I'm contemplating using a skill tree (like in Diablo 2) for the skills/abilities of players in an MMOFPS type game. I have a few that I think would make sense such as Physical, Medical, Engineering, Weapons, and Vehicles. Is this an over-complicated way of presenting skills to players? I'm hoping that I can get some yays and nays on the tree method and maybe some new ways that I haven't heard of yet. Thanks

Personally, I think that a straightforward class system [see original Team Fortress] works better for a FPS. FPSes are about action. Diddling around in a menu to configure skills is contrary to that goal [imo]. But then again so is persistance...

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn persistance...

Exactly, what is an MMOFPS? The "massive" part of MMO is minimized by the lack of persistance. Without persistance the only people who can share in the same world are those who are online simultaniously. Without persistance the multiplayer support is less than massive (which will always be a relative term).

Was FPS (First Person Shooter) a typo?

If not then, I agree with Telastyn.

Quote:

Original post by T1Oracle Quote: Original post by Telastyn persistance... Exactly, what is an MMOFPS? The "massive" part of MMO is minimized by the lack of persistance. Without persistance the only people who can share in the same world are those who are online simultaniously. Without persistance the multiplayer support is less than massive (which will always be a relative term).

A recent thread shows that not everyone agrees with this definition/interpretation of "massive".

Quote:

Was FPS (First Person Shooter) a typo?

Why should it be? I think that Infantry showed that a persistant shooter is possible. In fact, their persistant death match game was one of the more popular ones. Subspace before that was also successful (I'd consider that an MMO-shooter).

Most (all?) the Infantry games had a class system and extensive equipment choices (experience system in disguise). Some of the games required a certain amount of experience in a certain class before you could access other classes (a skill tree).

I see no reason it couldn't be extended to 3D.

I guess, but Infantry failed as a commercial product.

It's basically dead now. Subspace, on the other hand, still exists quite well in the form of Continuum.

Not only that, but the only successful massively multiplayer shooter, Planetside, is dying as well. Both Planetside and Infantry worked very well in beta -- but people weren't nearly as willing to pay for them as they are for the MMORPGs.

-Greven

Quote:

Original post by Evil_Greven I guess, but Infantry failed as a commercial product.

Yeah, I stopped playing when it went commercial. I had two reasons:

1) Lack of funds (that's why I started playing it, it was free)
2) Many people left afer it went commercial

People leaving generally had two comments:

1) Not liking to pay for what was free for so long
2) Not wanting to pay for 2D graphics

The first was a problem because the open and free beta went on so long and because people saw it as a consequence of selling out to Sony. I think it would've been better if they had gone from closed/free beta to open/pay release. The second may sound like people rationalizing their stinginess and it probably was in some cases, but even on these boards 2D graphics are generally seen as belonging to the realm of indy games and hand-helds. I think 3D graphics would've helped sell the product.

Oh, I agree that a MMOFPS needs persistance, or else it's just a RBFPS [really big].

What I meant [and perhaps wasn't so clear] is that persistance acts contrary to what is [imo] the primary goal of a FPS, which is action. Persistance means that players are playing to grind [which isn't much action], playing unbalanced opponents [being dead is no action], trying to find opponents of the same level or avoiding death due to the penalty of it [death penalty in non-MMO FPS is limited to one game].

Other genres are [generally] a little slower paced and better benefited by the massive/persistant modifier.

Thus I suggest making a RBFPS instead. They're easier to make. They're more fun. IMO of course.

I think a MMOFPS has a lot going for it. You could still have the quick action, but you could have the battles mean something. Consider the war-FPS-es that are quite popular nowadays. Wouldn't it be great if you could just jump into a really massive battle for the normandic coast? And wouldn't it be greater still that if you win a number of 'rounds' on the coast, you can advance further into Europe?

Adding MMO to an FPS could actually add some purpose to the game, without necessarily taking away from the quick action experience. Just respawn in the landing ships/at some caravan/dangling on some parachute and you're ready to have another go, without relying on the silly 'teleporter'/pop-back-in respawns.

The skills tree of Physical, Medical, Engineering, Weapons and Vehicles also sounds like a great idea to complement this MMOFPS setup. You could allow for specialization on a specific weapon/vehicle/engineering skill too, but I guess you should only add that in as optional. This way players can easily advance their soldier without going through too much trouble, but they can reap the benefits of specialization if they take the time to figure it out.

I'd say go for it, I like it already [smile]

Don't forget to keep rank in there - or at least kill count. :-)

MMOFPS games could be great. I just don't think the genre's been tested fully or found its market yet.

I appreciate the input so far! I too do believe that if executed correctly, an MMOFPS could be successful. I hope to flesh out the skill tree and present it to you on here soon to get some feedback.