PoignardAzur wrote:Dragonop wrote:There are lots of original subgames,
I think our definitions or "original" differ. Like, can you find me three finished (or at least, semi-finished and not abandoned) subgames that do not revolve around destroying nodes with tools you craft for resources you amass ?
Dragonop wrote:and the "team" that is developing is not huge.
Dragonop wrote:First of all, I've been playing MC and MT since almost the begginig of both. So it is hard to see anything "original" in both of them, when those are based on other games (infiniminer, dwarf fortress) and have such a basic concept like, life itself.
[...]
+ "Subgame releases"
PoignardAzur wrote:All of these games are basically "default minecraft experience (from a few years ago), except less polished and with a few twists". Where are the space exploration games ? The multiplayer FPS games ? The tower defense subgames ? The Earth-sized minesweepers ? The baking simulators ?
SegFault22 wrote:Players should gain Experience Points that are relevant to the task from which they are gaining experience;
SegFault22 wrote:there should be several (up to 4) experience meters for each player
SegFault22 wrote: - one for farming-related experience (food crops, trees, other plants)
SegFault22 wrote:one for hunting-related experience (killing violent monsters, and killing wild/fearful mobs for food)
SegFault22 wrote:one for mining-related experience (mining ores, digging through lots of stone to get to ores, cooling lava with water and mining the resultant obsidian pumice and basalt)
SegFault22 wrote:and another for traversing the environment ("acrobatics" giving players experience every time they receive fall damage or complete a difficult jump)
SegFault22 wrote:Higher experience levels should increase players' gains from related tasks, instead of being consumed for enchantments, tool repair and the like. The farming experience could increase farming drops at a slow rate; hunting experience could increase the player's accuracy with ranged weapons and decrease the chance that walking towards mobs (when outside their field of view) will alert them to the player's presence; mining experience could increase the player's gains from mining, either by providing more of the same ore for each drop, or by providing small amounts of rarer ores that occur rarely within the ore being mined; and the other experience could decrease the player's fall damage for small falls, or give an increasing chance to nullify damage from small falls (if the player is moving forward too - roll instead of "splat")
SegFault22 wrote:Otherwise, if a single type of experience is given, players will farm experience from easier methods, in order to increase their gains from unrelated tasks (such as farming lots of plants and trees, in order to have a spontaneous increase in hunting accuracy; or falling off of ledges a lot so that more drops are gained when mining ores).
SegFault22 wrote:... boardgames... currency...
4aiman wrote:Spending XP helps to balance that.
Enchanting artificially lowers the amount of XP by letting ppl trade their XP for the buff they need.
Moreover, spending ANY kind of XP for enchantment brings even more balance - even some farmer will be able to gain a good armour and weapon to protect him/her self with a "sword", not a "plough".
PoignardAzur wrote:I strongly disagree. "Enchanting things with XP" is one of minecraft's weirdest features game-design-wise, and a clear sign of backwards reasoning : "Okay, now I have put this nice-looking XP bar to add some skinner-boxing to the game. So, what do I do with it ?"
PoignardAzur wrote:Reproducing it means basically ignoring alternative possibilities for both item-enhancing and player progression.
PoignardAzur wrote:Also, blatant self-advertising is blatant.
4aiman wrote:That doesn't make sense, as that will ruin the balance (which may be not perfect, but still).
One would be able to spend several days to "train", say, the "farmer" skill and then... would it be normal to give one additional crop item for a thousand XP?
What are you going to do with the upper limit of the buff?
And if there will be an upped limit, would it be fair to give, say, 30 additional crops to the one with 30000 XP and the one with 60000 XP?
What are you going to do when the variable which store the XP will exceed the upper limit (overflow?)
How fair is to let the one who has joined the server, say, a week ago, to be more powerful than the one who did it just now? There will be no way for our novice to exceed the "oldfag" unless that "oldfag" won't show on the server for at least week.
4aiman wrote:Being able to spend XP doesn't solve the problem only if there's no reason to spend it.
I can't see why XP alone should present someone some special abilities.
That's not much more reasonable than using XP for enchanting.
4aiman wrote:You know what ppl were asking for?
They asked to switch to XP, because dying and collecting ghostly block was too much for them.
The second thing is, I can't see why a farmer need to do extra work (compared to that of a warrior) to gain a basic-cool-sword. That's just unfair. There can be different approaches, though. I think that a "conversion" from a farmer to warrior should be as quick as it could be.
I'd rather use smth FFVIII-like, where weapons should be upgraded in order to build up stats.
Spending XP for enchanting is counter-intuitive? [...] it happens, yet there's no reason for it to happen. Smth like quantum physics.
But the topic here is similarity and the process of making the choice of what to port to MT.
So I'm just discussing the thing I've already ported or am planning to port over.
Ferk wrote:Well the difference was that in normal experience systems the gain is not linear but asymptotic.
Ferk wrote:This means there's a point where getting more experience doesn't help much and all the high level people are in the same conditions.
Ferk wrote:What I was saying is that enchanting does not fix the balance problem you were talking about. Because as you just said, it's not much more reasonable than a linear XP model (where there's no limit).
Ferk wrote:Imho, as players many people prefer to have it easy. This is a natural reaction because the role of the player is actually to fight to get those top tier enchantments so they will get frustrated when they realize it's not that easy.
Ferk wrote:I doubt many people will ever ask you to make the enchantments more expensive, to make things more rare, or harder to find.
Ferk wrote:But imho, the point of a game is to actually offer a challenge. What's the point of adding a goal if we have to make it easy for it to be archived? It would again turn into a sandbox.
Ferk wrote:I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. You can balance out the farming vs the exploring.. I'd say it's probably easier to farm at home than to search for something that is very rare (see minecraft dungeons.. they are hard to find specially in multiplayer servers where other people will have already taken all there is to take from all nearby dungeons).
Ferk wrote:The warrior being easier to level up is imho just a consequence of depending on an experience system for enchanting and getting exp from mobs that are easy to find just by hanging around at night.
Ferk wrote:That's one of the reasons why I think warriors should primarily be explorers in search for rare items, not simply fighters.
Ferk wrote:Maybe there could be some special, rarer mobs with good drops.. but killing common mobs should not be very rewarding, imho.
Ferk wrote:What I think is that farming should be more exciting than what it currently is. Just getting experience out of it is a more boring way to progress. I still like the idea of the herbalist that ends up being able to craft magical oilments...
Ferk wrote:perhaps the farmer could become sort of an alchemist that would infuse their weapons with powerful effects while the warrior would become an explorer that manages to find reliques to reforge or inscribe their weapons with special qualities.
Ferk wrote:This way you add variety to the game in a more interesting way than a static number that increases in the same way for warrior and farmer and has the same results.
Ferk wrote:The fact that you get a different experience and a difference reward would motivate most players to do both.
Ferk wrote:In a multiplayer server, people could specialize and trade runes and herbs.
Ferk wrote:I agree with that, this actually is more on par also with the crafting nature of Minetest, and it also means that a world full of players with overpowered equipment would still be approachable by a newcomer if he just makes some friends and manages to get some equipment out of them as a welcoming present.
Ferk wrote:By this logic you could craft potatoes out of oranges.
Ferk wrote:is it that when you die you don't lose your XP? Wouldn't that kind of defeat the point of a survival game?
Ferk wrote:We already have the bones block, and it can even be used to collect your things even if you die in lava... you kind of have to be very careless to lose your equipment, so there's very little penalty on death. Having an intrinsic value that cannot be lost even on death is not really improving the situation, neither does it make it much different from keeping items (except that it removes the adventure of trying to recover your lost stuff).
Ferk wrote: The players would look forward to becoming some sort of god with crazy abilities or crafting the ultimate equipment.
Ferk wrote:It would more interesting (adding more replayability) if the enchantments were kind of customizable and limited in scope, in a way that there isn't a specific combination of enchantments that is better than everything else.. mixing this and that to obtain a particular property or a combination of properties, so you could design a particular tool the way you want it, provided you are committed enough to gather what you need. As if there existed a "skill tree" of properties that you can level up for your tools, giving different results depending on the distribution you choose and making trade-offs (like.. you can't make a sword that burns with fire and that freezes at the same time).
Ferk wrote:But yeah.. maybe this is just overcomplicating things.
And like you said, one thing is talking, another thing is developing it and a completely different thing is obtaining the results you expect after it's done.
PoignardAzur wrote:Getting back to the problem of subgames being mostly minecraft clones, I think one of the main reason this problem exists is the structure of the game itself.
PoignardAzur wrote:Minetest basically takes the Valve approach to making an engine : what the developers want is hard-coded in, with a few tools and options to personalize them.
PoignardAzur wrote:For instance, the code that deals with the physics and rendering of the player only allow him to be a walking entity, with a first-person POV, an inventory bar and a floating hand/item on the left. Which is perfect for making minecraft clones, but not so much for making third-person platform games, strategy games or driving games.
PoignardAzur wrote:A good way to get more diversity in subgames (and therefore a more attractive game on the whole) would be to implement a way for modders to control the player's camera, and the HUD, to encourage implementing different gameplays.
Higher level players shouldn't be able to slay everyone and bring fear to newbs.
I'd like to pro-act in this case.
Like I said, challenge should be optional.
Sandbox is what MT is.
Is is possible to make tactics or RPG game within the engine, but the fact one can remodel nearly everything inside a sandbox is cool enough in a nutshell.
Enchanting is not all about atk+.
There are chants to make one's life easier while "parkouring" or digging underwater or collecting crops...
Several chants work for more than one "job". "Treasurer" chant is that way - helps both miners, diggers and farmers.
I'd rather say, killing *ordinary* mobs should be less rewarding than mining some *rare* ore.
But in the case of, say, coal, I can't see why mining a coal should be more rewarding than killing a sheep.
And that what brewing is for in MC :)
It is impossible to brew all the potions if one is only a miner or a farmer.
Different "skills" are needed to gain all the ingredients.
So, again, this is the matter of balancing rather that features of a game.
I've chosen a different approach - more MC and Terraria-like.
Ferk wrote:In a multiplayer server, people could specialize and trade runes and herbs.
I've ectoplasm and will have magic gems.
Also, why not trade enchanted weapons?
Thus I don't think losing XP undermines survival.
In survival one must survive, not benefit from the amount of time he has spent in a world.
That's why ppl *do* lose items upon death.
Actually, they can chose either their want their items to be dropped in a place of death, or should those be stored in a "ghost" inventory to be reclaimed later in the process of reincarnating.
Talks like this help us realize what can and what can't be done.
I'm glad I was able to hear your opinion.
4aiman wrote:Minetest allows to use 3rd person view and to set camera position (which enables one to create a platformer with a side-view).
rubenwardy wrote:Don't worry, client side is coming soon(tm).
rubenwardy wrote:Don't worry, client side is coming soon(tm).
SegFault22 wrote:These kids being disrespectful by dissecting others' posts in part instead of discussing it as whole, deserves them a swift ban from these forums. You know that the message is not complete without the rest of the context, and by doing that you stray too far away from the original meaning of the message, to the point of claiming that others have stated what they have not. It is also very off-topic because we are not here to discuss details about what should or should not be done with APIs added to the engine, except for attempts to prevent Minetest from becoming a Minecraft ripoff, which would happen if the community concedes/falls into submission and uses mods that make experience/knowledge exchangeable for anything (by subtracting points and giving something else).
benrob0329 wrote:SegFault22 wrote:These kids being disrespectful by dissecting others' posts in part instead of discussing it as whole, deserves them a swift ban from these forums. You know that the message is not complete without the rest of the context, and by doing that you stray too far away from the original meaning of the message, to the point of claiming that others have stated what they have not. It is also very off-topic because we are not here to discuss details about what should or should not be done with APIs added to the engine, except for attempts to prevent Minetest from becoming a Minecraft ripoff, which would happen if the community concedes/falls into submission and uses mods that make experience/knowledge exchangeable for anything (by subtracting points and giving something else).
I disagree, I think that it splits the post up quite nicely and makes it clearer as to what someone is talking about. Obviously the person should read the whole post rather than just a few quotes.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 24 guests