Okay, I haven''t read everything on this post, but I read most of it. In my personal opinion you would have to mix genres a bit to get what your aiming for.

What I think you want is something like Jedi Knight 2 Lightsaber Combat in a MMORPG scenario. Considering parties are formed by actual players you elimate having ditch a lot of interactivity (which is commonly found in Single-Player RPGS - Interactivity is replaced by menu driven turn-based combat). In JK2 when you play with a lightsaber you can just plain slash or switch it up by using things like jump+forward+slash to to like an aerial attack or something. In this fashion you could have special sword slashes or spin moves. These attacks are learned when the character levels up or something. I''m working very losesly here so bare with me.

If you wanted a more realistic style of combat then I guess you would have the character moving around like before but instead you don''t have spin attacks and such because of the high-parry level. I think you guys get my point though.

quote:

---

If you wanted a more realistic style of combat then I guess you would have the character moving around like before but instead you don't have spin attacks and such because of the high-parry level. I think you guys get my point though.

---

Realism wasn't the point of the combat system. The point was to add strategy and remove character experience, making players have to out-think eachother. This is my take on it anyway.

- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!


[edited by - coderx75 on June 11, 2002 11:56:29 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan
The more you add towards the real-life ability at the expense of in-character ability, the further from the RPG paradigm you move. You are correct in saying that games of such a type (and therefore, the players that would enjoy them) are underrepresented, but if you tried to pass such a game off as an MMORPG then you would probably not do so well, as the label is misleading. The game would not play like an RPG.

---

I don''t think that is really the case. In terms of pen & paper RPGs the DMs players seem to like the most are DMs that make the player''s decisions the most important element.

I don''t think moving away from stats and towards skill is less RPG life, depending on what the skill is. (Relfex skill I would agree doesn''t have that much of a place) Also I would point out that in Pen & Paper RPG''s players are encouraged to be at about the same level. It''s rare that a high level character and a low level character will be played in the same campaign, and if they are generally there is some good role-playing required. This sort of segregation by levels doesn''t really happen in MMORPGs.

Of course, most pen and paper RPGs never see you go past level 12 or so either. I meant computer RPGs Sorry for any confusion.

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

I know you meant computer rpgs, but my point is that in the more established RPG realm players *like* it when their decisions really matter. A good DM doesn''t just read off the text from the module and then have everyone roll a die 100 times in a row.

In most CRPGs, and especially in MMORPG''s there is no real decision making unless you play a magic-using class. Otherwise your decision is engage in combat or don''t engage. Usually the combat even runs totally on it''s own. In most of these games you really don''t DO anything, other than move from encounter to encounter. The game could really almost play itself.

while (!dead)
{
randomMove();
if (enemy)
{
if (enemyTooTough) run();
else fight();
}
if (energyLow) heal();
}

Gee look, I''m playing Everquest! Obviously this is a bit of a simplification, but not really too much. In most of these games you really don''t DO anything.

quote:

---

Original post by AnonPoster
Gee look, I''m playing Everquest! Obviously this is a bit of a simplification, but not really too much. In most of these games you really don''t DO anything.

---

Hahaha, I totally agree. It''s really like a 3D chat room with hit points. =b I think a combat system which requires strategy is refreshing. CRPG''s never really required a deep strategy. Although, some require planning, it''s becomes more of the same after a while.

- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!

let me throw in a little wrench

... but first the wrench''s background. This problem has showed up every time I''ve journeyed down the path of taking ideas from turn-based strategy games, and tried to allow them support the massively multiplayer, and persistent world concept AND allow people to sit and play for whatever length of time they want. Basically what I''m trying to create is a persistent massively multiplayer strategy game - but the trouble comes when I try to make it hybrid turn-based / real-time. I have as yet not found ANY good compromise between edge-of-your-seat real-time gameplay, vs. laid back play-as-you-want turn-based games.

So the wrench is ... how to allow the game to support action game attractions, such as fighting systems where the player chooses the moves and combinations in real-time ... while also letting them get the enjoyment of a long-term, immersive CRPG experience ... where they can build op their character''s personality in their head, and act out as a member of a dynamic society. At any one point in time a player can only be either A) actively consentraiting or reacting in real-time, B) thinking of a strategic solution to a problem, C) interacting with the game-designers interesting world, D) interacting with other players in a social settings. It is not possible to be actively talking to your friends, looking at the amazing cliff ledges, stuggling to shake off a pair of rabid dogs, and plotting a political takeover of the local militia.

quote:

---

Original post by coderx75
Either way, it''s how you play the strategy that decides the battle, not experience points. So, assuming that this is the idea, what do you think? I agree that a system completely based on player skill would not be an RPG but an adventure game. On the other hand, I think this may fall under a RPG/RTS hybrid. Either way, I personally like the idea of adding a little more than just standing there hitting the attack button.

---

I think you would need some other measurement of achievement that progressively went up over time. Assuming you didn''t mind that you''d alienate traditional RPG players who like the characters to "fight for themselves", so to speak, you''d still have to have some sort of slowly progressive element. Otherwise, what have you got to keep people coming back? It would be hard to design a system that is complex enough that few can master it,and if people master it, they will probably tire of it.



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

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan
I think you would need some other measurement of achievement that progressively went up over time. Assuming you didn''t mind that you''d alienate traditional RPG players who like the characters to "fight for themselves", so to speak, you''d still have to have some sort of slowly progressive element. Otherwise, what have you got to keep people coming back? It would be hard to design a system that is complex enough that few can master it,and if people master it, they will probably tire of it.

---

I don''t ind alienating the RPG crowd as I''m not a part of it. I like to use skill or strategy. But I would like to be able to explore as I use one of these types of gameplay. It''s like when I first played the original Warcraft, I was very disappointed that the missions ended and you had to start building your forces over again. I just wanted to keep moving out into the world and building power. I guess that''s what Blizzard is trying with Warcraft III.

Games that are mastered are usually the ones with the most replay value, such as Chess. Just the fact that it''s online gives it replay value. It''s hard to design any game of any value, especially when its something that hasn''t really been done before (sort of =/). On the other hand, all we''re talking about here is a combat system. A simple program could be written as a test bed and tinkered with, revamped and perfected until its right.

- Jay

- Jay

"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki

Get Tranced!

quote:

---

Original post by coderx75
Games that are mastered are usually the ones with the most replay value, such as Chess. Just the fact that it''s online gives it replay value. It''s hard to design any game of any value, especially when its something that hasn''t really been done before (sort of =/). On the other hand, all we''re talking about here is a combat system. A simple program could be written as a test bed and tinkered with, revamped and perfected until its right.

---

I can''t say I agree... making a system balanced is hard enough, but making it have enough depth so that you''d keep learning more and more over many weeks (or even months, years) is a very tall order.

So essentially, I agree with you in theory, but I think there would need to be a lot more thought given to implementation. As you can''t just throw away one aspect of player retention (statistical advancement) unless you have the replacement (varied and potentially emergent tactical gameplay) ready.



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