Originally posted by whemyfield
my tone had the best at hard wsimike. i wasnt trying to be judgefull but only condoning and understanding. im sorry i offended you but believe me when i say i was trying to be friendly. i wasnt trying to force opinions or make you look stupid either. I thought maybe you didnt get what i was trying to put across. im sorry.

Mike is fine :-).

And if it was an error in communication (as tends to happen with disembodied words on a screen, such as they are), then no apology is necessary. It was a misunderstanding - nothing more.

Thanks :-)

I have to note... that this and my previous post are quite possibly the shortest two posts I\'ve ever posted in my life.. lol.

Originally posted by Axsyrus
I agree with Whemyfield, commercial games like the ones you just named don\'t release demo releases as with this game. If you want to see what the next release will look like, go play this release )

There already have been a few screenshots from CB btw, the dwarf, the magic shop, the trepor. I think that is enough.. I don\'t want to know exactly what to expect if it will be released, that ruins the suprise.

Well, you could always not click on the link to the pictures :-p

But.. I see your point, too. I just don\'t see the harm in giving a preview shot now and again.

I guess since CB is \"right around the corner\", relatively speaking, that it\'s sorta moot by now.. But maybe it\'s something to be considered for future releases.

Remember, too, that everyone here is already interested in and familiar with the world to varying degrees. If you\'re trying to attract new people to the game and they\'re coming here for the first time because they saw an article or what-have-you.. it\'s a good idea to show them not only what has been done.. but what is being done. Also, as I\'ve learned by repeatedly visiting the site, this game has *so* much going on.. so much to offer... But it seems that all the most interesting shots are the hardest to come by... and all the most interesting information has to be found and read about with little to no visual support. Remember, when it comes to games, a picture is worth at least a thousand words. You can describe things all day long, but actually *seeing* it makes all the difference to alot of people.

I was thinking..

I\'ve been going around, checking out some other MMORPGs that people have (that aren\'t as mainstream as those I\'ve tried - like Asheron\'s Call 2, Anarchy Online, etc. etc.) and have noticed something in a couple of them that *really* has gotten me interested in following their progress...

Teaser shots.

For example (and not to steer anyone away from PS), but go to http://www.ryzom.com and look at what they\'ve got in the works.. That is a beautiful looking game, and they have *tons* of screenshots, concept art, etc, of what players can expect to see when the game comes out... really keeps folks interested (well, me anyway).

I can now bring it back to PS.. I\'ve seen, in my searches, some great shots.. one of the new dwarf model (which looks extremely *good* and easily commercial quality, by the way - excellent work!) and one or two others. Those shots alone have gotten me as excited as I was when I first loaded up PS - and anyone who read my first thoughts on it will know what I\'m talking about ;-p

So... what I\'m getting at, in my usual long-winded manner, is if there\'s a possibility of releasing a teaser shot - maybe on a weekly basis - to those of us in the forums to give us a glimpse of what exactly we can expect to see when CB comes out?

I\'ve read of new areas being created, and new character models and animations and improved graphics, etc. etc.. Seeing some of those new features, I think, would be quite cool as we await the day - or should I say *the moment* the Devs give CB their blessing and make it available for update...

Yea? Nay?

Hey all..

Just a quickie here..

I\'ve been playing a variety of different 3D 3rd person games lately, and it\'s occured to me that pretty much all of them have two functions that I notice glaringly missing in PS at this time (fully understanding that it\'s pre-alpha.. no judgements being made.. just a suggestion by way of observation)...

First.. the camera system currently is a bit awkward. having to switch between camera mode and character movement mode feels a little odd.

I\'ve noticed that in pretty much all the games I\'ve played, they seem to follow one of two very familiar systems..

First:
The mouse controls the camera\'s view which in turn is using the character themself as the \"pivot point\" around which to rotate. Imagine the camera being attached to your character by a stick that could be extended out or retracted in (zoom in and out via mouse-wheel, etc).. when you turn your character, you\'re turning the camera with them, thus always keeping the camera behind you.. allowing you to zoom out and see alot of what\'s around you, or - say for a battle - to zoom way in and see the action close-up.

Also would be vertical axis movement... At which case the camera is still using the player as its pivot-point, but now allows you to bring the camera down to the ground to look up, or higher up to look more straight-down on everything...

Second:
Or... Alternately.. have it where the player movement is via the arrow keys, or WSAD if people choose that (configurable? :-).. but the mouse controls the camera separately from the player\'s movement. so you could, say, be running through an open field moving forward but be rotating your camera around to see what\'s around you, or target an item or creature with the mouse and left click to swiftly engage them...

Mouse look in this way, I\'ve noticed is usually accomplished by holding down the right mouse button, or perhaps the middle mouse-button/wheel...

So.. those are two systems that might beconsidered that I\'ve seen tend to work very well, feel very intuitive and have are tried and true methods.. so no one\'s having to reinvent the wheel.

Thanks!

Well, leveling and XP gain has been done in so many other games to good effect that I think it\'d be difficult to *not* come up with one that works.

Remember, it\'s hard - almost nigh short of impossible - to give any one scenario for how many XP an encounter would give and thus how long it would take for someone to level up...

Take into consideration the following (common) scenarios:

1. Player level vs. MOB level:
In general, there\'s a formula that determines how much XP is gained per kill based on the MOB level compared to the player level.

Player is 0-3 levels < MOB = Best XP gain per kill
Player is 1-3 levels > MOB = XP gain per kill decreases
Player is 4+ levels > MOB = XP gain decreases, makes it more and more a waste of the player\'s time to continue killing this MOB.

2. Player Party/Team level vs. MOB Level

In party situations, they could conceivably go after far more powerful creatures which sorta raises the bar a bit. So the same system could conceivably work, but on a more \"escalated\" setup.. Parties of 3 lvl 10 players could conceivably go after a MOB that\'s level 15 - maybe more. So those situations carry their own \"ideal\" level range, etc, and in fact, a level 15 MOB against a party of level 10s might be considered \"evenly matched\", relatively speaking.. That\'s a bit more complicated.

The point is, XP gain is not an absolute as there\'s always some kind of formula working behind the scenes, taking a \"base\" amount of XP and modifying it based on the player\'s or the party\'s level versus the MOB\'s level.

It seems that in that kind of setup, the higher level the MOB, the higher the \"base\" XP value is for it - so... while a lower level MOB, say around level 10 skill level, might have a base value of, oh.. 100XP (for example\'s sake), well that\'s going to either increase or decrease for the player killing it based on that player\'s level relative to the MOB\'s. Likewise, a higher level MOB that\'s maybe level 100 could have a base XP value of 1000, which will, again, decrease or increase somewhat relative to the level of the player fighting it.

That\'s something, I think, that we may well be seeing alot of tweaking going on with over time because until a system is put into practice, it\'s rather difficult for the devs to see whether it\'s making the game too easy or too hard or is ideally balanced, etc...

Remember, too, that there are different types of players.. There are those who are gonna consistently go after those mobs that are 3 or 4 levels higher than them because they want that \"near death\" thrill of fighting.. They\'ll gain alot of XP per kill at the cost of a lot of down-time for healing, etc. While others will take the safer route and maybe take on mobs that are an even match or maybe a little weaker - they\'ll have less down-time at the cost of less XP gain. Then there are those who will mix it up based on their mood at that given time (that\'s how I tend to be :-); sometimes feeling super aggressive.. sometimes not feeling quite so brazen...

So, how fast a player advances through the levels/ranks is largely dependent on their playstyle. The ones who wish to reach the highest levels are likely to be the ones who are most aggressive while the ones who aren\'t so focused on that, or maybe more \"protective\" of their character, are likely to be more liesurely and take longer to get there.

I\'m real curious to see how that works out.

Hello..

Cool! I\'m glad that\'s already been on the table, then.

The Blues/Reds, etc were more for the sake of illustration than anything.

I think keeping it more as a \"theme\" (bright colors = poision) as you said is a much more challenging way to go about it.. It forces players to \"re-learn\" each time they enter a new place.

Though.. I\'m not entirely sure now if there will be other realms to explore, or if the levels of the stalactite itself will be the extent of it? So the whole concept of it being different from one realm/plane to the next might be a moot point.

Disclaimer: everything stated in this message is intended as nothing more than a general template/concept to be considered or dismissed. Not an absolute or inflexible suggestion (not that I\'d be arrogant enough to assume it so.  heheh).

First, I\'m perfectly happy in a setting where the gameplay is primarily PvE with a consensual PvP aspect (arena, duals, etc.). However, I also understand that as happy as I am without pure PvP.. others are equally happy with it. I think it\'s fair to provide something of both PvE and PvP, if possible, to keep everyone happy.. you know.. that whole Compromise thing.

Of course, how do you do it?

Well, here are some thoughts based on other games I\'ve played that I think had it right - or at least reasonably implemented.

First, have areas that are designated strictly as PvP or non-PvP. Cities, towns, villages, temples or other such areas of sanctuary could be non-PvP - anywhere the \"law extends to\". The only exception being an arena, etc. As a general rule if you are, for the most part, safe from any PvE encounters, so too should you be safe from PvP encounters. If you try to attack someone, a guard or other designated \"protector\" for that area will swiftly come after you.

Wilderness areas or areas otherwise outside the immediate reach of any one city/town/village/sanctuary (ie. outside its walls, or outside a certain distance) would be open to PvP - with some caveats.

This is where I think a \'Challenge Rating\' system might be useful. They have this implemented in different games in some good ways. In Neverwinter Nights, you can examine someone and see their challenge rating relative to you. In games like Dungeon Siege and others, what color a person\'s name is displayed (when you click on them or mouse-over them, etc.) is an indication of how challenging they appear to you... This seems to be the most common of the two.

Mind you, it\'s all relative - especially when you\'re not discussing absolute character levels, but skill levels... someone might be way more effective as a mage than someone else is as a fighter, even though they\'re 2 levels lower than the fighter.

Now, the use of the challenge rating would be to allow implementation of a setup where, in a PvP-allowed area, you can only challenge someone within, for example, two challenge levels above or below you, allowing for a total of 5 possible challenge levels to work within (2 levels above or below, or evenly matched).

If you come up to someone who is outside that range, you simply cannot challenge them at all. It could be hard-coded that you cannot physically attack them. The option doesn\'t exist. This would ensure fair matches and that high levels with a penchant for killing low-level/new characters won\'t have that option - unless they want to never level up beyond that point... which,
I\'d think, would defeat the overall purpose of playing to begin with. They\'d get bored and leave, or saddle up and play the game the way it\'s intended :-).

To further put a caveat on that.. say there\'s someone you\'re attacking who is within the level range to fight, but just isn\'t interested - there could be a timer of sorts that starts counting down from the time of your first attack - if the person you\'re attacking has not begun fighting back before that timer runs out, you have to stop attacking  them or some penalty will come into play
for each additional strike... If you kill them, well, then some harsh penalties will come into play.

Now.. in a dual or Arena setting, you can challenge anyone you want, no matter what their level. If someone feels they want to challenge you, they\'re doing so full-knowing you\'re higher than them and they have the choice to accept or decline - thus no one can claim \"foul play\" should they beaten really badly. The reward for winning or penalties for losing (if any) are decided by the devs, etc...

Anyway.. just some thoughts based on general themes I\'ve seen implemented effectively in other games.

Thanks!
Mike