From: MIGUEL A. B. L. <x51...@fe...> - 2001-01-25 17:30:52
|
> I have been thinking about the actions of a character after > disconnect. I personally don't like the idea of disconnected players > simply standing around invulnerable all the time. > I think these is a slap in the face of realism and atmosphere of the > game. Also a door open for cheaters. It won't be done in that way, no matter what user says, no matter what polls says. I think that it is unacceptable that a player is invulnerable because of any external cause not related to the game. > here is my RFC, it somewhat unifies the ideas in the poll, and the > things mentioned in the arianne/docs/Crypt/HostingData file. > > 1) Disconnection: > > There are two reasons for disconnections: > a: involuntarily, because of client- or system crash, connection > problems etc. > b: voluntarily, i.e. a standard save-as and logout. > (there also is a c: because of a server crash, but this will not > happen because our coders will produce a bug-free server ;), and if > it happens it cannot be dealt with in the game engine anyway.) c: Cheat intention. You disconnect to obtain an advantage. > I think it has already been agreed upon (?) that saving is only > possible in special locations. But even if otherwise, it would be > wise of the player to do it only in safe places. Saving has no sense on online games. I think that it want to mean "secure" place for logout. > In the case of an unwanted disconnect the PC stands still > invulnerable for about 5 minutes. That enables the player to restart > the client, reboot the system etc and reconnect to continue his game > exactly where he left it. The world modifies, not matter if you are login or not. So when you reconnect the world should be different. > (Thats the big cheating possibility. It could be avoided by using a > different method when disconnection happens during a fight, but that > depends on the kind of fight system we will have. It is pointless to > discuss it now.) What ever way I imagine about it, I see a way of cheating, so better if we don't this on this way. > After those 5 Minutes the PC is taken over by a standard AI and > starts walking to the nearest "safe house" (see below). It is > possible that the Character gets killed on the way, but the player > can choose in the options how that "taxi AI" acts (e.g. run the whole > way as fast as possible, sneak the whole way, run from any > confrontation, fight every confrontation with maximum expense of > items and spells etc.) I agree. Also I think that is a nosense to let AI fight in place of a character. > 2) Safe houses > > As I see it, there will be well-populated areas with towns, villages > etc, and lots of people (PC and NPC). I such areas people will take > care of monsters in their own interest. > > It is improbable that one gets attacked in such areas (except by > player-killers), if one camps or sleeps there, so it is relatively > safe there, but not 100%. > > Lets say that every larger village features a "safe house" like a > tavern, guild, temple or something. Inside of them player icons get > removed if disconnected, they are not affected by hunger, illness, > poison etc. and no-one can attack inside of them. Such safe houses > can be used to do a "save-as and logout". Well, Let's define the concept of "safe". If safe means indestructible, it won't be added. The idea should be that in that place you can logout safely, but you are still on the world and so you can still recieve actions ( and generate new one with an AI script ). Imagine the next situation: A big city, and outside of it an Orc army of over 5.000 Orcs that are going to attack and destroy the city. The city has no army as people is sleeping or outside looking for adventures ( ;-> ). Then if you are inside the city the most logical action would be to enter into the safe house and logout. So my question is: Should Orcs be able to destroy the safe house and so destroy all those sleeping beauties...? In my opinion, Yes. If those people prefer to sleep instead of being fighting for its city yes. This is because of I think that safe houses should be able to be destroyed. > (It would also be nice if it were possible to own a shopand save > there, in which a Character can manufacture and sell items while the > player is not online. (using a "shopkeeper AI") I don't agree with this, as you could create a character, assign it an script and return the next year to spend your fortune... But the idea could be good if it isn't abuse as the above way. > 3) Groups > > There will also be unexplored and/or unpopulated areas with lots of > monsters running around. It would be dangerous to go there alone. > Characters have to sleep. It is very dangerous to sleep in such > areas. > > A Good Thing to do is to explore dangerous areas in groups. Groups > can attack more effectively, they can combine their different skills, > some can stand guard while others sleep etc. > > Lets say there is a possibility in the options to mark a Character as > "member of a group". > > My idea is that if the Character is marked as member of a group, the > "taxi AI" (see above) does not return to the nearest safe place, but > instead follows the party leader around until dismissed from the > group, dies, or a reconnect from the player. > > That would make it possible that Players can form a group of > Characters and stay together for a longer time _without even having > to be online at the same time_!! Could make sense. But decisions taken by the leader are unconditionally followed by logout players, so stupid actions by leader won't be questioned. I really don't mind. I won't let my player on hands of others. > Most of this is based on the concept that a player can be steered by > an AI. Requires that Players can modify AI behavior. Yes, this is possible, But do we really want this? > Advantages: more Character "real life". More interaction between > Players (Group forming). World activity +/- independent from number > of connected players. *very* cool feature for a MMPORPG. less object > overhead for disconnected players (they dont stand around in the > landscape. Disconnected players are part of the world. A player exist since it is created until it dies. > Drawbacks: _LOTS_ of AI (max number of AI = number of NPC + number of > PC offline). It isn't the same: PC offline are script executers. NPC is real AI. > Could be too much overhead for the computer that manages > AI... Could be. We should try. :) |