Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

digitalmasterx

Rank #2998 on Comments
no avatar Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to digitalmasterx Block digitalmasterx Invite digitalmasterx to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:5/07/2013
Last Login:12/19/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#9349
Comment Ranking:#2998
Highest Content Rank:#3935
Highest Comment Rank:#637
Content Thumbs: 628 total,  736 ,  108
Comment Thumbs: 4441 total,  5414 ,  973
Content Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 62 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 63 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 11% (11/100)
Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Content Views:49791
Times Content Favorited:18 times
Total Comments Made:1047
FJ Points:4303

latest user's comments

#131 - but this imbalance you speak of is prevalent everywhere, no ma…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/13/2014 on NPC lies 0
#135 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
I agreed that imbalance of some respect or another is inevitable but at the same time it is something that you must never ignore because if you do then you fundamentally break the game.

However this Rock/Paper/Scissors idea breaks the concept even more through the removal of the need for balance entirely. R/P/S works for people because they can make any of those three that they like and are always guaranteed either a win or a loss depending solely on that one choice and how well they can anticipate their opponent.

If you put that into a game where each player only has one of those three elements then you remove the need to balance because you've broken the system entirely. The system that determines winning and losing comes simply down to if your opponent has more points in paper than you have in scissors/rock, meaning they're stronger than your offence/defence. It means a character that is well balanced for all three of those styles is either going to become the cookie-cutter or that will be balanced in such a way that they always lose regardless of who is coming at them, so they instead turn towards going full rock and running around looking for scissors to crush and papers to run away from.

In most games balancing exists so that every DPS will be able to go toe-to-toe with every other DPS, and that no one healer class is the clear and obvious best healer, etc, but they all have methods of dealing with problems when they arise. Tanks will try to reduce the enemy's damage to them, healers will try to heal the enemy's damage to them, and DPS will try to kill the enemy before the enemy kills them.

But in a R/P/S situation you will always be either suited for the situation, unsuited, or thoroughly fucked. And that puts 2/3 of your playerbase into a position that is not fun to be in with regards to every encounter that is balanced to be countered by one of the R/P/S choices.
#137 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
but, the wow system is a form of R/P/S....
and its based around completely different ways of playing the game
i was trying to lean towards are more unified system, everyone can do whatever they want to on their own but can complement eachother.

look anything i claim will sound 'good on paper' but the fact of the matter is we have to draw from experience. WoW has a trinity, GW2 tried to get rid of the trinity but made it worse every class has the same abilities but some are stronger than others. there are multiple builds to chose per class, but most of the time there's only 1 viable build.

maybe the reason i didnt focus this much on combat is because it makes everything complicated. id rather focus on dynamics the most out of mechanics and aesthetics
#142 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Actually, WoW's system isn't R/P/S at all. Although, I suppose you could say it's half-R/P/S... maybe?

See, no DPS can do the job of a healer and no healer can replace a tank. They each sit in areas of the gameplay where the other two in the trinity are physically incapable of competing. However, unlike R/P/S no one choice has an advantage over the other. In combat a good healer should realistically be able to defend themselves efficiently against both a Tank and a DPS whilst retaliating, and a DPS should be realistically able to attack a Tank/Healer whilst efficiently mitigating their healing/mitigation abilities.

What is more, in no PvE encounter does anyone become obsolete. All encounters (at least the well-made ones) have a position for the Tank to fill, a position for the DPS to fill, and a position for the healer to fill, but at the same time none of those positions will play in any way alike, giving each of them an unique feeling, whereas a R/P/S system would make one choice clearly the most powerful, one clearly the weakest, and the other kinda meh in any damage-based encounter, and all three will still be differing variations on the same kind of offensive gameplay.

And whilst I appreciate the stuff outside of combat a lot in RPGs (if you've not already seen how 'The Secret World' does business, check it out, it's a perfect example of an MMO that does things differently) I also acknowledge that nothing engages people in quite the same way combat does. Combat is a very simple and effective method of getting gameplay to the player and that is why it is used to impede the progress of the player more commonly than other elements like puzzles. It is also a more engaging element of conflict than offensive level-design (like a platformer) or traps (which are basically static enemies), so combat is definitely something you should seriously consider if you're planning to make a game, because unlike puzzles, traps, and platforming, combat is never the same twice.
#159 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
hmm, you're positively correct. i wasnt thinking from a team-based game perspective
i had more of a 1v1/2-2 dueling mmo in mind, drawing too many ideas from sword art online and accel world alike.

kinda feel easier when your fight are isolated to 1v1 2v2 or maybe 3v3 situations
#162 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
WoW actually has those too. The Arena system in WoW allows for 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5 combat (whilst duels count as 1v1). That allows people to make the most of the Holy Trinity setup in a PvP theatre.

SAO has some things worth copying but it's not a good thing to try and emulate completely. The inspiration of something good is in there, like the complete removal of ranged combat and magic, forcing a focus onto pure melee combat that makes for much more reasonable balancing, but then there's the illogical elements to the game-world and mechanics.

That aside, making an MMO that is 1v1, 2v2, or 3v3 defeats the object of an MMO entirely, in which case the game would essentially become sort of a multiplayer-Soulcalibur game (which might not be a bad thing, but would be far from the games you mentioned there).

The appeal of the MMO is the MM part. WoW is as popular as it is because large groups of people cooperated and competed time and time again against one-another on an enormous scale that other games couldn't really deal with. But outside of that there was also the massive world that was chocked full of interesting people to meet and hopefully kill in some disgusting and creatively unfair manner.

Point being, if you're only thinking on that kind of scale you're really disregarding the potential of the MMO genre, which is a shame.

I think you've got a lot more roadblocks in your way to developing that game than might initially make themselves obvious to you, but in fairness a way to get a 3v3 Soulcalibur game working is actually worth the time and effort required to get it working.

Anyway, good luck with the concept.
#98 - i was going for a non-conventional approach, granted i havent …  [+] (13 new replies) 12/13/2014 on NPC lies 0
#123 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Actually, I'm gonna refer you to the post I just made to Infinitereaper because what I said there applies to this too.

You really can't just 'ignore' the balancing issue. Players who are underpowered will feel cheated because the cookie-cutter guys are always killing them/doing more damage/hogging the spotlight. Variety and variables and options work magnificently in single-player games but in MMOs that starts to become a lot more of a crutch than a benefit as more and more players gravitate towards the cookie-cutter settings to be able to play in the big guilds who do the big raids to get the phat lewt.

If you're in that group and you're underpowered then you're holding them back and that's not a fun position to be in (or at least it shouldn't be a position you're aiming to have in your game.)

The system you mentioned seems very reminiscent of the system employed in Kingdoms of Amalur which worked fine in a single-player game where the key focus of combat was dodging/blocking attacks. However come the MMO you'll probably find, for the same reasons mentioned above, people will gravitate towards the cookie-cutter styles, rendering all of the rest of the work you put into the rest of the options for the class pointless.

Another thing that might happen is what happened in WoW with the so-called "Shockadins", whereby Paladins gained a disproportionate offensive ability from mixing and matching talents from multiple talent-trees, making this unofficial class ridiculously imbalanced.

People will always abuse a system that isn't properly balanced and for the people who like the way they've built their characters but have little actual application in the game-world they will be the ones hurt most by an imbalanced system. The people who want to use the system as it was intended to be used are the ones that are hurt most when the system doesn't work as it is intended to work.
#131 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
but this imbalance you speak of is prevalent everywhere, no matter the conventional or the unconventional. Players will always moan about someone else being stronger than they are, blaming it on factors other than skill.

some type of rock paper scissors mentality should be applied to the available skills, being that every skill has a positive and negative for example, allowing for counterplay.

obviously i wasnt claiming the system to be perfect, but ill repeat this again, Imbalance in whatever system is inevitable.

i was taking an example to this games old way of doing things
game called global agenda, you could select any 'perk' by spending techpoints instead of going down skilltrees and such


kinda hard to explain but the concept im creating is very very different to the usual MMOs and therefore its even harder to explain the implications
#135 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
I agreed that imbalance of some respect or another is inevitable but at the same time it is something that you must never ignore because if you do then you fundamentally break the game.

However this Rock/Paper/Scissors idea breaks the concept even more through the removal of the need for balance entirely. R/P/S works for people because they can make any of those three that they like and are always guaranteed either a win or a loss depending solely on that one choice and how well they can anticipate their opponent.

If you put that into a game where each player only has one of those three elements then you remove the need to balance because you've broken the system entirely. The system that determines winning and losing comes simply down to if your opponent has more points in paper than you have in scissors/rock, meaning they're stronger than your offence/defence. It means a character that is well balanced for all three of those styles is either going to become the cookie-cutter or that will be balanced in such a way that they always lose regardless of who is coming at them, so they instead turn towards going full rock and running around looking for scissors to crush and papers to run away from.

In most games balancing exists so that every DPS will be able to go toe-to-toe with every other DPS, and that no one healer class is the clear and obvious best healer, etc, but they all have methods of dealing with problems when they arise. Tanks will try to reduce the enemy's damage to them, healers will try to heal the enemy's damage to them, and DPS will try to kill the enemy before the enemy kills them.

But in a R/P/S situation you will always be either suited for the situation, unsuited, or thoroughly fucked. And that puts 2/3 of your playerbase into a position that is not fun to be in with regards to every encounter that is balanced to be countered by one of the R/P/S choices.
#137 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
but, the wow system is a form of R/P/S....
and its based around completely different ways of playing the game
i was trying to lean towards are more unified system, everyone can do whatever they want to on their own but can complement eachother.

look anything i claim will sound 'good on paper' but the fact of the matter is we have to draw from experience. WoW has a trinity, GW2 tried to get rid of the trinity but made it worse every class has the same abilities but some are stronger than others. there are multiple builds to chose per class, but most of the time there's only 1 viable build.

maybe the reason i didnt focus this much on combat is because it makes everything complicated. id rather focus on dynamics the most out of mechanics and aesthetics
#142 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Actually, WoW's system isn't R/P/S at all. Although, I suppose you could say it's half-R/P/S... maybe?

See, no DPS can do the job of a healer and no healer can replace a tank. They each sit in areas of the gameplay where the other two in the trinity are physically incapable of competing. However, unlike R/P/S no one choice has an advantage over the other. In combat a good healer should realistically be able to defend themselves efficiently against both a Tank and a DPS whilst retaliating, and a DPS should be realistically able to attack a Tank/Healer whilst efficiently mitigating their healing/mitigation abilities.

What is more, in no PvE encounter does anyone become obsolete. All encounters (at least the well-made ones) have a position for the Tank to fill, a position for the DPS to fill, and a position for the healer to fill, but at the same time none of those positions will play in any way alike, giving each of them an unique feeling, whereas a R/P/S system would make one choice clearly the most powerful, one clearly the weakest, and the other kinda meh in any damage-based encounter, and all three will still be differing variations on the same kind of offensive gameplay.

And whilst I appreciate the stuff outside of combat a lot in RPGs (if you've not already seen how 'The Secret World' does business, check it out, it's a perfect example of an MMO that does things differently) I also acknowledge that nothing engages people in quite the same way combat does. Combat is a very simple and effective method of getting gameplay to the player and that is why it is used to impede the progress of the player more commonly than other elements like puzzles. It is also a more engaging element of conflict than offensive level-design (like a platformer) or traps (which are basically static enemies), so combat is definitely something you should seriously consider if you're planning to make a game, because unlike puzzles, traps, and platforming, combat is never the same twice.
#159 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
hmm, you're positively correct. i wasnt thinking from a team-based game perspective
i had more of a 1v1/2-2 dueling mmo in mind, drawing too many ideas from sword art online and accel world alike.

kinda feel easier when your fight are isolated to 1v1 2v2 or maybe 3v3 situations
#162 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
WoW actually has those too. The Arena system in WoW allows for 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5 combat (whilst duels count as 1v1). That allows people to make the most of the Holy Trinity setup in a PvP theatre.

SAO has some things worth copying but it's not a good thing to try and emulate completely. The inspiration of something good is in there, like the complete removal of ranged combat and magic, forcing a focus onto pure melee combat that makes for much more reasonable balancing, but then there's the illogical elements to the game-world and mechanics.

That aside, making an MMO that is 1v1, 2v2, or 3v3 defeats the object of an MMO entirely, in which case the game would essentially become sort of a multiplayer-Soulcalibur game (which might not be a bad thing, but would be far from the games you mentioned there).

The appeal of the MMO is the MM part. WoW is as popular as it is because large groups of people cooperated and competed time and time again against one-another on an enormous scale that other games couldn't really deal with. But outside of that there was also the massive world that was chocked full of interesting people to meet and hopefully kill in some disgusting and creatively unfair manner.

Point being, if you're only thinking on that kind of scale you're really disregarding the potential of the MMO genre, which is a shame.

I think you've got a lot more roadblocks in your way to developing that game than might initially make themselves obvious to you, but in fairness a way to get a 3v3 Soulcalibur game working is actually worth the time and effort required to get it working.

Anyway, good luck with the concept.
User avatar #110 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Hm. I think I get what you're going for. A classless system yes? Skyrim is an example. Fallout, however those systems are very simplified. I like the concept, though, I think you may want to introduce some classic elements. As well as an auto learning skill system in place of a class system unlocked after you gain certain skills.
#133 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
hey reaper, youre a regular on funnyjunk right?

are there any chatrooms of funnyjunk? like maybe skype even?
its kind of hard to 'hold a conversation' with fj's forum type messaging.
User avatar #147 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
yeah but I don't have the time really
#148 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
i meant in general, like talking to other people on the site and such
didnt mean to bother ya
User avatar #149 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
its no biggy, uh, there is a chat system that works for friends on FJ but its buggy as fuck (at least for me) other than that there are PMs. You could probably google a chat site somewhere tho with private rooms
#156 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
eh, i was hoping for an existing one. for such a tightly knit community we sure do miss a few conventions.

heard we had a minecraft server once
#89 - i agree completely i have this mmorpg concept of mine im w…  [+] (32 new replies) 12/13/2014 on NPC lies +1
#92 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Me too actually. One idea is improving the class system. Like lets say you pick "mage" then you can choose "type" e.g. enhancer, caster, etc. Enhancer would allow you to pick the subclass "Blood Mage", and from there you'd have a choice of two trees. Physical or Blood Magic. Physical would effectively turn your character into an melee/unarmed class. With some physical skills like berserker, magical skills like blood blades, and general using your fists. The blood mage tree would consist of vast blood magics that would be unique in that they require HP instead of MP.
One example. So like, you could be a "mage" but not have to be the same boring elemental mage, you'd have options. Lots of options.
User avatar #205 - broswagonist (12/13/2014) [-]
Watching Estelle get repeatedly owned is somehow satisfying
#114 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
No offence, but that sounds like it would be an absolute nightmare to balance.

World of Warcraft has 11 classes, 10 of which have 3 specs that drastically alter the way that they work and the other has 4. That means you need to do balancing work for what is, in essence, 34 classes.

If you don't balance the game properly then people will invariably trend towards the cookie-cutter styles that produce the best results against the toughest mobs. In RPGs it is a little more lenient as the environment is less competitive but in MMORPGs the best setup is always the best setup and you either play the way that is best or you don't play the serious field.

Atop that, to try to remedy this problem Blizzard put in a dual-specs but that just led the players to have two cookie-cutter specs instead of one. However, that is just intra-class balance, which relates to how you can set up your one class/spec combo. It says nothing of inter-class balance where you stack up your class/spec combo against others. In Vanilla WoW there were class combos that were almost never used because of their inability to keep up with the other class/spec combos. Paladins didn't become a viable option for tanking until the next expansion and that was one of their primary selling points. And that's not even MENTIONING Gear-balance and ensuring each class/combo has gear that looks suitable for them and gives relevant stats!

The point is, simplicity is there for a reason. There's a reasons why Guild Wars 2 PvP has PvP-specific mechanics, to make balancing easier, and there's a reason why there are only so many classes in WoW, because it's a balancing nightmare to have too many options. The talent trees in WoW were completely replaced with interchangeable, situationally-relevant talents because everyone was picking the same talents.

So... how would your MMO address the balancing issue? Because it is one of the most finicky and time-consuming and restrictive elements of RPG design.
User avatar #130 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
afteward:
I'm not interested so much in current development limitations as I am the grand scope of the potential of the rpg realized. Whatever form that would take. There are so many limitations in modern RPGs and it's fucking boring. Even the tiniest improvements would count for a lot.
#139 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Aye, there's a lot of painful drawbacks to modern RPGs, but at the same time a lot of those drawbacks, whilst hardware based, would be very expensive to solve even without the hardware limitations. Regardless of what the specs of the system you're designing for are you can only ever do the work you have the budget to sustain, and the massive cost of MMOs even in today's specs excludes a lot of people from the market, so a game with a scope grander than what we already see today would need to be even more homogenised in order to recoup the massive development budget necessary for it's creation.
User avatar #141 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Yeah, which is why the system required doesn't exist yet. Perhaps it never will, but hey, some people have their eyes set on the stars, other on this world, me? I'm looking to the future. Who cares what is, man imagine what could be.
#151 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
What 'could be' is also what 'won't' be unless you seriously consider the path between it and 'what is'.

It's not that things can't exist on the scale you're proposing, just that in order to do so a lot of peripheral elements will need to change. Not that they're not already changing, just that they may not change to the degree we'd like them to for at least another decade and that's being generous and excluding the possibility of another market crash which is pretty much guaranteed to happen at this point. The poor get less and less money to live their lives on (and thus spend on entertainment), the job market gets less and less capable of supporting an ever-expanding population, and though the amount of money in the country only increases the majority of it ends up in the hands of the people who need it the least, leading to cuts to the basic living conditions of people who then have to pay for it themselves and thus meaning even LESS money to spend on entertainment and...

... yeah, you get the idea. We're in a really shite position economically at the moment and a game on the scale you're proposing would probably rely a great deal on the market for it giving in a stable and suitable income, which will become the case for less and less and less people if the current trends continue. (It's a ball-ache, but big projects like MMOs are heavily influenced by the economy.
User avatar #167 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Of course not. It's not like I actually plan to make the game, I just want to design one. I honestly don't care if it never exists, but I love the concept of the fantasy RPGs. I see no reason why I shouldn't. And you're completely right. That's why I don't think a game of this scope will exist any time soon. Probably many many many years from now we'll see something like it eventually.

Funny you should mention all this actually. My current goal in life is to become and economist. Work for the government, invest, eventually start my own business. From their I'll sink a lot of money into R&D. Set the groundwork for the future, and if I can, seize it.

Our current world (and future) are both dismal. Completely dismal. Without change, we'll never have nice things. Nice things like a fucken awesome virtual reality mmo.
#178 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Well, my suggestion to you is to volunteer to do work for Wolf-Pac, because they're basically the only hope the US has of avoiding the economic fuckstorm it's headed for (the Republicans are trying to deregulate the banks again and it's not like Obama's gonna stop them... holy fucking shit these cunts are corrupt as fuck and need to be dealt with ASAP).

Unless you're like me and you don't live in the US in which case I'd suggest some other kind of local activism to promote people who actually want to fix the broken economic elements of your country (unless you're lucky enough to live somewhere free of capitalist corruption... in which case fucking hell man, lucky you) because seriously... we are fucked seven ways to Sunday if we don't get our shit together soon and I'm not just talking global Warming, I'm talking complete fundamental collapse of capitalist society.

Outsourcing sends many jobs overseas, automation continues to phase jobs out of the job market, competition weeds out the weak leaving monopolies and overpopulation continues to be problematic as the population grows and the job market shrinks. Serious reforms are gonna need to be made to the way we tax the rich and deal with welfare and they're gonna have to happen relatively soon otherwise the fan's gonna get broken to pieces by the titanic turd that's gonna fly at mach-speed right into it. There's more money in the countries FFS, it's just not going back to the government where it needs to go to keep the very notion of a capitalist economy working.

Greed's mad fucked, yo.
#193 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
I'm probably going an opposite route. I'm going to work directly for the government, take advantage of the pay and benefits, while using the economic knowledge I'll gain to invest and eventually have my own business. From there, I work to build the most efficient company ever created, in order to maximize profits and compete on an international level. This will require massive amounts of luck and science, but is good to strive for. I spent the majority of my life studying the sociology of our species. Trust me, if anybody knows how fucked up things are its me. Economics is called the dismal science and for good reason.

If my health and pain don't end up killing me, I hope to appropriate massive wealth and capital. Start an advanced research center and fund lots of R&D. The commercial applications will allow me to acquire more wealth, the scientific and technological advancement will allow me to acquire power. Wealth, technology, science, and power. Only with those 4 can I even begin to make a dent on humanity, society, and the future.

My chances of success are as dismal as economics however.
But it's worth a shot isn't it?
#229 - questionableferret (12/14/2014) [-]
If you're gonna use the broken system in an altruistic fashion then be my guest. Not like shit's getting any less broken any time soon. I disagree with a lot of what you said there but that's mostly because I disagree with the need for those things to be necessary in order to bring about positive change. However, so long as the system's broken, be my guest to abuse it like an altar-boy, just remember the story of Citizen Kane and you should be golden.
#129 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
First of all, I never came up with this as an MMO I came up with it as a something, more likely turn based or the like, but I do think it would be perfect for the first virtual reality MMO (which we won't see anytime soon, probably not till a century from now). The answer to your question however lies in that. Reaction time, strategy, and all else would have a role to play. It's not just a matter of taking advantage of specific layouts. First of all, the key to this system relies in it's customizability. You'd have to distribute your own stats, and the best way would be to create a fighting system where picking one thing ultimately a sacrifice to something else. A healthy level cap would limit points you could distribute so you'd have to choose wisely. Of course there are plenty of classes, so you create the skill systems and branches for them with that in mind. For example, a blood mage using blood magic would have an astonishing amount of HP for use of magics and the like but much less in speed, defense etc. and constantly run the balance risk of using too much HP for spells. Physical blood magic would be balanced similar to the way that monks are, less armor, different damage output, long cool downs etc. The balancing would be more about mathematics, and careful thought to the types of skills implemented and weaknesses distributed.

The best way to balance the overall system I think, IS in the vast options. If each version of each class and different types have SEVERAL ways to be powerful or useful in their own ways then you aren't limited to pick the few OP options. A unique skills system might also help.

Anyways, I know it may not sound realistic, but the scope of my current design is extremely vast. It's something that would require many times the processing power and development than any modern game.

But man... I'm telling you, if it's ever pulled off, the RPG I have in mind. Would be... every role players dream of a fantasy world come true.
#138 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
I get what you're trying to say but at the same time that's not backed up by the evidence. There is always a cookie-cutter setup. A way of picking the most broken abilities and putting them together to create the character that is the most effective. The scope of the RPG has no bearing on the way the mechanics balance.

The reason restrictions are placed on what characters can/can't use ability-wise is to limit the number of variables in place that need to be balanced and even then it's a monster task. What is more, you can't simply put in setups where the one setup has a natural advantage over the other, because that suddenly becomes unfair. It becomes unfair when one character has literally no method by which they can realistically defend against another, so either the game fully embraces that imba nature and people find themselves increasingly drawn to the most versatile of setups that allow them to deal with all of the problems that come their way to a reasonable degree or everyone devotes themselves fully to one setup or another and tries desperately to avoid the people who would completely screw them over whilst thoroughly demolishing the people whom they have an unfair advantage over.

What is more, there is only so much reactionary skill that can come into play in a turn-based game. Strategy is what matters in that sort of game but if you're not specced right for the opponent then you're definitely going to lose in that case.

So, ultimately, you're either going to end up with the hyper-versatile cookie-cutters who can reasonably respond to all possibilities (unless you balance it so that that doesn't happen in which case the game devolves into Rock/Paper/Scissors where you know your chances of winning are either 100%, 50%, or 0% depending on if someone is specced to your advantage in which case you're gonna win, to your disadvantage in which case you're gonna lose, or the same as you in which case it is finally a game where skill decides the victor.
User avatar #145 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
"skill". See that's the problem right there. The world isn't equal, so why should RPGs? Making everything the same is why nothing can be balanced. Every one class should have its advantages, but no class should be able to do everything. The key to balance is what you sacrifice in order to gain something. Without that real sacrifice, then of course, nothing will be balanced. Creating a good system wouldn't be easy, but it'd be much more fun to play a game where you actually have choices, instead of having to play in select patterns.
#160 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
A balanced system is one where everyone 'can' do those things. A system where everyone is the same, divided only by their skill, is the essence of a balanced system. It is the system that makes Halo the best shooter on the market (well... Halo 4 fucked that up the ass but at least the MCC seems to have it's head on right).

The exact opposite of that class-based gameplay like in Team Fortress 2 (which evidently can work magnificently too).

However, what you're proposing is a system that has the scope of a class-based game but without the barriers like set abilities/items that are put in place to ensure that balance.

The reason RPGs should be equal is simple... because in an unequal battle there is usually someone enjoying the game less than the other. If unequal gameplay was fun gameplay then everyone would be going on about how awesome ganking is. Everyone would be going absolutely potty over how cool it is that they can fundamentally demolish some people but in return are utterly helpless against others.

Real life isn't equal and because of that real life is unfair, exploited, and often makes the people on the losing end very, very miserable. We go to games because games make us feel good. Because it's fun to know that you beat the other guy because you're better than him, not just because you're rock and he's scissors.

The trick is making the choices matter, which means balancing every one of them perfectly. I said earlier that WoW had 11 classes and 34 specs. Well, each of those 34 specs has a choice of 21 talents to chose from, but they can only have 7 active at any one time, meaning those choices will matter based on how you like to play the game and on the situation you find yourself in... and that comes at the cost of balancing 714 talents in way more combinations than that and that's whilst operating within the class system!

It's a nightmare and WoW's only just managing to get their talents to a point where they matter. Balancing is really hard work.
#165 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
There would be barriers which would lie in the disadvantages and sacrifices of each particular class, but its stupid to expect that EVERY class should be able to defeat any other class. There should be some ways, like a thief poisoning someone with high defense in order to make up for low attack. I know it's not an easy issue, but as I'm trying to say, if nobody commits to progress then we'll never have anything new.

Who cares about current limitations? Advancement has the power to make whats complex now into something simple later. There's always a way to make something work, even a system with a large amount of creativity and freedom in character builds. Perhaps it just hasn't been found yet. Perhaps its not feasible yet. Doesn't mean its impossible.
#172 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
True, that doesn't mean it's impossible, but to be fair the concept of 'every class should be able to defeat any other class' is basically the norm in the gaming genre. It's in Team Fortress, Warcraft, Battlefront, basically, the idea is that balance is a good thing, because it means no players in the game are going to be put into situations that are fundamentally unfair to play in.

At the same time maybe it can work, however (and don't take this the wrong way) there are more reasons than software/development limitations that lead to us not seeing certain things in games, because some things just don't work. Anyway, I think we disagree fundamentally on this topic and I don't think either of us will be changing our minds on it nor adding new flavours to the discussion so let's drop it and say we're both open to the idea that it could work, however you remain far more optimistic to the possibility than I do.

Seem fair?
User avatar #191 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Well usually compromises have to be made for all sorts of things to work. Whats important is the march of progress. Everything you've said is valid, however you have to remember to be open minded. Otherwise nothing will change, ever. This is true for games, and true to life.
#98 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
i was going for a non-conventional approach, granted i havent even the slightest idea how i want to do combat.

the general idea is that you can select any skill/ability from the 3 main attributes
Strength, Agility, Intelligence
but only if you have prerequired amount of the stat.
basically youre spending your statpoints for skills

the other part are the weapons, they have their skillset of their own.
what im trying to avoid is all the conventional 'classes' most rpgs have, and instead you can mix and match whatever you want or you can make some hellish builds

this is really barebones but its more of the concept thats important, not the numbers
balance issues occur in any game anyway, doesnt matter what system you use
#123 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Actually, I'm gonna refer you to the post I just made to Infinitereaper because what I said there applies to this too.

You really can't just 'ignore' the balancing issue. Players who are underpowered will feel cheated because the cookie-cutter guys are always killing them/doing more damage/hogging the spotlight. Variety and variables and options work magnificently in single-player games but in MMOs that starts to become a lot more of a crutch than a benefit as more and more players gravitate towards the cookie-cutter settings to be able to play in the big guilds who do the big raids to get the phat lewt.

If you're in that group and you're underpowered then you're holding them back and that's not a fun position to be in (or at least it shouldn't be a position you're aiming to have in your game.)

The system you mentioned seems very reminiscent of the system employed in Kingdoms of Amalur which worked fine in a single-player game where the key focus of combat was dodging/blocking attacks. However come the MMO you'll probably find, for the same reasons mentioned above, people will gravitate towards the cookie-cutter styles, rendering all of the rest of the work you put into the rest of the options for the class pointless.

Another thing that might happen is what happened in WoW with the so-called "Shockadins", whereby Paladins gained a disproportionate offensive ability from mixing and matching talents from multiple talent-trees, making this unofficial class ridiculously imbalanced.

People will always abuse a system that isn't properly balanced and for the people who like the way they've built their characters but have little actual application in the game-world they will be the ones hurt most by an imbalanced system. The people who want to use the system as it was intended to be used are the ones that are hurt most when the system doesn't work as it is intended to work.
#131 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
but this imbalance you speak of is prevalent everywhere, no matter the conventional or the unconventional. Players will always moan about someone else being stronger than they are, blaming it on factors other than skill.

some type of rock paper scissors mentality should be applied to the available skills, being that every skill has a positive and negative for example, allowing for counterplay.

obviously i wasnt claiming the system to be perfect, but ill repeat this again, Imbalance in whatever system is inevitable.

i was taking an example to this games old way of doing things
game called global agenda, you could select any 'perk' by spending techpoints instead of going down skilltrees and such


kinda hard to explain but the concept im creating is very very different to the usual MMOs and therefore its even harder to explain the implications
#135 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
I agreed that imbalance of some respect or another is inevitable but at the same time it is something that you must never ignore because if you do then you fundamentally break the game.

However this Rock/Paper/Scissors idea breaks the concept even more through the removal of the need for balance entirely. R/P/S works for people because they can make any of those three that they like and are always guaranteed either a win or a loss depending solely on that one choice and how well they can anticipate their opponent.

If you put that into a game where each player only has one of those three elements then you remove the need to balance because you've broken the system entirely. The system that determines winning and losing comes simply down to if your opponent has more points in paper than you have in scissors/rock, meaning they're stronger than your offence/defence. It means a character that is well balanced for all three of those styles is either going to become the cookie-cutter or that will be balanced in such a way that they always lose regardless of who is coming at them, so they instead turn towards going full rock and running around looking for scissors to crush and papers to run away from.

In most games balancing exists so that every DPS will be able to go toe-to-toe with every other DPS, and that no one healer class is the clear and obvious best healer, etc, but they all have methods of dealing with problems when they arise. Tanks will try to reduce the enemy's damage to them, healers will try to heal the enemy's damage to them, and DPS will try to kill the enemy before the enemy kills them.

But in a R/P/S situation you will always be either suited for the situation, unsuited, or thoroughly fucked. And that puts 2/3 of your playerbase into a position that is not fun to be in with regards to every encounter that is balanced to be countered by one of the R/P/S choices.
#137 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
but, the wow system is a form of R/P/S....
and its based around completely different ways of playing the game
i was trying to lean towards are more unified system, everyone can do whatever they want to on their own but can complement eachother.

look anything i claim will sound 'good on paper' but the fact of the matter is we have to draw from experience. WoW has a trinity, GW2 tried to get rid of the trinity but made it worse every class has the same abilities but some are stronger than others. there are multiple builds to chose per class, but most of the time there's only 1 viable build.

maybe the reason i didnt focus this much on combat is because it makes everything complicated. id rather focus on dynamics the most out of mechanics and aesthetics
#142 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Actually, WoW's system isn't R/P/S at all. Although, I suppose you could say it's half-R/P/S... maybe?

See, no DPS can do the job of a healer and no healer can replace a tank. They each sit in areas of the gameplay where the other two in the trinity are physically incapable of competing. However, unlike R/P/S no one choice has an advantage over the other. In combat a good healer should realistically be able to defend themselves efficiently against both a Tank and a DPS whilst retaliating, and a DPS should be realistically able to attack a Tank/Healer whilst efficiently mitigating their healing/mitigation abilities.

What is more, in no PvE encounter does anyone become obsolete. All encounters (at least the well-made ones) have a position for the Tank to fill, a position for the DPS to fill, and a position for the healer to fill, but at the same time none of those positions will play in any way alike, giving each of them an unique feeling, whereas a R/P/S system would make one choice clearly the most powerful, one clearly the weakest, and the other kinda meh in any damage-based encounter, and all three will still be differing variations on the same kind of offensive gameplay.

And whilst I appreciate the stuff outside of combat a lot in RPGs (if you've not already seen how 'The Secret World' does business, check it out, it's a perfect example of an MMO that does things differently) I also acknowledge that nothing engages people in quite the same way combat does. Combat is a very simple and effective method of getting gameplay to the player and that is why it is used to impede the progress of the player more commonly than other elements like puzzles. It is also a more engaging element of conflict than offensive level-design (like a platformer) or traps (which are basically static enemies), so combat is definitely something you should seriously consider if you're planning to make a game, because unlike puzzles, traps, and platforming, combat is never the same twice.
#159 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
hmm, you're positively correct. i wasnt thinking from a team-based game perspective
i had more of a 1v1/2-2 dueling mmo in mind, drawing too many ideas from sword art online and accel world alike.

kinda feel easier when your fight are isolated to 1v1 2v2 or maybe 3v3 situations
#162 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
WoW actually has those too. The Arena system in WoW allows for 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5 combat (whilst duels count as 1v1). That allows people to make the most of the Holy Trinity setup in a PvP theatre.

SAO has some things worth copying but it's not a good thing to try and emulate completely. The inspiration of something good is in there, like the complete removal of ranged combat and magic, forcing a focus onto pure melee combat that makes for much more reasonable balancing, but then there's the illogical elements to the game-world and mechanics.

That aside, making an MMO that is 1v1, 2v2, or 3v3 defeats the object of an MMO entirely, in which case the game would essentially become sort of a multiplayer-Soulcalibur game (which might not be a bad thing, but would be far from the games you mentioned there).

The appeal of the MMO is the MM part. WoW is as popular as it is because large groups of people cooperated and competed time and time again against one-another on an enormous scale that other games couldn't really deal with. But outside of that there was also the massive world that was chocked full of interesting people to meet and hopefully kill in some disgusting and creatively unfair manner.

Point being, if you're only thinking on that kind of scale you're really disregarding the potential of the MMO genre, which is a shame.

I think you've got a lot more roadblocks in your way to developing that game than might initially make themselves obvious to you, but in fairness a way to get a 3v3 Soulcalibur game working is actually worth the time and effort required to get it working.

Anyway, good luck with the concept.
User avatar #110 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Hm. I think I get what you're going for. A classless system yes? Skyrim is an example. Fallout, however those systems are very simplified. I like the concept, though, I think you may want to introduce some classic elements. As well as an auto learning skill system in place of a class system unlocked after you gain certain skills.
#133 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
hey reaper, youre a regular on funnyjunk right?

are there any chatrooms of funnyjunk? like maybe skype even?
its kind of hard to 'hold a conversation' with fj's forum type messaging.
User avatar #147 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
yeah but I don't have the time really
#148 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
i meant in general, like talking to other people on the site and such
didnt mean to bother ya
User avatar #149 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
its no biggy, uh, there is a chat system that works for friends on FJ but its buggy as fuck (at least for me) other than that there are PMs. You could probably google a chat site somewhere tho with private rooms
#156 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
eh, i was hoping for an existing one. for such a tightly knit community we sure do miss a few conventions.

heard we had a minecraft server once
#87 - thats actually really easy, its just not a focus point, and no…  [+] (34 new replies) 12/13/2014 on NPC lies 0
User avatar #88 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
It's the little shit that counts. And a think a lot of things in role playing games could be vastly improved with a little creativity and love. Things are so rigid and cliche right now.
#89 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
i agree completely
i have this mmorpg concept of mine im working out from time to time
what types of things would you want to see in rpgs anyway?
just list a few we can discuss
#92 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Me too actually. One idea is improving the class system. Like lets say you pick "mage" then you can choose "type" e.g. enhancer, caster, etc. Enhancer would allow you to pick the subclass "Blood Mage", and from there you'd have a choice of two trees. Physical or Blood Magic. Physical would effectively turn your character into an melee/unarmed class. With some physical skills like berserker, magical skills like blood blades, and general using your fists. The blood mage tree would consist of vast blood magics that would be unique in that they require HP instead of MP.
One example. So like, you could be a "mage" but not have to be the same boring elemental mage, you'd have options. Lots of options.
User avatar #205 - broswagonist (12/13/2014) [-]
Watching Estelle get repeatedly owned is somehow satisfying
#114 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
No offence, but that sounds like it would be an absolute nightmare to balance.

World of Warcraft has 11 classes, 10 of which have 3 specs that drastically alter the way that they work and the other has 4. That means you need to do balancing work for what is, in essence, 34 classes.

If you don't balance the game properly then people will invariably trend towards the cookie-cutter styles that produce the best results against the toughest mobs. In RPGs it is a little more lenient as the environment is less competitive but in MMORPGs the best setup is always the best setup and you either play the way that is best or you don't play the serious field.

Atop that, to try to remedy this problem Blizzard put in a dual-specs but that just led the players to have two cookie-cutter specs instead of one. However, that is just intra-class balance, which relates to how you can set up your one class/spec combo. It says nothing of inter-class balance where you stack up your class/spec combo against others. In Vanilla WoW there were class combos that were almost never used because of their inability to keep up with the other class/spec combos. Paladins didn't become a viable option for tanking until the next expansion and that was one of their primary selling points. And that's not even MENTIONING Gear-balance and ensuring each class/combo has gear that looks suitable for them and gives relevant stats!

The point is, simplicity is there for a reason. There's a reasons why Guild Wars 2 PvP has PvP-specific mechanics, to make balancing easier, and there's a reason why there are only so many classes in WoW, because it's a balancing nightmare to have too many options. The talent trees in WoW were completely replaced with interchangeable, situationally-relevant talents because everyone was picking the same talents.

So... how would your MMO address the balancing issue? Because it is one of the most finicky and time-consuming and restrictive elements of RPG design.
User avatar #130 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
afteward:
I'm not interested so much in current development limitations as I am the grand scope of the potential of the rpg realized. Whatever form that would take. There are so many limitations in modern RPGs and it's fucking boring. Even the tiniest improvements would count for a lot.
#139 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Aye, there's a lot of painful drawbacks to modern RPGs, but at the same time a lot of those drawbacks, whilst hardware based, would be very expensive to solve even without the hardware limitations. Regardless of what the specs of the system you're designing for are you can only ever do the work you have the budget to sustain, and the massive cost of MMOs even in today's specs excludes a lot of people from the market, so a game with a scope grander than what we already see today would need to be even more homogenised in order to recoup the massive development budget necessary for it's creation.
User avatar #141 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Yeah, which is why the system required doesn't exist yet. Perhaps it never will, but hey, some people have their eyes set on the stars, other on this world, me? I'm looking to the future. Who cares what is, man imagine what could be.
#151 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
What 'could be' is also what 'won't' be unless you seriously consider the path between it and 'what is'.

It's not that things can't exist on the scale you're proposing, just that in order to do so a lot of peripheral elements will need to change. Not that they're not already changing, just that they may not change to the degree we'd like them to for at least another decade and that's being generous and excluding the possibility of another market crash which is pretty much guaranteed to happen at this point. The poor get less and less money to live their lives on (and thus spend on entertainment), the job market gets less and less capable of supporting an ever-expanding population, and though the amount of money in the country only increases the majority of it ends up in the hands of the people who need it the least, leading to cuts to the basic living conditions of people who then have to pay for it themselves and thus meaning even LESS money to spend on entertainment and...

... yeah, you get the idea. We're in a really shite position economically at the moment and a game on the scale you're proposing would probably rely a great deal on the market for it giving in a stable and suitable income, which will become the case for less and less and less people if the current trends continue. (It's a ball-ache, but big projects like MMOs are heavily influenced by the economy.
User avatar #167 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Of course not. It's not like I actually plan to make the game, I just want to design one. I honestly don't care if it never exists, but I love the concept of the fantasy RPGs. I see no reason why I shouldn't. And you're completely right. That's why I don't think a game of this scope will exist any time soon. Probably many many many years from now we'll see something like it eventually.

Funny you should mention all this actually. My current goal in life is to become and economist. Work for the government, invest, eventually start my own business. From their I'll sink a lot of money into R&D. Set the groundwork for the future, and if I can, seize it.

Our current world (and future) are both dismal. Completely dismal. Without change, we'll never have nice things. Nice things like a fucken awesome virtual reality mmo.
#178 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Well, my suggestion to you is to volunteer to do work for Wolf-Pac, because they're basically the only hope the US has of avoiding the economic fuckstorm it's headed for (the Republicans are trying to deregulate the banks again and it's not like Obama's gonna stop them... holy fucking shit these cunts are corrupt as fuck and need to be dealt with ASAP).

Unless you're like me and you don't live in the US in which case I'd suggest some other kind of local activism to promote people who actually want to fix the broken economic elements of your country (unless you're lucky enough to live somewhere free of capitalist corruption... in which case fucking hell man, lucky you) because seriously... we are fucked seven ways to Sunday if we don't get our shit together soon and I'm not just talking global Warming, I'm talking complete fundamental collapse of capitalist society.

Outsourcing sends many jobs overseas, automation continues to phase jobs out of the job market, competition weeds out the weak leaving monopolies and overpopulation continues to be problematic as the population grows and the job market shrinks. Serious reforms are gonna need to be made to the way we tax the rich and deal with welfare and they're gonna have to happen relatively soon otherwise the fan's gonna get broken to pieces by the titanic turd that's gonna fly at mach-speed right into it. There's more money in the countries FFS, it's just not going back to the government where it needs to go to keep the very notion of a capitalist economy working.

Greed's mad fucked, yo.
#193 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
I'm probably going an opposite route. I'm going to work directly for the government, take advantage of the pay and benefits, while using the economic knowledge I'll gain to invest and eventually have my own business. From there, I work to build the most efficient company ever created, in order to maximize profits and compete on an international level. This will require massive amounts of luck and science, but is good to strive for. I spent the majority of my life studying the sociology of our species. Trust me, if anybody knows how fucked up things are its me. Economics is called the dismal science and for good reason.

If my health and pain don't end up killing me, I hope to appropriate massive wealth and capital. Start an advanced research center and fund lots of R&D. The commercial applications will allow me to acquire more wealth, the scientific and technological advancement will allow me to acquire power. Wealth, technology, science, and power. Only with those 4 can I even begin to make a dent on humanity, society, and the future.

My chances of success are as dismal as economics however.
But it's worth a shot isn't it?
#229 - questionableferret (12/14/2014) [-]
If you're gonna use the broken system in an altruistic fashion then be my guest. Not like shit's getting any less broken any time soon. I disagree with a lot of what you said there but that's mostly because I disagree with the need for those things to be necessary in order to bring about positive change. However, so long as the system's broken, be my guest to abuse it like an altar-boy, just remember the story of Citizen Kane and you should be golden.
#129 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
First of all, I never came up with this as an MMO I came up with it as a something, more likely turn based or the like, but I do think it would be perfect for the first virtual reality MMO (which we won't see anytime soon, probably not till a century from now). The answer to your question however lies in that. Reaction time, strategy, and all else would have a role to play. It's not just a matter of taking advantage of specific layouts. First of all, the key to this system relies in it's customizability. You'd have to distribute your own stats, and the best way would be to create a fighting system where picking one thing ultimately a sacrifice to something else. A healthy level cap would limit points you could distribute so you'd have to choose wisely. Of course there are plenty of classes, so you create the skill systems and branches for them with that in mind. For example, a blood mage using blood magic would have an astonishing amount of HP for use of magics and the like but much less in speed, defense etc. and constantly run the balance risk of using too much HP for spells. Physical blood magic would be balanced similar to the way that monks are, less armor, different damage output, long cool downs etc. The balancing would be more about mathematics, and careful thought to the types of skills implemented and weaknesses distributed.

The best way to balance the overall system I think, IS in the vast options. If each version of each class and different types have SEVERAL ways to be powerful or useful in their own ways then you aren't limited to pick the few OP options. A unique skills system might also help.

Anyways, I know it may not sound realistic, but the scope of my current design is extremely vast. It's something that would require many times the processing power and development than any modern game.

But man... I'm telling you, if it's ever pulled off, the RPG I have in mind. Would be... every role players dream of a fantasy world come true.
#138 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
I get what you're trying to say but at the same time that's not backed up by the evidence. There is always a cookie-cutter setup. A way of picking the most broken abilities and putting them together to create the character that is the most effective. The scope of the RPG has no bearing on the way the mechanics balance.

The reason restrictions are placed on what characters can/can't use ability-wise is to limit the number of variables in place that need to be balanced and even then it's a monster task. What is more, you can't simply put in setups where the one setup has a natural advantage over the other, because that suddenly becomes unfair. It becomes unfair when one character has literally no method by which they can realistically defend against another, so either the game fully embraces that imba nature and people find themselves increasingly drawn to the most versatile of setups that allow them to deal with all of the problems that come their way to a reasonable degree or everyone devotes themselves fully to one setup or another and tries desperately to avoid the people who would completely screw them over whilst thoroughly demolishing the people whom they have an unfair advantage over.

What is more, there is only so much reactionary skill that can come into play in a turn-based game. Strategy is what matters in that sort of game but if you're not specced right for the opponent then you're definitely going to lose in that case.

So, ultimately, you're either going to end up with the hyper-versatile cookie-cutters who can reasonably respond to all possibilities (unless you balance it so that that doesn't happen in which case the game devolves into Rock/Paper/Scissors where you know your chances of winning are either 100%, 50%, or 0% depending on if someone is specced to your advantage in which case you're gonna win, to your disadvantage in which case you're gonna lose, or the same as you in which case it is finally a game where skill decides the victor.
User avatar #145 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
"skill". See that's the problem right there. The world isn't equal, so why should RPGs? Making everything the same is why nothing can be balanced. Every one class should have its advantages, but no class should be able to do everything. The key to balance is what you sacrifice in order to gain something. Without that real sacrifice, then of course, nothing will be balanced. Creating a good system wouldn't be easy, but it'd be much more fun to play a game where you actually have choices, instead of having to play in select patterns.
#160 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
A balanced system is one where everyone 'can' do those things. A system where everyone is the same, divided only by their skill, is the essence of a balanced system. It is the system that makes Halo the best shooter on the market (well... Halo 4 fucked that up the ass but at least the MCC seems to have it's head on right).

The exact opposite of that class-based gameplay like in Team Fortress 2 (which evidently can work magnificently too).

However, what you're proposing is a system that has the scope of a class-based game but without the barriers like set abilities/items that are put in place to ensure that balance.

The reason RPGs should be equal is simple... because in an unequal battle there is usually someone enjoying the game less than the other. If unequal gameplay was fun gameplay then everyone would be going on about how awesome ganking is. Everyone would be going absolutely potty over how cool it is that they can fundamentally demolish some people but in return are utterly helpless against others.

Real life isn't equal and because of that real life is unfair, exploited, and often makes the people on the losing end very, very miserable. We go to games because games make us feel good. Because it's fun to know that you beat the other guy because you're better than him, not just because you're rock and he's scissors.

The trick is making the choices matter, which means balancing every one of them perfectly. I said earlier that WoW had 11 classes and 34 specs. Well, each of those 34 specs has a choice of 21 talents to chose from, but they can only have 7 active at any one time, meaning those choices will matter based on how you like to play the game and on the situation you find yourself in... and that comes at the cost of balancing 714 talents in way more combinations than that and that's whilst operating within the class system!

It's a nightmare and WoW's only just managing to get their talents to a point where they matter. Balancing is really hard work.
#165 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
There would be barriers which would lie in the disadvantages and sacrifices of each particular class, but its stupid to expect that EVERY class should be able to defeat any other class. There should be some ways, like a thief poisoning someone with high defense in order to make up for low attack. I know it's not an easy issue, but as I'm trying to say, if nobody commits to progress then we'll never have anything new.

Who cares about current limitations? Advancement has the power to make whats complex now into something simple later. There's always a way to make something work, even a system with a large amount of creativity and freedom in character builds. Perhaps it just hasn't been found yet. Perhaps its not feasible yet. Doesn't mean its impossible.
#172 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
True, that doesn't mean it's impossible, but to be fair the concept of 'every class should be able to defeat any other class' is basically the norm in the gaming genre. It's in Team Fortress, Warcraft, Battlefront, basically, the idea is that balance is a good thing, because it means no players in the game are going to be put into situations that are fundamentally unfair to play in.

At the same time maybe it can work, however (and don't take this the wrong way) there are more reasons than software/development limitations that lead to us not seeing certain things in games, because some things just don't work. Anyway, I think we disagree fundamentally on this topic and I don't think either of us will be changing our minds on it nor adding new flavours to the discussion so let's drop it and say we're both open to the idea that it could work, however you remain far more optimistic to the possibility than I do.

Seem fair?
User avatar #191 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Well usually compromises have to be made for all sorts of things to work. Whats important is the march of progress. Everything you've said is valid, however you have to remember to be open minded. Otherwise nothing will change, ever. This is true for games, and true to life.
#98 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
i was going for a non-conventional approach, granted i havent even the slightest idea how i want to do combat.

the general idea is that you can select any skill/ability from the 3 main attributes
Strength, Agility, Intelligence
but only if you have prerequired amount of the stat.
basically youre spending your statpoints for skills

the other part are the weapons, they have their skillset of their own.
what im trying to avoid is all the conventional 'classes' most rpgs have, and instead you can mix and match whatever you want or you can make some hellish builds

this is really barebones but its more of the concept thats important, not the numbers
balance issues occur in any game anyway, doesnt matter what system you use
#123 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Actually, I'm gonna refer you to the post I just made to Infinitereaper because what I said there applies to this too.

You really can't just 'ignore' the balancing issue. Players who are underpowered will feel cheated because the cookie-cutter guys are always killing them/doing more damage/hogging the spotlight. Variety and variables and options work magnificently in single-player games but in MMOs that starts to become a lot more of a crutch than a benefit as more and more players gravitate towards the cookie-cutter settings to be able to play in the big guilds who do the big raids to get the phat lewt.

If you're in that group and you're underpowered then you're holding them back and that's not a fun position to be in (or at least it shouldn't be a position you're aiming to have in your game.)

The system you mentioned seems very reminiscent of the system employed in Kingdoms of Amalur which worked fine in a single-player game where the key focus of combat was dodging/blocking attacks. However come the MMO you'll probably find, for the same reasons mentioned above, people will gravitate towards the cookie-cutter styles, rendering all of the rest of the work you put into the rest of the options for the class pointless.

Another thing that might happen is what happened in WoW with the so-called "Shockadins", whereby Paladins gained a disproportionate offensive ability from mixing and matching talents from multiple talent-trees, making this unofficial class ridiculously imbalanced.

People will always abuse a system that isn't properly balanced and for the people who like the way they've built their characters but have little actual application in the game-world they will be the ones hurt most by an imbalanced system. The people who want to use the system as it was intended to be used are the ones that are hurt most when the system doesn't work as it is intended to work.
#131 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
but this imbalance you speak of is prevalent everywhere, no matter the conventional or the unconventional. Players will always moan about someone else being stronger than they are, blaming it on factors other than skill.

some type of rock paper scissors mentality should be applied to the available skills, being that every skill has a positive and negative for example, allowing for counterplay.

obviously i wasnt claiming the system to be perfect, but ill repeat this again, Imbalance in whatever system is inevitable.

i was taking an example to this games old way of doing things
game called global agenda, you could select any 'perk' by spending techpoints instead of going down skilltrees and such


kinda hard to explain but the concept im creating is very very different to the usual MMOs and therefore its even harder to explain the implications
#135 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
I agreed that imbalance of some respect or another is inevitable but at the same time it is something that you must never ignore because if you do then you fundamentally break the game.

However this Rock/Paper/Scissors idea breaks the concept even more through the removal of the need for balance entirely. R/P/S works for people because they can make any of those three that they like and are always guaranteed either a win or a loss depending solely on that one choice and how well they can anticipate their opponent.

If you put that into a game where each player only has one of those three elements then you remove the need to balance because you've broken the system entirely. The system that determines winning and losing comes simply down to if your opponent has more points in paper than you have in scissors/rock, meaning they're stronger than your offence/defence. It means a character that is well balanced for all three of those styles is either going to become the cookie-cutter or that will be balanced in such a way that they always lose regardless of who is coming at them, so they instead turn towards going full rock and running around looking for scissors to crush and papers to run away from.

In most games balancing exists so that every DPS will be able to go toe-to-toe with every other DPS, and that no one healer class is the clear and obvious best healer, etc, but they all have methods of dealing with problems when they arise. Tanks will try to reduce the enemy's damage to them, healers will try to heal the enemy's damage to them, and DPS will try to kill the enemy before the enemy kills them.

But in a R/P/S situation you will always be either suited for the situation, unsuited, or thoroughly fucked. And that puts 2/3 of your playerbase into a position that is not fun to be in with regards to every encounter that is balanced to be countered by one of the R/P/S choices.
#137 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
but, the wow system is a form of R/P/S....
and its based around completely different ways of playing the game
i was trying to lean towards are more unified system, everyone can do whatever they want to on their own but can complement eachother.

look anything i claim will sound 'good on paper' but the fact of the matter is we have to draw from experience. WoW has a trinity, GW2 tried to get rid of the trinity but made it worse every class has the same abilities but some are stronger than others. there are multiple builds to chose per class, but most of the time there's only 1 viable build.

maybe the reason i didnt focus this much on combat is because it makes everything complicated. id rather focus on dynamics the most out of mechanics and aesthetics
#142 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Actually, WoW's system isn't R/P/S at all. Although, I suppose you could say it's half-R/P/S... maybe?

See, no DPS can do the job of a healer and no healer can replace a tank. They each sit in areas of the gameplay where the other two in the trinity are physically incapable of competing. However, unlike R/P/S no one choice has an advantage over the other. In combat a good healer should realistically be able to defend themselves efficiently against both a Tank and a DPS whilst retaliating, and a DPS should be realistically able to attack a Tank/Healer whilst efficiently mitigating their healing/mitigation abilities.

What is more, in no PvE encounter does anyone become obsolete. All encounters (at least the well-made ones) have a position for the Tank to fill, a position for the DPS to fill, and a position for the healer to fill, but at the same time none of those positions will play in any way alike, giving each of them an unique feeling, whereas a R/P/S system would make one choice clearly the most powerful, one clearly the weakest, and the other kinda meh in any damage-based encounter, and all three will still be differing variations on the same kind of offensive gameplay.

And whilst I appreciate the stuff outside of combat a lot in RPGs (if you've not already seen how 'The Secret World' does business, check it out, it's a perfect example of an MMO that does things differently) I also acknowledge that nothing engages people in quite the same way combat does. Combat is a very simple and effective method of getting gameplay to the player and that is why it is used to impede the progress of the player more commonly than other elements like puzzles. It is also a more engaging element of conflict than offensive level-design (like a platformer) or traps (which are basically static enemies), so combat is definitely something you should seriously consider if you're planning to make a game, because unlike puzzles, traps, and platforming, combat is never the same twice.
#159 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
hmm, you're positively correct. i wasnt thinking from a team-based game perspective
i had more of a 1v1/2-2 dueling mmo in mind, drawing too many ideas from sword art online and accel world alike.

kinda feel easier when your fight are isolated to 1v1 2v2 or maybe 3v3 situations
#162 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
WoW actually has those too. The Arena system in WoW allows for 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5 combat (whilst duels count as 1v1). That allows people to make the most of the Holy Trinity setup in a PvP theatre.

SAO has some things worth copying but it's not a good thing to try and emulate completely. The inspiration of something good is in there, like the complete removal of ranged combat and magic, forcing a focus onto pure melee combat that makes for much more reasonable balancing, but then there's the illogical elements to the game-world and mechanics.

That aside, making an MMO that is 1v1, 2v2, or 3v3 defeats the object of an MMO entirely, in which case the game would essentially become sort of a multiplayer-Soulcalibur game (which might not be a bad thing, but would be far from the games you mentioned there).

The appeal of the MMO is the MM part. WoW is as popular as it is because large groups of people cooperated and competed time and time again against one-another on an enormous scale that other games couldn't really deal with. But outside of that there was also the massive world that was chocked full of interesting people to meet and hopefully kill in some disgusting and creatively unfair manner.

Point being, if you're only thinking on that kind of scale you're really disregarding the potential of the MMO genre, which is a shame.

I think you've got a lot more roadblocks in your way to developing that game than might initially make themselves obvious to you, but in fairness a way to get a 3v3 Soulcalibur game working is actually worth the time and effort required to get it working.

Anyway, good luck with the concept.
User avatar #110 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Hm. I think I get what you're going for. A classless system yes? Skyrim is an example. Fallout, however those systems are very simplified. I like the concept, though, I think you may want to introduce some classic elements. As well as an auto learning skill system in place of a class system unlocked after you gain certain skills.
#133 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
hey reaper, youre a regular on funnyjunk right?

are there any chatrooms of funnyjunk? like maybe skype even?
its kind of hard to 'hold a conversation' with fj's forum type messaging.
User avatar #147 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
yeah but I don't have the time really
#148 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
i meant in general, like talking to other people on the site and such
didnt mean to bother ya
User avatar #149 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
its no biggy, uh, there is a chat system that works for friends on FJ but its buggy as fuck (at least for me) other than that there are PMs. You could probably google a chat site somewhere tho with private rooms
#156 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
eh, i was hoping for an existing one. for such a tightly knit community we sure do miss a few conventions.

heard we had a minecraft server once
#80 - yes that is what you get when you lousily make quests trying t…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/13/2014 on NPC lies +9
#161 - anonymous (12/13/2014) [-]
You sure about that?
>pic related
#23 - rotterdam centraal, basically the inner city place called … 12/13/2014 on Ho-Ho-Ho! 0
#70 - advanced how? you can, in some rpgs, get the info of …  [+] (40 new replies) 12/13/2014 on NPC lies +4
User avatar #86 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Like different versions of clever bot script for NPCs, some presets of course but one where you can actually hold a simple conversation and/or its not the same thing every time. One day perhaps... along with virtual reality...
#87 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
thats actually really easy, its just not a focus point, and nobody will notice it because you usually dont return to a previous npc to talk to once youve completed their quest ore some shit.

MMORPG conventions are weird as fuck.
accept quest at one npc, complete it by walking to another one, A to B, gain some miniscule reward, repeat. "but hey guys, now you dont have to walk back to an npc to complete your quest" or some shit
im just rambling on
User avatar #88 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
It's the little shit that counts. And a think a lot of things in role playing games could be vastly improved with a little creativity and love. Things are so rigid and cliche right now.
#89 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
i agree completely
i have this mmorpg concept of mine im working out from time to time
what types of things would you want to see in rpgs anyway?
just list a few we can discuss
#92 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Me too actually. One idea is improving the class system. Like lets say you pick "mage" then you can choose "type" e.g. enhancer, caster, etc. Enhancer would allow you to pick the subclass "Blood Mage", and from there you'd have a choice of two trees. Physical or Blood Magic. Physical would effectively turn your character into an melee/unarmed class. With some physical skills like berserker, magical skills like blood blades, and general using your fists. The blood mage tree would consist of vast blood magics that would be unique in that they require HP instead of MP.
One example. So like, you could be a "mage" but not have to be the same boring elemental mage, you'd have options. Lots of options.
User avatar #205 - broswagonist (12/13/2014) [-]
Watching Estelle get repeatedly owned is somehow satisfying
#114 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
No offence, but that sounds like it would be an absolute nightmare to balance.

World of Warcraft has 11 classes, 10 of which have 3 specs that drastically alter the way that they work and the other has 4. That means you need to do balancing work for what is, in essence, 34 classes.

If you don't balance the game properly then people will invariably trend towards the cookie-cutter styles that produce the best results against the toughest mobs. In RPGs it is a little more lenient as the environment is less competitive but in MMORPGs the best setup is always the best setup and you either play the way that is best or you don't play the serious field.

Atop that, to try to remedy this problem Blizzard put in a dual-specs but that just led the players to have two cookie-cutter specs instead of one. However, that is just intra-class balance, which relates to how you can set up your one class/spec combo. It says nothing of inter-class balance where you stack up your class/spec combo against others. In Vanilla WoW there were class combos that were almost never used because of their inability to keep up with the other class/spec combos. Paladins didn't become a viable option for tanking until the next expansion and that was one of their primary selling points. And that's not even MENTIONING Gear-balance and ensuring each class/combo has gear that looks suitable for them and gives relevant stats!

The point is, simplicity is there for a reason. There's a reasons why Guild Wars 2 PvP has PvP-specific mechanics, to make balancing easier, and there's a reason why there are only so many classes in WoW, because it's a balancing nightmare to have too many options. The talent trees in WoW were completely replaced with interchangeable, situationally-relevant talents because everyone was picking the same talents.

So... how would your MMO address the balancing issue? Because it is one of the most finicky and time-consuming and restrictive elements of RPG design.
User avatar #130 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
afteward:
I'm not interested so much in current development limitations as I am the grand scope of the potential of the rpg realized. Whatever form that would take. There are so many limitations in modern RPGs and it's fucking boring. Even the tiniest improvements would count for a lot.
#139 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Aye, there's a lot of painful drawbacks to modern RPGs, but at the same time a lot of those drawbacks, whilst hardware based, would be very expensive to solve even without the hardware limitations. Regardless of what the specs of the system you're designing for are you can only ever do the work you have the budget to sustain, and the massive cost of MMOs even in today's specs excludes a lot of people from the market, so a game with a scope grander than what we already see today would need to be even more homogenised in order to recoup the massive development budget necessary for it's creation.
User avatar #141 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Yeah, which is why the system required doesn't exist yet. Perhaps it never will, but hey, some people have their eyes set on the stars, other on this world, me? I'm looking to the future. Who cares what is, man imagine what could be.
#151 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
What 'could be' is also what 'won't' be unless you seriously consider the path between it and 'what is'.

It's not that things can't exist on the scale you're proposing, just that in order to do so a lot of peripheral elements will need to change. Not that they're not already changing, just that they may not change to the degree we'd like them to for at least another decade and that's being generous and excluding the possibility of another market crash which is pretty much guaranteed to happen at this point. The poor get less and less money to live their lives on (and thus spend on entertainment), the job market gets less and less capable of supporting an ever-expanding population, and though the amount of money in the country only increases the majority of it ends up in the hands of the people who need it the least, leading to cuts to the basic living conditions of people who then have to pay for it themselves and thus meaning even LESS money to spend on entertainment and...

... yeah, you get the idea. We're in a really shite position economically at the moment and a game on the scale you're proposing would probably rely a great deal on the market for it giving in a stable and suitable income, which will become the case for less and less and less people if the current trends continue. (It's a ball-ache, but big projects like MMOs are heavily influenced by the economy.
User avatar #167 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Of course not. It's not like I actually plan to make the game, I just want to design one. I honestly don't care if it never exists, but I love the concept of the fantasy RPGs. I see no reason why I shouldn't. And you're completely right. That's why I don't think a game of this scope will exist any time soon. Probably many many many years from now we'll see something like it eventually.

Funny you should mention all this actually. My current goal in life is to become and economist. Work for the government, invest, eventually start my own business. From their I'll sink a lot of money into R&D. Set the groundwork for the future, and if I can, seize it.

Our current world (and future) are both dismal. Completely dismal. Without change, we'll never have nice things. Nice things like a fucken awesome virtual reality mmo.
#178 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Well, my suggestion to you is to volunteer to do work for Wolf-Pac, because they're basically the only hope the US has of avoiding the economic fuckstorm it's headed for (the Republicans are trying to deregulate the banks again and it's not like Obama's gonna stop them... holy fucking shit these cunts are corrupt as fuck and need to be dealt with ASAP).

Unless you're like me and you don't live in the US in which case I'd suggest some other kind of local activism to promote people who actually want to fix the broken economic elements of your country (unless you're lucky enough to live somewhere free of capitalist corruption... in which case fucking hell man, lucky you) because seriously... we are fucked seven ways to Sunday if we don't get our shit together soon and I'm not just talking global Warming, I'm talking complete fundamental collapse of capitalist society.

Outsourcing sends many jobs overseas, automation continues to phase jobs out of the job market, competition weeds out the weak leaving monopolies and overpopulation continues to be problematic as the population grows and the job market shrinks. Serious reforms are gonna need to be made to the way we tax the rich and deal with welfare and they're gonna have to happen relatively soon otherwise the fan's gonna get broken to pieces by the titanic turd that's gonna fly at mach-speed right into it. There's more money in the countries FFS, it's just not going back to the government where it needs to go to keep the very notion of a capitalist economy working.

Greed's mad fucked, yo.
#193 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
I'm probably going an opposite route. I'm going to work directly for the government, take advantage of the pay and benefits, while using the economic knowledge I'll gain to invest and eventually have my own business. From there, I work to build the most efficient company ever created, in order to maximize profits and compete on an international level. This will require massive amounts of luck and science, but is good to strive for. I spent the majority of my life studying the sociology of our species. Trust me, if anybody knows how fucked up things are its me. Economics is called the dismal science and for good reason.

If my health and pain don't end up killing me, I hope to appropriate massive wealth and capital. Start an advanced research center and fund lots of R&D. The commercial applications will allow me to acquire more wealth, the scientific and technological advancement will allow me to acquire power. Wealth, technology, science, and power. Only with those 4 can I even begin to make a dent on humanity, society, and the future.

My chances of success are as dismal as economics however.
But it's worth a shot isn't it?
#229 - questionableferret (12/14/2014) [-]
If you're gonna use the broken system in an altruistic fashion then be my guest. Not like shit's getting any less broken any time soon. I disagree with a lot of what you said there but that's mostly because I disagree with the need for those things to be necessary in order to bring about positive change. However, so long as the system's broken, be my guest to abuse it like an altar-boy, just remember the story of Citizen Kane and you should be golden.
#129 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
First of all, I never came up with this as an MMO I came up with it as a something, more likely turn based or the like, but I do think it would be perfect for the first virtual reality MMO (which we won't see anytime soon, probably not till a century from now). The answer to your question however lies in that. Reaction time, strategy, and all else would have a role to play. It's not just a matter of taking advantage of specific layouts. First of all, the key to this system relies in it's customizability. You'd have to distribute your own stats, and the best way would be to create a fighting system where picking one thing ultimately a sacrifice to something else. A healthy level cap would limit points you could distribute so you'd have to choose wisely. Of course there are plenty of classes, so you create the skill systems and branches for them with that in mind. For example, a blood mage using blood magic would have an astonishing amount of HP for use of magics and the like but much less in speed, defense etc. and constantly run the balance risk of using too much HP for spells. Physical blood magic would be balanced similar to the way that monks are, less armor, different damage output, long cool downs etc. The balancing would be more about mathematics, and careful thought to the types of skills implemented and weaknesses distributed.

The best way to balance the overall system I think, IS in the vast options. If each version of each class and different types have SEVERAL ways to be powerful or useful in their own ways then you aren't limited to pick the few OP options. A unique skills system might also help.

Anyways, I know it may not sound realistic, but the scope of my current design is extremely vast. It's something that would require many times the processing power and development than any modern game.

But man... I'm telling you, if it's ever pulled off, the RPG I have in mind. Would be... every role players dream of a fantasy world come true.
#138 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
I get what you're trying to say but at the same time that's not backed up by the evidence. There is always a cookie-cutter setup. A way of picking the most broken abilities and putting them together to create the character that is the most effective. The scope of the RPG has no bearing on the way the mechanics balance.

The reason restrictions are placed on what characters can/can't use ability-wise is to limit the number of variables in place that need to be balanced and even then it's a monster task. What is more, you can't simply put in setups where the one setup has a natural advantage over the other, because that suddenly becomes unfair. It becomes unfair when one character has literally no method by which they can realistically defend against another, so either the game fully embraces that imba nature and people find themselves increasingly drawn to the most versatile of setups that allow them to deal with all of the problems that come their way to a reasonable degree or everyone devotes themselves fully to one setup or another and tries desperately to avoid the people who would completely screw them over whilst thoroughly demolishing the people whom they have an unfair advantage over.

What is more, there is only so much reactionary skill that can come into play in a turn-based game. Strategy is what matters in that sort of game but if you're not specced right for the opponent then you're definitely going to lose in that case.

So, ultimately, you're either going to end up with the hyper-versatile cookie-cutters who can reasonably respond to all possibilities (unless you balance it so that that doesn't happen in which case the game devolves into Rock/Paper/Scissors where you know your chances of winning are either 100%, 50%, or 0% depending on if someone is specced to your advantage in which case you're gonna win, to your disadvantage in which case you're gonna lose, or the same as you in which case it is finally a game where skill decides the victor.
User avatar #145 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
"skill". See that's the problem right there. The world isn't equal, so why should RPGs? Making everything the same is why nothing can be balanced. Every one class should have its advantages, but no class should be able to do everything. The key to balance is what you sacrifice in order to gain something. Without that real sacrifice, then of course, nothing will be balanced. Creating a good system wouldn't be easy, but it'd be much more fun to play a game where you actually have choices, instead of having to play in select patterns.
#160 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
A balanced system is one where everyone 'can' do those things. A system where everyone is the same, divided only by their skill, is the essence of a balanced system. It is the system that makes Halo the best shooter on the market (well... Halo 4 fucked that up the ass but at least the MCC seems to have it's head on right).

The exact opposite of that class-based gameplay like in Team Fortress 2 (which evidently can work magnificently too).

However, what you're proposing is a system that has the scope of a class-based game but without the barriers like set abilities/items that are put in place to ensure that balance.

The reason RPGs should be equal is simple... because in an unequal battle there is usually someone enjoying the game less than the other. If unequal gameplay was fun gameplay then everyone would be going on about how awesome ganking is. Everyone would be going absolutely potty over how cool it is that they can fundamentally demolish some people but in return are utterly helpless against others.

Real life isn't equal and because of that real life is unfair, exploited, and often makes the people on the losing end very, very miserable. We go to games because games make us feel good. Because it's fun to know that you beat the other guy because you're better than him, not just because you're rock and he's scissors.

The trick is making the choices matter, which means balancing every one of them perfectly. I said earlier that WoW had 11 classes and 34 specs. Well, each of those 34 specs has a choice of 21 talents to chose from, but they can only have 7 active at any one time, meaning those choices will matter based on how you like to play the game and on the situation you find yourself in... and that comes at the cost of balancing 714 talents in way more combinations than that and that's whilst operating within the class system!

It's a nightmare and WoW's only just managing to get their talents to a point where they matter. Balancing is really hard work.
#165 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
There would be barriers which would lie in the disadvantages and sacrifices of each particular class, but its stupid to expect that EVERY class should be able to defeat any other class. There should be some ways, like a thief poisoning someone with high defense in order to make up for low attack. I know it's not an easy issue, but as I'm trying to say, if nobody commits to progress then we'll never have anything new.

Who cares about current limitations? Advancement has the power to make whats complex now into something simple later. There's always a way to make something work, even a system with a large amount of creativity and freedom in character builds. Perhaps it just hasn't been found yet. Perhaps its not feasible yet. Doesn't mean its impossible.
#172 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
True, that doesn't mean it's impossible, but to be fair the concept of 'every class should be able to defeat any other class' is basically the norm in the gaming genre. It's in Team Fortress, Warcraft, Battlefront, basically, the idea is that balance is a good thing, because it means no players in the game are going to be put into situations that are fundamentally unfair to play in.

At the same time maybe it can work, however (and don't take this the wrong way) there are more reasons than software/development limitations that lead to us not seeing certain things in games, because some things just don't work. Anyway, I think we disagree fundamentally on this topic and I don't think either of us will be changing our minds on it nor adding new flavours to the discussion so let's drop it and say we're both open to the idea that it could work, however you remain far more optimistic to the possibility than I do.

Seem fair?
User avatar #191 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Well usually compromises have to be made for all sorts of things to work. Whats important is the march of progress. Everything you've said is valid, however you have to remember to be open minded. Otherwise nothing will change, ever. This is true for games, and true to life.
#98 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
i was going for a non-conventional approach, granted i havent even the slightest idea how i want to do combat.

the general idea is that you can select any skill/ability from the 3 main attributes
Strength, Agility, Intelligence
but only if you have prerequired amount of the stat.
basically youre spending your statpoints for skills

the other part are the weapons, they have their skillset of their own.
what im trying to avoid is all the conventional 'classes' most rpgs have, and instead you can mix and match whatever you want or you can make some hellish builds

this is really barebones but its more of the concept thats important, not the numbers
balance issues occur in any game anyway, doesnt matter what system you use
#123 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Actually, I'm gonna refer you to the post I just made to Infinitereaper because what I said there applies to this too.

You really can't just 'ignore' the balancing issue. Players who are underpowered will feel cheated because the cookie-cutter guys are always killing them/doing more damage/hogging the spotlight. Variety and variables and options work magnificently in single-player games but in MMOs that starts to become a lot more of a crutch than a benefit as more and more players gravitate towards the cookie-cutter settings to be able to play in the big guilds who do the big raids to get the phat lewt.

If you're in that group and you're underpowered then you're holding them back and that's not a fun position to be in (or at least it shouldn't be a position you're aiming to have in your game.)

The system you mentioned seems very reminiscent of the system employed in Kingdoms of Amalur which worked fine in a single-player game where the key focus of combat was dodging/blocking attacks. However come the MMO you'll probably find, for the same reasons mentioned above, people will gravitate towards the cookie-cutter styles, rendering all of the rest of the work you put into the rest of the options for the class pointless.

Another thing that might happen is what happened in WoW with the so-called "Shockadins", whereby Paladins gained a disproportionate offensive ability from mixing and matching talents from multiple talent-trees, making this unofficial class ridiculously imbalanced.

People will always abuse a system that isn't properly balanced and for the people who like the way they've built their characters but have little actual application in the game-world they will be the ones hurt most by an imbalanced system. The people who want to use the system as it was intended to be used are the ones that are hurt most when the system doesn't work as it is intended to work.
#131 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
but this imbalance you speak of is prevalent everywhere, no matter the conventional or the unconventional. Players will always moan about someone else being stronger than they are, blaming it on factors other than skill.

some type of rock paper scissors mentality should be applied to the available skills, being that every skill has a positive and negative for example, allowing for counterplay.

obviously i wasnt claiming the system to be perfect, but ill repeat this again, Imbalance in whatever system is inevitable.

i was taking an example to this games old way of doing things
game called global agenda, you could select any 'perk' by spending techpoints instead of going down skilltrees and such


kinda hard to explain but the concept im creating is very very different to the usual MMOs and therefore its even harder to explain the implications
#135 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
I agreed that imbalance of some respect or another is inevitable but at the same time it is something that you must never ignore because if you do then you fundamentally break the game.

However this Rock/Paper/Scissors idea breaks the concept even more through the removal of the need for balance entirely. R/P/S works for people because they can make any of those three that they like and are always guaranteed either a win or a loss depending solely on that one choice and how well they can anticipate their opponent.

If you put that into a game where each player only has one of those three elements then you remove the need to balance because you've broken the system entirely. The system that determines winning and losing comes simply down to if your opponent has more points in paper than you have in scissors/rock, meaning they're stronger than your offence/defence. It means a character that is well balanced for all three of those styles is either going to become the cookie-cutter or that will be balanced in such a way that they always lose regardless of who is coming at them, so they instead turn towards going full rock and running around looking for scissors to crush and papers to run away from.

In most games balancing exists so that every DPS will be able to go toe-to-toe with every other DPS, and that no one healer class is the clear and obvious best healer, etc, but they all have methods of dealing with problems when they arise. Tanks will try to reduce the enemy's damage to them, healers will try to heal the enemy's damage to them, and DPS will try to kill the enemy before the enemy kills them.

But in a R/P/S situation you will always be either suited for the situation, unsuited, or thoroughly fucked. And that puts 2/3 of your playerbase into a position that is not fun to be in with regards to every encounter that is balanced to be countered by one of the R/P/S choices.
#137 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
but, the wow system is a form of R/P/S....
and its based around completely different ways of playing the game
i was trying to lean towards are more unified system, everyone can do whatever they want to on their own but can complement eachother.

look anything i claim will sound 'good on paper' but the fact of the matter is we have to draw from experience. WoW has a trinity, GW2 tried to get rid of the trinity but made it worse every class has the same abilities but some are stronger than others. there are multiple builds to chose per class, but most of the time there's only 1 viable build.

maybe the reason i didnt focus this much on combat is because it makes everything complicated. id rather focus on dynamics the most out of mechanics and aesthetics
#142 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
Actually, WoW's system isn't R/P/S at all. Although, I suppose you could say it's half-R/P/S... maybe?

See, no DPS can do the job of a healer and no healer can replace a tank. They each sit in areas of the gameplay where the other two in the trinity are physically incapable of competing. However, unlike R/P/S no one choice has an advantage over the other. In combat a good healer should realistically be able to defend themselves efficiently against both a Tank and a DPS whilst retaliating, and a DPS should be realistically able to attack a Tank/Healer whilst efficiently mitigating their healing/mitigation abilities.

What is more, in no PvE encounter does anyone become obsolete. All encounters (at least the well-made ones) have a position for the Tank to fill, a position for the DPS to fill, and a position for the healer to fill, but at the same time none of those positions will play in any way alike, giving each of them an unique feeling, whereas a R/P/S system would make one choice clearly the most powerful, one clearly the weakest, and the other kinda meh in any damage-based encounter, and all three will still be differing variations on the same kind of offensive gameplay.

And whilst I appreciate the stuff outside of combat a lot in RPGs (if you've not already seen how 'The Secret World' does business, check it out, it's a perfect example of an MMO that does things differently) I also acknowledge that nothing engages people in quite the same way combat does. Combat is a very simple and effective method of getting gameplay to the player and that is why it is used to impede the progress of the player more commonly than other elements like puzzles. It is also a more engaging element of conflict than offensive level-design (like a platformer) or traps (which are basically static enemies), so combat is definitely something you should seriously consider if you're planning to make a game, because unlike puzzles, traps, and platforming, combat is never the same twice.
#159 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
hmm, you're positively correct. i wasnt thinking from a team-based game perspective
i had more of a 1v1/2-2 dueling mmo in mind, drawing too many ideas from sword art online and accel world alike.

kinda feel easier when your fight are isolated to 1v1 2v2 or maybe 3v3 situations
#162 - questionableferret (12/13/2014) [-]
WoW actually has those too. The Arena system in WoW allows for 2v2, 3v3, or 5v5 combat (whilst duels count as 1v1). That allows people to make the most of the Holy Trinity setup in a PvP theatre.

SAO has some things worth copying but it's not a good thing to try and emulate completely. The inspiration of something good is in there, like the complete removal of ranged combat and magic, forcing a focus onto pure melee combat that makes for much more reasonable balancing, but then there's the illogical elements to the game-world and mechanics.

That aside, making an MMO that is 1v1, 2v2, or 3v3 defeats the object of an MMO entirely, in which case the game would essentially become sort of a multiplayer-Soulcalibur game (which might not be a bad thing, but would be far from the games you mentioned there).

The appeal of the MMO is the MM part. WoW is as popular as it is because large groups of people cooperated and competed time and time again against one-another on an enormous scale that other games couldn't really deal with. But outside of that there was also the massive world that was chocked full of interesting people to meet and hopefully kill in some disgusting and creatively unfair manner.

Point being, if you're only thinking on that kind of scale you're really disregarding the potential of the MMO genre, which is a shame.

I think you've got a lot more roadblocks in your way to developing that game than might initially make themselves obvious to you, but in fairness a way to get a 3v3 Soulcalibur game working is actually worth the time and effort required to get it working.

Anyway, good luck with the concept.
User avatar #110 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
Hm. I think I get what you're going for. A classless system yes? Skyrim is an example. Fallout, however those systems are very simplified. I like the concept, though, I think you may want to introduce some classic elements. As well as an auto learning skill system in place of a class system unlocked after you gain certain skills.
#133 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
hey reaper, youre a regular on funnyjunk right?

are there any chatrooms of funnyjunk? like maybe skype even?
its kind of hard to 'hold a conversation' with fj's forum type messaging.
User avatar #147 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
yeah but I don't have the time really
#148 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
i meant in general, like talking to other people on the site and such
didnt mean to bother ya
User avatar #149 - infinitereaper (12/13/2014) [-]
its no biggy, uh, there is a chat system that works for friends on FJ but its buggy as fuck (at least for me) other than that there are PMs. You could probably google a chat site somewhere tho with private rooms
#156 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
eh, i was hoping for an existing one. for such a tightly knit community we sure do miss a few conventions.

heard we had a minecraft server once
#77 - zezenzerg (12/13/2014) [-]
For example skyrim. Be a demigod capable of staring dragons to death and levelling moutains with a whisper. And the guards think I fetch the mead in Jorrvaskr.
User avatar #194 - ztron (12/13/2014) [-]
Far cry 2 did that, towards the end of game people would be straight up fucking terrified if they realized you were attacking them. Far Cry 2 - Terrified Enemies
#80 - digitalmasterx (12/13/2014) [-]
yes that is what you get when you lousily make quests trying to make an interesting rpg

in all honestly, ever rpg is about saving the world, but none around you bother to help or anything. from a game standpoint it all makes sense, but if it had a hint of realism, people wouldnt 'sell' items to an adventurer who is destined to save the world.
#161 - anonymous (12/13/2014) [-]
You sure about that?
>pic related
#20 - Picture 12/12/2014 on Presidents don't sleep +2
#4 - actual gameplay of knack 2? 12/12/2014 on Big Hero 6 looks great +3
#2 - obligatory  [+] (2 new replies) 12/10/2014 on John Cena with a girl from... +5
#6 - omgroflzomg (12/10/2014) [-]
Oh god was that funny.
#5 - DemonMatt (12/10/2014) [-]
AND HIS NAME IS JOHN CENA!
-doo doodoo doooo!-
#2 - >someone offers you to ride in his car >gets in the … 12/10/2014 on Gold Diggers +23
#84 - dont get me wrong, i do not deem companies reputable because p…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/09/2014 on Well... 0
User avatar #85 - psykobear (12/09/2014) [-]
I believe people buy games either because they have no taste and actually enjoy them (Press X to Pay Respects), or they are trying too hard to fit in and buy what's popular.
#82 - i was stating that dispite the fact that they did have … 12/09/2014 on Well... 0
#67 - got anything to back up your claims? a lot of companies have …  [+] (5 new replies) 12/09/2014 on Well... 0
User avatar #74 - psykobear (12/09/2014) [-]
People buying their shit is not the same as them having a good reputation. I don't have exact numbers or really any more information, but just remember that.
#84 - digitalmasterx (12/09/2014) [-]
dont get me wrong, i do not deem companies reputable because people buy their shit anyway

i think its a terrible practice that people buy games regardless of how hard they suck balls. maybe its simply because they dont know any better, or that store clerics like gamestop force/trick people into buying crappy games. usually the victims are the adults that dont have time to research it.

all in all, im not for it, but it happens anyway, and you know damn well for what reasons they happen
User avatar #85 - psykobear (12/09/2014) [-]
I believe people buy games either because they have no taste and actually enjoy them (Press X to Pay Respects), or they are trying too hard to fit in and buy what's popular.
User avatar #71 - crampers (12/09/2014) [-]
Well see CoD; It has been reputated as being a Copy Pasted game series

Destiny had a rough launch which i suppose has damaged their subscription numbers (I can't say for sure since the Q3 Report is coming this month)

WoW had a bad launch (People still make fun of that - funnyjunk.com/Wow/funny-pictures/5375457/ )
#82 - digitalmasterx (12/09/2014) [-]
i was stating that dispite the fact that they did have shit launches, people suck that shit up anyway
#46 - this **** aint true, a lof of games suck at relea…  [+] (7 new replies) 12/09/2014 on Well... +2
User avatar #66 - crampers (12/09/2014) [-]
Yeah but the reputation of the game and the company will forever take a hit
#67 - digitalmasterx (12/09/2014) [-]
got anything to back up your claims? a lot of companies have shit launches, like Call of Duty, Destiny and even World of Warcraft. people will suck it up and buy that shit anyway.
User avatar #74 - psykobear (12/09/2014) [-]
People buying their shit is not the same as them having a good reputation. I don't have exact numbers or really any more information, but just remember that.
#84 - digitalmasterx (12/09/2014) [-]
dont get me wrong, i do not deem companies reputable because people buy their shit anyway

i think its a terrible practice that people buy games regardless of how hard they suck balls. maybe its simply because they dont know any better, or that store clerics like gamestop force/trick people into buying crappy games. usually the victims are the adults that dont have time to research it.

all in all, im not for it, but it happens anyway, and you know damn well for what reasons they happen
User avatar #85 - psykobear (12/09/2014) [-]
I believe people buy games either because they have no taste and actually enjoy them (Press X to Pay Respects), or they are trying too hard to fit in and buy what's popular.
User avatar #71 - crampers (12/09/2014) [-]
Well see CoD; It has been reputated as being a Copy Pasted game series

Destiny had a rough launch which i suppose has damaged their subscription numbers (I can't say for sure since the Q3 Report is coming this month)

WoW had a bad launch (People still make fun of that - funnyjunk.com/Wow/funny-pictures/5375457/ )
#82 - digitalmasterx (12/09/2014) [-]
i was stating that dispite the fact that they did have shit launches, people suck that shit up anyway
#37 - Picture  [+] (2 new replies) 12/09/2014 on Pizza pie!! +5
#55 - jalauren (12/09/2014) [-]
Exactly what I thought of
#38 - sirgrimrock (12/09/2014) [-]
#34 - 39 12/09/2014 on A Special Place 0
#133 - gaijin, you need no fleshlight, you need onahole 12/07/2014 on How to make a Fleshlight 0
#94 - what are you gonna do? throw me out of the plane …  [+] (3 new replies) 12/07/2014 on wi-fi +5
#106 - anonymous (12/07/2014) [-]
Yes.
#96 - theroflcer (12/07/2014) [-]
I find it hilarious that pretty much all comments have been funnier then the actual content.
#116 - megayoming (12/07/2014) [-]
Yes.
#15 - i played the alien in that movie Ayy lmao  [+] (4 new replies) 12/05/2014 on Rule Britannia +18
#29 - niggernazi (12/05/2014) [-]
User avatar #69 - pocketstooheavy (12/05/2014) [-]
ayy lmao
User avatar #21 - lagingerninja (12/05/2014) [-]
fuck you beat me to it.
User avatar #19 - Zaxplab (12/05/2014) [-]
Oh, I suppose you're gonna get all butthurt about intergalactic manifest destiny now, huh?
#15 - guess its all good  [+] (1 new reply) 12/04/2014 on Fleshlight +1
#16 - BloodyTurds (12/04/2014) [-]
#13 - its a joke, the least you could do is play along, not drag it along.  [+] (3 new replies) 12/04/2014 on Fleshlight +7
#14 - BloodyTurds (12/04/2014) [-]
I assumed your first one was, as was mine your second post however seemed to show a more serious tone, which made me believe it was something simply lost in translation, possibly from another language (neither japanese or english). so i decided to try and break it down..
#15 - digitalmasterx (12/04/2014) [-]
guess its all good
#16 - BloodyTurds (12/04/2014) [-]
#11 - american-jin dont like little girls?  [+] (5 new replies) 12/04/2014 on Fleshlight 0
#12 - BloodyTurds (12/04/2014) [-]
well i've never heard that term before.. assumed you were trying to sound japanese, while not actually being japanese.... in an attempt to make japan seem superior (weabooism?)
though you may not even be american
#13 - digitalmasterx (12/04/2014) [-]
its a joke, the least you could do is play along, not drag it along.
#14 - BloodyTurds (12/04/2014) [-]
I assumed your first one was, as was mine your second post however seemed to show a more serious tone, which made me believe it was something simply lost in translation, possibly from another language (neither japanese or english). so i decided to try and break it down..
#15 - digitalmasterx (12/04/2014) [-]
guess its all good
#16 - BloodyTurds (12/04/2014) [-]
#7 - "Damn nature, you crazy" 12/04/2014 on Cool Church 0
#20 - nobody pays attention to this **** unfortunately … 12/04/2014 on MMORPG I'm looking forward to! +1
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 95 / Total items point value: 115

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - tridaak ONLINE (09/02/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
 Friends (0)