Quote
Originally posted by Black Beard:
**... Since, i guess, this topics HAS been discussed numerous times...
**
No it hasn't, has it? Aren't we still talking about penguins?
-david-
------------------
(url="http://"http://www.meowx.com")Meowx Design Studios(/url)
Graphics. Games. And more...
Quote
Originally posted by Tern-WEBTERRORISM:
**Fact of the matter is, LAN-specific games never fared well after the Internet took off. Look at ANY LAN-based multiplayer game, and it has single-player mode and/or Internet playability. This is because using the kind of resources needed to make such a game, particularily one of EV-calliber, and making it usable only by corporate networks, schools, and people lucky enough to have multiple G3s in their house hooked through an ethernet hub or two is a waste of marketting power because the target audience is simply too small for it to sell.
**
(Sarcasm)Your absolutly right! Marathon and Marathon 2 Sucked! So did NetTrek! So did Bolo! Risk and RiskColor, what crap! Not able to play over the internet, my god! I mean the original F-18 Hornet, what a peice, and don't get me started on WarCraft 1 and 2! I couldn't play anyone in London, but I could play my brother or a friend over the phone, but obviously that is a useless capability. What pieces of garbage!(/Sarcasm)
Oni was going to have LAN capabilities. But guess what? People like you said "if I can't play it over the internet I'm not playing it!" and so they took out ALL multiplayer abilities. Great. Oni would have been great multiplayer. Parsec LAN test, have you ever played that? No internet yet, but get a couple of friends together and boom! As for system requirements:
I don't recall any of the games I listed above even requiring a PowerPC! Most other LAN games now-a-days require a 120mhz-180mhz 604e (Minimum) to play (if it's 3d you'll obviously need a 3D Accelerator as well). If you don't have that then what are you complaining about!?!? You can't even play most Internet Enabled games like StarCraft and Diablo 2! Most of the games I listed above will even play through gasp the SERIAL PORT! We hooked up our Performa 5200 75 mhz, 24megs of RAM and our Performa 6400 and played the Demo of StarCraft and WarCraft (1 and 2) through the serial ports! Don't tell me your computer doesn't meet the needs. The G3 was introduced 4 years ago and Apple introduced there first G3 systems 3 years ago (1997) and most highend games of today ask for a 3 year old computer minimum. That's pretty good. PC's have a 1.5-2year range in there minimum requirements, asking for a 500mhz system MINIMUM on some games. Sorry these games don't support your MacIIci, but it's time to bite the bullet and purchase a new computer if you want to play the Sims on it buddy.
You can purchase a iMac 233 for around $300 now a days and throwin a Game Wizard if you want a 3D accelerator.
Once the G4's are shipping in quantity these puppies will drop to $200-$250.
Don't complain you can't afford it. Step One , grow up to be around 17 years old. 2nd, get a job. Save for about 3 months. Purchase a iMac or Beige G3 (if you want to get extravagent!) and then stop your flaming.
But please, don't forget step one.
Corporate Netwoks can only afford to play LAN games?!? Did you know that about 1/2 of the Apple Macintoshes out there are gasp G3's!!! OMIGOD!!! You my friend are living in the past. Get a grip and by a new mac.
------------------
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone."
-Bill Cosby
Star Trek Escape Velocity
(url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/startrekev/")http://homepage.mac.com/startrekev/(/url)
(This message has been edited by Metzen (edited 01-17-2001).)
Quote
Originally posted by Meowx Design:
**No it hasn't, has it? Aren't we still talking about penguins?
-david-
**
hahaha
Oh yeah! Damn! I completley missed the topic!
------------------
Arrrrrrr, matey!!!!
Actually, I was under the impression that the subject was "begging to be trashed"...
(Please don't thrown the penguins in the dumpster!)
Anyway, about EVMP. I originally thought it would be a great idea - it still is. The only problem is, once I became a programmer, I realized how much work it would take. We're not talking about a few extra data files here - basically, the whole concept has to be rethought. Playing EV as an RPG style could work, with a LOT of work by deluded people willing to work long hours for no monetary reward. However, you destroy the mission style and combat of EV. On the other hand, real-time EV would be crazy. It's not an action game you can play online for an hour and then start over again - it's about development. The best way to do it (in my opinion) is to use the EV concept in a NEW GAME ENGINE (hint, hint, EV3). Programming from the ground up would get rid of a lot of the problems previously brought up, and it also means that a new face would be put on the game, and it would attract other players.
A multiplayer EV has to still be user-expandable, via plug-ins. How I suggest this works is that players play in a "universe." If a plug-in wants to be used, it is hosted on the server, and a new universe would be created with that plug-in, equal for all players. So if you thought (insert plug name here) was cheap, all you did was play on a different universe.
This way, there could also be "newbie" universes, and rules governing combat (what if lots of players occupied the same universe, but could only meet up with people similar to them. If this was done in real-time, that would mean you could still do missions, etc, but if your combat rating was "mostly harmless," you would sit around with other mostly harmless people, aquiring credits and trying to get by. If you were "ultimate," then you could engage in as much unrestricted warfafre as you liked. And there would also still be computer AI's (bots) on, that would advance, just like players, so if it was done in real time, you could still play at 2am, even if no one was on the server at the time.
I think this is a good idea, but I welcome your input...
EVMP - a dream, but an awful good one!
Quote
Originally posted by Gage_Stryker:
**Actually, I was under the impression that the subject was "begging to be trashed"...
**
There's been an awful lot of talk about EVMP, including whether it is possible or not. I might be nit-picking, but the concept I posted wasn't an EVMP exactly. It's a still a single player game, but creates the illusion of a shared universe.
Just wanted to clarify.
-STH
------------------
Quote
Originally posted by Tern-WEBTERRORISM:
**"We want multi-player EV! We want multi-player EV!" Get a clue, morons, YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT!
(Lay off with the flaming insults, all right?--Jude)
Go take some basic programming classes, and you'll realize something very quickly: Porting a single-player game, particularily an RPG, to multiplayer, TAKES A LOT OF TIME.
And then a bunch other stuff**
Yea, and if it was 3D it would be a really stupid idea?
(url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/mikeej/.Pictures/Screenshot1.JPG")http://homepage.mac....Screenshot1.JPG(/url)
(url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/mikeej/.Pictures/Screenshot2.JPG")http://homepage.mac....Screenshot2.JPG(/url)
(url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/mikeej/.Pictures/Screenshot3.JPG")http://homepage.mac....Screenshot3.JPG(/url)
------------------
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus
(This message has been edited by Soviet mikee (edited 01-22-2001).)
Here are some of the main problems:
-User expandability
-Vast scenario writing
-Programming
-Slow server
I have attempted to address them. When most of you complain that it would have to much combat and newbie bashing, you are forgetting that for thousands of years humans were violent and uncivilized. But we turned out okay. Since that concept has already been shown to us a game's players would make friends and help eachother out pretty quickly.
And who says systems always have to be changing hands? Does every person on earth have their own government? So why should that be any different in EV? People come together and form a government and they work together. In the wild things should be wild, but they always seem to sort themselves out. People find out that two people can win more wars than one and attacking everyone builds defiance against one person and no one wants the entire universe after them.
And for user expandability, that is already taken care of. How much more expandable do you want? Everyone in the game shares a universe and can shape it with leadership skills they way they want. The only difference is that you have to convince real people of your ideas rather than dumb computers and actually research these cheater weapons. If we are making this universe practical we can't have players changing it with a simple plug.
Why should anyone have to write missions? The missions in the game are just dialogue between you and other imaginary people. Why not use real dialogue in EVMP and have much more input as to what you say? There is nothing wrong with a mission computer either, but shouldn't everyone be able to place missions here?
Programming is the big stopgap. The first post here gave us an idea that required no new games, just the tricking of EV into thinking that it is single-player. A turn-based EV would save time online, but be less practical because everything is so slow. Inconsistencies would go to the first to save their game online. It would be wise to expand the communication dialogue or make another center for messaging elsewhere if we have trouble modifying the dialgue in this setup to include the messaging of players instead of their AIs. If we do anything we should start crawling with this before we walk with head-to-head combat and realtime.
The server and network speed is another limiting factor. If we do realtime it will need a lot of optimizing and workarounds.
------------------
Signed,
Brian Schack
"DOS Computers, manufactured by millions of companies, are by far the most popular, with about 70 million machines in use worldwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form."
--The New York Times, November 26, 1991 (also quoted in MacAddict 4)
