• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Neutral

About Wyrmslayer

  • Rank
  1. Game Economics

    [quote name='Tiblanc' timestamp='1332940587' post='4925976'] The farmer needs a lot more than tools. He needs weapons to defend against wild animals and bandits, some sort of container to hold his grain, maintenance on his buildings, etc. There are some people he won't interact with that needs his grain like miners, but they can still get grain through the blacksmith. In such a system, you could see a merchant role emerge. His role would be to carry a large inventory of everything and provide goods that would be inaccessible normally, like a miner trading iron ore for bread. All a currency does is provide convenience. It is not required to run an economy. [/quote] Aaah, I see where you're coming from. I was definately looking at it too basically. How would a player become a merchant to begin with? One resource would have to be supplied to him with which he could barter his services as merchant, in order to grow? This is not a role I would choose to take on within the game - too much risk, hard to start-up (I'm thinking it's a role that is often given to NPCs), but it certainly opens my eyes to how such a system could work. And then your point "All a currency does is provide convenience." - I would say that [i]players want convenience[/i]. And so, short of any genuine reason not to have currency (a lore point, for example), it would be a smarter move to include it. Wyrm.
  2. Game Economics

    [quote name='Sayid Ahmed' timestamp='1332885380' post='4925816'] I'll start off with: 1) Do you feel having NPC vendors within a game is necessary or do they remove the benefit of the free market system?[/quote] They're certainly not necessary. A game can exist without them, but then relies heavily on active player input. What do [i]you [/i]see as the benefits of a "free market system"? What about disadvantages? To me, having NPC vendors gives you - as the developer - a control over the market. Whether their prices change, or stay constant, it gives you an opportunity to step in and change the economy if you don't like where it's going. Without NPCs you have no control (short of making your own characters to try and force change), if things "go bad" - how are you going to recover the economy? Or do you rely on a bullet-proof system from day one? [quote]2) Have you ever played a game, or felt like it would be better, to have no currency in an economy, and stick to a barter system, giving more incentive for your characters to be more self-sufficient and develop their crafting & mining/farming skills? [/quote] Loads... of board games... xD. Sometimes a game just works without currency - especially if it "fits the lore". However, there's a reason we invented currencies in the real world ;). The no currency system could be amazing fun, but designing it and pulling off a "bullet-proof" implementation of it... a lot harder. The basic system, as I see it: If I'm a farmer, I need tools, to make grain. That's it. The rest of the market is pretty much shut off to me. The tool-maker gets grain. How does the weaponsmith get food? I don't need weapons, so I'm not trading my grain to him. The tool-maker doesn't need weapons, so he's not trading his grain to him. Maybe I'm looking at it too "basically", but the "answer" to the issue here is... add a currency ;). [quote]If you match the money sinks with money sources then you won't get an accumulation of money in the system.[/quote] You don't want an accumulation of money in the system. Or rather, you don't want an [i]excessive [/i]accumulation of money in the system. If you have too much money flowing into the system, and not being sunk, the prices of everything go up and "prices" in general become redundant. You want a constant flow of money, through the players, not an accumulation. Wyrm.
  3. Game Economics

    For me, the key to starting a good Forum discussion is questions. You bring up a lot of really relevant info, and no doubt there are STACKS of helpful posts lurking around here to help form ideas in your head, help you brainstorm, etc. However, at the moment, I see a wall of awesomely enthusiastic, but really complicated, text that I just don't know where to start with. I'm thinking other people might be able to dive in and be a great help, but if you'd like more feedback, opinions, etc. etc. from me - then shoot some questions off. (You could wait until other people have put in other points, and then load up a "round 2" that I might be able to jump in on ;D) I'm a big fan of a good, in depth discussion; it's always mutually beneficial ;) Wyrm.
  4. I kind of see your vision and where you'd like to take it, and to be honest, I can't see any reason to write it off. "An MMO where you control a small squad or two instead of a single character"... why not? Making it turn, or tick based... I guess, seems doable. As in a MMORPG, there could be "safe zones" (faction specific) where you are safe, but as a turn/tick based system you may also end up logged out in the middle of a warzone... adds a little more strategy, a bit more risk... I kinda like it. As you say, the idea is in it's infancy, but "An MMO where you control a small squad or two instead of a single character"... the more I read it, the more I like the idea. Wyrm.
  5. I am starting out as a game designer. need Feedback.

    I've only read the GDD properly, the Design Examples... I'm thinking they should be moved into the GDD itself, not a seperate file. I'm also assuming this is about making the document readable by other people. --- On the whole, I liked it. I'm not sure I'm meant to "like" it, but hey, it contributes to the point I'm making here. I'm no programmer (yet), and I'm no expert (yet), but I can address your first question; [quote]1. How well written is it?[/quote] [b]It's good, but it's not perfect.[/b] So, my question is this: [i]"How did you write this?"[/i] By which I mean, How long have you been writing it for? How many times have you proof-read it? How many times have you put it away, to revisit at a later date? How many other people have you shown it to? etc. I guess my grand point is; you need to put it away for 2 weeks, forget about the ideas, then revisit it to proof-read and re-organise it. As the first step. For step two, what you could do, is print it out, take it to a friend (the one who's insanely good at English) and hand them a red pen. After all that work, when you think it's perfect and are expecting it to come back with no red marks... they will destroy it ;). So many times I've had "perfect" documents handed back to me, unreadable through all the red marks. Don't be disheartened; you want this, it's so helpful for creating a document that can be understood by anyone. This all depends on what you want from it; to be understood, or to be perfect. I almost lost the will to read on about half way through, the language is good, a little work would make it completely understandable, but a bit more work on the document as a whole would make me [i]want to read it[/i]. That's the key if you're trying to use this document to "sell" the idea to other people (like a potential programmer). Hope these ideas help, Wyrm.
  6. [quote name='Gorbstein' timestamp='1332800201' post='4925471'] I'd like feedback on a few things here:[/quote] Just a few, eh? ;D I'm just going to go ahead and answer each of your questions with my opinions. No doubt there will be more that could be said, so by all means, ask more questions if you want more opinions ;). [quote]Free/paid content balance: How does my idea sound? Would a strong single player campaign that hooked you make you want to purchase more levels? If you enjoyed the multiplayer, would you pay for more involved multiplayer access (ie: playing as a different class, saving your stats, etc)?[/quote] You idea sounds good. No, it would not. I don't think I'd have interest in unlocking more singleplayer. The appeal of this game [i]style [/i]is multiplayer. I would not. Other people would. A lot of other people would. [b][quote][/b]Target audience: Does this sound a good game idea for a casual gamer audience? Is there a market for casual multiplayer games?[/quote] Casual gamers love puzzles, they don't like competitive gunfights. I'm confused over the balance you want between puzzles, and fighting. I don't think you can have both. Your idea on classes, new weapons, etc. appeals to a more hardcore-gamer focused shooter. Yes. There is a market for both the "Casual Multiplayer Top-Down Puzzler" AND the "Hardcore Multiplayer Top-Down Shooter". They are not the same market. Trying to cross-over would not be succesful. [quote]Target platform : I read everywhere that the download to disk market is not so strong any more, and I read elsewhere that this is not true. Opinions? Would this work as a mobile game, or are mobile players not so interested in realtime multiplayer? I am also concerned about connection latency of the mobile signal, and control methods on mobile devices, does anyone have experience of how well these work? I am thinking of aiming for a browser game (pop in the url, log in, play). This gives me the advantage of always offering the latest code (no version conflicts), with also the option of promoting any other titles I create in the future via, for example, a quick splash screen. Opinions?[/quote] Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee. Go browser-based. Port to mobiles at a later date, if you fancy it. I say this mainly because you seem enthused by the idea of browser-based games. The style of game you're talking about would suit it very well. [quote]Getting more specific, I am torn between unity (forces a user download, but faster dev time), and Java (installed most places, but lower level and possibly slower?).[/quote] Eh. Not my area of expertise. I'm not a fan of Unity, but that's just me. Hustlerinc's idea of HTML5 seems legit; I've heard a lot of people talking good things about it. At the very least, check it out. [quote]Pricing structure : I'm thinking maybe only a couple of dollars/pounds to purchase a login for life that unlocks the features.[/quote] Sure, $5 seems fine to me. If we're saying, One class with 2 variable weapons for free, and 4 classes with up to 20 weapons paid. I like that model. Hustlerinc's suggestion of micro-transactions is going to earn you more money though. A lot more. If each class costs 500 Out-Of-Game credits, and each weapon could be bought with 500 In-Game, or 100 Out-Of-Game, and 100 Out-Of-Game costs $1... build your own model, but it's making serious amounts of money for other games. As a designer/player hybrid, I prefer the first option. Feels less of a rip-off / sell-out. But don't be fooled by people who share my opinion. We'd all stick micro-transactions in our own games in a flash. Hope to have helped, Wyrm.
  7. Here's my take: In order to make it[i] turn-based[/i], this couldn't be an MMO. You'd be waiting on too many people before your turn came around again. They might not even be playing any more. If it is turn-based, this would pretty much be Civilisation, no? I've not done the google search, but [i]somebody [/i]will be doing a mod for Civilisation 5, or 4, to make it about Warhammer (/40k). This probably exists somewhere. If you haven't played Civ, do a little research - shouldn't be too hard to see how it could support your ideas. If it is a persistant, large scale, [i]real-time [/i]MMO strategy game instead... that's a little over my head without a sizable caffeine hit. I don't see it being balanced in any way, maybe I'll revisit the idea another time. In short, for this project; Online turn based strategy = yes. MMO = hmmm. Unless someone else has a genius idea (or, has had their coffee this morning). If you're genuinely interested in seeing this come to pass as an online turn-based game; Civ4 was a delight to mod. I have no doubt Civ5 is just as good. Either find the mod-in-progress and add your thoughts, or start your own up. Just my take on things ;), hope it was helpful. Wyrm.
  8. Opinion on World Chat?

    [quote name='glhf' timestamp='1332774352' post='4925371'] I didn't know it was possible to talk with every single person in the world through telepathic abilities? How do you do that? Comparing to phones is a really bad example. Not even a chat room is a good example because not every single person in this world is in a chat room. If you want a realistic game then remove world chat.. Party chats can serve as irl chat rooms and PMs can serve as telephones. [/quote] I think you've misunderstood eugene2k's points. He's not saying that people have telephones, therefore in a game one should be able to talk to anyone, anywhere. He is saying people INVENTED telephones, because THEY WANT to be able to talk to anyone, anywhere. It's a [i]really[/i] good example - if you consider slicer4ever's points. Allow me to elaborate: To your point; yes. If you want a realistic game, then remove world chat. But why do you want a realistic game? [u][i][b]What is the aim of this project?[/b][/i][/u] The assumption is that the aim is to make money. In which case, you're looking from the wrong angle. People don't want realistic. People want world chat, it's a social convention of all succesful MMOs - do the research. There will be trolls, beggers, blah blah blah - so implement an ignore system. Again, succesful MMOs have faced these problems, how do they approach them? - do the research. My point is, to make money, give the people what they want and charge them for it. Oh, and [i]do the research[/i]. However, if the point of this project is to turn YOUR dreams into a real thing, then you don't need to ask other designers/developers for confirmation. Make your game, your way and enjoy it. On an unrelated note; "pay per message" is interesting. I don't think it would work as intended, but it interested me nevertheless. As always, hope this is helpful. Wyrm.
  9. Profiles for different players on the same install

    [quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1332542920' post='4924771'] The best solution to the skyrim problem would probably be to simply group the saves, create a new save group when a player creates a new character, when you load a game you first select the character and then the save (unless you're reloading while allready playing in which case the default should be to load saves for the same character, no need for fully featured profiles really, (controls and other settings can be saved in the users home folder) [/quote] I guess we're working off the assumption that a "profile" is something you sign into with a username AND password before the main menu is loaded. If the profile was something you signed into, without a password, when you loaded a character up - we call this a "save group"? Just a profile by another name, no? I love the idea of that though; no unneeded barrier before the game, no risk of forgetting a password, but your saves are maintained in seperate locations per character/profile. With regards to profiling via OS users; I don't know an evil twin in this world that'll bother to go to "change user" once the OS is loaded and the game icon is right there in front of him. Maybe other people (families?) do things differently; but I've never used multiple accounts in an OS (Could just be an OCD thing about how I set out "My Documents" ;) ). Wyrm.
  10. [quote name='eugene2k' timestamp='1332581728' post='4924851'] Unless of course you can somehow make a system that would generate new content on its own in an evolutionary fashion, adding new locations on the map, new monsters and everything else, without the designers doing so much as lifting a finger. I don't think that's possible yet though. Maybe in 50 years time. [/quote] 50 years? D= But I want it now! I think, if we're talking about a system of fun, meaningful and lasting (near-)infinite self-generated content, we are fantasising a little. It does exist, to some extent. I've seen it in 2D / Text RPGs - but even then, the system [i]is[/i] finite and limited. Every dungeon ends up looking the same, it's not meaningful, and certainly not lasting. I would probably sell my soul to someone who could develop a fun, meaningful and lasting system of self-generating MMORPG content. It would be pure genius. I'm totally on board with people saying "Social content will increase gameplay" and anything along those lines. It's the only reason I still play WoW - to spend time with the Guild. And the idea of "Content generated by players" is very, very interesting. People are always going on about how they want a "Guild House" that is designed and developed over time by their Guild. An idea might be to look on the forums for other MMOs and find the "Suggestions" section. (Avoiding the Trolls), you might find some good ideas for what people want; what would make them carry on playing for longer. Wyrm.
  11. Health Regeneration

    [quote name='Stroppy Katamari' timestamp='1332509306' post='4924612'] I haven't played many modern FPSs, but I know most of them allow you to regen in combat as long as you just duck behind cover for a while. That specifically encourages risk-less and boring grinding down the enemies until there are none left, getting randomly and instantly killed and quickloading, or both. I find most of the time this design is either by bad designers, for bad players, or both. [/quote] Yes, I agree that regen "in-combat" often leads to "I'll just sit behind this rock until my health is back, then shoot some guys, then repeat". However; Mass Effect 3 attempts to get around this with "Smart" AI that will flank you while you're in cover... Gears of War has those ink-grenades that negate an area of cover. There are certanily systems in place in many games to stop you just sitting in cover - but they're hit-and-miss in terms of whether they work or not. [quote] If you had to actually leave combat in order to regen - whether by killing all enemies in the area, or really breaking contact so that enemies aren't after you anymore - that is generally going to be more interesting. [/quote] "More interesting" - 100% agree. Plus, an easier solution than trying to stop the cover-camping whilst maintaining in-fight regen. WoW does it and I have a shooter in my head that does it too - I just cannot remember what it is for the life of me. (Going to bug me all day now). Wyrm.
  12. Profiles for different players on the same install

    [quote name='Dark_Oppressor' timestamp='1332500417' post='4924579'] For a game with a singleplayer campaign, where a profile system makes sense, would you use one, as a developer? As a player, would you care about such a system? [/quote] I'm going to compare two examples from games I've played; one that uses a profile system (Starcraft 2), and one that does not (Skyrim). In Skyrim, I create a manly Orc Warrior, slay some dragons, and then save the game - I am prompted to make a name for the save, so I will call it "Wyrmslayer". Now, my evil twin comes along, clicks "start new game", makes himself a sparkly Destruction Wizard, slays some dragons, and then saves the game - he is prompted to make a name for the save, and picks "Wyrmzapper". Both saves are maintained, either of us can return to the game by loading our own save and we can continue playing. Both of us are happy UNLESS - we rely on autosaves (which overwrite each others' character), or my evil twin deletes/overwrites my save (he is evil after all). In Starcraft 2 (In Offline mode, interested only in singleplayer), I create an account "Wyrmslayer", sign into it, kill some aliens and save the game as "Wyrmslayer Mission 3". My evil twin comes along, makes his account "Wyrmzapper", signs into it, kills some aliens and saves the game as "Wyrmzapper Mission 2" (He´s slow). Both saves are maintained, either of us can sign in and load our own account, load our save and continue playing. Both of us are happy. AND neither of us can delete/overwrite each other's saves (from inside the game), NOR will our autosaves overwrite the other person's autosaves. In conclusion. Profiles seem a better system because they do the same thing AND protect you from your little brother (or evil twin) coming along and ruining your saves. However, personally, I could barely care less whether there is a profile system or not (I've locked my evil twin away safely and am not worried). I guess I can start playing quicker if there isn't one - so I'm voting "no profile" ;). Hope this was helpful, Wyrm
  13. Health Regeneration

    [quote name='Net Gnome' timestamp='1332414584' post='4924267'] Dwarf Fortress is famous for this type of health system, its anotomical detail is amazing. You can end up cutting tendons and muscles, breaking bones, etc. The system even lets you target body parts as well. Toady did an awesome job on it. [/quote] It sounds like such a fun (and realistic?) system, but how taxing is something like this on a game's resources? I mean, I can't imagine a AAA FPS using such a detailed system without becoming unplayably slow every time you get shot at. From everyone's name-drops it's clear there are loads of different options, but to the "injuries cause lower maximum health" list I'd like to add [i]Metal Gear Solid 3[/i] (and, possibly later editions, I haven´t played them). Different types of attacks cause different types of wounds (bullet wound, burn, broken bone) which cause injury, reducing max health until you use your medical supplies to heal each individual injury (using the correct individual medical tools for the appropriate wounds). It was excellent, but I hated it. After every fight I'd spend 10 minutes working my way through menus trying to remember whether it was "knife, antiseptic, bandage" or "antiseptic, knife, painkiller, bandage" for a bullet wound... then again, that could just be me ;). I'm a fan of the modern "no regen in combat, near-instant regen out of combat" systems, I feel that encourages quick gameplay without making firefights risk-less. However, at the end of the day, Tiblanc's got it right with "It depends on what the focus of your game is." to be honest. In a murky horror game focusing on conserving limited resources over long periods, I wouldn't expect my health to regen at all - for example. Wyrm.
  14. I'm struggling a lot to try and express my answers to your issues, so I'm just going to boil it down to this and hope it doesn't offend: [quote name='glhf' timestamp='1332416196' post='4924272'] I think a good game is one that doesn't need updates. Because when you don't need updates anymore to keep the game fun and interesting for all players that means you have succeeded.[/quote] If you seek to make a game people will play forever; you will [i]never [/i]finish developing. As soon as someone reaches the limit of your content, you need new content. There is only one way to create infinite content; which is [i]grinding[/i]. If you create a grinding system with infinite pre-set rewards (say "Grind Points"), people will get bored of it and quit. In short: The only way to get "Meaningful, fun AND lasting" content, is to develop new, meaningful and fun content forever. Of course, this happily ignores the effect a good social environment will have on your playerbase. This is because, whilst good social systems will encourage repeat play, it won't last past the moment someone says "I'm bored of this content, let's all go play Happy Ninja Narwhals instead." I hope this is helpful (and not as critical as it sounds to me when I re-read it), Wyrm.