Originally posted by LynxJSA

It's an interesting idea. Two questions:

 

What is the purpose of it? 

Provide a "limit" to how long "ammo" can last, but make it so that it you don't just STOP when you run out and become useless.

What are you looking to inhibit or counter with this?

Making long dungeons get more and more difficult without raising the difficulty bar of NPCs (so that dungeons can have more than 1 entry way of the same difficulty, but going from any direction to the other gets harder).    Making it so players choose between interacting with recharge/ammo change mechanics or harder game play.   To simulate battle weariness/tiredness with as natural of a mechanic that I have thought of.

I don't know what it's for as well.   It's generic enough you could put it in just about any game, though a heavy PvP game probably wouldn't be the best fit(very grindy min/max method of changing gear every 20 mins, though could fit nicely in a "full loot MMO" if you tried hard enough).

___

Though I'm under the assumption that it's for an MMORPG which means that there are no one shot kills.   Players aren't always in "battle mode" in an MMO so I always disagree with 1 shot kills.   As for aim botting I "hope" it doesn't make the problem worse than it would have been in the first place.

In a dungeon crawler this would actually be a pretty good idea because if the difficulty doesn't increase "much" it still increases by quite a bit and eventually becomes impossible for any group because of ammo penalties.  

You also don't have cases of "darn I ran out of AMMO we gotta go" except in case #3 where chance penalty reaches 100%.   You instead run into "we're starting to tire out here",  that encounter shouldn't have been as hard as it was.

Grouping with one or two other people for missioning and dungeoning.

Solo for open world areas.  (could also mean questing,  since it's really really really really lame having to spend 20 mins talking about quest logs,  then another 40 to get to an agreeable spot)

Just a general Ammo idea where rather than having a limited amount it just gets weaker as you go on.

first instance you start at .1 seconds added on to all skills that use that Ammo type as you use that ammo time added eventually goes up.   eventually you could go all the way up to any number you can think of(even 5 minutes if you want a gag ammo item).

second instance start at 30% bonus to sucessfully using any ability that uses that type of ammo as you use this ammo that chance bonus goes down and eventually into the negatives.    Could end up with a 100% chance to fail if you were to use it enough.

third instance the ammo starts with a Buff to a stat, for instance +50 health, as this ammo gets used that buff decreases and eventually goes negative.

fourth instance the ammo starts with an energy cost of 5 and eventually increases with use.   Eventually it could use up your entire Will/Rage/Focus/balance/Mind pool for one use.

_____

Ammo being a broad term for anything from Arrows, a faith level for spells(cleric), enchantments(fighter),  or reagants(mage).

Ammo also being tied to individual skills,  for instance arrows for bow skills,  a shield enchantment for shield skills,  or reagants for mages.

_____

Not tied to ANY game or similar.   Just looking for ammo ideas.  edit: and discussing them.

Originally posted by Kenaoshi

thats a good, trolls will be too busy bashing wow that they will mis gw2 =)

"yeah gotta bash wow cataclysm so anxious. hey gw2 yeah new game to bash...but...but its wow..GOTTA BASH WOW ROOOOOOARRR i pawnt1337skillz!111!!hardcorefatasskidmodeon rooooooarrr!111!"

 

 

This is an awesome thought as far as foruming goes.

If you don't need to cut 10,000 logs OR make 10,000 swords to level up the economy fixes itself supply side.   After all you don't have "achievers" gunning to max a skill, or "questers" aiming to fill a requirement.

Considering even SoE has kept around games like UO.   It's pretty safe to say that WoW will be around for a really really long time,  they might even reach their "planned" player base size of 250,000 people.

In the time reading the entries.   You could have written a few of your own designs, and actually gotten the whole team to read the entire document.

Originally posted by ozmono

Originally posted by Plasuma!!! 

It really is that simple.

By that logic any form of death penalties in any game is a bad thing. Without unfun aspects or annoyances such as consequences for dying you don't have the necessary contrast and also avoiding such consequences makes the game more engaging and more fun. I cut out the rest of your post because I'm not arguing that simplicity is not a fundementally important design aspect just that this particular issue isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.

 

Nope,  EvE's death penalty makes a lot of sense.    The simplest observation is that it stimulates the market.   Also by having the "clone" system where it's possible to lose skills,  it's actually a system to control where players respawn.

The slightly more technical one you need to admit a few things.   

First off you need to realize that the only ways to "beat" people in an online game is to make it so that they join you,  or see their cause not worth the time.    Those are the ONLY conditions for victory in an online game.    By having a "heavy" but recoverable loss of losing your ship, maybe your mods that means you can cause the second way to win in an online much easier as the time investment is longer than just combat.  

Second recovery requires interaction with other players as one player can not recover a "whole" ship by their lonesome in 99.9999% of cases.   Even quickly buying stuff on the market is interacting with other players.

third recovery costs quite a bit of time reinforcing the victory condition of "I'm going to make this not worth your time". 

________

With your death penalty you're ONLY opening up the second victory condition of "winning by it not being worth the enemies time" to accounts that accept the penalty, rather than everyone.   The key word here is accounts rather than players.   You don't have the same balance as EvE does where if you bring a piece of equipment in you'll lose it no matter what account it was on.

With your death penalty if you do provide a way to recover, it would most likely end up being some form of leveling.  and because it's "cursed leveling" it's probably a solo activity.

I would have loved TCoS if only it didn't give the knifes of wrist cutting to the publishers.

OMG you've been outside the great universal bumper sticker.

Still think it's a rusted out ford(or at least a heavily abused car),  after all the bible claims that the car went to the first born and will eventually be in the hands of the second born.

Lusternia(a mud from Iron realms) does this to an extent.

Basically they implement a questing system that controls an area's economics. For instance the individual player has access to quests that affect "producers". You could work at freeing/slaving individuals to bring them to a town you affect. Hunting down a farmer's cows will increase production of milk, or vandalising the fencing will end up reducing it. Other quests that affect guard respawn rate or decrease it.

Basically players have very little "direct" control over a town, meaning you aren't building buildings or setting settings.

Content isn't the hardest part, it's the longest part.     Most level editors, map designers, scripters, or quest writers could "barely" code themselves out of a paper bag.   However that's not a bad thing,  it just means they have a very different skill set.

Even super awesome dynamic content is more "heavy programing skill intensive" engine side than it is content side.

I believe that the universe was made to be a funny bumper sticker on God's rusted down old ford. 

www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/258912/Lazy-sever-costs-.html

OP is troll baiting,   has abandoned own post.

________

I implore the OP to tell soldiers who only joined for reasons other than being soldiers that this is something they should do.   People seem to forget that soldiers are still human and aren't there to get "frags" and "shoot some people".

This question comes up once or twice a year on some game developement forums.

short answer: yes.

long answer:  yes but you're going to be doing a lot of things the OS does by itself(winXP or greater still most difficult, Linux does this by default, Mac OSX+ should be fine).    You'll also almost always be better off using someone else's code/library to do so, preferably something that has more than "1 hand in it".     Also worth mentioning it's usually not bad at all if you're using someone elses code.   first source that came to head(Java)

__________

I haven't seen any finished games that actually use this though.    At this point most people normally go straight for something like a joystick or similar.

WurmOnline might work.

Haven and Hearth is pretty nifty for a 2D game.

http://www.partner-ads.com/dk/klikbanner.php?partnerid=8152&bannerid=3955

Fake link.

If you don't know where to start it's time to start somewhere else.     This is the simplest truth in developement.

____

As for where to start ANY code you develop. you should figure out how long you want to spend on a project,  split it into 10 parts,  than if you can finish 90% of the code and a nice chunk of other resources in the first tenth of the project.    You have a project that is reasonable with your skill sets, dedication/time, and resources at hand.

If you can't achieve such in the first tenth of a project you need to look at your schedule, scope, and resources.

also worth noting that no one cares about a project until it's 2nd or 3rd tenth of the schedule following this same rule.

____

As for a MUD they aren't as math intensive as anything else.   instead they are almost entirely based on an IT math/logic system of string manipulation,  and a bit more intensive in that system than most games are in normal math.

mudconnect.com/mudfaq/