THE BEGINNING - MMORPG needs your input

Click here and disable ads!

Human Shield:

Kay, you win, you made me laugh out loud. Thanks for making my night. Back on topic now...

DarkSign:

I'm assuming that there will be some kind of maximum skill cap so we don't wind up with players being the next Morrowind posterboy, master of all trades, jack of none?

Thats actually part of what I need to work out, the skill cap system.

As for now, Im thinking the game will use xp to give players points which can be spent on skill archetypes - e.g. pistols.

then as the pistols are used, they go up by percentage.

once they go up to certain percentages, skill feats are available, such as "akimbo pistols" or "improved pistol grip"

I really want a class-less system where players can realisitcally be good at several things, but as you say are NOT the master of all skills by virtue of having played for 5 years.

And remember, the skills dont just have to be balanced with each other, but also with body armor. We dont want snipers running around in heavy armor without some sort of balance.

Perhaps I need to work out a skill tree system to negate know-it-alls? Or I also had a 100% system set up that might go like this: Imagine a pie graph that symbolizes the amount of skills you have. Certain skills take up pre-determined parts of the pie and once you had filled them up, that would be the cap on your available skills.

Thoughts?

Human Shield:

You must be pretty hard up for examples if you're using Gunbound

That has more incommon with Worms or Soldat then a mmorpg.

For armour, you could just do what D&D kinda does and have a dexterity and/or agility penalty the higher your armour rating is.

That is one definite possibility ...that weapons and armor have certain detractions. Still, I was trying to go for a newer, more elegant idea. But that is something to fall back on definitely..and it satisfies all the min max players needs to fiddle with stats.

Oh yes it can...and it will. Not only will there be the lame faction systems of previous games, but there will also be certain actions when done specific areas that will trigger another set of NPC reactions.

I really need to finish updating the GDD so I dont forget anything, but let me give you an example.

Lets say that you use our drug crafting skill to make some pills that increase your strength but lower your intelligence. Then you stroll into one of the devastated slums and begin selling these drugs to gang members. One of several things could happen: an npc is strolling nearby that is also selling drugs and decides to a) fight you for the turf b) have you report to him c) will sell for you

also, that npc could be part of the local miltia that has placed a ban on drugs in that area. So that militia member may very well attack you...or perhaps capture your character, necessitating your guild mates to break you out.

Thats just a small snapshot of one possible occurrance on point to your previous comment.

Human Shield - Im definitely going to address many of the points you made with the design doc...so keep your opinions coming.

I suppose Im going to have to go back to looking at UO's skill system and break it down into pieces that we can use.

Skill rot and permanent death.

You need to make it so that say if your maximum for a skill is 100% then it is almost impossible to get to even 95%, and when the character dies he can lose some skill points.

A total cap on skills is just stupid, especially since you are bound to find some skills massively more useful than other ones. Who cares if a character is great at baking AND needlework, for example? On the other hand, having them be able to both sneak and snipe from long range AND kill people with their bare hands is a little much.

Make it so the combat skills become harder to increase the more skills you have - so it might be easy to make a character that maximizes melee and never dodges, but a character who tries to be able to sneak, run, shoot etc. may never get above 75% of whatever the maximum skill range is.

Skill rot then also becomes GOOD for a character because if he realizes say that the mushu kick skill is useless to the way he plays then he can just stop using it and it will rot, helping himt o gain skills in other areas. The rot just cant be super crazy in its speed, and also it would be good to set a few skills as 'focused' and be able to set a few as ones to rot. Betrayal at krondor had a system to set some skills as being focused on like that. Baasically you improve more easily, and are less likely to rot, and the converse is true for the skills you try to rot.

Doesn't matter, modular turn-based combat zones can work. I also said it would be team-based turns or an entire side will go then the other, time for chating and making deals, AI massively better, less impact from lag, more precise and strategic combat.

What the fuck don't you get?

What you are talking about isnt an MMO, it's more akin to planetary systems, used in online gaming, with an XP system thrown in.

Many strategy games do this, and add in the XP system via websites(i.e., it usually doesnt impact your performance in game, although MW3's planetary XP system specified what mechs you could use at what levels).

It sounds like you are trying to build "Fallout offline - online!", rather then an actuall MMORPG.

I used to play TSN, and it had party based gaming, PvP, and it had turn based combat.

Once in a while you had to deal with some annoying idiot who took 3 minutes for every combat round, but besides that it went pretty well.

It was a fun game, but there really should have been something to force all party members to be within 10 levels of each other...it seemed to be entirely newbies and people with 32000 levels.

We only hate MMOs if we have to pay. Otherwise it's teh fun! Come play AO with us since it's free.

Rubi-ka 2
Omni
TEH POWAH ARMOR MANZ

So making an MMORPG more into a real RPG is bad? You want more and more 3rd person fighting games with infinite grind? The game is ONE world with ONE character and everything effects everything persistently, how is it not an MMORPG? Better gameplay?

[Bitter rant]Oh fuck it, what's the point? He asks for suggestions to get new ideas and maybe finally make a truly new an innovative MMORPG, and then people (with the odd rare exception) suggest the same tired old crap that they have been spoon-fed time and again. Just make another EQ with a gimmick and prettier graphics and everyone will lap it up. This is why developers make "slam dunk" titles.

DarkSign, just make the game without listening to anyone, at least then you've got a chance that you won't just turn it into a clone of all the others or just steal random features from the current crop, as that is the kind of suggestions you are going to get 99% of the time and you seem sincere enough in your desire to make something good that I wouldn't want you to see it all go to ruin because of that.[/Bitter rant]

RAAAR.

Ideas are good, so long as he does not just blindly make an edsel.

Thats kind of the point, you cant have a real MMORPG.

MMORPG is actually a misnomer, what it means its MMOG with experience/levelling.

What you are describing is something different.

The combat mechanics sounds completely unworkable however, and seems in general to be a MMOG based on a good single player CRPG.

That is why they are crap.

Combat could work fine. It is not a single player RPG: Start at standard level, no NPCs, no story, no dungeons, etc... It is pure player interaction in a harsh setting.

Pure player interaction sucks, I honestly have never seen any sort of MMOG that hasnt been infected with griefers, exploiters, "hardcore"1337 pvp'ers.

(the only exception was some really strange pirate game where everyone went around shouting "YARRRR!!!" and "AVAST ME MATEYS!")

Wow. Dissention, turmoil, and pessimism.

There CAN be an RPG in an MMORPG. Not every story has to put YOU at the center of the universe to be important. RPG is about character arcs which can be done in the genre.

In fact that is one of our main mission statements - use good writing and interesting gameplay to make characters able to tell their own story.

Dont give up on me Fez....I know there are some great ideas out there to be had. And the Codex can offer them.

Id really like to challenge the board heavyweights (VD, Vol, Saint, Exit, ...the rest of the cast)...and perhaps some lurkers to let me have it with both guns blazing. I know you guys have more in you.

Right now as for the xp system, Im probably going to mix the Fallout Bible with the old UO rules and some ideas of our own....and whatever I get get out of you guys.

Keep it coming.

Yes.

Which is exactly how I would want to play it. Someone give Human Shield ten million to make an MMORPG, please?

Having a game based around PVP in a harsh wasteland filled with desperate people and raiders and then complaining about griefers is just silly. You can't have people roleplay bandits and then cry when they rob you or it'll just end up as another candyland. People won't be able to exploit or cheat nearly as much if you don't have the same spreadsheet stats system and levels and NPCs.

Unfortunately Shadowbane proved that when given an MMO where the only content is player vs player ....the game will come up short.

You have to have PvE and PvP to make a thorough game these days.

....oh and the budget is 16 :twisted:

Player guilds, affiliations and towns would be important, it wouldn't all be solo. I already stressed the importance of making plenty for the players to join in with.

Shadowbane sucked because it was a joke from the start and the players had to spend ages mining the monsters for drops. It had NPCs too and levels and all the other things that I don't want to see.

My suggestion is to run off with the money if you can't make the game we dream of. At least someone would be happy. :wink:

Oh they will play a HUGE part in the game. Part of the game is following the Shadowbane model of city-building and nation building.

Also NPC player towns will be societies that can either be won over or taken over or destroyed...each having its pros and cons.

>Winning them over would happen by defending them from invasions (kind of a scripted event vs mobs or vs another guild or group) ...OR by contributing natural resources, weapons, armor and items to help them.

> Taking over the town would be done through attacking the town, then hiring an NPC milita to keep patrol over them. This would also take resources, armor and weaponry to establish this dominance. The production of the town would then be given to your guild.
Of course at random times, there will be checks against this domination which may be overturned and acted out in a scripted event.

> Destroying the town would be like a seige on a player guild, but against NPCs of course.

All of these will be initiated almost like a quest thorugh branching dialogue trees with city officials and citizens, of course.

Damm, got me giving away more than I thought.

Actually the end game will require guilds to either take over a lot of towns or ally with them so that their numbers will join yours to help you take over some of the larger NPC towns of notoriety. The story arc will then build from one player to guild action to guilds dominating PvP...then guilds dominating PvE...and working towards world domination.

Think of these kind of like the large NPO castles in Lin2 that were able to be taken over..but on a much huger scale.

Nah. Once you had the right macros and a good guild you could get to the highest level in 2 weeks. 1 week on the Test server. And the PvE was a joke. It wasnt even meant to be content until WolfPack realize there were carebears that wanted that in the game but it was too late.

My best friend in Indonesia keeps tempting me every day with that offer But it wont happen.

Good to hear the players can make an impact on things. I like the idea that there is an achievable "endgame" as the realm VS realm in DAOC just went on forever. Being able to taste sweet victory and the fun and bonding of it with the other players will add a lot.

I am wary of NPCs, but NPC towns won't be so bad, but MMORPGs tend to have crappy AI. If they are something you conquer to get one up on the other players it'd be ok, but not if it turns into monster farming by another name. God I hate the camping.

Large scale battles will be good. I think we can all just pretend it'll get the server support it needs not to turn into a lagfest.

"Nah. Once you had the right macros and a good guild you could get to the highest level in 2 weeks. 1 week on the Test server. And the PvE was a joke."

Another reason why I just hate the levelling part, it is just a dull, dull barrier to getting into the proper and fun game. It has put me and a few others of online games before.

Play neocron, then come back and say that

If you design the game bearing in mind what the LCD will likely get up to, you will have a lot of less problems later.

NeoCron sucked so badly I would be ashamed if I had been on that project.

The warping, the constant crashes, the vehicle problems....

and then you get to the community and the GMs and Reakktor's support.

NeoCrap should never have been released.

@Fez: I agree that SB put a false impedient to the real game. I always argued that they should have allowed everyone to start at max level, make their template, and move on.
That way it would have ALL been about PvP.

By including city/nation-building into the game, how will you address larger guilds/nations overtaking smaller nations or cities? Even if you make it difficult for there to be any effective ganking at a 1 to 1 player ratio, you'll end up having ganking at a much larger scale between entities of unequal power.