If you Pk one ppl and somebody else kills you in the next 8 hours PERMADEATH, Risk / Reward.....
ok, It doesnt need to be so harsh but something that makes the sheep safe and at same time give the options to Pvpers/griefers do their stuff at a very high risk.
While that is a solution, I'm not so sure it's the best one. It would definitely give murderers some pause before making a decision that could render their character useless.
I have some ideas.
Any sandboxer worth their salt knows about the allignment system. They know about 'murderer towns' or 'lawless towns'. They know about stat loss or jail time. Whether we've partaken in criminal exploits or not, we are well aware of what the punishments are in most sandboxes.
I feel that if you make all NPC cities, 'kill on sight' for murderers, that it would help. This is pretty standard in sandboxes though. I feel that there should also be roaming gaurd patrols as well. Not just randomly out in the wilderness, but within a moderate vicinity of the protected city. Darkfall had some towers that were somewhat effective at times, and I feel that this should be included as well. What I don't want to see are just loads of static gaurds or 'insta-kill' gaurds popping out of thin air. Let's make it more like a maze for a criminal to get anywhere near a NPC city at all. We already know that they've stated that these cities will be safe zones anyways.
Let's also do what almost all other sandbox MMO's don't do, eliminate 'lawless' cities. There should be no NPC cities that allow safe harbor for criminals. Don't you think we as players, or the factions in the game, would eliminate those threats? With the ability to build cities and empires as players, it should be the king or lords duty of that empire to decide whether or not they want to allow safe passage, shelter, and supplies to these people. These cities should be able to be defended in a similar fashion with gaurds and towers, including players as well. If you allow it, it should be clearly marked on your map that this empire promotes illegal activity. There should also be a penalty for that as well. Perhaps something in the form of reduced tax rates, reduces resource gathering and a 24 hour seige window that never closes. It should be very difficult to remain a strong empire and openly betray the innocent. These empires will have to be more subtle with their dealings, thus making them weaker.
Murderers should not be able to own holdings within cities, unless that city is deemed a full-on murderous empire. This will open up attack by any non-murderous empire in the game. Murderers should not be able to bank either, since they can't gain access to a city with a bank unless it's labeled a murderous city amd that city has the appropriate upgrades to have a city bank This bank should be able to be looted if the city is sieged and razed. They can't use gates that take them to innocent locations. This will make their movement a little easier to predict. Without mounts, it will make travelling and sneaking up on people a little harder. Thus protecting the innocent.
There should definitely be stat loss as well. Not just resurrection sickness, but partial stat loss depending on your murder count. Let's not use the five kill murder status. Let's make it three. If you kill three people within a four hour window, let's assume that you meant to do it. You can work two of those counts off each hour. However, if you work up to three, it takes a full eight hours in game to work it off. You will also remain a murderer until your very last count is removed. Which means, you need to play a full twenty-four hours to work it off and become innocent again. If you die as a murderer, you lose 2% of your primary stats (but none of your secondary). So if you have five murder counts, you'll lose 10% of your primary stats. If you have 50 murder counts, it may as well be perma-death, because you will lose 100% of your primary stats. Also, if you are a murderer, you not only lose items from your inventory upon death, but you lose everything that you are carrying whether it is equipped or not.
I have not seen a murder system like the one I've described. I have also not seen a MMO balance 'wolves' and 'sheep' efficiently. While this does not eliminate the ability for murderers to exist or be successful, it certainly makes it very difficult to do so. So difficult, that if you're not careful, you will incur a temp-death on your character and you'll have to start your progression over again. If you have a strong criminal guild and friends to back you, a place to store your goods and a place to buy, sell, and trade, you may be able to hack it. Just remember that your empire could be destroyed in the middle of the night and you may wake up with nothing left. You better have more friends. It shouldn't be easy though. To every murderer, there should be 100 innocents.
I think these ideas will go a long way in allowing a ratio like that. Do you guys have any ideas?
What do you guys think about a detective/tracker type profession that gives general locations of nearby murderers? Even movement will be hard if you have many active trackers around the map. Maybe you'll see 'red' slayer guilds that serve only one purpose, to kill murderers.
i would subscribe to ur mmorpg without thinking twice. Add the limit of 1 character per server(per player), no mounts or any kind of insta travel( except maybe a class that have that power with long a cd), and ... thats it!..
IMO classes are needed in sandboxes. People effectively create classes anyway and at least if there are classes in the end you'll have more variety in the competitive player group. That being said... you need to have non-combat classes; engineers and farmers etc etc. Higher skilled or leveled farmers could manage peasent npc farmers bla bla.
You also need pvp restrictions... sorry as another guy said... life is a sandbox yet we have a shit ton of restrictions.
Full Loot PvP games, has DF and MO taut us nothing.
Lets pour thousands and thousands of man hours into a game that very few people will even want to play. Why would a struggling dev house want to be a struggling dev house forever.............
Hey maybe is kind of cool that people are willing to make games for a niche audience putting any hope of real profits aside. But to each his own.
You'd think people would think it's cool that there are developers out there that don't care about the money and want to create a game that they want to play. If we wanted to create a money-maker we wouldn't be making this kind of game.
To us it's not a waste of time, because we are doing something we love.
Full Loot PvP games, has DF and MO taut us nothing.
Lets pour thousands and thousands of man hours into a game that very few people will even want to play. Why would a struggling dev house want to be a struggling dev house forever.............
Hey maybe is kind of cool that people are willing to make games for a niche audience putting any hope of real profits aside. But to each his own.
It is not full loot. Only items in your inventory are lootable. Equiped items are not. Next.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
Originally posted by Angier2758 IMO classes are needed in sandboxes. People effectively create classes anyway and at least if there are classes in the end you'll have more variety in the competitive player group. That being said... you need to have non-combat classes; engineers and farmers etc etc.
So the farmer class is hopeless at combat? Or combat classes can't farm? Or what? Locking people into a role based on a class choice is the antithesis of a sandbox.
If you really want classes in a sandbox, the only way I can see it working is in a system like Uncharted Waters Online, where yes there are classes ("jobs"), but the game is ultimately skill-based, and your choice of class just makes certain skills advance at double speed and maybe get a bonus to effectiveness. But everyone can still do everything (just advancing more slowly), and you can change jobs.
You'd think people would think it's cool that there are developers out there that don't care about the money and want to create a game that they want to play. If we wanted to create a money-maker we wouldn't be making this kind of game.
To us it's not a waste of time, because we are doing something we love.
That's great, but if enough people don't want it you'll end up struggling and then closing it down. For myself, I'd be willing to go through struggles and waiting for a game to grow as long as it isn't killing itself with it's own design, and I want to play what I see as the end result. I think there are a lot of gamers like me out there too. So I hope you all can see that wide open PvP isn't going to work without a justice system that really works, and that means you can't consider PKers (of the rampant variety) as an equal in this equation.
But as you say, you're making a game that you want to play. If you don't do this (justice system), then it's going to end up costing you a lot of money to continue playing your game.
It would cost $millions invested to make a great game despite the PKing. And the numbers would be down anyways because of the PKing. It's a no win formula. Your only hope is to do as I suggest. Otherwise, when the bills come due, you won't have enough left over to build up your game and there won't be enough players to carry you onward.
I dearly hope you'll consider what I'm saying. I'd love to play a great game with a great mix of players.
Well it's extremely far off in development land, but from what i read in the FAQ it seems like an interesting idea. Remind us of this every so often as new media becomes available, ok? Who knows, it may actually turn out to be good and make several MMORPG.com players happy
That's great, but if enough people don't want it you'll end up struggling and then closing it down. For myself, I'd be willing to go through struggles and waiting for a game to grow as long as it isn't killing itself with it's own design, and I want to play what I see as the end result. I think there are a lot of gamers like me out there too. So I hope you all can see that wide open PvP isn't going to work without a justice system that really works, and that means you can't consider PKers (of the rampant variety) as an equal in this equation.
But as you say, you're making a game that you want to play. If you don't do this (justice system), then it's going to end up costing you a lot of money to continue playing your game.
It would cost $millions invested to make a great game despite the PKing. And the numbers would be down anyways because of the PKing. It's a no win formula. Your only hope is to do as I suggest. Otherwise, when the bills come due, you won't have enough left over to build up your game and there won't be enough players to carry you onward.
I dearly hope you'll consider what I'm saying. I'd love to play a great game with a great mix of players.
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed.
That's great, but if enough people don't want it you'll end up struggling and then closing it down. For myself, I'd be willing to go through struggles and waiting for a game to grow as long as it isn't killing itself with it's own design, and I want to play what I see as the end result. I think there are a lot of gamers like me out there too. So I hope you all can see that wide open PvP isn't going to work without a justice system that really works, and that means you can't consider PKers (of the rampant variety) as an equal in this equation.
But as you say, you're making a game that you want to play. If you don't do this (justice system), then it's going to end up costing you a lot of money to continue playing your game.
It would cost $millions invested to make a great game despite the PKing. And the numbers would be down anyways because of the PKing. It's a no win formula. Your only hope is to do as I suggest. Otherwise, when the bills come due, you won't have enough left over to build up your game and there won't be enough players to carry you onward.
I dearly hope you'll consider what I'm saying. I'd love to play a great game with a great mix of players.
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed.
I had some things to say, but I decided that instead I'll just wish you luck and hope that something good, somewhere in the future, comes from your efforts.
Originally posted by Amaranthar That's great, but if enough people don't want it you'll end up struggling and then closing it down. For myself, I'd be willing to go through struggles and waiting for a game to grow as long as it isn't killing itself with it's own design, and I want to play what I see as the end result. I think there are a lot of gamers like me out there too. So I hope you all can see that wide open PvP isn't going to work without a justice system that really works, and that means you can't consider PKers (of the rampant variety) as an equal in this equation. But as you say, you're making a game that you want to play. If you don't do this (justice system), then it's going to end up costing you a lot of money to continue playing your game. It would cost $millions invested to make a great game despite the PKing. And the numbers would be down anyways because of the PKing. It's a no win formula. Your only hope is to do as I suggest. Otherwise, when the bills come due, you won't have enough left over to build up your game and there won't be enough players to carry you onward. I dearly hope you'll consider what I'm saying. I'd love to play a great game with a great mix of players.
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed.
Well I look forward to your game Fallen Throne, but I still feel that the death penalty is a killer.
Why not just have 2 or 3 server types, each with different levels death penalty, and allow players choose what they find to be fun in a death penalty.
Originally posted by MMOExposed Originally posted by Phaelae Originally posted by Amaranthar That's great, but if enough people don't want it you'll end up struggling and then closing it down. For myself, I'd be willing to go through struggles and waiting for a game to grow as long as it isn't killing itself with it's own design, and I want to play what I see as the end result. I think there are a lot of gamers like me out there too. So I hope you all can see that wide open PvP isn't going to work without a justice system that really works, and that means you can't consider PKers (of the rampant variety) as an equal in this equation. But as you say, you're making a game that you want to play. If you don't do this (justice system), then it's going to end up costing you a lot of money to continue playing your game. It would cost $millions invested to make a great game despite the PKing. And the numbers would be down anyways because of the PKing. It's a no win formula. Your only hope is to do as I suggest. Otherwise, when the bills come due, you won't have enough left over to build up your game and there won't be enough players to carry you onward. I dearly hope you'll consider what I'm saying. I'd love to play a great game with a great mix of players.
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed. Well I look forward to your game Fallen Throne, but I still feel that the death penalty is a killer.
Why not just have 2 or 3 server types, each with different levels death penalty, and allow players choose what they find to be fun in a death penalty.
They have a specific audience in mind, and that audience wants a 'harsh' death penalty. Since they aren't shooting for the next big AAA blockbuster, it makes sense to cater to their audience. Imagine what could have happened with Mortal Online if the development wasn't handled so poorly. It wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of dedicated volunteers could do a better job.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by MMOExposed Originally posted by Phaelae Originally posted by Amaranthar That's great, but if enough people don't want it you'll end up struggling and then closing it down. For myself, I'd be willing to go through struggles and waiting for a game to grow as long as it isn't killing itself with it's own design, and I want to play what I see as the end result. I think there are a lot of gamers like me out there too. So I hope you all can see that wide open PvP isn't going to work without a justice system that really works, and that means you can't consider PKers (of the rampant variety) as an equal in this equation. But as you say, you're making a game that you want to play. If you don't do this (justice system), then it's going to end up costing you a lot of money to continue playing your game. It would cost $millions invested to make a great game despite the PKing. And the numbers would be down anyways because of the PKing. It's a no win formula. Your only hope is to do as I suggest. Otherwise, when the bills come due, you won't have enough left over to build up your game and there won't be enough players to carry you onward. I dearly hope you'll consider what I'm saying. I'd love to play a great game with a great mix of players.
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed. Well I look forward to your game Fallen Throne, but I still feel that the death penalty is a killer.
Why not just have 2 or 3 server types, each with different levels death penalty, and allow players choose what they find to be fun in a death penalty.
They have a specific audience in mind, and that audience wants a 'harsh' death penalty. Since they aren't shooting for the next big AAA blockbuster, it makes sense to cater to their audience. Imagine what could have happened with Mortal Online if the development wasn't handled so poorly. It wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of dedicated volunteers could do a better job.
Iam not sure you are being sarcastic. (Internet :lol) but if so, ok.
The problem with games that feature FFA PVP is that there's no room for anyone that doesn't have PVP as their main game focus.
Unless you PVP regularly in a game, there's very little chance that you will survive a fight with someone that does. So you will be the victim 90% of the time, because you will lack experience and most likely won't be geared and equipped for PVP.
So the diversity of playstyles is lost, and PVP becomes the focus by default. The only game that ever had a complete mix of playstyles was UO in pre-Trammel days. As soon as there was an alternative (i.e. Trammel), the majority of non-PVP focused players fled to "safer" lands.
So, no matter how amazing this game, people who do not enjoy PVP as their main game activity won't touch it. Nobody is going to pay for a game so that they can become the "content" for someone else's playstyle
The problem with games that feature FFA PVP is that there's no room for anyone that doesn't have PVP as their main game focus.
Unless you PVP regularly in a game, there's very little chance that you will survive a fight with someone that does. So you will be the victim 90% of the time, because you will lack experience and most likely won't be geared and equipped for PVP.
So the diversity of playstyles is lost, and PVP becomes the focus by default. The only game that ever had a complete mix of playstyles was UO in pre-Trammel days. As soon as there was an alternative (i.e. Trammel), the majority of non-PVP focused players fled to "safer" lands.
So, no matter how amazing this game, people who do not enjoy PVP as their main game activity won't touch it. Nobody is going to pay for a game so that they can become the "content" for someone else's playstyle
I agree,, that's why I suggested having multiple server types with different rule sets. What is wrong with that?
The problem with games that feature FFA PVP is that there's no room for anyone that doesn't have PVP as their main game focus.
Unless you PVP regularly in a game, there's very little chance that you will survive a fight with someone that does. So you will be the victim 90% of the time, because you will lack experience and most likely won't be geared and equipped for PVP.
So the diversity of playstyles is lost, and PVP becomes the focus by default. The only game that ever had a complete mix of playstyles was UO in pre-Trammel days. As soon as there was an alternative (i.e. Trammel), the majority of non-PVP focused players fled to "safer" lands.
So, no matter how amazing this game, people who do not enjoy PVP as their main game activity won't touch it. Nobody is going to pay for a game so that they can become the "content" for someone else's playstyle
You would basically have to be the type of person who is willing to be protected by your guild. To that point, you would probably have to offer something to the guild such as crafting.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by MMOExposed Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by MMOExposed Originally posted by Phaelae Originally posted by Amaranthar That's great, but if enough people don't want it you'll end up struggling and then closing it down. For myself, I'd be willing to go through struggles and waiting for a game to grow as long as it isn't killing itself with it's own design, and I want to play what I see as the end result. I think there are a lot of gamers like me out there too. So I hope you all can see that wide open PvP isn't going to work without a justice system that really works, and that means you can't consider PKers (of the rampant variety) as an equal in this equation. But as you say, you're making a game that you want to play. If you don't do this (justice system), then it's going to end up costing you a lot of money to continue playing your game. It would cost $millions invested to make a great game despite the PKing. And the numbers would be down anyways because of the PKing. It's a no win formula. Your only hope is to do as I suggest. Otherwise, when the bills come due, you won't have enough left over to build up your game and there won't be enough players to carry you onward. I dearly hope you'll consider what I'm saying. I'd love to play a great game with a great mix of players.
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed. Well I look forward to your game Fallen Throne, but I still feel that the death penalty is a killer.
Why not just have 2 or 3 server types, each with different levels death penalty, and allow players choose what they find to be fun in a death penalty.
They have a specific audience in mind, and that audience wants a 'harsh' death penalty. Since they aren't shooting for the next big AAA blockbuster, it makes sense to cater to their audience. Imagine what could have happened with Mortal Online if the development wasn't handled so poorly. It wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of dedicated volunteers could do a better job. Iam not sure you are being sarcastic. (Internet :lol) but if so, ok.
No sarcasm meant or intended. I think a group of dedicated volunteers could do a better job on a game than Star Vault. If their development scale is the right size, feeding the population of FFA PvP with 'harsh' Death Penalty players should net enough money to keep the game running. Focusing on one specific server type and style of game is a good idea. Especially if you development scope is small scale. It all depends on their skill at development of course.
If they go the MO route and charge full price for a half way developed game, then no, they won't do better than MO. If they advertise their game as a great PvE game, and don't have any PvE then no, they won't do well. The FFA PvP with a 'harsh' Death Penalty in and of itself isn't enough to tank a game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
why not have a good sandbox PvE game? I would so go for it. I don't like forced PvP. And from what I've seen, many others don't like it either.
There is Ryzom, I think its only PvE sandbox game out...never figured out why it never caught on, either. Rather nice game world and harvesting/crafting was nice.
why not have a good sandbox PvE game? I would so go for it. I don't like forced PvP. And from what I've seen, many others don't like it either.
There is Ryzom, I think its only PvE sandbox game out...never figured out why it never caught on, either. Rather nice game world and harvesting/crafting was nice.
Ryzom came out a month before WoW.
Thats why it never caught on. It was ahead of its time imho. I liked it, a lot. But the playerbase just wasn't there for the most part and it was declining. Also i think there were some massive design-problems later-on in the game. But yea i agree, very good crafting system, and im ususally not one for crafting.
A game like Ryzom nowadays with upgraded mechanics and graphics/world interaction i would totally dig.
I especially liked to play it first person, for some weird reason.
Comments
i would subscribe to ur mmorpg without thinking twice. Add the limit of 1 character per server(per player), no mounts or any kind of insta travel( except maybe a class that have that power with long a cd), and ... thats it!..
IMO classes are needed in sandboxes. People effectively create classes anyway and at least if there are classes in the end you'll have more variety in the competitive player group. That being said... you need to have non-combat classes; engineers and farmers etc etc. Higher skilled or leveled farmers could manage peasent npc farmers bla bla.
You also need pvp restrictions... sorry as another guy said... life is a sandbox yet we have a shit ton of restrictions.
interesting, will keep an eye on
Full Loot PvP games, has DF and MO taut us nothing.
Lets pour thousands and thousands of man hours into a game that very few people will even want to play. Why would a struggling dev house want to be a struggling dev house forever.............
Hey maybe is kind of cool that people are willing to make games for a niche audience putting any hope of real profits aside. But to each his own.
You'd think people would think it's cool that there are developers out there that don't care about the money and want to create a game that they want to play. If we wanted to create a money-maker we wouldn't be making this kind of game.
To us it's not a waste of time, because we are doing something we love.
It is not full loot. Only items in your inventory are lootable. Equiped items are not. Next.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
If you really want classes in a sandbox, the only way I can see it working is in a system like Uncharted Waters Online, where yes there are classes ("jobs"), but the game is ultimately skill-based, and your choice of class just makes certain skills advance at double speed and maybe get a bonus to effectiveness. But everyone can still do everything (just advancing more slowly), and you can change jobs.
That's great, but if enough people don't want it you'll end up struggling and then closing it down. For myself, I'd be willing to go through struggles and waiting for a game to grow as long as it isn't killing itself with it's own design, and I want to play what I see as the end result. I think there are a lot of gamers like me out there too. So I hope you all can see that wide open PvP isn't going to work without a justice system that really works, and that means you can't consider PKers (of the rampant variety) as an equal in this equation.
But as you say, you're making a game that you want to play. If you don't do this (justice system), then it's going to end up costing you a lot of money to continue playing your game.
It would cost $millions invested to make a great game despite the PKing. And the numbers would be down anyways because of the PKing. It's a no win formula. Your only hope is to do as I suggest. Otherwise, when the bills come due, you won't have enough left over to build up your game and there won't be enough players to carry you onward.
I dearly hope you'll consider what I'm saying. I'd love to play a great game with a great mix of players.
Once upon a time....
Well it's extremely far off in development land, but from what i read in the FAQ it seems like an interesting idea. Remind us of this every so often as new media becomes available, ok? Who knows, it may actually turn out to be good and make several MMORPG.com players happy
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed.
I had some things to say, but I decided that instead I'll just wish you luck and hope that something good, somewhere in the future, comes from your efforts.
Once upon a time....
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed.
Well I look forward to your game Fallen Throne, but I still feel that the death penalty is a killer.Why not just have 2 or 3 server types, each with different levels death penalty, and allow players choose what they find to be fun in a death penalty.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed.
Well I look forward to your game Fallen Throne, but I still feel that the death penalty is a killer.
Why not just have 2 or 3 server types, each with different levels death penalty, and allow players choose what they find to be fun in a death penalty.
They have a specific audience in mind, and that audience wants a 'harsh' death penalty. Since they aren't shooting for the next big AAA blockbuster, it makes sense to cater to their audience. Imagine what could have happened with Mortal Online if the development wasn't handled so poorly. It wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of dedicated volunteers could do a better job.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed.
Well I look forward to your game Fallen Throne, but I still feel that the death penalty is a killer.
Why not just have 2 or 3 server types, each with different levels death penalty, and allow players choose what they find to be fun in a death penalty.
They have a specific audience in mind, and that audience wants a 'harsh' death penalty. Since they aren't shooting for the next big AAA blockbuster, it makes sense to cater to their audience. Imagine what could have happened with Mortal Online if the development wasn't handled so poorly. It wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of dedicated volunteers could do a better job.
Iam not sure you are being sarcastic. (Internet :lol) but if so, ok.Philosophy of MMO Game Design
The problem with games that feature FFA PVP is that there's no room for anyone that doesn't have PVP as their main game focus.
Unless you PVP regularly in a game, there's very little chance that you will survive a fight with someone that does. So you will be the victim 90% of the time, because you will lack experience and most likely won't be geared and equipped for PVP.
So the diversity of playstyles is lost, and PVP becomes the focus by default. The only game that ever had a complete mix of playstyles was UO in pre-Trammel days. As soon as there was an alternative (i.e. Trammel), the majority of non-PVP focused players fled to "safer" lands.
So, no matter how amazing this game, people who do not enjoy PVP as their main game activity won't touch it. Nobody is going to pay for a game so that they can become the "content" for someone else's playstyle
I agree,, that's why I suggested having multiple server types with different rule sets. What is wrong with that?Philosophy of MMO Game Design
is this a real pic?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
You would basically have to be the type of person who is willing to be protected by your guild. To that point, you would probably have to offer something to the guild such as crafting.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You know, you can create a good game without spending millions of dollars on it. There are so many wonderful low cost tools out there available to indie developers. We don't own a studio, we are volunteers. To spend even close to a million dollars on a project like this would be suicide for us, and is not something we intend to do. We know what to expect as far as numbers for a game like this.
We are tailoring the game to a specific audience that we want to play our game, and the type of system we have in place is what this audience wants, as has been expressed.
Well I look forward to your game Fallen Throne, but I still feel that the death penalty is a killer.
Why not just have 2 or 3 server types, each with different levels death penalty, and allow players choose what they find to be fun in a death penalty.
They have a specific audience in mind, and that audience wants a 'harsh' death penalty. Since they aren't shooting for the next big AAA blockbuster, it makes sense to cater to their audience. Imagine what could have happened with Mortal Online if the development wasn't handled so poorly. It wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of dedicated volunteers could do a better job.
Iam not sure you are being sarcastic. (Internet :lol) but if so, ok.
No sarcasm meant or intended. I think a group of dedicated volunteers could do a better job on a game than Star Vault. If their development scale is the right size, feeding the population of FFA PvP with 'harsh' Death Penalty players should net enough money to keep the game running. Focusing on one specific server type and style of game is a good idea. Especially if you development scope is small scale. It all depends on their skill at development of course.
If they go the MO route and charge full price for a half way developed game, then no, they won't do better than MO. If they advertise their game as a great PvE game, and don't have any PvE then no, they won't do well. The FFA PvP with a 'harsh' Death Penalty in and of itself isn't enough to tank a game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Seems like they ran out of money. Too bad. Looked promising...
http://fallenthrones.com/
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
Lol that went quick.
I don't get it...
Themeparks are more focused on PvE
Sandbox are forced PvP...
why not have a good sandbox PvE game? I would so go for it. I don't like forced PvP. And from what I've seen, many others don't like it either.
There is Ryzom, I think its only PvE sandbox game out...never figured out why it never caught on, either. Rather nice game world and harvesting/crafting was nice.
Ryzom came out a month before WoW.
Thats why it never caught on. It was ahead of its time imho. I liked it, a lot. But the playerbase just wasn't there for the most part and it was declining. Also i think there were some massive design-problems later-on in the game. But yea i agree, very good crafting system, and im ususally not one for crafting.
A game like Ryzom nowadays with upgraded mechanics and graphics/world interaction i would totally dig.
I especially liked to play it first person, for some weird reason.
yeah, that the future of all sandbox, pvp, fullloot crap.... "closed"
Every game needs to have a risk/reward system. Whats the fun of playing a game where theres no risk of losing my gear and crafts when I die.
You "people" are the reason MMO's have been in the stoneage since WoW came out.