From: <Rag...@we...> - 2004-03-18 20:42:20
|
Miguel, so, my answer, step by step, ..and I promise, I'll try hard to avoid reacting to your "destructive" style... :D 1.) I suggest we start with three attributes, and five skills, each one value. As I said. 2.) Everything else comes later, when step 1. works out fine. 3.) There's no need to send every attribute every time. It's enough to send deltas. This is how it is done in all other RPGs. 4.) There's no way to judge who is entertaining then by letting all others decide. If the concept allows players to exploit it, we'll have to fix it. 4.a.) If, in example, as you proposed, some friends "group" to push each others "fame"-score... why stop them in the first place? People who cooperate that much, without having in-group-fights, can dominate *any* game. I've never seen such a group in real life, though. There's always one who wants to lead... and then, he must convince the others to support him, to make *his* character(s) stronger than theirs. Why should they allow this to him? Only exception: He's making it fun for them to support him. And that's where I want to get. 4.b.) Players can, in fact, technically speaking, exploit by "faking" audience. That's what we must take care of. > - LUCK actual > - LUCK genetic > - LUCK training > - KARMA actual > - KARMA genetic > - KARMA training :) You are trying to make a point... as always: If it is too much in numbers, build in less attributes, until the network/serverload is fine. You say how much, I say which. Thats why I inserted [brackets] - things in [brackets] are more or less optional. > Scared? Not enough... I have deliverately ommited the skills and the > hitlocations :D Hitlocations replace hitpoints, and replace scissors-etc. so not everything I suggest is an addon. Without hitlocations, combat would be dull, stay on the same level as all the other games, and provide *much* *less* crispy gameplay than the average beat-em-up. Our game is a beat-em-up with strategical elements, so that's the line we must cross. Why should anyone play Gladiators at all, if it doesn't stand at least to beat-em-up-standards? ...and why should *we* make a game, that doesn't exceed standards in at least *one* aspect? > The size..., just for you to get an idea, each attribute is made of a name > and a value, both of them are strings, even if it is a number, it is a > string. Due to the way serialization works each String is encoded 4 bytes > that determine the size plus N bytes, 1 for each character. >[etc etc] Most of the numbers I suggested are static, have low delta, and therefore may only be transmitted very, very seldom. The only informations going across the ether regularly are wounds, and animation-codings. As I suggested in Arianne-concept, aspects like training are best done offline, results only to be verified by the server to be actually computed, so this data may never be sent during, i.e., combat. In my real job, I'm operating terminal-servers, that have complex buisness-software running across 9600 baud (i.e. handy), so I'm covinced I can give some advice on implementing low-bandwith-connections, if you need any help on the design of the protocol. > Well, that is about technical side. > Now I gotta talk about the game. > Personally I think you are focusing it much like a P&P game with a group of > friends. And several ideas lie on that concept. The only thing I assume are people totally foreign to each other, hold together for a limited time by common interest at best (like the maximum of a few years at the momentary online-rpgs, which are the extreme on the scale). Just I ask the same: The "cheating" you propose, have "groups of friends" as an assumption, as if it were a common phenomenon in online-rpgs. I don't know of such, at least not as "common" as "cheaters" indeed are. I only know of "guilds", which are hierarchical by nature, and, thus, competitive in a sense I want. > I mean, why should I attend to another person tournament when I can organize > one myself and participate? Because there is only one Arena. There can only be one tournament at any given time. You can organize one, yes. But if someone else does that at the same time, only one tournament can take place. Which one *will* take place? Answer: [...your destructive answer here: Blow my concept, that's your function... otherwise it won't get better... :) ] > Who would you break the exploit of a group of > friends that organize tournaments on a round style ( first one, then other, > then other and finally the first one again ). There is only one Arena, or perhaps two, if someone like me is setting up one as well. You can block the Arena only if you get the most guests/gymnasiae. That's a fact. If more than half of the people playing the game are your friends, and thus you can successfully block the Arena for your own benefit, either you are indeed a very charming type, attracting so much people. Fine with me. Or, alternatively, there aren't that many players, so that you can block the game with your two buddys, as there is only one other "Gymnasium" at all. Then we should re-consider working on the game. Are there other ways to block the Arena? [...every answer you find for this question, will stess-test the concept, and make it better...] > I still don't get the idea about making the game fun. Ok. > Who do you make the game fun? Sorry, I can't interpret your sentence here, my bad english, forgive me... > I still don't get the idea about how to determine if someone > entertains or not. Two parts: 1.) What we define is what entertains. Pure arbitrariness. If we think everyone playing a male nude is fun, then it is entertaining, and we'll allocate fame for it. No election can completely replace our expertise and judgement. I personally think it would be good for the game, that everyone plays unique characters, that can be recognized on sight, for example... 2.) What other players like, is what we should promote, as long as we can provide a cheating-proof concept. If we cannot, we can not. Attendance is, much more like elections, a fail-proof concept. Both combined is very hard to cheat against. A bot can attend, but not elect. A "dummy" can elect, but not attend. > And we CAN'T depend on players opinion because all of > them will try to exploit it. I've been watching multiplayer-games for a while, especially Diablo (I+II) and Everquest. I know that people try to exploit, and I know why. I try to build a concept that makes it unattractive to cheat, because what many (though not all) cheaters commonly want, I give to them for free. Invincibility, for example. Many people exploit, because they can't stand to loose their character. So I say "so what? Keep it, if you want..." They want Ueber-characters? So what. Let them have it, in example... ...and if you think, you know a better answer to that dilemma: Say it aloud, I'm listening. The trick is: 1.) People will try to cheat, if they think the game is competitive, that it is the "purpose" of the game to "win" it. Then they'll try to "win" it in *any* way. So my answer is: "This isn't a game, you can't win or loose. This is entertainment. You can only entertain yourself and/or others." I won't get highly competitive hardcore-gamers this way. That's ok for me. You should ask yourself, if this is ok for you, too, as this is at the core of all my conceptual work: ...*NO* *COMPETITION* ! (except in the attempt to be more entertaining than others, *if* they like to entertain others, blabla... yadda-yadda... ragnar-speak...) If your idea of a "fun" game is a game with competition ("winning"/"loosing"), it would be waste of time if we work together any more, because then, we would clash at every corner. I think that roleplaying-games are entertainment (there is no "winning" or "loosing"), and I think that where there is no competition, there is no motivation for cheating in the first place, and simply no advantage in doing "it". > I will add several of the concepts on the next revision of the game... but > there are lots of blackspots on the design that need to be fixed. And I do > really really need the algos to determine combat at least. Ok. Please, simply stay on that common line we've been sharing until now: You start with simple implementation, I start with a complex design, you improve complexity as you can, I reduce complexity as I can, and at last we meet at the point you are able to implement in finite time. It is hard to make hitlocation-combat look "realistical". I'm rolling the dice all the day... correcting and throwing away tables again and again... comparing it to my real-life-experience with close-combat-weapons... consider it as hard as implementing a stable client-server-communication in an internet full of malicious hackers.... ;| Ragnar-GD stressed _____________________________________________________________________ Extra-Konto: 2,50 %* Zinsen p. a. ab dem ersten Euro! Nur hier mit 25 Euro-Tankgutschein & ExtraPramie! http://extrakonto.web.de/?mc=021110 |