All Posts by JB47394

Originally posted by CactusmanX

Oh well not sure, how were you thinking it would be done?

In a game, cash in hand is the way to go.  Get it.  Spend it.  The getting should be entertaining and the spending should be entertaining.

Originally posted by CactusmanX

True that could happen, but then again it is a game, you could prevent prices of collateral from falling, like in WoW for instance where all items have a vendor price that never changes, so you could base collateral value on a seperate vendor system, so that a margin cal wouldn't occur.  Also limit the frequency and number of loans taken.  You could even make it so that the bank takes the items and changes it into money of the exact value, we can do that since it is a game.

Originally posted by CactusmanX

 

Originally posted by SpeechMan

I have also thought about the possibility of loans in MMOs and came up with an exploit, for which I have not yet found a solution to prevent.

Start an alt, take huge loan, transfer the money top main/buy stuff and transfer it to main, delete alt.

 

I figured that players could only loan out so much money as they had value in items, collateral in other words.

If a player failed to pay their loan in time or deleted their character their stuff would be taken from them automatically and auctioned off.

And you could make it so that the items used for collateral can never be sold until the loan is payed off.

There are certain advantages in a game world that the real world doesn't have.

You're implementing margin trading.  If prices fall on the borrower's collateral, the lender might perform some kind of margin call.  Either the borrower comes up with the necessary funds or the lender liquidates as much of the borrower's assets as is necessary to cover the call.  If too many people are borrowing heavily, the calls may result in the value of many assets falling, producing a ripple effect in the economy.  Market squeeze.

People are more prone to take risk in a game than in real life because characters are essentially throw-away.  I can easily imagine a character building up a little wealth and then speculating with it in an attempt to make some big money.  A player might send a dozen characters to the poor house before finally hitting it big.

I've been developing products for 25 years, and that has run me through a bunch of languages including FORTRAN, Pascal, C and C++.  These days I code in C#.  It's got a great development environment, and the language lets me design and develop interfaces and classes in a natural way.  It's all neat and tidy and nicely wrapped up with a bow.  I recommend the language, especially for novice programmers who already have some skills.

Just remember that you can still have memory leaks with a garbage collector.  The need for discipline in software development never goes away.

Originally posted by xkey

i recall some of my fellow students were a class or 2 away from their entire bachelors in compsci and they still really didnt grasp pointers or just couldnt handle coding in them well!

That's just scary.

Originally posted by Adamantine

Originally posted by JB47394

If ATITD crafting were introduced to Eve Online, it would be a phenomenal game.  [...]

I only read the Wikipedia article about "A tale in the desert", but this is truely a game of its own. I dont think it will work well with traditional games. Imagine the time and efford one would have to invest to create anything in combatfocussed games... people would completely depend upon the crafters, and very likely many wont like it.

Originally posted by Astrina

I have played ATITD each time it restarted (it's on 3 now) and found the crafting amazing. But ATITD is not a fantasy RPG, it's a political/crafting game. There is nothing to kill, so that leaves the typical gamer type, out in the cold.

Don't get me wrong, I love ATITD. Great game, great concept. But it is missing a few things that would make it a truly great game.

If ATITD crafting were introduced to Eve Online, it would be a phenomenal game.  Transpose it into a fantasy setting with the World of Warcraft visual presentation and I'd be a happy man.  I'd tweak it further, but that would make a very good start.

Originally posted by Wickersham

It's a nice idea.

IMO It can only truely work in a cartoon setting so there would be no need for cinematic quality.  if you are going to have the character disagree with the player you have to make it a pleasurable experience for the player.  If a realistic looking character refuses player actions they will feel he/she is cowardly and they will be annoyed by it, but if a cute looking cartoon character does it all will be forgiven.  The reward will be how your character refuses to jump off the cliff, does it stand there with its arms folded stubbornly stomping its foot when you try to make it jump?  Does it grovel at you and beg for its life?  Does it tell YOU to go jump off a cliff?  These can really only be done with cartoons anything more and it will feel combative.

The other thing would be to prevent those things from happening in your game by not having them in your game.  You can't jump off a cliff because a safety bar is there.  You can't get naked because you don't have the ability to.

Player: commands "Hit king"

Character: No reaction.  Continues as if the command had never been given.

Cartoon: says "That's a good guy!  I can't attack him!"

Only the owning player sees the cartoon.  Everyone sees the character behavior.  The cartoon is serving as the equivalent of an error message/dialog.

In any case, the character would simply not do an action if the game says that it shouldn't.  There's no need for a safety bar by the cliff because the character just won't respond to a command that causes it to go over the edge.  While getting naked might be available (for swims in wilderness lakes), a character would refuse to do it in certain contexts.  Such as while in town, or perhaps around other people, depending on how prim and proper the world's social structure is defined to be.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 

Horizons had all gear crafted, and while the crafters loved it, the adventurers hated it.  There was no reward for fighting that mob.  Oh they would get a crafting component but then they would either have to wait and craft it themselves or find a crafter willing to make it if, you could, then wait for the crafter to make it, which sometimes took days depending on when he was on, when your on, and how hard it was to make.

That's right on target.

Eve Online uses the technique of ensuring that there is a steady supply of desirable goods available in an open market even if all crafters are offline.  Fantasy MMOs usually structure crafting on a contract basis where logged-on customers make requests of logged-on crafters.  Fantasy MMOs also typically refuse to make crafting an integral part of the game.

Crafters cannot keep an inventory because there is simply no provision for it, nor can they sell anything if they are not logged-on.  Eve Online is structured to let crafters crank out product into a market that is constantly consuming it.  Neither side is inconvenienced and both sides desire the interaction.

All this said, crafting generally doesn't exist in MMOs.  It's actually push-button manufacturing where players pour ingredients into recipe hoppers, press a button and get a manufactured item.  I'd very much like to see crafting implemented in the way that A Tale in the Desert attempts; player skill is involved with the task of creating the end product.  Specific examples there are charcoal production, gem cutting and blacksmithing.

Originally posted by Godliest

Of course there is also one last important aspect to take into consideration: the fact that realism makes people behave realistic. When you play WoW do you feel that you are really in that game? Probably not. But when you play a game that feels as realistic as our world does then you will probably feel that the character you are controlling is real enough to you that you don't want to bring shame on yourself by doing stupid acts.

When somebody decides to do something that violates the context, it will be particularly damaging to the experience of other players.

Ah well.  Perhaps when the day comes, we'll just have a hundred different copies of the game world so that a hundred different rule sets can be in force.

Originally posted by Blackfoot-3

 

---

Originally posted by JB47394
I'm not a roleplayer, but I'd sure like to be able to walk through a town that seemed like a town.

---

 

Everything you wrote before this sentence is roleplaying. Only roleplayers want that sort of thing, nobody else, for the simple fact that it's roleplaying to want the town to seem like a town and want your character to follow some obtuse rules set by the game devs.

Sorry, this thread just really confused me because everything you said, prior to what's quoted, is roleplaying. Roleplaying is wanting the game to feel more like another world rather than a game. Everyone else.... just wants to play a game.

Granted, the less mature crowd does irk me at times in the chats, but most games have a way of ignoring them in some way shape or form.

I'm just throwing it out there, it's kind of a crazy thought though. But, why don't you go try an RP Server? I'm not meaning to sound like an ass. I have nothing against RPers, I wish I was into it. I'm just saying, you might like it.

When players are in combat, they like to see fierce swordplay animations, sparkly spell animations and their character looking awesome as it tanks the raid boss.  That's roleplaying.  That's wanting the fiction of the game to support their particular fantasy of being powerful and cool.  I was curious to know if anyone else enjoyed the fantasy of a town looking and behaving like a town.  With the advent of cinematic quality graphics, I can well imagine that the powerful and cool fantasy is going to get even more alluring.

I'm not interested in roleplaying, but I'm interested in my character doing it for me.  I don't want to remember who to wave to, or the path to move through town, or who to give way for, etc.  I just want it to happen, just as I want walking to 'just happen'.  I want my character to be an actor on the stage and I can direct.  But roleplaying is far too much work for me to do it by hand.

Part of the inspiration for all this was walking through some of the cities in World of Warcraft while in first person view.  I was just walking along, looking around town.  It was a lot of fun.  I was playing tourist.  I was exploring, and that's something that I really love in gaming.  Exploration is all the sweeter when the thing being explored behaves in a self-consistent manner.

I recently watched the opening cinematics to World of Warcraft.  I was thinking about what a great game the cinematic-quality animation would make - in another 10 years.  Certainly there are lots of other high quality animations out there, and I'm sure I'd have a similar reaction to them, but I can perhaps more easily imagine a game when I see World of Warcraft characters on the screen.

Imagine a game with cinematic quality animation, with full physics, collisions, cloth and hair simulation, wind, weather and top-notch lighting.  It would be absolutely phenomenal.

Until the players showed up.

They'd still be saying and doing the same sophomoric things that they always do.  The naked dwarves would be passed out drunk in the streets - in beautiful cinematic quality with flakes of snow gently falling on their inert forms.  The gnomes would still be jumping off the highest buildings to see whether they could kill themselves - in beautiful cinematic quality with blood and gore as femurs drive up through torsos.

Is there any point in pursuing an ever more realistic presentation of a themed setting when the players themselves actively ruin the setting?  It's a bit like trying to watch a movie in a public theatre while the guy behind you keeps yelling out advice to the silver screen hero.

Would you sacrifice flexibility in the control of your character if it meant that all player characters in the world remained consistent with the theme of the game?  So your character would refuse to strip in public places.  It would refuse to jump to its death.  It would refuse to sit on the mailbox, block doorways and otherwise be annoying.  Your character would, in short, follow the social conventions of the game setting.

Taken to an extreme, if the king shows up, everyone bows.  Including your character.  You might tell your character to cross the street in front of His Royal Annoyingness, but it won't, because the social conventions of the game insist that your character respect the king.  There's no point in calling him king if everyone /insults him and dances naked in front of him.

This would all mean that when you trundle down the street of town, you'll see NPCs and PCs, and they'll all be behaving like citizens (or visitors) to that town.  People will walk in and out of shops, never jumping out windows or walking their horses into town hall.  And so forth.

I'm not a roleplayer, but I'd sure like to be able to walk through a town that seemed like a town.

If you're interested in online economies, take a look at the blog of the Eve Online economist.  It's a fascinating bit of insight into the workings of a balanced economy.

As a general statement, the key to getting players interacting is to create systems between players that they find mutually entertaining - and to keep those interactions alive.

Fantasy crafting falls flat on its face because crafted goods are entirely optional and the crafting systems are invariably uninteresting to those who would craft.  As a sideshow, they are doomed to failure.  Combined with the technique of power levels to stratify everything, there's not much hope left of success.

To make fantasy crafting work - to create the crafting role - requires two important things:

1. People want to craft.  The system itself must be entertaining.  Not because it enables combat, but because it brings in money.  Or because it's fun to make things.  Or for some other reason that pertains to crafting.

2. People must want to use crafted items.  Crafting cannot be optional.  It must be a mainstream element of the way the game operates.  If there are multiple axes of gameplay, then crafting must be mainstream to at least one of them.

This is true of any system.  For harvesting to be a role in a game, people must want to harvest because they like harvesting, and other people must want the stuff that they are harvesting.  For baking to be a role in a game, people must want to bake because they like baking, and other people must want the stuff that they are baking.  For politics to be a role in a game, people must want to engage in politics because they like politics, and other people must want them politicking.

Pick a role that you'd like to have people fill in your game.  Create a system that will entertain enthusiasts of that role.  Tie that role into the other systems of the game such that the enthusiasts of those systems are happy to have the first group filling their role.

There are lots of ways to do this wrong.  The most common ways are

1. Create a system for enthusiasts of one role, then foist that role off on enthusiasts of other roles.  The enthusiasts of the other roles don't want to because that first role has no natural relationship to what they enjoy doing.  Players complain.

2. Create a new role that enthusiasts of other roles want to use, but don't make the new role entertaining to do.  That new role is tossed in as a fiction to provide something needed in the game, but that nobody actually wants to do.  So the people who need it end up doing it.  Players complain.

3. Create a system for enthusiasts of one role - and don't relate it in any way to any other roles in the game.  Alternately, relate it, but make it a duplicate of other roles.  Consider that combat requires quick healing.  Consider that healing can only be accomplished by potions.  Consider that healing potions can only be created with fish scales.  Now fish scales are an integral part of the game, and fishing is a role that players can fill.  But what if the above chain were true except that healing potions could also be made with herbs?  If herbs are easier to obtain than fish, then fishing is relegated to being a pointless role.

One last thought that I'd toss out is that player dependence and interaction does not have to mean that the two players must be online at the same time.  Goods and services that characters rely on can be provided when one or the other player character is offline.  In truth, that seems to be the better way of implementing many of these systems because it makes more interactions practical - and therefore more plentiful.

I'm not quite sure what your actual goal is.  Do you want players interacting with each other or do you just want the world to be dominated by player actions?

If the former, I'd warn you off of the idea of having players rely on other logged-in players for essential game services.  Purely optional services can be handled with direct player interactions, but I hope you don't want anyone to have to wait until they can find a player providing the requisite service before they can enjoy some aspect of the game.  That sort of thing should be reserved for the hardcore players.  It uses too much play time.

If the latter, look no farther than Eve Online.  They have extensive player interactions through NPCs.  Players buying player-made items, taxes, corporations, contracts, alliances, shared tasks such as fleet mining and combat operations, and many more besides.  What is Eve Online lacking in examples in this space?  (no pun intended)

Originally posted by Produde

 

 

Buffs timer should freeze as long as you are grouped...

No timer should ever be above the 15-20 minutes...

Maybe your definition of contradiction is different

A timer counts down from 20 minutes but can be frozen if the buffed character is grouped with the buffer.  As a result, the total duration of the buff can be far longer than 20 minutes, while the timer continues to show 20 minutes.  If the buffed character leaves the group, the timer resumes its countdown, giving the ungrouped character 20 minutes of buff.

So the purpose of the timer is not to indicate how long the buff will last in all circumstances, but to indicate how long it will last while the buffed character is not grouped with the buffer.

- edit: removed an admonition

Originally posted by Anofalye

- Buffs timer should freeze as long as you are grouped with the buffer, no need to rebuff ever as long as not dispelled and still in group (could add a distance component).

I think personal buffs were just on a timer.

Originally posted by qombi

I would resub to Everquest again if it still existed as it did originally but it doesn't. The game it has become is trash in it's current form.

I think developers should keep a copy of the original game after most of the bugs have been discovered and patched stored away safely for the future. Years later after the game has been destroyed with the expansions, they could rerelease a "classic" experience.

I'm very happy that the game is still operating, however.  Hearing those same sounds and seeing the same crude graphics from almost a decade ago was a real delight.  I'm glad that I could do a visit to a relatively-intact world.  Not only that, they've granted lots of free time to those who have old characters.  I think I had a couple years of accumulated free time.  In another couple years, I might burn another hour or two of that time.

I hope that Blizzard doesn't feel an obligation to mess with the look and feel of World of Warcraft.  In another 10 or 20 years, I'd like to go back and get a taste of playing one of those quaint games from 'back when'.

Originally posted by Hexxeity

"Thanks to everyone who voted"?

A few dozen responses isn't even a good sample for this site on this day only, let alone the MMORPG.com readership as a whole.

You didn't learn anything from this poll, even if you think you did.

Originally posted by dirtyjoe78

Your poll is incomplete you try to sway the voters by not giving all available options or giving an Other (please explain) option this survey fails.

I voted "No" as the gameplay videos did zero for me, but I like to sample what's out there so if a free trial pops up, I'll certainly take a peek.

JB

For those interested, it looks like the balance is essentially the same between rpgwatch and mmorpg except in NPC interaction.  The people at rpgwatch place a high premium on NPC interaction, while folks here place almost no emphasis on it at all.

I just checked the rpgwatch poll again and noticed that they're running the same poll on both the MMO and RPG sides of their site.  That probably means that the single-player RPG folks are pumping up the numbers of players interested in NPC interactions.  In an MMO, we have each other, but the single player gamers only have the NPCs.  I guess we all like to be social, even if it's only with a cartoon.

Thanks to everyone who voted.

This poll is a duplicate of one currently running at http://mmo.rpgwatch.com.  I'm curious to see how the two communities of players differ in their answers.  I am not responsible for the one being run at rpgwatch.com.  Feel free to take a peek at the other poll.  I know that I was surprised by the response there.