It should be stated that the OP is exaggerating when calling this SWG 2.0. Its not.
And the OP didn't say it either.
If you liked SWG because of the large world, open ended gameplay, skill progression, City building and Sci-Fi theme then you will like the Repopulation.
The Repopulation has some similarities to SWG, but it also has taken some things from other games as well
Labeling it The "SWG Successor " is over stating things.
Let the Repopulation stand on its own
The very first line of the Kickstarter page was recently:
"A Sci-Fi based MMORPG which provides many of the same sandbox oriented features seen in Star Wars Galaxies and Ultima Online."
The developers themselves are trying to get SWG players no matter how original they think their own game is.
SWG Vet here. I backed Repop a while back... on the very first day I learned about it. Anyone who loved the original SWG should spend a little time researching this game.
The developers are very involved in the discussion forums and are open to ideas and feedback. They are well organized and it's very clear that they are giving serious thought about all aspects of their designs. They're an indy company which means that they don't need to conform to any expectations from parent companies, marketing "gurus" or senior managers. They should get support from any who appreciate this.
I put my $ down early on but honestly doubt I'll ever see the game in any form Alpha and beta included. Supposedly the game is in Alpha with Beta due in March but I think this game is headed down the same path that Greed Monger took.
I have come to believe that most Kickstart projects are a waste of money with a lot of them being nothing short of scams.
So by your own logic, it doesn't mean that Repop will be a waste nor a scam, since not all Kickstart projects are. Hopefully this one will materialize into a release.
Heck, I've lost more money in other MMOs with subs that I wasn't playing on than I ever will if this game goes toe up. No complaints for either case; it's all on me and how I handle my entertainment dollars.
As I've stated in other posts, I'm enjoying keeping up with the Repop development more than I am playing live MMOs these days.
I purchased two games in alpha state. I don't mind supporting games in this way. Not going to give money without getting something in return, and a promise to play later is not enough for me.
I'm kind of the opposite actually. I like the idea behind Kickstarter and it's honest that you're supporting an idea not buying a game but releasing something half finished with "well maybe we'll actually finish our game if we sell enough" seem obnoxious to me. Getting really sick of all the "early access" games on Steam. Seems a lot more scam potential than KS.
I normally avoid these types of threads. Someone linked this to me so I wanted to come in and give some quick information about the "Why a second kickstarter?" question. It's a valid question. I think in general people do need to do their research any time when they do a Kickstarter. I think there are a lot of good projects out there, and there's also a few bad ones that will hurt the reputation of others. There's nothing wrong with people being skeptical about a product they haven't personally played.
It's become commonplace now for crowd funded games to have an on-site shop. They all pretty much do that after their campaign ends, and for good reason. There is a demand for it. Players want those pre-order perks and want to help support products. Players ask for it, so sites support it. We began doing the same with our Early Adopter program for those very reasons. We received a steady dose of emails or posts by people who missed the Kickstarter and wanted to back the game.
This Kickstarter campaign is really about stretch goals. Those stretch goals are all features that either are requests on the web site or things that we personally had planned as post-launch goals. These get brought up and our answer has always been that we'd like to do it but probably don't have the resources to do them at launch, but that we'd squeeze them in if we could. These are all great features though that would enhance the game if we had the budget for them, but that wouldn't be worth delaying it for. Now we could have done a stretch goal system using an in-house store, but the problem is that if we want to guarantee something for launch it needs to start being worked on now. If we had a stretch goal on the site and it was reached 4 months from now, there would be no way we could get that into launch, there simply wouldn't be enough time.
Kickstarter fits well into that approach due to its short campaign window. It allows us to figure out what type of budget we'll have to work with and to lock down our features by the end of January. Any goals that aren't hit here become post-launch goals. So in our case, I'm not sure why people would find concern with a second Kickstarter. It began and we turned off our on-site shop. The difference between this and the in-house shop though is that it allows us to provide our players with a more accurate roadmap more quickly than we could otherwise, and the Kickstarter also helps expose the game to new players who may not have been aware of it.
One last comment on vaporware or pitching an idea. It should be noted that this game has been in testing for a while. It's been at three major shows, with playable versions on the floor at PAX Prime. Where most projects do enter Kickstarter as ideas looking to raise funding to build the game, this is already a developed product. Every single feature on that Kickstarter feature list is already functional in alpha testing.
Is it worth taking a chance on? That's really up to the end user. I can understand people being hesitant. There's nothing wrong with that. But I hope this post clears up a few questions.
I really hope you guys succeed.
1) Attempting to develop a specific concept for a specific niche interest of players
2) Should bring interesting features and system and better community
3) Some is doing something "different" in the mmorpg OMG!!!
=
As another poster said, it's great following such project more personally.
The 2nd KS is does put the "frighteners on" a bit however. On budget and on time are really key for trust. Imho "stretch goals" destroy the dynamic of crowdfunding being a time-limited popular attempt to buzz a project into being. But I accept the reasons of demand-supply stated above as logical choice.
And thank the lord we have some interesting mmorpgs to keep tabs on these days thanks to kickstarter and crowdfunding.
The menus and such have a SWG look/feel to them, which was probably on purpose.
I will look into it, I liked SWG, but I didn't start playing it until I had a friend get me into it, not a big sci-fi/space mmo player. I prefer fantasy.
I hope they pull it off though, it is nice to have some good quality stuff that is different for people to play.
It is so nice hearing directly from developers! MJ from CU also posted here often if you were into that KS at all.
The freedom of developing under (successful) public funding must be liberating for these companies (not assuming things are less risky of course).
I need to research the game even more to bother to pledge later on but I will say for now that I feel this sort of game is absolutely required even if it is for a select portion of the mmo fan base.
Are there actual melee classes or is everyone running around with some sort of gun all the time? This is the issue i have with sci-fi MMO's of any kind despite being a huge fan overall. I just don't think they work as MMO's without mixing in large elements of fantasy like Star Wars does. Not counting EVE of course because it's not avatar driven.
When every combat class is running around shooting everything from range, it bores the hell out of me instantly. Just my preference of course as i'm sure lots of people enjoy that but there's nothing romantic about a gun as there is about a sword.
Westerns? Space westerns? Theres nothing romantic about combat, especially in a sandbox. You take every advantage you can get.
Originally posted by Rizzit 250$ for a custom npc? screw you 350 DOLLARS!!! i should be able to buy a freaking SOLAR SYSTEM that I can completely customize for that money.
Every Kickstarter as well as Public Television pledge drive has these ridiculous top tiers where what you get is not remotely worth what you pay. It's basically the "I'm rich and really want to support this and give me some cool little token for it." tier. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay that much just back at the basic tier like most people do.There's nothing wrong with offering the people the chance to donate more money if they want. You're treating Kickstarter as a straight up store when it isn't.
Exactly. People seem to forget that these campaigns are trying to raise money, not sell cash shop items. These are not Wal-Mart aisles where you compare prices, but rather the Santa outside begging for money. They are NOT buying a custom NPC for $250. They are GIVING $250 to the company and for thanks, are receiving a custom NPC. Remember, Kickstarter is a charity, not a bargain bin, though it seems many people forget this.
Does that help a little bit?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
SWG with DaoC PvP? That's like serving a Filet Mignon with a side of Gruel. Taking a great sandbox and giving it themepark PvP. Bleh. Just plain horrible, its PvP for carebears.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Originally posted by Rizzit 250$ for a custom npc? screw you 350 DOLLARS!!! i should be able to buy a freaking SOLAR SYSTEM that I can completely customize for that money.
Every Kickstarter as well as Public Television pledge drive has these ridiculous top tiers where what you get is not remotely worth what you pay. It's basically the "I'm rich and really want to support this and give me some cool little token for it." tier. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay that much just back at the basic tier like most people do.
There's nothing wrong with offering the people the chance to donate more money if they want. You're treating Kickstarter as a straight up store when it isn't.
Exactly. People seem to forget that these campaigns are trying to raise money, not sell cash shop items. These are not Wal-Mart aisles where you compare prices, but rather the Santa outside begging for money. They are NOT buying a custom NPC for $250. They are GIVING $250 to the company and for thanks, are receiving a custom NPC. Remember, Kickstarter is a charity, not a bargain bin, though it seems many people forget this.
Does that help a little bit?
char·i·ty
noun ?cher-?-t?, ?cha-r?-
: the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc.
: an organization that helps people who are poor, sick, etc.
: the organizations that help people in need
pluralchar·i·ties
-These are not charities...This is not charity. If you wish to think of it as a donation, that is fine- But this is not charity.
Donation and Investment are not even right- Someone on another thread said "patronage" and I think thats as close as we can get to a term for something like this. These are FOR PROFIT ventures. There is generally no altruistic cause behind making these game.
EDIT- Not trying to come across harsh. I donate my time and money to specific Charity that helps local people in financial trouble. When they are serving food on Christmas for free to the homeless or driving their personal cars to people in need- That is charity.
-Its a sore point with me the language being used here
After watching that video and seeing the combat I think I'll probably be passing on this game until they can come up with a better looking solution to what they have now. Animations looked clunky and combat itself just didn't look very exciting at all, especially the scene where he's kneeling out in the middle of a field while fire is tossed on him and he just kind of... Sits there. I don't know, sandbox or not I expect combat in game to be just as fun as the rest of the game.
Originally posted by Ridrith After watching that video and seeing the combat I think I'll probably be passing on this game until they can come up with a better looking solution to what they have now. Animations looked clunky and combat itself just didn't look very exciting at all, especially the scene where he's kneeling out in the middle of a field while fire is tossed on him and he just kind of... Sits there. I don't know, sandbox or not I expect combat in game to be just as fun as the rest of the game.
What should have happened to the toon getting burned then? If the toon was to animate as if really on fire, how would they be able to fight back? Some reality needs to be sacrificed. That twitch video wasn't about combat animations, but the weapons and armor. Since it's in alpha still, I guess there's more work to be done.
Originally posted by JJ82 SWG with DaoC PvP? That's like serving a Filet Mignon with a side of Gruel. Taking a great sandbox and giving it themepark PvP. Bleh. Just plain horrible, its PvP for carebears.
Any more than SWG's PVP was?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Ridrith After watching that video and seeing the combat I think I'll probably be passing on this game until they can come up with a better looking solution to what they have now. Animations looked clunky and combat itself just didn't look very exciting at all, especially the scene where he's kneeling out in the middle of a field while fire is tossed on him and he just kind of... Sits there. I don't know, sandbox or not I expect combat in game to be just as fun as the rest of the game.
Ever wondered why games like FO3 and TES have such crappy combat/movement animations? It's because dev time is spent adding in all of that other stuff. IF you want deep open ended MMORPGs with lots and lots of options, housing, building, deep RPG systems for character progression, so on and so forth. You're going to have to drop your standards in other departments.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Ridrith After watching that video and seeing the combat I think I'll probably be passing on this game until they can come up with a better looking solution to what they have now. Animations looked clunky and combat itself just didn't look very exciting at all, especially the scene where he's kneeling out in the middle of a field while fire is tossed on him and he just kind of... Sits there. I don't know, sandbox or not I expect combat in game to be just as fun as the rest of the game.
Ever wondered why games like FO3 and TES have such crappy combat/movement animations? It's because dev time is spent adding in all of that other stuff. IF you want deep open ended MMORPGs with lots and lots of options, housing, building, deep RPG systems for character progression, so on and so forth. You're going to have to drop your standards in other departments.
I'm not so sure it's lowered standards due to lack of dev time. My earlier point is that if a character is being burned by fire, should the toon just start animating that he's rolling around, screaming and patting at the flames for the next 30 seconds? Or should he fight back?
Combat in such tab-based MMOs would be terrible if it just boiled down to whoever attacked first pretty much would win.
Now, I guess you could say, couldn't the toon just flail about for a second in reaction to the damage, and than start fighting back? Sure. But I guess that would look very disjointed from the various "pain" animations transitioning over to one of the various "attack" animations. And to what end? Just so we can believe we're getting burned by fire? Or shot with a bullet? Who the heck is paying attention to anything but their health bars and cooldowns during a fight? Looking at how realistic our toon looks when getting shot to hell during a firefight is the last thing on my mind.
Combat in such tab-based MMOs would be terrible if it just boiled down to whoever attacked first pretty much would win.
That actually sounds like most sandbox games and I don't see people complaining there. Darkfall, Planetside, EVE. Whoever gets the drop on you wins. If you fail to counter an attack, they win. The fun is that you can do it to others as well. It requires skill, planning, strategy, cooperation. Instead of just rolls of the dice and HP bars.
Unless you make everything one or two shots, combat is never going to be realistic. You justify it with armors and energy shields, because longer fights give room for more strategy. Either that or you embrace the one shots and play it as that. Either way your giving up something.
Repop combat is strategic. You need to deal with things like positions, momentum, energy (you balance how much is spent to shields vs. armor), openings, diving/rolling, and cover. That would all go out the window if the first time your hit with a flame thrower you writhe around in pain and are unable to control yourself until you die, or if when you poke your head out you will be one shot. There's certainly merit to both game styles, but in general MMO combat isn't anything close to realistic. You try to find the style that works best for your game.
already invested 200 bucks in pathfinder - the only game so far im leaning out of the window...dont like the art style of the repopulation - but - keeping an eye on it
When they allow the crafters to own a house with a player shop in the world and not in a contested pvp area I will give the game another look. Right now its to pvp focused for my taste. Further more, it should not have an auction house while trying to have a player run economy with player shops.
Originally posted by Rizzit 250$ for a custom npc? screw you 350 DOLLARS!!! i should be able to buy a freaking SOLAR SYSTEM that I can completely customize for that money.
Every Kickstarter as well as Public Television pledge drive has these ridiculous top tiers where what you get is not remotely worth what you pay. It's basically the "I'm rich and really want to support this and give me some cool little token for it." tier. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay that much just back at the basic tier like most people do.There's nothing wrong with offering the people the chance to donate more money if they want. You're treating Kickstarter as a straight up store when it isn't.
Exactly. People seem to forget that these campaigns are trying to raise money, not sell cash shop items. These are not Wal-Mart aisles where you compare prices, but rather the Santa outside begging for money. They are NOT buying a custom NPC for $250. They are GIVING $250 to the company and for thanks, are receiving a custom NPC. Remember, Kickstarter is a charity, not a bargain bin, though it seems many people forget this.Does that help a little bit?
char·i·ty noun ?cher-?-t?, ?cha-r?- : the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc. : an organization that helps people who are poor, sick, etc. : the organizations that help people in need plural char·i·ties -These are not charities...This is not charity. If you wish to think of it as a donation, that is fine- But this is not charity.Donation and Investment are not even right- Someone on another thread said "patronage" and I think thats as close as we can get to a term for something like this. These are FOR PROFIT ventures. There is generally no altruistic cause behind making these game. EDIT- Not trying to come across harsh. I donate my time and money to specific Charity that helps local people in financial trouble. When they are serving food on Christmas for free to the homeless or driving their personal cars to people in need- That is charity. -Its a sore point with me the language being used here
Interesting. So, if I give a beggar a dollar and he then goes and buys a lottery ticket and wins, then I have NOT given charity, eh? What about the Christian (and other religions) belief about charity of love and kindness?
Here is what Wikipedia says about charity: Charity may refer to: Contents
1 Giving 2 Organizations 3 Places 4 Entertainment 5 Other
Giving
Charity (practice), the practice of benevolent giving and caring Charity (virtue), the Christian theological concept of unlimited love and kindness Principle of charity in philosophy and rhetoric Tzedakah, a Hebrew concept commonly used to signify charity Zakah, the Islamic concept of mandatory alms-giving, often translated as "charity" Sadaqah, the Islamic concept of voluntary alms-giving, often translated as "charity" Altruism Alms
Let's have a battle of definitions, OK? Charity, in its most basic sense is giving freely to another person.
Now, that being said, I will grant that true charity does not expect "rewards" (except maybe a place in the hereafter or a fuzzy warm feeling) and Kickstarter is chocked full of rewards for giving. That may be more akin to philanthropy
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Ridrith After watching that video and seeing the combat I think I'll probably be passing on this game until they can come up with a better looking solution to what they have now. Animations looked clunky and combat itself just didn't look very exciting at all, especially the scene where he's kneeling out in the middle of a field while fire is tossed on him and he just kind of... Sits there. I don't know, sandbox or not I expect combat in game to be just as fun as the rest of the game.
Ever wondered why games like FO3 and TES have such crappy combat/movement animations? It's because dev time is spent adding in all of that other stuff. IF you want deep open ended MMORPGs with lots and lots of options, housing, building, deep RPG systems for character progression, so on and so forth. You're going to have to drop your standards in other departments.
I'm not so sure it's lowered standards due to lack of dev time. My earlier point is that if a character is being burned by fire, should the toon just start animating that he's rolling around, screaming and patting at the flames for the next 30 seconds? Or should he fight back?
Combat in such tab-based MMOs would be terrible if it just boiled down to whoever attacked first pretty much would win.
Now, I guess you could say, couldn't the toon just flail about for a second in reaction to the damage, and than start fighting back? Sure. But I guess that would look very disjointed from the various "pain" animations transitioning over to one of the various "attack" animations. And to what end? Just so we can believe we're getting burned by fire? Or shot with a bullet? Who the heck is paying attention to anything but their health bars and cooldowns during a fight? Looking at how realistic our toon looks when getting shot to hell during a firefight is the last thing on my mind.
Completely distorted view on management.
First of all, the point of combat as something important would suffer is a contradiction to prioritising. Why would they make a great game then have bad combat?
Then its about knowing how to build a foundation that offers retention, and knowing new stuff can be added.
Sure, not everything can be added, but the important factors such as an mmo engine for large scale scenarios. Also any mmo dev team has to be efficient at what they do. If you consider inefficiency as a normal problem, then that is why the standard is so low and how games at release are sub par, and continue to be sub par after years of polishing and development. Using bad devs as an example of a current standard is flawed logic.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Comments
And the OP didn't say it either.
The very first line of the Kickstarter page was recently:
"A Sci-Fi based MMORPG which provides many of the same sandbox oriented features seen in Star Wars Galaxies and Ultima Online."
The developers themselves are trying to get SWG players no matter how original they think their own game is.
You stay sassy!
The Repopulation does not try to be SWG 2.0, instead they take ideas from SWG, UO and many other games.
Yes, there are features that SWG had, but The Repopulation tries to be The Repopulation.
So by your own logic, it doesn't mean that Repop will be a waste nor a scam, since not all Kickstart projects are. Hopefully this one will materialize into a release.
Heck, I've lost more money in other MMOs with subs that I wasn't playing on than I ever will if this game goes toe up. No complaints for either case; it's all on me and how I handle my entertainment dollars.
As I've stated in other posts, I'm enjoying keeping up with the Repop development more than I am playing live MMOs these days.
I'm kind of the opposite actually. I like the idea behind Kickstarter and it's honest that you're supporting an idea not buying a game but releasing something half finished with "well maybe we'll actually finish our game if we sell enough" seem obnoxious to me. Getting really sick of all the "early access" games on Steam. Seems a lot more scam potential than KS.
I really hope you guys succeed.
1) Attempting to develop a specific concept for a specific niche interest of players
2) Should bring interesting features and system and better community
3) Some is doing something "different" in the mmorpg OMG!!!
=
As another poster said, it's great following such project more personally.
The 2nd KS is does put the "frighteners on" a bit however. On budget and on time are really key for trust. Imho "stretch goals" destroy the dynamic of crowdfunding being a time-limited popular attempt to buzz a project into being. But I accept the reasons of demand-supply stated above as logical choice.
And thank the lord we have some interesting mmorpgs to keep tabs on these days thanks to kickstarter and crowdfunding.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
The menus and such have a SWG look/feel to them, which was probably on purpose.
I will look into it, I liked SWG, but I didn't start playing it until I had a friend get me into it, not a big sci-fi/space mmo player. I prefer fantasy.
I hope they pull it off though, it is nice to have some good quality stuff that is different for people to play.
It is so nice hearing directly from developers! MJ from CU also posted here often if you were into that KS at all.
The freedom of developing under (successful) public funding must be liberating for these companies (not assuming things are less risky of course).
I need to research the game even more to bother to pledge later on but I will say for now that I feel this sort of game is absolutely required even if it is for a select portion of the mmo fan base.
Best of luck.
You stay sassy!
Westerns? Space westerns? Theres nothing romantic about combat, especially in a sandbox. You take every advantage you can get.
Does that help a little bit?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
char·i·ty
noun ?cher-?-t?, ?cha-r?-
: the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc.
: an organization that helps people who are poor, sick, etc.
: the organizations that help people in need
plural char·i·ties
-These are not charities...This is not charity. If you wish to think of it as a donation, that is fine- But this is not charity.
Donation and Investment are not even right- Someone on another thread said "patronage" and I think thats as close as we can get to a term for something like this. These are FOR PROFIT ventures. There is generally no altruistic cause behind making these game.
EDIT- Not trying to come across harsh. I donate my time and money to specific Charity that helps local people in financial trouble. When they are serving food on Christmas for free to the homeless or driving their personal cars to people in need- That is charity.
-Its a sore point with me the language being used here
Well, I'll bite. I've not backed any kickstarter projects up to now but this game seems interesting enough to give it a try finally.
But I 'd better wait a week first because the steam sale broke me.
What should have happened to the toon getting burned then? If the toon was to animate as if really on fire, how would they be able to fight back? Some reality needs to be sacrificed. That twitch video wasn't about combat animations, but the weapons and armor. Since it's in alpha still, I guess there's more work to be done.
Any more than SWG's PVP was?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ever wondered why games like FO3 and TES have such crappy combat/movement animations? It's because dev time is spent adding in all of that other stuff. IF you want deep open ended MMORPGs with lots and lots of options, housing, building, deep RPG systems for character progression, so on and so forth. You're going to have to drop your standards in other departments.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm not so sure it's lowered standards due to lack of dev time. My earlier point is that if a character is being burned by fire, should the toon just start animating that he's rolling around, screaming and patting at the flames for the next 30 seconds? Or should he fight back?
Combat in such tab-based MMOs would be terrible if it just boiled down to whoever attacked first pretty much would win.
Now, I guess you could say, couldn't the toon just flail about for a second in reaction to the damage, and than start fighting back? Sure. But I guess that would look very disjointed from the various "pain" animations transitioning over to one of the various "attack" animations. And to what end? Just so we can believe we're getting burned by fire? Or shot with a bullet? Who the heck is paying attention to anything but their health bars and cooldowns during a fight? Looking at how realistic our toon looks when getting shot to hell during a firefight is the last thing on my mind.
That actually sounds like most sandbox games and I don't see people complaining there. Darkfall, Planetside, EVE. Whoever gets the drop on you wins. If you fail to counter an attack, they win. The fun is that you can do it to others as well. It requires skill, planning, strategy, cooperation. Instead of just rolls of the dice and HP bars.
Unless you make everything one or two shots, combat is never going to be realistic. You justify it with armors and energy shields, because longer fights give room for more strategy. Either that or you embrace the one shots and play it as that. Either way your giving up something.
Repop combat is strategic. You need to deal with things like positions, momentum, energy (you balance how much is spent to shields vs. armor), openings, diving/rolling, and cover. That would all go out the window if the first time your hit with a flame thrower you writhe around in pain and are unable to control yourself until you die, or if when you poke your head out you will be one shot. There's certainly merit to both game styles, but in general MMO combat isn't anything close to realistic. You try to find the style that works best for your game.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
Here is what Wikipedia says about charity:
Charity may refer to:
Contents
1 Giving
2 Organizations
3 Places
4 Entertainment
5 Other
Giving
Charity (practice), the practice of benevolent giving and caring
Charity (virtue), the Christian theological concept of unlimited love and kindness
Principle of charity in philosophy and rhetoric
Tzedakah, a Hebrew concept commonly used to signify charity
Zakah, the Islamic concept of mandatory alms-giving, often translated as "charity"
Sadaqah, the Islamic concept of voluntary alms-giving, often translated as "charity"
Altruism
Alms
Let's have a battle of definitions, OK? Charity, in its most basic sense is giving freely to another person.
Now, that being said, I will grant that true charity does not expect "rewards" (except maybe a place in the hereafter or a fuzzy warm feeling) and Kickstarter is chocked full of rewards for giving. That may be more akin to philanthropy
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Completely distorted view on management.
First of all, the point of combat as something important would suffer is a contradiction to prioritising. Why would they make a great game then have bad combat?
Then its about knowing how to build a foundation that offers retention, and knowing new stuff can be added.
Sure, not everything can be added, but the important factors such as an mmo engine for large scale scenarios. Also any mmo dev team has to be efficient at what they do. If you consider inefficiency as a normal problem, then that is why the standard is so low and how games at release are sub par, and continue to be sub par after years of polishing and development. Using bad devs as an example of a current standard is flawed logic.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble