If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Joystiq)   For those of you who haven't heard about this Star Citizen thing, today is a good morning to sit down, review your future ship, and throw some money at the screen   (joystiq.com) divider line 67
    More: PSA, Star Citizen, angel investors, Joystiq, Wing Commander, space fighter, loading  
•       •       •

5853 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jun 2013 at 11:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-01 12:00:33 AM

way south: that's a tall order.


That is why I think it'll be the next breakthrough.  You could avoid some griefing by setting it up somewhat like eve.  Safe zones where the NPC's just destroy whoever tries to pull shiat, and then graduate slowly into nullsec.

Dot abandoned cities all over the world so you're not starting completely from scratch, rid players the ability to warp and fast travel, and you could build in obscurity for quite a while, and then branch out, recruit, etc.

Or recruit in a haven and then go hunting.  Could add a IFF technology contract into weapons so you don't wake up in a bathtub on ice with no weapons and stitches right about where your liver is.

Seriously, I think the post-apocalyptic scenario would be one of the most versatile worlds for this.  A loot heavy world, if you can kill the mutants and bandits that live near it. A reasonable technology level to really aid in immersion in balancing mechanics.

I've always loved the sandbox games, but often find it a shame to never be able to really "move".  maybe a couple houses in towns to buy(ala skyrim/fallout), but you could never really have any affect on the world itself, a lot of really cool scenery goes to complete waste, or you have to kill to move into someone else's area, etc.

A game where we could grab some land or a cave system and make it our own would be really unique, one of the few things I can think of that would be true innovation.

way south: The next step for that is using "cloud" (oooOOOooo) technology to make it so you aren't logging into a server or an instance so much as logging into "the game".


As complicated as that would have to be, I don't see a pay-off aside from the fact that it wouldn't go down like a single server would, but it would have glitches galore and/or be burdensome.  IE you either split up all the information on a traditional system to all of the users(so that when the users disconnect that information blanks until a default is referenced)....OR every user has a whole copy of what used to be on just one server, which makes for a LOT of traffic while syncing and updating.

Either way is really up for grabs as far as exploits and hacks go.  And you thought an interactive persistant world was problematic due to users...
 
2013-07-01 12:28:06 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: And I don't know how you solve that problem.


Consider a post apocalyptic world of the future.  That allows for technology that is game canon.  Hidden in bunkers are the old powers that never died off, call them Goverments, for lack of a better term, capricious or even insane self labeled Gods, world leaders that bred for generations underground, they all have a touch of crazy.  They have even better tech, vehicles, etc..  These are eve's equivalent of safe zones.

Griefers ?
Creative in game mechanics that mesh with canon
Government contracts. Pay for elite AI assassin squads in armored military vehicles to be hitmen and/or guards.  Random person seeing them fly by attempt to follow, because you know they are going to blow people up and not loot anything.

Particularly nasty large group?  Professional PVPers that signed up for contract work like the assassins above. and/or GM's.  AI Air support.

PVP griefers(those who  lose all loot on their body, equipped and inventory, when they die, including keys to safe boxes and storage facilities.  After they've been marked, say killed the same guy at location X so many times.

Contracted area's under the protection/justice/revenges of the Government.  Sometimes Governments may even work together to punish or eradicate the rubbish.

Just some shotgunned idea's I've talked about with friends and family gamers.  Not too detailed, just general concepts or routes to go about it.

It could be done by a clever enough design team.  Make it somewhat fair but not so protected it's care-bare, I would want lots of good PVP, but when people are being victimized they'll have options.  I hate nothing more than noob griefers and the like.  Make it tough enough and shiatstains will quit, and the game can adapt security measures once it kind of evens out.

The key is to inspire a real sense of loss for unsanctioned pvp.  If you want to go serial killer, you're going to run some very real serious risks.  I can appreciate what Eve tried to do with loss in pvp, but I don't think they did it well, too heavy handed with immortal cops, but you step to the next zone over, nothing.

Another idea I've always been keen on is making Ammo fairly valuable and hard to come by.  If you hoard and wheel and deal you can build up a small stock, but bullets are more highly sought than gold.

/the genre is imagined as Fallout, very roughly, but inspired by a long series of trashy pulp books, Deathlands, that I read before I even knew what fallout was.
//many idea's are straight from the books, or what could have happened in the books
 
2013-07-01 12:35:35 AM

StoPPeRmobile: [s.uvlist.net image 640x400]


I played the hell out of Psi-5 Trading Company on my C64 back in the day.
 
2013-07-01 12:56:51 AM

RockofAges: God dammit! Deathlands rules. I grew up on them. This thread is killing me with nostalgia. I built a 75 vnum area in Ack!MUD for Deathlands, actually. Muties and all.


HA!

It's almost a shame there's so many of them, well over a hundred iirc.  I read them every month, if available where I was, they were pumped out so fasst.

I lost so many in moves that I gave the last of them away when I left the service..  I found a torrent of the first 66 and much to my dismay, that's right about where I left off with hardcopies, I had only missed the first few books and a few more through that whole set.  That's a helluva lot of 3.99's, especially if I were to go back and buy them all again.  Not paying 400$+ for a book series though.
/was stationed overseas at the time and they would get them in all out of order, and then 3 sequential books at a time, and then nothing....frustrating because there was jack and shiat to do over there.

Such a perfect world for a RPG or MMO.
 
2013-07-01 03:15:25 AM

germ78: So basically, it's a more expensive Eve Online?


only if you don't count eve's monthly fee.
SC doesn't have one, and it's more fighter combat with a flightstick than a clicky cruiser game.
 
2013-07-01 03:41:47 AM
"Legitamate" greifers will get bounties on them. Ilegitamate greifers that use hacks will get eaten by a giant space slug.
 
2013-07-01 06:08:29 AM
I've always thought that player griefing could be minimized by AI-controlled agents that act defensively and impede destructive players to some extent. Each faction would have a certain number of agents that would repair walls or fortifications (or build new ones according to the battle lines). If enemy players tried to do things like dig huge trenches filled with lava just outside the enemy base to trap them in, the players would soon find themselves overwhelmed by AI forces. Kinda like guards in WoW. But these agents would also repair the damage, fill in the trenches, and return it to normal.

So players could grief if they wanted to, but it would be hard and take a concerted effort, and ultimately the damage would be automatically reversed.

/working on a minecraft-like engine.


EVE's police (called CONCORD) work something like that. In the so-called High Security sectors, you cannot shoot random players without getting your own ship blown up by the police. You CAN declare war on player-run corporations (read: guilds) and gain the ability to shoot them after 24 hours, and you CAN shoot anyone you like on low- or no- security sectors. This gives players the ability to choose, to some extent, how much risk of player douchery they want to experience/do. (It should be noted as well that, within the game rules set by the developer, any and all griefing is not only tolerated, it's encouraged and sometimes even reported on as news).

But enough about EVE. SC looks very promising, and if I had more money at the moment, I'd have invested in it. I respect all the folks expressing caution, but man, does this one look good so far.
 
2013-07-01 08:42:34 AM
So what about Notch's next big game 0x10c? It's a space game...
 
2013-07-01 09:27:18 AM
Good to know; don't give anything to EA, everything they touch turns to suck.


Also, still think the name is horrible.
 
2013-07-01 10:00:55 AM

omeganuepsilon: A game where we could grab some land or a cave system and make it our own would be really unique, one of the few things I can think of that would be true innovation.


You can do that already with active methods.  The thing is that the more powers you allow a player, the more you have to reign them in somehow, and scenery modification is a massive power.
I think with a game like minecraft we'd get further by weeding the griefers out the players pool than by game rules. But in the end an automated ranking/flagging system is just another system to abuse.

If I had the skill to make a game, one thing I'd like to try is slowly resetting scenery over time.  Allowing players to add and modify things but then fading those changes out as objects time out during the week.
At the very least it would force people to keep maintaining their bases and put a cap on how much griefing one person can accomplish with the money and time on hand.

omeganuepsilon: As complicated as that would have to be, I don't see a pay-off aside from the fact that it wouldn't go down like a single server would, but it would have glitches galore and/or be burdensome.


It can pay off if you split massive pools of players into smaller and smaller groups and move them to different servers seamlessly.
It takes a massive system to host thousands of players, but half of them are in situations that could be hosted peer to even run in single player mode.  Getting some guy soloing in a cave to host his own damn instance takes the load off the big machinery.
You could run an MMO on p2p money if you can sort out the details of transfer.

/I've got a sneaking suspicion this is what the Destiny crew is up to.
 
2013-07-01 10:27:16 AM

RexTalionis: Already got my Star Citizen card.

[i1212.photobucket.com image 600x393]


Just a Merc huh...
As a Rear Admiral i may have some work to through your way when things get rolling.


That's right... I have no life and disposable income Woo Hooo..... so sad and lonely
 
2013-07-01 11:13:01 AM

mitEj: RexTalionis: Already got my Star Citizen card.

[i1212.photobucket.com image 600x393]

Just a Merc huh...
As a Rear Admiral i may have some work to through your way when things get rolling.


That's right... I have no life and disposable income Woo Hooo..... so sad and lonely


You spent $250 bucks on a game that isn't even out yet?
 
2013-07-01 11:17:23 AM

way south: Getting some guy soloing in a cave to host his own damn instance takes the load off the big machinery.


That is the way a lot of games function already, only minimal information goes back to the server.
Also, many servers don't load up a zone unless someone is in it or offload the running off it in peer to peer fashion, which sounds more like what you're talking about.

True cloud computing has drawbacks for anything resembling a persistent world with multiple users, it becomes very bandwidth heavy.  I don't think you'd see seamless transitions that you're dreaming about

A central server, for example only has to have bandwidth enough to support users actively playing.

You split that up and each piece has to talk to the other pieces, and the users. The smaller each node is, the more it would have to stay in constant contact with other nodes, and requires more redundancies because users will come and go quite often.  A cloud of sufficient size becomes totally unusable, ultimately slower than any given users machine, because of this travel time and bulk of information.

I think you are over estimating the processing burden of a given single server.  Most of the power needed for the game to operate is required at the end user, the graphical interface.  Take xbox live for example, 18 people can play in a single game(say, CoD), with one of them being host and even running his own GUI.  The xbox itself is not a powerhouse before the 3d engine and textures and mechanics are loaded up.  There is very little left for serving the game, and still, the drawback in that situation is people's ping's to host and people's bandwidth.

In a dedicated server type of tame, there is no gui, not insofar as it has to render anything in 3d, it's merely a management of inventories/xp system/drop tables and a floating coordinate for the player(with orientation for some fps type games) and AI(and the ai scripts).. All the rendering and animation is done client side, and with many instanced games, all but inventories/xp/droptables can be done client side with negligable loss to security.

In other words, very very simple math procedures and data shifting.
 
2013-07-01 12:47:48 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: way south: An MMO today (which is usually persistent but static) hosts a gameworld that doesn't actually change that much. Even there you've still got things like the economy and quests to balance. Trying to scale that up to where the scenery itself is changeable and destructible... and it do it smoothly and without risk of griefers taking over the place... that's a tall order.

Griefers seem to be the real fly in the MMO design ointment. Anything interesting you allow players to do in the gameworld seems to become just another avenue for immature farkwads to ruin other people's day. On the other hand, keeping the lid on griefers, hackers, trolls, etc. requires either pervasive moderation or bland, consumption-focused game elements.

And I don't know how you solve that problem. What are you going to do, make the game invitation-only? While that would probably work for keeping the riffraff out, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot, financially-speaking. And that sort of speaks to the heart of many of today's problems with gaming: the interests of a good game and the interests of running a business seem to be fundamentally at odds with one another.


There are ways.  IMHO, the best way is to create context within the game for griefers to be a part of the game.

For example, I was working on the design for a Wild West MMO that included player founded towns.  One of my ideas was for each town to be able to purchase a bank, where the residents of the player town could 'bank' their money.   That money would earn X interest (don't worry, we had plenty of sinks in the economy).

The bank, as an entity, could establish a percentage of their assets as "stealable" (I forget the exact term, it was better than 'stealable' :) ).  Those assets would earn an additional percentage of interest, but was at risk to player character bank robbers.    Robbing the bank would be a difficult event to pull off (bank was only open if a certain percentage of town residents were online, an alarm  would be 'sounded' to all residents, player-characters with 'tracking' skill would be provided paths to their current location, PC "robbers" could only engage in combat with those PCs who have first engaged them, etc.).  Think the Northfield Raid for the James/Younger gang and you'll get an idea of the average bank robbery we were shooting for.

If the town didn't want to participate, fine.  They set "stealable" to zero and didn't have to worry about it.  On the opposite end of the scale were "frontier" settings, where law had little to no recourse.  (there were a lot more rules, but you get the idea).

TL;DR - identify griefer behavior likely within your world, and design it into the game in a way that griefers and non-griefers alike will enjoy it.  This won't rid you of all problem-children, but give lots of them something productive to do and will enrich your world (IMHO, the best "wandering monster" is a 15 year old asshole :) ).

/unfortunately, the game lost funding
//too bad, too, cuz we had some really cool ideas
 
2013-07-01 02:14:26 PM

RexTalionis: mitEj: RexTalionis: Already got my Star Citizen card.

[i1212.photobucket.com image 600x393]

Just a Merc huh...
As a Rear Admiral i may have some work to through your way when things get rolling.


That's right... I have no life and disposable income Woo Hooo..... so sad and lonely

You spent $250 bucks on a game that isn't even out yet?


What part of no life and a lot of disposable income did you not get :)
 
2013-07-01 03:52:36 PM

GRCooper: /unfortunately, the game lost funding
//too bad, too, cuz we had some really cool ideas


Its always  fascinating to hear the thoughts that get tossed around.
Sometimes the best ideas never make it into product, and its a damn shame.

Still, I'd wager a few internets someone will always find a way to mess with the system.
Lure robbers into a town with $1 in the bank then string barbed wire around the exits, or setup a fatal funnel in some corner of the bank to nail every townsperson that tries to intervene.
People are bastards like that.

On another note, more starship sales videos:   http://youtu.be/N55HcZwTbYs
 
2013-07-01 04:09:33 PM
Still, I'd wager a few internets someone will always find a way to mess with the system.
Lure robbers into a town with $1 in the bank then string barbed wire around the exits, or setup a fatal funnel in some corner of the bank to nail every townsperson that tries to intervene.
People are bastards like that.



I would not take that bet.  No way, no how ;-).  You are 100% right - every design decision for an MMO (or even just multiplayer) needs to be run through a filter of "How would I take advantage of this design to screw people over", and you'll never think of every way.

/as an aside, though - the amount stealable had to be a minimum amount, and that amount for each bank was public information.  There were a lot more rules for the entire banking/robbing system (from Posse formation, what happens if the robbers make camp (log out), etc.), and many of them came from thinking about ways the system could be abused.
 
Displayed 17 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report