what would you like in massively-multiplayer spacesim?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

The subject pretty much says it all! What would you like to see in a
massively-multiplayer spacesim?
Let your imaginations run wild.

Things that I would like to see:

1) first-person control
2) joystick support
3) real-time combat (lag would be an issue)
4) no NPCs - a completely player-centric game
5) a universe that's small enough so that space is alive with players. When
i'm playing online, I'm much more interested in busy space then having an
entire star system to myself while I click on asteroids. The universe would
expand with the playerbase. It could even start out with just one starsystem
available.
6) fully dynamic supply/demand-based economy
7) no developer created factions - it is entirely in the hands of the
players to start clans and political systems, assassinate player leaders,
seize regions of space, declare territories, charge tolls for often used
routes, whatever they want.
8) full pvp - not relegated to certain areas. If a group of players starts
a gang of pirates, it would be up to the player community to create a
security force to patrol areas. They could be paid through taxes for their
risk. Bounties could also be placed on people, and people could play bounty
hunter to collect them. Mercenaries and freelancers would be hired to
protect mining convoys and political leaders.
9) player-created spacestations and battleships that other players could
dock in
10) gate-based voicechat .. meaning that it starts to transmit your voice
the moment you say something. To limit bandwidth usage, voicechat could be
limited to a certain distance from your ship, so that you could talk to
wingmates but to talk to someone three systems away, you'd need to textchat.
Voicechat would be filtered with noise depending on distance/signal
strength. Other nearby players (perhaps cloaked, stalking their prey) could
eavesdrop if they find your channel, unless you had it 'encrypted' with
expensive gear. However, players could purchase even more expensive gear to
break encryption, and possibly catch some or most of what is being said.

Any thoughts and feelings on those?

Your turn!
dxtx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

<devnull@dxtx.net> wrote in message
news:EcBdc.2350$zj3.1370@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> The subject pretty much says it all! What would you like to see in a
> massively-multiplayer spacesim?
> Let your imaginations run wild.
>
> Things that I would like to see:
>
> 1) first-person control

While I prefer 1st person perspective to get "into" the game, I would like
to able to see my own character. What's the point of customizing how he
looks without being able to see him? At the very least a holoplayer showing
the character, like some kind of futuristic mirror.

> 2) joystick support
> 3) real-time combat (lag would be an issue)
> 4) no NPCs - a completely player-centric game

No, no, no, no, no. I don't want my game playing COMPLETELY dependent on
someone else showing up.

> 5) a universe that's small enough so that space is alive with players.
When
> i'm playing online, I'm much more interested in busy space then having an
> entire star system to myself while I click on asteroids. The universe
would
> expand with the playerbase. It could even start out with just one
starsystem
> available.

With NPC's, universe size is not a concern.

However to make a mmorpgm space sim dependent on player population size, you
could limit intersellar transport limited to

--interstellar travel limited to public transportation (akin to star cruise
liners or interstellar ferries that carry spaceship in the cargo hold).
--wormholes, ala Farscape, where the mind affects wormholes
--jump gates, ala Babylon 5, where jump gates are contructed in heavily
travelled areas, for ships without Jump drives (natch, players' ships would
lack jump drives since those tend to be on huge military / government /
corporate ships)
--stargates, ala Stargate SG1, where you need the proper code to travel to
new worlds (the "dialer" could conveniently malfunction due to a lack of
maintenance, forcing someone to fly in a starship over TIME to a new world)

> 6) fully dynamic supply/demand-based economy
> 7) no developer created factions - it is entirely in the hands of the
> players to start clans and political systems, assassinate player leaders,
> seize regions of space, declare territories, charge tolls for often used
> routes, whatever they want.
> 8) full pvp - not relegated to certain areas. If a group of players
starts
> a gang of pirates, it would be up to the player community to create a
> security force to patrol areas. They could be paid through taxes for
their
> risk. Bounties could also be placed on people, and people could play
bounty
> hunter to collect them. Mercenaries and freelancers would be hired to
> protect mining convoys and political leaders.

The problem with that is that it discourages new users--and thus mmorpg is
doomed to death.

> 9) player-created spacestations and battleships that other players could
> dock in
> 10) gate-based voicechat .. meaning that it starts to transmit your voice
> the moment you say something. To limit bandwidth usage, voicechat could
be
> limited to a certain distance from your ship, so that you could talk to
> wingmates but to talk to someone three systems away, you'd need to
textchat.
> Voicechat would be filtered with noise depending on distance/signal
> strength. Other nearby players (perhaps cloaked, stalking their prey)
could
> eavesdrop if they find your channel, unless you had it 'encrypted' with
> expensive gear. However, players could purchase even more expensive gear
to
> break encryption, and possibly catch some or most of what is being said.
>
> Any thoughts and feelings on those?
>
> Your turn!
> dxtx

Nice--especially the various frequencies, eavesdropping and encryption. You
might also add a charge for broadcasting numbers (point to point vs
broadcast) and for distance (local, planetary, interplanetary, interstellar,
intergalactic, interdimensional). You'd cut out on some einstein from
Broadcast-To-All "It's a Small World".

-- Ken from Chicago
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

4) no NPCs - a completely player-centric game

I'd like to see some NPC though, they provide a nice practising target, they
can serve as pirate prays, and they provide a feeling of immersion.

--
There are no instruction manuals for this piece of software, please consult
the source code.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

Pleasure droids!!! So item 4 is no good.



<devnull@dxtx.net> wrote in message
news:EcBdc.2350$zj3.1370@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> The subject pretty much says it all! What would you like to see in a
> massively-multiplayer spacesim?
> Let your imaginations run wild.
>
> Things that I would like to see:
>
> 1) first-person control
> 2) joystick support
> 3) real-time combat (lag would be an issue)
> 4) no NPCs - a completely player-centric game
<snip>
> Your turn!
> dxtx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:Ff2dnfFeVM3S2OXdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> > Things that I would like to see:
> >
> > 1) first-person control
>
> While I prefer 1st person perspective to get "into" the game, I would like
> to able to see my own character. What's the point of customizing how he
> looks without being able to see him? At the very least a holoplayer
showing
> the character, like some kind of futuristic mirror.

Yes, the option to switch between third and first is good. I too prefer
1st person in immersive games. There's nothing to jar you out of an
immersive experience like not being able to see something because "you're in
front of it", if you know what I mean. Compare the degree of immersiveness
between a game like Neverwinter Nights and Arx Fatalis - both great games,
but I never once felt 'immersed' in NWN. It was a fun game, but I never had
the feeling of actually being in the game .. I was there just directing
someone elses' actions. In Arx, that was the type of game you could have
weird dreams about, because you could almost pretend you were there as the
character, exploring the world. For example, Eve Online, which is a pretty
good game, employs a third person perspective with point and click steering.
As opposed to feeling "in the game" I feel more like I'm playing an
elaborate RTS game like Warcraft, in a very big map, with only one unit.

> > 2) joystick support
> > 3) real-time combat (lag would be an issue)
> > 4) no NPCs - a completely player-centric game
>
> No, no, no, no, no. I don't want my game playing COMPLETELY dependent on
> someone else showing up.

I'm assuming you mean no to just #4. Well, in my opinion .. if I joined
a game and there were just NPCs, no humans, I would not play. That, to me,
is the same as being on a server alone. There are countless single player
games that are excellent. We're talking about massively multiplayer.

> With NPC's, universe size is not a concern.

So you are saying you would prefer to play in a giant universe filled
with NPCs over a game in a small universe where everyone and everything you
see is a player? I am not criticizing your opinion, just making sure that
this is what you really mean.

> > 8) full pvp - not relegated to certain areas. If a group of players
> starts
> > a gang of pirates, it would be up to the player community to create a
> > security force to patrol areas. They could be paid through taxes for
> their
> > risk. Bounties could also be placed on people, and people could play
> bounty
> > hunter to collect them. Mercenaries and freelancers would be hired to
> > protect mining convoys and political leaders.
>
> The problem with that is that it discourages new users--and thus mmorpg is
> doomed to death.

What if the developers didn't care for new players that had those
concerns? I'd happily subscribe to a game that didn't babysit me, and I'm
sure many others would too. I think this is a concept of "new player" that
is erroneous, that all new players have to have it handed easy to them so
that they keep coughing up the fee. Why not make it so that new players
have less to lose and less to provide early on? Aggro players would kill
them, but the new player, being new, could come back without any problem,
and the aggro player would get very little reward in killing a new player.
Over time, the new player might meet a bunch of other new players, form a
group of 12 or so newbie ships, pool their starting funds to pay a couple
freelancers to protect them, and beginning the long process of becoming the
next dominant force in the game.

dxtx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> brightened my
day with his incisive wit when in
news:Ff2dnfFeVM3S2OXdRVn-tA@comcast.com he conjectured that:

>
> <devnull@dxtx.net> wrote in message
> news:EcBdc.2350$zj3.1370@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> The subject pretty much says it all! What would you like to see in
>> a massively-multiplayer spacesim?
>> Let your imaginations run wild.
>>
>> Things that I would like to see:
>>
>> 1) first-person control
>
> While I prefer 1st person perspective to get "into" the game, I would
> like to able to see my own character. What's the point of customizing
> how he looks without being able to see him? At the very least a
> holoplayer showing the character, like some kind of futuristic mirror.


LOL. Reminds me of the Americans inventing the ballpoint pen to work in
zero gravity while the russians just used a pencil.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

"Walter Mitty" <mitticus.remo.veme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB7113183C4waltermitty@127.0.0.1...
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> brightened my
> day with his incisive wit when in
> news:Ff2dnfFeVM3S2OXdRVn-tA@comcast.com he conjectured that:
>
> >
> > <devnull@dxtx.net> wrote in message
> > news:EcBdc.2350$zj3.1370@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> The subject pretty much says it all! What would you like to see in
> >> a massively-multiplayer spacesim?
> >> Let your imaginations run wild.
> >>
> >> Things that I would like to see:
> >>
> >> 1) first-person control
> >
> > While I prefer 1st person perspective to get "into" the game, I would
> > like to able to see my own character. What's the point of customizing
> > how he looks without being able to see him? At the very least a
> > holoplayer showing the character, like some kind of futuristic mirror.
>
>
> LOL. Reminds me of the Americans inventing the ballpoint pen to work in
> zero gravity while the russians just used a pencil.

I guess this is just indicative of how engrained in the minds of American
scientists is the need for a shirt pocket full of pens with a pocket pocket
protecter for the ink.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

<devnull@dxtx.net> wrote in
news:EcBdc.2350$zj3.1370@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> The subject pretty much says it all! What would you like to see in a
> massively-multiplayer spacesim?
> Let your imaginations run wild.
>
> Things that I would like to see:
>
> 1) first-person control
> 2) joystick support
> 3) real-time combat (lag would be an issue)
> 4) no NPCs - a completely player-centric game
> 5) a universe that's small enough so that space is alive with players.
> When i'm playing online, I'm much more interested in busy space then
> having an entire star system to myself while I click on asteroids.
> The universe would expand with the playerbase. It could even start out
> with just one starsystem available.
> 6) fully dynamic supply/demand-based economy
> 7) no developer created factions - it is entirely in the hands of the
> players to start clans and political systems, assassinate player
> leaders, seize regions of space, declare territories, charge tolls for
> often used routes, whatever they want.
> 8) full pvp - not relegated to certain areas. If a group of players
> starts a gang of pirates, it would be up to the player community to
> create a security force to patrol areas. They could be paid through
> taxes for their risk. Bounties could also be placed on people, and
> people could play bounty hunter to collect them. Mercenaries and
> freelancers would be hired to protect mining convoys and political
> leaders. 9) player-created spacestations and battleships that other
> players could dock in
> 10) gate-based voicechat .. meaning that it starts to transmit your
> voice the moment you say something. To limit bandwidth usage,
> voicechat could be limited to a certain distance from your ship, so
> that you could talk to wingmates but to talk to someone three systems
> away, you'd need to textchat. Voicechat would be filtered with noise
> depending on distance/signal strength. Other nearby players (perhaps
> cloaked, stalking their prey) could eavesdrop if they find your
> channel, unless you had it 'encrypted' with expensive gear. However,
> players could purchase even more expensive gear to break encryption,
> and possibly catch some or most of what is being said.
>
> Any thoughts and feelings on those?
>
> Your turn!
> dxtx
>
>

See my post from last year:
http://groups.google.com/groups?
q=g:thl3190045160d&dq=&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&selm=db2geu8btvmavnd3pbov4751okgb5vgl3i%404ax.com&rnum=23
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim (More info?)

<devnull@dxtx.net> wrote in message
news:7k8fc.6598$l75.3147@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote in
message
> news:Ff2dnfFeVM3S2OXdRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> > > Things that I would like to see:
> > >
> > > 1) first-person control
> >
> > While I prefer 1st person perspective to get "into" the game, I would
like
> > to able to see my own character. What's the point of customizing how he
> > looks without being able to see him? At the very least a holoplayer
> showing
> > the character, like some kind of futuristic mirror.
>
> Yes, the option to switch between third and first is good. I too prefer
> 1st person in immersive games. There's nothing to jar you out of an
> immersive experience like not being able to see something because "you're
in
> front of it", if you know what I mean. Compare the degree of
immersiveness
> between a game like Neverwinter Nights and Arx Fatalis - both great games,
> but I never once felt 'immersed' in NWN. It was a fun game, but I never
had
> the feeling of actually being in the game .. I was there just directing
> someone elses' actions. In Arx, that was the type of game you could have
> weird dreams about, because you could almost pretend you were there as the
> character, exploring the world. For example, Eve Online, which is a
pretty
> good game, employs a third person perspective with point and click
steering.
> As opposed to feeling "in the game" I feel more like I'm playing an
> elaborate RTS game like Warcraft, in a very big map, with only one unit.

I agree. CALL OF DUTY's first person perspective is a prime reason I found
myself ducking when virtual Nazis were shooting at me-er, my virtual
character.

> > > 2) joystick support
> > > 3) real-time combat (lag would be an issue)
> > > 4) no NPCs - a completely player-centric game
> >
> > No, no, no, no, no. I don't want my game playing COMPLETELY dependent on
> > someone else showing up.
>
> I'm assuming you mean no to just #4. Well, in my opinion .. if I
joined
> a game and there were just NPCs, no humans, I would not play. That, to
me,
> is the same as being on a server alone. There are countless single player
> games that are excellent. We're talking about massively multiplayer.

True, I was referring only to 4. I would want a mix of npcs and players--or
even GMs acting as in-game police, or clerks, bartenders, hotel managers,
ship captains, royal guard, planetary governors, etc. If I wake at 3 am and
want to game, I shouldn't have to worry that other people are sleep. Sure,
it may not be the full game experience, but I shouldn't be completely
dependent on others.

> > With NPC's, universe size is not a concern.
>
> So you are saying you would prefer to play in a giant universe filled
> with NPCs over a game in a small universe where everyone and everything
you
> see is a player? I am not criticizing your opinion, just making sure that
> this is what you really mean.

Nope, just saying that in a universe with players and npcs, you wouldn't be
limited to playing in the part of the universe that other players are in.
Just cuz everyone else in the galaxy is orbiting MarsBase watching Death
Race 3000, I shouldn't be deprived of going to Jupiter, Pluto, Segna, Alpha
Centauri, or Betelgeuse.

> > > 8) full pvp - not relegated to certain areas. If a group of players
> > starts
> > > a gang of pirates, it would be up to the player community to create a
> > > security force to patrol areas. They could be paid through taxes for
> > their
> > > risk. Bounties could also be placed on people, and people could play
> > bounty
> > > hunter to collect them. Mercenaries and freelancers would be hired to
> > > protect mining convoys and political leaders.
> >
> > The problem with that is that it discourages new users--and thus mmorpg
is
> > doomed to death.
>
> What if the developers didn't care for new players that had those
> concerns? I'd happily subscribe to a game that didn't babysit me, and I'm
> sure many others would too. I think this is a concept of "new player"
that
> is erroneous, that all new players have to have it handed easy to them so
> that they keep coughing up the fee. Why not make it so that new players
> have less to lose and less to provide early on? Aggro players would kill
> them, but the new player, being new, could come back without any problem,
> and the aggro player would get very little reward in killing a new player.
> Over time, the new player might meet a bunch of other new players, form a
> group of 12 or so newbie ships, pool their starting funds to pay a couple
> freelancers to protect them, and beginning the long process of becoming
the
> next dominant force in the game.
>
> dxtx

If you have less to lose then there is less to attract a player back to the
game. The key is balancing out benefits gained by long-time player while not
overbalancing it so that new players are too outmatched that it reduces
interest in the game. If new players are too discouraged then the population
of the game quickly levels off, only to die as veteran players loose
interest--and there aren't enough new player to maintain the profitability
of the game for publisher or game management.

I think a way balance might be achieved is for long-time players to gain
more skills, greater reputation, in wealth and / of maybe a greater
following (aka one's "posse", a circle of friends or circle of npc friends),
while growth in combat skills would be slow or even level off. That way a
new player whose is constantly being attacked by a player could call for a
one-on-one, player vs player duel. In solo duels, the benefit of a veteran
player vs a new player would be minimized, and thus stablize the game
population.

-- Ken from Chicago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom