Rifts MMO feature discussion thread (general)

[rc_brooks]

Even though it wouldnt be like rolling a rifts character I would suggest a sandbox style, skill based game. That way people could select skills to fill certain roles. This way you could have templates with Tags that automatically selected certain skills.

Then obviously there would be different races. The advantages you could offer to non MDC races would be a well thought out augmentation system for non-MDC folk and some towns that dont cater to non-humans or just non-MDC.

I would also suggest making a single town/environment and set up the class or skill system and combat. Dont put a lot of time into world development till you have a system the fewest number of people hate, cause you will never find one that a majority will like (and thats reasonable for a single person to put together).

Good luck. I hope to see the fruits of your efforts.

[Dead Boy]

MWGemini, if you really want to initiate contact with Kev on this you have to arrange some kind of face-to-face meeting with him. And to be blunt, the best way to do that right now it to either attend one of Palladium's Open House days (next one is in 6 months) or find the next RPG convention that he will be attending and approach him there. From what I understand, those are the the best two ways to hit him with a big proposal.

[rc_brooks]

And neither Blizzard nor Sony would do a good job of creating a Rifts MMO. In a game where diversity is the key, both fail horribly. Blizzards sole entry into the MMO market is very poor in diversity and is catered for young teenagers. Sony is a horrid, horrid company who has a long history of milking subscribers, poor support and games that never are fully develop, but in a constant state of flux which has led them to the brink of a class action lawsuit in the past year.

While we all would love to see a game with the best graphics ever and published in a dozen languages, the best chance for a faithful and fun to play MMO is a smaller, niche game.

Thats my opinion anyhow

[LostOne]

I'd say have the option for PvE and PvP. Whether you divide it into seperate servers like WoW or just implement a flagging system, there needs to be PvP somehow.

Have a few battlegrounds that follow the CS vs Tolkeen conflict for organized PvP in capture the flag (capture the important data from the other side), hold the fort, destroy the enemy fort, etc.

Don't limit the players to SDC only races either. Part of the attraction to Rifts is the ability to play a dragon hatchling or brodkil.

[Kryzbyn]

I think the biggest problem youre going to have is finding the common denominator.
There isn't one.
There is no reason why one thing does 3d6x10 vs a similar weapon doing only 1d6x10, other than in the description. Theres no common mathematical factor. This will be a pain in the ass converting to a computer program to resolve combat quickly.

As far as balancing the classes, that'd be frontier making when it comes to Rifts. There is no such thing as balance. I don't want to play a dragon hatchling if its no better than a cs grunt. That's horrible! Also a hard thing to convert into a computer game. I do not want to play a d20 knock off of Rifts. HERESEY!! lol

The one winning factor the table top game has is the presence of a GM.
HE (or SHE) decides what is allowed and what is not, specific to his campaign.
Unless you're willing to pay a guy mucho deneiro to sit and "GM" live players 24/7...I don't see this working and staying "Rifts".

In order to make it work, something will get nerfed, or get left out or ignored...and it won't be the game we all love.
I hope that your programming skills are up for the task you're undertaking here.
All that having been said, I hope you ARE successful, because I would love to play online with all these yahoos on the boards

[rc_brooks]

sorry, a little off topic but, Something you might try that we have done since the mid nineties is don't cap your skills out. That is to say, let them go over 100%. a roll of 99 or 100 is always a failure and we take percentages away for particularly difficult skill checks and have automatic successes for mundane checks if their skill is over 50%. Its worked very well. I don't know why we had started doing that but it just kind of evolved.

You really have your work cut out for you Mike. The problem with the Palladium system is that there isn't much of a system. A lot of the classes and races stand alone without relationship to one another. There is no cause, there is only effect. I would consider starting from one faction's perspective. That way you don't have to sweat all of the random classes and races as PCs. Focus on getting a small amount right before taking on the whole enchilada.

Skills aren't any better with the idiotic percentile system with no consideration for difficulty or situational modifiers and no room for them since the max skill is 98% and skills start low. You probably should consider making it an additive system like the D20 skill system, which will make opposed skill rolls work better.

Good luck Mike. I'd like to see you succeed. The RIFTS setting has the potential to make an interesting MMO.

[Starmage21]

My biggest request/concern is movement.

I would want the entire "world" in a Rifts MMO to be Three Dimensional. When I see a Glitter Boy traversing terrain to get to the next area by rocket assisted leaps, and Coalition SAMAS in aerial hot pursuit with a couple outlaws in Flying Titan power armor doing equivalent of power-armor dogfighting, I'll be happy.

[rc_brooks]

You know, another suggestion I can make is why not make an RPG PC game, and set it up for online play as well. Similar to Balders Gate. People have all different ideas of what they want and the best way to accomplish that is by letting people host their own servers but also having a game everyone can play. Just a suggestion.

[Pronema]

I agree that balance would be a problem and one way to resolve that problem is to have a random race selection, that way we don't have the MMO filled with Cyber Knight, Demi-god munchkins.

[Pronema]

Randomization would not help fix the issue, as players could just create new characters until they get what they want, and you are back to everyone having the same super character builds. In addition to that, by forcing your players to play a certain class (say you limit the number of times they can create new characters), you risk alienating a large portion of your user base. I'm personally a fan of sci-fi. If I was only allowed to play magic users, I would simply not play at all.

The bottom line is that the player is paying not only for the game, but in the case of an MMO, for the service as well. The customer must be kept happy if you wish to keep their business, and limiting their choices is a quick way to upset people (and thus lose their business).

Mike

You have a good point, but none the less, you're going to have to come up with a way of balancing the amount of each O.C.C. and R.C.C., it would not be Rifts if 1 out of 5 people were playing a Burster, Mind Melter, Chiang-Ku dragon, or Godling.

Edit:

I admit my suggestion would not help on its own. Maybe you have the choice of location (North or South America, Africa, Europe, Asia), then Sublocation (North America: Coalition, Tolkeen, Lazlo, New Lazlo, Free Quebec, Psyscape, FoM...), then alliance (Coalition, Tolkeen, Wanderer...), then Character type (Magic, Psycic, Tech).

[Traska]

Coming in late, here, but...

For starters, phone cals and emails are the quickest way to end up in the circular file. You'll get a better response from a face-to-face... that's not Palladium, that's just business. Failing that, a letter (on that flat wood-pulpy stuff, whaddyacallit.... paper!), mailed to their mailing address and personally addressed will give you far more notice than an email. People make that mistake often, thining that an email is just as good as a letter. Fact is, email for initial contacts are seen as unprofessional, and bad business etiquette.

Beyond that... don't make the mistake of being 100% true and faithful to the books. You're going from a small-scale GM and players tabletop game to a massive, game engine and thousands of players online game. Trying to make the two identical isn't difficult... it's impossible.

[Noon]

MW,

Why wouldn't just creating a small dungeon with one character class and a few monsters, be enjoyable?

I'm serious - is it the actual content you enjoy, or the 'pile more and more content on!!!' that you enjoy? If you enjoy content for itself, then you'd enjoy just a little being there and everyone else would get to as well.

If you enjoy 'pile it on' - perhaps its time to consider users adding content (and adding it evenly/balanced), rather than coding it all yourself. Unless you demand to be in utter control of all content.

[Subjugator]

Could you elaborate on that? My intention was to be 100% faithful to the current character creation process, right down to skill selection.

Please...please...stay faithful. Do not start changing things or it won't be Rifts.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

Actually, combat in any fashion from pen & paper to computer will make life massively easier. Palladium's main downfall when it comes to its games is that its combat system takes about a millenia to get through once you get 4 people + NPC's in a fight. By having a computer do all the dice rolls, bonus & penalty additions, as well as calculating base success chances...you speed things up without having to worry about reflex speed.

Hmmm...I wonder what would be required to make some combat software for the Palladium system. Enter the characters and their responses, their potential damages, and then select each from a drop down list. Usually you'll have a bunch of overlap and that could be handled by the software.

It might take some of the magic of die rolls from the game, and magical combat might be a bit difficult, but this could streamline things.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

Don't limit the players to SDC only races either. Part of the attraction to Rifts is the ability to play a dragon hatchling or brodkil.

You're joking right? Yeah...that'd be fun in PvP. Wanting to play a human and suddenly find yourself up against an army of dragons because a bunch of chumps wanted to be "teh ub3r 1337Z!11!!!!!ONEZORZ!"

Talk about a game lacking in diversity. Sure you COULD pick something else..but why would you bother? Dragons can shapeshift into humans, are psychic, have massive magic, are MDC...riiiiiight. Why not just call it "Dragons"?

Because some of us (like me) don't play that way. If this would be an instanced world what would matter was what you wanted, and not what the rest of the world was playing.

In Guildwars (curse you Apoc, for addicting me to this game!), you can even hire henchmen to come with you, so you could solo through the whole game.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

To get access to the engine source code, programmers would have to purchase their own license to the engine. Few people are willing to shell out that kind of money on a whim.

What's the engine and how much does it cost?

/Sub

[Traska]

The problem with not balancing classes is that eventually, the higher power classes (let's say Dragons) get to walk all over everything. There's only two ways to avoid that. Totally balance classes (either nerf dragons or beef up vagabonds, the end result's the same: Dragons are just as powerful as vagabonds and vice versa!) or you beef up the monsters and *don't* balance... ending up in a situation where the dragon is now challenged by the encounters... and the vagabonds are chunky salsa smeared all over the landscape.

When you design an MMO, you cannot be 100% faithful to the source material. In fact, by making it MMO, you've already abandoned the core concept of *any* tabletop game: GM and a small group of players socializing once or twice a week or so.

The flavor should be kept as close as possible. But do not make the mistake of thinking that the game will be the slightest bit fun if you have Glitter Boys pounding out obscene damage while your vagabond sits back and snipes with a Wilk's pistol. In a tabletop setting, you have a GM that can do things like make the Bom Gun jam at inopportune times or have a villain show up while the GB is out of the can. You have no such GM in an MMO, so character balance is key.

I love Rifts, I truly do. And in the context of a tabletop game, the lack of balance is not a problem (hands up anyone who's had a godling-level character in their campaign), but an MMO is the battlefield of the min/maxer. Because for the game to survve, you have to build the encounters based on the toughest character type, not the weakest. Build it for the weakest, and everyone cakewalks. And when you build it for the strongest, and there's only a fraction of the types that meet that criteria, 99% of players *will* play that handful. Take the word of a seasoned MMO player, it will happen. The game will be Glitter Boys and Cosmo-Knights and dragons, oh my.

[Noon]

People enjoy variety. That's not just me, that's everyone. If every character were to be the same cookie cutter creation, things would get boring pretty quickly.

The last MMO I played had three races, each with three to four character classes, and even that got boring pretty quickly for a large number of the player base, myself included. Modern players have high expectations.

Hold on, you haven't explained why it has to go and on and on being interesting?

I think you grasping at a concept above simply fun stimulus now - you want something that perpetuates on and on and is reinforced by players by that. You'll save yourself alot of pointless work if you grasp why it has to be fun for more than a little while (and how you've set no actual end date to its fun either).

I enjoy both the variety inherent in Rifts and the process of creation. For me, the journey is as much fun (if not more) as the destination. I'm not at all opposed to sharing my code with others, nor am I opposed to working with others. I know for a fact that I can't do it all myself. There are a few reasons why I highly doubt that working with anyone else at this point will actually work, however.

1) To get access to the engine source code, programmers would have to purchase their own license to the engine. Few people are willing to shell out that kind of money on a whim.

2) My code is not at the point where a programmer can write all his/her code in script, without needing full engine source code. Eventually, I plan to make all weapon and spells scriptable so that an army of scripters can help with adding in the massive number of spells and weapons.

3) My code is not at the point where I can tell a modeler or animator exactly what is needed and what his/her limitations are. Besides that fact, having a modeler create characters out of the Rifts books would automatically put us into the "derivative works" category, and I am trying to stay out of there until I can get official permission.

That being said, let me reiterate that I am not opposed to working with others. If you are a programmer and want to assist, and are able to purchase your own copy of the necessary licenses and software, contact me and let me know. An artist that wants to help me iron out what the limitations of the engine are and start creating art assets? Fantastic! Again, contact me and let me know. I certainly don't mind having help, and I can certainly use it. I'm just not recruiting at this point. There's a huge difference between not looking for help, not needing help, and not accepting help.

Mike

I'm not talking about asking for help from others. I'm suggesting that content design is actually part of the point of play. That writing a script or adding art isn't something you do to help - its part of play. Adding scripts or art earn you points or suchlike, if that explains the context better. Building is play.

If you get what I mean, you should consider only being in that role yourself - yes, you'd be writing script for those points and suchlike (for whatever they do), alongside everyone else, rather than being the master voice of the whole operation.

A couple of complex concepts there, but I'm saying this cause I think being the master voice is so boring it kills projects. Palladium had a char generator but the designer had to drop out - I'm pretty sure they don't make contact because they expect people to be flakey. That's why I'm addressing this here.

[Noon]

The flavor should be kept as close as possible. But do not make the mistake of thinking that the game will be the slightest bit fun if you have Glitter Boys pounding out obscene damage while your vagabond sits back and snipes with a Wilk's pistol.

Why?

Seriously, before you jump onto balancing - what is the actual issue here? Looking at the problem closely may quickly show something else other than balance could be applied. Balance is not a cure all.

Edit: "Because it's just not fun!!!" is an acceptable beginning of an answer. Getting more detailed about that answer furthers it as an answer.

[Traska]

Traska wrote:
The flavor should be kept as close as possible. But do not make the mistake of thinking that the game will be the slightest bit fun if you have Glitter Boys pounding out obscene damage while your vagabond sits back and snipes with a Wilk's pistol.

Why?

Seriously, before you jump onto balancing - what is the actual issue here? Looking at the problem closely may quickly show something else other than balance could be applied. Balance is not a cure all.

Edit: "Because it's just not fun!!!" is an acceptable beginning of an answer. Getting more detailed about that answer furthers it as an answer.

I'm going to say what I did to explain why I said Star Wars Galaxies would fail when I first heard about it: Everyone wants to be Luke Skywalker, no one wants to be Rebel Soldier # 417836.

Simply put, the vast, majority of people who play MMOs want to be main characters, not supporting players. Healers are usually in short supply not because they're not needed, but because they're not exciting, not flashy.

Now, I enjoy support characters, but only if I feel like I'm actually doing some good. The majority of people who play MMOs think even that's boring. In EQ, for example, wizards and warriors got all the lovin', clerics went ignored. Which is a shame, because a good cleric is worth their weight in cheesesteaks. But the average MMO player wants to be the one pounding out the damage. Flashy critical hits, big spell graphics, attacks that do 10% of a creature's max health in a single shot... that's what the average MMO gamer wants. Not sitting in the back, waitiing to strike.

I hear people say "we're not designing [game] for the "average" MMO gamer". Which is rhinobuffalo excrement. Of course you are. Because if you're designing a game for a "select few", a select few will play. And pay. And that's the road to the MMO graveyard. The average player is *precisely* who you're designing it for. A game designed for the dedicated fan is nice, but if it alienates the average gamer, then the game withers and dies.

However, the more I read about this, the more it sounds less like an MMO, and more like Neverwinter Nights. Small scale gaming done online and accessible to many through the wonders of the internet tubes. Which is fine and dandy, as well. But you'll still need balance, because unless you plan to disallow parties, you still have the problem of only a few classes being viable.

Look at it this way... you have a party with a rogue scientist, a vagabond, a dog boy, and a glitter boy. They fight three different groups of villains.

--The first group is geared toward the three non-glittery types. The GB one-shots them in succession. The other three members of the party roll their eyes at the GB and say "oooh, I'm impressed." They move on.

--The second group is geared more toward the GB. The GB takes out three of the villains, and then helps the group dispose of the last one. The rest of the party spends the next ten minutes whining about the difficulty of the fight, while the GB says "eh, seemed fine to me."

--The third group is a GB-level villain and three villains of approximately the same power caliber of the other three adventurers. The GB one-shots the three weaker ones and then they all gang up on the last one. After the fight, the GB says "Wow, did you see that? I got a crit for 300 MD in there! Hey, doggie, what was your biggest crit?" "Uh, 28 MD." "Oh. Well, that's still pretty good, right?"

--The next night, the party consists of four glitter boys.

[Noon]

However, the more I read about this, the more it sounds less like an MMO, and more like Neverwinter Nights. Small scale gaming done online and accessible to many through the wonders of the internet tubes. Which is fine and dandy, as well. But you'll still need balance, because unless you plan to disallow parties, you still have the problem of only a few classes being viable.

Look at it this way... you have a party with a rogue scientist, a vagabond, a dog boy, and a glitter boy. They fight three different groups of villains.

--The first group is geared toward the three non-glittery types. The GB one-shots them in succession. The other three members of the party roll their eyes at the GB and say "oooh, I'm impressed." They move on.

--The second group is geared more toward the GB. The GB takes out three of the villains, and then helps the group dispose of the last one. The rest of the party spends the next ten minutes whining about the difficulty of the fight, while the GB says "eh, seemed fine to me."

--The third group is a GB-level villain and three villains of approximately the same power caliber of the other three adventurers. The GB one-shots the three weaker ones and then they all gang up on the last one. After the fight, the GB says "Wow, did you see that? I got a crit for 300 MD in there! Hey, doggie, what was your biggest crit?" "Uh, 28 MD." "Oh. Well, that's still pretty good, right?"

--The next night, the party consists of four glitter boys.

Okay, why did the player choose a rogue scholar?

What did they expect a rogue scholar to be able to DO?

It seems to me two problems are occuring -

A: the players in your example don't know what the hell role they want their character selection to forfil
B: There is only one role present - damage dealing
C: Because thats the only role present, the player who has a mental void as to the role he wants his rogue to forfil, decides its that one. Pretty stupid, but it has a dumb logic - there are no other roles to fill.

Okay, that was three probs but you get my point. Is this actually the problem - one role + players with no clue?

[Nemo235]

I've only played two online games: Star Wars and World of Warcraft.
So I'm not an expert or anything, but I can tell you what I liked and didn't like.

In Star Wars you started out with your basic skills from your starting profession, but you could learn any other skills later. So that pretty much did away with a rigid "class" system. Each skill had it's own type of XP total, so that also eliminated the need for a character level system. And that worked for both combat and non-combat skills. The higher level skills need more XP.

So no matter what your starting profession was, you ended up customizing your character any way you wanted.

I'm a huge Star Wars fan, but not really a power gamer. So another thing I liked was exploring the various planets, seeing the locations and characters I knew from the movies. I still have a load of screenshots I took on my tour of the galaxy, even though I don't play anymore.

I also enjoyed the community my friends and I built together. Players were able to build their own houses, and eventually player cities.

I was more into the roleplaying aspect. To me, it was less of a game of conquest and more like Star Wars meets the Sims. But I'm not a typical online gamer.

Which brings me to one of the things I didn't like about the game. It was lacking one of the qualities you get with a tabletop game, and that is a personal story arc.
I got sick of taking little mini-missions or hunting random creatures just to improve my character.

If there was some way to develope some sort of plot, a series of adventures or campaign into an online game, that would be great.
And not just combat oriented objectives. But some sort of system where your characters actions actually have consequences.

I'd love to see an honest adaption of the character races and OCCs, with cool game play and awesome graphics, of course.
But if you could find a way to create something dramatic and meaningful for the player, other than the next level or bigger guns, then the Rifts online game would be truly unique.

[Subjugator]

...because a good cleric is worth their weight in cheesesteaks.

When I read this my mouth started watering for a cleric on a hoagie roll!

/Sub

[Subjugator]

An example being Star wars galaxies.

SWG is only a good example of a bad example.

The game was horrible. Even the CEO of the company said so.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

Do you want to be able to left click on the ground to move your character when in 3rd person mode? Your options are yes, no, and user toggleable. Tell me what you want and why.

View modes: First and third person modes please.

Reason: When I am exploring, I like to see the world as my character would see it and not as some deity staring over the shoulder of my avatar.

Movement in third person mode: I'd prefer to right click to move, and user toggleable

Reason: It's easier for me to move using the mouse and such when in combat, but less efficient outside of combat. I want it to be user toggleable so that I don't make decisions for others about how they want to game. If it's an easy switch, let's do it that way.

/Sub

[Traska]

Okay, why did the player choose a rogue scholar?

What did they expect a rogue scholar to be able to DO?

It seems to me two problems are occuring -

A: the players in your example don't know what the hell role they want their character selection to forfil
B: There is only one role present - damage dealing
C: Because thats the only role present, the player who has a mental void as to the role he wants his rogue to forfil, decides its that one. Pretty stupid, but it has a dumb logic - there are no other roles to fill.

Okay, that was three probs but you get my point. Is this actually the problem - one role + players with no clue?

An important thing to keep in mind is that in a tabletop game, he GM usually sees to it that the less powerful classes have their shining moments. At least, a good GM does. i.e., they come into a town, and there's a virus that has infected it, and half the town is dead already. The player characters aren't infected, mostly because it takes prolonged exposure over a period of weeks and they just got there.

The Glitter Boy is useless... his boom gun can't kill a virus. The mystic can heal the townsfolk, but their spells can't cure them, just stop them from dying at the moment. The borg is equally useless. The rogue scientist, however, knows a thing or two about bio-chemistry. After a week of research and testing, he finally comes up with a cure. THe townsfolk rejoice, his companions cheer for him, and for the moment, *he* is the main character and his party are the supporters. That's why people play what are, in essence, the flavor classes. They enjoy the rare shining moments rather than always being there dishing out damage.

But an MMO has no such moments. It has no over-arcing GM ensuring that everyone is having fun. The problem is that an MMO is radically different from a tabletop game.

In a tabletop game, usually it's a group of people who know each other and are friends. They get together once or twice a week or so, they socialize for a few hours. They play, they joke, they enjoy each other's company, and they roleplay.

In an MMO, you're usually forced to group (most people prefer soloing) with people you don't know, don't yet trust, and who would slit your throat if it would give them a level (because they don't know or trust you, either). You spend an hour or two hacking your way through monsters and, if you're lucky, get to know them in the process. If you're *really* lucky, you might even like one or two of them. Then you go your seperate ways, and the next night you log on and find a bunch of different strangers and do it all over again. (YMMV) An MMO in and of itself has *no* roleplay. Roleplay is done at the expense of the game, not in support of it.

The object of an MMO is onefold: to get more powerful. You want to explore? Get more levels to make travel less dangerous. Want to do crafting? Get more crafting levels to make more stuff. Want to be better in combat? That definitely requires more levels. In an MMO, it's all about the numbers. Armor, hit points, mana, but most especially level. The difference between one level and the next could mean the difference between a cleric that can heal and a cleric that can ressurect.

That's where the two games differ the greatest, and that's why balance is key: because as long as experience is the main goal, it will be the mission of most players to increase that number as quickly and efficiently as possible.

[Kryzbyn]

I think that the controls should be standard (a,w,s,d) for movement, with mouse for selection. Then as an option allow players to change it.
That way other MMORPG players can jump right in, while more computer savvy ones have the options at their disposal.

[Noon]

Noon- I misread your original post. Yes, player generated content is one of my goals. Any player should be able to build a house or even a city if they wish. I plan to allow for that. However, I can guarantee neither the quality of their work nor the goal of their work.

Well technically, nor they you.

Already I can see alot of conflicting goals in this thread 'Oh, it should be faithful' and I can blatantly see that 'faithful' means incredibly different, largely incompatable things to many, many players.

I'm suggesting the important thing isn't that juicers are around, or borgs are around. It'll be implementing a system that manages players inputing what they think is faithful - giving them a share in adding it, rather than them just demanding that their faith is the true faith, if you get what I mean. Some seperation techniques to help avoid creating repulsive stuff right in the middle of the creation and it's pretty straightforward.

I mean, do you see it as fun to code all this in - and keep coding, ad infinitum? There's a Rifts mud and the designer of that seemed pretty fed up in the end - and he took the traditional 'master voice' method.

For this reason, it would be very very difficult for me to devise a system that automatically encouraged players to build content.

That isn't a reason, nor is it difficult. It only seems difficult because your thinking that you'd be trying to guarantee its done a certain way, while at the same time apparently giving the player some free control. That isn't difficult, its impossible.

Instead of trying to personally guarantee its done a certain way, if players have to draw from limmited point pools to create stuff - well, the way those pools are limmited is what will guarantee certain qualties to the game world.

I *WILL NOT*, at any point, start changing character classes to balance them.*snip* The super powerful characters WILL HAVE THEIR DOWN SIDE. Not to mention the fact that I've already mentioned several other system I have in the works to limit the number of top tier classes being played.

Dude, that's just instituting balance in a roudabout way - and the more roundabout it is, the more vulnerable it is to some way of it not applying at all.

I mean, what's the problem? You don't want to see dragons as the only characters around - it seems a hang up of traditional play to just go 'oh yeah, you can play whatever you want whenever you want'. I don't know what that's supposed to add to the game world. It seems quite trivial to put ques on playing classes - if you only let 50 dragon hatchlings exist in the game world at any single time, the player has to go into a que before they can play a dragon hatchling. Meanwhile they can play a more common char while they wait, till a dragon hatchling logs out.

This discussion is getting really off topic, again. Please try to keep it limited to a discussion of game FEATURES that you want or want to see avoided. Game balance discussion, experience meter discussions, etc should all be taken to another thread. This thread is for discussion of game mechanis ONLY. That being said, I'll ask a question and try to bring it back on topic.

But features don't hold a game together. Its rather like designer a really nice car seat. Alot of people will scream how an uncomfortable seat really made them unhappy once - its first priority. But frankly, if your engine doesn't work, it doesn't matter how uncomfortable it is.

I think its poor design to creates features (like in your question) first. But if that's what the threads for I'll stop posting to it - but I'm not stopping because I agree with feature first design.

[Spinachcat]

Features?

I want an active, changing world. I want a MMO where the game does not reset every 15 minutes. If a town is obliterated, it stays that way until rebuilt. If an NPC dies, he stays dead. My solution to that is to do 6 month or 1 year campaigns where everyone plays through a story arc and when its done, the world essentially ends and everyone starts a new character in the reset world.

I want actions to have consequences. I want a MMO where if I raid the base, I want the base inhabitants to put me on their hunted list so I just can't waltz back into their base after their aggro clock resets. I would want this to affect my alignment as well by my choices affecting how NPCs interact with me.

I want to be able to group up with players instantly. I do not want to spend half my online time trying to find a party. The computer should do that for me OR the computer should get me NPCs to join me instead.
Maybe this means being teleported to an already existing group in play, kinda like when you show up late to a RPG and suddenly your character pops up from around the tree.

I want to have great fun as a casual player. I have not tried WoW because I don't have 40 hours a week to play. I want to play 4 hours a week and still have fun. Players should not sacrifice their real lives to have fun with a game.

Now that I listed my dream MMO features, I want to sprinkle a dose of realism. MMO development costs millions and takes the effort of dozens of people. MWGemini sounds like he has the gusto, but I highly recommend that you do treat this project as a professional business endeavor and that means lots of boring stuff like writing business plans, getting funding, securing rights, and building a team. This ain't the days of Akalabeth or Zork when one guy can write a computer game.

[Kryzbyn]

Features?

I want an active, changing world. I want a MMO where the game does not reset every 15 minutes. If a town is obliterated, it stays that way until rebuilt. If an NPC dies, he stays dead. My solution to that is to do 6 month or 1 year campaigns where everyone plays through a story arc and when its done, the world essentially ends and everyone starts a new character in the reset world.

I have to say no ****ing way on this one, especially if you want to be a casual gamer. I would eventually like to reach level 15, thank you very much. If you did this in EQ2 no one would ever reach the cap, and people would quit playing having to start over and over with nothing to show for it. Not to mention having to wait 6 months to finish a quest because someone already killed the NPC you need.

As for the other stuff, I agree, instead of having a random ****** forced into my party "just 'cause". That would make me incredibly cranky.

[Kryzbyn]

You should still have a Out Of Character chat.
People play MMORGS for variuous reasons, for some it is to socialize.
Don't alienate some players right off the bat for realism. This is a game.
Even in a tabletop RPG you have OOC comments and talk.

[Kryzbyn]

If you want realism, then party chat should be limited by radio range, and all characters in the party should have a radio to listen in on party chat or be right next to another party member within ear shot.
Shouting should only be heard by those within range to hear it (not zone wide) based on the number of decibels (like from a robot's loudspeaker).
OOC chat should be just that. OOC. It should be a channel you have to join to ask questions, etc, not one that spams other players.

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, do you currently play any MMORPG's?

[Kryzbyn]

That's cool. I hope you did not take that as a "dig" at your expense, i was sincere in my curiosity.
I have played EQ1. WOW, SWG, RF-Online, DDO:S, and currently play EQ2. I was in closed beta for DDO:S and RF-Online. So far, IMHO EQ2 offers the best varation of features to an online gamer with a good mix of hack n slash and quest based xp.
Taht reminds me of another feature: leveling.
Are you going to limit it to 15 levels, or use a quicker level/longer progession method?

[Kryzbyn]

Wow my knee-jerk reaction to the no-level no grind idea was HELL NO.
But, actually it just might be kind of refreshing.
I don't know how you would keep that from a player though, as every level he may get access to new OCC Related or Secondary skills, or as a psychic picking new powers every level up to 15.
Also, I think PvP is in order, but like in WoW, should be something that can be toggled.

[Kryzbyn]

Toggled by the player.
meaning that default is not to be PvP. But if he feels frisky, liek a lewy lin walker can toggle his PvP to "on" then stroll into CS territory, where CS players can attack him on sight. NPCs would always attack an enemy on sight, whether you had your PvP on or off.
That was if you're harvesting something for a tradeskill (like a techno wizard out gathering ores for refining into a sowrd to TW later) he doesn't have to worry about getting jumped by a$$hole players.
It's a nice option that WoW has, so that you dont have to worry as a newbie getting ganked when you haven't even learned how to pay yet.
Its also nice for exploration. But, you'd still have to worry about NPC's that aggro, like if you were hanging out near Xiticix, this would not protect you to toggle your PvP off.

[Noon]

Noon- I didn't say that your topics could not be discussed, nor did I say I did not want to hear your opinion. I merely asked that you keep this thread on topic. You've repeatedly failed to so, and that is rather annoying.

I did so once, after you moderated, not repeatedly, thanks.

Feature: There is the set world and the changeable world. In the changeable world, NPC's can die as previously suggested, towns stay flattened, wars stay won. For a year or more I think. Perhaps forever.

However, players have the option to shift their PC back to the set world. This stays static - NPC's never die, towns reset in six minutes or are indestructable.

This way if the changeable world screws up your gameplay, you can shift to the set world. Make it cost a bit somehow, so it isn't done casually. Pay the cost and you can shift back again (so if you want to finish off a quest thats been destroyed, shift to the set world, do it then come back).

No, I have no 'roleplayey' way of explaining a shift. Nor do I care to really get anal about it.

Note: I think for instances or such, players are drawn from either world (to help keep the numbers up).

[Noon]

Yeah, essentially it would be a server transfer back and forth.

You don't see why people would transfer? Surely you could see that how the game world changes could be immensely unsatisfying to some users? A change in the game world which keeps their character in the gutter (and worse, not seeing any of the world cept for the gutter) isn't wonderful to them. So they can transfew to the static game world where the change doesn't exist and get out of the gutter. Hope I'm not thread jacking with that quick description. It's a safety net.


Another feature: No, keep some world/zone chat (over radio), but have static warnings come up, then the channels blank every so often. Nothing's makes you feel as alone in a wilderness as the moment your comminication with civilisation is cut off. With no zone chat to begin with, you'll never feel that moment of cut off.

[Spinachcat]

I agree with Noon that transfering your character from server to server would be a cool feature. In fact, it should be an in-game thing where the players need to use Rifts to get to other servers. Each server could be its own Alternate Rifts Earth.

I understand Kryzbyn's concern that a changing world would mean some players never get to the top levels. That is very valid. I would be cool with a changing world that allowed you to bring your same character from campaign to campaign. In games like EQ and WoW it is mostly about getting the "super magic stuff", but starting characters whose OCC says "pick an energy weapon and any MDC armor" could start with some serious smack so there is less of that need to gather stuff in Rifts to become powerful.

As for dead NPCs affecting quests, that is an issue. Maybe that becomes part of the fun where defending some NPCs from harm is part of the game? Maybe NPCs are extra tough. Maybe if PCs ally with an NPC for a quest, they get the ability to Rift immediately to the NPC if the NPC is ever under attack?

I really do feel that "action / consequence" is completely missing from MMOs so at the end of the day there is no real accomplishment. Nobody ever wins if things just reset. It's all digital spanking. When my band of heroes destroys Gorgolorth Foulbreath and his Fortress of Naughtiness, I want accomplishment to stick.

Otherwise, it's a Disneyland ride and not an RPG.

[Nemo235]

If you want to make it just like the pen and paper game, use the rules for serious injuries, coma, and death.
The character gets one life!
Then players would seriously consider when to run and when to hack-n-blast.
Part of your success in the game is how long you actually survive.
And each encounter you survive would be so much more rewarding.
Now that would make different than any other game out there.

[Subjugator]

If you want to make it just like the pen and paper game, use the rules for serious injuries, coma, and death.
The character gets one life!
Then players would seriously consider when to run and when to hack-n-blast.
Part of your success in the game is how long you actually survive.
And each encounter you survive would be so much more rewarding.
Now that would make different than any other game out there.

I agree with this, but with one caveat - any resurrections that actually exist in the regular game should also be possible within the online version.

I'm unclear on definitions - what is the difference between a gameplay issue and a feature issue?

/Sub

[Warmaster40k]

What I would like to see is a multi tier system for player organizations IE players form gangs this is the first tier, at this stage they are small between 10-30 members then they go to Family 31-90 then Syndicate 91-200 Then Company 200-???. Player organizations can ally with other organizations to form nations and secure territory and build cities/towns.
Though this is not to stop a lone individual or small Gang from trying to take over a town.

At each level of Player organizations are limited by the amount of territory they can hold (gangs can take over small towns or villiages but you wont see them conquering cities.
And Cities while they have guards do have their bad neiborhoods. These are the places were muggings and what not occur its also the only place to get the good stuff (ie blackmarket and body chopshops) in these areas you should have a global background gauge that measures the amount murder/mayhem once full the Law/Organization in charge just gets sick of the all the trouble and drops the holy hammer of god on the area (think Burb clenseing). To let the player know they are going into a bad neiborhood do something like have a little button on the screen go from red to green ( red is no guards your in the wasteland, yellow is troubled neiborhood, green means you are the protection of the guards and in a city/town) however this isnt to say you are completely safe just safer.

Gangs should be able to capture abandoned buildings and/or buildings claimed by other gangs. These buildings can be converted in to player owned stores and labs (places were you can set up cloneing stations, perform surgery, concoct drugs and build small scale gear [home spun mdc amor and some small mdc weapons ie vibro knives and laser pistols and grenades, but mostly sdc gear) and Warehouses (for storage) and garages were you can store that glitterboy to keep it from being stolen.

The Mayhem gauge rises by comiting bad acts and drops when bribes are payed or time passes. Using MD weapons, magic, and Robots/Power Armor are gonna attract a lot more attention then say molotov cocktails and SDC weapons.
Those are my ideas.

Also when you say your includeing a multi-tier system for classes does that mean the your character changes classes as you meet the requirements (you start off as a City Rat once you get to a certain point you move to Rouge Scientist, later on you become a Body Fixer after keeping your allies alive [ because as great as magic is, it doesnt treat disease or set bones] you are given the oppertunity to become a Cyber Doc or continue and become a Field Surgeon were you can perform medicine at faster rates [penaties for lack of facilities and lack of tools are less severe] can cure poison and Bring a person back to life [but the guy is still pretty beat up.

[Kryzbyn]

Final death should not be an option.
If I'm paying to play a game, I'm not going to play him to close to his zenith then have him die. If he does, he'd better respawn.
If I want realism, I'll watch CNN.
This is a horrible idea from a marketing standpoint.

/sarcasm on.

I know! Lets all play a game called "Your born, you live, you work, you die" THATS realism. YAY!

/sarcasm off.

[Warmaster40k]

oops forgot to mention this. You need to have a good tutorial. This can make or break agame especialialy if it has a steep learning curve.

[Spinachcat]

I am concerned with the concept of bigger = better. Although the Rifts world has lots of wasteland between places, it is no fun to trudge through the same nothingness without meeting other players or interesting places to do stuff.

The early Ultima games had this down pat. There was certainly enough wandering, but never too much and it was always easy enough to find something interesting to go explore.

I like wasteland, but it better be wasteland chock full of cool shiznack and lots of opportunities for adventure. I do not want to be walking forever.

Now, this could be mitigated by vehicles. If there are a plethora of vehicles to be bought, found, salvaged, then distance becomes somewhat less of a factor.

As for the death issue, I sympathize with both Kryzbyn and Nemo235. I would be okay with a limited number of respawns because this is a game and I would be okay with no death penalty. However, I hate that death has no meaning in most video games. If death is feared, then players act smarter and consider retreat as a good manuever.

How about this option: you start the game with 5 respawns. Each time you gain a level, you gain another respawn. When you have zero respawns, your character is perma-dead.

This would give you 20 deaths to reach 15th level.

As for the MDC vs. SDC weapons in the MMO, you are going to be hard pressed to convince the players to waste credits / encumbrance on SDC weaponry. Heck, I still don't see the point of SDC weapons in a world where your enemies are either supernatural MDC monsters or wear MDC armor.

[Spinachcat]

For instance, hunting smaller game for food/skins/trade.

Shooting bunnies with MDC weapons will be a past-time if you make them explode...which would be bizarre, but certainly fun. BTW, is your MMO engine going to be able to do environmental damage, aka can I shoot my railgun at a SDC building and watch it tumble to the ground?

Unless food in towns is hugely expensive and rare (which would not make sense), I don't see players hunting down bunnies. As for trade, how many pelts do you need to buy a SAMAS? Unless the bunnies are carrying something valuable inside of them, I don't see their value in the grand scheme of what players want to accomplish. If I start the game with a 1D6 MDC pistol, my goal will be to get a 2D6 pistol and so on, not chase deer.

Now if you made food rare and expensive, suddenly deer hunting via SDC becomes useful. That would be odd because I have not seen anything in Rifts that would tell me that food is rare.

Or for situations where you only want to wound and capture an enemy, and not vaporize.

The problem is that the enemy would have to be obviously non-armored and obviously a non-MDC being. If MDC glowed, then the non-glowy stuff would tell you not to shoot your Wilks at him at the top power setting.

It is not reasonable to expect anyone to shoot off the MDC armor to exactly zero, then use SDC weapons to subdue. Capture would require different tools or a cut scene. Capture is where disarm + nets or paralysis magic, etc gets used.

[Noon]

Now if you made food rare and expensive, suddenly deer hunting via SDC becomes useful. That would be odd because I have not seen anything in Rifts that would tell me that food is rare.

It is if the other players have bought it all in advance of you.

I think fishing in WOW is an example of how this sort of stuff does fit. My hunter would fish for his pet, because not every settlement sold food, I wanted to improve my fishing skill and I'd rather save the money.

Well, apart from the simplisticness of fishing - don't need that part.