I've been mulling over the concept of taking Diablo II style gameplay, mixing more RPG elements with vastly dynamic character molding and creation, putting it in a massively multiplayer online setting, and then throwing in some console style hack n' slash to elevate the fun level. Now, my question is this: is trying to mix these genres a good idea? And is explaining it in one sentence full of abstract generalizations any better ;P? Think Diablo II + World of Warcraft + (Something new with maleable characters) + Devil May Cry 3 + massively multiplayer online, with one huge persistent world. Would that work? EDIT - Just realized that the "-" before "massively multiplayer online" could be misconstrued. + for the win.

I think the biggest problem might be the techincal side of having an arcade combat system combined with the usual network server delays that seem to be part and parcel with MMO game design. There might be some way around this; I'm no expert at network programming!; but without overcoming that hurdle I'm not sure the "Devil May Cry" and "MMO" aspects work well together.

If it were my design, I'd ditch the MMO aspect and just think about making it single-player and "normal" multiplayer.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid I think the biggest problem might be the techincal side of having an arcade combat system combined with the usual network server delays that seem to be part and parcel with MMO game design. There might be some way around this; I'm no expert at network programming!; but without overcoming that hurdle I'm not sure the "Devil May Cry" and "MMO" aspects work well together. If it were my design, I'd ditch the MMO aspect and just think about making it single-player and "normal" multiplayer.

Can't ditch the MMO part - that's the entire point ;P

I liked Diablo II and running into characters with tons of high level armor spontaneously, along with the quick gameplay it provided. However, it was essentially instanced.

IMO, having a fast paced MMO is the next step - the technical limitations are part of the challenge, but it's a worthwhile challenge if you currently have to compromise gameplay for technology.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster How's that different than UO?

I've heard UO was awesome, but it was unfourtunately before my time. The kind of things I've read about them doing with UO (player housing, for instance) and the "bad" problems they lead to make me lament for modern games. Reading up on it, it seemed that all of the innovation in the MMORPG genre came and went with UO.

Nytehauq, how much money are you working with? How big is your team? What kinds of tools and programs are you working with?

Quote:

Original post by FinalMinuet Nytehauq, how much money are you working with? How big is your team? What kinds of tools and programs are you working with?

Zero, one, and everything in house ;P

It's more of a hobby project than anything - I'm not so much trying to build an a functional MMO as a game that has the foundations to be one - e.g. you could support x-million players even though actually reaching the limit would result in unplayable gameplay. Besides, this is all hypothetical anyway - does that idea sound good, impracticality notwithstanding?

I could have a group of 20 or so volunteers from various fields of expertise on the project if I decided to tap my resources, but I doubt that will be neccesary. Too much business for the game design forum anyway.

there's only 2 serious network hackers ive ever spoken to that said they could accomplish FPS style combat system on an MMO scale. One is the network programmer for SOE that worked on Planetside, and the other is the programmer that did the Tribes network library.

The planetside guy was getting pissed at me because i was talking about the paper/rock/scissors mechanism they use to hide the slow update rate. The tribes guy was confident he could use the TNL to support a few thousand players at a time with FPS quality hit detection and liquidity without implementing a "watery" system that minimized player skill.


investigating further, the cost of collision detection on items like swords and maces(sweeping type weapons) are a lot more expensive than a simple raycast that's used in a projectile based FPS.

Further, with a persistent world any cheating that occurs is persistent as well. Liquid hit detection virtually requires client side detection which opens you up to a world of hacks that are magnified by the persistence of the result.

i have a similar idea in my "dream" MMO, but the technical challenges are daunting.

if you read this "Tribes guy" or "Planetside guy" i know your names just didn't want to "out" you.

Quote:

Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom there's only 2 serious network hackers ive ever spoken to that said they could accomplish FPS style combat system on an MMO scale. One is the network programmer for SOE that worked on Planetside, and the other is the programmer that did the Tribes network library. The planetside guy was getting pissed at me because i was talking about the paper/rock/scissors mechanism they use to hide the slow update rate. The tribes guy was confident he could use the TNL to support a few thousand players at a time with FPS quality hit detection and liquidity without implementing a "watery" system that minimized player skill. investigating further, the cost of collision detection on items like swords and maces(sweeping type weapons) are a lot more expensive than a simple raycast that's used in a projectile based FPS. Further, with a persistent world any cheating that occurs is persistent as well. Liquid hit detection virtually requires client side detection which opens you up to a world of hacks that are magnified by the persistence of the result. i have a similar idea in my "dream" MMO, but the technical challenges are daunting. if you read this "Tribes guy" or "Planetside guy" i know your names just didn't want to "out" you.

Wait, do explain more. Rock paper scissors method? Watery hit detection? Liquid hit detection?

mmm. not technical words, just slang used to describe types of implementations.


paper/rock/scissors- if you've ever played counterstrike and also planetside you'll notice an extreme difference in how much skill plays a factor.

an ace countertstrike player can kill a mediocre player with consistancy even when he is outgunned. the collision detection is tight enough and the refresh high enough where players with a good connection will "agree" with the outcome. that is, what you think should have happened and what the computer simulated are in agreement.(as opposed to, i shot that guy 5 times in the head but the computer didnt register the hit.) when you and the computer are in agreement as to the simulated outcome consistently then the hit detection is said to be "liquid".(my terminology, but pretty common in FPS's)

planetside projects a cone at the tip of whatever weapon you are firing and resolves its collision system through this projection. if you look at your display, whenever you target something it shows you the range and it also shows you the refresh rate for the simulation. 300millisecond refresh rates are not at all uncommon, even with a good connection.

the paper/rock/scissors term means that two players of equal skill but armed with different types of weapons will result in a consistent outcome. at a given range one weapon is demonstrably more lethal than another.(e.g. in CS i can go on 10 man killing sprees with a pistol, in Planetside i can rarely score a kill with a pistol even against a mediocre player if he has an anti-infantry weapon)

paper beats rock beats scissors: this mechanic mitigates skill in exchange for itemization.

the further removed combat resolution is from the physics system the more "watery" it becomes, to the tipping point commonly employed in MMO's like WOW or EQ, where range and occasionally your position relative to your target(e.g. a thiefs backstab ability) is all that is factored.

Quote:

Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom mmm. not technical words, just slang used to describe types of implementations. paper/rock/scissors- if you've ever played counterstrike and also planetside you'll notice an extreme difference in how much skill plays a factor. an ace countertstrike player can kill a mediocre player with consistancy even when he is outgunned. the collision detection is tight enough and the refresh high enough where players with a good connection will "agree" with the outcome. that is, what you think should have happened and what the computer simulated are in agreement.(as opposed to, i shot that guy 5 times in the head but the computer didnt register the hit.) when you and the computer are in agreement as to the simulated outcome consistently then the hit detection is said to be "liquid".(my terminology, but pretty common in FPS's) planetside projects a cone at the tip of whatever weapon you are firing and resolves its collision system through this projection. if you look at your display, whenever you target something it shows you the range and it also shows you the refresh rate for the simulation. 300millisecond refresh rates are not at all uncommon, even with a good connection. the paper/rock/scissors term means that two players of equal skill but armed with different types of weapons will result in a consistent outcome. at a given range one weapon is demonstrably more lethal than another.(e.g. in CS i can go on 10 man killing sprees with a pistol, in Planetside i can rarely score a kill with a pistol even against a mediocre player if he has an anti-infantry weapon) paper beats rock beats scissors: this mechanic mitigates skill in exchange for itemization. the further removed combat resolution is from the physics system the more "watery" it becomes, to the tipping point commonly employed in MMO's like WOW or EQ, where range and occasionally your position relative to your target(e.g. a thiefs backstab ability) is all that is factored.

I thought that's what you meant. It's funny, I complain about games becoming more and more "watered" down all the time - I didn't know that they were actually becoming more "watery" for the sake of online ;P

I hate the dissociation of skill and luck that tends to occur in online games...now how do you fix it?