DRACOLICHE:

Actually, some used to have nicknames like Violet and Pearl, anything to lull the opponent into believing they''d have an easy victory.

DARKICE:

The experts are divided on the ''sea battle'' issue. Certainly at a later stage these battles would''ve been impossible, because the Colosseum had underground areas right underneath the arena (they stored wild animals there and had all sorts of surprise mechanisms -like the ones you see in the movie Gladiator, where they have trapdoors etc-) which would''ve flooded if the arena were to be filled with water.

The History Channel just had a show about the Colesseum. The show claimed that the very first emperor had a huge 100 day opening ceremony. On the third day, the arena was flooded, and they had a miniature sea battle, with crocodiles in the water.

Two years later, the Colesseum was remodelled, and all of the flooding apparatus was removed. The new emperor wanted a spectacle (graphics over gameplay even back then!), with surprises and thrills. This was when all of the elevators and trapdoors were added.

Sounds like a good idea,
I like simulation games if they are something you can''t really do.I think you''ve got a lot of things well sorted out,and have kept the gameplay in mind.Here are a few things though I think you should look at.
1.1st person,it''s really going to look wrong IMO.I think 3rd person would suit a game like this.
2.I don''t really get how you are handling death.The easiest way I can think of is having short streetfighter style fights for multiplay,and then having a game mode where you fight with 1 life.You can save,and the way it works is,(I''m not sure if you said or had this in mind.)The player fights in progressive battles as you said,if the player loses his rating with the crowd goes down.The worse you lose the worse the rating,eventually if you lose enough points,they will have you dispensed.That''s where saving comes in,so you can make it hard and you have to continue working your way up.
3.Games like this should always have lots of options in my view,
I like the points people made about trapdoors,and maybe you get wilder crazier animals as options for multiplay fights e.t.c as options you can select.
4.I like the points about armour and weapons,this should be well thought out.You should try and balance everything and get them just right,maybe the player can spend a lot of money on some really strong armour for fights, but of course it takes off his savings for freedom.
5.I also really like the points for signature moves,and I think you are on the right track with the combatants,with differing speed and power e.t.c.
This is all a bit out of the book,but in truth if your goal is to make a good multiplay,singleplay fighting game this is the way to do it IMO.

The reason I like this idea,is that you can add new elements,
with animals,and big group melee fighting.Multiplay if done well could make this quite good,wrestling games were always a good idea but never quite enough.I really think if it had lots of elements in the levels,like pits and things you can generally use,that would be good.Actually now I think about it another one would be the usual free weapons you can find in the level,but if done they shouldn''t be spawned or whatever,instead there should be a few different class weapons that you can pickup if you drop yours.
Like spears or axes or something.Could be used at different points in a match,but you have to drop your main weapon which is your sword I guess ,which could be the best all round weapon,so you''ll have to run back and switch if need be.

Games like this are all about balancing,to do them well you need to have everything done very well.Controls I see as the biggest problem,I think should you go for simple moves and linking combos.So you can do realistic parrys,e.t.c, that would be good if done right,as many games have lacked this.IMO this isn''t really my sort of game but if done right it could be very good.
It needs expanding on the whole death issue,and the career aspects e.t.c,maybe I''ve got you wrong?.The thing I always like about these games though are they are very playable,it just needs enough fresh aspects to make the idea work in a game setting.Anyway it''s late I just thought it was a pretty strong idea,and thought I''d give a bit of input,I''ll check back later.

P.S I''ve gone over your post again,I realise what I''m saying is different,If I''m right what you meant was the players fight mostly with AI and in to the first wound fights,then they can choose for the death fights.The problem I have with this is I just don''t understand how this works with online players,how are you handling death?.WHat happens when you die online,you restart and lose all your money?.Explain more cause I''m confused.
Anyway night

Silvermyst: Cool! No signature moves though... ah well.

Someone mentioned my sword-time concept: Symphonic''s Sword-Time

I could be way off, but you seem to be going for a server side player character storage method. Perhaps something along the lines of Diablo II. Just keep the thought in mind, storing characters on the server will let you calculate rankings more easily. You could be much more strong armed about loosing in a to-the-death match.

Don''t use first person, the attraction of fighting games lies in the player watching his/her character beating the crock out of another character, and it just doesn''t look as cool in FP.

Consider giving players a daily salary depending on ranking (rank decays during time spent not fighting), instead of rewards on a per-fight basis.



George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

MUZIKUS:

When your gladiator dies, he''s dead. That''s it. Perhaps he can have another gladiator in training to take over his possessions, but I''d rather have all his possessions go into a pile, for sale for the highest bidder.

The whole point of the game is that IF you risk the life of your gladiator, you CAN gain huge rewards. But, if you lose, you risk the life of your fighter.

The ''To The Death'' gameplay mode really should be a survival of the fittest mode. If you''re not absolutely great, you won''t make it. This is the final stage of the game though, so players will have a lot to do other than ''to the death'' games.
But yes, dead is dead. Two fighters square off, only one will remain standing. It is important to really know the limits of your gladiator before you attempt a ''to the death'' fight. You have to know how to control him well, have to know his every weakness and strength.

SYMPHONIC:

Yeah, I think server-side storage is a must.

I''ll rethink the First Person view, but that''s not even my main concern. I think the combat engine is something completely out of my league anyway. I stick to designing the system around it.
Personally, I like the look of Blade Of Darkness, where the camera is positioned a little behind and above the fighter. This gives you a good perspective on the battle. Of course, preferably, you''d give the players the option to create their own custom view.

I''m still unsure how to deal with rewards for fighting. Basically, the rewards should be used for mainly buying better equipment. So all the fighters would need is just enough to upgrade their weapons and armour every now and then. Perhaps a daily salary combined with a per-fight bonus would do. Then again, personally, I''d prefer to look a little further into how exactly real gladiators made their money, how much etc, and how they spent it.

When i read your post about the types of battle to take place, the game i imagined was basically a 3d fighter game, ala DoA3 ect...

just thought that it would work a little better than a FP veiw point...

just a thought...
perhaps you can have weapons/armor more realistic by having them sustain damage, and possibly break or at least get dull when used. this way, the sword and helmet a player bought for his first battle will not last the rest of his career (unless it is a short career )... so, the gladiators might need to buy weapons and armor for each fight, or at least pay to have them repaired; it won''t be that generic-RPG situation where you save up your money for a long long time to get a sword that is slightly better. also, you can allow the players to pick up loose weapons in the arena during the fight (as someone else mentioned). so, you don''t have to worry about the big money they are earning; unless they are really lucky, they will have to spend most of it simply breaking even as far as weapons and armor go, and maybe a bit more for a rest and recovery at the local hospital and/or brothel...
also, this way a character''s success can be ranked according to how much money they have earned and saved (as well as staying alive) as well as popularity (you can have fiercest gladiator, most kills, most popular, big money-winner, et cetera).

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)

KREZ:

Item decay: YES! This is a must. And yes, weapons laying around in the arena are definitely part of the game. Opponents should be able to disarm you, break your weapon etc, and then you should just get a new weapon asap. That''s why it''s important for every gladiator to not just be proficient in the weapon you favor, but also in a variety of other weapons, just in case you lose yours.

And yes, a gladiator game just screams for all sorts of rankings. And of course the greatest of all time will be immortalized on statues displayed around the Colosseum (even if they die fighting).