Comments for typedef struct

Comment on Why 2D? by typedef struct

typedef struct — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:59:58 +0000

If they’re low-flying aircraft (the AxO equivalent of an A-10), then I could show them actually flyby just below the camera. Mid-level I could perhaps show the shadow. High-altitude bombers you wouldn’t see until just before things start going boom.

Those are just examples. I’m more worried about displaying enough individuality for players. Depending on how small units show up on the screen, this could be a challenge. I’m hoping to use custom weapon loadouts, shields, and colors. And lots of cool particle effects.

Comment on Why 2D? by Ken

Ken — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:13:19 +0000

I agree. Although, I feel like it may be difficult to display something 3D in a 2D. For Example, I call in the ‘Air Strike’. Having bombs fly from the sky onto a building may be a bit difficult to display. None the less, your going to save hundreds of hours going 2D than 3D.

Amen

Ken

Comment on Design Peeve #1 by typedef struct

typedef struct — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:11:59 +0000

Unfortunately I can’t go into enough detail to really answer this question until I get an epic post out explaining just what this game is.

Soon though! I can’t wait to get into how advancement will work.

Because it sure as hell isn’t quest->quest->level->quest->quest->xp->xp->level->xp…

Comment on Design Peeve #1 by EuphoricStudios

EuphoricStudios — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:38:37 +0000

I’m loving the concept of everyone starting off the same, but I guess my question is how do you plan on handling everyone becoming a cookie cutter in potential late game? The biggest problem I believe most MMO’s face from a developmental stand point is character balancing. On the concept of innovation, has Asterax considered how it will allow enough versatility to players in progression / skill development / gear that would allow for late game to not fall into the ever-so generic class types of Tank, Healer, DPS, Hybrid? That’s not to say that this should be avoided, because it tends to be a core feature of successful (and unsuccessful) MMO’s, but as a permanent choice, will players be reasonably capable of changing their ‘class’ type? And if so, how easily can this be achieved? It would in my opinion be faulty to allow it to be some cumbersome that people switch on the fly, and an unfortunately permanent choice to disallow players to change play styles. One of my biggest pet peeves in games like WoW was that once I maxed out my personal play style (DPS), the only way to play another class was to start all the way from the beginning. More often than not, I found myself with ton’s of half-assed alt characters that got no where due to my boredom of rehashing the same game over again.

Comment on MMOs Are Not a Storytelling Medium by typedef struct

typedef struct — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:08:17 +0000

"That’s a bit irrelevant. Single player RPGs and even books, for that matter, work just fine if other people have completed them." It's only irrelevant if you ignore that MMOs are supposed to take place in some sort of persistent world. Aren't they? Each game has its own nebulous unspoken contract about what's persistent and what's for show.

Comment on MMOs Are Not a Storytelling Medium by Tesh

Tesh — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:05:51 +0000

“How compelling can a story be when the player knows 10,000 others have completed it prior?”

That’s a bit irrelevant. Single player RPGs and even books, for that matter, work just fine if other people have completed them.

That said, I agree with the rest of your comments; MMOs are ostensibly about interactions between players, otherwise, why play online in the first place? I’ll note that such doesn’t mean direct interaction all the time, as Tobold noted recently with his direct/indirect interaction article. Still, even for those players, like me (or Saylah of Mystic Worlds, notably), who largely solo MMOs, there’s something more vital about the game world when there are other players in it, even if I don’t do much with them all the time.