Generic Pseudo RPGs on BYOND

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dec 30 2003, 1:51 pm
In response to Ter13
Gee, apparently, the post you're replying to got deleted and somehow you accidentally ended up posting in response to mine, because what you said has nothing to do with anything I said.

Thanks for the praise on Hedgerow Hall, though.
Dec 30 2003, 2:04 pm
In response to Ter13
This is about Pseudo-Roleplaying games
What in the world is a Pseudo RPG supposed to be :P? A game that seems like an RPG but isn't? Why not just call the games multiplayer tactical combat simulations or something instead of poorly calling them like something they aren't even remotly close to?

, so of course your players are going to be bloodthirsty. (And since when is hunting for survival evil?)

Well I generally rate good and evil by how much a person considers others. A person who only thinks of the safty of other and ignores themself is good while someone who only considers their own gain and safty to be evil. So if you're hunting only for your own survival then you're being evil(unless of course there is no one else around to consider, but maybe then you're just evil by default :)).
Dec 30 2003, 2:06 pm
In response to Ter13
And BYOND games aren't MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER

Where did you find the absolute correct definition for massivly multiplayer? I generally consider 2-12 players being multiplayer and past that is massivly multiplayer.
Dec 30 2003, 2:30 pm
In response to Darkfirewolf5
Well Iam trying to make one of the first byond rpgs with a story line in it

The problem with story line is that it implies linearity. By having a story line you're restricting the character's actions such that the proper chain of events happen so that the plot goes a long in a predefined way. So the player can only preform actions that won't have an impact on the plot limiting them to only a small subset of things they can do. This will work out ok with a few players, but how do you plan on managing it with a large amount of players? Since now the actions of one player might depend on another player. What if someone decides to wait around or can't figure out what thier next action is supposed to be? Then all other players that depend on them will have to sit idly by which isn't fun.

and stuff to make you wanna play

This should be your main concern :). With no good gameplay you've got a crappy game no matter how well written your plot is.

but there are so many problems with that so its kinda hard to make a MMORPG that good..

Well by having an MMORPG rather than a muliplayer or single player one you have set yourself up with problems you don't have a lot of control over. In the end what matters more are the players you get not entirely how well done the game is(but how well done the game is and how you set it up will somewhat determine the players you get). If you really want a story line (though I highly recomend against this!) you probably want to stick with single player or muliplayer with a small handful of people so it's easier to control.

Like for example ive tried to make plenty of cut scenes they work fine but when online and multiple people watch it doesnt work to well..They should make in the next version of byond some sort of system to help in making a cutscene viewable by all!

It's possible now and it's not too hard to do but it does take a good understanding of what you're trying to achieve. This type of request is like asking the authors of a C compiler to make networking simpler because they didn't spend the time to figure out how it worked themselves.
Dec 30 2003, 2:35 pm
In response to Theodis
I remember one commercial MMORPG that tried to do a plot with the players participating. It was a multi-server world(eg UO and shards). They had this one part of the plot where monsters tried to destroy something. The players had to protect it. Eventually, it was destroyed on all servers except for one. The monsters just couldn't defeat the players on that server. Eventually an invincible admin came in and destroyed it, so the plot could move on.
Dec 30 2003, 2:47 pm
In response to Jon88
Eventually an invincible admin came in and destroyed it, so the plot could move on.

heh That's great for immersion :). Now that the players know this why bother playing if they know it's already been predetermined if they win or not :P?
Dec 30 2003, 2:51 pm
In response to Theodis
That's kind of how some of them felt, so they left.
Dec 30 2003, 3:42 pm
In response to Jon88
Jon88 wrote:
Eventually an invincible admin came in and destroyed it, so the plot could move on.

I want that job. =D
Dec 30 2003, 4:50 pm
In response to Crispy
hmmmmm, how many employees does it take to make a rpg on the PS2?
Dec 30 2003, 5:50 pm
In response to Ter13
Ter13 wrote:
Actually, I was talking about the "bad" kind, so I can figure a way out to balance easy useage, player interactivity, player entertainment, and balanced gameplay, and thus create a gem out of a piece of coal. Just as an experiment, not as a serious project or anything.

The "bad" kind? I think by definition a bad kind of game can't be made good. Otherwise it would be a good kind of game, or at least a kind of game where good and bad games can potentially be made. Having not played many rpgs on byond I'm not quite sure exactly what sort of style you are talking about, but it seems to me like you mean a simple graphical hack-and-slash rpg. I don't think there's anything inately bad about hack-and-slash rpgs, I happen to love angband and diablo was passing for short spurts of play.

"...so I can figure a way out to balance easy useage, player interactivity, player entertainment, and balanced gameplay..." Well, I don't necessarily think those things have to be balanced against each other or on there own. Easy useage and player interactivity don't seem to need to be balanced, either against each other or on there own. I guess I still don't exactly see what needs to be fixed in particular...
Dec 30 2003, 8:08 pm
In response to Jon88
Where I come from, we call that "Railroading."

(Yes, that's right. I come from Dragon magazine, circa 1992.)
Dec 30 2003, 8:21 pm
A good example of what a BYOND rpg should be like (well not should but it will do better if it is) is runescape. Runescape has 15 or so skills you can use, which can all be maxed to 99.7 different kinds of armour to collect. about 30 quests to do which has different stat requierments. a HUGE world to explore. many little cool feature like instant messaging. Lets see. The skills themselves are cool, the are about 30 diferent things to cook for that skill, 15 or so fish to fish, mining and smithing is always kool, thieveing is awesome, fletching is timecomsuming put profitable...

anyways, the point is.. i've been playing the game for 3 years and im not even close to bored. if your byond rpg has as much stuff as runescape your on easy street.
Dec 30 2003, 8:36 pm
In response to Ter13
Ter13 wrote:
really, can you explain this to me? I am very interested, does it involve multiple host-worlds?

With alot of effort, some help from both SwapMaps and world.Import, Export, and multiple host world linking, you could create a massive multiplayer world that worked almost seamlessly. As somebody in this thread said, you can't force a player to enter a different server, but if you make server seperations in intelligent places, you won't have to worry about those things. You could make things like global communications and such exist properly, if you know what you are doing. The initial framework would require too much effort, either. Parsing procs, and getting a networked system up with room for expandability.
Dec 30 2003, 8:40 pm
In response to Polatrite
Yeah, I've never worked much with switching between servers, but will the proc fail if the player declines to join? If so, then it seems to me having a player enter a portal (or a ship or whatever), be removed from the map, and then be sent to the other server would be the way to handle it... if they decline, then they get spit back out.

That's no less seamless than a shop that asks you if you're sure you want to buy the longsword.
Dec 31 2003, 5:14 am
In response to Jermman
No. This is BAD

Runescape does not have a community, they have a list of hostile, angry players.

Here's the diverse kinds of players:

The beggars
The newbie-haters
The miners
The scammers
The traders

That is all. There are no friendly players on this game.

This game would be better with enforced roleplay, community standards that actually get upheld, and removal of that awful spam blocker. It is useless, and blocks out some words that are legit.

Listen, I've been playing runescape since the beginning, about two months before the second server-world was bought, and I have seen these problems since the beginning. They have NOT been solved.

Runescape is a terrible example of how online games SHOULD be, it is a great example of what most strive to be. It is pathetic.
Dec 31 2003, 5:18 am
In response to Luap
Have you ever played Morrowind? Ultima 4-8? You'd know what are the good or bad kind if so, and a "bad" game, in my opinion is one that is not truly an RPG, you see, RPG stands for role-playing-game, hitting stuff and running around shouting "1 4m 4ll p0wrfl!!!!", that is far from roleplay, so what do you have left? A GAME. Not a roleplaying game, a game.

To tell you the truth, computer games cannot TRULY be roleplaying games, but they can come somewhat close. In my mind a TRUE roleplaying game is a pen and paper roleplay game, but since most people don't know how these work, many people don't know what roleplay is.
Dec 31 2003, 5:32 am
In response to Theodis
Well I generally rate good and evil by how much a person considers others. A person who only thinks of the safty of other and ignores themself is good while someone who only considers their own gain and safty to be evil. So if you're hunting only for your own survival then you're being evil(unless of course there is no one else around to consider, but maybe then you're just evil by default :)).

Okay, so I took the last butterfinger, does that make me evil?

I do not believe in the concept of good and evil, it works on paper, but not in reality. Motivation is the main reasoning behind every action. There is no set "right path" to follow in life, so there can't be good or evil, just positively or negaitvely (in the minds of others) motivated people. Evil is just a way to describe something people don't understand.

The dictionary lists evil as:

having bad morals; a cosmic evil;

#1, no that's not evil, because morals transfer from society to society, and person to person, there is not universal set of morals. (And to all you "good christians", the ten commandments are NOT universal morals (since when is coveting thy neighbors wife a sin, even if you don't act upon it) (AND, thou shalt not kill? Even in self-defense? Hell, "god" did it billions of times over!)) There are laws, and morals, you can do something that is morally correct, but illegal, or something that is morally wrong, while legal. (IE, (#1) Killing the man that killed your brother (An eye for an eye). (#2) Or, or course if you are a biblical person, drinking.)

#2, Defining evils a cosmic force? And using it in it's own definition? That means they cannot find words to express it. Meaning, people do not know what evil is.

In essence, evil is a word used to seperate one from his enemies, assuring man that he is not related to "common criminals", so he may justly slay these people without guilt.
Dec 31 2003, 5:34 am
In response to Hedgemistress
lol, no problem, but what I was trying to say was that hunting isn't really wrong.

You made it sound as though combat-like-hunting was taking the hack and slash road to game creation.
Dec 31 2003, 6:12 am
In response to Ter13
Hunting shouldn't just be "see nearly-defenseless animal, kill nearly-defenseless animal." There should be some sort of strategy involved. Weaker animals that notice you would tend to run away. Those that don't you wouldn't want to run into head-on. A hunter should have to be able to track animals or wait in places where they frequent to get a single good shot(eg with an arrow) to kill or incapacitate them.
Dec 31 2003, 6:24 am
In response to Jon88
Or for small animals, you set traps, after X ammount of time, there is an X% chance for the trap to be full. For larger animals, such as bucks, etc, they can try to attack the player if approached. Also, it would be kind of neat for there to be objects called dens, where if an animal was being chased, it would go into the den, and after X ammount of time, it would try to come out again. But, smart players could acutally trap the animal by waiting by the den, or by standing between it and the den, so that it would run away from it, not twoards it. A little harder to do, but not terribly so.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6