*chuckle* When I get my web site back up (I was hosed by the Excite crap), I will direct you to pictures of my fiance''. For 34 years, she''s still fantastic!

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development
"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

*stifles urge to make immature joke*

quote: Original post by InnocuousFox
Hehe... bingo!

"If there''s any girls there, I wanna DOoOOo THEEEMM!!"

I always liked "If you''re the great wizard of light, how come you had to cast magic missle?" =D

-=Lohrno

quote: It''s a space MMORPG

I don''t really think that the space MMORPGs will really be widely successful until probably the third generation of MMORPGs, where the storylines can really become automatically generated and have true player interaction. However, it''s possible that the space MMORPGs will actually be the largely successful ones in 6-8 years, due to the size potential and the vast storyline potential across several worlds.

Then again, I won''t bet on that prediction

I want to see privateer online!
I know its not an RPG exactly, but it does feature some sort of development, story, intrigue, etc. It''s a sim though, and you''d have to have like a massivley multiplayer engine that''s as twitchy as the Quake engine.

Especially if its really big and interesting.
I like the concept of Star Wars galaxies because it takes from a universe that almost everyone knows. Of course I''d really like more to see a Star Trek universe. The thing about Star Wars is that most people have ships, and in the SW:G universe they arent gonna have space combat. =( But anyways...back to what I was saying about emotions, and your character...If you had a Star Trek universe, you could have betazoids become useful in determining the emotional state of your comrades/opponents if you had such a system! =D Look how I tie everything together! =D
I remember once being addicted to a MUSH about Star Trek, and I''m sure several others were as well. Why Start >TREK< and not star WARS for an RPG? Because in the Star Trek Universe, big ships are mostly run by crews, (not that an ISD isnt crewed) This sets up potential for promotion, status, reputation, etc. Star Trek also has some of the niftier gadgets. Zoning can be explained off as just transporting! =D Of course it takes a few seconds for your particles to be whisked through space. I don''t know, both have their merits, but if doing a MMORPG using skills, etc, and not letting combat be twitchy, I''d say better to use the Star Trek Universe where most of the time combat is not fought like that. I''m sure the day for all will come though. =D

-=Lohrno

quote: Instead of increasing practice points just by using a spell, you increase them only when the person gains experience points through the use of that skill. So let's say you cast a few fireballs at a creature, dealing 90 points of damage, and you swing your sword at it, dealing 45 points of damage. It dies, giving you 600 experience points. Because 2/3 of damage dealt came from your fireball spell, your fireball practice points increase by 2/3 of 600 which is 400 points, and your Short Sword Proficiency (or whatever) increases by 200 practice points.

Ah yes, the whole rewarding death and murder thing...

Why do you have to kill a creature? Why do you have experience points based upon something's death? Are you saying that I go through an epic battle against a (NPC to avoid PC exploits) warrior, my wizard friend nearby sees me about to lose the combat though and he teleports me away. I'm just curious why I didn't learn anything. How did I not get any better after just having pushed my skills to their limits and maybe beyond?

If you insist on this silly 'experience point' system (do you really learn things by a schedule, or is it more random, as the knowledge sinks in and really means something?), then make it based upon successes and failures of a skill and the ability level of your opponent. If you fight a warrior of twice your ability, after fighting him for an extended period of time you should have learned quite a bit. The tougher your opponents, the better your chance for learning.

This whole "kill to get better" philosophy in games is stupid though. A true holy knight of the Christian diety probably wouldn't kill if he could help it, so he would never get any better? Launcelot must have been one nasty mass-murderer to have gotten so good at his sword, that was like 100exp per innocent civilian murdered. I can see why God loved him so. :rolleyes:

Sorry for the extended rant, but games that force you to commit murder in order to be the 'good' guy and to gain skills are plain old stupid and REALLY irritate me.

Fine, you want to give them something for killing critters, give them the label 'murderer'.

Edited by - solinear on March 8, 2002 3:10:37 PM

Right on, Solinear.

I know this is about RPGs, but I''m going to use an action game for my arguement... Metal Gear Solid 2...

What I like about the premise behind the game is that you rarely HAVE to kill anything... Granted, you have to put some people to sleep, because your lethal weapons are too loud... And being found out is not good... Anyway, I got off on a tangent...

That''s the thing- why can''t a game be open like that? You COULD go blazing a trail through the place, but sometimes, it''s just not recommendable... I mean, come on, if you''re a theif infiltrating a large fortress or something, you''re not going to go through like a one-man army and take out all of the guards... odds are, they''d beat the theif senseless, so why not avoid conflict as much as possible?

Really, though, if it were an action-RPG, the probability of blazing through the fortress is very high, but if you don''t feel like fighting, you shouldn''t have to, which means that, if you base your character advancement upon experience points that come from fighting and killing stuff, this type of gameplay is definately not suitable...

You know, this just seems like a pointless rant now... I''ve forgotten what I was going to say hehe...

Two words: Deus Ex

-Chris

quote: Original post by Zephreus
Right on, Solinear.

I know this is about RPGs, but I''m going to use an action game for my arguement... Metal Gear Solid 2...

What I like about the premise behind the game is that you rarely HAVE to kill anything... Granted, you have to put some people to sleep, because your lethal weapons are too loud... And being found out is not good... Anyway, I got off on a tangent...

That''s the thing- why can''t a game be open like that? You COULD go blazing a trail through the place, but sometimes, it''s just not recommendable... I mean, come on, if you''re a theif infiltrating a large fortress or something, you''re not going to go through like a one-man army and take out all of the guards... odds are, they''d beat the theif senseless, so why not avoid conflict as much as possible?

Really, though, if it were an action-RPG, the probability of blazing through the fortress is very high, but if you don''t feel like fighting, you shouldn''t have to, which means that, if you base your character advancement upon experience points that come from fighting and killing stuff, this type of gameplay is definately not suitable...

You know, this just seems like a pointless rant now... I''ve forgotten what I was going to say hehe...

Lohrno, the problem with having people play individual members of a crew, is where do they start? Do they start at the very lowest, loading photon torpedoes, or working on an engine with a spanner like those people who are always in the background when Geordi and Data are talking, or do they start out somewhere mid career, like say, at a radar relay on a computer? Some positions would be more fun than others, but you would need every one for a workign ship.

Just for example:
Captain-everyone woudl want to be one.
XO- mayeb some people would want to be one, his task is to manage the day to day problems of the ship
Tactical- everyone would want to be this one to, until they gfind out that they need to take orders from the captain
Communications- boring no one would want to be a comm tech.
Navigtion: I suppose it has some appeal. Mostly to math people
Engineering: Same as above, although with more of an apporach to physical
Medical: That is a tough one
Science: Even tougher. It would be a perpetual puzzle game.
Bartender up on O-Deck? I wouldnt mind it, as long as not everyone was an NPC. That actually might be fun, to be like Whooopie and give advice and whatnot.

I think a DS9 would be pretty cool, but you can''t really have 900 space stations.
And then would there be stuff like admiral? That might be cool.
M2C

Everything would have its advantages. Engineers (yes, they even start in the academy), would get to make really cool stuff, and repair things. Captains should be like they are but really, being a captain shouldnt be all its cracked up to be. You don''t just stand in the holodeck waiting for stuff to happen. As a captain, you''d need to manage all the departments, Engineering, Tactical, and on top of that you have to communicate with Starfleet. (I''m assuming we''re all playing Federation now, not Klingons, who battle for rank, but must adhere to strict morals.) Tactical could definitely have its drive, and even it could be the way to eventually be a captain. And there can be many ships. First Officer -- Again, it''s one step closer to being a captain, so people would want to be them too. However, when you are promoted to captain, you would get your own ship, which the federation builds from time to time. There are even other jobs which could be kinda cool, scientist, (You are sent aboard several ships, and must study certain phenomenon, and figure out puzzles.) Transporter guy...well ok maybe thats a better job for an npc. Ambassador/Diplomat-- The federation sends you on various missions to negotiate with other races. BTW Ambassadors have more power than captains...It all depends on how you structure it. And hell, maybe you could be a crazy loon who steals a shuttlecraft with a whole buncha people and starts a colony on some forsaken rock! =D

-=Lohrno