General > Off Topic

ROSE is dead!

<< < (4/7) > >>

Botsareus:
IC
interesting idea, I wont mind playing it , as long as its not all about trading. I seen some games all people do is go to item menus and buy or sell or exchange stuff, I can sit all day move folders arround on my C drive too. :P

still:

5-7 people , no common chat system , no 20 people doing a group attack on 2 people piloting an ZeroSystem sourt of like thing. No systematic killing of every player in the whole matrix , nah, not exsactly my style for a mmo. Waiting until StarTrack Online comes out.

P.S.

You know the StarWars3 opening fight seine, now thats what I am talking about.

P.P.S

The complexity of it all so intance that I beat by the time I am done the avrage computer will be fast enough to handle it. Doom3 kind of messed up on that part.

For now I got first Bot to evolve , and get everything possible out of my collage  Reasoning class. If we can get a unifyed model will have android datah in no time, running on 1.x or 2.x hrtz prossesor. , Reminds me Sunday it is , time to go finish off smbot for a ping pong game as an away project.

PurpleYouko:
I still prefer the massive idea really but running in minimal with a few friends on a local server would be a great way to playtest it.

As for the total open endedness and the persistent world, That is exactly what I plan. Monsters spawning all over the place with no rhyme or reason is just not realistic. better that they have a lair (which can be pretty well defended) that spews them out into the surrounding world. At some point some of these monsters can set up a new lair somewhere else and start making new baby ones again.

I really want the players to be able to have an impact on the world. I also want dynamically changing quests, some of which may be based on other players. Imagine a player becomes a criminal like a Pirate or something. Later, other players could be given a quest to go and capture "Plaer A" the pirate. Ie. players can get a price on their heads.
I want players to be able to have registered property (plots of land) which can be traded, built on etc. Landlords and rent become possible. Someone might become a King and demand taxes. Who knows.

This is going to be cool B) (rubs hands together in glee)

I have some interesting new ideas to stop hacking too.
First/ the server will be literally a giant database (SQL or similar) with no inherent software at all.
Second/ The real work is done by a piece of software housed locally on the server PC that has access to the database but no direct connection to the internet (so not easily hackable) Through this program we access a second "mirror" database which contains a copy of the first. This can be used to restore the primary database if it gets hacked, possibly automatically.
Third/ Client PCs will send their queries to the database with a dynamically changing password and the server will log change requests and passwords. If the SQL server is changed at any time (via hacking) without having the correct password logged then this will trigger the database to automatically upload the backup data from the mirror database.

Can anyone see any problems here? I think I have a more or less hack proof (actually automatically self repairable) server in mind. of course this is my first foray into anti-hack so I could be missing something obvious.

Numsgil:
I never studied much into making something hacker proof.  Basically, if there's any difference between what the player's computer knows, and what they know, that's one level of hacking possible.  This level is almost impossible to detect.

Then there's the player's computer sending erroneous information to the server.  This is easily avoided by enforcing the database to be self-consistant.  I'd put packet interception here too.  Anything where the player is modifying the communication between client and server without using the client.

Then there's the level where hackers aren't even using the client anymore, and are directly logging into the database and altering values.  This is also the most destructive, and the area I've done the least amount of thinking, let alone research.

I have never liked the massive part of the MMO.  I'll admit it's probably the selling point for most other people, but I absolutely detest being an anonymous no one in a game.  If I wanted to be an anonymous no one, I'd play my real life.  :D

Here's my list of things I'd want in a perfect MMO:

1.  No spawning of anything.  All items, monsters, etc. are in a closed system.  Monsters must be born from another monster.  Items must be crafted by someone or something.  Ore must run out eventually and permanently.  Merchants that run out of lychestra blue cannot sell lycestra blue untill they get some more from either an NPC or PC.  "Ruined" crafting materials must turn into something else.  Burned down forests must not regrow if there aren't any seeds to regrow from.  Speaking of which, even trees must grow from seeds, and eventually die themselves.

It is a simple enough request, harder in the implementation, especially in trying to balance the game in a massive world so one player can't ruin the experience for everyone else.  Which is why I'd propose not balancing the game, and letting people be griefers if they want.  Let them destroy the world if they want.

2.  Everyman a place to live, and solitude.  Every PC needs a "home" they can go to.  Other people need to be able to follow them to their home, and random strangers need to be able to stumble upon this PCs home.

Anyway, that rule applies to the plot of land.  As part of #1, houses must be built from lumber and steel.  That's not an easy amount of work, and takes time and/or money.

3.  Everyman a Hero or villain, ie: no enforced anonymity.  Every PC in the world has a part to play.  Not even a side kick part, but an active part.  I don't mean letting PCs fight in wars, I mean the PCs are declaring wars.  Web games are better at this than other types.

If I'm a griefer and want to destroy the known world, I should be theoretically able to.  It shouldn't even be terribly impossible.

A subset of this is that the game developers have no absolute control over the course of the game.  Nor should they try.  Two sides are battling?  Good.  One side is almost totally destroyed?  Fine.  Don't interfere.  The world has run out of trees?  It's some sort of Easter Island Apocalypse?  Too bad, so sad, that's what you get.  Plant a truffla tree.

That's not to say the DMs can't interfere, just that they shouldn't try to guide the course of the game if the players want to go another way.  Don't artificially try to balance things.  Some things are more powerful than others.  It's just how things are.

In essence: No T-Rex's in the field.  (If that reference passed over you, then you must not be as nerdy as I :P)

Another subset of this is that a player can play a no one if they want.  Let them take over an NPCs job.  It's sometimes relaxing to play a farmer and farm some food.
From these three rules I'd like to see a game be made.  They're simple enough, but how to accomplish them?  There are alot of problems.

What if the players absolutely destroy the world?  Reset the server and let them do it again?  Give them the tools to rebuild?

What happens if you get too popular?  Are we really going to have room in our world for 50 heroes?  Too many special people and no one's special.

I think you see the point.

Botsareus:
Sounds good.


Whats the point of hacking a SQL server , were all it does is assign people to there games, I dont see people getting any major cheats out of this other then to potentialy distroy the server. Thats unless you are doing all the ingame communications not Pair-to-Pair but Pair-to-Server-to-Pair.

Numsgil:
That's Peer.  As in friend.  Not pair as in fruit (:lol: :P)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page