• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

Caldtem

Members
  • Content count

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

323 Neutral

About Caldtem

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I would just have player hired NPC merchants. They could charge money % of the value players placed on the goods they are selling or a baseline merchant fee. If you don't pay the fee, poof they go, taking your goods as their fee. If you want your goods back, you can go to the NPC merchant hiring area and pay the owed fee for the return of your goods. There would be an interest rate so it couldn't be used as infinite storage.
  2. A while back I tried creating a thread, although I did very poorly at the time, to explain a co-operative economy where NPCs do not buy or sell anything. Players would harvest/collect resources from the world to craft with. Players could then trade/sell to other players, or donate it to their "realm", realm being the NPC faction they are affiliated with. Upon donating players would earn contribution points. There would be an initial contribution point reward and as the item gets donated more and more, the contribution reward would eventually go down, but never to zero. Overtime this level would regenerate if goods cease to be donated. Donating goods would always return at least some contribution points. Contribution points can also be earned by other means than purely donating goods.   After a period of time passes contribution points are totaled and weighed against each other to determine how much a player receives for their contribution points. The more wealth a realm has the larger the pool of currency to be divided is. The more contribution points you earned in that period the larger the percentage you may acquire. Everyone, as long as they earned contribution points, will earn some currency. This is how realm currency enters the game, not through hunting/questing.   Players would have to determine how much they value inventory/storage space versus the player market available for the item or whether or not they wish to donate the goods to their realm's NPC government. Contribution points can be veiled from the player and be a background operation to prevent players trying to manipulate the contribution system if it is required.   At work, so that is all for now.
  3.     If you got rid of every single NPC, the economy will be reliant on how player plays the game and how they create the supply and set the pricing. One of the potential problems with that would be the lack of a fixed price for essential items such as potions, basic equipment and so on. Without control, the prices for these essentials may be unpredictable. It can become too low or become too high. If the price increases, it could be difficult for beginners at the start since they may be unable to afford them as easily compared to veteran players.    Once again, I would like to reference Atlantica Online and Goonzu Online since both their economic principles are almost the same. Almost every single available-in-game item is only available through PvE or crafting which requires material obtained from PvE with the exception of some basic items such as potions which the low level used. This gives a security cap to ensure that newbies do not have problem getting the basic essentials.          I like the idea of a fully player driven barter economy. As interesting as it be, it may get a bit too troublesome for players. Imagine that someone would like to trade a short sword for a short dagger. However, I have a short bow, I am unable to trade with them and may have to trade a short dagger with someone else in order to get it. Despite that, it might increase the amount of interaction in the MMORPG.   Also, yes. It may require a large population base in order to achieve it so that players can easily get their materials and prevent item shortage.          Referencing back to Atlantica Online, it has a crafting system such that there is no limitation to the amount of crafting skills you can learn. Some very profitable crafting skills may set you back economically when the player first starts learning the skill since the items that players need to produce is very unprofitable and can make a lot of losses.   For the modifiers available for the item, it could be such that the stats could be randomized and depend on the player skill as well as luck. Some eqs may have very high stats while others being weak. The better one naturally fetches a higher price.   What do you mean, "essential items"? Why does a potion need to be essential? Why can't it just be a perk?   Basic equipment is reliant upon definition. What do players need to start the game with? If they need all of this extra gadgetry/itemry, perhaps gear isn't the flaw of the game?   As for needing more money to do something before you can actually turn a profit? Doesn't this just provide extra benefit to rich players? New players need to be able to compete as well.
  4. hpdvs2   Rare items can be stolen to duplicate them via insurance claims. This can be abused by players purposely allowing goods to be stolen without any desire to "hunt them back" so to speak. They would abuse it just to duplicate rare goods.
  5. People aren't going to want to enter the world and find something valuable was stolen from their house. Not a rewarding mechanic.   Stealing off of other players, more of a situation call. Can you kill the thieves? Limiting the use of stealing can be done through a skill based system. Make it a very heavy difficult investment and you will scare people off. The added challenge/duration of skill gain required would entice certain players, but also allow for a long duration increase in "power" for your character. You just need to make the game fully enjoyable without needing higher end skills. Investment versus reward; a difficult balance.
  6. You misunderstand what I mean by 2d. I am talking about a 3d world in 2d perspective. Meaning it would actually be built using 3d models and textures with a locked overhead view like you said. Rather than being a 2d game built using flat images. A lot of the design concepts from UO are lost with today's games I think. To this day there are unique aspects that have yet to be used again. I have no desire to create a new UO I want to kind of make that as clear as possible. If I get to the point of making something it will be wildly different from UO but should still encompass the same general feeling players got from UO if that makes sense. Anyhow I can't get off of the idea of making this type of game. It has little to do with making money and everything to do with creating a game that people actually enjoy. As if we have never heard that said before eh. In this case I am a gamer who is simply disappointed with games in the current market and I know there are others who have the same sentiment but I am also able to do a great deal of the work towards making a game and because of that I have a pretty strong desire to see this game happen at some point. Even if that means throwing a lot of money at it to make this happen. There are many ways to secure funding these days. I give only minor thought to that at the moment. Right now I would like to continue research and start laying out some kind of roadmap for the project. Simply jumping in head first without any direction would be foolish. If I can focus on single tasks things will progress and stay on track. So again right now just getting as much information from as many sources as I can before moving forward.   Corpsecrank, that is the ideal. Get players playing together, not just in the same world. I was working on a concept for a full blown open world game that's influence was mostly UO, but that influence was primarily the camera view as well as the aspect that if you sail to the north, eventually you arrive in the south. Not just maps. A world.   I came to the conclusion that while this is the game that I desire the most it is not the one I should aim to bring to fruition first. I have since gone back to the concept stages and I am going to tackle something a bit easier, in comparison, that uses a world divided like Dark Age of Camelot. PvE areas for each side of the conflict with PvP areas for each and a central PvP area that connects them all. It is divided, but I feel it will help the process along and I will be able to learn many things along the way. If by some miracle things work out, it would only be that much bigger a step toward creating an ideal game.   Summary: I am not aiming for Pong. I am aiming for less challenging concept that would bring educational benefits and experience towards making the game that I feel is best eventually, not immediately.
  7. [quote name='Khaiy' timestamp='1355890904' post='5012323'] [quote name='Caldenfor' timestamp='1355890013' post='5012320'] It doesn't have to be that way. MMORPGs can have different styles of play without resorting to quest/mob grinds. Surely, players will do repetitive tasks, but that is up to them. If it is forced, there is something wrong. [/quote] I'm not saying that it has to be that way, but that's a cornerstone mechanic in the most popular MMO approaches. When an enormous portion of the game is based around repetitive spreadsheet action, a lot of players *will* be forced to do it regardless of whether or not different activities are available. It's not just quest/mob grinds either, there's plenty of crafting grinds and trading grinds and breeding grinds and on and on and on. And it's a very rare MMO idea post I see that doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly influenced by existing games with the above mentioned design. [/quote] Sorry, didn't mean the statement to insinuate such a thing. Yes, it is common place in most MMORPGs, but designers, if they are worth their salt, should see these issues. Most don't seem to care about solving the problems as they aren't large enough deterrent to play and they tend to keep players playing without having to create new content. Everything can be a grind and the funny thing is players tend to place the grind upon themselves. I remember trying to get a black mare in UO for quite some time. I then hunted a variety of Cu Sidhes when I played during that expansion to sell to other players, always on the prowl for superior stats/colors for myself. Players turn almost any activity into a grind. If they want to eliminate the grind, there needs to be enough variety in activities for players to take part in that they never feel the grind. Even then, players will have favored activities/desirables that tend towards grinding just because they WANT it. At that point it becomes the player's fault, not the game.
  8. [quote name='Khaiy' timestamp='1355887053' post='5012306'] I agree with sunandshadow that people spend a lot of time playing MMOs compared to other genres. And I'll add that a huge amount of time spent in MMOs would be considered unforgivable filler in other genres, and often not very engaging filler at that. [b]It's easy when you're killing the same mobs for four hours in the hopes of scoring rare loot to imagine things that you'd rather be doing in game.[/b] [/quote] It doesn't have to be that way. MMORPGs can have different styles of play without resorting to quest/mob grinds. Surely, players will do repetitive tasks, but that is up to them. If it is forced, there is something wrong.
  9. The demand for any game is there. It just needs to be done right. You could have a 3d world with a fixed camera to give it a top-down look. You don't need to rely on 2d unless you find a practical purpose for it over 3d. Determining what makes the game worth creating is more important than whether or not someone would want to play it. The game is to be created, not sold. If all you want is money there are probably much better avenues to earning money. A descendent of UO with RTS elements added and a world that players actually discover is something I have had in concept mode for a while. The desire for a game like it is there, but it is all in the implementation. One small error in design could break the whole thing.
  10. Co-operative societies. Do you think it would be possible to implement this successfully in an MMO? Note: This concept does not remove the ability for players to buy/sell/trade with each other. The aim is to alter the way currency enters the economy to combat the multidute of issues that come with currency in current MMOs. Using bare-bones Dark Age of Camelot as an example: Three realms at war. Centralized PvP area separated from each domain's PvE/homeland area. Two forms of currency, New-player tokens and Domain tokens. These titles are just placeholder names. New-player tokens would be available on a limited basis free of charge. If you just started and you want to get a low-grade item specific to an aspect of the game you wish to pursue. For example, a smith's hammer. Now you can start on your way to becoming a smith. Domain tokens would be distributed by your Domain's NPC government. Domain tokens are not freely handed out. You need to participate in some fashion to be worthy of receiving payment for your efforts on behalf of your Domain. An example would be a baker making cakes. He doesn't have any players interested in buying the cakes or he needs to get rid of them fast so he turns them into specific NPC locations. The NPCs do not give currency in return. These "donations" go towards developing your domain and supplying the NPC portion of your domain which is all done by the game, not player influenced. Your standing in your domain will increase, you may gain participation, as well increase the chance/amount of Domain tokens you can acquire. The more wealth the domain NPCs are provided the stronger and more capable they will be when defending PvP objectives. Excess wealth acquired by the domain NPCs would be returned, based upon participation, as dividends to the players. This is how Domain tokens are added to the game. Once Domain tokens are in the economy they become a commodity that is able to be traded/exchanged for certain benefits. As a player you can participate in the NPC economy to benefit your domain and earn a shot at being rewarded Domain tokens or you can gain tokens just by selling/trading stuff. There is potential to allow guild leaders to place bounties/rewards upon completing specific tasks. If you exhibit your valor in combat, you may be rewarded by the guild controlling the keep for your service in protecting their lands. It would help build co-operative relationships in a game where community strength is critical for game success. More to come, but I didn't want to make this post any longer than it already is.
  11. [quote name='sunandshadow' timestamp='1347744943' post='4980482'] I think "soulbind on equip", making all items single-use and thus disposable when the player out-levels them, is a more orderly way of dealing with constant production of items. Also, hoarding stuff is fun. Having one's collection limited or vulnerable isn't much fun. [/quote] Bind on equip is just a byproduct of "themepark" design. It all depends on the goal of the game being provided, but it is not something that I would ever personally design into an MMORPG.
  12. As a player I don't think I would much like a random outbreak of "pests" to devour the whole of my collection. Gear that breaks and methods of "donating" materials/items/weapons/etc that give the players the option to get rid of stuff would be a good start.
  13. [quote name='lithos' timestamp='1347489031' post='4979497'] Normally what people think about when someone declares 'loot and PvPers' they think of that one person who is allowed to go sociopathic, minimize risk, maximize DPS(with character not designed to grow in anyway, while having almost no repercussions due to character design). This is what turns people off from open PvPer games, and what you are fighting against as a designer if such a game is not your goal. [/quote] I am a bit confused by this paragraph. There won't be FFA PvP, but if faction players want to fight with as little equipment as possible, they are welcome to try. Bind rushing won't be possible, like Darkfall, as when you ressurect you are at low hitpoints and you have no weapon on you. You need to heal up, gear up, and return to battle. Those that use equipment to it's best extent will have an advantage in that regard, but they will have more to lose. The skill of the player, the skill of the character, and the equipment of the character will all play a role in determing combat capability amongst other variables. You can always avoid a fight if you are willing to make the necessary sacrifices. Pros and cons to every action.
  14. Ah, factions can lose control of the NPC city strongholds. They aren't a permanent control scheme. Factions would each have one primary stronghold that is their "origin" and cannot be lost to other factions. The NPC city faction strongholds will have deposit only capacities where faction members can earn points for donating to the cause of their faction, but withdrawals are not possible to keep members from stealing from their own faction. The system is still in need of development for distributing the resources to their intended purposes or it could end up just being a donation "drain" system to remove materials from the game world. A "need for upkeep/repairs/etc" rate could be established that would cover the consistent needs of a faction that helps establish the NPC power of a faction. The more goods, the bigger and better defenses could be, as well as more funds towards employing guards to defend your territories, that sort of thing.
  15. The concept as put here is an open world akin to Ultima Online, not modern MMOs. Raids won't exist, but people can go "raid" dungeons. People can go "raid" faction areas. Running instances is not part of the game in any way. Looting another player's kill could also constitute a crime. Criminals will do it out of greed/another way of playing the game, not because it is actually intended to be easier in any way. Factions will be able to control fortified structures in the NPC cities. If they control the structure it is as if they control the city. They have a defensive fallback position and can patrol the city to keep the external defenses more secure thus solidifying their hold on the area. Percentages of goods sold in the city is a possible incentive to fund faction wide efforts. Faction members can also build their homes together and create their own territories outside of NPC cities as well.