vbGore Free Online RPG Engine

to say the current state of orpgs is getting stale would be a huge understatement. I feel alot of the standard features need a major reworking in order for the genre to really advance. obviously, the following is based on personal opinion. i encourage everyone to weigh in with your own opinions, as that is where the "discussion" in "discussion forum" comes from.

to start, i think one general change needed is the removal of most of the "features" found in a typical orpg. for the most part, these features do more to limit the players experience than expand it.

persistent worlds: this is one thing that needs to go. i understand the desire to give each player the same game experience, but the draw back is the eventual realization that nothing you do matters. if you fight your way through the stronghold of the opposing faction and kill its leader, he just respawns in 5 minutes. if you spend hour after hour farming the toughest bosses for the best gear, once you quit playing the world is no better or worse off without you. i would like to see a movement towards a more dynamic game world, where the actions of each individual can really make a difference.

levels: absolutely pointless in my opinion. they server nothing more than to give the elitists something to hold over your head. the idea that your opion doesnt matter because you're not at the level cap is rediculous. skills and items being available based on level is another peeve. if i want to become a master blacksmith, what the hell does that have to do with how many woodland creatures i've killed? levels also lead to the most boring aspect of the game, the grind to level cap. players blow through content to max out there level, just so they can hit "endgame". for the majority of players, the story means nothing, they just want to farm the high end bosses for some phat l00tz and epix.

classes: oh how i hate class systems. no matter what they call them, no matter what inovations they try to add in, it always boils down to the holy trinity of group make up. the tank, the nuker, and the healer. what adds to the limits of classes, you're ridiculed and told you need to "l2play" if you choose to play your character in a way thats unorthodox for your chosen class. in addition, even if you do choose to play the class a bit differently, you're still limited in just how much variation you can achieve. just because i can shoot great balls of fire, why should i not be able to train in slapping something around with a giant sword? if i am given that option, why should i not be able to become as proficient as any warrior type while still being able to pew pew with the best of them?

role play: i think we really need to put the "rp" back in "rpg". this ties in a bit with the persistent world issue but can be taken a bit further. the player has no real option to interact with the world in a way fitting with their personality. story lines and quest chains are designed in far to much of a linear fashion. action A leads to result Z, there is no B, C, or D leading to W, X, or Y. there is no penalty for failing a quest, and there are no options to do something different with the quest. your friendly neighborhood NPC tells you to take a priceless artifact to his buddy 2 towns over. what if instead you run off with it? sell it on the black market? pass it on to a rival NPC? or drop it in the fires of mt. doom? more options should be created to allow the player to follow his own path, and the original NPC should react accordingly. online games need more of a sandbox feel, something that allows the player to really get involved.

these are not ogiginal, groundbreaking, ideas. they've been brought up numerous times before, yet we have not seem them implimented. actually, EVE online does an ok job, but i think it can be taken further. advancing on some of these ideas could allow for truely new features to be added, or the advancement of some things that do not work that well in the current standards.
for example, permadeath. if all you do is grind, and some higher level come along and kills you, it sucks. what's the point in starting over? now, if what you did with that character actually meant something, would it be as bad? if you create a new character, and can actually see the effect your last one had on the world, it could be a whole new experience. also, if you drop the level system, everyone has an equal chance of coming out on top in those encounters anyway. plus, think of what the player base could do with that. everything from epic turf wars, to lonesharking could be possible.

since this is the home of a rather powerful game engine, which is accessible by the indy developer, i hope to see things pop up that break the molds set by todays orpgs. we have a tool to take us in a whole new direction, i wonder how many of us will really make use of it.

(most likely i ton of spelling and grammer mistakes, but i'll be damned if i'm proof reading that wall of text)

The problem is, to do any of these things unless in a very minor version will require a complete rewrite in the whole ORPG system like you said. Coming up with such a design is going to be highly difficult for someone with no experience in the field. Not only do you have to come up with a brilliant idea, but you have to present it to people properly to get them to take the effort to change to it.



This is one thing that people always bring up, but never do more then skim the surface on what they want. Non-persistent worlds would result in players not only getting unique experiences in everything they do but also allow them a feeling of importances, which is a very good thing. The problem is, how the hell do you do that? If killing the leader of a stronghold is going to, say, take down that stronghold completely, what do you do from there? The best I can come up with is that you bring a force from your team to occupy the building that is of equal strength of the ones you killed. That keeps the character strength balance, but how do you tell who currently occupies the building? If it is a low-level place, how do people of the other faction make it over there? Do they just walk into the enemy town, say "Hey!", walk in and just kill them?

Non-persistent worlds results in a very complex world. People don't know where to go, or even what they can handle in a battle.



I disagree with your opinion on levels. Without levels, there are only two ways to get better from what I see:
- Personal skill and experience at playing
- Larger group size
The first is never going to bring you too far in an ORPG unless it is a FPS or RTS of some sort. But then you're changing the genre. Larger group sizes... thats something anyone can do, and not everyone wants to deal with. Is it completely unlogical to make a character stronger as they fight more? The emphasis on levels can be changed, along with how you level, but I think it is a pretty mandatory feature of an ORPG since it has been one of the root elements of RPGs since their start.

A level-less system was something I was going to do for my game but decided against it when I realized what kind of problems it would bring out. Not something I wanted to do for my first game.



Classes are a hard one to break apart from. If you completely remove classes and only give stats and complete freedom on how people raise their characters, most of them are going to go with the strongest build for what interests them the most: PvP, PvM, guild fights, etc.



This is another one a lot of people say. Role playing simply does not appeal to everyone, myself included. I don't play a fantasy game to pretend I'm actually a D-cup blonde elf babe wearing a grass mini-skirt and sexishly wielding a bow. What you described, though, fits more under persistent worlds then role playing in my opinion.

all valid arguments, and obviously i'm not talking about one person making a total change. more like, small changes adding up over time. there are plenty of people who are perfectly fine with how these games work now, but there's also a large group jumping from game to game looking for something new.

the dynamic world idea, definatly not something easy to add. it would require the server to have its own AI for molding the world in reaction to certain events. we will never see the flexibility of the old table pen and paper rpgs with a DM calling all the shots, but i think eventually we can get close. my example for killing the leader of an enemy town, WoW actually added a town with the expanson that has the groundwork for this. when one faction goes in and kills off all the enemy NPCs, gaurds and vendors of their faction will spawn. if i recall the town is also close to one of the endgame instances so what faction is in control has significant strategic value.

levels are absolutely needed by the current rulesets of orpgs. as more aspects of the genre change though it will become less of a focal point. if we move more towards a sandbox type world instead of a set linear path broken up by levels, more focus will be put on personal advancement over character advancement. i'm also talkng about taking the focus off pure hack and slash questing. if a player can choose to be an adventurer or a shop keeper, he shouldnt be limited in what he can do because of a level that increases with something entirely unrelated. also when i talk about removing levels, i dont just mean from the player. there will still be stronger NPCs but not to the same extent. killing a bear in a starting zone and killing a bear somewhere else requiring an increase of like 20 levels never made sense to me. i just want to see an alternative to speed leveling to get to a supposed endgame, so that you can better experience the game world.

classes are a tricky one, there's been a lot of discussion in one of your threads on different aproches so i wont get into it here.

and roleplay, well i dont mean it in the "i shalt take thy relic to yonder settlement" sense. what i mean is allowing the player to make more of his own decisions. i don't want to be forced to act like a fruity elf, but i would like to be able to act like me. i'm sure it's been in other single player games but the only example that comes to mind is Baulders Gate. there's an NPC in a shop with a quest for you, you can accept the quest, pick his pocket, or just kill him. everywhere you go from that point will react based on that action. even the npc party members even gain more respect for you or tell you to fuck off and leave based on your actions. one ultimate goal which would tie in this and making a dynamic world, is to take the focus of NPCs and place it more on other players. if you rob a player shop keeper, he's going to remember, and he'll spread the word to his buddies. i suppose role playing might be the wrong term, because im not so much talking about playing the role of your character, more the character playing the role of you.

these things would deffinatly take away from how friendly the game is to the first timer, but the genre is bloated with newbie friendly games. where do the experience players go once they're gotten bored with everything else?

Thinking Outside the Box:
OK, your already thinkin outside the box. That's why we're here. All your questions have answers. I'm sure of it. They just require you both going even further outside of your basic thinking.

Now there are rules to be followed & we all seem to follow them, even if we don't realize it. You have to ask yourself something else at the same time you ask your questions. As you ask you want you changed, ask "what rule am I not allowed to change, what is out of the question? ". Take note of those rules & then Break them all, one by one.

Once you throw away the rules that you never thought too. You can take a deep breath & see the answers that were there all along. I could tell you the answers that I have found, but that would be putting your mind inside another box. I know for sure that there are answers. Once you find them & have the master plan to add them all to your game, you will have a game that's like no other.

Do bear in mind that we still have to follow the rules of what computers are capable of, and that can't be broken very easily.

Before jumping off to outside the box, think within the realm of possibilties before jumping off in some fantastic journey.

Its a powerful force known as balance.

of course limitations of the software available is one thing holding back certain progress, but, more is currently possible then what's being done. regardless of what can be done and when, the first step is to start thinking of any outlandish way to break the mold, then figure out how to go about doing it.

so aside from going back and forth agreeing or not with me, i'd like to see some other ideas being shared. if you're perfectly happy with the way everything is, say so. if not, what would you change?
i really just want to spark some discussion on what direction everyone would like to see the genre moving towards. maybe together we can come up with something new and work on the first steps towards a change.

what I would change would be

1) More dynamic character system - example,its possible to become the most powerfulest mage, whilst being a scary warrior. What I mean by abolishing classes... Its up to YOU to decide what course of action you wish to take. How to look etc
2) Strong story lines (some propagenda or something ) - Some Books turn into good games, haha.
3) More interactive - example, its possible to further the growth of civilisation as a player is able to submit resources to the town centre, from there on the game code expands and changes depending on what resources there are in the town (therefore adding possibilities of raids and such of other towns)

There are some things I do not wish to share unfortunantely, because I am a greedy bastard.... well once I develop the ideas more thoroughly, you'll hear of them.... and basicly since I have a horrible explanation process

[rant]
I saw a a orpg long ago that had the simple thing that NPC Shops keep track of Money. They set the money & items & check it later to see what changed. Simple & lame I know, but they could track what the players were really up to & adjust the prices. [/rant]

What if a NPC could keep track of cash flow. If the amount reaches above or below an amount, it could switch a map with another slightly different one. Example: Lets think of a town named "Fillmore", it's a Zero ranked town. It uses map numbers 51, 52, 61, 62.

Fillmore (Rank 0, 0/100)
50 51 52 53
60 61 62 63
All of the maps are type "A". They might have 1 or 2 small shacks on them. As players spend a certain amount of gold there, Use the Inn so many times, or Rent a House... a Map can increase from an "A" to a "B" or more. This will switch the map thats placed there with another like it, only with more or beter buildings, or better items in shops, etc. (The entrances to those maps would change but the Exits for all those maps would allways be the same ) If some of the maps upgrade a total of 3 then "Fillmore" increases a rank, & then giving all of Fillmore a rank bonus. & maybe incrase it's number of maps. The Down side would be that mappers would need to do more work, but a copy paste map function would work.
Fillmore (Rank 1, 3/100)
40 41 42 43
50 51 52 53
60 61 62 63
70 71 72 73

What if NPC could keep track of cash flow & compare it to the other NPC to see what percentage of all the player spending is being spent in any one area. Have it recorded on a notepad & checked server side every hour or so. Towns would be competeing with each other. Simple for a talented programer.
---
This doesn't have to be done with gold. It could have to do with guilds. The more people in your guild, the more power it has. There was an old "Pen & paper rpg" where if the ruler grow his land & people, he whould grow in some small Divine powers. What if the guild leader had that power ?

The game could keep track of gold, players, territory, class types, skill uses, player races, quests passed, players choices, you name it.

Not to single Spodi's quote out, but it summed a lot of the common opinion of level's on this thread so far.

[rant]I think it was D&D or some pen/paper rpg that invented the "level System". It was based on something called "Chain Mail", a battle game played with minatures or a table. The makers of CM took there game to another level (no pun) & added what they called "Levels". Also loosing the table top in part & put the characters in a "dungeon" like maze.[/rant]

Anyway, a lot of people say that the level system is for growth & may have started that way but..... A lot of people would argue with me for this, but the "level system" is really something made to sell D&D books.

The level system is an illusion. A weak PC fights weak NPC to gain levels to become a moderate PC & fight moderate NPC. The challenge maintains the same. It's an illusion. Your not stronger, you just have different numbers. Then you get stronger & fight "high" level NPC's & the challenge is the same then too.

I said to my old D&D players that I would put a Zero behind all there stats & then also behind all the monster stats. (5 becomes 50, 25 become 250, everyone does more damage & has more hp). I asked them If that would be more interesting... if that would be a high level campaign ? They said yes. It would still take the same number of hits to kill a type of monster & the player can still take the same number of hits. They still said yes. I stopped playing with those people.

In interest of keeping my post smaller (to late), I'll stop here (I know with no point) & wait for responces, or if anyone cares. You only have to read half as much.

you hit it right on the head with levels. the only reason for a player to gain a level is to kill a monster a higher level. he can also kill things of lower level faster, but by that point there is no reason to even bother killing them anymore.
so if the npcs have no level, the player doesnt need a level. growth of the character would depend more on his interaction with the game world. it would also put more pressure on the developer to come up with new ways to advance in the game.

the whole thing is also still just based off the random kill fest style game. why does killing monsters need to be the main focus of an rpg? if it's done well and keeps it interesting, thats great, but why cant an rpg be taken in the other direction instead?

Well where else are you going to take it? Vast exploration style is going to require large groups of people, along with no company ever wants to spend that much money putting together so many graphics and maps. You could go social, but then all you really have is a virtual chat game, which theres plenty of, such as Second Life. You may argue that leveling does nothing but present you with the same challenge of different monsters since you are always fighting monsters around the same relative strength as you, but it gives people something to look forward to. What fun is jumping in a game when you can already do most everything there is?

A huge part of the addictiveness of modern RPGs is the progressive character development. In a FPS like Counter-Strike, you could just jump right in and be equal to everyone in every aspect except for skill. Skill makes a huge difference in games like those because they are such fast paced and highly tactical. But good luck ever implementing something that requires skill like that into an online RPG. The faster paced it gets, the quickly more intensive it becomes on your resources (theres a reason you don't see many FPSes with servers supporting over 64 players... imagine supporting 100's, along with 1000's of NPCs). You could give them a huge list of skills to use and make that skill based, but then you lose about 95% of the population's interest since you can't just dive in and play, you have to sit there and learn everything to do well.

Bring the Fantasy back into the Fantasy game:
Think outside the Box:
The topic in the "Game Design Theory/Discussion" section seem to be flowing together & might look to each other for answers.

Yah just have to get creative & the lack of that is why there are the problems in the first place. The rules.... break'em. Level's represent a sence of growth. People are so infussed with the concept of Level=growth that they think there's no other way. Untrue, many things represent growth or can:

Cybernetics: I Know, that's against some rule, but stay with me. If you want to be stronger buy a cybernetic arm & it gives you strength +3. Hit better get Cyber Eyes. But you say "Wait, that's too dependent on money!". That's true, your still gathering a type of points but who say's your game has to have money ? You say "wait, can't have metal technoligy, it's against a mideveil fantasy rule". Well you picked that rule it's your problem. But ok, who says Cybernetic have to be made of metal or represent technoligy ? Why can't they be made of demon parts or the souls of the dead ?

The Heart container: Oh nobody heard of legend of Zelda. The game has growth & no levels. how bazar. Once you get so far in the game you get a piece of heart & your stronger now, but not for repetitive action, but got exploring & interacting with the world. Does finding a heart & having it make you stronger make sence... no. But metaphorically, it represents a type of goal you passed & improves your confidence, & is represented in graphical form.

Quests / Bosses: Sounds like another thread. What if when you reach a certain part of the game you are given a challenge ? The goal may or my not be beyond your reach but.... when you are ready to defeat that challenge, the result will show in your character.

That's just to start.
Sounds like another rule to break or maybe a type of challenge. If this "rule" can be broken, all be it, not easily, then the rule doesn't & maybe never existed in the first place.
Bump

What I fail to see in most games is how the monsters came about in the world. Most games including MMO's are just like the monsters have always been there since the beginning of time. What I like is storyline and explainations on how things got where. I don't like the fact that most games, you walk about outside and get in battles with slimes and jellies in the first stages of the game then walk into town where there could be a serial rapist but no the whole town's more concerned with the enemy outside than inside.

Then there's the fact that most games I've seen made with Mirage Based and VBGore based engines were knockoff's of other games, granted there are a few I find to be original. Honestly, do we need another Zelda or Final Fantasy MMO? There's already plenty of those on Byond.com.

What makes an RPG fun? Storyline. If you can't write a story to catch your mother's interest, you've got a prayer's chance in hell of getting a gamer to play a storyline you write for a game.

What makes a FPS fun? Killing and blowing crap up of course!

The only game I've really played that has something close to a "dynamic" world is Tibia. Now, I know the game has a lot of problems graphically, and the gameplay is rather--bleh; however, one of Tibia's strong points is that the players do have a real impact on the gaming world.

Firstly, there is no level cap in Tibia--which means on every server there is a "one" or group of "one person/people that rule the server. These people have the power to control the economy, monster spawns, and even in some cases have limited other players from achieving certain levels of play--all simply because of their power. Since, in Tibia, you lose a tremendous amount of EXP when you die, it's rather easy for the "super power(s)" of a game world to be in charge. In the past, several times, the "ruler(s) of the server" have been killed off, accounts hacked, etc. and it has highly changed the society of that server.

Is Tibia the answer to your problem? Likely not. All this system does, is force players who want to enjoy the game to reroll on a Non-PvP world or do the best they can to get "protection" from higher levels, until they achieve super power status themselves. Unfortunately, in this game it is extremely easier said than done.

The way Tibia has achieved this style of play is by allowing nearly all classes (or vocations) to play all roles--in that everyone can deal massive amounts of damage and heal themselves well. Also, the fact that there is no level cap means that players with no lives can achieve insane levels (Level 200+), towering amongst the vast average level 50-60'ish players in which the 'end-game' content appeals to--for the most part.

I definitely think developers can learn from what Tibia has accomplished with their system--however, I do think it's far off from what one would have to do in order to create a dynamic world that is truly affected by the players; and yet keep the game fun and fair at the same time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that Tibia is a great game in any way--I played it for a few years (my first MMO), but after playing several other big MMO's I see it's many flaws. I do think, however, that they created a unique gaming experience that has not been recycled over and over and over for the past 10 years.

It's good to acknowledge unique-yet popular games out there like Tibia, Final Fantasy XI, and so forth; and I think it's good to try and draw the positive elements from those types of games, while still incorporating the styles and techniques used in popular MMO's that keep the players interested.