Diablo: an CRPG, what a joke!
John Hoffman
There have been a few brave souls who have called Diablo an CRPG, to those I
say that Diablo isn't even close to being a real role playing game.
On the other hand Diablo is an excellent arcade game with role playing
elements. In fact I'd say it's one of the funest games available today!
Could the Diablo system be a good CRPG? I would say definitely. Expand the
game beyond the little town. Add some NPCs. Add a story. Add quests and
quest items. Add some incremental tasks combining quests and people that
build a developing story. Now you've got a real roll playing game! Of course
doing that would make it very difficult to create a good multiplayer game. I
think that in some ways Diablo did a lot to support multiplay capabilities.
In diablo you only basically have one task, get to the bottom of the dungeon.
You start a level and kill all the monsters. For this your character gets
stonger. You find powerup items to further enhance your character. Repeat
this until you get to the lowest level and beat the baddest monster. Sounds
like an arcade or video game to me... Even final fantasy games blow this away
in details, story and complexity.
All that said I love this game. I don't have to do much thinking and I
love plunging the dungeon looking for a better weapon and finding clever ways
to kill all the monsters. I like getting together with my brother and
daughter to do some monster bashing. It's a hell of a lot of fun!
I just consider it quite unlike a real role playing game like Ultima 7 and
it's like.
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hoffman mailto:jhof...@ix.netcom.com
My opinions do not necessarily reflect Netcom's http://shadow.ix.netcom.com/
Spanish Inquisition
>There have been a few brave souls who have called Diablo an CRPG, to those I
>say that Diablo isn't even close to being a real role playing game.
Oh, John are they gonna pounce on you. =)
>On the other hand Diablo is an excellent arcade game with role playing
>elements. In fact I'd say it's one of the funest games available today!
agreed.
>Could the Diablo system be a good CRPG? I would say definitely. Expand the
>game beyond the little town. Add some NPCs. Add a story. Add quests and
>quest items. Add some incremental tasks combining quests and people that
>build a developing story. Now you've got a real roll playing game! Of course
>doing that would make it very difficult to create a good multiplayer game. I
>think that in some ways Diablo did a lot to support multiplay capabilities.
Ive been saying this from the start. The Diablo interface and engine would be
great for a true RPG with lots of stuff to do and explore. Just as an example
think of DF with Diablos graphics, sound, and feel. wow.
The cool thing about this is that I would guess that this will be done at
some point.
>In diablo you only basically have one task, get to the bottom of the dungeon.
>You start a level and kill all the monsters. For this your character gets
>stonger. You find powerup items to further enhance your character. Repeat
>this until you get to the lowest level and beat the baddest monster. Sounds
>like an arcade or video game to me... Even final fantasy games blow this away
>in details, story and complexity.
Yep.
>All that said I love this game. I don't have to do much thinking and I
>love plunging the dungeon looking for a better weapon and finding clever ways
>to kill all the monsters. I like getting together with my brother and
>daughter to do some monster bashing. It's a hell of a lot of fun!
Yeah its fun. Battle.net has turned into a real joke though. Single player is
'ok' but not nearly as fun. My roomie and myself have a local LAN set up in
our house so that kinda helps ;)
>I just consider it quite unlike a real role playing game like Ultima 7 and
>it's like.
Or like Daggerfall, Darklands, BaK, etc.
Philth
>game beyond the little town. Add some NPCs. Add a story. Add quests and
>quest items. Add some incremental tasks combining quests and people that
>build a developing story. Now you've got a real roll playing game! Of course
>doing that would make it very difficult to create a good multiplayer game. I
>think that in some ways Diablo did a lot to support multiplay capabilities.
It already has all that you moron.
Mark Asher
Some comments follow:
Mark Asher
John Hoffman <jhof...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5dbj1l$c...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
> There have been a few brave souls who have called Diablo an CRPG, to
those I
> say that Diablo isn't even close to being a real role playing game.
>
> On the other hand Diablo is an excellent arcade game with role playing
> elements. In fact I'd say it's one of the funest games available today!
>
> Could the Diablo system be a good CRPG? I would say definitely. Expand
the
> game beyond the little town. Add some NPCs. Add a story. Add quests
and
> quest items. Add some incremental tasks combining quests and people that
> build a developing story. Now you've got a real roll playing game! Of
course
> doing that would make it very difficult to create a good multiplayer
game. I
> think that in some ways Diablo did a lot to support multiplay
capabilities.
>
snip
I could imagine a "travel" button on the Diablo interface that would be
active while you are in a town. Clicking on it would bring up a list of,
say, 10 towns. You pick one, the CD whirrs, and then you get a message like
""After three days of travel you arrive in Gotham City." In this town you
might have a jeweler selling rings and amulets instead of a blacksmith, you
might have a farmer instead of the town drunk, you might have wizard
instead of a witch, etc. You would still have one "dungeon," even if it
were a castle, forest area with creatures, etc. And you'd have a quest or
two. So you'd have more towns, more NPCs, more quests, but essentially the
same gameplay. The only thing that is missing is the story you wanted,
which for me is already there in Diablo. Sure, it could have been better,
but can't you say that about 90% of the RPGs? I guess what I'm saying is
that with a few tweaks and some new graphics, Diablo could be what you
describe above. But to my thinking, it would still be a similar game
experience to what we already have. I don't see that adding towns, NPCs,
and quests automatically makes it better or a "true" RPG.
Simon Juncal
Spanish Inquisition wrote:
>
> >There have been a few brave souls who have called Diablo an CRPG, to those I
> >say that Diablo isn't even close to being a real role playing game.
>
>
> >elements. In fact I'd say it's one of the funest games available today!
>
>
> >Could the Diablo system be a good CRPG? I would say definitely. Expand the
> >game beyond the little town. Add some NPCs. Add a story. Add quests and
> >quest items. Add some incremental tasks combining quests and people that
> >build a developing story. Now you've got a real roll playing game! Of course
> >doing that would make it very difficult to create a good multiplayer game. I
> >think that in some ways Diablo did a lot to support multiplay capabilities.
>
> great for a true RPG with lots of stuff to do and explore. Just as an example
> think of DF with Diablos graphics, sound, and feel. wow.
> The cool thing about this is that I would guess that this will be done at
> some point.
The problem is you both (and more than few others) seem to think that
Role playing (read thoes two words :) is constituted by Plot/NPCs/Quests
or
things to do/important game breaking items/adventure game "got to get
this before
you can go there" items/etc.
It ain't, in fact anyone who has Role played D&D pen and paper wise,
should
know that (MP) Diablo is as much an RPG as any (simple) game of D&D,
that of course
assumes you and your friends RP the game. HUMANS Role play (act/pretend)
a
computer game doesn't "allow" you to RP or for that matter NOT RP other
humans
however can sure help!
You all need to realize that single player Diablo is an RPG (just not a
very
good one) DF is also an RPG and also not (because of a total lack of
other humans
who can interpret your _acting_ ) a very good one. of both games single
player
DF has many more simlated role playing elements (ie. the ablity to act
like an
A**hole to an NPC's or not, or quest's to help an NPC in need, thus
acting like a
"good guy" would. )
But the ability to _ACT_ with other Humans (as I and some friends do in
4 player
IPX games on weekends) Makes Diablo more of a RPG than any CPRG with the
exception
of Meridian 59 (which I havn't played)
> >In diablo you only basically have one task, get to the bottom of the dungeon.
> >You start a level and kill all the monsters. For this your character gets
> >stonger. You find powerup items to further enhance your character. Repeat
> >this until you get to the lowest level and beat the baddest monster. Sounds
> >like an arcade or video game to me... Even final fantasy games blow this away
> >in details, story and complexity.
>
> Yep.
>
> >All that said I love this game. I don't have to do much thinking and I
> >love plunging the dungeon looking for a better weapon and finding clever ways
> >to kill all the monsters. I like getting together with my brother and
> >daughter to do some monster bashing. It's a hell of a lot of fun!
>
> Yeah its fun. Battle.net has turned into a real joke though. Single player is
> 'ok' but not nearly as fun. My roomie and myself have a local LAN set up in
> our house so that kinda helps ;)
>
> >I just consider it quite unlike a real role playing game like Ultima 7 and
> >it's like.
>
> Or like Daggerfall, Darklands, BaK, etc.
--
(Remove the ~ (tilde) from my adrress when replying)
____________________________________________
) Simon )
( Midzilla Music & sound (
) Mailto:sju...@erols.com )
( http://users.aol.com/sjuncal/theax.html (
)___________________________________________)
Acceptable Use Policy.
commercial use of my system is restricted, Solicited
messages and unsolicited individually addressed non-commercial
message may be sent free. The fee for unsolicited mail sent by
automated mailers and/or advertisement is $500 such mailings to
FAX machines and computer systems are prohibited under federal
laws (47 USC 227) and provide for civil penalties and claims of
$500.00 per occurrence (47 USC 227[c]) may be assessed.
baltz
abn...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Spanish Inquisition) writes:
>Ive been saying this from the start. The Diablo interface and engine would be
>great for a true RPG with lots of stuff to do and explore. Just as an example
>think of DF with Diablos graphics, sound, and feel. wow.
>The cool thing about this is that I would guess that this will be done at
>some point.
You guys should check out Ultima Online when it comes out. I'm not sure
if the beta testing slots are still open, but either way, you should check
out www.owo.com for the latest info.
K.C.
--
K.C. Baltz | Graduating May 1997
Copmuter Science & Engineering | Resume available on Home Page
University of Southern California | Please send me email for further
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~baltz | employment availability information
ktc...@pop.uky.edu
Mark Asher wrote:
>
> I saw screenshots from the last beta test. I thought the graphics were ok,
> but not up to Diablo's standards.
The Ultima Online beta test has not even begun yet.
> Do you know how combat is handled?
Characters will fight automatically once a combat is initiated.
> I heard it was abstracted, and I'm neither sure that this is right nor
> what this means.
It means the outcome of a combat is determined by character statistics
and not the reflex of your mouse finger.
> I find Diablo's click to attack method immensely
> satisfying, and I'm hoping that UOL has something like this.
I hope not. I enjoy Diablo but I hope UOL will have something
different.
John Hoffman
In article <32fa2...@news.inxpress.net>, not...@inxpress.net (Philth) wrote:
>In article <5dbj1l$c...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, jhof...@ix.netcom.com (John
> Hoffman) wrote:
>
>>quest items. Add some incremental tasks combining quests and people that
>>build a developing story. Now you've got a real roll playing game! Of course
>
>>doing that would make it very difficult to create a good multiplayer game. I
>>think that in some ways Diablo did a lot to support multiplay capabilities.
>
>
I suppose 6 NPCs and one town is all your limited brain and twitchy finger can
handle. Oh yes lets not leave out the great profusion of quests. Kill the
bad guy on level 3. Kill the bad guy on level 2. There are also a couple of
book quests kill the room full of skeletons, kill all the vanishing creatures.
Lets not forget kill the thing in the bottom of the dungeon.
Have you ever played a game like ultima with 100s of characters and tons of
places to go and things to see. Go to tom the cleric in ultima and ask him
about the horn of life. He tells you more about a fable of a person how had
the horn and was last seen in the north sea... etc. I hope you can get the
idea.
Ugh!! I'm really getting hot at this post.
Diablo is a great game. I would love to see the mechanics and graphics
applied to create a real role playing game. Diablo could be much more...
As it is it's still a great game just not what I would seriously call a CRPG
game.
John Hoffman
In article <01bc13fe$3d009300$679edaa5@marka>, "Mark Asher" <ma...@impacttech.com> wrote:
>Some comments follow:
>
>Mark Asher
>
>John Hoffman <jhof...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><5dbj1l$c...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
>those I
>>
>> On the other hand Diablo is an excellent arcade game with role playing
>> elements. In fact I'd say it's one of the funest games available today!
>>
>the
>and
>> quest items. Add some incremental tasks combining quests and people that
>
>> build a developing story. Now you've got a real roll playing game! Of
>course
>> doing that would make it very difficult to create a good multiplayer
>game. I
>> think that in some ways Diablo did a lot to support multiplay
>capabilities.
>>
>
>I could imagine a "travel" button on the Diablo interface that would be
>active while you are in a town. Clicking on it would bring up a list of,
>say, 10 towns. You pick one, the CD whirrs, and then you get a message like
>""After three days of travel you arrive in Gotham City." In this town you
>might have a jeweler selling rings and amulets instead of a blacksmith, you
>might have a farmer instead of the town drunk, you might have wizard
>instead of a witch, etc. You would still have one "dungeon," even if it
>were a castle, forest area with creatures, etc. And you'd have a quest or
>two. So you'd have more towns, more NPCs, more quests, but essentially the
>same gameplay. The only thing that is missing is the story you wanted,
>which for me is already there in Diablo. Sure, it could have been better,
>but can't you say that about 90% of the RPGs? I guess what I'm saying is
>that with a few tweaks and some new graphics, Diablo could be what you
>describe above. But to my thinking, it would still be a similar game
>experience to what we already have. I don't see that adding towns, NPCs,
>and quests automatically makes it better or a "true" RPG.
>
I appreciate what you're saying but I think that you're over simplifying a
bit. None the less Diablo would be a great engine to use to build a real
role playing game.
Remember these 6 characters only offer the most basic types of quests which
mostly boil down to go find and kill the bad character. Seriously there is a
bit more but I could writup all the quests in the game in about 5 minutes.
Also the quests never change. The town and quests are really only the slimest
posible CRPG cloaking. The game is mainly one of plunge the dungeon and kill
all the monsters. This game reminds most of a game called old arcade game
called gauntlett where you played an elf, silfe, fighter, or mage and explored
many dungeon levels killing monsters that appeared in hordes. It was also a
fun game.
Anyway, I'll look forward to Diablo II the "real CRPG" game. In the mean time
I've got another dungeon level to clear and I'm looking for a new mana
enhancing shield!
Silverlock
On Thu, 06 Feb 97 03:26:44 GMT, jhof...@ix.netcom.com (John Hoffman)
wrote:
>There have been a few brave souls who have called Diablo an CRPG, to those I
>say that Diablo isn't even close to being a real role playing game.
>
>On the other hand Diablo is an excellent arcade game with role playing
>elements. In fact I'd say it's one of the funest games available today!
>
>Could the Diablo system be a good CRPG? I would say definitely. Expand the
>game beyond the little town. Add some NPCs. Add a story. Add quests and
Its got NPC's, they fulfill the functions of questgivers, healers, and
salesman. Its got a story, or didn't you read the manual. Its got
quests, although they are similar ( kill bad guys to get X), its got
it all.
>quest items. Add some incremental tasks combining quests and people that
>build a developing story. Now you've got a real roll playing game! Of course
>doing that would make it very difficult to create a good multiplayer game. I
>think that in some ways Diablo did a lot to support multiplay capabilities.
>
>In diablo you only basically have one task, get to the bottom of the dungeon.
>You start a level and kill all the monsters. For this your character gets
>stonger. You find powerup items to further enhance your character. Repeat
>this until you get to the lowest level and beat the baddest monster. Sounds
>like an arcade or video game to me... Even final fantasy games blow this away
>in details, story and complexity.
>
Sounds like an RPG to me.
>All that said I love this game. I don't have to do much thinking and I
>love plunging the dungeon looking for a better weapon and finding clever ways
>to kill all the monsters. I like getting together with my brother and
>daughter to do some monster bashing. It's a hell of a lot of fun!
>
>I just consider it quite unlike a real role playing game like Ultima 7 and
>it's like.
>
Claus Grøvdal
John Hoffman wrote:
> Diablo is a great game. I would love to see the mechanics and graphics
> applied to create a real role playing game. Diablo could be much more...
> As it is it's still a great game just not what I would seriously call a CRPG
> game.
Face it - Diablo is Nethack/Rouge with graphics and sound.
I think Blizzard did the right thing with Diablo; They built an awesome
graphics engine, they made a nice user-interface, and they made good
routines for creating random dungeons. Then they released it, and made a
LOT of money. They will use some of this money for Diablo II.
Now, for Diablo II I bet they will add more cities and places to travel
to by foot, monsters and villages in the forests, smaller but better
designed (man made) dungeons related to quests, etc. And hopefully, they
will make it an online game, so that we all may meet in one big game,
and go hunting together.
And if Blizzard doesn't do this, someone else will (Looks like Origin is
close with Ultima Online).
Can't we stop bitching about "Diablo isn't a true crpg" now? If you want
a good crpg, buy Albion or Daggerfall. Albion has a very good story, and
Daggerfall is for all of you that like to wander around wondering what
to do.
Claus
Kinetik - http://origo.no/kinetik/
Spanish Inquisition
*Previous arguement snipped*
>The problem is you both (and more than few others) seem to think that
>Role playing (read thoes two words :) is constituted by Plot/NPCs/Quests
>or
>things to do/important game breaking items/adventure game "got to get
>this before
>you can go there" items/etc.
I didnt make myself as clear as I should have because I agree with a lot of
what you are saying.
>It ain't, in fact anyone who has Role played D&D pen and paper wise,
>should
>know that (MP) Diablo is as much an RPG as any (simple) game of D&D,
>that of course
>assumes you and your friends RP the game. HUMANS Role play (act/pretend)
>a
>computer game doesn't "allow" you to RP or for that matter NOT RP other
>humans
>however can sure help!
Daggerfall is trying to make a step in the right direction though--albeit baby
steps. It gives the player the option of playing their character how they
want. Thats good. The lack of other human interaction can make the game still
seem stale at times. No arguement at all.
D&D, even though that's hardly a great RPG either, adds more simply because of
the human interaction--its not limiting at all.
>You all need to realize that single player Diablo is an RPG (just not a
>very
>good one)
Ok Ill go with you on this.
>DF is also an RPG and also not (because of a total lack of
>other humans
>who can interpret your _acting_ ) a very good one. of both games single
>player
>DF has many more simlated role playing elements (ie. the ablity to act
>like an
>A**hole to an NPC's or not, or quest's to help an NPC in need, thus
>acting like a
>"good guy" would. )
>But the ability to _ACT_ with other Humans (as I and some friends do in
>4 player
>IPX games on weekends) Makes Diablo more of a RPG than any CPRG with the
>exception
>of Meridian 59 (which I havn't played)
Well 4 player diablo still limits the character as to what they can and cant
do. Multiplayer is the key yes, but RPG's are driven by STORY. The players
need a solid world to roleplay in.
-Bill (S.I.)
Spanish Inquisition
>On Thu, 06 Feb 97 03:26:44 GMT, jhof...@ix.netcom.com (John Hoffman)
>wrote:
>>There have been a few brave souls who have called Diablo an CRPG, to those I
>>say that Diablo isn't even close to being a real role playing game.
>>
>>On the other hand Diablo is an excellent arcade game with role playing
>>elements. In fact I'd say it's one of the funest games available today!
>>
>>Could the Diablo system be a good CRPG? I would say definitely. Expand the
>>game beyond the little town. Add some NPCs. Add a story. Add quests and
>Its got NPC's, they fulfill the functions of questgivers, healers, and
>salesman. Its got a story, or didn't you read the manual. Its got
>quests, although they are similar ( kill bad guys to get X), its got
>it all.
Man are you selling yourself short on what a rpg can be.
Story?? That 'story' is about as deep as a few Bugs Bunny cartoons that I have
seen.
Wouldn't you like to see a game that has full multiplayer capbilities, the
Diablo look and feel, an entire world to explore,many GOOD stories to get
involved in--not just 'hey theres a daemon down there..lets get him! (And dont
give me that 'this is the place of my birth stuff'..its a tad limiting to MAKE
me go kill this thing) What if I dnt want to go kill the big daemon from hell?
What if I'd rather do things like bounty hunting, or doing jobs that aren't
quite as suicidal as that. Diablo is very good for what it is--an action game
in a fantasy setting.
Maybe Ultima on-line will be what some us hope it is.
-bill (S.I.)
K Pawlowski
Spanish Inquisition (abn...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
[snip]
: Ive been saying this from the start. The Diablo interface and engine would be
: think of DF with Diablos graphics, sound, and feel. wow.
: The cool thing about this is that I would guess that this will be done at
: some point.
: >In diablo you only basically have one task, get to the bottom of the dungeon.
: >You start a level and kill all the monsters. For this your character gets
: >stonger. You find powerup items to further enhance your character. Repeat
[snip]
Isn't the game you are talking for the new Forgotten Realms game
thats supposed to be out shortly. From what I've seen the I/F is very
similar to Diablo, and it is supposed to contain a large chuck of the
FR campaign setting (6cds worth with expasions planned).
kamil
--
Kamil Pawlowski
Undergrad Computer Engineer University of Waterloo
WAN Metrics, C, Perl, 68K Assembly, & HTML/CGI.
Unix, Dos, etc.
Silverlock
Why do you keep saying Diablo doesn't have a story? Did you read the
books in the game? Did you read the manual? There is a well fleshed
out story there, its just a very focused one. Did you want plot
twists? there are non in Diablo, you are the good guy sent to kill a
demon. if you are playing Multi you can of course be a bad guy trying
to steal or kill others as well.
--
Silverlock
Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.
Silverlock
>
>
>>On Thu, 06 Feb 97 03:26:44 GMT, jhof...@ix.netcom.com (John Hoffman)
>>wrote:
>
>>>There have been a few brave souls who have called Diablo an CRPG, to those I
>>>say that Diablo isn't even close to being a real role playing game.
>>>
>>>On the other hand Diablo is an excellent arcade game with role playing
>>>elements. In fact I'd say it's one of the funest games available today!
>>>
>>>Could the Diablo system be a good CRPG? I would say definitely. Expand the
>>>game beyond the little town. Add some NPCs. Add a story. Add quests and
>
>
>>Its got NPC's, they fulfill the functions of questgivers, healers, and
>>salesman. Its got a story, or didn't you read the manual. Its got
>>quests, although they are similar ( kill bad guys to get X), its got
>>it all.
>
>Man are you selling yourself short on what a rpg can be.
>Story?? That 'story' is about as deep as a few Bugs Bunny cartoons that I have
>seen.
>
I can write a bugs bunny cartoon storyline in 3 or four sentances, but
Diablos took up 13 pages in the manual and had various books in the
dungeon.
>Wouldn't you like to see a game that has full multiplayer capbilities, the
>Diablo look and feel, an entire world to explore,many GOOD stories to get
>involved in--not just 'hey theres a daemon down there..lets get him! (And dont
>give me that 'this is the place of my birth stuff'..its a tad limiting to MAKE
>me go kill this thing) What if I dnt want to go kill the big daemon from hell?
> What if I'd rather do things like bounty hunting, or doing jobs that aren't
>quite as suicidal as that. Diablo is very good for what it is--an action game
>in a fantasy setting.
>
>Maybe Ultima on-line will be what some us hope it is.
>
Sure I would, but just because Diablo doesn't offer all that doesn't
mean its not an rpg or a good game. I am my mage, Silverlock and I am
on a quest to kill Diablo. Why is it limiting to make you go kill this
thing? Why is it that being given a quest means its not an rpg because
you can't choose your own quests? Do you think knights back in the old
days just rode around doing whatever they wanted (actually they did).
No, publically they were given duties and no matter what they did in
real life they always claimed to be on the quests given them. i have
been given the quest to clear this dungeon, since I an a very event
driven game player, requiring me to go on a bunch of pointless
game lengthening side quests before getting to the meat of my main
quest is disracting for me. I hated the Ultima run here ask this, run
there get that style of rpg, precisely because of all the delays and
babbling. If I want to spend time talking I'll go out with my
friends, I have never seen an NPC that approximated a real life
conversation or interaction (BAK came close). Yes I am looking
forward to an expansion of this in Ball or Mephisto, which should
allow for more different areas of exploration, but I am satisfied with
the quest to kill Daiblo as it is.
>-bill (S.I.)
Mark Asher
Some comments:
Mark Asher
Claus Grøvdal <cl...@origo.no> wrote in article <32FB07...@origo.no>...
snip
>
> Now, for Diablo II I bet they will add more cities and places to travel
> to by foot, monsters and villages in the forests, smaller but better
> designed (man made) dungeons related to quests, etc. And hopefully, they
> will make it an online game, so that we all may meet in one big game,
> and go hunting together.
Possibly. They might also just do a one town/one dungeon thing again for
the free battle.net service and come up with a fee-based service for an
expanded Diablo world. Who knows?
> And if Blizzard doesn't do this, someone else will (Looks like Origin is
> close with Ultima Online).
UOL looks cool, but you can tell they sacrificed graphics for being able to
have lots of users online at once. I don't know if Diablo will ever support
much more than 4 players with the kind of graphics it has until we are all
running T1s or something.
> Can't we stop bitching about "Diablo isn't a true crpg" now? If you want
> a good crpg, buy Albion or Daggerfall. Albion has a very good story, and
> Daggerfall is for all of you that like to wander around wondering what
> to do.
I agree. Does it really matter what Diablo is? It's incredibly fun to play,
and it's certainly enough like an RPG to warrant discussion in this
newsgroup that also seems to be the home of endless "add me to the FBI's
warez mailing list" threads.
Mark Asher
I've followed and been in these discussions about RPGs for awhile now, and
I think the story element seems to be the key to lifting a game into the
RPG category. NPCs, quests, multiple towns -- these are all just story
elements.
My argument is that a game becomes an RPG when it has a story, and I think
there are two ways in which a game can have a story and both are valid:
The first way, which is what most people look for, is for the game to have
all the story elements in place for you to enjoy -- the NPCs, the quests,
the ability to mold your character, etc.
The second way is the way that Diablo does it, at least for me. A game can
have a story when the player becomes so immersed in the game that the
player then creates the story. By this I mean the player begins to care
about his character to the point where he imagines the character's past,
reasons for the character acting the way he does, etc. So the story may not
be explicit in a game like Diablo, but for many of us the game is so well
done that we have no problem embellishing the skeletal story that comes
with the game.
Mark Asher
Spanish Inquisition <abn...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote in article
<abner.4.9...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
snip
Philth
In article <01bc145e$2ff99b60$679edaa5@marka>, "Mark Asher" <ma...@impacttech.com> wrote:
>UOL looks cool, but you can tell they sacrificed graphics for being able to
>have lots of users online at once. I don't know if Diablo will ever support
>much more than 4 players with the kind of graphics it has until we are all
>running T1s or something.
They did? All the GFX are 3D rendered. Maybe you haven't seen the latest
screenshots or read about it lately. IMHO, the GFX are on par with Diablos.
They just might not be as well designed.
Philth
In article <abner.4.9...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>, abn...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Spanish Inquisition) wrote:
>Man are you selling yourself short on what a rpg can be.
>Story?? That 'story' is about as deep as a few Bugs Bunny cartoons that I have
>seen.
I have seen worse. The early Ultimas, Dungeon Master, all the Eye of the
Beholders, etc.. What gives? Are they too 'old' to be considered RPGs
anymore? Gimme a break!
>Wouldn't you like to see a game that has full multiplayer capbilities, the
>Diablo look and feel, an entire world to explore,many GOOD stories to get
>involved in--not just 'hey theres a daemon down there..lets get him! (And dont
>give me that 'this is the place of my birth stuff'..its a tad limiting to MAKE
>me go kill this thing) What if I dnt want to go kill the big daemon from hell?
> What if I'd rather do things like bounty hunting, or doing jobs that aren't
>quite as suicidal as that.
Sure, but that isn't what Diablo is. Why not write one yourself? If you think
a game needs that ungodly amount of data flying around to be called a
'real' RPG then you're just plain whacked in the head.
>Maybe Ultima on-line will be what some us hope it is.
That might be the game you're describing above.
Tigen
Simon Juncal <~sju...@erols.com> wrote in article
<32FADC...@erols.com>...
<snip>
> The problem is you both (and more than few others) seem to think that
> Role playing (read thoes two words :) is constituted by Plot/NPCs/Quests
> or
> things to do/important game breaking items/adventure game "got to get
> this before
> you can go there" items/etc.
>
> should
> know that (MP) Diablo is as much an RPG as any (simple) game of D&D,
> that of course
> assumes you and your friends RP the game. HUMANS Role play (act/pretend)
> a
> computer game doesn't "allow" you to RP or for that matter NOT RP other
> humans
> however can sure help!
Well, considering that the Diablo engine leaves you with basically one
option in every situation (that is, hack the monsters with your weapons)
there really isn't much room for role-playing. Battle.net? Even if that
worked like it should, what role-playing would occur? The four characters
go kill things. There's really nothing for them to discuss or plan., since
the only thing they encounter is monsters, monsters, and more monsters. It
doesn't even matter which way they go at an intersection since everything
connects. If this is what your games of D&D resemble then I have to say
you had a very shitty dungeon master.
> You all need to realize that single player Diablo is an RPG (just not a
> very
> good one) DF is also an RPG and also not (because of a total lack of
> other humans
> who can interpret your _acting_ ) a very good one. of both games single
> player
> DF has many more simlated role playing elements (ie. the ablity to act
> like an
> A**hole to an NPC's or not, or quest's to help an NPC in need, thus
> acting like a
> "good guy" would. )
CRPGs have been around for quite some time now, and since the multiplayer
element hasn't been possible really till recently, lack of other humans and
whatnot is not a consideration for what makes a good rpg. Multiplayer
crpgs are in another class altogether. Besides, you can still have a
decent rpg (real pen&paper) with just one player and one DM (not as much
fun of course...). In that case you still have NPCs which "interpret your
acting." Good CRPGs historically have good systems where you can interact
with your environment in variously complex ways. Diablo is opposite this
and thus is more of an action oriented game.
> But the ability to _ACT_ with other Humans (as I and some friends do in
> 4 player
> IPX games on weekends) Makes Diablo more of a RPG than any CPRG with the
> exception
> of Meridian 59 (which I havn't played)
Please explain what difference it makes that your friends happen to be
killing monsters as well.
T I G E N
Tigen
Philth <not...@inxpress.net> wrote in article
<32fbc...@news.inxpress.net>...
I thought UOL's graphics were superb, as far as the individual objects and
shading are concerned. The thing that probably puts off people is the
weird isometric angle they used, which makes the perspectives seem messed
up somehow. Once you get used to that you'll realize that is makes things
better since you can see the side views of the players and everything more
clearly. (I guess...)
John Hoffman
In article <32fb5085...@news.earthlink.net>, cro...@earthlink.net (Silverlock) wrote:
>
>Why do you keep saying Diablo doesn't have a story? Did you read the
>books in the game? Did you read the manual? There is a well fleshed
>out story there, its just a very focused one. Did you want plot
>twists? there are non in Diablo, you are the good guy sent to kill a
>demon. if you are playing Multi you can of course be a bad guy trying
>to steal or kill others as well.
Oh come on! Just because a game ships with a story in the manual included
with the box doesn't quite count. And if you're trying to say that those half
dozen books you read in the game are developing and interesting story I'm
totally speachless. I think of a game where you are the main character in a
story. Something that evolves and develops. Again I go back to the older
ultima games. It's kinda like comparing a one page story to a book and
calling it good literature or an engrossing story.
Diablo has the thinnest verneer of a role playing game possible. If you've
been playing Diablo in multiplayer mode that I doubt you've every talked to
the people in town. You've probably not read the books. It's most likely a
hack and slash fest. In fact imagine if you will that the town is gone,
remove the books. Lets say you have an option to buy & sell stuff at the
enterence to the dungeon. Would the game really be any different? I don't
think so. 99% of the time all that other stuff is ignored anyway.
Diablo is a fun game in the role playing setting. It isn't a role playing
game. So what, is it fun? You bet! Diablo is a game that doesn't take much
out of you. It can be played for 15 minutes or several hours. By contrast I
would never consider spending less that an hour on an ultima game because it
requires thought. You have to think about what you are doing. You have to
talk to NPCs and learn their secrets. Things are connected. It's like a
tapastry that you build as you play. It is engrossing.
Anyway killing diablo is a quest? Ok than game has one quest, or is it three
in the Multiplayer game. I'm going to write a fantasy novel with 3 paragraphs
and ask you if you call it a good novel.
Here is looking to Diablo II
BTW does anone here care that UO is going to be for an hourly rate. It also
won't support any single player mode or small groups modes. Doesn't this kill
it as a good game? How will it be any fun if everyone in the world is in the
game and it is constantly changing. If you don't have tons of time to spend
on it won't you constantly be overshadowed by demigod like characters. Won't
all the good stuff be gone. How will you have interesting things to do?
Simon Juncal
Claus Grøvdal wrote:
>
> John Hoffman wrote:
>
> > Diablo is a great game. I would love to see the mechanics and graphics
> > applied to create a real role playing game. Diablo could be much more...
>
> > As it is it's still a great game just not what I would seriously call a CRPG
> > game.
>
> Face it - Diablo is Nethack/Rouge with graphics and sound.
and four player networking that allows (unlike ANY of Y'all's
TRUE or REAL <heavy sarcasm> Role playing games) ROLE PLAYING
thus (please read slowly) it IS A ROLE PLAYING GAME.
Simon Juncal
Spanish Inquisition wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 06 Feb 97 03:26:44 GMT, jhof...@ix.netcom.com (John Hoffman)
> >wrote:
>
> >Its got NPC's, they fulfill the functions of questgivers, healers, and
> >salesman. Its got a story, or didn't you read the manual. Its got
> >quests, although they are similar ( kill bad guys to get X), its got
> >it all.
>
> Story?? That 'story' is about as deep as a few Bugs Bunny cartoons that I have
> seen.
>
> Diablo look and feel, an entire world to explore,many GOOD stories to get
> involved in--not just 'hey theres a daemon down there..lets get him! (And dont
> give me that 'this is the place of my birth stuff'..its a tad limiting to MAKE
> me go kill this thing) What if I dnt want to go kill the big daemon from hell?
> What if I'd rather do things like bounty hunting, or doing jobs that aren't
> in a fantasy setting.
>
>
True UO will probably be a better RPG than Diablo (in that
you'll have more options, more characters and situations to Roleplay
in.) but I've yet to read ONE POST in here from anyone (and I havn't
read anywhere near every post, so I'm not saying there are none) that
knows what RP is. Most of you seem to have this notion that Role play
is about plot or NPC interaction or wide open landscapes or exploring
etc. and even thoes of us defending Diablo being a TRUE (but simple)
role playing game. Some have mistaken ideas that character "levels"
"stats" and goodies/items/weapons. make a game a role playing game
none of that stuff is Role playing, true most of it HELPS RP
to some degree or another. but the fact is RP is basically doing what
your character would do. you all mistake role playing with a game
machanic, that is programed in to a game, any P&P dungeon/game master
will tell you the most creative well thought out game world/modual
will NOT make a human play the role of his character, if he doesn't
want to.
Simon Juncal
Mark Asher wrote:
>
> I've followed and been in these discussions about RPGs for awhile now, and
> I think the story element seems to be the key to lifting a game into the
> RPG category. NPCs, quests, multiple towns -- these are all just story
> elements.
>
> My argument is that a game becomes an RPG when it has a story, and I think
> there are two ways in which a game can have a story and both are valid:
you're wrong what you describe can be called a STG (story telling game)
shadow keep (a very cool old graphic adventure) had a cool story and in
fact
so does Diablo just because it's not an EPIC tail with a million twists
doesn't make it a bad story! none of that makes a difference, except in
your willingness to role play a character.
story has LITTLE to do with you PLAYING (ACTING) a character, it makes
the game worth playing and add's MOTIVATION to role play but it does not
MAKE any game an RPG
> The first way, which is what most people look for, is for the game to have
> all the story elements in place for you to enjoy -- the NPCs, the quests,
> the ability to mold your character, etc.
>
> The second way is the way that Diablo does it, at least for me. A game can
> have a story when the player becomes so immersed in the game that the
> player then creates the story. By this I mean the player begins to care
> about his character to the point where he imagines the character's past,
> reasons for the character acting the way he does, etc. So the story may not
> be explicit in a game like Diablo, but for many of us the game is so well
> done that we have no problem embellishing the skeletal story that comes
> with the game.
>
> Mark Asher
>
> Spanish Inquisition <abn...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote in article
> <abner.4.9...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
> snip
> >
> > Well 4 player diablo still limits the character as to what they can and
> cant
> > do. Multiplayer is the key yes, but RPG's are driven by STORY. The
> players
> > need a solid world to roleplay in.
--
Silverlock
On 8 Feb 1997 01:38:08 GMT, "Tigen" <dsch...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
wrote:
>Simon Juncal <~sju...@erols.com> wrote in article
><32FADC...@erols.com>...
><snip>
>> The problem is you both (and more than few others) seem to think that
>> Role playing (read thoes two words :) is constituted by Plot/NPCs/Quests
>> or
>> things to do/important game breaking items/adventure game "got to get
>> this before
>> you can go there" items/etc.
>>
>> It ain't, in fact anyone who has Role played D&D pen and paper wise,
>> should
>> know that (MP) Diablo is as much an RPG as any (simple) game of D&D,
>> that of course
>> assumes you and your friends RP the game. HUMANS Role play (act/pretend)
>> a
>> computer game doesn't "allow" you to RP or for that matter NOT RP other
>> humans
>> however can sure help!
>
>Well, considering that the Diablo engine leaves you with basically one
>option in every situation (that is, hack the monsters with your weapons)
>there really isn't much room for role-playing. Battle.net? Even if that
What other options for dealing with monsters would you like?
Yellow Four
this is one of the weaker parts of Diablo that proves it is not an RPG.
It would be nice to be able to talk to the monster, even if it will
still attack you or if it ignores you. It's nice to be able to talk to
other players, but they're not the only characters in the game. Sure
you can talk to the townsfolk, but the game will be same without this
function. And there's not much to roleplay: PK or friendly. And there
is NO roleplaying whatsoever in single player mode. I respect those
sorcerors who only use staves, but I have never heard/seen any warrior
who doesn't use spells, or even scrolls. It may be impossible to beat
the game with this character, but that's roleplaying. It would be
boring to always play a demigod.
Also, we should try to avoid including 'real life RPGs' in our arguments
since for the present and forseeable future, it is almost impossible to
emulate the same interactivity and creativity on a CRPG, except in those
FRPG or whatever you call them , those IRC chat rooms. "I kick you in
the *****." "I sidestep to the left. haha!!""DM: Oops, you tripped over
a rock!" These are some examples of the real life RPGs that would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to program every possible event
that could occur in real life into a CRPG, since the human mind can be
so much more creative than a computer can be programmed to do. But it
is possible to write a game with good plot that also includes enough
varied actions that could be performed, which would be enjoyable and
truer to RPG.
Yellow Four
The way Diablo does it, it doesn't matter what the story is, it is
basically the destroy-everything-in-your-path game like Crusader and
Doom. FWIW, the story is only a setting, not a plot. It could be an
evil king trying to take over the world, and it wouldn't make a damn
difference. All everybody cares is going to teh dungeon and kill, kill,
kill. Nobody cares for teh story in an action game. Thats not what
they buy it for in teh first place. But I think many people who bought
the game as an RPG, as it was advertised, feel ripped off. and there's
as much roleplaying in multiplayer as there is in Doom.
VuNguyen
Simon Juncal <~sju...@erols.com> Wrote the following in 2 separate posts:
<<and four player networking that allows (unlike ANY of Y'all's
TRUE or REAL <heavy sarcasm> Role playing games) ROLE PLAYING
thus (please read slowly) it IS A ROLE PLAYING GAME.>>
You know. This argument keeps getting thrown out, but I just don't see
the logic. If all it takes to be a role playing game is multinet player
support, so you can "role play", then games like quake, duke nuke'em, and
mechwarrior would qualify. Explain that to my satisfaction, and then you
may convert me. Btw, don't use the argument that "well, they can be
considered an RPG in that setting," or "with a little tweaking, those
games are prime candidates for RPGdom." Neither of them fly. They aren't
considered RPG's now, in their present incarnation.
If you want the closest thing to TRUE RPG on the computer/internet, play a
MUD. But don't tell me that a mainly action game (okay, okay... with "RPG
elements") suddenly becomes a full blown RPG because it allows four player
net play.
<<[Snip about role playing not being stats, weapons, exploring, and world
interaction.]
none of that stuff is Role playing, true most of it HELPS RP
to some degree or another. but the fact is RP is basically doing what
your character would do.>>
Well, now we're getting into a highly subjective, and incredibly broad
definition of role playing. So you're saying as long as you're playing
the character in the game as you think it would act, you're role playing?
Would Tomb Raider qualify then? How about Quake? Or Crusader? Each of
these ACTION games has a character with a background (no matter how
sparse), a goal, and a means to reach that goal. If I understand you
right, these can all be consider RPGs, as long as I "play" in character
and act as that character should.
Obviously, we totally disagree on what an CRPG is. I think the mistake
that many people make is equating a pen & paper RPG with a computer RPG.
They're totally different games in entirely different mediums. P&P RPGs
allow absolute freedom of action because it all exists in the imaginations
of the GM and players. You can do whatever you want, however you want,
whenever you want. This is impossible with CRPGs because the "GM" is the
computer, and the designers just can't anticipate/program every possible
action. So a different set of criteria have evolved (yes, evolved. CRPGs
of the 90's don't look/feel anything like the CRPGs of the early 80's) to
attempt to define what CRPGs are. Basically, they've become games of
exploration, discovery, and interaction. Where you have certain goals to
reach, but how you get there is entirely up to you. They're games where
the world and the NPCs who inhabit it are open to your manipulation, and
in many ways, you're changed by what you encounter. Your character grows,
changes, and develops throughout the entire game. In other words, an CRPG
is a game where nothing's ever static. It constantly changes, and your
character along with it.
<<you all mistake role playing with a game
machanic, that is programed in to a game, any P&P dungeon/game master
will tell you the most creative well thought out game world/modual
will NOT make a human play the role of his character, if he doesn't
want to. >>
True, but whether or not he's playing his character is immaterial to
whether or not the game's an RPG. If I don't play my Vampire [insert
favorite character here] as he should be played (according to the
background/goals/desires that I have given it), the game is still an RPG.
Just not a particularly fun one to everyone else. On the other hand, if I
decide to play a game of basketball and act like a complete ass to
everyone because I decided I was going to be Rodman for the day, it
doesn't make basketball an RPG.
My 2 pesos.
me
p.s. Just for the record, I've been playing CRPG's since Wizardry I came
out. I've been playing P&P RPG's since the days of the boxed D&D set.
Silverlock
On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 03:18:28 -0800, Yellow Four <katt...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>Silverlock wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 1997 01:38:08 GMT, "Tigen" <dsch...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
>> wrote:
SNIP
>this is one of the weaker parts of Diablo that proves it is not an RPG.
>It would be nice to be able to talk to the monster, even if it will
>still attack you or if it ignores you. It's nice to be able to talk to
It ould be interesting I agree to perhaps trick a monster or need
for example to talk your way past a monster that was unkillable until
you got a magic weapon from a latter level.
>other players, but they're not the only characters in the game. Sure
>you can talk to the townsfolk, but the game will be same without this
>function. And there's not much to roleplay: PK or friendly. And there
It would also be neat if there were penalties for not talking to the
towns characters, like if you talk to Cain after you start level 6 you
find the witch has been robbed and needs a certain object back before
you complete the level or within a certain timeframe or she ceases to
exist in the game. That would be cool.
>is NO roleplaying whatsoever in single player mode. I respect those
>sorcerors who only use staves, but I have never heard/seen any warrior
>who doesn't use spells, or even scrolls. It may be impossible to beat
>the game with this character, but that's roleplaying. It would be
>boring to always play a demigod.
>
Simply making it that a mage can't cast a spell when next to an enemy
creature EXCEPT by use of a staff, and that you can't change inventory
when under attack would guarantee a larger amount of realism/character
playing. Also mages should really suck at hand to hand, I mean really
suck.
>Also, we should try to avoid including 'real life RPGs' in our arguments
>since for the present and forseeable future, it is almost impossible to
>emulate the same interactivity and creativity on a CRPG, except in those
>FRPG or whatever you call them , those IRC chat rooms. "I kick you in
>the *****." "I sidestep to the left. haha!!""DM: Oops, you tripped over
>a rock!" These are some examples of the real life RPGs that would be
>extremely difficult, if not impossible, to program every possible event
>that could occur in real life into a CRPG, since the human mind can be
>so much more creative than a computer can be programmed to do. But it
>is possible to write a game with good plot that also includes enough
>varied actions that could be performed, which would be enjoyable and
>truer to RPG.
Agreed.
Mark Asher
>snip
>
> BTW does anone here care that UO is going to be for an hourly rate. It
also
> won't support any single player mode or small groups modes. Doesn't this
kill
> it as a good game? How will it be any fun if everyone in the world is in
the
> game and it is constantly changing. If you don't have tons of time to
spend
> on it won't you constantly be overshadowed by demigod like characters.
Won't
> all the good stuff be gone. How will you have interesting things to do?
Good questions. Is it going to be hourly only? I hadn't heard. That about
kills it for me -- I'm not going to risk getting hooked on a game where I
pay by the hour. I'll be stealing purses like a crack addict to support my
habit.
I've also wondered about the quests, items you can find etc. If there's a
quest, I want to be able to play it. Will the game support this? I mean, if
someone else completes it, will I get a chance to do it also? Can we both
get the same special item at the end of the quest? It would be nice if it
played like Diablo in some ways -- you and your buds start a game and no
one else can get in, and all the quests are available for you.
I'd also like to know what Origin is planning on doing about pkilling. I've
heard that pkilling in the city can be dangerous -- there will be guards
who will come after the pkiller, etc. What I'd really like to see is the
pkiller penalized if caught. Knock him down a level and kick him off for
the evening. This would make it more realistic instead of the model we get
with Diablo and Meridian 59 now where there's absolutely no penalty at all
for pkilling. I only wonder because I've already seen messages from people
who are forming clans and guilds devoted to pkilling in UOL.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
I saw screenshots from the last beta test. I thought the graphics were ok,
but not up to Diablo's standards. Perhaps they've been redone since then? I
haven't seen any new ones for a bit. Do you know how combat is handled? I
heard it was abstracted, and I'm neither sure that this is right nor what
this means. I find Diablo's click to attack method immensely satisfying,
and I'm hoping that UOL has something like this.
Mark Asher
Lady Whisper
In article <01bc1495$a98cf080$679edaa5@marka>, ma...@impacttech.com
says...
> Good questions. Is it going to be hourly only? I hadn't heard. That about
> kills it for me -- I'm not going to risk getting hooked on a game where I
> pay by the hour. I'll be stealing purses like a crack addict to support my
> habit.
No pricing structure has been announced as of yet, although RG indicated
in a chat that it was probably going to be somewhere around $15-30 per
month for unlimited time, although that is subject to change.
> I've also wondered about the quests, items you can find etc. If there's a
> quest, I want to be able to play it. Will the game support this? I mean, if
> someone else completes it, will I get a chance to do it also? Can we both
> get the same special item at the end of the quest? It would be nice if it
> played like Diablo in some ways -- you and your buds start a game and no
> one else can get in, and all the quests are available for you.
>
> I'd also like to know what Origin is planning on doing about pkilling. I've
> heard that pkilling in the city can be dangerous -- there will be guards
> who will come after the pkiller, etc. What I'd really like to see is the
> pkiller penalized if caught. Knock him down a level and kick him off for
> the evening. This would make it more realistic instead of the model we get
> with Diablo and Meridian 59 now where there's absolutely no penalty at all
> for pkilling. I only wonder because I've already seen messages from people
> who are forming clans and guilds devoted to pkilling in UOL.
Most of your questions can be answered by reading the Ultima Online FAQ
at http://www.owo.com/faq.html
--
Lady Whisper
Worlds Of Origin: http://www.bestware.net/whisper/woo
PVLBS: http://www.bestware.net/whisper/pvlb.shtml
Classic Web Creations: http://www.bestware.net/whisper
Desslock
Yellow Four wrote:
>
> Silverlock wrote:
>snip
> > >Well, considering that the Diablo engine leaves you with basically one
> > >option in every situation (that is, hack the monsters with your weapons)
> > >there really isn't much room for role-playing. Battle.net? Even if that
> > What other options for dealing with monsters would you like?
>
> > --
> > Silverlock
>
> this is one of the weaker parts of Diablo that proves it is not an RPG.
> It would be nice to be able to talk to the monster, even if it will
> still attack you or if it ignores you. It's nice to be able to talk to
> other players, but they're not the only characters in the game. Sure
> you can talk to the townsfolk, but the game will be same without this
> function.
Based upon your description, Daggerfall isn't a role playing game either
- you can't talk to monsters (o.k., you can make them not attack if you
are successful 'speaking' to them, but there is no dialogue), and the
NPCs in Daggerfall aren't exactly very functional either....
snip
I respect those
> sorcerors who only use staves, but I have never heard/seen any warrior
> who doesn't use spells, or even scrolls. It may be impossible to beat
> the game with this character, but that's roleplaying. It would be
> boring to always play a demigod.
I like the fact that in Diablo there are no "artificial" prohibitions
imposed upon the classes - the classes are still different enough that
you have to play them differently, at least at until they are high
level. Again, Daggerfall lets you create a "custom" character to avoid
armour restrictions, etc.
To me, it comes down to creating a "realistic" fantasy world - and by
realistic I don't necessarily mean "life-like", or similar to our world.
It means having an interactive world with other characters, in which you
generally have a great deal of freedom to do what you want in order to
develop your character. Too many people seem to think that "swords and
sorcery" themes = roleplaying (I actually think that Starflight and Star
Control 2 are two of the best roleplaying games I have ever played), or
turn based games = roleplaying. As I said, to me it all comes down to
non-linearity and the interactivity of the world, which is why the
Ultima games (other than Pagan), are the "ultimate" role playing games,
in my opinion, and my favourite games as well (at least they were 4
years ago, when the last "real" one came out).
Based on my definition, Daggerfall is definitely a role playing game,
but Diablo probably isn't - more of an action game with role playing
elements. But Diablo is a much more polished game, and one I would
rather play, at least for now.
Desslock
Desslock
Mark Asher wrote:
>
> I saw screenshots from the last beta test. I thought the graphics were ok,
> but not up to Diablo's standards. Perhaps they've been redone since then? I
> haven't seen any new ones for a bit. Do you know how combat is handled? I
> heard it was abstracted, and I'm neither sure that this is right nor what
> this means. I find Diablo's click to attack method immensely satisfying,
> and I'm hoping that UOL has something like this.
>
>
last pre-alpha test...still not on par with Diablo, but definitely some
interesting eye candy, and given the very different focus of Ultima
on-line, pretty impressive nevertheless.
Desslock
Simon Juncal
VuNguyen wrote:
>
> Simon Juncal <~sju...@erols.com> Wrote the following in 2 separate posts:
>
> <<and four player networking that allows (unlike ANY of Y'all's
> TRUE or REAL <heavy sarcasm> Role playing games) ROLE PLAYING
> thus (please read slowly) it IS A ROLE PLAYING GAME.>>
>
> You know. This argument keeps getting thrown out, but I just don't see
> the logic. If all it takes to be a role playing game is multinet player
> support, so you can "role play", then games like quake, duke nuke'em, and
> mechwarrior would qualify. Explain that to my satisfaction, and then you
> may convert me. Btw, don't use the argument that "well, they can be
> considered an RPG in that setting," or "with a little tweaking, those
<Sarcasm>AH I love</Sarcasm>, the old "Don't use this/or that
argument because I have already desided they aren't valid" logic.
<Joe Blow in the 13th century:>
BTW don't tell me the world is round, Common knowledge say's it's
flat.
> games are prime candidates for RPGdom." Neither of them fly. They aren't
> considered RPG's now, in their present incarnation.
hhmm OK let me try to explain this to your satisfaction, while not
being "allowed" to use arguments that are perfectly valid.
I'll use their oposites, Take above ground travel, NPC's and most of
the story out of Dagger fall (or just story and NPC's etc. out of Ultima
under world) and you have a crappy looking Quake with swords
(better known as Heretic/Hexen ;) Of course you would have no motivation
to Role play but (assuming other Humans in say an IPX game) you could
rather easly Role play. I believe it would be rather boring but
it is entirely possible to Role play during a modem to modem game
of Doom (just not much reason to, somewhat unlike Diablo where player
interaction and to a large degree co-op play is encouraged).
How do these "QUESTS" differ in any real sense AT ALL?
(oh and don't tell me one is RP because it's: in a fantasy setting, for
a bigger purpose, has an NPC in it):
Doom: go get blue key card to open door.
CRPG <pick one>: go get blue staff o' trouser trout "so that YE SHALL
BE ABLE TO PASS".
> If you want the closest thing to TRUE RPG on the computer/internet, play a
> MUD. But don't tell me that a mainly action game (okay, okay... with "RPG
> elements") suddenly becomes a full blown RPG because it allows four player
> net play.
Why? it's easy enough to kick back at my buddy's with 3 friends on his
IPX network and role play all we want playing Diablo, it is a simple
game but then D&D can be pretty simple also, with Diablo we don't need
to role dice or read rule books, calculate thac0 and to top it off no
mapping! and no arguments as to who's being DM that night.
As games like this (that allow/incourage human interaction, unlike
games where the goal is to simply kill the other player as many times
as you can Quake/DN3d/Doom) get more advanced with more interactive
aspects such as effecting your envirment and more allowed actions
by the player (pickpocketing, sex (don't giggle it'll happen) pissing
on a tree, or what ever, we'll see much _more_ oportunity to role play
as it stands all CRPG's have there limmits and Diablo is a roleplaying
game just a simplistic (but very fun) one.
> <<[Snip about role playing not being stats, weapons, exploring, and world
> interaction.]
>
> none of that stuff is Role playing, true most of it HELPS RP
> to some degree or another. but the fact is RP is basically doing what
> your character would do.>>
>
> Well, now we're getting into a highly subjective, and incredibly broad
Yep, and it's not my intent to argue these broad definitions
but if I must use them to enforce my belief that Diablo is not only a
RPG
it's a pretty damn fun one. then I'll be happy to.
Just as happy using subjective, and incredibly broad definitions
as thoes who dismiss Diablo's RP with subjective, and incredibly
_NARROW_ justifications.
(such as "NO A ___REAL___ <S>can't you tell i love that term</S>
RPG HAS A GOOD PLOT" or "it has to have more than just X amount of
NPC's to be a ___TRUE___ RPG" or "it only has three Character classes"
BTW Role playing is commonly used in the mental health field
it _IS_ Role playing but as often as not there are NO dice or plot
or NPC's nor quests.
> definition of role playing. So you're saying as long as you're playing
> the character in the game as you think it would act, you're role playing?
> Would Tomb Raider qualify then? How about Quake? Or Crusader? Each of
> these ACTION games has a character with a background (no matter how
> sparse), a goal, and a means to reach that goal. If I understand you
> right, these can all be consider RPGs, as long as I "play" in character
> and act as that character should.
I won't get into this, except to say that short of scrabble ANY game
could be losely defined as "a game in which you play a role" but an
RPG is a game in which you are INCOURAGED to play your Character as
you want to(act). Which despite all the nay sayers is not only possible
in Diablo, it is easy and fun.
Oh boy now spectator sports, in the sense that you need only be
your self (assuming athletic ability) in team sports then of course
Bball isn't a RPG (however the term 'role player' is often used in
pro sports to describe a player who is able(or not in some cases) to
fill a need/weak spot on the team he may not be doing his normal job
and is thus 'filling a role' being a hockey fan I hear the term a lot)
True if you did what you described it wouldn't make Bball a RPG it
WOULD make you an asshole ;) and a roleplayer. if you joined a
game of network Quake and sudenly spouted off and ran away from all
the other players acting like a (for lack of a better term) wuss
you would be (I'm guessing) role playing. OTOH Diablo allows for and
in fact encourages RP unlike the afore mentioned games you are supposed
to take a Character and RP him/her to whatever degree you feel
comfortable
with, by your same logic just because you don't _have_ to RP your
character
in this light RPG doesn't make it NOT an RPG.
> My 2 pesos.
>
> me
>
> p.s. Just for the record, I've been playing CRPG's since Wizardry I came
> out. I've been playing P&P RPG's since the days of the boxed D&D set.
Cool, I got the blue boxed set in 1979 for x-mas and have played AD&D,
Shadowrun, Battletech, Call of Chutlhu, GURPS, T&T, Warhammer and
Ruinquest amoung others.
Dennis Moran
Mark Asher <ma...@impacttech.com> wrote in article
<01bc1495$a98cf080$679edaa5@marka>...
> John Hoffman <jhof...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <5dguda$m...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
> >snip
> >
> > BTW does anone here care that UO is going to be for an hourly rate. It
> also
> > won't support any single player mode or small groups modes. Doesn't
this
> kill
> > it as a good game? How will it be any fun if everyone in the world is
in
> the
> > game and it is constantly changing. If you don't have tons of time to
> spend
> > on it won't you constantly be overshadowed by demigod like characters.
> Won't
> > all the good stuff be gone. How will you have interesting things to
do?
>
> kills it for me -- I'm not going to risk getting hooked on a game where I
> pay by the hour. I'll be stealing purses like a crack addict to support
my
> habit.
>
> quest, I want to be able to play it. Will the game support this? I mean,
if
> someone else completes it, will I get a chance to do it also? Can we both
> get the same special item at the end of the quest? It would be nice if it
> played like Diablo in some ways -- you and your buds start a game and no
> one else can get in, and all the quests are available for you.
>
I certainly hope that only one person can take a quest. If not, we'll start
seeing all the problems of Diablo, except worse. Remember, they're
expecting 2000+ people on all the time.
>
> I'd also like to know what Origin is planning on doing about pkilling.
I've
> heard that pkilling in the city can be dangerous -- there will be guards
> who will come after the pkiller, etc. What I'd really like to see is the
> pkiller penalized if caught. Knock him down a level and kick him off for
> the evening. This would make it more realistic instead of the model we
get
> with Diablo and Meridian 59 now where there's absolutely no penalty at
all
> for pkilling. I only wonder because I've already seen messages from
people
> who are forming clans and guilds devoted to pkilling in UOL.
>
Getting killed by hte city guard, or a guild devoted to stopping pkillers,
should be enough punishment. I expect pkilling to run rampant outside the
cities though.
>
> Mark Asher
>
>
--
Dennis Moran (aka Coolio)
coo...@coolio9.com
http://coolio9.com/
Mark Asher
Actually, many people play netmech in a roleplaying fashion. You can join
the Jade Falcon clan, etc. They have ranks within their groups and do
battle with other clans, etc.
The logic behind the multiplayer experience in Diablo being roleplaying has
some support as well. People have formed guilds and clans. People have
taken on the role of outlaws (pkillers) and bounty hunters. Many people
have invented a history for their character, etc. These things are not
built into the game itself, but are a byproduct of it.
But, rather than ask if Diablo is a CRPG, I'd rather just ask, is it fun?
That's the crucial question.
Mark Asher
VuNguyen <vung...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970209180...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Simon Juncal <~sju...@erols.com> Wrote the following in 2 separate
posts:
>
> <<and four player networking that allows (unlike ANY of Y'all's
> TRUE or REAL <heavy sarcasm> Role playing games) ROLE PLAYING
> thus (please read slowly) it IS A ROLE PLAYING GAME.>>
>
> You know. This argument keeps getting thrown out, but I just don't see
> the logic. If all it takes to be a role playing game is multinet player
> support, so you can "role play", then games like quake, duke nuke'em, and
> mechwarrior would qualify. Explain that to my satisfaction, and then you
> may convert me. Btw, don't use the argument that "well, they can be
> considered an RPG in that setting," or "with a little tweaking, those
Mark Asher
I guess if people rushed out and bought it the first day it was out and
hadn't played the demo and expected multiple towns and lots of NPCs and a
branching storyline they might feel ripped off. Then again, they probably
feel ripped off with a lot with their game purchases if they bite on games
so quickly. My guess is that most people *don't* feel ripped off by Diablo,
but who knows? Maybe in 3 months it will be one of the most reviled games
in history. Then again, maybe not. <g>
As to it being a destroy everything in your path game, aren't most CRPGs
like that to some degree? Stonekeep, Anvil of Dawn, every dungeon quest in
Daggerfall, etc. Other games have more involved stories, but hack and slash
seems to be central to them all in order to advance the story. Is a game
like Under a Killing Moon a CRPG? You take on the role of a detective. You
have a rich story that you influence by your decisions. If it isn't a CRPG,
why isn't it? Just curious.
Mark Asher
Yellow Four <katt...@pacbell.net> wrote in article
<32FDF0...@pacbell.net>...
Homer Simpson
On 10 Feb 1997 17:41:48 GMT, "Mark Asher" <ma...@impacttech.com>
wrote:
>As to it being a destroy everything in your path game, aren't most CRPGs
>like that to some degree? Stonekeep, Anvil of Dawn, every dungeon quest in
>Daggerfall, etc. Other games have more involved stories, but hack and slash
>seems to be central to them all in order to advance the story. Is a game
>like Under a Killing Moon a CRPG? You take on the role of a detective. You
>have a rich story that you influence by your decisions. If it isn't a CRPG,
>why isn't it? Just curious.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this concept, so forgive me if I'm
repeating something previously stated.
One of the central components of a role-playing game is that the
character (or characters) the game-player takes on will
evolve/change/adapt throughout the course of the game. Such changes
are also largely determined by the player himself/herself and not
assigned or predetermined by the game itself. This does not include
external trappings/equipment/items which, after all, are just
inventory.
Following this guideline, we then see that Diablo is a CRPG while
Hexen is not. Ultima 8 is a CRPG while Super Mario <grin> is not.
Daggerfall is a CRPG but Quake is not. Is a game like X-Com a CRPG?
While it's clearly a strategy game, the player is also able to direct
the development of his/her squad members throughout the game.
The concept of having an active hand in the molding and development of
one's characters also leads the player to care a great deal more about
these characters. So much so that you want to keep them alive or
resurrect them if they die.
gr...@v-wave.com
> to some degree or another. but the fact is RP is basically doing what
> machanic, that is programed in to a game, any P&P dungeon/game master
> will tell you the most creative well thought out game world/modual
> will NOT make a human play the role of his character, if he doesn't
> want to.
> (Remove the ~ (tilde) from my adrress when replying)
> ____________________________________________
> ) Simon )
> ( Midzilla Music & sound (
> ) Mailto:sju...@erols.com )
> ( http://users.aol.com/sjuncal/theax.html (
> )___________________________________________)
>
> Acceptable Use Policy.
> commercial use of my system is restricted, Solicited
> messages and unsolicited individually addressed non-commercial
> message may be sent free. The fee for unsolicited mail sent by
> automated mailers and/or advertisement is $500 such mailings to
> FAX machines and computer systems are prohibited under federal
> laws (47 USC 227) and provide for civil penalties and claims of
> $500.00 per occurrence (47 USC 227[c]) may be assessed.
You make a reasonable point about the definition of role playing - yes,
it's living vicarously through a character and having the character play
your "part" in the game world but it is precisely there that Diablo is
at its weakest. The problem with Diablo is you just can't do anything -
you walk back and forth to a dungeon and kill things, creatures, other
players it doesn't really matter. The major problem that I have with
defining Diablo as a role playing game is that you are completely
limited by the game world; you can't steal things, you can't fight in
town, you can't walk down the road to the next town - the list is
endless.
Good RPG's allow you to actually do things, therefore allowing you to
role play - Diablo's world is exceptionally limited but technically
necessary. The dungeons have to be randomly generated to promote
replay, the town has to be small because there's nothing to do there;
there is no point in wasting time hanging out at the tavern or chatting
at the Town Square because nothing ever happens there....
To quote a wise RPG fanatic - "Just because a game has a Ring of
Protection in it doesn't mean that it is a Role Playing Game." I
believe that Diablo falls under that description.
Diablo is unquestionably an excellent game (I'd rather not count the
multitudes of hours I've played it) but it really lacks freedom in the
game world of a true RPG. It also lacks interesting NPCs and an
exciting story. It's pretty repetitive but we all still keep playing it
to upgrade our equipment - it's not about exploration, discovery or
finding a new place (only a new artifact). You never walk around the
corner in Diablo afraid of what you'll find - you pretty much always
know - a couple more Mud Demons and Goat men, and so on.
In a true RPG you're always on the edge of you seat, scared of the
possible beasties around the next unexplored corner - you should have
freedom in the game world to explore and choose your path - that doesn't
exist in Diablo. Daggerfall does a much better job of the overall
expansive investigation of a world but unfortunately those randomly
generated dungeon and towns suck more than anything - why not actually
design some special dungeons that make sense and aren't just a jumble of
random corridors - it might of saved hours of frustration while looking
for some dillweed to rescue in a giant rat's nest dungeon. Baaaahhhhh!
Anyway, back on track, Blizzard should be commended on delivering a
great game that actually works pretty much bug free (especially this
year with the outbreak of bug-o-mania). Diablo is an action game with
RPG elements but it truly isn't a RPG; it's Crusader with great
multiplayer features and a Fantasy theme that features swords and spells
instead of machineguns and flamethrowers. (Crusader is a good game but
it is just an update of the original Apple II Castle Wolfenstein with
machineguns instead of a lame pistol).
I hope for the day that a real RPG, with a real plot, real roleplaying
and few bugs, is finally delivered to the waiting public - the question
is, which one is it going to be!?! The RPG pickens are still pretty slim
and probably will remain so for a while.
Later,
(The Eternally Bitter)
GregZ
Robert H. Lamb
> It would be nice if it played like Diablo in some ways
Doh! No!!! Sorry, couldn't help myself. :)
>I'd also like to know what Origin is planning on doing about pkilling.
Unlike Meridian59 which was designed by arcade game company 3DO,
(ie: twitch games), Ultima Online is being designed by people who both
understand and play true Role Playing Games. Ultimately (heh) it'll
be up to the Players to stop PK, but hopefully there'll be some
in-game method by which to actually accomplish it, not just say "form
a guild", which accomplishes nothing when the PKr can just log off.
Mark Asher
Heh -- you don't like the combat and spellcasting in Diablo? Oh well.
Abstracted combat seems rather colorless to me, if that's indeed what UOL
has.
If UOL relies on the players to police pkilling, good luck. Pkilling is
easy to do and seems to attract the masses. Why go on a quest when you and
your buds can just kill people as they step out of town and take their
stuff. No, Origin should try to discourage it in the way that we discourage
real murders -- punishing the guilty parties, if there's a reasonable way
of determining such.
Mark Asher
Robert H. Lamb <rl...@usa.net> wrote in article
<32ffbc80...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
Neil Marsh
>I'd also like to know what Origin is planning on doing about pkilling.
>
a short period of time after you disconnect. So if you murder someone in
town, the next time you logon, you could find that your character has
been hanged by the town guard.
Of course, you'll have to make sure that you log out in safe areas and
unplanned network disconnections might be fatal, but I think that it is
a good solution.
--
Neil Marsh mar...@imiyct.demon.co.uk ne...@mars4.demon.co.uk
http://www.mars4.demon.co.uk
'Millenium hand and shrimp' - Foul Ole Ron.
Shaun Donald McAdams
In article <32ffbc80...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> rl...@usa.net
(Robert H. Lamb) writes:
Unlike Meridian59 which was designed by arcade game company 3DO,
(ie: twitch games), Ultima Online is being designed by people who both
understand and play true Role Playing Games. Ultimately (heh) it'll
be up to the Players to stop PK, but hopefully there'll be some
in-game method by which to actually accomplish it, not just say "form
a guild", which accomplishes nothing when the PKr can just log off.
-----
In all fairness, 3DO didn't design Meridian59. A small start-up,
whose name unfortunately escapes me at the moment, designed and
developed Meridian59 and went through public alpha testing on their
own. It wasn't 'til just before beta testing that 3DO bought them
out, and IMHO went commercial with it before it was ready. As for
being a twitch game, if you've played it you know it's about as far
from being reflex intensive as you can get. ...hold Control key while
waiting for lag to end...
I do agree, however, that Origin's experience in the genre will give
Ultima Online an advantage. It will be interesting to see how an
experienced company with a lot at stake handles the PKing problem,
which seems to have affected MUDs since their inception.
| Shaun McAdams | A man's actions don't equal the sum |
| Materials Science Dept. | of his psychological parts. |
| Rice University | |
| smca...@owlnet.rice.edu | -- Mitch Leary |
Led Mirage
In article <lln3ev2...@great-horned.owlnet.rice.edu>,
Shaun Donald McAdams <smca...@owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
>I do agree, however, that Origin's experience in the genre will give
>Ultima Online an advantage. It will be interesting to see how an
>experienced company with a lot at stake handles the PKing problem,
>which seems to have affected MUDs since their inception.
I think they've already said that they won't. There'd be "safe zones" in
the cities (or that certain cities are safe), but other than that, its
wide open. They were hoping for the players to regulate themselves.
That's why I won't be plunking down money for UOL. If I want to play
deathmatch games, I'd play Quake or Duke.
Whyte Dragon
On 13 Feb 1997 01:36:26 -0500, lmi...@interlog.com (Led Mirage)
wrote:
No, ppl can still PK in towns etc. etc., but if you pk (I think) more
than twice, guards won't let you into a town.
-+-+-
Hey, it's Chris Walker!
Whyte Dragon |First there was nothing...
Black Lotus |Then God created earth and
"You know you need a |the universe screamed out,
haircut when yer hair |"Great, we're all screwed
weighs more than yer |now. Thanks alot."
head." |
Mark Asher
Hmmn, if they don't do something to regulate pkilling, it will be a
problem. Too many people seem to revel in it. The problem is that there are
absolutely no repercussions for being a jerkface, and everyone's anonymous,
and it's easier to mug people than complete quests, etc.
I read one post from someone in the last UOL beta who watched a bunch of
players slaughter deer and burn down a forest. Crap like that just doesn't
interest me. I think there should be no pkilling unless it's a duel that's
agreed on. If players want someone dead, have an Assassin's Guild stocked
by NPCs that you can hire, and then the game can track pkilling and
regulate it a bit.
Mark Asher
Led Mirage <lmi...@interlog.com> wrote in article
<5ducpa$e...@gold.interlog.com>...
Me
(follow up to thread about pkilling in UO)
I hope they leave it as planned to just make cities
safe and let players manage it themselves else where. This
will make the game much more interesting than if everywhere
was safe as team work will be much more important and this
will allow guild skirmishes/wars which will greatly enhance
the game. I mean,even with friends, how many orcs can you bash
before it becomes boring? The guild politics and fighting is
what I think will make the game interesting. I doubt pkilling
will be a huge problem as there are a ton of ant-pkilling
guilds but I think it will enhance the game to have that hint
so you can't just wander about in the country side with a
horse-train of gold :)
Fizbin
Darin Johnson
>I think they've already said that they won't. There'd be "safe zones" in
>the cities (or that certain cities are safe), but other than that, its
>wide open. They were hoping for the players to regulate themselves.
>That's why I won't be plunking down money for UOL. If I want to play
>deathmatch games, I'd play Quake or Duke.
Hmm, my mud used to have a sort of free-for-all holidays ever so
often, where for one day, you could do anything, and the character
files would be restored the next day. Thus, you could kill or be
killed, with no incriminations, and no loss of experience. And you
could take on those suicide missions to see how tough that dragon
really is, give away millions of gold pieces to newbies, and so forth.
Ie, it was just like the opening to the Star Trek "Landru" episode...
Lots of fun, except for those that failed to read the login message
and complained about unruly characters...
But, it's a mistake to ignore such issues in UOL. Rules *are* needed,
because players will cause problems. Players can't regulate
themselves according to empirical evidence. It's much better to have
a few unruly types complain that they can't have any fun than to have
everyone else's fun ruined. This is a fantasy in which real world
limitations don't apply - the unruly characters have no fear of pain
or incarceration or even death. I've seen players who thought that
being number one on the wanted list and being hunted by every player
on the mud was fun. And 99% of the trouble makers, when kicked off
the mud, would say something to the effect of "lighten up, it's only a
game, if they [my victims] can't take it why punish me". The only
thing that keeps such people in line is the fact that they do get
kicked off; if UOL has a hands-off policy for misdeeds outside the
safe areas, then they will run into problems.
Sure, don't banish player killing completely - duels are fun (when
agreed to by both sides), and lots of other reasons for it exist. But
the upshot is that policing is necessary (except in a RiverWorld
scenario).
--
Darin Johnson
da...@connectnet.com
Darin Johnson
> I hope they leave it as planned to just make cities
>safe and let players manage it themselves else where. This
>will make the game much more interesting than if everywhere
>was safe as team work will be much more important and this
>will allow guild skirmishes/wars which will greatly enhance
>the game.
You're making the mistake of assuming the game must be 100% no PK, or
100% PK. There is stuff in between. You can have guild wars without
worrying about newbies getting killed ten minutes after logging on.
What is needed is to make clear when player killing is allowed and
when it isn't, and any violations need to be dealt with (either
automatically or manually). Some muds did this by programming things
in and making things complex (which works fine when you don't have too
many wizards monitoring things); others just dealt with things on a
case by case basis, and had the ability to permanently banish people.
I see no problem with disallowing player killing except for officially
declared guild wars, duels, and so forth. You may think it's much
more interesting, but real experience says that it's a pain in the ass
to all the other players. And in UOL's case, you will have PAYING
customers complaining, and they'd darn well better pay attention to
the 95% of the players who want to have fun without player killing
than the 5% who think offing someone to take their stuff is
legitimate.
And realism be damned, I've seen players literally in tears over some
bozo who thought realism was license to kill. What would you do if
halway through Wizardry 6 or Ultima Underworld if you lost everything
you owned, went down 6 levels, and all your save games were wiped out?
You'd be pretty upset I bet - and that's exactly how most of the
players on the game would feel, because they logged in to have fun,
not put up with some jerk; they certainly don't log in for realism.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@connectnet.com
Ebola
all.However,I come from the good old days of AD&D when your character
takes his life into his hands when he adventures.If he dies he's
dead.Now thats role playing!But in the same sense,if you murder without
cause,you should face the same potential consequenses as you would in
reality.Safe zones are surely a good idea.Although unrealistic from a
programming stand point,it would be very cool to have guards or "
police" as in daggerfall.If you kill or screw up breaking in some place
they cart you off and here cum duh judge.You could be penelized with
loss of levels or equiptment etc.A nice idea but probably unrealistic.
Led Mirage
In article <5e06kp$k...@ns2.sirinet.net>, Me <dbr...@sirinet.net> wrote:
>(follow up to thread about pkilling in UO)
>
>safe and let players manage it themselves else where. This
>will make the game much more interesting than if everywhere
>was safe as team work will be much more important and this
>will allow guild skirmishes/wars which will greatly enhance
>before it becomes boring? The guild politics and fighting is
>what I think will make the game interesting. I doubt pkilling
>will be a huge problem as there are a ton of ant-pkilling
>guilds but I think it will enhance the game to have that hint
>so you can't just wander about in the country side with a
>horse-train of gold :)
Just look at just about every other online RPGs out there, DSO, Meridian
59 and Neverwinter Nights in particular. They have degenerated into
"guild wars". The fact is, if I want to pay to play the game, I want to
role-play, complete quests, NOT to be involved in petty politics that I so
loathe in real life.
Mark Asher
I agree. Pkillers and guild wars will abound if Origin leaves it up to
players to police the game. I don't want to play cop. I want to go on
quests and interact with other players in a friendly and cooperative
manner. Origin really needs to take a hard look at Meridain 59, Diablo, and
others to see the tendancy of multiplayer games to get reduced to the
lowest common denominator.
I hope Origin takes some steps to reduce pkilling and other unsavory
activities. I know that in some ways allowing players freedom to be jerks
is more realistic, but I don't want realism at the expense of fun.
Mark Asher
Led Mirage <lmi...@interlog.com> wrote in article
<5e3mif$k...@gold.interlog.com>...
Sasha
Mark Asher wrote:
>
> I hope Origin takes some steps to reduce pkilling and other unsavory
> activities. I know that in some ways allowing players freedom to be jerks
> is more realistic, but I don't want realism at the expense of fun.
>
The thing is p-killing and generally being a jerk is NOT realistic. When you're walking
down the street in real life you are unlikely to just walk up to someone and kill them.
You are also unlikely to just walk up to someone you don't know and be a jerk. It just
doesn't happen in real life. We are generally responsible and polite because unpleasant
consequences tend to happen when we're not.
The thing about a game though, where everyone is anonymous and the consequences
therefrom do not affect you in your real life, is that acting irresponsibly and rudely
tends to be more acceptable and the consequences are much less dire. You also don't have
to meet the person face to face that you are being a jerk to. That's why you have to
make strict rules. It is to avoid the 'unrealistic' behaviour that would result if you
don't.
Sasha
Silverlock
On 19 Feb 1997 20:20:22 GMT, gt1...@acmex.gatech.edu (Shane Douglas
Fatzinger) wrote:
>Michael Carmack (mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
>: Whyte Dragon (dbwa...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>: : No, ppl can still PK in towns etc. etc., but if you pk (I think) more
>: : than twice, guards won't let you into a town.
>
>: I don't know where you heard this, but it flies in the face of everything
>: else that's going around. The towns are supposed to indeed be safe zones
>: with guards powerful enough to overwhelm even the mightiest of players.
>: If you break the law, including killing anyone (PC or NPC), you will be
>: help responsible.
>
>: Outside of town it's a free-for-all, but I don't think it will be as bad
>: as people think. Many, many, MANY people have voiced angry opposition to
>: PKillers and will take appropriate measures to stop the practice.
>
>There is only one problem that I see. (If I have this right)
>
>I remember reading (In the faq I think) that players can have the same
>name. I.e. If I choose the name Foo, someone else can log on and choose
>the same name as my character. I think that this is a VITAL FLAW.
>
>It's all well and good to get mad and have groups to hunt down PK's, BUT
>what if there are 5 people with the same name as the PK'er? Say, for
>instance the individual chose a name that others use INTENTIONALLY.
>
>Players can't just hunt down Foo, anytime Foo logs on, because there are
>a LOT of different Foo's. This is what sucks. The consequences would
>be much greater if your character (assuming non-duplicate names) came to
>be known as a rampant PK'er. Everytime somebody saw you log on, a group
>could hunt you down and kill you.
>
>This works because players can't just log off like they can in Meridian
>59. According to the FAQ your character stays around for a little while
>after you quit. (They should quadruple that time if you kill someone
>and quit). But this 'lag' in logging off will help stop Pk'ers MAYBE.
>
>It would be very funny for the unsuspecting killer to log on, kill
>someone, and then quit. Only to log on an hour later and find all his
>stuff missing because someone killed his character after he logged off.
>
>I think PK'ing is okay, and a good thing to have. But it should have
>dire consequences if you decide to role play as a murderer.
>
>But I think it is VERY cheesy that we can have identical names. If that
>happened on a mud it would be total chaos.
>
>--
>Shane Fatzinger
>Email: gt1...@prism.gatech.edu
A very simple responce to this would be a powerful spell cast on
yourself called Retribution or something that when killed would mark
the Player, (Not the character) and allow the person killed to hunt
them down wherever they go (except towns) as a powerful poltergiest
(vengefull spirit). As long as the spell was working the player
played the poltergiest with only one goal on his mind, getting
revenge. Once the revenge was successfull (or the player decided to
not bother) then the spell ends and the player statrs over as his
character or a new one, whatever is the route UO has chosen.
--
Silverlock
Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.
Jake Bannor
Michael Carmack wrote:
> To be fair, there wasn't much to do in the pre-alpha except kill wandering
> monsters (deer included) and each other. The final game will be much
> richer and killing deer will only interest those who are hungry for some
> venison.
[In my best Homer Simpson Impersonation]
MMmmmmmm..... Venison.
Michael Carmack
Mark Asher (ma...@impacttech.com) wrote:
: I read one post from someone in the last UOL beta who watched a bunch of
: players slaughter deer and burn down a forest. Crap like that just doesn't
: interest me.
To be fair, there wasn't much to do in the pre-alpha except kill wandering
monsters (deer included) and each other. The final game will be much
richer and killing deer will only interest those who are hungry for some
venison.
--
========================================================================
"Villains, I say to you now: | Mike Carmack
KNOCK OFF ALL THAT EVIL!" | Vulcan Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
S P O O N !!!! - The Tick | mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Michael Carmack
Whyte Dragon (dbwa...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: No, ppl can still PK in towns etc. etc., but if you pk (I think) more
: than twice, guards won't let you into a town.
I don't know where you heard this, but it flies in the face of everything
else that's going around. The towns are supposed to indeed be safe zones
with guards powerful enough to overwhelm even the mightiest of players.
If you break the law, including killing anyone (PC or NPC), you will be
help responsible.
Outside of town it's a free-for-all, but I don't think it will be as bad
as people think. Many, many, MANY people have voiced angry opposition to
PKillers and will take appropriate measures to stop the practice.
Darin Johnson
>Outside of town it's a free-for-all, but I don't think it will be as bad
>as people think. Many, many, MANY people have voiced angry opposition to
>PKillers and will take appropriate measures to stop the practice.
Will there be dragons in the newbie areas? If not, then why allow
player killers there? It's an issue of fun; I would have found Ultima
Underworld horrible if I kept getting killed by dragons on the first
level, likewise it would be incredibly unfun to have to deal with
player characters.
And from experience, vigilante groups DON'T work. If Origin thinks
they do, then Origin is being NAIVE. It's not that hard to disallow
player killing, or provide serious penalties for it. It won't ruin
anyone's fun to disallow it, except for a few trouble makers. Don't
ruin everyone elses fun just to please some jerks. Origin desparately
needs to do some research on muds, or they're just going to be a
run-of-the-mill startup mud.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@connectnet.com
Mark Asher
I think the comment below is the key to controlling pkilling, and so far
from what I've heard Origin isn't doing much in this regard:
Mark Asher
Shane Douglas Fatzinger <gt1...@acmex.gatech.edu> wrote in article
<5efna6$i...@catapult.gatech.edu>...
snip
> I think PK'ing is okay, and a good thing to have. But it should have
> dire consequences if you decide to role play as a murderer.
Right. You pkill and get caught (and how the game defines "caught" is a
good question) and you get banished from logging onto UOL for 5 days, lose
a level, lose some gold, etc. Or if you are allowed to log on, your
character is actually in a jail chained to the wall and you can't move for
a number of days. You can chat with the other pkillers and hope that
someone breaks into the jail and springs you, which would be fun. But make
is so that pkilling runs the risk of real punishment.
I think if Origin expects players to police the game, pkilling will abound.
Shane Douglas Fatzinger
Michael Carmack (mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: Whyte Dragon (dbwa...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: : No, ppl can still PK in towns etc. etc., but if you pk (I think) more
: : than twice, guards won't let you into a town.
: I don't know where you heard this, but it flies in the face of everything
: else that's going around. The towns are supposed to indeed be safe zones
: with guards powerful enough to overwhelm even the mightiest of players.
: If you break the law, including killing anyone (PC or NPC), you will be
: help responsible.
: Outside of town it's a free-for-all, but I don't think it will be as bad
: as people think. Many, many, MANY people have voiced angry opposition to
: PKillers and will take appropriate measures to stop the practice.
There is only one problem that I see. (If I have this right)
I remember reading (In the faq I think) that players can have the same
name. I.e. If I choose the name Foo, someone else can log on and choose
the same name as my character. I think that this is a VITAL FLAW.
It's all well and good to get mad and have groups to hunt down PK's, BUT
what if there are 5 people with the same name as the PK'er? Say, for
instance the individual chose a name that others use INTENTIONALLY.
Players can't just hunt down Foo, anytime Foo logs on, because there are
a LOT of different Foo's. This is what sucks. The consequences would
be much greater if your character (assuming non-duplicate names) came to
be known as a rampant PK'er. Everytime somebody saw you log on, a group
could hunt you down and kill you.
This works because players can't just log off like they can in Meridian
59. According to the FAQ your character stays around for a little while
after you quit. (They should quadruple that time if you kill someone
and quit). But this 'lag' in logging off will help stop Pk'ers MAYBE.
It would be very funny for the unsuspecting killer to log on, kill
someone, and then quit. Only to log on an hour later and find all his
stuff missing because someone killed his character after he logged off.
I think PK'ing is okay, and a good thing to have. But it should have
dire consequences if you decide to role play as a murderer.
But I think it is VERY cheesy that we can have identical names. If that
Gordon K Wilson
Darin Johnson wrote:
> And from experience, vigilante groups DON'T work. If Origin thinks
> they do, then Origin is being NAIVE. It's not that hard to disallow
> player killing, or provide serious penalties for it. It won't ruin
> anyone's fun to disallow it, except for a few trouble makers. Don't
> ruin everyone elses fun just to please some jerks. Origin desparately
> needs to do some research on muds, or they're just going to be a
> run-of-the-mill startup mud.
What about people who purchase the game to pkill? If it is a part
of the game (that is, if it is allowed at all) then they have a right to
do it. After all, they paid their money just like anyone else. Perhaps
if complaints were made and Origin reviewed them on a case-by-case basis
they could screen out the people who abuse the feature but wouldn't that
be extremely time consuming? And at what point would it be considered
abuse? Especially if there are actually going to be tens of thousands of
players at any given time. It will be interesting to see what Origin
will do.
Gordon Wilson
gkwi...@ix.netcom.com
IronWill on battle.net and KALI
x92b...@wmich.edu
In article <01bc1add$9c7f1500$679edaa5@marka>, "Mark Asher" <ma...@impacttech.com> writes:
> I hope Origin takes some steps to reduce pkilling and other unsavory
> activities. I know that in some ways allowing players freedom to be jerks
> is more realistic, but I don't want realism at the expense of fun.
According to the UO FAQ (which was updated a little this week, btw) players
will have the freedom to behave as they see fit, which includes killing other
players. However, anyone planning to do this within a city's limits will
have that city's guards come down on them like the wrath of God (and they
don't take prisoners). I think it's also possible to get branded an outlaw
in a town if you violate it (the law) too many times, which would likely mean
getting attacked the second you set foot within a city's limits.
Personally, I think that player killing in UO won't be as big an issue in
UO as it has become on other services simply because this is Ultima.
Remember, Brittania is a world where most players spent most of their time
trying to live the life of a virtuous avatar. Many players (myself included)
are going to want to uphold the avatar's standards in UO, which I think
includes hunting down outlaws who pray on innocents and splitting their heads
in two with a battle axe. Personally, I'd like to see a guild or two form
around that kind of principle. Maybe it could be called, The Revenge is a
Dish Best Served Cold Guild :).
---Todd
Silverlock
On 20 Feb 1997 13:56:33 -0500, mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
(Michael Carmack) wrote:
>Gordon K Wilson (gkwi...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Oh I don't know about that. I'm just saying that if I pkill and I
>: get enjoyment out of it and I run out and purchase UO and pkilling is
>: allowed (as the FAQ seems to indicate it will be) then why shouldn't I
>: be allowed to do it?
>
>The FAQ does not state that PKilling is allowed, it states that Origin
>will maintain a "hands off" policy with regard to PKillers. They have not
>endorsed it, they want the real players to deal with it.
>
>: Who will sit as judge and jury on my pkilling
>: activities? A host of Origin employees monitoring our every move? Some
>: sort of bizarre online trial with other characters in the game? Will
>: they only let me pkill X amount of times? So if I run around and pkill
>: (X-1) number of times it will be okay?
>
>I personally have endorsed (in the Dragons newsgroup) an automated monitor on
>PKilling. It would simply involve an ongoing statistic of the number of
>players each player kills, perhaps a ratio of players killed per hour
>online. When that number reaches a certain threshold value, perhaps 5
>kills in an hour, one of the Origin UOL monitors would be notified of a
>potential PKiller. Then the monitor could keep an eye on the potential
>bad guy for a while to see if he really is just PKilling, or if his player
>killing actually falls within the realm of role-playing. And even if the
>player is found guilty of PKilling, I suggested a multi-tier warning
>system to discourage the bad activities (I think it was: verbal warning ->
>much stronger verbal warning -> some loss of stats and/or possessions ->
>kill the player, making him start over, plus final warning -> termination
>of UOL account).
What about a sort of reputation that would follow your character
around. Like Billy the Kid. If you Pkill to often then whenever you
go somewhere people notice. Or perhaps a formal organization
(police, guilds, bounty hunters) or an informal one (gossip) could
fullfill this role.
Dennis Alexander
From the Ultima Online FAQ's blaise attitude towards PKilling, I think
it will be a big problem. Fortunately, I signed up as a beta tester
so I can test this out for (almost) free and see for myself. There is
no way in Hell that I'll be paying cash to get pkilled, though, so if
they don't learn that it's a "bad thing" by the end of the beta test I
won't sign-up.
I really don't know why they don't have the guts to ban it outright.
So they want to protect petty guild "wars". yawn. And realism. For
realism, why not make it so that we have to go to the bathroom every
so often, and sleep for X amount of hours or our performance degrades,
and take showers or shopkeepers will not sell us anything, etc etc etc
BAH to realism.
---
d.Alexander / Lankhmar
Homer Simpson
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:07:38 -0600, Jake Bannor <JBa...@msn.com>
wrote:
>Michael Carmack wrote:
>
>> To be fair, there wasn't much to do in the pre-alpha except kill wandering
>> monsters (deer included) and each other. The final game will be much
>> richer and killing deer will only interest those who are hungry for some
>> venison.
>
>[In my best Homer Simpson Impersonation]
>
>MMmmmmmm..... Venison.
Hey! I resemble that remark.
Gerald Hayes
x92b...@wmich.edu wrote:
The biggest problem with PKers is the ability to log off without harm
(ie: Meridian59 and Diablo). In UOL that will not be the case.
That will in itself, stop the 12 year olds running around attacking
people.
I have no problem with PKing IF it is kept in a role playing context.
For Example:
Highway Robbers on a stretch of road.
Pirates on the sea.
Assasins paid by a jilted NPC.
etc.
From all that I've read about UOL, hyperactive 12 year olds will stick
to games that are easy to cheat (I hope).
Gerald Hayes
ghayes(at)iusanet.cl
(to reply via e-mail, please change the (at) to @)
Spam Bait: j...@joes.com
Kyle Haight
In article <1997Feb19.175302@winnie>, <x92b...@wmich.edu> wrote:
>
>Personally, I'd like to see a guild or two form
>around that kind of principle. Maybe it could be called, The Revenge is a
>Dish Best Served Cold Guild :).
Sign me up.
I also suspect there may be the potential for higher-level characters
to make money by escorting lower-level characters through the
hypothetical "pkiller zones" that are likely to develop on common
travel routes just outside of major cities.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@netcom.com
"We are mice, posting to Usenet in the first stages of a complex plan
to Take Over The WORLD!"
Michael Carmack
Shane Douglas Fatzinger (gt1...@acmex.gatech.edu) wrote:
: I remember reading (In the faq I think) that players can have the same
: name. I.e. If I choose the name Foo, someone else can log on and choose
: the same name as my character. I think that this is a VITAL FLAW.
This is true, and it's not a flaw at all. The number of people that are
expected to join UOL necessitate this. I know that I would be very ticked
off if I tried to sign on and was refused the name "Vulcan" because
someone else had already claimed it. What should I do, pick a new name
even though I've been using Vulcan for years? Or rename myself Vulcan1 or
some idiotic permutation?
People have the same name all the time and we don't get confused, there's
no reason to think it will be any different in UOL. I swear, sometimes
people sweat this PKilling thing a little too much.
: Players can't just hunt down Foo, anytime Foo logs on, because there are
: a LOT of different Foo's. This is what sucks.
What sucks is that someone would actually go out of their way to hunt down
Foo when he logs on. That is *not* role-playing, and it detracts from the
game as much as the PKillers themselves do.
: I think PK'ing is okay, and a good thing to have. But it should have
: dire consequences if you decide to role play as a murderer.
PKilling is not okay at all, but players killing other players inside the
role-played environment is fine. I have tried for some time to preach a
difference between a PKiller (someone who logs on just to kill other
players) and players killing players (e.g., a duel, or a guild war) for a
long time.
: But I think it is VERY cheesy that we can have identical names. If that
: happened on a mud it would be total chaos.
It will be fine, you'll see.
Michael Carmack
Silverlock (cro...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: A very simple responce to this would be a powerful spell cast on
: the Player, (Not the character) and allow the person killed to hunt
: them down wherever they go (except towns) as a powerful poltergiest
: (vengefull spirit).
Not much information has surfaced about what you can do as a ghost in UOL,
but you're right: allowing some sort of "retribution" would not be bad at
all.
Michael Carmack
: of the game (that is, if it is allowed at all) then they have a right to
: do it.
Oh no they do not. PKilling has time and time again been shown to ruin an
online game for the majority of players. If a minority of people that buy
the game for the wrong reasons are ruining the experience for the majority
of paying customers, the minority must accede to the will of the majority.
Or Origin must step in, but they have said that they will not do that.
This sort of "politically correct" attitude is slowly ruining a lot of
things in the US. To paraphrase Bill Mahr, why must everyone be allowed
to do everything? In real life, I believe that convicted criminals should
lose their basic rights that normal people enjoy. Projecting that into
UOL, "convicted" PKillers should no longer have the right to participate
in the game. End of story, YMMV, let the flames begin.
Michael Carmack
Dennis Alexander (lank...@concentric.net) wrote:
: I really don't know why they don't have the guts to ban it outright.
: So they want to protect petty guild "wars". yawn.
There are many, many valid reasons within a role-playing context for one
player killing another. Guild wars are one (although I don't like
guilds). Some more are: duels; bar brawls; fighting over something,
e.g. a woman or a coveted magic item; playing a criminal, e.g. a highway
robber or a pirate; assassination, which should be common in a thieve's
guild; etc. There is only one reason to disallow players killing other
players: to stop people who log on simply to PKill.
Sorry, the scales are tipped pretty heavily towards allowing players to
kill each other. No one likes an asshole PKiller, but I don't want to
stop them by taking away the richness of the game. That's like killing
the patient to cure the disease.
Jake Bannor
The only problem with your summary that PKillers
have rights too, and they have paid their money
to pkill why stop them, is that role-playing,
slaying monsters, advancing ones character, etc.
does not detract from someone else's enjoyment
of the game, Pkilling does. Upholding someone's
right to _not_ be pkilled does not affect another
player. Upholding the right of someone to pkill
by default includes deminishing the rights of
all those he kills. If it is IC to slay another
PC, so be it. If you fancy yourself a vicious
murderer then you should be given the same
problems a real murderer would, not be allowed
to kill PC's with abandon simply because 'you
paid the fee too.'.
Btw.. UO states in their FAQ that it's more
like 2K players online at once, not tens of
thousands as you suggest in your post.
Indomitable Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
Elryk of the Bright Blade
Gordon K Wilson
Michael Carmack wrote:
> Oh no they do not. PKilling has time and time again been shown to ruin an
> online game for the majority of players. If a minority of people that buy
> the game for the wrong reasons are ruining the experience for the majority
> of paying customers, the minority must accede to the will of the majority.
> Or Origin must step in, but they have said that they will not do that.
>
> This sort of "politically correct" attitude is slowly ruining a lot of
> things in the US. To paraphrase Bill Mahr, why must everyone be allowed
> to do everything? In real life, I believe that convicted criminals should
> lose their basic rights that normal people enjoy. Projecting that into
> UOL, "convicted" PKillers should no longer have the right to participate
> in the game. End of story, YMMV, let the flames begin.
Oh I don't know about that. I'm just saying that if I pkill and I
get enjoyment out of it and I run out and purchase UO and pkilling is
allowed (as the FAQ seems to indicate it will be) then why shouldn't I
be allowed to do it? Who will sit as judge and jury on my pkilling
activities? A host of Origin employees monitoring our every move? Some
sort of bizarre online trial with other characters in the game? Will
they only let me pkill X amount of times? So if I run around and pkill
(X-1) number of times it will be okay? Since this will be a pay service
Origin had better look into the legal ramifications of taking away a
paying customers character for actions that are not (yet) expressly
prohibited.
I'm just throwing some ideas around here. It's certainly not meant
to be taken to heart. Mostly I am just playing devils advocate. Maybe
some great discussion will come out of it. Let's not turn it into a
political debate, though. Thanks for the great reply!
Neil Marsh
I am in favour of killing within the role-playing environment. But,
Origin should arrange the environment so that people are discouraged
from random pkilling.
They seem to have addressed many of the problems already:
1. When logging off your character remains for a while allowing
immediate consequences for your act - you can't just logoff to escape.
2. The client-server model stops character hacking.
This second has a much greater importance than most realise. Even though
Origin are using a skill-based character system instead of
experience/levels, it still takes time and effort to build up an
effective character. Without hackable characters, even a juvenile
pkiller will have to work hard to build up his offensive skills and will
therefore be less willing to risk him. Yes, he can just create a new
character, but then he would have to start from scratch and it would be
a while before he could randomly kill with any degree of success.
And let's face it, the pkillers are going to be treading a fine line.
Too close to the towns and they to easy target for the bounty hunters
and avenging angels. Too far and they won't see enough people to make to
worth their while.
I imagine that if Origin didn't think that their were going to be any
player-bandits on the highways, they would have programmed some NPCs to
do the job. In fact, they probably have. :)
3. The size of the world makes guild wars a small matter. Effective town
guards will keep it to the countryside, so it is likely to happen in a
pre-arranged duel/battle fashion near the major towns.
On the whole, even with a world of the proposed size and depth, I think
that most of the interest will be generated by inter-player interaction
rather than NPC quests.
Personally, I think that Origin seem to be getting the balance right.
Enough controls so that pkilling/guild wars don't get out of hand,
enough depth to the NPCs/World so questers can find plenty to do on
their own. And a big enough world, so that they needn't bother each
other.
Sorry if this has rambled on a bit - I just wanted to express a few
thoughts about UOL.
--
Neil Marsh mar...@imiyct.demon.co.uk ne...@mars4.demon.co.uk
http://www.mars4.demon.co.uk
'Millenium hand and shrimp' - Foul Ole Ron.
Mark Asher
Well, if the richness of UOL is dependant on pkilling, I don't hold out
much hope for it. Why not just ban pkilling unless it's a duel? If players
want someone dead, let them go to the assassin's guild and contract out an
NPC to do it? Or just be able to be pkilled if you are on a quest or
assignment such as guarding a caravan.
I'm not against pkilling per se, but Origin needs to enforce stiff
penalties to keep it from getting out of hand. Just having city guards kill
a pkiller isn't enough. The crazed pkillers will just run around with level
1 characters and go nuts.
Why not just try a multiplayer game that doesn't allow pkilling? It might
be fun.
Mark Asher
Michael Carmack <mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote in article
<5ehnjj$a...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>...
snip
Michael Carmack
: get enjoyment out of it and I run out and purchase UO and pkilling is
: allowed (as the FAQ seems to indicate it will be) then why shouldn't I
: be allowed to do it?
The FAQ does not state that PKilling is allowed, it states that Origin
will maintain a "hands off" policy with regard to PKillers. They have not
endorsed it, they want the real players to deal with it.
: Who will sit as judge and jury on my pkilling
: activities? A host of Origin employees monitoring our every move? Some
: sort of bizarre online trial with other characters in the game? Will
: they only let me pkill X amount of times? So if I run around and pkill
: (X-1) number of times it will be okay?
I personally have endorsed (in the Dragons newsgroup) an automated monitor on
PKilling. It would simply involve an ongoing statistic of the number of
players each player kills, perhaps a ratio of players killed per hour
online. When that number reaches a certain threshold value, perhaps 5
kills in an hour, one of the Origin UOL monitors would be notified of a
potential PKiller. Then the monitor could keep an eye on the potential
bad guy for a while to see if he really is just PKilling, or if his player
killing actually falls within the realm of role-playing. And even if the
player is found guilty of PKilling, I suggested a multi-tier warning
system to discourage the bad activities (I think it was: verbal warning ->
much stronger verbal warning -> some loss of stats and/or possessions ->
kill the player, making him start over, plus final warning -> termination
of UOL account).
This, of course, is not going to happen. Origin is staying out of it, or
so they say. I truly believe they will decide to step in if PKilling does
indeed start to run rampant; they will not want their world ruined by
childish PKillers.
: Since this will be a pay service
: Origin had better look into the legal ramifications of taking away a
: paying customers character for actions that are not (yet) expressly
: prohibited.
Legal issues are not my forte. If a minority of PKillers was ruining the
game for the majority, thus causing subscriptions to be cancelled and
Origin to lose money, the obvious "right" thing is to allow Origin to drop
the offenders like a bad habit to preserve their majority customer base.
Whether that is legal is beyond me.
Mark Asher
Couple of comments:
Mark Asher
Neil Marsh <mar...@imiyct.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<386495...@imiyct.demon.co.uk>...
> I am in favour of killing within the role-playing environment. But,
> Origin should arrange the environment so that people are discouraged
> from random pkilling.
>
> They seem to have addressed many of the problems already:
>
> 1. When logging off your character remains for a while allowing
> immediate consequences for your act - you can't just logoff to escape.
So? What do me and the members of my pkilling guild care about this with
our puny level 1 or level 2 characters. Go ahead and kill us. We will just
roll up new characters. After all, we are the type of pkillers that enrich
the game for everyone. Our role is to play psychotic serial pkillers who
randomly kill without purpose. We feel so empowered whenever we gang up and
kill a more powerful character and then stand around and taunt the player
and basically tell him that our penises are bigger than his. You'll love
us, and yes we will be there. Clans and guilds devoted to pkilling on UOL
have been forming for weeks now. I think their motto is "Screw the avatar
and anything that gets in our way."
Isn't this logging off but leaving your character active a two-edged sword
also? What's to keep my honest character from being robbed or pkilled after
I log off?
> 2. The client-server model stops character hacking.
Maybe. But many games have bugs you can find and exploit that will allow
you to get gold, weapons, etc. Plus, I'm not convinced that someone won't
be able to come up with a hack that will affect characters during a running
game. Maybe the effects won't last beyond the current session, but there's
no guarantee that people who like to screw things up just because they
think it's funny won't find a way to do it. "Here's a hack that gives your
character 1000 hot points during a session. Your character file will be
corrupted and you won't be able to save your character, but boy, you will
be able to do some big damage while you are online! Pretty cool, heh?"
snip
Goober
>I really don't know why they don't have the guts to ban it outright.
I think it's good to keep bringing up this potential PK problem so
that Origin is aware of it and works to control and balance it.
I make a distinction between in-character killers like an Assassin or
Murderer or Bounty Hunter player-character, and the kind of Random PK
jerk-offs you described.
Like the Thief Class, the Assassin Class is a valuable part of any
true Role Playing world. Origin has enough experience writing rpg's
to know that Balance is required. I read the same FAQ and was glad to
see the part about guards. Problem solved. (I hope!)
Darin Johnson
>The only problem with your summary that PKillers
>have rights too, and they have paid their money
>to pkill why stop them, is that role-playing,
>slaying monsters, advancing ones character, etc.
But did they pay for that right or not. If Origin says PK is ok, then
yes. If Origin says no, or that it's only OK under certain
situations, then they have NOT paid for that right. They would have
to check the contract very carefully, because jsut paying money
doesn't give you rights to free-for-all.
(this is analogous to those certain people who run into academic
computing centers and claim that because their parents pay taxes and
tuition, they should be allowed to do whatever they want on the
computers)
>does not detract from someone else's enjoyment
>of the game, Pkilling does.
Yes, PKilling between mutually agreeable adults should be ok. If you
ruin someone else's fun, be prepared for the consequences. The
problem is that I don't think Origin is going to even have
consequences. They're in a position most MUDs would die to be in -
the position of being able to kick someone off and not have them come
back, or just being able to threaten them and have it be effective.
Most muds can't threaten abusive players, because they're doing it for
free, can log in under different names or from different sites.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@connectnet.com
Darin Johnson
>2. The client-server model stops character hacking.
>
>Origin are using a skill-based character system instead of
>experience/levels, it still takes time and effort to build up an
>effective character.
This is a given. There is no MUD I've ever heard of where players get
access to their character files. These are stored on the remote
system, they are not stored locally. Is UOL planning on having these
things stored on the player's computers??? That would be silly.
>3. The size of the world makes guild wars a small matter. Effective town
>guards will keep it to the countryside, so it is likely to happen in a
>pre-arranged duel/battle fashion near the major towns.
I think guild wars are a separate issue. I see no reason to disallow
them in town, because it's not going to hurt non-guild members. The
trick is to enforce it so that things don't become free for alls. The
best guiild wars are ones where all the participants are high level,
and all are too scared of losing their experience to do more than just
bluster.
It's player killing outside of guilds that is the real issue.
>On the whole, even with a world of the proposed size and depth, I think
>that most of the interest will be generated by inter-player interaction
>rather than NPC quests.
Um, about half and half. Some will want the one almsot to
exclusivity, and some will want the other. I knew of one MUD player
that had stayed at level 2 for a couple of years, because she just
wanted to role play and socialize. On the other hand, when I'm
questing, I don't want someone talking to me :-)
--
Darin Johnson
da...@connectnet.com
Goober
On 19 Feb 97 17:53:02 EST, x92b...@wmich.edu wrote:
>In article <01bc1add$9c7f1500$679edaa5@marka>, "Mark Asher" <ma...@impacttech.com> writes:
>> I hope Origin takes some steps to reduce pkilling and other unsavory
>> activities. I know that in some ways allowing players freedom to be jerks
>> is more realistic, but I don't want realism at the expense of fun.
>
> Personally, I think that player killing in UO won't be as big an issue in
>UO as it has become on other services
Me neither, Origin is one of the few companies run by people who
actually play rpg's and know what a real Role Playing world is.
Just as it's essential to quickly dispose of the Random PK jerks
whenever they show up, it's equally essential to have in-character
role-playing of Thieves, Assassins, Bounty Hunters, Highwaymen, etc.
Speaking of which, I've never really seen a group of players
***successfully*** set up and run a profitable society of Highwaymen
in an online game. I look forward to running into the Merry Men or
The Swamp Fox in UO.
Gordon K Wilson
Michael Carmack wrote:
> The FAQ does not state that PKilling is allowed, it states that Origin
> will maintain a "hands off" policy with regard to PKillers. They have not
> endorsed it, they want the real players to deal with it.
Well if they haven't said that it is not allowed then I can only
imagine that it will be a part of the game.
> I personally have endorsed (in the Dragons newsgroup) an automated monitor on
> PKilling. It would simply involve an ongoing statistic of the number of
> players each player kills, perhaps a ratio of players killed per hour
> online. When that number reaches a certain threshold value, perhaps 5
> kills in an hour, one of the Origin UOL monitors would be notified of a
> potential PKiller. Then the monitor could keep an eye on the potential
> bad guy for a while to see if he really is just PKilling, or if his player
> killing actually falls within the realm of role-playing. And even if the
> player is found guilty of PKilling, I suggested a multi-tier warning
> system to discourage the bad activities (I think it was: verbal warning ->
> much stronger verbal warning -> some loss of stats and/or possessions ->
> kill the player, making him start over, plus final warning -> termination
> of UOL account).
That is a very clever idea! I think something like that would be
excellent. Of course, it would require constant monitoring of the online
world by Origin employees and may therefore increase the cost of playing
but IMHO it would be well worth it. I wish you luck with this idea.
> : Since this will be a pay service
> : Origin had better look into the legal ramifications of taking away a
> : paying customers character for actions that are not (yet) expressly
> : prohibited.
>
> Legal issues are not my forte. If a minority of PKillers was ruining the
> game for the majority, thus causing subscriptions to be cancelled and
> Origin to lose money, the obvious "right" thing is to allow Origin to drop
> the offenders like a bad habit to preserve their majority customer base.
> Whether that is legal is beyond me.
Dropping the minority pkillers (if indeed they ARE the minority
<g>) would be the best decision for several reasons. Marketing springs
to my mind. It would seem they will lose more money by allowing a few
people to ruin the game for everyone else than by simply denying access
to the troublemakers. Still the legal issue looms. Would any amateur
lawyers care to chime in on this?
Goober
On 20 Feb 1997 19:01:01 GMT, nobody wrote:
>So? What do me and the members of my pkilling guild care about this with
Tsk, tsk, that should be:
" What do members of my pkilling guild and I "
PKing is no excuse for improper grammer.
<...crayon scribbles snipped...>
!!! TROLL ALERT !!! TROLL ALERT !!!
"Trolling - the act of taking a specious or preposterous position in
order to prolong a debate." - Internet Pocket Lexicon
>kill a more powerful character and then stand around and taunt the player
>and basically tell him that our penises are bigger than his.
<snicker> Oh, sorry. Took you half a page to make a penis reference!
Apparently when you type with one hand on the keyboard and the other
hand on your PK, it just takes a little longer to get there.
Gordon K Wilson
Kyle Haight wrote:
> It seems to me that, given that UO will be a fee-for-access game (flat
> rate/hourly, who knows?), Origin would at the very least be able
> to refuse additional payment from any individual they wanted to boot.
> "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and all that.
> Frankly, this situation looks about the same as the case of ISPs
> booting clients who violate Terms of Service agreements. Typically
> these kinds of ongoing contracts have clauses in them permitting the
> company to alter the terms, and giving the customer the right to stop
> dealing with them if they don't like the new terms. So no legal
> problem there.
That is a good point that I had not even considered. Credit cards
also usually have the same type of agreement. Basically they can change
the terms of the agreement at any time with or without cause and with or
without notice to you and if you don't like it then tough $hit. I hope
Origin takes this approach with UO. Thanks for the reply.
Will Kim
If people pay for the game, they should be able to do whatever the game allows
them to... provided that there's no cheating involved.. if PKilling is
allowed, then let it be.. I mean, we're not playing a Utopian society here..
:) As long as you can get revenge, I don't see the problem..
Will
In article <330C6C...@msn.com>, Jake Bannor <JBa...@msn.com> Said
Something About:
>The only problem with your summary that PKillers
>have rights too, and they have paid their money
>to pkill why stop them, is that role-playing,
>slaying monsters, advancing ones character, etc.
>does not detract from someone else's enjoyment
Kyle Haight
In article <330CC1...@ix.netcom.com>,
Gordon K Wilson <gkwi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> That is a good point that I had not even considered. Credit cards
>also usually have the same type of agreement. Basically they can change
>the terms of the agreement at any time with or without cause and with or
>without notice to you and if you don't like it then tough $hit. I hope
>Origin takes this approach with UO. Thanks for the reply.
Well, sometimes they will give you a pro-rated refund for unused time,
but depending on how the agreement is written they may not even have
to do that.
I strongly suspect that Origin will take this approach with UO -- my
impression is that it's a pretty standard feature in contracts of all
kinds, and one thing about Origin/EA -- they're big enough to hire
Real Lawyers to write this stuff up.
Will Kim
In article <386495...@imiyct.demon.co.uk>, mar...@imiyct.demon.co.uk Said Something About:
>I am in favour of killing within the role-playing environment. But,
I agree.. this won't be paradise.. what fun would that be? :) "If there is
nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain." Hehe..
>They seem to have addressed many of the problems already:
>
>1. When logging off your character remains for a while allowing
>immediate consequences for your act - you can't just logoff to escape.
This can actually backfire.. I, and some associates, could wait til someone is
'logging off', and then start beating away on him/her until that person dies,
hopefully before they really exit the game.. then what?
--
Will Kim MediaLight Inc.
wk...@medialight.com 20 Queen St W, Suite 208
416.598.3200 / 1.888.999.ADSL x222 Toronto, ON M5H 3R3 Canada
Designers Of The 1st ADSL PC Card http://www.medialight.com
The Opinions And Comments Written Above May Not Represent The Company.
Brett Barksdale
In article <01bc1e2d$cc1dd500$679edaa5@marka> "Mark Asher" <ma...@impacttech.com> writes:
>us, and yes we will be there. Clans and guilds devoted to pkilling on UOL
>have been forming for weeks now. I think their motto is "Screw the avatar
>and anything that gets in our way."
Hah! This cracks me up. UOL should be a pretty rowdy game...
>> 2. The client-server model stops character hacking.
>
>Maybe. But many games have bugs you can find and exploit that will allow
>you to get gold, weapons, etc. Plus, I'm not convinced that someone won't
>be able to come up with a hack that will affect characters during a running
>game. Maybe the effects won't last beyond the current session, but there's
>no guarantee that people who like to screw things up just because they
>think it's funny won't find a way to do it. "Here's a hack that gives your
>character 1000 hot points during a session. Your character file will be
>corrupted and you won't be able to save your character, but boy, you will
>be able to do some big damage while you are online! Pretty cool, heh?"
Real doubtful. The design of UOL is that your own computer is simply a terminal
to the UOL servers. With the exception of you controlling your character, dataflow
is a one-way trip from the server to your computer. You can hack your own computer
files or memory as much as you like. But the server, which handles everything,
won't give a sh*t and will be unaffected.
Unless you are ready to hack the /server/ (not impossible, but damn difficult),
you won't be able to cheat.
--
=====================================================================
Brett Barksdale
Mark Asher
Geez, Goober, I was "roleplaying" -- thrusting myself into the mind of the
type of pkiller whom seems so abundant in other online games. I'll put it
in simple terms for you: I was assuming a personna to dramatically make a
point.
If you read the entire post, you might have realized that. Of course,
subtlety is probably lost on someone who hides behind a silly name like
"Goober" rather than just posting his real name like most adults are
willing to do. You should try it -- it gives a little more credence to your
views, IMO. If your name really is Goober, well, I apologize. And feel
sorry for you.
BTW, pointing out grammatical mistakes, mispellings, in a venue like this
is very lame. Try to be a little more creative next time, ok?
Mark Asher
Goober <m...@you.com> wrote in article
<330cb009...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
Brett Barksdale
In article <01bc1e2b$f47ea9e0$679edaa5@marka> "Mark Asher" <ma...@impacttech.com> writes:
-Well, if the richness of UOL is dependant on pkilling, I don't hold out
-much hope for it. Why not just ban pkilling unless it's a duel? If players
-want someone dead, let them go to the assassin's guild and contract out an
-NPC to do it? Or just be able to be pkilled if you are on a quest or
-assignment such as guarding a caravan.
-
-I'm not against pkilling per se, but Origin needs to enforce stiff
-penalties to keep it from getting out of hand. Just having city guards kill
-a pkiller isn't enough. The crazed pkillers will just run around with level
-1 characters and go nuts.
I don't know if that's really a problem. I mean, the only characters they
could kill are other starting characters. Annoying, but easily fixed just
by starting with a new character.
>
>Why not just try a multiplayer game that doesn't allow pkilling? It might
>be fun.
Maybe, but I like the element. Personally, I'm a sucker for the "good guy"
character, so I'd never Pkill unless it was self-defense or on orders from
Lord British or some such. But I recognize the "psycho-killer" as an
element that should be there... somewhere. As long as players can't cheat
to bulk themselves up, then I don't really see a problem.
--
=====================================================================
Brett Barksdale
Kyle Haight
In article <330CAF...@ix.netcom.com>,
><g>) would be the best decision for several reasons. Marketing springs
>to my mind. It would seem they will lose more money by allowing a few
>people to ruin the game for everyone else than by simply denying access
>to the troublemakers. Still the legal issue looms. Would any amateur
>lawyers care to chime in on this?
It seems to me that, given that UO will be a fee-for-access game (flat
rate/hourly, who knows?), Origin would at the very least be able
to refuse additional payment from any individual they wanted to boot.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and all that.
Frankly, this situation looks about the same as the case of ISPs
booting clients who violate Terms of Service agreements. Typically
these kinds of ongoing contracts have clauses in them permitting the
company to alter the terms, and giving the customer the right to stop
dealing with them if they don't like the new terms. So no legal
problem there.
--
Brett Hall
Mark Asher wrote:
>
> Well, if the richness of UOL is dependant on pkilling, I don't hold out
>
>
> be fun.
Tried that, it was called the legends of kesmai beta test. It got
boring after a while since there was no player on player conflict
outside of name calling. I'm not sayinng the game should be one
humongous deathmatch, but the NPC's can only provide so much
entertainment. I hope that people would be more sensible than running
around with a level 30 character bashing in the heads of all the lower
level characters. And hopefully there will be some reason behind the
pkilling, maybe guild wars, maybe you're playing a theif and ambushing
people in the wilderness, or your an assassin for hire, or whatever
reason other than ego reinforcement for the insecure. I don't think we
need to worry about Pkillers going unpunished either, in my experience
these kinds of games are brimming over with goody two shoes who are out
to force their world view on everybody else(i.e. the guild in the Realm
whose sole purpose was to kill any theif they saw, regardless of whether
the theif was engaged in theivery or not) that woill be more than happy
to hunt down pkillers. Look at it like this, if there's a pkiller on a
rampage then that provides a quest for people, the hunting down of the
pkiller that is. Or hunting down a band of rogues terrorizing the
country side. The main thing that concerns me about all this is Origins
horribly flawed policy of allowing multiple characters to have the same
name. In kesmai people took to impersonating others by naming a
character nearly the same, i.e. changing an l to an I, in the kesmai
font the two letters look almost idenntical. Then they would do
something to piss everbody off and the real character would get blamed.
When pkilling is allowed this problem will be magified 10 fold. The
fake character goes on a pkill rampage, then all the vigilantes go after
the character, but how do we know they don't get the person beiong
impersonated instead of the impersonator?
-brett hall
schrodinger's dragon -==udic==-
Brett Hall
Will Kim wrote:
>
> In article <386495...@imiyct.demon.co.uk>, mar...@imiyct.demon.co.uk Said Something About:
> >I am in favour of killing within the role-playing environment. But,
>
> I agree.. this won't be paradise.. what fun would that be? :) "If there is
> nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain." Hehe..
>
> >They seem to have addressed many of the problems already:
> >
> >1. When logging off your character remains for a while allowing
> >immediate consequences for your act - you can't just logoff to escape.
>
> This can actually backfire.. I, and some associates, could wait til someone is
> 'logging off', and then start beating away on him/her until that person dies,
> hopefully before they really exit the game.. then what?
As I understand it there will be "safe" areas where you can log off
without your character being attacked.
Silverlock
>Michael Carmack wrote:
>
>> Oh no they do not. PKilling has time and time again been shown to ruin an
>> online game for the majority of players. If a minority of people that buy
>> the game for the wrong reasons are ruining the experience for the majority
>> of paying customers, the minority must accede to the will of the majority.
>> Or Origin must step in, but they have said that they will not do that.
>>
>> This sort of "politically correct" attitude is slowly ruining a lot of
>> things in the US. To paraphrase Bill Mahr, why must everyone be allowed
>> to do everything? In real life, I believe that convicted criminals should
>> lose their basic rights that normal people enjoy. Projecting that into
>> UOL, "convicted" PKillers should no longer have the right to participate
>> in the game. End of story, YMMV, let the flames begin.
>
> Oh I don't know about that. I'm just saying that if I pkill and I
>get enjoyment out of it and I run out and purchase UO and pkilling is
>allowed (as the FAQ seems to indicate it will be) then why shouldn't I
>be allowed to do it? Who will sit as judge and jury on my pkilling
>activities? A host of Origin employees monitoring our every move? Some
>sort of bizarre online trial with other characters in the game? Will
>they only let me pkill X amount of times? So if I run around and pkill
>(X-1) number of times it will be okay? Since this will be a pay service
>Origin had better look into the legal ramifications of taking away a
>paying customers character for actions that are not (yet) expressly
>prohibited.
>
> I'm just throwing some ideas around here. It's certainly not meant
>to be taken to heart. Mostly I am just playing devils advocate. Maybe
>some great discussion will come out of it. Let's not turn it into a
>political debate, though. Thanks for the great reply!
>
>Gordon Wilson
>gkwi...@ix.netcom.com
>IronWill on battle.net and KALI
True but if the structure of the game is such that limited pkilling in
a role is acceptable but unlimited pkilling just for the sake of it
isn't then that is perfectly ok. For example if something like wanted
posters are circulated for Unlimited pkillers then normal towns should
be off limits to them (unless there are different countries in the
game in which case some countries would honor criminal sanctions of
the original country and extradite the criminal and some wouldn't,
depending on the friendship of the countries and their attitudes
toward law and privacy, just like in RL) and they would have to form
their own towns or take over deserted buildings n the wilderness.
A real criminal in a town (as opposed to a city, in a small town fo
several thousand its easier to get noticed, I don't know if UOL will
have big cities) would have to be constantly on the guard, and would
probably have a good chance of getting caught, especially if the towns
in UOL, were like medievil towns where they are walled with a few
entrances, watched by guards. A simple way to restrict the game
is to make normal deaths in the game able to restart your character,
perhaps a raise dead spell could be used. owever when an official
government agency executes you or kills you in the attmpt to capture
you, the body has a special extremely high level spell cast on it so
it can't be raised so if you want to play some more you do it with a
base level 1 character. This would work in that a person who becomes
recognized as a pkiller will be limited from large parts of the game
world, which, if he goes there may force him to restart as a new
character. Alternatively many of the harder dungeons and ruins would
be out in the wild areas and there the normal players
would have to be on their guard of ANY strangers. If a pkiller gets
executed and normal players are dying thru monster combat and that,
then generally the normal characters will be higher level since they
have had longer game time continuosly.
--
Silverlock
Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.
Silverlock
On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 21:20:19 GMT, kha...@netcom.com (Kyle Haight)
wrote:
>In article <01bc2038$2980de20$LocalHost@fgoya>,
>Fred Goya <fg...@lava.net> wrote:
>>
>>Yea that jailing idea sound good. But it wouldn't it be better if the PKer
>>gets penalized with XXX amount of game time rather than real time? If you
>>use real time, a Pker could kill someone, get sent to jail, log off and
>>come back in a couple of days. Did he learn anything? No. Does this make
>>UO 'realistic', well no. Instead how about UO nails the jerk with 'game
>>time'. Example: A Pker kills someone and is jailed for 3 hours, but
>>instead of doing his time he just logs off. The next day he come back on
>>line with the same character, it'll still read '2 hours and 59 minutes till
>>freedom'. I doubt jail time (with real or game time) would be a deterent
>>to 'low level' (skilled in UO) characters as they could easily delete and
>>make a new one. BUT it should be VERY annoying to high level characters
>>that took hours to build. It would be fun hearing them whine about
>>watching their skills degrade while they rot in a cell :-)
>
>This would be even nastier if Origin were charging a per-hour fee to
>play the game. Go to jail, spend $2.95 per hour to watch your
>character sitting in jail. Now _that's_ consequences for your actions.
>
>That said, I hope UO doesn't go the hourly charge route. I'd much
>rather pay flat-fee.
>
>--
>Kyle Haight
>kha...@netcom.com
>
>"We are mice, posting to Usenet in the first stages of a complex plan
>to Take Over The WORLD!"
Oh I love this idea! yes.
Kyle Haight
In article <5eil21$itq$2...@nntp2.uunet.ca>, Will Kim <wk...@medialight.com> wrote:
>
>This can actually backfire.. I, and some associates, could wait til someone is
>'logging off', and then start beating away on him/her until that person dies,
>hopefully before they really exit the game.. then what?
According to the UO FAQ, if you are attacked by someone else during
the logoff delay, your character will automatically defend itself. So
given the fairly automatic character of UO combat, I wouldn't imagine
this would be a huge problem.
Darin Johnson
>I don't know if that's really a problem. I mean, the only characters they
>could kill are other starting characters. Annoying, but easily fixed just
>by starting with a new character.
Or a mid level player who's removed armor at the shop in preparation
to sell it :-)
Also, it depends upon the game system they use. Not everything is
AD&D, many RPG's can easily have a wimp kill a tough character,
especially one unprepared. A 9 year old with a knife could easily
kill Conan.
>Maybe, but I like the element. Personally, I'm a sucker for the "good guy"
>character, so I'd never Pkill unless it was self-defense or on orders from
>Lord British or some such.
I wouldn't even on order from Lord British. It'd probably be a test
of the virtues anyway.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@connectnet.com