Guns work better than swords online. Take a look at Unreal Tournament and Rune. Same engine, same controls. Trouble is, I can miss with a shock rifle and think, "Hey, I think that miss was like 40% lag." When I leap down on my prey from above and swing a huge hammer at him, only to have him wink out of existence and reappear behind my inexplicably decapitated character, I think, "LLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111" or possibly, "TEH HAX!"

I then type that. Rune servers were the whiniest places on the internet.

I wouldn't mind seeing a semi-turn-based system, where you choose a move to perform, and then your character switches his auto-attack to that. It would be like a contant game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, but with more than three options and more sophisticated interactions between them. One of these days I'll work out a system that requires so little data transfer that it can be played with a 14.4kbps modem, but will be deep, and sophisticated, and pretty. Just you wait and see.

Some people like Auto Action (Click and Wait), Some people like Manual Action (Click click click or Click and Hold). I belong to the later. I also create a MMORPG with both settings possible, and switchable.

Also, Since you were refering to Zelda's combat system, I think you should look into Graal Online:

http://www.graalonline.com

Man, I can't believe Graal is still around. I used to play it back when it was free since I couldn't afford Everquest.

Quote:

Original post by Ned_K Quote: Original post by TheFez6255 Quote: Original post by Ned_K Diablo 2 is an MMO and it's real-time action. Of course it has it's faults, but it's all about reflexes and thinking on your feet. Actually, it is not an MMO. The world isn't really persistant, your quite limited in the number of people you actually play with, and theres a few other reasons its not an MMO. Planetside, D&D online, WW2 online, etc. would be better examples. No, Diablo 2 is a massive multiplayer on-line game, i.e. MMO. There is no official definition that breaks down how many people you have to be able to play with simultaneously. The individual games themselves within Diablo are no more than publicly accessible instances. The monstrous worlds of games like WoW and EverQuest are too rare to be the only MMO-style games. I take the acronym at face value. It allows for many different types of approaches, from EQ to Diablo 2. Otherwise we are just debating semantics when there is no central authority providing precise definitions anyway. Everyone has a slightly different definition of MMO. I tend to agree with broader definitions rather than narrow.

Yeah, but "Massive" implies mre than 4 people. The reason MMO because a word in the first place was to differentiate between games like Ultima Online - where thousands of characters play and interact - and Golden Eye 007. Theyre both Multiplayer. But only one is MASSIVE.

Anyways, i think you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I dont care if my rating takes a hit for saying this, but if you're seriously that sure that Diablo 2 is an MMO, you're a fuckin retard. End of Point.

Quote:

Original post by Ned_K Man, I can't believe Graal is still around. I used to play it back when it was free since I couldn't afford Everquest.

I used to play it back aorund 2000-2001ish. Theyve changed all the graphics. took the fun out.


Oh, and about the topic: The more massive your MMO gets, the laggier it gets - especially with controlls that send more to the server than what command you're doing. running along a certain path, jumping, shooting while in the air, and landing on a small rock in the middle of an island wouldnt happen because theres too many moments that lag could adjust your character position in the world slightly.

Look at Auto Assault. It's not out yet, but they say Spring 2006. Completely destructable enviroments with ramming, shooting, ramps, etc. With leveling, all online. :)

[Edited by - Scavenger23 on August 24, 2005 5:57:38 PM]

Ive been sort of looking forward to that for a while. But I dunno.. I wonder how good its going to be. It has the potential to be either really awesome, or really terrible.