If a player turns "Bad" then their abilities could change as well. So if a wizard turns bad then their spell do as well.
As mentioned earlier, a player turned bad would have to go somewhere else. But what if they could constuct this "somewhere else".
Taking Gauntlet as an example, if a character dies then they turn into a death. At this point they then go around constructing generators.
Taking this idea to a RPG, when a player goes bad then they turn into an evil swordsman, wizard, bowman etc. This is sort of a RPG/RTS game in away. The evil wizards new spells could be things like "Create horde of goblins" etc.
The only problem with this is what if everyone is evil, then you will have to have the equivant good thing like dungeons. I guess this is where towns and raids come in.
But how does some one evil buy new items. I don''t think they should be able to get them from towns/shops. There would have to be evil blacksmiths underground trading systems. Gees this is becoming more RTS as i think about it. Not that its that bad.
The one thing i foresee about absolute death is that a lot of people would want to kill the big guy. Would this kill the fun of the game or would it become more fun.
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
Players as monsters in MMORPGs
Prisons...not a bad idea.
I once played a MUD(Faerun) where you could be put in jail for committing crimes, and also could be put in hell if you did not make monetary offerings to the god you worshipped.
In either hell or jail, the player would just sit there for quite a long time in real time. The punishment was not death, but boredom. You couldn''t do much of anything. I don''t really think this is a good solution though.
Perhaps, having to pay some sort of fee for committing small crimes.
Yeah, UO''s activities can be pretty entertaining. What I would like to see is more of a community. Where players can take part in activities other than killing, mundane working, and socializing...
Where''s that darn fish of land when you need someone to get your thoughts together...
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." --William Blake
I once played a MUD(Faerun) where you could be put in jail for committing crimes, and also could be put in hell if you did not make monetary offerings to the god you worshipped.
In either hell or jail, the player would just sit there for quite a long time in real time. The punishment was not death, but boredom. You couldn''t do much of anything. I don''t really think this is a good solution though.
Perhaps, having to pay some sort of fee for committing small crimes.
quote:
Hmmm... what will the player do while in the confines of the city? Hmmm... LOL, that is a good question. What I do now, In UO, is gather food, and other resources that I need and then head back out to the guild house. Not a lot of my time is spent in the city. I suspect this isn''t true for a lot of people. In fact there is a guild that hangs out next to the East Bank in Britain on GL. They spar and chat... not sure what else they do.. but it appears that they are having fun
Yeah, UO''s activities can be pretty entertaining. What I would like to see is more of a community. Where players can take part in activities other than killing, mundane working, and socializing...
Where''s that darn fish of land when you need someone to get your thoughts together...
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." --William Blake
quote:Original post by Paul Cunningham
If a player turns "Bad" then their abilities could change as well. So if a wizard turns bad then their spell do as well.
I would rather leave this alone. I don''t like forcing morals on the players... but if the killer understands that absolute death is a factor, it will immediately become harder than is worth his time. If he loses his own character, it will be some time before he can kill again (I.E. building another character up from scratch) whereas the roleplayer who he killed can just make another one. Since he would not be concerned with the power-level of his character, he could get right in and witness the consequences of his former character''s death.
There''s another thing. That would be very gratifying in a way, watching people mourn your character''s passing. If you were powerful or influential in the town or it''s politics, you could watch the strife that occurs in your absence... an ego trip of sorts. Who hasn''t imagined that kind of thing in real life?
quote:Nazzlie
In the game I envision, the society would take care of this itself.
Our opposers hate to hear that, and it isn''t exactly true... we could easily tend to FREAK character deaths by active moderation, something I think will be entirely needed in role-playing based RPGs, anyway.
We should return this thread to it''s original topic and start a little clubhouse to figure out the rest... I''m on it.
So in order to make the game more fun, your solution is to discourage combat? I just don't understand that at all. In most cases combat is the underlying basis of the whole game! If your'e going to discourage combat you have to at least replace it with something else, after all this is a *game*, not an online role-playing chat-room. When you say a victim of PK would not be concerned with the power levels of his character, I wonder what you intend for him to be concerned with. Isn't the power level of your character the underlying challenge and reward of all RPG's?
Take your samurai example. Yeah, I'd take that offer. But the key is the words "no consequences". Permanent death would be a huge and devastating consequence, a *real-world* consequence that would anger me greatly. Weeks of hard work would be destroyed in an instant, don't you think that would be just a little bit upsetting? Maybe I'm the only one, but when my Seiken Densetsu 3 save file was erased, I was heartbroken. My characters were so perfect and so personalized that it felt like I would never be able to get them back. I loved that game, but I haven't played it since.
You say I've missed your point, but haven't you also missed mine? I'm not a big fan of discussions where each person takes turns restating his argument, so I'll make this brief:
I agree that death needs to be a bad thing. The player needs to want to live. I also think that if you make death *totally* and *completely* devastating, you'll make people so scared to lose that they'll never even gamble. Having a realistic game is great, but if I'm scared to even play it, then somewhere along the line you've failed to do your job as a game designer.
Edited by - capcommunist on July 7, 2000 4:30:20 PM
Take your samurai example. Yeah, I'd take that offer. But the key is the words "no consequences". Permanent death would be a huge and devastating consequence, a *real-world* consequence that would anger me greatly. Weeks of hard work would be destroyed in an instant, don't you think that would be just a little bit upsetting? Maybe I'm the only one, but when my Seiken Densetsu 3 save file was erased, I was heartbroken. My characters were so perfect and so personalized that it felt like I would never be able to get them back. I loved that game, but I haven't played it since.
You say I've missed your point, but haven't you also missed mine? I'm not a big fan of discussions where each person takes turns restating his argument, so I'll make this brief:
I agree that death needs to be a bad thing. The player needs to want to live. I also think that if you make death *totally* and *completely* devastating, you'll make people so scared to lose that they'll never even gamble. Having a realistic game is great, but if I'm scared to even play it, then somewhere along the line you've failed to do your job as a game designer.
Edited by - capcommunist on July 7, 2000 4:30:20 PM
I've noticed that a lot of people consider player killing something we should be trying to elimate. I think we *should* encourage it IF it's within the players role. If everyone is a good guy, you just end up with a chatroom. For roleplaying you need bad guys. And bad guys are almost always much more interesting when they're other players.
Player killing isn't something which should be discouraged. It sets up all sorts of interesting revenges and side plots. The problem is with player killing that has nothing to do with the game. I wouldn't be upset if I got killed by a bandit on the way to another city, because, hey, I should expect it when I'm walking alone in the woods. It fits into the game.
In other words, you shouldn't design your game to force players to change their morals (which permanent deaths would force them to do). Instead, you should just balance it into the gameplay and make sure it doesn't disrupt the other players too much.
Let players decide for themselves what they enjoy.
----------------------------------------
Whenever I see an old lady slip and fall on a wet sidewalk, my first instinct is to laugh. But then I think, what if I was an ant and she fell on me? Then it wouldn't seem quite so funny.
Edited by - The Senshi on July 7, 2000 4:53:29 PM
Player killing isn't something which should be discouraged. It sets up all sorts of interesting revenges and side plots. The problem is with player killing that has nothing to do with the game. I wouldn't be upset if I got killed by a bandit on the way to another city, because, hey, I should expect it when I'm walking alone in the woods. It fits into the game.
In other words, you shouldn't design your game to force players to change their morals (which permanent deaths would force them to do). Instead, you should just balance it into the gameplay and make sure it doesn't disrupt the other players too much.
Let players decide for themselves what they enjoy.
----------------------------------------
Whenever I see an old lady slip and fall on a wet sidewalk, my first instinct is to laugh. But then I think, what if I was an ant and she fell on me? Then it wouldn't seem quite so funny.
Edited by - The Senshi on July 7, 2000 4:53:29 PM
I''m certainly not ignoring you. I value my opposition, they reinforce my idea. Keep it coming!
War? Revenge? Political intrigue? Social standing? Power? These things mean nothing to you? This is how we''ve rated real-world "level" since the beginning of time. Do you really feel that a number is the best and only way to watch your character improve?
Now imagine your Seiken Densetsu 3 save file was a person. That person made an enemy, or a stupid mistake, and her life was taken as a result of this. Would you not take heart in the idea that your Seiken Densetsu 3 save file would be avenged by it''s warlord brother? Would you not leap at the opportunity to slay her assasin yourself? (remember that death would be a rare occurance, but the life of a murderer is forfiet in feudal law)
When a character dies in the game I envision, they don''t vanish from the world. They DID things, left impressions on the community, made friends. Thier death is not a LOSS to the fabric of the game, but actually brings people closer together. Death becomes an EVENT in the game that affects everyone. That is something most MMORPGs need...
I read to understand everything you say. If I felt you were right, I would concede. That may still happen. Not likely though.
Look at what you just wrote. Death IS totally and completely devestation. We are understating death and it''s affects. But DEATH is what makes us truly alive! Until our characters face such a landmark threat, the essence of all that is fear in humanity, we will continue to behave like children in these virtual playgrounds (dominated by bullies, no less)
Edited by - capcommunist on July 7, 2000 4:30:20 PM
quote:Original post by Capcommunist
So in order to make the game more fun, your solution is to discourage combat? I just don''t understand that at all. In most cases combat is the underlying basis of the whole game! If your''e going to discourage combat you have to at least replace it with something else, after all this is a *game*, not an online role-playing chat-room. When you say a victim of PK would not be concerned with the power levels of his character, I wonder what you intend for him to be concerned with. Isn''t the power level of your character the underlying challenge and reward of all RPG''s?
War? Revenge? Political intrigue? Social standing? Power? These things mean nothing to you? This is how we''ve rated real-world "level" since the beginning of time. Do you really feel that a number is the best and only way to watch your character improve?
quote:
Take your samurai example. Yeah, I''d take that offer. But the key is the words "no consequences". Permanent death would be a huge and devastating consequence, a *real-world* consequence that would anger me greatly. Weeks of hard work would be destroyed in an instant, don''t you think that would be just a little bit upsetting? Maybe I''m the only one, but when my Seiken Densetsu 3 save file was erased, I was heartbroken. My characters were so perfect and so personalized that it felt like I would never be able to get them back. I loved that game, but I haven''t played it since.
Now imagine your Seiken Densetsu 3 save file was a person. That person made an enemy, or a stupid mistake, and her life was taken as a result of this. Would you not take heart in the idea that your Seiken Densetsu 3 save file would be avenged by it''s warlord brother? Would you not leap at the opportunity to slay her assasin yourself? (remember that death would be a rare occurance, but the life of a murderer is forfiet in feudal law)
When a character dies in the game I envision, they don''t vanish from the world. They DID things, left impressions on the community, made friends. Thier death is not a LOSS to the fabric of the game, but actually brings people closer together. Death becomes an EVENT in the game that affects everyone. That is something most MMORPGs need...
quote:
You say I''ve missed your point, but haven''t you also missed mine? I''m not a big fan of discussions where each person takes turns restating his argument, so I''ll make this brief:
I agree that death needs to be a bad thing. The player needs to want to live. I also think that if you make death *totally* and *completely* devastating, you''ll make people so scared to lose that they''ll never even gamble. Having a realistic game is great, but if I''m scared to even play it, then somewhere along the line you''ve failed to do your job as a game designer.
I read to understand everything you say. If I felt you were right, I would concede. That may still happen. Not likely though.
Look at what you just wrote. Death IS totally and completely devestation. We are understating death and it''s affects. But DEATH is what makes us truly alive! Until our characters face such a landmark threat, the essence of all that is fear in humanity, we will continue to behave like children in these virtual playgrounds (dominated by bullies, no less)
Edited by - capcommunist on July 7, 2000 4:30:20 PM
Players taking the roles of Monsters?
Let''s assume the following:
a) Monsters are tougher than players (to create a challenge)
b) Players that play characters can gain ''power'' and become stronger. They will be able to beat up tougher and tougher monsters.
c) Players that play Intelligent Monsters will be able to gain power as well, but they start out significantly less powerful than other monsters of their race. Simple example:
Goblin, 50 hitpoint, 10 strenght, swordskill 25.
Player Goblin, 30 hitpoints, 8 strenght, swordskill 10.
Each monster type has a set maximum development stage. Example: that player goblin might develop into a champion goblin, 250 hitpoints, 25 strenght, swordskill 50.
Still, player controlled Monsters will ALWAYS be somewhat weaker than their counterparts (regular monsters of the same type). The player controlled Monsters will have the aid of Player AI and THAT is what should make them a little tougher to fight.
Players will only be able to control certain Monsters (for example, only those that they have defeated the ''champion'' type of...in this case, a player would have to defeat a champion goblin before the slot ''goblin'' would open up in their character creation screen).
As player controlled monsters would have a low power compared to player controlled characters, ''powergamers'' would probably not play monsters. PK''s might (although PvP in my opinion should also be a part of character interaction) but will most likely not bother because the monsters would simply not be all that powerful. My guess is, the best targetgroup for the role of monsters would be roleplayers. They would be pleased playing monsters no matter how weak they are.
Of course, in players having the opportunity to control monsters, each type of monster would in effect become a ''race'' and would have to be worked out in detail. Where do they live? What do they do to survive? Etc...
I''d love to see an army of 100 goblins, with 20 player controlled goblins try to take over a human village with 40 player controlled characters.
Silvermyst
Let''s assume the following:
a) Monsters are tougher than players (to create a challenge)
b) Players that play characters can gain ''power'' and become stronger. They will be able to beat up tougher and tougher monsters.
c) Players that play Intelligent Monsters will be able to gain power as well, but they start out significantly less powerful than other monsters of their race. Simple example:
Goblin, 50 hitpoint, 10 strenght, swordskill 25.
Player Goblin, 30 hitpoints, 8 strenght, swordskill 10.
Each monster type has a set maximum development stage. Example: that player goblin might develop into a champion goblin, 250 hitpoints, 25 strenght, swordskill 50.
Still, player controlled Monsters will ALWAYS be somewhat weaker than their counterparts (regular monsters of the same type). The player controlled Monsters will have the aid of Player AI and THAT is what should make them a little tougher to fight.
Players will only be able to control certain Monsters (for example, only those that they have defeated the ''champion'' type of...in this case, a player would have to defeat a champion goblin before the slot ''goblin'' would open up in their character creation screen).
As player controlled monsters would have a low power compared to player controlled characters, ''powergamers'' would probably not play monsters. PK''s might (although PvP in my opinion should also be a part of character interaction) but will most likely not bother because the monsters would simply not be all that powerful. My guess is, the best targetgroup for the role of monsters would be roleplayers. They would be pleased playing monsters no matter how weak they are.
Of course, in players having the opportunity to control monsters, each type of monster would in effect become a ''race'' and would have to be worked out in detail. Where do they live? What do they do to survive? Etc...
I''d love to see an army of 100 goblins, with 20 player controlled goblins try to take over a human village with 40 player controlled characters.
Silvermyst
If you really you mus impose artificial boundaries to restric an outdated system, that would be the way to do it. My question is, how much more powerful are "monsters" to humans in a setting? If a certain race happens to be more physically powerful than humans, why penalize the player for choosing to play one?
Again, absolute death would make this attempt to balance obsolete. Survival in rare combat scenes becomes a matter of player skill and common sense. It matters not what race you are, combat will ALWAYs be a risk.
Again, absolute death would make this attempt to balance obsolete. Survival in rare combat scenes becomes a matter of player skill and common sense. It matters not what race you are, combat will ALWAYs be a risk.
I don''t know if this has been mentioned yet, but what about the following. A player dies and loses some experience. He either has a choice of losing the full experience or getting it back if he kills another player as a monster.
When the player dies he becomes a monster. He can choose to kill himself or go off in search of a player to kill. If the player succeeds in killing the player driven monster then the player is revived(ie like traditional EQ/UO/AC) and given back half of the exp loss. If the player driven monster kills a pc then the player gets revived and has all experience returned or say 90% of it returned.
This could provide a way to incorporate players as monsters while not having to cater to the whole world for economy reasons. A player would never know if the monster it was fighting was a player or a Server driven monster. This would add to the excitement of every combat.
Not sure how to calculate experience for the PC from this but the idea should be worth a few posts.
Kressilac
When the player dies he becomes a monster. He can choose to kill himself or go off in search of a player to kill. If the player succeeds in killing the player driven monster then the player is revived(ie like traditional EQ/UO/AC) and given back half of the exp loss. If the player driven monster kills a pc then the player gets revived and has all experience returned or say 90% of it returned.
This could provide a way to incorporate players as monsters while not having to cater to the whole world for economy reasons. A player would never know if the monster it was fighting was a player or a Server driven monster. This would add to the excitement of every combat.
Not sure how to calculate experience for the PC from this but the idea should be worth a few posts.
Kressilac
IF for some reason I was inclined to use an EXP based system, I would love this idea. (that''s the best you''ll get from me =p) However, why are you giving more points back for suicide? If anytrhing, I think you should get more points for playing the monster, and probably never get back all that you lost for dying! Great idea though.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
