1. 100-200 players per server; you are not locked into one server... think of it like bf3 or dayz servers

2. emphasis on player economy and crafting

3. item decay upon death to allow for player economy

4. ability to make environment ; repair walls, doors, set up defenses

5. casual gameplay suited to small groups/ solo play

6. no levels or classes

7. learn/respec skills from skill books/temples/shrines/ NPCs

8. B2P

9. 3rd+1st person view, action combat, no auto targetting

10. fairly crappy graphics and repitive buildings/terrain but will improve over time

Think of it as a dayz/diablo2 hybrid with some sandbox mmorpg elements

umm dayz and d2 are as far from each other on the gaming spectrum that its almost idiotic to view a 3rd person shooter type game with them. also neither really matches up in any regard to what you are invisioning.  just because d2 and dayz have zombies or crafting doesnt mean they are remotely similar. 

so no, i wouldnt buy it to play it with this current vision. it does not sound like a game at all. :/ trying to cram too much under 1 hood will generally leave the game play shallow

a sandbox....medieval....fantasy....zombie...survival game...

uhm....no....

Would depend on the implementation and the B2P final cost. If it's dull and poorly implemented, no of course not.

100-200 people per server likely wouldn't be feasible though, not in a dedicated environment . A small group leaving for another game or even a family group going on a vacation would unbalance things.

I already play something like that on a Minecraft server. The only difference is that the server I'm on uses the mcMMO mod, so you have a set of skills that you skill up through various activities.

• 150 players on the server at a time.
• It's Minecraft, crafting is important. The server has an economy plugin, so players buy and sell items from each other.
• Items that players use decay. Items are lost, stolen and forgotten. A constant influx of new stuff is necessary.
• It's Minecraft. You have to build your environment, or you're just wandering in the wilderness.
• It's small groups, but maybe smaller than you're talking. The most people I've seen in a single group is four or five at a time. No classes, but players do have skills that they level up. All players have all skills. There are no NPCs. Minecraft is B2P, but the server I'm on has a 'Premium' option that isn't a blatant money grab like other Minecraft servers I've seen. It's First Person View. There is a Third Person View, but that doesn't work super well in Minecraft.

Originally posted by Digna

Would depend on the implementation and the B2P final cost. If it's dull and poorly implemented, no of course not.

100-200 people per server likely wouldn't be feasible though, not in a dedicated environment . A small group leaving for another game or even a family group going on a vacation would unbalance things.

you are not locked to a server. its like FPS servers. you can freely switch whenever you to which ever server you want like in dayz.

Originally posted by Ichmen

umm dayz and d2 are as far from each other on the gaming spectrum that its almost idiotic to view a 3rd person shooter type game with them. also neither really matches up in any regard to what you are invisioning.  just because d2 and dayz have zombies or crafting doesnt mean they are remotely similar. 

 

so no, i wouldnt buy it to play it with this current vision. it does not sound like a game at all. :/ trying to cram too much under 1 hood will generally leave the game play shallow

dayz is already played in third person? you really only switch to 1st person to shoot and thats only because 3rd person view aiming is bugged.

Originally posted by bishbosh2

Originally posted by Digna

Would depend on the implementation and the B2P final cost. If it's dull and poorly implemented, no of course not.

100-200 people per server likely wouldn't be feasible though, not in a dedicated environment . A small group leaving for another game or even a family group going on a vacation would unbalance things.

you are not locked to a server. its like FPS servers. you can freely switch whenever you to which ever server you want like in dayz.

Then I would likely give it a try assuming the 1st part of my post was within acceptable limits.

Originally posted by megabuu
Title says it all, you are cramming too much different stuff into a game. It would never turn out good.

Exactly.

Let's just pile up a bunch of cliches. Hmm, let's see, Medieval: vampires, werewolves, certainly some goblins AND zombies. And let's add some battle bunnies, and dragons -- gotta have dragons. Aliens, let's add some of those too. And maybe some discordant leprechauns. And, yes, let's locate all of it in a terribly original dark, gothic setting, with volcanoes and stuff. Oh, yeah, and we'll contrive all this in a world with no regard to Abraham Maslow or Adam Smith.

No thanks.

If you used a decent FPS engine and snagged the Ravenloft IP you could make millions.

MILLIONS I tell YOU!!!

Originally posted by bishbosh2

Originally posted by Ichmen

umm dayz and d2 are as far from each other on the gaming spectrum that its almost idiotic to view a 3rd person shooter type game with them. also neither really matches up in any regard to what you are invisioning.  just because d2 and dayz have zombies or crafting doesnt mean they are remotely similar. 

 

so no, i wouldnt buy it to play it with this current vision. it does not sound like a game at all. :/ trying to cram too much under 1 hood will generally leave the game play shallow

dayz is already played in third person? you really only switch to 1st person to shoot and thats only because 3rd person view aiming is bugged.

my personal taste of FPS is for first person. as that is what i grew up playing. blakestone/wolfenstin 3d/doom/dod3.0/cs ect. 3rd person fps games always feel flat as a board like trying to play a ridge racer game without any mountains or tight turning paths,  its just hollow.