PDA

View Full Version : This game won't appeal to me.


JT11
07-26-2007, 04:54 PM
My idea of what an MMORTS should be is this: a completely persistent world where anyone can attack anyone at anytime. You can be permanently killed and have to start over.

This game isn't innovative, nor did it invent the MMORTS genre, lol, you could do anything with an MMORTS and claim it hasn't been done before, there are probably less than 20 (That includes ones out, in beta, and in development).

Sorry for sounding so negative, but...well here's how I picture an MMORTS...when I saw this game I thought it'd be along these lines... http://youtube.com/watch?v=l-dhe_nufKQ

Just answer me this...can some nerd rape pillage my people at 2am while I'm away from my computer and permanently kill me or not?

AJP
07-26-2007, 05:03 PM
Just answer me this...can some nerd rape (Possibly anally for added emphasis) and pillage my people at 2am while I'm away from my computer and permanently kill me or not?

You mean you WANT that to happen? I think it would be pretty lame if my game gets ****ed because I'm not sitting around playing all the time. If this game doesn't appeal to you, then tough. Go somewhere else, or, better yet, make your own game.

JT11
07-26-2007, 05:08 PM
You mean you WANT that to happen? I think it would be pretty lame if my game gets ****ed because I'm not sitting around playing all the time. If this game doesn't appeal to you, then tough. Go somewhere else, or, better yet, make your own game.It'd only happen if you were defenseless and the AI sucked ass and you had no one to back you up :D.

EDIT: The "MMO" aspect of the game seems to be leveling up a kingdom and then fighting other kingdoms of a similar level in death matches.

entvex
07-26-2007, 05:28 PM
EDIT: The "MMO" aspect of the game seems to be leveling up a kingdom and then fighting other kingdoms of a similar level in death matches.


hmm maybe ? some dev is this right ?

JT11
07-26-2007, 10:56 PM
hmm maybe ? some dev is this right ?Er, didn't quite understand that.

entvex
07-27-2007, 08:41 AM
ok sorry :)

I jsut like to hear from some devoper it it's the way it's going to work


The "MMO" aspect of the game seems to be leveling up a kingdom and then fighting other kingdoms of a similar level in death matches.

Ryan Zelazny
07-27-2007, 09:40 AM
Like I said in another thread, I'm going to get Konstantin to answer your guys' questions on the MMO aspect of the game.

Please keep in mind that the MMO aspect is still being worked on and added to our design document, so nothing is truly set in stone with this feature yet.

SPARROW94
07-27-2007, 02:27 PM
omg wtf i watched the link dont make sense or dosnt go with the question WTF

The Witch King of Angmar
07-27-2007, 04:56 PM
omg wtf i watched the link dont make sense or dosnt go with the question WTF

He's a new member what do you expect. Besides half the bad things most people say about games don't make sense.

SPARROW94
07-27-2007, 07:42 PM
Oh Good Point...i Got A New Motto:im The Best:D

Darvin
07-27-2007, 10:28 PM
I honestly can say you don't know enough about the game to make these statements. In fact, I've already posted my remarks on how the "easy way" out would suck royally (http://reverieworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9).

JT11
07-28-2007, 05:50 AM
Uh, did you actually watch the video?

Er, not sure if Darvin is with or agaisnt me...

And yes, I'm new, doesn't make a difference slightest.

SPARROW94
07-28-2007, 07:47 AM
Uh, did you actually watch the video?

Er, not sure if Darvin is with or agaisnt me...

And yes, I'm new, doesn't make a difference slightest.


being new may kinda make a difference on your knowlegde on this game NOTE that i said may so yeah iv been with this forums for a very long time

Darvin
07-28-2007, 02:23 PM
The video was ambiguous as to the actual mechanics of MMORTS.


As for where I stand, it's called "neutrality". I share your concerns, but I feel at this time they aren't a certainty, just a potential.

JT11
07-28-2007, 04:26 PM
Everything I've seen, heard, and read confirms this.

Darvin
07-28-2007, 05:54 PM
It's not confirmation, it's implication. They're two very different things. I'm not denying the possibility that you're correct, but at this point we don't have the specifics on the matter to make such judgements.

JT11
07-29-2007, 10:47 AM
No, it's not implication, it's conveytation (Lol).

I've heard nothing to the contrary of it, so it looks bleak.

Your post is TL;DR.

Doug Bonds
07-29-2007, 08:57 PM
Clearly, no game that ever has been made or ever will be made will satisfy every gamer. JT11, if you have constructive criticisms or suggestions, we have shown that we welcome them with open arms. If, however, you are here with a closed attitude of "this will never appeal to me whatever RWS does" then you are one of the ones that will simply not be pleased with the game and should save your complaints for reviews of the game after it is released.

jap88
07-30-2007, 08:16 AM
Thank you, you couldn't have explained my thoughts better...well...mine were just a lot more colorful in language :p

SPARROW94
08-01-2007, 09:40 AM
umm hint search before you posst because im sure some body made the same on like this

Konstantin Fomenko
08-02-2007, 08:19 AM
I can`t think of a single MMORPG out-there in which your character can die while your away. The concept just doesn`t make sense to me. But if someone really insists, perhaps they`d be able to file a petition online and have one of world moderators destroy their town while they sleep.

Darvin
08-02-2007, 12:05 PM
I think there needs to be a fair balance between the two views. A world where your character or kingdom can be killed or destroyed permeanently while you're away simply wouldn't be fun. On the other hand, I do feel that the player and his assets shouldn't be in a complete stasis for the duration. There needs to be a consistant interaction with the world, things always changing and developing.

I feel that MMO's really need to deal with this issue to move forward and produce a dynamic world that still flows while you're away, without being unfair.

The Witch King of Angmar
08-04-2007, 10:49 AM
I think there needs to be a fair balance between the two views. A world where your character or kingdom can be killed or destroyed permeanently while you're away simply wouldn't be fun. On the other hand, I do feel that the player and his assets shouldn't be in a complete stasis for the duration. There needs to be a consistant interaction with the world, things always changing and developing.

I feel that MMO's really need to deal with this issue to move forward and produce a dynamic world that still flows while you're away, without being unfair.

Good point. That way you feel defeat but are still alive.

Ryan Zelazny
08-06-2007, 11:31 AM
I think there needs to be a fair balance between the two views. A world where your character or kingdom can be killed or destroyed permeanently while you're away simply wouldn't be fun. On the other hand, I do feel that the player and his assets shouldn't be in a complete stasis for the duration. There needs to be a consistant interaction with the world, things always changing and developing.

I feel that MMO's really need to deal with this issue to move forward and produce a dynamic world that still flows while you're away, without being unfair.

A problem with creating a game that penilizes you for not being online is the fact that you have to encourage people to log off. If you've ever played WoW or GuildWars, they actually tell you to log off and take a break after about 2 hours.

MMO play can be quite addicting, and so you have to give people advantages for logging off, if it be higher healing rates, or extra experience depending on how long they've been logged off. Not sure if this is a moral concern by developers, or an actual requirement, but it's something we are looking into.

Darvin
08-06-2007, 11:17 PM
When did I say there should be penalties for logging off? I merely said the world should continue to interact with the player. Believe me when I say I know the problem with games where you have to stay logged on to be successful. I was recently play-testing a multiplayer web-game that was in a sense a MMO. It turned out that wars were won by the aggressor 100% of the time, because first strike was always decisive.

Anyways, I think the "real" MMO that captures an immersive world perfectly without impacting those who are logged off is possible. It's just a matter of figuring out how to do it right.

The Witch King of Angmar
08-07-2007, 07:56 AM
When did I say there should be penalties for logging off? I merely said the world should continue to interact with the player. Believe me when I say I know the problem with games where you have to stay logged on to be successful. I was recently play-testing a multiplayer web-game that was in a sense a MMO. It turned out that wars were won by the aggressor 100% of the time, because first strike was always decisive.

Anyways, I think the "real" MMO that captures an immersive world perfectly without impacting those who are logged off is possible. It's just a matter of figuring out how to do it right.

Yeah agreed. I see nothing wrong with video game addictions. :D

Darvin
08-07-2007, 12:59 PM
Well, I do think he's right in that the game shouldn't make people feel like they have to come back to it, even at the cost of their own personal lives. An addiction at that level is dangerous, or at very least unhealthy.

The Witch King of Angmar
08-07-2007, 04:15 PM
Well, I do think he's right in that the game shouldn't make people feel like they have to come back to it, even at the cost of their own personal lives. An addiction at that level is dangerous, or at very least unhealthy.

Are you guys saying then that my stuff could be destroyed while I'm away or something? And Darvin, I didn't mean that addicted. Lol.

WhiteHawk
08-10-2007, 11:37 AM
Well, there is a game that has a system that works like this, according to their website:

"The World
Strategically, a given world is divided into a 200 x 150 grid map. Each grid represents a single province (assuming it’s land).

Provinces that are not surrounded by friendly territory can become contested at a rate of up to 25% of the player’s total territory per day. For example, if a player’s territory is a single long line of 9 territories, then any 2 of them can become contested per day. However, if that same player’s society is shaped in a 3 x 3 grid, the center most province cannot become contested because it is surrounded by friendly territories.

Moreover, players can also join up with other players to form empires. Territories controlled by someone in the same empire are counted as friendly territories.

If someone attacks one of your provinces while you are not on-line, someone from your empire can take control of your forces (players can also set which members of the empire have this privilege or can set a certain imperial points threshold) to defend your province. If they are successful, they can win imperial points which help them gain standing in the empire and provide other bonuses. If no one is available to defend your society while you’re off-line, the computer AI will be quite effective at doing it.

Border provinces can be fortified with expeditionary forces and defensive structures so that they are more defensible during the player’s absence."

I will not say what game this is because I am not sure if I am allowed, since it could be considered advertising.

The Witch King of Angmar
08-10-2007, 04:24 PM
Well, there is a game that has a system that works like this, according to their website:

"The World
Strategically, a given world is divided into a 200 x 150 grid map. Each grid represents a single province (assuming it’s land).

Provinces that are not surrounded by friendly territory can become contested at a rate of up to 25% of the player’s total territory per day. For example, if a player’s territory is a single long line of 9 territories, then any 2 of them can become contested per day. However, if that same player’s society is shaped in a 3 x 3 grid, the center most province cannot become contested because it is surrounded by friendly territories.

Moreover, players can also join up with other players to form empires. Territories controlled by someone in the same empire are counted as friendly territories.

If someone attacks one of your provinces while you are not on-line, someone from your empire can take control of your forces (players can also set which members of the empire have this privilege or can set a certain imperial points threshold) to defend your province. If they are successful, they can win imperial points which help them gain standing in the empire and provide other bonuses. If no one is available to defend your society while you’re off-line, the computer AI will be quite effective at doing it.

Border provinces can be fortified with expeditionary forces and defensive structures so that they are more defensible during the player’s absence."

I will not say what game this is because I am not sure if I am allowed, since it could be considered advertising.

I like the whole empire forming thing. I still think it is unfair though because what if all your mates are noobs? Then you would be screwed. ;)

Darvin
08-11-2007, 12:18 AM
You don't pair up with newbies, obviously, and pick other people of appropriate skill level. Also, in this case we can see that there is a considerable reward for performing well, giving you better standing in your empire, even if newbies end up costing you territory.

The Witch King of Angmar
08-11-2007, 11:43 AM
You don't pair up with newbies, obviously, and pick other people of appropriate skill level. Also, in this case we can see that there is a considerable reward for performing well, giving you better standing in your empire, even if newbies end up costing you territory.

Are you saying this is for DOF? And I meant say at the very beggining when the game first goes online and you meet some guys that are new like you and you get better and they don't then your in trouble. But overall like you said the best logic is to try to avoid noobs. I like the idea if you battle valiantly or well and lose that you will still get recognition for your efforts.

olauwers
08-20-2007, 12:50 PM
About JT11's first post.

I hope you do realize that this means that there will be about 5 people playing constantly and killing out every new player that tries to start playing himself? After all, why would you wait for these people to get big, if you can kill them when they are just beginning and have no mean of protecting themselves against you? This would render the game's multyplayer game unplayable. I's like an MMORPG. If you would not have safe zones, not being attacked offline, only being able to attack people of your own level, ..., how would you get any new players? They would just get killed by the players already on, and have no chance of survival whatsoever.

Hoenir
08-22-2007, 07:35 AM
Yeah especially clans would form huge, powerful empires and smash weaker players collectively.

The Witch King of Angmar
08-22-2007, 11:16 AM
Yeah especially clans would form huge, powerful empires and smash weaker players collectively.

Yeah hopefully Rverie will moniter this.

olauwers
08-22-2007, 11:49 AM
How do you mean, monitor this? They don't need to monitor anything, they need to prevent that from happening, it's not illegal or against the rules or something to do such thing, it's actually a very good tactic.

Konstantin Fomenko
08-22-2007, 02:38 PM
Allow me to dispel all of your concerns gentlemen. There will be no noob killing. We have a "level" system in place (and your level is calculated on sum of resource cost of all your assets)

So we will allow, 6 noobs at level 1, to take on 2 level 3 players. (+- 2 lvls) Or team 1) lvl3, lvl6, lvl 5, to take on team 2) lvl 9, lvl 6.

I like the idea if you battle valiantly or well and lose that you will still get recognition for your efforts.
This is a brilliant idea. I never heard of anything like this before. We can calculate number of kills certain player has, and amount of resources he gathered, and do something like if this player was the best on his side, and was better than half of his enemies, he would still get a win.

Darvin
08-22-2007, 05:41 PM
Score-systems can be very cool, but they don't always tell the whole story or rate performance well. A guy who harvests 10000 gold, but only uses 5000 of it was a fool who squandered his resource advantage, but most score systems will rate him highly.

Equally, a guy who loses 1000 troops, but kills only 200, might still have played well. I've seen people who act as fodder for their teams, buying time for their allies to win the game with trumps by launching continual attacks to keep the enemy pinned down.

The way this should be done, I think, is to estimate an "expected" outcome of the match, and then compare the actual outcome with the expectation. If a team performs better, then you can give them their valour bonus. If they perform worse, then nothing happens (losing is penalty enough, IMO).

The most important thing is that all parties involved on a single team should be evaluated together. The fact is that some people will take one (or more) for the team; this can adversely impact their score, even though their performance may have been admirable in covering for their allies. If the team wins overall, then everyone should take equal credit.

jap88
08-22-2007, 06:11 PM
Of course that also means the players that played poorly, if their team wins, will get more credit than deserved.

The Witch King of Angmar
08-22-2007, 06:43 PM
Of course that also means the players that played poorly, if their team wins, will get more credit than deserved.

Yeah to me that's a way to welcome in noobs and to encourage them to get better.

Darvin
08-22-2007, 07:52 PM
Of course that also means the players that played poorly, if their team wins, will get more credit than deserved.

Better some people get too much credit than some too little. Besides, the last thing we want to do is encourage "playing for score". There are many games where the team with the lower score wins on a frequent basis; if players attempt to play for score, not for the win, they may actually be hurting their team's chances, even if they make themselves look good. That's far worse, IMO, than a player ending up as a dead weight. You can always stop playing with someone if you feel they're getting more credit than they deserve, after all.

jap88
08-22-2007, 07:56 PM
Makes sense.

The Witch King of Angmar
08-23-2007, 10:21 AM
Better some people get too much credit than some too little. Besides, the last thing we want to do is encourage "playing for score". There are many games where the team with the lower score wins on a frequent basis; if players attempt to play for score, not for the win, they may actually be hurting their team's chances, even if they make themselves look good. That's far worse, IMO, than a player ending up as a dead weight. You can always stop playing with someone if you feel they're getting more credit than they deserve, after all.

To me playing for score instead of win would detract from the fun of the game and not be as entertaining as people want it to be.