Main Idea Thread

This thread is for the suggesting of/discussion of major ideas that are not yet set in stone.

So far:

1) Each god in the game gives bonuses to a certain type of weapon?

2) There are multiple stances which can be applied for each weapon?

3) For falling in line with a specific god you unlock a special stance for his/her weapon of choice?

Any other major ideas will be added when brought up. I don't want to see bullshit ideas, like OZMGZ WE CAN HAVEZ TEH PWNZOR GM'S! If any of that is posted it will be immediately deleted. We are not messing around anymore folks, its game time.

-Ian

i like those 3 ideas

lol i do too, they are pretty much rock solid. nothing there that many gamers would disagree with.

I highly approve of multiple stances per weapon.
Lets make our gamers play actively.

No, I dont think there should be a 'special stance'. That just....doesnt go with...logic...-.- A special stance would mimic other stances or be a stance that should be available for all players, etc.

Perhaps, instead, bonuses toward the effectiveness of each stance and the executable moves (that are available to you, in any case).

Edit: Actually, an 'extra' stance might be worked out. It depends on the weapons. But, again, as I've said above....it doesnt work out logically to have a stance that another 'different' player couldnt use.

actually steven the "bonus stance" is perfectly logical.

Ex: Only those who worship "God X" know the ancient secrets of the wakasashi. The perfected fighting style from long ago can only be gained from the monks who worship him, they will only talk to true believers.

Theres how it fits in. You see?

Ah...alrighty, no problem then.

This idea, however, still isn't fully confirmed...so until our next meeting we have time to discuss.

Next meeting will be...a ways off.

Things are going smoothly on the forum as of now, so I don't really see any need for us to get together for sure.

But, when that draft comes out...we'll probably meet and do this ->

as far as weapons are concerned i think we do basic japanize weapons.. katana,knife,kanta,big katana, staff, bow(diffrent kinds) and instead of focusing on more of diffrent kinds of weapons make the user just get better at using the same kind. i would like to implement a weapon damage system i know people hate it but by using it we dont have to have diffrent lvls of weapons but i think there should be a few special cases or maby "quality" lvls...maby

We intend to make an oblivion style system, as far as I know, which bases damage etc. on the weapon and the user, and 'levels you' based on usage.

The user must have stats of some sort, and acquireable skills (maybe a few specialized skills/abilities depending on faction etc), and as we've roughly decided so far, Stance. Therefore, such a system allows for molding the character to the personality of the player sitting at the controls.

As far as the user getting better at using weapons, leave that up to them. If we are to implement a combat system where the player doesnt just click and hit number keys, then whats the point of limiting weapons when we've created a system designed for personalization and distinction?

Why just basic japanese weapons? Dont ignore other cultures, and on top of that, try not to play towards personal preferences too much. If we just go one way or the other in terms of choosing a particular culture's weapons, we have automatically made ourselves generic on at least one level, and we defeat the original intent of our system.

Guys, I get the general impression from all of you that you are dissatisfied with the games you've seen and the gaming experiences you've ...well, acquired. So, (speaking from intuition here )lets not get distracted by personal preference please?

And nate...grammar and spelling please. Capitalize the letter of the first word in a sentence and all that jazz. Forums are impersonal and purely text based, miscommunication is common and must be avoided as best as possible.

Edit: That means expressing what you are saying in a proffessional manner, such that everyone can understand. Arg, editing so much...

Quote :

We intend to make an oblivion style system, as far as I know, which bases damage etc. on the weapon and the user, and 'levels you' based on usage.

The user must have stats of some sort, and acquireable skills (maybe a few specialized skills/abilities depending on faction etc), and as we've roughly decided so far, Stance. Therefore, such a system allows for molding the character to the personality of the player sitting at the controls.

As far as the user getting better at using weapons, leave that up to them. If we are to implement a combat system where the player doesnt just click and hit number keys, then whats the point of limiting weapons when we've created a system designed for personalization and distinction?

Why just basic japanese weapons? Dont ignore other cultures, and on top of that, try not to play towards personal preferences too much. If we just go one way or the other in terms of choosing a particular culture's weapons, we have automatically made ourselves generic on at least one level, and we defeat the original intent of our system.

Guys, I get the general impression from all of you that you are dissatisfied with the games you've seen and the gaming experiences you've ...well, acquired. So, (speaking from intuition here )lets not get distracted by personal preference please?

And nate...grammar and spelling please. Capitalize the letter of the first word in a sentence and all that jazz. Forums are impersonal and purely text based, miscommunication is common and must be avoided as best as possible.

Edit: That means expressing what you are saying in a proffessional manner, such that everyone can understand. Arg, editing so much...

I will respond to this message from hell by paragraphs...bare with me...

P1: I have not been told jack-squat about the concept of an "oblivion style system" for use in this game, thanks for informing me Steven. Can we try not to make decisions like this outside the forum? Im never present in 5th pd. lunch (if that is where you decided this).

P2: Yes, individual stances, stats, and affiliations with factions are essential to the concept of this game. A+ for this paragraph.

P3: I'm confused about what you were trying to say here...you go from specialization to limiting use...to...ugh. Explain that one plz.

P4: Now, I agree with not limiting ourselves to a single culture...however, we really don't have the resources to make a whole shitload of weapons unless Chris feels like modelling and texturing like a maniac...although I guess if we put Katanas and Gothic Short Swords in the same catagory all we have to worry about is the models. No extra scripting necessary.

P5: Uhm. Steven. This project was originally all about our combined personal preferences, that is until you stepped in and got all "manager-esque" on us.

P6: I agree with Steven for sure on this one, Nate...take time with ur posts...they are a bit hard to desypher sometimes.

Anyways. I'm making a weapons poll.

if we used lots of diffrent types of weapons that would be a pain in the ass for finding out stats ummm... oblivion since when.... i do not think we should worry to much now as to how to fight more over what stats and weapons ect are used for said fighting i have tried coding games and it can be some hard stuff so lets start basic with that when we get there *how to fight* im sorry i try with spelling grammar never comes to me naturally and well yeah.. i try with spelling.....

what we mean is make it look professional. break up your sentences with spaces instead of run-ons with commas.

seperate ideas, like so, with new paragraphs.

The following is a response to Ian's above post (the one with the paragraphs in it).


P3: Nate said stuffs only about Japanese weapons.I was just saying that since our system was intended to be such that the player's character would develop according to the players preferences (since the character progresses according to what he does the most, things like that) I thought that we should have weapons that aren't so limited in terms of general design. We have weapons that are mainly 1-bladed, and based on the sword (not counting the bow and staff). I suppose a Katana could be two-bladed (don't know about Japanese weapons much), but what happened to good ol' hammers and maces, spears, etc.

uh...so, basically, i just said we might want to incorporate different weapons. maybe not even based off certain cultures, but, lets not stick to just that general theme of weapons.

P4/P5: You get what you work for.

I'm not in any way forcing anyone to do anything. Whatever sort of 'Manager' position I have is because my opinion is respected by all of you, and you readily accept what I have that can benefit the group; that is, my mind and realist attitude.

Granted, that what it may have been at the start. It still is, at least in part.

We all bring our biases and preferences to this project; thats natural and good, because how else would we assert ourselves. However "manager-esque" I am being is a result of how I interpret the problems I see; mostly an over-expression of personal preference and bias. I try to play mediator and judge as best as I can, but the end of the story is, whatever influence (NOT CONTROL, there is a fine difference between the two) I have is from you guys. So, instead of exhibiting resentment toward how I perform my job as best as I can (Adviser/Manager), express the doubts and criticisms you have for me. I need to know in order to do my job.
I do not in any way consider myself the leader of our 'team'. I know far better than that, and again, my power/influence is from all of you, and my abilities to convince you to do...well, whatever.

Having asserted that point, I'll continue on to addressing the project as being a result of our combined preferences, etc.

So what? (and by "So what?" I'm not insinuating I don't care, I'm just saying that you need to be a tick more pointed than just saying that this project was based on your combined personal preferences)
Ryan asked me to join the group (with a bit of group consensus) because there was no sense of direction at all. There was little or no general cohesiveness and almost no limitations on what a person could do. So I immediately sought to stamp that out. The last thing any business needs is no direction (if you intend to make money with this, it's already by default a business (albeit in the making, but treat it as such nonetheless)). Knowing I was new and just accepted, I decided to simply make general suggestions, and hope for the best. So, after pitfalls and potholes in our progress, we've at last decided on something. Now we get to 'the meat'.

Now, I've managed to sort of get us focused on a single goal. We have something to work for now.

So whats bad about me acting 'manager-esque' and gently nudging everyone to where we are now? Look at the forum; that in itself is a massive improvement. Ian, you've taken a step I didn't see, and that was restructuring the forum to the point where it would better suit our purposes. We've all improved on some small level (Me, getting to know you guys. Ryan, getting his friggin' left hand back, and getting input from his pops for us. Nathaniel, Sean, and Chris are now working together with -everyone- for a single goal. Lastly, Ian, you've taken a huge amount of initiative.)

Everyone has risen from performing tasks as he or she saw fit without regard to the success of the group (even me, I was kinda clueless about what I was doing, till I realized that I'd been doing unnecessary things) to working together. We've improved, not declined.

Nice Rant. Thanks for the compliments by the way.

Now, I meant not to insult you, but to mearly secure the idea that WE (including you steven) are not making the perfect game. Rather, making a game that we believe solves as many of todays RPGs' flaws as possible, therefore taking a step towards what the perfect game would be.

I respect your role in this 'company' of sorts. You deffinately have helped organize us, though I was very surpised when you showed up with meeting Iteneraries *sp*. Good work.

The reason I stepped up is because as Nathaniel, Sean, and I noticed, there had been way to much talk in places that it wasn't necessary. Not only that, but Chris and Ryan (no offence guys, but you were) began to steer us off course in a sense. Which, personally, I believe is the reason the first three concept games failed.

Alright, points taken.

Just for the record, I'm not offended by anything. Unless you pull my pants down in public, I wont bat an eye.

"The reason I stepped up is because as Nathaniel, Sean, and I noticed, there had been way too much talk in places that it wasnt necessary. Not only that, but Chris and Ryan (no offence guys, but you were) began to steer us off course in a sense." /quote

Should any group member notice a problem at any time I'd like for them to follow these steps (this is in regard to talking too much where unnecessary):

1: Stop. Take time to mull things over. Get a second opinion.
2: Sleep on it. Unless its urgent and needs immediate attention, wait a day. What's said is said and done, so give yourself that extra time to think things over.
3: Report it to the group as a whole. Ask for a meeting. If you fail to communicate to the whole group, there'll be tension and possibly sides.

As for Chris and Ryan steering us off course, I don't know what that means, but next time we have a complaint with anything, inform me first. Got a job to do here...

And that is that. No more, lets get back on topic for this thread. Any other comments non-related to the purpose of this thread; keep em out.

If I may ask, how did I steer you off course? This is what I've been pushing for all along: Ideas that are discussed then set in stone. What are you referring to?
Also, excellent new format. I'm taking a little while to get myself oriented, but excellent organization.
I definately think stances, and learning them based upon religion, is an excellent idea. It adds variety, and ensures those wielding the same weapon do not necessarily fight in the same fashion. However, I agree with Steven in that we should expand our goal for weapons. I would like to see Western spears, maces, and axes alongside single-edged Japanese weapons. This would bring more variety both visually and in gameplay, because honestly, swords can only stab or slice.
I would like to avoid the animosity and return to the development. But why the resentment, and why have I not gotten a sense of this until now?

Ok. Lets drop the 'steering off course' thing. We've more important things. Lets just try to remember to communicate more effectively, and in a professional business-like manner...that means, you got gripes, express them in person (while keeping in mind that it's all strictly business). And while you're at it, keep in mind also that you need to reach a point of conciliation.

As for learning stances purely based on religion...Lets make religion the base for culture and have the environment and animals present influence things too. Weapons are made...for practical reasons.

yeah the stances will have a lot to do with the culture.
the reason ian and i were saying special stances for certain people was because that element*and maby personality of the god of said element intertwined story stuff* might be offensive,defensive,magic based,ranged base ect ect for what ever the item is.

Works for me.

Steven, it was before you joined we felt this way. Nathaniel and I would have an idea solidified on teh forum and Ryan or Chris would be unaware of this and change it. Not their faults.

Anyways, yes. Stances would make this game more...unique. There will be basic stances, however other learnable stances will be effective for a specific reason.

Ah, in that sense yes, we did do that a lot.

So would each religion offer only one Special Stance that is for all weapon categories? Or could you train and specialize, prehaps getting more advanced stances for your favored weapon as you do more to further the goals of your faction?

Methinks stances are gonna be troublesome

i love the idea of being able together more stance per weapon. i believe the basic stance woudl be very generic for each religion and then maby you could specify? or just lvl it higher to a cooler stance.

and stances are not a new thing rune scape did it O.O it really wont be a problem

I dont think we should have too many. Like no stances per religion per weapon.

There are the Basic Stances, Agressive Stances, Defense Stances for each weapon. Then each religion/following has its own stance for its specified weapon...but this special stance is going to be verrrryyy hard to unlock...or maybe easy to unlock but hard to perfect? I dunno...

Hows that sound?? (above)

But Nate has a point. We would just pretty much do exactly what RS did but make it more detailed, and have it actually change how your character stands...instead of slightly changing the attack animation.