Firstly, I''d like to say, bear with me, this is quite a long post. If you want, just skip the first section, it is pretty much irrelevant. Since 1997, when I first logged into Richard Garriott''s world of Ultima Online, I became enthralled with the idea of MMORPGs. As time progressed, new ones came out, in the shape of EverQuest, Asheron''s Call and DAOC. Having loved UO (and still playing it!) I decided to try the ''hyped'' EverQuest. After say three hours, I was totally bored... the graphics, although nice in areas, lacked a certain something, the lack of story was disapointing, and the world was stale. As you might have guessed I returned it to the shop the next day. Now you''re probably wondering where I''m going with this. I am going to an all new untried territory. *drum roll* Welcome to... Project Codename... The Evolving Ages. A fully dynamic, interactive, and ever-evolving online world. I have actually had this idea under my hat for some years, but have lacked the ability to do anything with it. First, I will start by showing you the unique evolution and interactive system and then I will show you some more carefully thought out ideas. Since 1999, I have nutured my planned world, it''s story, bestiary, landscape and evolution. But whats so special about this? I will show you.. The world is 90% dynamic and interactive. ALMOST everything is useable, chopable, breakable, eatable or the like. If you see an outcrop of rock, you can take a pickaxe, and smash some up. Or you can start your own mine, blowing a hole into the ground. Or you want some trees? Chop them down. Take this as an example: The player logs in for the first time, into an unfamiliar world(as always). He sees, say a Monoling(first stage in a giant tiger-like creature) hunting and killing a deer, perhaps. Then it starts to rain heavily(a monsoon), taking down, albiet very slowly, the player''s ability to function perfectly in every way. What to do? Nothing around, the player is in the middle of nowhere, with only a few tools, say an axe, a shovel, and some other basic neccesities. He sees a clump of trees next to the clearing he is standing in. He needs shelter, there is none around, so he sets about constructing him a shelter of sorts. Using his axe, he chops a tree down, and fashions it into a small hut some time later. He is now protected from the elements.. for now. That will be until a flood comes, a drought, tornado, hurricane, earthquake, or another natural disaster threatens to damage him. The world is virtually fully interactive. An intricate weather system, with storms, rain, clouds, wind and blazing sun. And each of these have the ability to affect your character, albiet sometimes in very minor ways. Also, I have planned a detailed world and creature evolution. Don''t know what I mean? Let me show you. What if, over time(say in realtime, 6 months) the world around you started to evolve and change. Icecaps start to melt, creating NEW oceans and in some areas flooding. Rubbing of geographical plates together may result in mountain ridges being formed, or earthquakes. As the result of wind storms blowing down trees, the wind also carries their seeds elsewhere, and up sprout whole new forests! But the world is not the only thing that may potentially change. Before the player''s eyes, slight differences in monsters, creatures, birds and fish, turn them into whole new breeds of them. Also, crossbreeding of certain creatures may result in new species being formed. I trust that I have explained that well enough for you to get a grasp of, so now I will move on. I know that MANY people despise the PKing in certain games, and I know there are a lot of lone wolves out there. Another problem is how people find the community lacking. Teamwork just isn''t there. But in this world, almost any of these would be suicidal. The world contains so many creatures, of such ferocity, that lonewolving is pure insanity. Even for the most battlehardened and experienced veteran of years of play, would be potentially disasterous! But monsters aren''t the only danger. Prolonged exposure to elements like extreme sun or rain can damage your resistance and health, especially if you find yourself caught out at night, in the forest, in the middle of a storm. And while PKing IS allowed, the penalties are extraordinarily harsh. PKers and looters can be split into catagories: Revenge - Killing another who previously robbed or killed you. Insanity - Pure wanton murder. Guild Battles - Perfectly legal as long as a state of war exists between two or more recognised guilds. Looting - Looting a corpse OUTSIDE of city boundaries is legal. However, looting bodies INSIDE of city boundaries, or newbie bodies, is punisable by a day''s jail term. The penalty for Insanity murder in ANY town (with the exception of two towns built by theives and pirates) is death. Guards are strong, and are almost impossible to kill, and have a strong blow. Also, if PKers wait outside of city boundaries to kill, there is a way to stop that too. City Watch guards patrol for nearly a mile (ingame) outside of the towns. Bounties on murderers are offered by the councils, individuals or guilds. And city guardmasters also organize hunting trips to hunt down PKers in the world. Revenge murder can result in any of two punishments. If the revenge murder has been justified, by killing one who previously killed you, you may be jailed for a day or two. However, if you kill not only the murderer, but also others who never had a part in killing you, you will be killed by guards. Now, another idea I will be hoping to implement, is fullscale invasions by monsters on towns, player towns, settlements, mines, homes, guilds, castles, et cetera. Monsters (preprogrammed) will launch raids on towns, fullscale invasions, and even starve cities out. Also, fullscale Guild Wars are going to be able to be happening, with guilds launching sieges on other guild-controlled cities, castles or halls. Guilds will have the opportunity to take over and control cities, castles, etc through invasion, politics or crooked dealings. Senior guildmembers will have the opportunity to pass laws that have been OKed by senior game staff, concerning their cities or controled areas. There is little or no currency in the world. It was seemingly, never pumped out in large amounts. Although there is SOME of it, it is generally used sparingly, and what little there is, is quite valuable. The general way to aquire items, however, is through trade. Certain items may be of more value to certain individuals, or in certain cities or areas where that item is scarce. Say, a city that is famous for producing, maybe an enchanted type of shield, and is the only place where the may be found, has suddenly come under attack, and no more shipments are coming in. Those items will suddenly go up in value, and those foolish or brave enough to risk their necks, by travelling there, braving the invasion, and bringing back an item, will find themselves honoured and inundated with valuable offers of trade. Well, I think I''ve rambled for long enough. I also have a bestiary, world map, GDD (game design document) and artwork. I suppose this should go in help wanted, but they wouldn''t read all of this, lol! Anyway, I''ll post a cry for help (programmers really) once I get some replies.. Tankard Empty tankards are no good. Full they must be to be enjoyable.

Undoable.

At least for now.

Or does your design document explain how to do this all in detail?

I would start way less ambitious - and then slowly change the world adding features.

Computers are not good enough for what you want to achieve right now. Sorry.

THONA

Thona... thats exactly the point! Yes, the GDD DOES explain this in detail. Hence the evolution system. As time progresses, as computers and software become better, we are allowed to add more and more features. But as the world is first started, only a few of these features will be included. As the world grows older, and evolves, more and more will be able to be made doable!
Oh, and if you were meaning the interactivity bit of my plan, that is easier to implement than you may think. I have a system worked out that is feasible and workable.

Tankard

Empty tankards are no good. Full they must be to be enjoyable.

You "design" lacks tremendously in the good sense department. I would suggust doing more research into what players want TODAY, and stop dreaming about tomarrow, because if you do no do this an evoloving idea such as you proposed would die under maintaining an empty service.

Check out templates for design documents on the web. Also consider player FUN over your vision when designing a game because players are the ones giving you money. If your vision matchs an ideal of fun on the players part more power to you. I will write a little more, but I gotta get to class.

While the AP is somewhat of a jerk in his words, his message is essentially correct.

A lot of the features that you''re suggesting are nearly unimplementable for the next 5-10 years. It''s just too much for the computers of today to keep track of and it really won''t change any time vaguely soon.

There is no way that a computer will simulate a real world or even a realistic world any time in the next 10 years.

Start with the stuff that you can. Give trees a few different states (young, full grown, old and stump) and define them that way and give players a product from ''harvesting'' them (logs/branches). Then define what those products can be turned into.

The first step in making better games is to realize what your limitations are. The second is to find ways around those limitations. Until you do that, you''ll end up sounding like a dreamer who doesn''t really understand computers today and that''s as big a turn off to some of the people around here as saying that you''re 12 and you and your artist buddy are making Quake4.

Hi, its me, the same AP that was a jerk with words.

GOMEN! (I am sorry!)

The reason I was so harsh is because I would often do what you seem to be doing. That is, dreaming up fantastic ideas that would work in a perfect world. It just is not going to happen. Even the most polished games such as Halflife made little (lighting, level design) assumptions on the part of what the player would do and was amazed to find that the player had no clue how to progress or interact. During their extensive beta testing (you should check out the great post-release paper on halflife over at Gameasutra BTW) they gradually had to change their vision to match what the player was more likely to experience.

Having some vision is entirely needed but remember who is going to be living though the vision: The player. Making a idea for a game can be hard, but remember who you are making the idea for. Always consider the player.

NPC''s should rarely overshadow players. People log on to MMORPG''s (I prefer the term MPOG) to be heros, not to be herded together by Uber town guards and strick "from the heavens" laws branded on character sheets.

A good game like Fallout is harsh, but it also allows great freedom. If Fallout had been harsh and limited, I am sure it would not have been half as popular. The world your describing is "fixing" a problem (grief players) from above and fixing it in a manner that imposes a certain experience upon the player. Be CAREFUL whenever you force a player to do anything!

In real life, you only do what you feel you have to do. Safe zones break the immersation you work so hard to create. Everything has a cost. Designing a game has a cost. Implamenting an idea into code and actually using it has a cost. All these things need to be considered and take into account your goals. What do you want to achive. How do you what to achive it. What is the BEST least "costly" way to achive it?

Also CPU load alone would make your game rather hard to pay for. Not to mention bandwidth, and some other junk.

So, stop dreaming and get real. By get real I mean start out TODAY on implamenting your ideas into a workable form. Stop dreaming and get to work. Soon lessons will be learned and you will be that much closer to your vision. You never know until you try.

-end the AP poster

Hello,

Thanks for your comments, most of which I believe are constructive, although, perhaps, at one point a little harsh. I never mean and never have meant for the player to be forced into anything they don''t want to do. It is just that from both common experience, and a deal of research, I have found that nearly 70% of people would rather NOT have PKing in a game. But to cater for that other 30%, I will be including, but with a substantial risk. I have researched this idea, and have found that it IS feasible, and useable. Perhaps an implementation, however, of PK ''zones'' may be in order...
Anyway, while designing this ''game'' I always had the player in mind. I would have thought that more interactivity, and more options would have involved the player more, and given him/her a greater range of things to do, and paths to follow.
I realise that while total interactivity at this time is nearly impossible, I still believe that to a point it is feasible. Consider this:
Each area, of an ingame mile, is split up into 10 smaller demi-areas. Each of these areas is uploaded each time a change is made. However, uploading will only need to take place, if the player is in the vicinity of the demi-area. If he isn''t there, then there is no need to make the upload. As far as he knows, its the same, until he goes there, and then it uploads the changes. This would reduce lag problems greatly.
But other than this, just which areas did you also consider impossible?
And this is no dream, this is reality.

Tankard

Empty tankards are no good. Full they must be to be enjoyable.

I say to blazes with the naysayers, Tankard, and push the envelope!

Innovation doesn''t come through "going with the flow." I say start high, then cater to reality and discard - or modify - the ideas that actually aren''t technically feasible. The fact that it hasn''t been done before, or no one has achieved it before, won''t mean you can''t be the one to pull it off and pave the way for others to expand on it.

quote: Also consider player FUN over your vision when designing a game because players are the ones giving you money. If your vision matchs an ideal of fun on the players part more power to you.

If someone had told me 5 years ago that people would pay for a game that lets them simulate all the mundane aspects of modern society, ad tedium ad nauseum, I''d have laughed in their face and called them fools. "Why in the hell would I want to go OL just to mow a lawn, go to a job and cook dinner for hours on a computer?"

Yet, the Sims series of games are among the most popular. Ever.

Just because you personally don''t think something is fun, don''t dismiss the concept offhand.

quote: Original post by Tankard
It is just that from both common experience, and a deal of research, I have found that nearly 70% of people would rather NOT have PKing in a game. But to cater for that other 30%, I will be including, but with a substantial risk.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I''ve never quite understood why people always try to accommodate both types of player in a game. Everquest has something like 300,000 players, and the other MMORPGs have comparable numbers. Would it really be such a bad idea to limit yourself to 70% of that figure? Or indeed, 30%? I mean, 90,000 people would be a decent amount. I think it would be better for some people - especially people wanting to get into this sort of industry - to try and do one thing well, rather than everything well. Going for all-PK or no-PK would probably be a far more manageable target.

Apart from that, the post looks more like marketing hype than anything with substance. I''m not saying you don''t know how to do all this stuff, but what you''ve posted here is really just a wish-list that can''t be commented on beyond "that would be cool, if you could work out how to do it".

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]

I hafta agree. As I constantly remind myself, if I say something can''t be done, I''m setting my own limits, if I set myself limits, I''ll never progress beyond the abilities of what is known to be doable, therfore never making advancement over existing ideas. So yes, aim high, cut back later.

Also I find a lot of people will start to flame if the subject of reality is brought into play. People saying that games should be fun, not concentrating overly on realism. Conversly though, many people keep posting that they think it''d be really cool to be able to play in an extremely realistic world, albeit with the mundane bits removed. If so many people are posting to say that they would love to make that kind of a game, there must be a market for it!! Some people may not like this added realism, but I think a sufficient number of people do, so I say why not!!?

Finally making a game all out PK''ing or non PK''ing I believe is fine also, so what if you lose the 30% who are "grief players", I''m sure you''d probably gain just as many or more players back because the game would have a better reputation for keeping these trouble makers under control. People forget that if you limit the type of player, it may attract more of that type of player to counteract the loss of the other type of player!

Just my 2 cents