Forums » Suggestions
Bounties
I suggest that bounties be re-done.
A bounty should start at 1/50 (2/100) of your score, and each kill you get adds 1/1000 of your bounty to it. This way those who have higher scores are MUCH more valuable kills regardless of how long it's been since they died.
So, someone with a score like FireMage (5985715) would have a bounty start at roughly 120,000, and each kill he gets adds roughly 6000 to it.
A newbie, with a score of 12000 would have a bounty start at 240 and each kill add 12 to it. This would discourage griefers going after newbies just because they have the same bounty as a veteran. Here the vet has a high bounty whether he likes it or not.
(To be enforced by eventually locking the number of multiple characters that accounts can support.)
A bounty should start at 1/50 (2/100) of your score, and each kill you get adds 1/1000 of your bounty to it. This way those who have higher scores are MUCH more valuable kills regardless of how long it's been since they died.
So, someone with a score like FireMage (5985715) would have a bounty start at roughly 120,000, and each kill he gets adds roughly 6000 to it.
A newbie, with a score of 12000 would have a bounty start at 240 and each kill add 12 to it. This would discourage griefers going after newbies just because they have the same bounty as a veteran. Here the vet has a high bounty whether he likes it or not.
(To be enforced by eventually locking the number of multiple characters that accounts can support.)
Mmmmm.
Bounty trading.
Add penalties to dying. Perhaps losing 1/1000 of your score?
and issuing = 2/1000 of your score ?
cheers
cheers
sounds good, but 2/1000 = 1/500
:-P
:-P
If you die you will have to wait xyz long to get a certain ship.
Bus-0s
Centurion-10s
Warthog-20s
Wraith-30s
Vulture-20s
Atlas-30s
Ragnarok-50s
Centaron-40s
Valkyrie-70s
Prometheus-70s
Marauder-70s
(Just an example.)
The ship type should also add to your bounty, having a special should increase your bounty slower, having a normal ship should increase it quicker (bus being the quickest). Why? a person killing 10 people with a bus is more dangerous then a person killing 10 people with a valkyrie because the valkyrie has 2 more ports, 4000 more health, and is much more nimble.
Bus-0s
Centurion-10s
Warthog-20s
Wraith-30s
Vulture-20s
Atlas-30s
Ragnarok-50s
Centaron-40s
Valkyrie-70s
Prometheus-70s
Marauder-70s
(Just an example.)
The ship type should also add to your bounty, having a special should increase your bounty slower, having a normal ship should increase it quicker (bus being the quickest). Why? a person killing 10 people with a bus is more dangerous then a person killing 10 people with a valkyrie because the valkyrie has 2 more ports, 4000 more health, and is much more nimble.
euhm I meant 1/2000
me is embarassed by making a mistake like that :(
cheers
me is embarassed by making a mistake like that :(
cheers
SL, I just don't think that's a good idea. (And it's OT.) The penalty for losing a special ship is not being able to get it except in 4 places.
And I think ship type is inconsequential to how dangerous a person is. I know a vet in an atlas (Hoax) is much more dangerous than many of the n00b rammers in Valks. Just base it on score.
And I think ship type is inconsequential to how dangerous a person is. I know a vet in an atlas (Hoax) is much more dangerous than many of the n00b rammers in Valks. Just base it on score.
I agree with Camps. How do you judge the worth of a ship? Blaster kicks butt in a Hornet, but most consider the ship to be crap. It just depends of preference.
actually blaster kicks butt in every ship :D
cheers
cheers
Make it so if you lose 5 or more special ships within like 30 minutes, the goverment takes away your license. Until you do a mission to regain it.
good idea phoenix,
but 30 min actually game time right, But in the beginnign make it 2 hours, and the more you advance, the shorter the time becomes. Like for instance a private : 2 hours, general : 15 mins. Just thoughts naturally.
cheers
but 30 min actually game time right, But in the beginnign make it 2 hours, and the more you advance, the shorter the time becomes. Like for instance a private : 2 hours, general : 15 mins. Just thoughts naturally.
cheers
I really have no interest in seeing the scoring system overhauled. I'd kinda expect it to go away completely by 3.5 or so, so I don't see any point in hashing out a system that most people would agree to or trying to influence the dev's or even help them brainstorm.
I personally think 'score' is non-helpful for a multiplayer RPG.
I think those of you that are tying things to missions are on a better and more interesting track - albiet noone is really laying out the details of a system to any degree.
I think bounty should not be tied to score, but rather to reputation. To put it in simple terms, killing bots shouldn't increase your bounty (or your score since you wouldn't have one). However, killing a player's character should increase your bounty. Killing a defence bot - which is a (non player's) character of that faction - should increase your bounty. Dying should decrease your bounty. Ultimately, bounties should be paid out according to the grieviousness of a 'crime against a faction', not the player's skill or experience. Skill should just let you increase your craftiness. So, firing a rocket into a station might increase your bounty (or it might not but the details of deciding that might complex), or firing on an unarmed ship might increase it more than if you fired on an armed ship, or destroying a ship close to thier own station might increase your bounty more than had you done it 'with few witnesses' in some nearly empty sector. And eventually, there ought to be some sort of Faction system by which, if you have military rank and citizenship in a faction at war with another faction, you never gain a bounty by doing wrong to that faction's military (and in some cases citizens) and vica versa.
I personally think 'score' is non-helpful for a multiplayer RPG.
I think those of you that are tying things to missions are on a better and more interesting track - albiet noone is really laying out the details of a system to any degree.
I think bounty should not be tied to score, but rather to reputation. To put it in simple terms, killing bots shouldn't increase your bounty (or your score since you wouldn't have one). However, killing a player's character should increase your bounty. Killing a defence bot - which is a (non player's) character of that faction - should increase your bounty. Dying should decrease your bounty. Ultimately, bounties should be paid out according to the grieviousness of a 'crime against a faction', not the player's skill or experience. Skill should just let you increase your craftiness. So, firing a rocket into a station might increase your bounty (or it might not but the details of deciding that might complex), or firing on an unarmed ship might increase it more than if you fired on an armed ship, or destroying a ship close to thier own station might increase your bounty more than had you done it 'with few witnesses' in some nearly empty sector. And eventually, there ought to be some sort of Faction system by which, if you have military rank and citizenship in a faction at war with another faction, you never gain a bounty by doing wrong to that faction's military (and in some cases citizens) and vica versa.
I had always hoped that the bounties would someday become dynamic like the economy. Each nation puts a price on you head based on how much you have pissed them off. Individuals or guilds could put a price on your head via a server side bountybot-like system, and the bounty displayed on the screen would reflect the total of all the bounties on your head. For example, a red player killing a blue player will automatically increase his bounty by some increment. But a notorious red player like Icarus or someone could actually piss off a nation enough to have player-run government or military take action and put an extra, bigger, bounty on his head. Things like that. As it stand bounties are completely meaningless.
celebrim,
I dont know, what is a game without a scorebase. Kinda a hall of Fame ? Nothing, exactly. Every itself respecting game has a scorebase, just so people can brag about each other. This is human nature, if you like it or not.
And because of this, I pretty much think that their will be a scoresystem. Maybe not very advanced, so only rudimentary. but there will be one.
cheers
I dont know, what is a game without a scorebase. Kinda a hall of Fame ? Nothing, exactly. Every itself respecting game has a scorebase, just so people can brag about each other. This is human nature, if you like it or not.
And because of this, I pretty much think that their will be a scoresystem. Maybe not very advanced, so only rudimentary. but there will be one.
cheers
"I dont know, what is a game without a scorebase."
A role-playing game.
There are other measures by which people in a RPG can brag, if bragging rights are an important feature to you.
A role-playing game.
There are other measures by which people in a RPG can brag, if bragging rights are an important feature to you.
Suggestions, Celebrim?
Right now the game isn't going to move to a pure RPG for sometime (and indeed, will never make a complete transition).
It takes very little time to revise the bounty code.
Right now the game isn't going to move to a pure RPG for sometime (and indeed, will never make a complete transition).
It takes very little time to revise the bounty code.
celebrim,
an RPG = levelbased "morrowind, BG2, Icewind dale, NWN, lionheart, fallout"
a FPS = scorebased "Unreal, Wolfenstein, ..."
So the devs were aiming towards a coupling in a FPS and a RPG. So either a levelbased or a scorebased system will be set into place. Now we know that the devs wanted to not have the level nonsense "isd this english ?, it means BS". So the only thing that stays are the scores.
Besides, dont forget even a RPG has a score. isnt your XP a sort of score ? If youy have 1000000 XP in stead of 1000 XP, isn't the first char better then the latter ? Yes it is.
So please dont come to me that a RPG doesnt have a scoresystem. Every game till date is based on any form of score. Without score there wont be real competition.
Like in real life. A score of companys is being kept, if they score good "profit" then all is good, and they have right to brag. If they score bad "loss", then everything needs to be rewordkeed so that they have a good score.
cheers.
an RPG = levelbased "morrowind, BG2, Icewind dale, NWN, lionheart, fallout"
a FPS = scorebased "Unreal, Wolfenstein, ..."
So the devs were aiming towards a coupling in a FPS and a RPG. So either a levelbased or a scorebased system will be set into place. Now we know that the devs wanted to not have the level nonsense "isd this english ?, it means BS". So the only thing that stays are the scores.
Besides, dont forget even a RPG has a score. isnt your XP a sort of score ? If youy have 1000000 XP in stead of 1000 XP, isn't the first char better then the latter ? Yes it is.
So please dont come to me that a RPG doesnt have a scoresystem. Every game till date is based on any form of score. Without score there wont be real competition.
Like in real life. A score of companys is being kept, if they score good "profit" then all is good, and they have right to brag. If they score bad "loss", then everything needs to be rewordkeed so that they have a good score.
cheers.
Renegade: Oh, you just mean 'score' as in a number that shows some measure of how long you've been playing? Well, yeah, by that broad of a definition I'm sure we will have some sort of score.
Incidently, not every RPG has even had experience (XP in D&D), much less score. For example, Chaosium Call of Cthullu, Traveller, and GURPS have no direct comparison to 'score' or experience. (The original Traveller system didn't even have character advancement in the normal sense.) Most CRPG's have had score because typically a CRPG, unlike a pen-and-paper RPG, is played competitively - even if only against the machine. In fact, there is usually very little role-playing in a computer role-playing game. Usually, what passes for an RPG on a computer is some form of simple tactical/problem solving adventure game. True RPG's are played cooperatively and have little need for keeping track of 'score' because no one 'wins' or 'loses'. The only reason to keep track of score is if they have a level based character advancement system and need to keep track of some sort of experience. Classical skill based systems don't worry about that, and some of them don't even track how many bonuses you have acquired through experience. Chaosium's CoC had a very elegant system in which it was nonetheless impossible to pick up a character sheet and say exactly how much 'experience' a character had.
Since, unlike 'morrowwind', 'icewind dale' or 'fallout' this game is primarily _multiplayer_, and also unlike most of your list NOT BASED ON D&D having a score or experience isn't essential. It might be a good idea, but it should be accepted as default without questioning the merits of doing so.
Many FPS's have dispensed with score as well. Half-Life has no score. The quintesential 'score' in a FPS is the number of frags you've claimed and sustained. Nobody gives a rat's behind what you've 'scored'.
One reason you wouldn't want a score system is that it is easily broken by someone that finds a simple way of doing some scoring task repetively. So for instance, if you find a way to kill large amount of bots quickly and cheaply and if you get score for doing so, a person can be rewarded for what is in essence NOT PLAYING THE GAME. Instead of playing the game as intended, you'll have lots of people racking up scores doing very simple repetitive tasks and not interacting with the larger game environment, much less other players. This can be very bad for the whole community.
As everyone in Vendetta already knows, score is no direct measure of player skill. Sure, players with high score are often pretty good, but merely having a high score doesn't prove you are a better pilot (or player) than someone with a lower score. Moreover, score isn't a direct measure of character skill - since you don't get any bonuses for having 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 score. So if score is nothing to brag over, why even bother?
Do we really know that the devs don't want to have a level based system? I mean, I'm not suggesting that we have one because level based systems are quite 'old school', but I don't see any reason to rule one out entirely. Fallout had probably the finest character creation/advancement system of any RPG ever - paper or computer - and it was level based. Have the devs flat out said 'no level based character advancement', or are you making suppositions?
My suggestion is to dispence with score entirely and have a simple 'skill rewards' system based on mission completement and mission difficulty. The only reason to keep track of 'experience' in such a system is to ensure that once a mission of a certain difficulty has been completed a certain number of times that the player is not rewarded for completing what should be an increasingly easy to perform mission. But as far as get X score whenever you blow up a bot or a player, I think that needs to go.
I sorta talk about this a little in this thread.
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=2298
I'm not saying its a perfect system or the system, but I think its a pretty good system and a whole lot more meaningful in an RPG context than giving players 'score' as if this were an arcade game like space invaders.
Incidently, not every RPG has even had experience (XP in D&D), much less score. For example, Chaosium Call of Cthullu, Traveller, and GURPS have no direct comparison to 'score' or experience. (The original Traveller system didn't even have character advancement in the normal sense.) Most CRPG's have had score because typically a CRPG, unlike a pen-and-paper RPG, is played competitively - even if only against the machine. In fact, there is usually very little role-playing in a computer role-playing game. Usually, what passes for an RPG on a computer is some form of simple tactical/problem solving adventure game. True RPG's are played cooperatively and have little need for keeping track of 'score' because no one 'wins' or 'loses'. The only reason to keep track of score is if they have a level based character advancement system and need to keep track of some sort of experience. Classical skill based systems don't worry about that, and some of them don't even track how many bonuses you have acquired through experience. Chaosium's CoC had a very elegant system in which it was nonetheless impossible to pick up a character sheet and say exactly how much 'experience' a character had.
Since, unlike 'morrowwind', 'icewind dale' or 'fallout' this game is primarily _multiplayer_, and also unlike most of your list NOT BASED ON D&D having a score or experience isn't essential. It might be a good idea, but it should be accepted as default without questioning the merits of doing so.
Many FPS's have dispensed with score as well. Half-Life has no score. The quintesential 'score' in a FPS is the number of frags you've claimed and sustained. Nobody gives a rat's behind what you've 'scored'.
One reason you wouldn't want a score system is that it is easily broken by someone that finds a simple way of doing some scoring task repetively. So for instance, if you find a way to kill large amount of bots quickly and cheaply and if you get score for doing so, a person can be rewarded for what is in essence NOT PLAYING THE GAME. Instead of playing the game as intended, you'll have lots of people racking up scores doing very simple repetitive tasks and not interacting with the larger game environment, much less other players. This can be very bad for the whole community.
As everyone in Vendetta already knows, score is no direct measure of player skill. Sure, players with high score are often pretty good, but merely having a high score doesn't prove you are a better pilot (or player) than someone with a lower score. Moreover, score isn't a direct measure of character skill - since you don't get any bonuses for having 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 score. So if score is nothing to brag over, why even bother?
Do we really know that the devs don't want to have a level based system? I mean, I'm not suggesting that we have one because level based systems are quite 'old school', but I don't see any reason to rule one out entirely. Fallout had probably the finest character creation/advancement system of any RPG ever - paper or computer - and it was level based. Have the devs flat out said 'no level based character advancement', or are you making suppositions?
My suggestion is to dispence with score entirely and have a simple 'skill rewards' system based on mission completement and mission difficulty. The only reason to keep track of 'experience' in such a system is to ensure that once a mission of a certain difficulty has been completed a certain number of times that the player is not rewarded for completing what should be an increasingly easy to perform mission. But as far as get X score whenever you blow up a bot or a player, I think that needs to go.
I sorta talk about this a little in this thread.
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=2298
I'm not saying its a perfect system or the system, but I think its a pretty good system and a whole lot more meaningful in an RPG context than giving players 'score' as if this were an arcade game like space invaders.