Jump to content

XPerNX

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About XPerNX

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. Reading through the comments is kinda frustrating, as only about 2 people, seem to fully understand what Im even asking for. And this is not meant as putting anyone down, since more than 50% are way off, what Im talking about, I musst have screwed up explaining it somehow. What I would like: "Hundreds of tiny homemader servers, with room for between 20 and 80 players. Each with their own distinct flavour and style. From serious RP servers, where constant roleplaying was demanded and ruining other peoples experience resulted in immidiate bans, to free for all action servers where raiding and levelling were the only goals." (thank you TMZuk) A SLOWLY devloped toolset, that would support players making their own mods A DM client A multiplayer game based on a D&D ruleset and the aurora engine (ruling out very many of the games you mention, I should ask for the same) What I wouldnt mind, as an alternative: A co-op option What I dont want: Constant updates for the additions Support of any kind that is not paid for No bioware servers running anything but a gateway to private servers Nothing that looks like any mmo we have seen (the reason I even mention them, is because I find they are the only MP RPG option avaliable, which is very unfortunate)
  2. We just seem to disagree. I also think NWN was a better single player game than baldurs. I dont see why POE wouldnt be the next toolkit Good lord, not a chance in hell. When I first saw NWN all those years ago, I swore to never buy it, because its graphics looked ugly and I didn't want a D&D game that didn't support a large party of 6. And quite frankly, I had no interest in 3D. I love the 2D isometric PoV and have no interest in playing a D&D game like it was a first person shooter. None whatsoever. In multiplayer the party size was not an issue, and in singleplayer it did not bother me to have only a single henchman. Saying nwn was like a first person shooter, tells me yeah, you skipped playing it, thats ok if the iso graphics are that important to you, but comparing 2nd edition d&d rules, to a shooter, because your party is smaller... huh? Party size matters hugely to me. To me, D&D is about parties, not solo or duo "parties". And yeah, I will compared a 3D, solo D&D game to a first person shooter and have no problem doing so. Well NWN was not a 3D solo D&D game, it was a, be as many as you like in the party, mainly played top down, D&D online game. Far superior to Baldurs that died after a few play throughs I've played IE/NWN games in coop but instead of saying it was a wonderful experience, that is where the Pause Base System sucked, it was barely ok. It was tedious to auto-pause every say 6 seconds, both parties made their calls and then unpause, rinse-repeat forever seemingly, the UI was a battle. However PoEt has imo superior pause mechanics now vs IE/NWN that I could see playing it Coop in a TB manner with certain settings set. The scripting AI in IE/NWN imo wasn't good enough for realtime in coop either. I'm not aware of another TB ISO CRPG other than D:OS, but I loved it and it was everything I expected (cleaned up the Coop storytelling mechanic) and is still better than PoEt's pseudo TB when using pause settings. Some complain "it's too slow", I say it is still a lot faster than table top and we love table, right? RIGHT? I don't think it will be happening here, but I am so open for TB Coop games. Why? Because that is bringing tabletop to the PC, something you think would have been one of the first things done and one of the most common. Strange how it all went down imo. I never used to play neverwinter in multiplayer using the pause button, as well as most servers had removed the timestop spell. It worked pefectly in real time, but took practice. The thing is on most persistant nwn servers, you had no hirelings or henchmen at all, you had a human party, and controlling just one char, works fine in real time.
  3. We just seem to disagree. I also think NWN was a better single player game than baldurs. I dont see why POE wouldnt be the next toolkit Good lord, not a chance in hell. When I first saw NWN all those years ago, I swore to never buy it, because its graphics looked ugly and I didn't want a D&D game that didn't support a large party of 6. And quite frankly, I had no interest in 3D. I love the 2D isometric PoV and have no interest in playing a D&D game like it was a first person shooter. None whatsoever. In multiplayer the party size was not an issue, and in singleplayer it did not bother me to have only a single henchman. Saying nwn was like a first person shooter, tells me yeah, you skipped playing it, thats ok if the iso graphics are that important to you, but comparing 2nd edition d&d rules, to a shooter, because your party is smaller... huh? This has crossed my mind, but I decided it probably ought to be nothing more than an amusing thought. Without major rebalancing, I think it would turn out to be "He who gets off the first CC wins... unless countered by the appropriate defensive spell in anticipation." I mean, it would create some funny situations no doubt. It's one of those things that would probably be fun to mess around with for a few minutes, so if we lived in a universe where something like that could be created with zero additional time and resources, yeah it'd be kind of a hoot. In our universe, single-player for PoE all the way. No idea how it would work as a pvp game, that never interrested me much, but I seem to remember in nwn people found the games weaknesses, since you could do so many builds it was very hard to balance to not get cheesy ones. But again the balancing was done, on local servers, by whoever created the server. So you could make very rule restricted pvp servers, or ance that just used the standard single player settings. Yeah, I don't think anyone is really expecting Sword Coast Leg-Ends to become a good singleplayer roleplaying game. So there's that. Well now we know that you're just trolling. No thinking person would be able to say that with a straight face. No thinking person would believe his taste in games, to be the only truth out there Do not force me to bring out my turtle of persistance
  4. Well if what you guys are saying is correct, you could never hope for sword coast legends, to become a good singleplayer game, since they are doing both. The best you can hope for is a mediocre product. I still hope, that both games will be great at both. Whether or not sword coast legends could become the game Im hoping for, also depends a lot on the ruleset for me, so far I have found the POE ruleset very interesting.
  5. I could see a toolset like you describe being less time-consuming and more likely to be an improvement than what I was thinking. It would still be time-consuming, of course, so a decision to go that route would have major implications and would ideally take into account, among other things, a survey across the player base of just how popular this idea would be compared to more single-player content produced by the devs themselves. I agree. It would not be something I would expect them to make in a rush, but a wish for the furture. We just seem to disagree. I also think NWN wa a better singleplayer game than baldurs. I dont see why POE wouldnt be the next toolkit No, I think we are fully aware of what you're talking about, and we don't want it. We know, and we don't want it. Also, it's completely unrealistic to expect a toolset for a game such as this. Even with full access to the files (which I support; PoE is currently less than friendly to work with) what do you expect to be done? This isn't some 3D world-set any mook in a basement can use a toolkit to slap together what passes for a map in. Did you ever try to make a custom IE map that fitted into the game? No? What a surprise. And no-one has been talking about server support, you're basically addressing a windmill. Giving whole world's RPG nerds the possibility to build their own worlds have been met with less than stellar success in the past, but furthermore, the trade-offs simply aren't worth it in any way. It's not a 3D map system, implementing multiplayer takes a ton of resources, and there is very little actual interest in multiplayer, even less in a bare-bones model. And if you're thinking persistent worlds, you're absolutely mad, and are practically talking about making a completely different game, on the side of the game, just to support multiplayer. The best you can hope for is some kind of co-op, but even then, I would question the use of it and lament the resources poured into something that'd no doubt ultimately be quite useless. When you say "we" you really should say "I"... last time I looked 40% wanted a multiplayer option, thats kind of a lot. Also you clearly do not now what Im talking about, but I dont think we will come to an understanding. When the votes are up, press "no" and well see what the company thinks is the best way to make money. By the way check out some of 10 year old NWN persistent worlds, some of em are still around, theyre made by "some mook in a basement" and are "absolutely mad" And Obsidian delivered a solid single player game. At some point they will have to decide, if its going to be a single player game that will die a soon as the updates stop, or if they will make an online community that lives on. A toolset is a great way, to prolong the life of a game. I love the singleplayer game btw. I dont want to take away from it, I want to add to it, the option of modding doesnt have to be online.
  6. "How about all kinds of no? " How about you dont get to decide?
  7. I think a lot of you are thinking multiplayer games in a very narrow minded frame. Im NOT asking them to make another MMO like all the others. Im asking them to make something similar to what Neverwinter nights did. Which is basicly the option for a toolset. In NWN there was no need for server support or balancing, that could all be left to gamer DM who would balance and build servers as they saw fit. Yes it would take some time away from singleplayer coding, but if the result is to make a game so much greater than single player could ever be have at it. You want great stories? how about giving the whole worlds RPG nerds the possibility to build their own worlds. It HAS been done before, and worked very well, some of the fan created NWN 1 worlds were amazing.
  8. I agree, but the modding was what made neverwinter such a great game, far superior to the single player game, that like this, was great in it self.
  9. The only reason one could vote no, is if you have not played Neverwinter Nights. Pillars has the potential, to become the greatest online game in years!
  10. Really enjoying this game a ton, actually it looks like what Ive been waiting for, for like 10 years since Neverwinter Nights. Im surprised not to hear an outcry to make this game online, like the legandary NWN, and I´m shocked to read some people wouldn´t think it suited for online play. Its perfect for online, no less! This game could become way better, than any of those stupidly easy wow clones, we have been seing for the last many years. If you opened up the possibility, for private servers like nwn had, we could finally have a true online RPG again, and not yet another wow clone where youre hand fed everything. Please devs, make this game online, and give me and my friends the neverwinter we have been missing for years back
×
×
  • Create New...