time, but a player may be able to get enough normal talent points, so that every skill can be trained up to level 70, and with even more time, all skills will be trained to lvl 70. The gold talent points is the specialization part, where a limited amount of skills can be trained even further and up to lvl 100. No game does this (that I know off), but you can find the different elements in different games. It's simply mixing different designs and somehow fusing them together: [img]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111008062722/southpark/images/2/28/AssBurgers32.png[/img] Like with the categorized talent points, I didn't think of the Witcher until after I thought of this categorizing talent points, but I may have thought of that because I have played the Witcher. If not, then the picture above would not be representative. [quote name='HNikolas' timestamp='1333979462' post='4929553'] What do you guys think when looking from the fun perspective, what system is the most fun and also, does any of you have any other suggestions? [/quote] I liked the levelling by doing in Skyrim. Since Oblivion they've eliminated most of the grindy stuff, and you also have the perks, so that not only skill level matters. However it could have been more strict. You could still power lvl a magic skill, although no spent perks were mage related, and you had not have invested in mana. Still you would get access to the most kickass spells and mage armor, and you could cast those spells (with mana enhancing gear).
  5. What do you think about Turn based combat?

    Turn based combat is unrealistic (in most cases). A problem with many rts games is that they rely to much on fast management (button input). In Warcraft, when encountering another army, I want my units to cast different types of spells on different units. Thinking through what to do is not the major challenge. Casting specific spells from 5 different units on specific targets as fast as possible is what's challenging, and they have a major impact on the outcome of the battle. Sins of a solar empire is realtime, but I find that fast management is significantly less important here. If you have to quickly micromanage every little aspect to be succesful, then this will be more important than the actual strategy. A big advantage from dodging catapult shots in Age of Empires (which the AI does) does simply not belong in a [b]Strategy[/b] game. Possible ways to avoid this, is to make the advantage minor or nonexistent (like faster projectile and semirandom hit location which a unit is to slow to move out of). Another is to give player units similar AI.
  6. Character advancement

    [quote name='HNikolas' timestamp='1333633498' post='4928471'] I am designing a RPG game and I am not sure what skill advancement system to implement. Currently systems I can think of: [/quote] Here's some of my ideas. You could make it so that every skill is learn by doing but that there's a level cap how how much you can train in each skill. You need special skill points, and these can be gained through time, xp system (for each level), or doing certain special stuff (missions), or a combination of these. These skill points could be used on a skill to raise it's level cap. Say skills go from 0-100. Unupgraded they are capped at lvl 30. You can spend a skill point to upgrade a skill to the next stage, and thereby raising the level cap to 40. Depending on how important a skill is, it may require different amount of skill points to upgrade. Skill points can also be specialized into categories. Some are for gathering, other for combat. They could also be catecorized into eary stage or late upgrade. Normal skill points might upgrade 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, 60-70 while gold skill points are needed for 70-80, 80-90, 90-100. Normal skill points could be limitless so that in time you could train every skill up to atleast lvl 70. Gold skill points could be limited, and a player must carefully choose what he want to specialize in. This would be somewhat similar to the Witcher with its bronze, silver and gold talents. You could do most bronze upgrades, but only a few gold upgrades.
  7. Luck as a Gameplay Factor

    [quote name='danuese' timestamp='1333879488' post='4929270'] [b]The Average Approach[/b] An example for this is Diablo, DnD, really almost every Action RPG out there, often strategy games too; as they all randomize weapon damage. Why is this acceptable? Simply because you use your weapon so often that it averages because of the sheer number of rolls. It also makes the player think, do I want to do 2-7 damage per hit, or rather 1-8? [/quote] What you're basically saying is that it's okay because it's not really luck based. It's only an illusion. I might say this variable damage makes sense from a physical standpoint. additionaly if you're gonna show dmg numbers (which I dislike), you don't want to show the same number over and over again. This, and critical hits makes the total damage unpredictable i the next few strikes. If only a few blows are required to take down a foe, then the chance of a sudden dmg spike will have a great advantage in killing foes in a holy trinity system. Healers will have a much harder time dealing with such unpredictable encounters, making the job require more skill. You might wanna sacrifice some average dmg in return for better random temporary spike dmg, making the optimal build more complex (isn't that what you want?). The possibility of chance is not equivalent to less skill. [quote name='danuese' timestamp='1333879488' post='4929270'] [indent=3] Imagine finally getting the atom bomb in an RTS, after being almost overrun since you had to invest all your ressources into this, and then *Poof* nothing happens. Why? The superweapon does 200-9999 damage, and you just happened to roll low. Because of luck, you lost the game.[/indent] [/quote] There's a difference between random dmg in something that takes lots of investment in a long game. In a rpg pvp match you usually respawn quite quickly so these are very different scenarios. There's also a massive difference between 200-9999 dmg and 5000-9999 dmg. The first has a very extreme dmg difference, while in the latter scenario it might be a devastating hit, or it might be a very devastating hit. A 10k hit might give you a win, while a 6k hit might prolong the fight. [quote name='danuese' timestamp='1333879488' post='4929270'] [b]T[/b]o[b]he alternative route[/b] This is something that I have hardly seen in games. It basically says that luck depends on the outcome of the mission, but you don't FAIL. It means that the story goes in a different direction, or that you get different missions. This could be used for interesting effect, but it can frustrate the player, since he might not be able to see the story go in a different way when he replays the game. A possibility to avoid this would be to program the game to automatically have it work out the other way when you replay the game. Say the game notes if you finished with version A, so the next time you will always get B. [/quote] So you dislike luck in combat, but you'd like it in story progression, instead of being dependent on dialouge choices? [quote name='danuese' timestamp='1333879488' post='4929270'] To repeat my questions from the beginning: What purpose does luck serve in your games? Is it a part of your game at all? [i]Should [/i]it be? [/quote] Specifically in a rts, luck makes everything more complicated. You don't know the exact outcomes of a given action. In other words it might require more skill, because you have to make strategic decisions based on uncertainties. If the utcome of a long match depends on one single event which is essentially a dice roll (200-9999dmg), then it's the bad form of luck. However a very similar scenario is where building of a titan means instawin, and so it becomes and arms race to build one first. The latter is not based on chance, yet it's similar and not much better.
  8. RPG without classes.

    @hustlerinc So you're saying that spells are not exclusively gained through putting skill points in talent tree's (or gaining levels). Certain spells may be linked to wearing an item or an armor sets, where you have to wear that item(s) to be able to cast that spell? Isn't this slightly similar to skills in guild wars? You can only select a few spells at a time just as you can only wear a few items at a time. In Guild Wars many skills must be extracted from boss enemies, which is similar to have skills tied to gear carried. In Guild wars 2, you only have a few skill slots available at a time. 5 of those is dependent on the weapon you're carrying. Both games enables you to equip 1 elite skill, and some of these can be tricky to get, although not on the scale of getting a very high end gear set. If you want some skills to be OP, you should ask what type of game you're making. In Warhammers RvR (keep sieging), perfect balance is not very important. Encounters will usually be decided by numbers and how effective players are at moving together (a small group can defend a keep vs a much larger army, if the enemy is unable to charge the throne room in unison). In PVP battles where there's a small and equal number on each side, then balance is very important. If you want hybrid classes (not pure fire/frost), then you can make hybrids equally powerful, or you can make them more powerful. Making them more powerful however might remove the pure specializations. Personally I would like if hybrids were the better approach. You can do this by making further specialization in a tree very expensive compared to benefits, or simply make it impossible to spend all your points in one specialization. You can also make sure players will have a need for several fighting styles. Some enemies might be near impossible to kill with a mage, and they're common enough to make regular exploring alone impossible without also learning non magic stuff. By encouraging hybrids, players will have characters that are more flexible, which I believe would be more fun. In general, detaching skill learning and levelling can be a good thing. It would make perfect sense that a mage levelling up would increase his general ability to cast magic, but it would not give him new spells. New spells would be aquired through quests or other special stuff. Think some form of Mage College where many spells will only be learned to high ranking members. I must say gaining spells by a boss item sounds a bit boring and generic. It should have a strong story element. Rising through the ranks in a community will open up more spells that the community is willing to learn you. I believe I would find this much more interesting. At one point you could be given the option of abandoning that community for another, and the spells they teach will be forever lost (unless you already learned them). Instead you can learn spells from members of the new community.
  9. Game Economics

    [quote name='Sayid Ahmed' timestamp='1333070483' post='4926511'] An NPC only providing basic materials for crafting is almost the same as the players gathering basic materials through mining/farming/extraction for crafting. Just one has a different label and interface to the other. You're pumping resources into the system at the player's request, at some cost, albeit maybe a small cost, whether it's money or time or inconvenience. You could have a regional bias in the resource extraction, but like you say, you could also regionalise the supply chain of the NPC vendors, depending on the game. But from a net wealth balance it's exactly the same (value in - value out = accumulation). [/quote] Not certain what you understood from my post, but I did say that NPC vendors would not sell their own basic materials (my proposal). Instead of players directly selling to one another, players will sell materials to a npc vendor. All npc vendors in that region can now sell this item to another player. Vendors are not pumping resources into the system. Goods and money flows through them, where they take a portion of the money. Ofcourse measures must be taken to avoid players from profiting by buying and selling in large quantities very fast. [quote name='Sayid Ahmed' timestamp='1333070483' post='4926511'] Mortal Online is planning to implement a broker system; an NPC waits in town and you make them trade your goods to buyers, but with a transactional fee. That way your physical presence isn't required for trade and it sinks some of the money in the game. I believe that's the same as what you're describing? [/quote] From what I've understood, you can place items at a broker as WTS offers. Another player can go to that broker and buy a WTS offers some other player has set up with that broker. This is equal to market at a station in EVE. However, in EVE you can also place WTB offers. In other words you don't sell items to the broker. You are dependent on another player buying your item from that broker to recieve money. In what I described, you would sell and buy items directly from a vendor, and one type of item would have a single price (not several offers with variour prices). [quote name='Sayid Ahmed' timestamp='1333070483' post='4926511'] What you need to remember is that convenience isn't always great; well ok, it is good for most games, but for an economy-driven game it isn't. Sometimes you want to subtly guide your players to play one way (the barter system is an example of a harsh option). Eve Online works because its players are greedy and want to destroy each other. They think that way because they are in control of who makes profit and who suffers. Stability may be great in the real world, but in the virtual world you want boom and bust of different players/guilds at different times. Again, this all goes back to what is the endgame - I'm biasing towards an economy-driven game with lots of PvP, guild cities and all that kind of crap.[/quote] Is EVE an economy-driven game? I'd say economy is an important aspect of it. What I found to be the most important aspect about the economy in EVE, was that every item was found or crafted by players. They could replace the WTB and WTS system with the market buying and selling directly and it would not take away the players role in actually manufacturing/finding the items. [quote name='Sayid Ahmed' timestamp='1333070483' post='4926511'] A game that focuses on dungeon raids, social immersion, skill grinding, PvE etc, would probably want a very predictable, controllable and stable economy. If I was playing WoW, or Rift or any of the latter types, I wouldn't want to spend months leveling up a top character only to find that the type of weapons I've skilled up in have spiraled into high cost and suddenly my character is rendered crap because of the irresponsibility of the wider virtual society.[/quote] I certainly did not find the crafting aspect very enjoyable in Rift. In what I described crafters would sell items to npc vendors, and npc vendors could those items to consumers. This would also mean you could move npc armor pieces to craftable types of pieces, so crafters would have a larger amounts of items they could craft. I'd definitely find this more enjoyable, than it's current state, where sold armor pieces are converted into currency and that's that. Non special weapons might vary in price, but it's unlikey you couldn't afford them. Given they require the same materials to craft as other weapon types, this scenario is not realistic. Crafters would prefer to craft this weapon type due to higher prices, and by that balancing supply and price. If you're looking for epic equivalent items though, that should rather be sold through auction house (which I did say). However, it is definitely not more in favor of stability, but that's how it currently is in these games. I find it curious that you seem to want as little player impacted economy as possible in a regular mmorpg, while you're eager to create an economic focused game. [quote name='Sayid Ahmed' timestamp='1333070483' post='4926511'] Oh and before someone smites me, I'm not saying economic-driven PvP is the best idea in the world! It's just [i]an[/i] idea of a good MMO and it has been executed in some games. [/quote] I did not notice you were talking about a economic-driven game. Having WTB and WTS offers adds more complexity than buying from and selling to merchants with dynamic prices. You might still ask how important this specific aspect is though. There are other ways to make players more involved in the economy. Players Crafting and finding the items available for purchase is definitely important. You also have the mechanics behind extracting natural resources. I'd want to see something more interesting than EVE's lowsec mining. This extraction of resources is where there's true potential for economic driven pvp.
  10. Game Economics

    [quote name='hustlerinc' timestamp='1333063998' post='4926485'] [quote name='ImmoralAtheist' timestamp='1333063577' post='4926482'] Summary: Players can sell goods to npc vendors, which will increase supply of that good (globally or in a region), which will reduce prices. Players can buy goods from an npc vendor, which will decrease supply of that good, and this will increase prices. NPC vendors should sell most types of goods available. [/quote] I have to say I love this idea. Is there any game using this? [/quote] Guild Wars has traders, like material traders. Materials are needed to craft items. As far as I know, traders in guild wars will only deal in types of items that are found. They will not deal in items that are player crafted. I would like to see the armor merchant, actually sell the types of armors a player can craft. In Rift, armors I could craft was very limited. The level difference between two types of a given item, would be about 5-10 levels apart. Armor merchants had their own armor pieces, because naturally crafting would be useless if they sold what players could craft. I say, let armor merchants sell the armor pieces that player crafters sell to npc vendors. This also applies to other items. Not just armors.
  11. Game Economics

    In EVE Online, buying/selling goods is done by putting up buy orders and sell orders, and these are located at specific station (the goods will stay at the same station). Personally I find this a bit to much. After loosing a ship, I spent simply to long time buying a new ship and with a decent fitting, where the parts were not bought at ridicilous prices. An npc vendor/market offers simplicity. You buy and sell everything instantly and one item has one price. In mmorpg games, like WOW, you do have auction houses, but I find these very impractical. Just as in EVE, they're very time consuming. Note that for items that are very rare and expensive, direct player transactions or auction house is probably the best. In games like WOW, there are npc items, and player made or player looted items. This distinction is the problem. NPC vendors have unlimited supplies of their own type of items, that are equivalent to player found/crafted items. The items they sell have a constant price, and they will buy unwanted items the player has for a constant fee aswell. Rather than have NPC vendors offer an alternative to other items, they should sell the types of items players can craft or find. NPC vendors should have a supply of these items, and lower supply means higher prices, and vice versa. Note that I don't propose that every npc vendor should have their own supply. Supply could be global, or it could be regional. If supply is calculated regionally, then selling to an npc vendor in a given region, will not increase the price of that item in another region. In Rift, NPC vendors would not sell materials used for crafting (just a few types). I had to use the auction house, or collect it myself. The Auction house barely had any, where most was ridicilously price, or where I would have to wait a long time to get the goods. Rather than this detachment between player run economy, and npc run economy they should be mixed. Summary: Players can sell goods to npc vendors, which will increase supply of that good (globally or in a region), which will reduce prices. Players can buy goods from an npc vendor, which will decrease supply of that good, and this will increase prices. NPC vendors should sell most types of goods available. Additionaly, the game should be made so that every item sold by a vendor, must be found or crafted by players. I do think this is a good solution for mmorpgs, and in mmort's this could be a marketplace (only individual supply per marketplace, compared to regional/global supply for npc vendor).
  12. Planescape: Torment - minus the D&D stuff

    [quote name='dechorus' timestamp='1327904773' post='4907542'] My argument isn't against combat, or D&D. I'm simply exploring the idea: would Planescape: Torment have been more *immersive* if it were stripped of its D&D mechanics? What are the alternatives? What alternatives do you think would have worked? [/quote] I dislike the D&D combat mechanics. Haven't tried Planescape Torment, but I was quickly put off by Baldurs Gate 2. That, and the vast amount of spells/skills with often minor statistical differences. Sure correct use of it can be called "tactical", but I did not find it fun or immersing. Felt more like a chore. I believe new mmorpg's should focus on physical action based combat. Stats would be important. Good reactions will have some use, but most is decided by your stats, and not just hp and damage, but also influence the effects of block/parry where chance of block would be dependent on your vs enemy strength, and type of attack, weapon and shield (or no shield). Easier enemies will therefore be technically easier to beat, while hard enemies will be very hard to beat, and it would be much more easy to make sure a strong enemy couldn't be "tricked" by exploiting weaknesses in it's ai. I'd throw away the D&D combat calculations (it's designed for use without domputers) and use whatever suits best, and probably "hide" much of the details.
  13. is the main hero the next villain ?

    I dislike games that makes you to powerful. As soon as nothing could touch you in Skyrim, the game got boring. [quote name='n00b0dy' timestamp='1319641468' post='4877216'] 1) What do you think would happen if there never was a "credit screen" and the game continued ? [/quote] That depends on what elements you introduce. You might put the hero down on the path to becoming a villain, but that's quite a long way, as by what you've told, you've spent an entire game convincing he's not a villain, but a "zombie" good person. [quote name='n00b0dy' timestamp='1319641468' post='4877216'] 2) how would the hero's past actions influence the world? [/quote] Villains are put under more pressure, and so they become more extreme. The "normal" society might turn into something less pleasant. A government turning into a totalitarian suppressive one for instnance. Say the superman story would not be in USA, but in germany (prewar). He would be the good guy, fighting crime etc, while the society around him gradually turns into a nazi state.
  14. Creature Behavior

    [quote name='AltarofScience' timestamp='1326418993' post='4902184'] [color=#ff0000]Creatures wander the world pushing outward from the rift where they were spawned. Prior to selecting a home location they will check any areas they move through as to their settlement validity.[/color] [/quote] This is calculated for each individual separately, or can groups move together (calculation for entire group)? Also wouldn't social creatures lean to squares with higher population? How far out will you check. Will just the adjacent tiles be checked, or will it have a higher chance to move in the direction of a large settlement several tiles away? Size of tiles, how fast creatures move, number of creatures, if this moving is calculated individually, how many tiles away can be searched etc, is important. You might end up with something that's simply to demanding. You should do some rough calculations beforehand. [quote name='AltarofScience' timestamp='1326418993' post='4902184'] [color=#ff0000]Um, it will take a while before creatures form huge enough groups to make a difference. I think we could cap it at 50% to join and after that extra size doesn't matter. This is somewhat of an overview, I planned to do some organizational factors. Generally anything with 11 or more creatures will stay in that spot. There will be some relatively extreme concentrations, probably 2 or 3 larger cities for each rift spawned and some medium ones and some smaller ones.[/color] [/quote] I assume large city means 100+, which means rifts are huge, and therefore rare (not like in the game RIft where small rifts pop up everywhere). You describe general mechanics in how creatures will move, but you want a rift to do something specific [i](2 or 3 larger cities ... and some smaller ones[/i]). Are you making sure how creatures move will lead to this type of spread? It might just as well be something completely different. [quote name='AltarofScience' timestamp='1326418993' post='4902184'] [color=#ff0000]Um, all levels of groups can bond socially. Kingdoms are made up of several lairs, just like human kingdoms. As it says in the post, lairs with powerful social bonds to say, 4 or 5 lairs will form a more formal kingdom as opposed to a tribal alliance which is formed by weaker bonds. [/color] [/quote] So every lair will need a powerful social bond to everyone of the other lairs? What if 5 very small groups have powerful social bonds. Will they form a kingdom of 10-50 individuals? What happens when one lair is part of a tribe or kingdom, but it also has social bonds with other lairs, which after a while becomes more attractive than it's current tribe/kingdom? Do you know how you could program this? If a lair can choose a new kingdom/tribe, then you need to work out the mechanics in how attractive such a union is, how the transfer period is (does every lair suddenly switch to the new better alliance? [quote name='AltarofScience' timestamp='1326418993' post='4902184'] [color=#ff0000]Creatures will hold human locations in an individual list until they reconnect with their parent group at which point that location will be removed and added to the group list instead. [/color] [/quote] Can single creatures break off from the group? If so, will that individual take with it this intelligence? What if it breaks of, while away from the group. Other creatures in the group might have new intel. If they can break off, then every intel could store the time when thdis intel was known to the group. Aditionally a creature will know the time it left the group (out doing something else). If it breaks off it will then take with it, it's current intel and group intel that is older than the time it left the group. [quote name='AltarofScience' timestamp='1326418993' post='4902184'] [color=#ff0000]Kingdoms will be shown visually with some sort of color. Maybe colored clothes or face paint or something depending on the species. There might be territory markers or something, too.[/color] [/quote] What happens when a kingdom is formed, how are you gonna deal with groups inside kingdom that has weak social bonds?
  15. One Game World, Multiple Interfaces...

    [quote name='AltarofScience' timestamp='1326404000' post='4902119'] Techlord, I have been designing an MMORPG with RTS elements. I don't think you can do what you are proposing where you assign FPS players to RTS groups. Players have to autonomously agree on a leader. What if the RTS player is bad? No one will follow those orders. Games which utilize complex player interaction systems have to take players into consideration. The average MMO player has a pretty big ego. They are going to treat the game like a pug fps battleground. [/quote] Savage 2 does mix action game (fantasy medieval, not modern) and rts. Similar to a PvP match where two teams fight each other. Difference is that each team also has a commander which sees everything top down, and can build structures, units etc. I haven't played it, but it definitely makes it look more interesting than just standard pvp.