Trending Games | ArcheAge | Elder Scrolls Online | WildStar | Warhammer 40K: Eternal Crusade

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,791,365 Users Online:0
Games:723  Posts:6,194,392
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » The trouble with MMORPG's

2 Pages 1 2 » Search
36 posts found
  Mobious

Novice Member

Joined: 3/07/04
Posts: 2

 
OP  3/07/04 9:42:40 AM#1

Ok let me give you a little history about myself before I get flamed. I am a game designer who has worked in the industry for around 8 years. I love MMORPG's. I have played Everquest, SW Galaxies, Planetside, Eve Online, The Sims, Earth & Beyond, and Camalot, so I think that gives me some credence in what I am about to say. From my point of view I think that new MMORPG's all suffer from the same syndrome. They never appear to corretly estimate how long people will play these type of game for, so often after a couple of weeks of hardcore playing, they story runs out, and you are left to become a stat monkey and try and get to be the highest rank out there. However I think this becomes boring after a while and you soon begin to loose interest. SO what is the solution? Well can a MMORPG work without an over reliance on stats, or is that what drives you on as a gamer? Does the developer need to make sure there is a large enough story before hand to cater for players?

Now I know that not everyone plays the game to the same extent, and a lot of the time, the games content is sufficent for the average gamer which fine. The reason I am asking these sort of questions is, that it is an area I would like to possible move into, so I am always interested to here peoples views both positive and negative.

  Anofalye

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/19/03
Posts: 7442

The enemy is so dumb! They believe that WE are the enemy! - A famous orc commander.

3/07/04 10:25:10 AM#2

MMORPG is to gaming what philosophy is to rhetoric.

I think you can ask 10 differents players, and you would get 11 answers!

 

MMORPGs are not the simple game touching only 1 aspect, it is games that are trying to be as complex as they can.

 

Some players like me need tons of stuff to farm, endlessly by killing more mobs(hey, there can be challenge there,  althought like everything you do, you need to have moments to relax while doing it, so cant be always the most challenging thing, a little like a video game where you clean a full floor(easily) to get to the boss and now we are challenge talking).  Some others need tons of stories, and althought each type will gladly do a little of the other, you will get both aggravated after a point if you expect them to do to much of the other.  Personnally I feel lost and confused and not any thrilled after a point where I am entangled in 15 stories and have no clue what to do and will just go on a killing streak at that point!

 

See, you can ask if players prefer the Forgotten Realms gold box or the DragonLance goldbox...DragonLance have stories, but the players where strongly kept on the main stream and never feel that free, have a few alternatives missions, but it was clear, you where never feeling lost, those that love the DragonLance goldbox(like me) actually play to kill mobs, they love challenge in the fights(hell 24 collossal dragons against my party was a funny fight) and a nice story that fall into place almost alone.  Those that love the Forgotten Realms goldbox prefer more freedom and less control, harder to figure stuff, they love more challenge in the quests and missions, less challenge in the fights(I dont say no challenge, I say less challenge in the fight, no offense meant, I play both, DragonLance was easy quest, easy everything, but much harder fights then the Pool of Darkness and the others...)

 

And this is only a start, reality is a lot more complex then that.

 

Some players will play to fight others players.  Some will play to compete with others players.  Some will play to cooperates with others players.  Some want to solo, other to group, some to raid.  Some love tradeskills, some quests, some both, some none.

 

Make sure your MMORPG give the best rewards to the activity you like, otherwise you will come to dislike it no matter how nice it is.  If you want soloers to love a MMORPG, the only way is to make sure the strongest soloers earn their stuff soloing, they can do other stuff as well, but solo uberness must come soloing.  Same with every activity you can think off.  If you give all rewards to a group of players, you will please them, they will even go as far as to justify your choices, but you will alienate all the others that dont like this particuliar activity.

 

Basically, each activity must lead to be Uber in it alone, and always be the best at it(if you put a limit, when folks reach that limit, if they can get better doing other stuff and not that activity, you just alienate them all).  If an activity need to give rewards in others activities, it just mean you where unable to design it fine, because if it is fun, folks will do it to be good at it alone!  And by giving other activities edge in it, you are plaguing your own system.

 

My only recommendation would be to design the basic of every activity to be sovereign in it and then, with time, adjust and developp as you see the needs are(both in demands and in what players dont like, if players dont raid, it mean your raiding system lack and need to be reviewed, it is impossible that nobody like this).  Groups need class, solo need skills, this is a direct clash and it is very hard to figure it out.  In solo you should be able to do everything, while in group you should need to specialised in 1 field alone and be unable to do others jobs, thereby the need of others.  

The easiest way would be differents games systems in 1 world, where each game have trivial help(mostly in XP bonus, see if someone did the soloing game, maybe he can have a 20% bonus in the others, if he did the grouping as well, maybe he can have an additionnal 20% bonus on the others as well, so if someone play 3 games he still pay 100% + 80% + 60% of the original XP cost, which is a lot considering his interest must be declining fast after every type of game) on the others games.  I can think of a Solo, grouping, raiding, PvP and tradeskill system, so this is 5 systems that could all be very differents and have their own zones and logics.

 

If you need *arguments*, here would be the basic argumentation of each system:

Solo: If someone is unable to achieve stuff alone, he is unreliable and unworthy, he is a laughing joke as he always need his friends!

Grouping:  We see the heroes from the villains, who can work inside a small tight group and make it work.  We are not talking of huge armies where originality and skill mean nothing, we are talking of the true challenge and the true victories and the worth of the individuals in a group!

Raiding: Best mobs, Gods and Dragons, are the hardest challenge and deserve to bring true enlightment, fighting lesser creatures should dwell lesser rewards.

PvP: True challenge come from fighting others fellow humans, no mobs controlled by the computer can come close to that, thereby, the true rewards belong here!

Tradeskilling: Advancements come with creation, not destruction.  Only by refining someone skills and arts should we find salvation.

 

Basically, those will be the arguments you hear over and over again.  They all are wrong, as the reward need to be tied with the activity you do.  The time solo and group earned edge are valued in a raid is well pass, and the pass raiding gear is valued in a group or solo setting is well pass as well.  Solo uberness belong to soloers, group uberness to groupers, raid uberness to raiders, PvP uberness to PvPers and tradeskill uberness(castles, housing, shiny sweet looking toon, man-at-arms, etc...) belong to tradeskillers.  If you give any uberness to another group, you just say they are not welcome in your game and you admit that the system receiving that edge lack in your game and need that extra reward....

- "Coercing? No no, I assure you, they are willing to bring my bags and pay public transportation just to help me, it is true!''

- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - René Levesque about the denial NO on the poll to his dream, project and goal. (Free translation)

  ianubisi

Novice Member

Joined: 11/28/03
Posts: 4219

E: 86% A: 60%
S: 46% K: 6%

3/07/04 10:28:29 AM#3

It is the Holy Grail of MMOGs to make a game that is everything to powergamers and casual gamers alike. Personally, I believe that is almost an impossibility in a single game. Thus, I believe you must make that decision first: is this game for powergamers or for casual gamers.

Once you have your target audience identified it is a matter of providing a game with good mechanics and good content. What matters most of all is what your content is. It's not necessarily a good story (EQ has practically none) nor is it a matter of tons and tons of zones (UO had so very little surface space). It's a matter of providing compelling content that interests your target audience. The more involved your audience, the more content you will have to provide.

This is where every MMOG release struggles, and it's not really the fault of the developers. Content takes a lot of time, especially in consideration of the exponential number of variants to the game mechanics that must be considered whenever new content is provided. Every new nuance means a possible exploit to imbalance the progression path of players (either along the story or along character development).

It's all about the content. The game is defined by what someone can do in it, and what someone can do in it is determined almost entirely by developers...either by exposing character development paths, new NPCs (mobs, etc..>), new zones/landscapes, or new storylines/quests. Without the content you might as well simply have a graphical chatroom, which is what any stagnant MMOG devolves into.

  Anofalye

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/19/03
Posts: 7442

The enemy is so dumb! They believe that WE are the enemy! - A famous orc commander.

3/07/04 11:21:23 AM#4

If you need to pick only 1 aspect here is a little help.

 

Grouping is the most popular aspect in the MMORPG world.

PvP have the most developped setting after grouping althought only a minority crave for it.

Tradeskilling is the new popular wave for devs in general.

Raiding althought having majors assets is the main battlefield between WoW and EQ2, I would stay clear of it until the other aspects are design.

 

Thereby, I would make sure my grouping system(PvE) AND/OR my soloing system(PvE) are sovereign, work well and rule before doing anything else!

- "Coercing? No no, I assure you, they are willing to bring my bags and pay public transportation just to help me, it is true!''

- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - René Levesque about the denial NO on the poll to his dream, project and goal. (Free translation)

  Mobious

Novice Member

Joined: 3/07/04
Posts: 2

 
OP  3/07/04 12:09:06 PM#5

Well thank you guys for some informed and intelligent responses . I also think that MMORPGs also appeal to more mature and intelligenet gamer. When I say mature, not in terms of age, but more in their appreciation of game mechanics. Personally I have been a gamer since the C16 days, and have seen games become more and more similar and showey. GTA in many ways the pinacle of current gaming convention as it offered freedom to the console generation. However as a designer, the most frustrating element is that publishers wont take on an original title if it is deemed to be too much of a risk.

GTA has shown the success a game can have but it has also set the expectation. Publishers want risk free gaming and so games are being dumbed down. Personally I feel that MMORPG are a big two fingers up to current gaming mantra and at least Sony have become wise to the fact that gamers are intelligent people and like to have to work for things.

  TaskyZZ

Novice Member

Joined: 12/04/03
Posts: 1481

3/07/04 12:11:21 PM#6

Since these games are based around combat. The most important thing is a good combat system that involves the player. You do not have to focus on Solo or Group, you should focus combat. Make it fun and interactive in some way. If combat gets broing, and the game is about combat, then the game is going to get boring.

And, as for grouping, don't require it like most of the game out there.

Most game have it so a group can barely kill monsters a few levels above them because they make it very hard to hit them. I think the way it should be is that if you are lower level you can hit, you just don't do as much damage. That way a gang of lower level characters can outnumber a higher levl MOB and kill it.

A player at equal level to a MOB should be able to solo it, although it should be a tough fight.


  XanderZane

Novice Member

Joined: 2/21/04
Posts: 227

'Gaming till I'm gone.'

3/07/04 2:23:03 PM#7

I think what is missing from a lot of MMORPG's (ie Horizons, Planetside, etc) is meaning, rewards and a feeling of accomplishment. There are many powerlevelers and casual rpg fanatics. People play MMO games for different reasons, but for ever reason, there should be a meaning and rreward for doing what your doing. Example would be crafting. Why are you crafting? To make better armor for you, to sell for money to help your guild. There's a reason to do it. What are the rewards? Money, higher crafting skill, a chance to create an uber item that's unique, etc..

The same thing should go for quests, PvP, PvE, RvR, sieges, missions, advancing story, etc, etc.. There also needs to be a balance where the goals achieved are FUN and not tedious. Right now ALL MMORPG have tedious treadmilling. AC1 & AO my be the easiest, but their levels are over 100. FFXI is very tedious. So far, the only thing that keeps it fun is playing with friends, exploring and seeing new mobs to kill. Loot and money are the rewards, but there should be other rewards as well.  MMORPG games need to change and evolve. Right now, that's not really happening. World of Craft will be a bit different, but it will be mostly the same as the other games. What Blizzard will probably do it make everything work exceptionally well and the rewards will be greater. Doing things will actually be FUN and not tedious. That's what we're hoping anyway.  City of Heroes will be different as well, but won't we still be doing the same thing? PvE. Treadmill leveling. Completing goals. The future is bright for MMO games, but it needs to start evolving now.

Xander

Xander

  Alient

Novice Member

Joined: 3/02/04
Posts: 315

"The Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials," Edgar Mitchell, sixth astronaut to walk the moon

3/07/04 2:46:54 PM#8


Originally posted by Mobious
Publishers want risk free gaming and so games are being dumbed down. Personally I feel that MMORPG are a big two fingers up to current gaming mantra and at least Sony have become wise to the fact that gamers are intelligent people and like to have to work for things.


I agree with the publisher part, but not with MMORPG part. I've been making comparisons in other threads to this extent. You made a good example of all the GTA clones. Before that there were Warcraft clones in the RTS world. And I believe alot of the MMORPGs are still EQ clones. I've was happy with the first person shooters, because I didn't think that everyone was trying to be a Doom clone (even though you do see a lot of Counter Strike clones these days).

In the US, it's just one finger up. I'm not sure how many people got your UK reference. ::::32:: (hmm, i think he has the wrong finger up). ::::29::


Originally posted by Anofalye
MMORPG is to gaming what philosophy is to rhetoric.
I think you can ask 10 differents players, and you would get 11 answers!


I think we got more than 11 answers from just one person, you. ::::06::

Sorry, I couldn't resist. ::::02::

  Finwe

Novice Member

Joined: 7/15/03
Posts: 3112

All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

3/07/04 3:03:45 PM#9

I think PvP lacks in almost all games, especially those that dont have PvP servers. Almost everyone loves to compete, be it one on one, or trying to be better then the other.

As well, killing monsters, isnt challenging, addicting, and fun. Hit attack, wait until its dead, maybe drink a potion, hit 1 to do some special move.

Make it actually fun, and challenging, give players more control, make it where personal player skill will as well come into play. Some people may think, ooo, its FPS, thats anti-rpg. When In fact I think it's more RPG. RPG=Role-playing game. As in takeing a role that isnt actually you, giving you more control over that role gives you more RPish, it also makes it more fun.

Immersive world, fun quests, all of them fun, and original.

"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis

"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979

  isoXian8

Novice Member

Joined: 3/04/04
Posts: 3

3/07/04 3:42:59 PM#10

One thing will define a "good MMORPG"....

It's implementation of the "core elements".

The trick is to work out what are the "core elements"... and this is different for every game, which is why it is hard to compare MMORPG's.

The "core element" of DAoC was RvR (their particular implementation of PvP) and I think they did it reasonably well. The "core element" of SWG is the GCW (their particular implementation of PvP) and IMO it is not currently working out well (although I am still hopeful).

Planetside - a good implementation of team based, king of the hill. Although it is FPS, the core motivation of this game was large scale battles for defendable establishments.

EQ - ultimate PvE? I never played it but it seems to be the benchmark for PvE MMORPG.

This is as simple as doing some basic planning. Work out what your "vision" or "purpose" for the game is. Make sure you know exactly what you are trying to achieve. If you just set out to make "an MMORPG" then that is all you will get.

I have done lots of thinking about MMORPG's in the last 6 months. I would like to develop one as well. So I've been thinking about exactly what it is I want to achieve. Here are my basic guiding principles:

  • Team/squad/guild based PvP in open spaces and for defendable establishments (forts etc).
  • Strong emphasis on command and control - strategy and tactics.
  • Powerful role-playing story to drive combat, quests and every other aspect of the game.
  • Interesting side-stories and opportunities for solo playing (not the core element though).

What I have done is pick out a 'style of game' that I like. The game must be developed according to the original goals otherwise you will lose sight of the vision and end up wasting time and resources on bits of the game that are actually secondary to the core elements.

 

You need to implement the core elements of the game well. Compromise on secondary elements, never compromise the core elements.

  bsherlock

Novice Member

Joined: 2/21/04
Posts: 491

He who burns twice as bright, burns half as long

3/08/04 5:43:45 AM#11

I am of the opinion that the basic structure of MMOPRG's need to be changed.

Basically at the moment XP is earned from grinding, either killing loads of creatures, or making loads of swords etc.

I think it should be earned from actual roleplaying. i beleive that when you begin a game you should have to pick a career (or class) and depending on this class you should have to do certain things to get xp.

if you love going out to kill stuff then become a fighter, and you will be rewarded for killing stuff, but also for leading groups, or staying watch over a camp of doing something which hard people should do. Similarly if you are a thief you should xp for keeping to the shadows and stealing things, or from picking locks, or from assasinating people etc.

This open the way up for soloing or grouping, for example a fighter may have a big sword and be able to hack most things open, but certain things are immune to being hacked open and he may need the backup of a group to defeat these creatures. This does not penalise him for wanting to solo, but it give him the option to fight other creatures and explore the unknown if he groups.

I play MMORPG's because i want to be in character, i like to play a role which means doing everything my alter ego should do, eat, sleep, talk, socialise, and do whatever my career entails. It would be nice to be rewarded for actually doing this. on most games if you go and socialise in the pub then that is a way of healing wounds or something, so its forced rather than choice. if you could develop a way to make people actually become their alter ego then i think this would be a success. Rather than a game where everyone has to do the same thing over and over again.

Muahahahahahahaha

MUAHAHAHAHAHA

  Shagsbeard

Novice Member

Joined: 2/27/04
Posts: 71

3/08/04 8:25:37 AM#12
The one major flaw I find in MMORPGs is the lack of a long term plan.  Players who play for longer times dominate over the new player to such a degree that it discourages new players from joining the game.  There needs to be something meaningful that players can do at any stage of their development.  Playing wack-a-mole for a month to get to the point where you can play with your friends is not a good design... check out the accounts on ebay.

Don't try to teach a pig to sing,
It rarely works and only serves to annoy the pig.

-Sig-
Don't try to teach a pig to sing,
It rarely works and only serves to annoy the pig.

  Anofalye

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/19/03
Posts: 7442

The enemy is so dumb! They believe that WE are the enemy! - A famous orc commander.

3/08/04 9:11:51 AM#13

Originally posted by Shagsbeard
The one major flaw I find in MMORPGs is the lack of a long term plan.  Players who play for longer times dominate over the new player to such a degree that it discourages new players from joining the game.  There needs to be something meaningful that players can do at any stage of their development.  Playing wack-a-mole for a month to get to the point where you can play with your friends is not a good design... check out the accounts on ebay.

Don't try to teach a pig to sing,
It rarely works and only serves to annoy the pig.



This is why you need intelligent level cap on each zone, so anyone above a precise level is of that level instead.  You can give him TRIVIAL edge for each level he have above the limit, but not more, in this zone, nobody can be abobe level X, so be it. :)

 

Not only such level cap make it nice for new player, but the uber experienced player, when he is limited in level, might need to work stuff out with new players...add some level range AAs and you have a perfect setting. :)

- "Coercing? No no, I assure you, they are willing to bring my bags and pay public transportation just to help me, it is true!''

- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - René Levesque about the denial NO on the poll to his dream, project and goal. (Free translation)

  Alient

Novice Member

Joined: 3/02/04
Posts: 315

"The Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials," Edgar Mitchell, sixth astronaut to walk the moon

3/08/04 9:55:30 AM#14


Originally posted by Shagsbeard
The one major flaw I find in MMORPGs is the lack of a long term plan. Players who play for longer times dominate over the new player to such a degree that it discourages new players from joining the game.

This is usually because games are still trying to follow the D&D format. For an experienced player, not only will his stats be higher than a new player, but his health (hit points) will be higher too. In a PvP style MMORPG where both of these players are thrown into the same world, you have the situation you just mentioned. In a real D&D game, a GM would never have people at vast different levels. Each scenario is based on the appropriate levels of who's playing. NWN, which is based on 3rd edition D&D rules, is the way that D&D should be played. But, MMORPGs that throw everybody into the same world is not.


Originally posted by Anofalye

This is why you need intelligent level cap on each zone, so anyone above a precise level is of that level instead. You can give him TRIVIAL edge for each level he have above the limit, but not more, in this zone, nobody can be abobe level X, so be it. :)

Not only such level cap make it nice for new player, but the uber experienced player, when he is limited in level, might need to work stuff out with new players...add some level range AAs and you have a perfect setting. :)

I think you are talking about creating area zones in game that would work like the D&D scenarios. This will just cause mini-games within a game. I don't think this is a god solution. I think the best solution is what I call YOH (You're Only Human; of course in a race based system, you might call it something else). The premise is that there's no reason for a new player to start out with 10 HP and an experienced player has 100 HP. An experienced player should have higher skill levels, but why 10 times as much health? In real life, someone could be an experienced martial artist. I'm not, so, he is going to kick my butt. Does it mean he has more health than me? If he got shot in the leg, wouldn't he lose just as much blood as me if I got shot in the leg? So, my premise is that set everybody's base health level the same. The skill levels will still allow experienced players to be able to do things more effictively and faster than a new player, but the experienced players will no longer be a god.


  bsherlock

Novice Member

Joined: 2/21/04
Posts: 491

He who burns twice as bright, burns half as long

3/08/04 10:07:40 AM#15

bah i have been trying to think of a logical arguement to disagree with you on the above point, but i cant. it is actually a very good idea.

however i love D&D rule games and hope that they stay the way they are (call me old fashioned, nostalgic or stubborn) but there is just something about being 50 times as hard as a N00b that makes you feel good about yourself.

equally if you are a N00b it is good to have a target to reach, if i see somebody with twice my health i can assume he is twice as hard etc etc.

Muahahahahahahaha

MUAHAHAHAHAHA

  Deli

Novice Member

Joined: 3/01/04
Posts: 25

3/08/04 10:10:12 AM#16
 

If a person or companies wants to develop a game they need to understand their market and consumers.  They need to understand who their subscribers are and what they want.  I think some games try to cater to many different types of gamers (Casual, Hardcore, PvP, non- PvP, PvE, etc.) and end up with a game which is sub par on many aspects.  I would expect that a company would never (I am sure some brain-child will try) try to create a game that mixes genres of games (i.e. Fantasy and Sci-Fi).

Game companies need to determine who their consumer is and stick to them.  If they want to cater to hardcore, then do so, but don’t try to market to a casual gamer and vice versa.  If they actual think they have a formula that caters to both, good luck!

I would speculate that catering to a casual gaming market would be larger market then hard core gamers, but this is pure speculation.  A company or person needs to know the buying habits of the consumer base first so the company can maximize their returns.  A company must also make sure they solicit information from a diverse group of consumers before they make decisions and make sure their sample set is not too small.

Determine your market, the size of your market, what the market wants, and then stick to it.  These are basic business and economic principles.

  Alient

Novice Member

Joined: 3/02/04
Posts: 315

"The Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials," Edgar Mitchell, sixth astronaut to walk the moon

3/08/04 11:37:02 AM#17


Originally posted by Deli

I would speculate that catering to a casual gaming market would be larger market then hard core gamers, but this is pure speculation.


Hardcore gamers are usually looking for the next best thing out there. They are the ones that keep checking websites on progresses of games that haven't been released yet. They are the ones doing the beta-testing. They are the ones posting on forums of their favorite games. And most importantly, they are the ones recommending to the casual gamers on what games are fun. The word-of-mouth-sales from these hardcore gamers is the largest factor in the number of units a game will sell. So, who would you want to cater to?

  Finwe

Novice Member

Joined: 7/15/03
Posts: 3112

All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

3/08/04 12:36:59 PM#18

"I think you are talking about creating area zones in game that would work like the D&D scenarios. This will just cause mini-games within a game. I don't think this is a god solution. I think the best solution is what I call YOH (You're Only Human; of course in a race based system, you might call it something else). The premise is that there's no reason for a new player to start out with 10 HP and an experienced player has 100 HP. An experienced player should have higher skill levels, but why 10 times as much health? In real life, someone could be an experienced martial artist. I'm not, so, he is going to kick my butt. Does it mean he has more health than me? If he got shot in the leg, wouldn't he lose just as much blood as me if I got shot in the leg? So, my premise is that set everybody's base health level the same. The skill levels will still allow experienced players to be able to do things more effictively and faster than a new player, but the experienced players will no longer be a god."

 

Well, some people will die in one shot by a gun in the shoulder, others could take five bullets and still keep on charging at you. Also, some people can build up a resilience to pain and hardship, which in a way could raise your health points. So a hardened warrior that has been fighting for 40 years and has taken many a cut, against a 20 year old academy graduate, I have a feeling the hardened warrior could probably take more hits then him. Also it has to do with mental power.

"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis

"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979

  Shagsbeard

Novice Member

Joined: 2/27/04
Posts: 71

3/08/04 4:47:31 PM#19
The DnD analogy is slightly flawwed as Dnd is massively multiplayer.  If I, as a DM, could handle 1000+ players I would make it so that players of all levels could contribute something to the story.  Current models have the high level players in charge, and low level players as people struggling to get to high levels.  I'd give players a fun reason to play at any level.

Don't try to teach a pig to sing,
It rarely works and only serves to annoy the pig.

-Sig-
Don't try to teach a pig to sing,
It rarely works and only serves to annoy the pig.

  Alient

Novice Member

Joined: 3/02/04
Posts: 315

"The Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials," Edgar Mitchell, sixth astronaut to walk the moon

3/08/04 5:12:05 PM#20


Originally posted by Finwe

Well, some people will die in one shot by a gun in the shoulder, others could take five bullets and still keep on charging at you. Also, some people can build up a resilience to pain and hardship, which in a way could raise your health points. So a hardened warrior that has been fighting for 40 years and has taken many a cut, against a 20 year old academy graduate, I have a feeling the hardened warrior could probably take more hits then him. Also it has to do with mental power.


Let's just say that 10 HP represents a liter of blood. You saying a newb with 10 HP could die by losing a liter of blood, but some hardened warrior with 100 HP would need to lose 10 liters of blood before he dies? Pain is not health. Pain has to do more with Constitution. Constitution can be consider as a skill. Some people can take more pain than others. So, in game mechanics, a person with higher Constitution won't lose his focus, concentration, and/or agility in battle as someone who has lower Constitution. Also, that harden warrior could take a punch that would do less damage to him then if someone else was hit with the same strength. But when it comes to weapons, a stab, shot, cut, or what have you, does basically do the same damage. Then it goes back to how well that person can take that damage (how well they can handle that pain).

Instead of having your skills and health increased together, which basically give you a power growth of something like a n^2 algorithm, you just have more of a linear progression just with the skills and there wouldn't be that scaring off of new players.

2 Pages 1 2 » Search