Unless you are going for '100% perma-death', death in a video game will be unrealistic. As game mechanics centering around it will be just as unrealistic and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. You simply have to choose a system that best fits the setup and purpose of the game.
As far as travel goes I prefer the 'yadda, yadda, yadda' system to borrow from Seinfeld. If the stuff that happens inbetween is unimportant and mundane then skip it so you do not bore the players. If you want the players to travel long distances on foot then make the journey an adventure. If a player can simply tape down the 'W' key tehn there is no point to the travel and it will actually cost you immersion.
Your full loot analogy is only a problem in gear centric games which have tedious raids and the like to gain gear in the first place.
As long as you are pvp/combat viable in gear that can readily be replaced (i.e. bought) then there is really zero issue with full loot games.
Gear that can be easily replace = gear i wont treasure at all. I would much rather have cool, useful, rare gear (which RPG does not have those) and no full loot.
Better progression based on gear >>>> full loot. Very few like full loot anyway.
Well I can appreciate that opinion but I don't share it. First of all I wouldn't be getting up to go get a drink I would be (if it was wow for instnace, though that really was never my game) enjoying the ride.
I get that for some these are games and a full real world emulator might be a tad too annoying but I get enjoyment from being in the world. I also can concur that if you only have "so much time" that spending that time watching the trees go by might be trying.
That is why I think there should be fast travel but somehow a limit on it. Or perhaps the opposite, some reason to reward actually traveling the world. Perhaps rare encounters that are fun and also can yield nice rewards or experiences or encounters that might offer up rare quests.
Come to think of it that might be the better way to go.
You will stare at a riding horse for 15 min? Apparently you are in the minority or else it would be easy to make a game. You need no content but a horse going through miles and miles of grassland.
There is a reason why WOW has moved to a system that all the players in a party can transport to the dungeon instantly .. and that is not because people like to travel.
I think it is a great idea and should be kept. Because traveling between point A and B is epic the first couple of times but after that it just becomes routine and tedious
I do think there are more and less immersive ways to impliment it though. Somethings I think make fast travel more immersive.
Make it only between major towns or cities. This way you can only go to different zones quickly but have to walk the rest of the way.
Make it fast not instant taking a minute or so instead of 30 and show the distance you are traveling, like the griffen system in WoW.
that I would say is a good fast travel system. It is convenient but doesn't really break the immersion of the game.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
Well I can appreciate that opinion but I don't share it. First of all I wouldn't be getting up to go get a drink I would be (if it was wow for instnace, though that really was never my game) enjoying the ride.
I get that for some these are games and a full real world emulator might be a tad too annoying but I get enjoyment from being in the world. I also can concur that if you only have "so much time" that spending that time watching the trees go by might be trying.
That is why I think there should be fast travel but somehow a limit on it. Or perhaps the opposite, some reason to reward actually traveling the world. Perhaps rare encounters that are fun and also can yield nice rewards or experiences or encounters that might offer up rare quests.
Come to think of it that might be the better way to go.
You will stare at a riding horse for 15 min? Apparently you are in the minority or else it would be easy to make a game. You need no content but a horse going through miles and miles of grassland.
There is a reason why WOW has moved to a system that all the players in a party can transport to the dungeon instantly .. and that is not because people like to travel.
er, no, I will enjoy the surrounding countryside. Though Ideally I would be "driving" that horse and having enounters along the way.
are you arguing my preference? I also like the music of Elliot Carter and Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire is one of my favorite pieces ever.
and I believe my love for this piece also places me in the minority there as well.
The thing is, I don't mind being in the minority and I truly believe that it's ok for games to cater to minority preferences provided that the game has a solid foundation, is well made, and really has thought out its business plan.
You see, if a game is made for 500 millon dollars and its game play involves me trying to balance a large ball on my head, well, no matter how much I might enjoy that, it's kind of a waste of 500 milion dollars.
However, if a game can garner enough of a player base where they can make their money back and go forward with development, then that's a good thing. regardless of how many players play.
So when talking about the topic, and realistic systems, I get that some of those systems might not transfer well into game play. Nor would I want them to. For instance, forcing your character to actually use the facilities or sit down to a meal might not be of interest.
Though the funny thing is that my roommate, who is NOT a gamer but really loved Oblvion, once suggested that he would love a game where one had to hunt their own food and cook it while out in the coutnryside.
So clearly other people have an interest in somehow incorporating more mundane things into some sort of game novelty.
The idea is not to create a world that can only be a world but to make design decisions involving more realistic situations that might lead the player to an enjoyable game play experience.
So in the example of me riding through the country side, what if being out in the world did indeed allow players to notice things that weren't usually there and unlock quests or perhaps secret areas for exploration?
It then wouldn't just be staring at a horse's back. and what if I was "driving" that horse and suddenly a group of bandits that I knew I couldn't win against started following me on horseback? It could then turn into a mini game of me trhing to escape.
Some of the best game play sessions within my game experience involved me trying to outrun something. Twice in Morrowind once in Lineage 2.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Yeah, probably not gonna find many people into Schoenberg. Hes usually a little too ugly for me. More into stuff like Schnittke. I'd rather listen to Schoenberg than Webern though.
I'm a bit of a mix when it comes to realism in games. I'm hardcore on some aspects, carebear on others. I don't like fast travel at all. Not even between major towns. I think it severely shrinks the feel of the world when you can quickly travel about. I also like how the absense of fast travel forces players and their clan or group of friends to coordinate together and think about where in the world they want to set up as their base or home town. Each area of the world has much more of a community when being in an area is such a decicive choice. If someone is a dick, everyone in that area will know him as "The Dick" and not want to associate with him. I think fast travel is one of the things that has lead to a faceless playerbase and a lack of community and social interaction among players. Moving from one region to another on the other side of the continent should be quite an ordeal. There should be plenty to see and do on the way though.
Then theres death. I'm not too fond of the idea of loosing all of my gear. I definitely like accumulating treasures, and to have them all snatched away by some griefer, lag, or even a dumb decision on my part, it not very fun. Games should have a degree of forgiveness. At the same time I do think death should be meaningful so you think twice about approaching a situation where the odds are not clearly in your favor. Finding a balance between meaningful death and super-hardcore-full-loot-perma-death is probably one of the hardest points to get right for an MMO.
Yeah, probably not gonna find many people into Schoenberg. Hes usually a little too ugly for me. More into stuff like Schnittke. I'd rather listen to Schoenberg than Webern though.
And the Mention of Schnittke? Probably a first on these forums
I think you and I are more on the same page. I'd rather have more regular travel but I hate losing items.
Spent years in Lineage 2 rushing back to get my items, hoping they would be there.
Though in retrospect I have to say that the intensity of the thought that someone might take those items did add a bit to the game play.
But I have to admit, I loved fighting my way to Antharas' lair every time. It was always like an epic journey to get there.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Games systems shouldn't be real just to be real, they should be balance with fun and game building practicality. However, sometimes real systems "naturally" can solve a problem in the game.
For example, the full loot problem discuss earlier in this thread: How do you give loot meaning, and still be FFA. Well, let's look at real life.
Say someone jacks somebody, will they stand there and leisurely strip the corpse of everything? No, they grab whatever looks valuable and high tail it out of there before the cops come.
In the middle ages, it took forever to strip corpses after a battle, even when it could be done leisurely. People also had to choose between what to take and what to leave behind. Keep in mind that the most elaborate armor sets could take an hour to put on.
So...in a game, let killers loot everything, but make them make choices. How long does it take to cut off a finger? Say, 10 seconds, so it takes them 10 seconds to loot jewelry, helmet, weapons. Gloves...20 seconds. Greaves...1 minute. Chest piece...2 minutes. Let's say it takes 5 minutes to fully strip a body.
So the killer is thinking:
1. Are his friends around? Do I just take a couple of things, or risk everything and try for this piece of armor?
2. Man, last time I took too long, and got jacked. Maybe I'll just take a few things this time and run.
3. Do I stop and loot this guy, or follow my comrades and kill the rest? Fight or loot...fight or loot...
Games systems shouldn't be real just to be real, they should be balance with fun and game building practicality. However, sometimes real systems "naturally" can solve a problem in the game.
For example, the full loot problem discuss earlier in this thread: How do you give loot meaning, and still be FFA. Well, let's look at real life.
Say someone jacks somebody, will they stand there and leisurely strip the corpse of everything? No, they grab whatever looks valuable and high tail it out of there before the cops come.
In the middle ages, it took forever to strip corpses after a battle, even when it could be done leisurely. People also had to choose between what to take and what to leave behind. Keep in mind that the most elaborate armor sets could take an hour to put on.
So...in a game, let killers loot everything, but make them make choices. How long does it take to cut off a finger? Say, 10 seconds, so it takes them 10 seconds to loot jewelry, helmet, weapons. Gloves...20 seconds. Greaves...1 minute. Chest piece...2 minutes. Let's say it takes 5 minutes to fully strip a body.
So the killer is thinking:
1. Are his friends around? Do I just take a couple of things, or risk everything and try for this piece of armor?
2. Man, last time I took too long, and got jacked. Maybe I'll just take a few things this time and run.
3. Do I stop and loot this guy, or follow my comrades and kill the rest? Fight or loot...fight or loot...
Choices...choices....
This is actually incredibly interesting.
Thing is, gear would still have to be dumbed down and have less of a focus, since, speaking in terms of this idea, the player could just take the main hand weapon instantly off of the dead opponent. Armor is one thing, yes, but weapons are important as well, and I think they would take no time at all to take.
Anyway, I think the conclusion we can all draw from this is that sometimes realism is great, and sometimes it's more of a burden than it's worth.
Games systems shouldn't be real just to be real, they should be balance with fun and game building practicality. However, sometimes real systems "naturally" can solve a problem in the game.
For example, the full loot problem discuss earlier in this thread: How do you give loot meaning, and still be FFA. Well, let's look at real life.
Say someone jacks somebody, will they stand there and leisurely strip the corpse of everything? No, they grab whatever looks valuable and high tail it out of there before the cops come.
In the middle ages, it took forever to strip corpses after a battle, even when it could be done leisurely. People also had to choose between what to take and what to leave behind. Keep in mind that the most elaborate armor sets could take an hour to put on.
So...in a game, let killers loot everything, but make them make choices. How long does it take to cut off a finger? Say, 10 seconds, so it takes them 10 seconds to loot jewelry, helmet, weapons. Gloves...20 seconds. Greaves...1 minute. Chest piece...2 minutes. Let's say it takes 5 minutes to fully strip a body.
So the killer is thinking:
1. Are his friends around? Do I just take a couple of things, or risk everything and try for this piece of armor?
2. Man, last time I took too long, and got jacked. Maybe I'll just take a few things this time and run.
3. Do I stop and loot this guy, or follow my comrades and kill the rest? Fight or loot...fight or loot...
Choices...choices....
This is actually incredibly interesting.
Thing is, gear would still have to be dumbed down and have less of a focus, since, speaking in terms of this idea, the player could just take the main hand weapon instantly off of the dead opponent. Armor is one thing, yes, but weapons are important as well, and I think they would take no time at all to take.
Anyway, I think the conclusion we can all draw from this is that sometimes realism is great, and sometimes it's more of a burden than it's worth.
You could also head at the problem from a bag space or encumbrance direction. You could take all this guy's stuff, but you're already walking around in a full suit of armor, and grabbing his is going to slow you down a lot. You'll also have trouble carrying any other items you might already have.
But then you'd have to muck with the grinding mechanics where you kill 5,007,432 centaurs to get a hoof. Plus, players actually want near infinite bag space because of the time spent in town moving things from your bag to your bank.
A lot of the nonsensical game mechanics are in the games for a reason. They usually fit with the game play itself. Just changing one thing (animal migrate in instead of zoning in) changes everything related to that animal. You can't farm the animals to level your leatherworking is one side effect of animals that can be wiped out. Leatherworking would have to be changed (as it is in WoW) and either the way you gain experience or the amount of experience per kill would have to be changed. If you get more XP per kill, each kill would have to be harder. And so on.
I don't disagree with much in this thread, but it can be a fairly complex task to get all these interesting systems to work together in a functional game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Your full loot analogy is only a problem in gear centric games which have tedious raids and the like to gain gear in the first place.
As long as you are pvp/combat viable in gear that can readily be replaced (i.e. bought) then there is really zero issue with full loot games.
Could you give me some examples of MMO's without much focus on gear, I haven't had much experience with any.
Take a look at any game with full loot in it now.. In both DF and EVE replacing ship parts, weapons etc is not really that much of an issue as you can 'fight within your means' and still be viable, more importantly you can readily buy those parts (or at least not have to go through a multi tier raid to get access to them).
Now ofc it is true that it is possible to lose an item that is difficult to replace (or costs alot of money to replace), but the key point is that it is not necessary to use said items in the vast majority of cases.
The above games do have 'rares', they are just not the norm as they are in standard mmos.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Your full loot analogy is only a problem in gear centric games which have tedious raids and the like to gain gear in the first place.
As long as you are pvp/combat viable in gear that can readily be replaced (i.e. bought) then there is really zero issue with full loot games.
Gear that can be easily replace = gear i wont treasure at all. I would much rather have cool, useful, rare gear (which RPG does not have those) and no full loot.
Better progression based on gear >>>> full loot. Very few like full loot anyway.
There is nothing to stop you having rares in a full loot game, the point is the difficulty arises when you are dependant upon said rare items.
If you want to run around in rare gear fair play to you, but then in a ffa pvp game you should be aware that you may lose it. Others who do not share your fascination with 'shinies' can run around in more readily available gear.
Personally i'll never take the view of gear > game mechanics. I'd much rather have the enjoyment and excitement of open ffa pvp than having some form of attachment to a pair of uber boots of doom +5.
Besides in non loot mmo's everyone tends to end up running about in 'rares' at endgame anyway, given that pretty much everyone uses them I'm not entirely sure how people can make a big deal about them. In an FFA game these 'rares' which are in fact pretty common, are replaced by items which don't take 3 days in a raid group to grind out.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Possible fix: Put less of a strain on killing random animals for quests, make animals harder to find and capture/kill (they might sense/smell you and run away), etc.
I completely agree. Instead of spending half an hour killing 100 tigers it would be much more fun searching half an hour for one tiger and kill it. And the hunting should be realistic. You would have to know the spots where the tiger might be, you could use baits, the tiger could attack you or run away...
As someone mentioned before me: Red Dead Redemption did it greatly. I really enjoyed hunting in that game.
So in the example of me riding through the country side, what if being out in the world did indeed allow players to notice things that weren't usually there and unlock quests or perhaps secret areas for exploration?
It then wouldn't just be staring at a horse's back. and what if I was "driving" that horse and suddenly a group of bandits that I knew I couldn't win against started following me on horseback? It could then turn into a mini game of me trhing to escape.
Some of the best game play sessions within my game experience involved me trying to outrun something. Twice in Morrowind once in Lineage 2.
I do not really consider what you described as 'traveling' but rather as 'adventuring'. You are not trying to get from point A to point B but are actualy actively exploring. If most of the travel 'experience' is just 'staring at a horse's back' then that is a bad travel system. You either put in fast travel or make each trip an adventure. However, if you turn all your travel into adventures then you crippling any 'world spanning' events since players will be way less likely to travel under such system.
So in the example of me riding through the country side, what if being out in the world did indeed allow players to notice things that weren't usually there and unlock quests or perhaps secret areas for exploration?
It then wouldn't just be staring at a horse's back. and what if I was "driving" that horse and suddenly a group of bandits that I knew I couldn't win against started following me on horseback? It could then turn into a mini game of me trhing to escape.
Some of the best game play sessions within my game experience involved me trying to outrun something. Twice in Morrowind once in Lineage 2.
I do not really consider what you described as 'traveling' but rather as 'adventuring'. You are not trying to get from point A to point B but are actualy actively exploring. If most of the travel 'experience' is just 'staring at a horse's back' then that is a bad travel system. You either put in fast travel or make each trip an adventure. However, if you turn all your travel into adventures then you crippling any 'world spanning' events since players will be way less likely to travel under such system.
I think an ideal system would be to incorporate the best of both worlds.
Have fast travel, but only to major areas. Otherwise, the player is left to their own devices to get anywhere else (mounts, speed potions/spells, etc.).
For the first issue mentioned in the OP, I have two major cons:
#1 The development of such a feature would be costly to the developer. AND...
#2 Most players will not give a crap about that feature.
For the second point, it's not really an issue of losing your loot. You can gain loot just as quickly as you lose it. The main issue I see is mega-guilds. Some MMOS have guilds with 2000 members. So, when you work 50+ hours a week and you load a game up to unwind, and get ROFL stomped into the ground by no-lifers in 2000 man guilds, it's gonna' get old fast.
Full loot works in an FPS game because of the small party size and action-based play.
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
Hmm yeah, would indeed be nice if animals grow up and such. For the MMO I am going to develop (in the far future) I will have a totally different approach. Instead of spawning enemies, I will spawn complete zones. But I can't go deep into that now.
And about player looting. I would like the middle-way. Some gear is hard earned, but upon death there is a chance that you might drop one item and not more.
How would that be justified in a realistic way, though?
Really, if you die, all your junk is up for grabs, you know?
From a realistic standpoint, having your socks fall off of you, but not your underwear seems odd.
Yeah I agree twst...something that has always got me though is that, you kill a 10 foot fire giant loot him and don his armor on your 5 foot 2 dwarven frame...hehe...kills me. Armor if I'm correct was custom made for each individual. Maybe you should be able to loot it and salvage the metal, leather whatever; for the crafting process of your own set of armor.
Getting old is mandatory...growing up is optional.
Hmm yeah, would indeed be nice if animals grow up and such. For the MMO I am going to develop (in the far future) I will have a totally different approach. Instead of spawning enemies, I will spawn complete zones. But I can't go deep into that now.
And about player looting. I would like the middle-way. Some gear is hard earned, but upon death there is a chance that you might drop one item and not more.
How would that be justified in a realistic way, though?
Really, if you die, all your junk is up for grabs, you know?
From a realistic standpoint, having your socks fall off of you, but not your underwear seems odd.
Yeah I agree twst...something that has always got me though is that, you kill a 10 foot fire giant loot him and don his armor on your 5 foot 2 dwarven frame...hehe...kills me. Armor if I'm correct was custom made for each individual. Maybe you should be able to loot it and salvage the metal, leather whatever; for the crafting process of your own set of armor.
maybe the giant doesnt drop HIS armor but the armor of the last guy who tried to fight him, died and the giant looted him?
makes sense for a giant to drop normal-size armor.
I just killed him and stripped his body....makes sense?
Getting old is mandatory...growing up is optional.
- The way enemies spawn (i.e., animals are born and grow up to adulthood, instead of just appearing out of thin air)
Primary issue: Creatures may get whiped out, or take MUCH longer to respawn
Possible fix: Put less of a strain on killing random animals for quests, make animals harder to find and capture/kill (they might sense/smell you and run away), etc.
- PvP Killing and Player Corpse Looting (being able to take all of your opponent's belongings)
Primary issue: Obviously, another player just loots all of your hard earned gear.
Possible fix: With the current view on gear and equipment, this would be impossible unless someone wanted to play for keeps. Otherwise, put less of a focus on player gear, and make it a bit less difficult to obtain gear OR make gear have less of an impact on combat, and have combat more about skill.
Also, the mystical ways players constantly seem to come back to life seems a bit strange from a realistic perspective, though if you die there must be a way to come back...
I'm in a bit of a hurry now, but I hope you all get the gist of what I'm trying to say. While incorporating realistic systems such as these would make the game world more visceral, the downsides may not necessarily seem worth the effort in the end.
I simply want to know your opinion on the matter, if you have any other examples of such game play mechanics, and how devs might be able to achieve this sort of manner of play and at the same time being able to sidestep the issues.
Of course, some ideas are just the way an MMO works, and can't rightly be put into a realistic perspective.
And yes, MMO's aren't usually about realism, but let's put that aside for two seconds and discuss things that might be plausible.
EDIT:
I'll add one more comment.
I, myself, and a gamer who is irked at things that do not make logical sense, even in a game world. Sure. there's magic in the world, but sometimes the game doesn't even explain oddities with cheap skapegoats like magic.
So, final question, are you, like me, annoyed with such inconsistencies, or do they not bother you to the same extent?
There is really no point in making the gameworld "real". Realism != fun. For example, take your first issue. It is not hard to put in a birth-death-predator-natural resource model to simulate the true densities of animals. But why bother? Players don't care WHY an animal is there. All they care is whether it is fun to kill it, and what they get from killing it.
The corpse looting issue has been long decided. Very few full loot. You can spend as much time as you want to think about variations .. but once again .. why bother? It is not fun.
What if harvesting resources was more difficult than usual?
That to harvest leather, you had to hunt animals. And animals were not all easy to catch. Some are, some aren't.
So you have the market loaded with Rabbit Fur Armor, but rarely Bear Leather Armor or Deer Leather Sheaths required to extend sword durability.
I don't agree that realism != fun. Some forms of realism DOES equal fun.
I don't think it matters how realistic something is or not. It matters how you make the game feel, the pace of it, the feel of it, the appearance and psychology behind it.
What matters is...is that realism fun? One game can be ultra-realistic and boring, another anti-realistic and boring, while the third even more realistic than the first and FUN.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Yeah I agree twst...something that has always got me though is that, you kill a 10 foot fire giant loot him and don his armor on your 5 foot 2 dwarven frame...hehe...kills me. Armor if I'm correct was custom made for each individual. Maybe you should be able to loot it and salvage the metal, leather whatever; for the crafting process of your own set of armor.
maybe the giant doesnt drop HIS armor but the armor of the last guy who tried to fight him, died and the giant looted him?
makes sense for a giant to drop normal-size armor.
I just killed him and stripped his body....makes sense?
Did you check his pockets?
Wasn't aware armor had pockets....hmm...musta been in that little regeant pouch he had dangling from his belt...ya think?
Getting old is mandatory...growing up is optional.
I like the idea of having realistic systems for creature populating and roaming. I've been watching videos of Red Dead Redemption again lately and the hunting in the game looks to be nicely done. I wish they'd release a PC port so I can give it a play. Anyway, in MMOs I've always been big on trophy collection. I loved hunting certain creatures in Asherons Call and collecting hooves, pelts, horns, etc. I think it would actually be more fun if the drop rates were higher but the creatures were more difficult to find. The rarity of a trophy drop would be the same in both models... its just instead of killing 20 creatures to find one horn, in a more realistic model you would only have to kill one or two, but you would have to pay more attention to finding locations that are populated in the creature you are after, tracking them down, not scaring them away, etc. More thought and strategy, less mindless grinding. I would also like the trophies to be more heavily tied into a player run economy and crafting system. Some crafters might hunt for their own materials, while others may prefer not to bother and to instead buy them off of people like me, who like to explore the world and would make a living by hunting things while traveling.
I've also always disliked unrealistic drops. Like rats dropping armor or gold or whatever. Creatures should just drop materials. Armor wearing creatures would drop armor pieces that need to be converted to be human-wearable by crafters. Some humanoid creatures could drop armor and weapons that are immediately usable without modification, sure. But players should be the primary armor creators.
The benefit of having full drop on death or a system like EVE where its full drop plus a lot of gear is flat out destroyed, is that there will always be a market for lower tier gear.
In more heavily gear-based games, you end up with a constant treadmill to obtain better and better gear as the devs release it. Old gear becomes worthless. In turn, old creatures become worthless, as do old quests, old locations, etc. The world becomes less of a world and more of a series of levels to progress through. I would much prefer a system similar to EVE where newer players aren't totally useless and segregated to their own section of the map. A system where older players and newer players are more intermingled.
Comments
Unless you are going for '100% perma-death', death in a video game will be unrealistic. As game mechanics centering around it will be just as unrealistic and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. You simply have to choose a system that best fits the setup and purpose of the game.
As far as travel goes I prefer the 'yadda, yadda, yadda' system to borrow from Seinfeld. If the stuff that happens inbetween is unimportant and mundane then skip it so you do not bore the players. If you want the players to travel long distances on foot then make the journey an adventure. If a player can simply tape down the 'W' key tehn there is no point to the travel and it will actually cost you immersion.
Gear that can be easily replace = gear i wont treasure at all. I would much rather have cool, useful, rare gear (which RPG does not have those) and no full loot.
Better progression based on gear >>>> full loot. Very few like full loot anyway.
You will stare at a riding horse for 15 min? Apparently you are in the minority or else it would be easy to make a game. You need no content but a horse going through miles and miles of grassland.
There is a reason why WOW has moved to a system that all the players in a party can transport to the dungeon instantly .. and that is not because people like to travel.
On the subject of fast travel.
I think it is a great idea and should be kept. Because traveling between point A and B is epic the first couple of times but after that it just becomes routine and tedious
I do think there are more and less immersive ways to impliment it though. Somethings I think make fast travel more immersive.
Make it only between major towns or cities. This way you can only go to different zones quickly but have to walk the rest of the way.
Make it fast not instant taking a minute or so instead of 30 and show the distance you are traveling, like the griffen system in WoW.
that I would say is a good fast travel system. It is convenient but doesn't really break the immersion of the game.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
er, no, I will enjoy the surrounding countryside. Though Ideally I would be "driving" that horse and having enounters along the way.
are you arguing my preference? I also like the music of Elliot Carter and Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire is one of my favorite pieces ever.
Here is a small bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YCoAhBhXcA&feature=related
Please ignore the dopey video.
and I believe my love for this piece also places me in the minority there as well.
The thing is, I don't mind being in the minority and I truly believe that it's ok for games to cater to minority preferences provided that the game has a solid foundation, is well made, and really has thought out its business plan.
You see, if a game is made for 500 millon dollars and its game play involves me trying to balance a large ball on my head, well, no matter how much I might enjoy that, it's kind of a waste of 500 milion dollars.
However, if a game can garner enough of a player base where they can make their money back and go forward with development, then that's a good thing. regardless of how many players play.
So when talking about the topic, and realistic systems, I get that some of those systems might not transfer well into game play. Nor would I want them to. For instance, forcing your character to actually use the facilities or sit down to a meal might not be of interest.
Though the funny thing is that my roommate, who is NOT a gamer but really loved Oblvion, once suggested that he would love a game where one had to hunt their own food and cook it while out in the coutnryside.
So clearly other people have an interest in somehow incorporating more mundane things into some sort of game novelty.
The idea is not to create a world that can only be a world but to make design decisions involving more realistic situations that might lead the player to an enjoyable game play experience.
So in the example of me riding through the country side, what if being out in the world did indeed allow players to notice things that weren't usually there and unlock quests or perhaps secret areas for exploration?
It then wouldn't just be staring at a horse's back. and what if I was "driving" that horse and suddenly a group of bandits that I knew I couldn't win against started following me on horseback? It could then turn into a mini game of me trhing to escape.
Some of the best game play sessions within my game experience involved me trying to outrun something. Twice in Morrowind once in Lineage 2.
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
Yeah, probably not gonna find many people into Schoenberg. Hes usually a little too ugly for me. More into stuff like Schnittke. I'd rather listen to Schoenberg than Webern though.
I'm a bit of a mix when it comes to realism in games. I'm hardcore on some aspects, carebear on others. I don't like fast travel at all. Not even between major towns. I think it severely shrinks the feel of the world when you can quickly travel about. I also like how the absense of fast travel forces players and their clan or group of friends to coordinate together and think about where in the world they want to set up as their base or home town. Each area of the world has much more of a community when being in an area is such a decicive choice. If someone is a dick, everyone in that area will know him as "The Dick" and not want to associate with him. I think fast travel is one of the things that has lead to a faceless playerbase and a lack of community and social interaction among players. Moving from one region to another on the other side of the continent should be quite an ordeal. There should be plenty to see and do on the way though.
Then theres death. I'm not too fond of the idea of loosing all of my gear. I definitely like accumulating treasures, and to have them all snatched away by some griefer, lag, or even a dumb decision on my part, it not very fun. Games should have a degree of forgiveness. At the same time I do think death should be meaningful so you think twice about approaching a situation where the odds are not clearly in your favor. Finding a balance between meaningful death and super-hardcore-full-loot-perma-death is probably one of the hardest points to get right for an MMO.
And the Mention of Schnittke? Probably a first on these forums
I think you and I are more on the same page. I'd rather have more regular travel but I hate losing items.
Spent years in Lineage 2 rushing back to get my items, hoping they would be there.
Though in retrospect I have to say that the intensity of the thought that someone might take those items did add a bit to the game play.
But I have to admit, I loved fighting my way to Antharas' lair every time. It was always like an epic journey to get there.
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
Games systems shouldn't be real just to be real, they should be balance with fun and game building practicality. However, sometimes real systems "naturally" can solve a problem in the game.
For example, the full loot problem discuss earlier in this thread: How do you give loot meaning, and still be FFA. Well, let's look at real life.
Say someone jacks somebody, will they stand there and leisurely strip the corpse of everything? No, they grab whatever looks valuable and high tail it out of there before the cops come.
In the middle ages, it took forever to strip corpses after a battle, even when it could be done leisurely. People also had to choose between what to take and what to leave behind. Keep in mind that the most elaborate armor sets could take an hour to put on.
So...in a game, let killers loot everything, but make them make choices. How long does it take to cut off a finger? Say, 10 seconds, so it takes them 10 seconds to loot jewelry, helmet, weapons. Gloves...20 seconds. Greaves...1 minute. Chest piece...2 minutes. Let's say it takes 5 minutes to fully strip a body.
So the killer is thinking:
1. Are his friends around? Do I just take a couple of things, or risk everything and try for this piece of armor?
2. Man, last time I took too long, and got jacked. Maybe I'll just take a few things this time and run.
3. Do I stop and loot this guy, or follow my comrades and kill the rest? Fight or loot...fight or loot...
Choices...choices....
This is actually incredibly interesting.
Thing is, gear would still have to be dumbed down and have less of a focus, since, speaking in terms of this idea, the player could just take the main hand weapon instantly off of the dead opponent. Armor is one thing, yes, but weapons are important as well, and I think they would take no time at all to take.
Anyway, I think the conclusion we can all draw from this is that sometimes realism is great, and sometimes it's more of a burden than it's worth.
You could also head at the problem from a bag space or encumbrance direction. You could take all this guy's stuff, but you're already walking around in a full suit of armor, and grabbing his is going to slow you down a lot. You'll also have trouble carrying any other items you might already have.
But then you'd have to muck with the grinding mechanics where you kill 5,007,432 centaurs to get a hoof. Plus, players actually want near infinite bag space because of the time spent in town moving things from your bag to your bank.
A lot of the nonsensical game mechanics are in the games for a reason. They usually fit with the game play itself. Just changing one thing (animal migrate in instead of zoning in) changes everything related to that animal. You can't farm the animals to level your leatherworking is one side effect of animals that can be wiped out. Leatherworking would have to be changed (as it is in WoW) and either the way you gain experience or the amount of experience per kill would have to be changed. If you get more XP per kill, each kill would have to be harder. And so on.
I don't disagree with much in this thread, but it can be a fairly complex task to get all these interesting systems to work together in a functional game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Take a look at any game with full loot in it now.. In both DF and EVE replacing ship parts, weapons etc is not really that much of an issue as you can 'fight within your means' and still be viable, more importantly you can readily buy those parts (or at least not have to go through a multi tier raid to get access to them).
Now ofc it is true that it is possible to lose an item that is difficult to replace (or costs alot of money to replace), but the key point is that it is not necessary to use said items in the vast majority of cases.
The above games do have 'rares', they are just not the norm as they are in standard mmos.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
There is nothing to stop you having rares in a full loot game, the point is the difficulty arises when you are dependant upon said rare items.
If you want to run around in rare gear fair play to you, but then in a ffa pvp game you should be aware that you may lose it. Others who do not share your fascination with 'shinies' can run around in more readily available gear.
Personally i'll never take the view of gear > game mechanics. I'd much rather have the enjoyment and excitement of open ffa pvp than having some form of attachment to a pair of uber boots of doom +5.
Besides in non loot mmo's everyone tends to end up running about in 'rares' at endgame anyway, given that pretty much everyone uses them I'm not entirely sure how people can make a big deal about them. In an FFA game these 'rares' which are in fact pretty common, are replaced by items which don't take 3 days in a raid group to grind out.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I completely agree. Instead of spending half an hour killing 100 tigers it would be much more fun searching half an hour for one tiger and kill it. And the hunting should be realistic. You would have to know the spots where the tiger might be, you could use baits, the tiger could attack you or run away...
As someone mentioned before me: Red Dead Redemption did it greatly. I really enjoyed hunting in that game.
I do not really consider what you described as 'traveling' but rather as 'adventuring'. You are not trying to get from point A to point B but are actualy actively exploring. If most of the travel 'experience' is just 'staring at a horse's back' then that is a bad travel system. You either put in fast travel or make each trip an adventure. However, if you turn all your travel into adventures then you crippling any 'world spanning' events since players will be way less likely to travel under such system.
I think an ideal system would be to incorporate the best of both worlds.
Have fast travel, but only to major areas. Otherwise, the player is left to their own devices to get anywhere else (mounts, speed potions/spells, etc.).
For the first issue mentioned in the OP, I have two major cons:
#1 The development of such a feature would be costly to the developer. AND...
#2 Most players will not give a crap about that feature.
For the second point, it's not really an issue of losing your loot. You can gain loot just as quickly as you lose it. The main issue I see is mega-guilds. Some MMOS have guilds with 2000 members. So, when you work 50+ hours a week and you load a game up to unwind, and get ROFL stomped into the ground by no-lifers in 2000 man guilds, it's gonna' get old fast.
Full loot works in an FPS game because of the small party size and action-based play.
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
Yeah I agree twst...something that has always got me though is that, you kill a 10 foot fire giant loot him and don his armor on your 5 foot 2 dwarven frame...hehe...kills me. Armor if I'm correct was custom made for each individual. Maybe you should be able to loot it and salvage the metal, leather whatever; for the crafting process of your own set of armor.
Getting old is mandatory...growing up is optional.
I just killed him and stripped his body....makes sense?
Getting old is mandatory...growing up is optional.
What if harvesting resources was more difficult than usual?
That to harvest leather, you had to hunt animals. And animals were not all easy to catch. Some are, some aren't.
So you have the market loaded with Rabbit Fur Armor, but rarely Bear Leather Armor or Deer Leather Sheaths required to extend sword durability.
I don't agree that realism != fun. Some forms of realism DOES equal fun.
I don't think it matters how realistic something is or not. It matters how you make the game feel, the pace of it, the feel of it, the appearance and psychology behind it.
What matters is...is that realism fun? One game can be ultra-realistic and boring, another anti-realistic and boring, while the third even more realistic than the first and FUN.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Wasn't aware armor had pockets....hmm...musta been in that little regeant pouch he had dangling from his belt...ya think?
Getting old is mandatory...growing up is optional.
The point of a game is to have fun.
That compiles, to me, in challenge, balance and variance.
Believability is part of the formula - realism isnt.
Even less if the game has magic and other purely fantasy elements.
I like the idea of having realistic systems for creature populating and roaming. I've been watching videos of Red Dead Redemption again lately and the hunting in the game looks to be nicely done. I wish they'd release a PC port so I can give it a play. Anyway, in MMOs I've always been big on trophy collection. I loved hunting certain creatures in Asherons Call and collecting hooves, pelts, horns, etc. I think it would actually be more fun if the drop rates were higher but the creatures were more difficult to find. The rarity of a trophy drop would be the same in both models... its just instead of killing 20 creatures to find one horn, in a more realistic model you would only have to kill one or two, but you would have to pay more attention to finding locations that are populated in the creature you are after, tracking them down, not scaring them away, etc. More thought and strategy, less mindless grinding. I would also like the trophies to be more heavily tied into a player run economy and crafting system. Some crafters might hunt for their own materials, while others may prefer not to bother and to instead buy them off of people like me, who like to explore the world and would make a living by hunting things while traveling.
I've also always disliked unrealistic drops. Like rats dropping armor or gold or whatever. Creatures should just drop materials. Armor wearing creatures would drop armor pieces that need to be converted to be human-wearable by crafters. Some humanoid creatures could drop armor and weapons that are immediately usable without modification, sure. But players should be the primary armor creators.
The benefit of having full drop on death or a system like EVE where its full drop plus a lot of gear is flat out destroyed, is that there will always be a market for lower tier gear.
In more heavily gear-based games, you end up with a constant treadmill to obtain better and better gear as the devs release it. Old gear becomes worthless. In turn, old creatures become worthless, as do old quests, old locations, etc. The world becomes less of a world and more of a series of levels to progress through. I would much prefer a system similar to EVE where newer players aren't totally useless and segregated to their own section of the map. A system where older players and newer players are more intermingled.