One of the problems I see in the system is the individuality inherent to
humans.
I have some experience with online games and even when the idea is to
collaborate and play in team, it is always hard to find a good team even
when there are a lot of players with the same needs (xp, items, etc).
The most effective way to force player to something close to full time
teamplay I have seen is in games like Vendetta or Ogame. An alone player
is easy prey for players beloging to powerfull alliances.
And this is the only way I see to force collaborative play. Make the
environment so hard and aggressive that lonely wolves cant survive.
Charlie Lobo wrote:
Your idea sounds great, but I fear that various problems might arise. Not because the system is flawed, but because we humans love to break systems and take advantage of them. Maybe you should start a MUD experimenting with some of the new social factors, to be able to check how the system actually works. It'd be easier and of course it'd be a good game. It doesn't have to be THAT game, but a game where some of the concepts you talk of are used. Maybe this could be on the medieval times, there'd still be a lot to deal with. I don't say how people could ruin the game, because I have no idea, but then again I'm not everyone else to know what they can think of. Just a tip, I've seen lots of good ideas fail and be ignored because they where implemented in a too ambitious proposal without first seeing what people would do. If it were a simpler project, failure wouldn't be as bad and fixes are easier. In a MUD you can always add new things by adding more text :P.
--------------------- To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html
-- Roger D. Vargas http://dsgp.blogspot.com | Linux, programación, juegos
--------------------- To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html
