Green Monster Games - Curt Schilling

I disagree with a lot of classes. Keep the number low. Not Mage, Cleric, Rogue, Warrior low. But 8 is a good number, anything over 10 is too many. The reasoning behind this is balance and itemization.

I also disagree with the FFXI varying class system. Or at least done differently. Something doesn"t sit well with me when your character can just switch classes by just going to town. It doesn"t lend to character identity very well. You could develop a system where things like bound gear, reputation or factions are account bound rather than character bound.

What is so good about the FFXI combat system? I havn"t played the game in years but I can"t remember how it was done, can you explain?

AC1"s Character development? Explain, I never played the game beyond trying it for an hour. And that was a long long long time ago.

CylusSoulreaver said:

A max of 64 players per server is optimized for MMOs? I was under the impression that the net code didn"t change significantly from 2 to 3 but I obviously could have been told incorrectly. That aside, it sounds like some of the asset loading/streaming has changed from what Jerrith mentioned in a previous post.

I"m even more clueless now that I lost my UDN access so any corrections are obviously welcome

"Course, if they"re using the BigWorld server architecture, I suppose that they don"t have to worry about Unreal"s server arch

Click to expand...

Yes, even back when I was at NCsoft, we were looking at UE3 with the asset loading/streaming being one of the most interesting changes. If Vanguard had been made with UE3, I doubt chunking would have been an issue. The solution that was written for UE2.5 (which was all that was available at the time, it"s not like UE3 was an option then), was good, especially offline, but it wasn"t as good online, which was what mattered to everyone playing the game.

I can"t talk about BigWorld due to contractual obligations but Ngruk"s comments about the general benefits of 3rd party technology for an MMO is quite accurate.

Draegan said:

I disagree with a lot of classes. Keep the number low. Not Mage, Cleric, Rogue, Warrior low. But 8 is a good number, anything over 10 is too many. The reasoning behind this is balance and itemization.

I also disagree with the FFXI varying class system. Or at least done differently. Something doesn"t sit well with me when your character can just switch classes by just going to town. It doesn"t lend to character identity very well. You could develop a system where things like bound gear, reputation or factions are account bound rather than character bound.

What is so good about the FFXI combat system? I havn"t played the game in years but I can"t remember how it was done, can you explain?

AC1"s Character development? Explain, I never played the game beyond trying it for an hour. And that was a long long long time ago.

Click to expand...

I"m not really calling for all those things, just making the point that developers shy away from good aspects of other games, just to be different. The number of classes was just a personal point, which I know a lot of folk disagree with. Most folk who have played FFXI really like the ability to play all classes on one character. It removes a lot of the grind when you are improving an existing character instead of leveling yet another toon through the same old areas.


The class system in AC1 and the combat system in FFXI are unparalleled. Nothing else comes close to them. The AC1 class system, in a nutshell, is that as you gain experience points and levels you gain points to spend on any skills, abilities or stats. I"ll leave it at that, but its like saying Ben n Jerrys make ice cream - its true but it doesn"t really give you a taste of how good it is.


The combat system in FFXI is just sensational. It has two elements :

1) Its based around a certain number of points per level applied to individual weapon skills. The cap is different for each weapon class, based upon character class. At certain levels of skill special attacks become available. Some attacks are only available to specific classes.

This first part is the basis for getting the special attacks. This is not what makes the system so good.


2) The real innovation is that attacks can be chained together and produce significant effects of all different types - damage, debuffs, buffs, heals, etc.

Each special attack and each chain attack (a chain attack is a Renkei) have an element attached to them. All mobs have elements they are strong and weak to.See this chartfor a graphical representation of the system.

Effective use of Renkei doubles or triples the effectiveness of a conventional party. Its a great method, apart from anything else, of making a group of people be much more than the sum of their parts. In this respect it achieves what the "trinity" did in EQ1, with different mechanics. It can be the method some games look for, giving a reason to party over soloing.

EQ2 did try to adapt this system, but given the 6 buttons a second you spam to play that, they had no chance of pulling it off.


Again, I"m underlining that game mechanics and hooks in the game are far, FAR more important than the type or quality of the graphics.

So you"re advocating a skill advancement system that is open ended. And combat system where you string combo"s together based on enemy weakness?

Draegan said:

So you"re advocating a skill advancement system that is open ended. And combat system where you string combo"s together based on enemy weakness?

Click to expand...

I"m not advocating those things specifically.

I"m saying that elements of a game need to stand out and be memorable and enjoyable, rather than just playing whackamole and that developers shouldn"t be afraid of flat out copying from other games that are innovative.

The main thing I am saying is that the type and standard of the graphics are relatively unimportant to the enjoyment and success of the game; games will live and die by the hooks in them, not by the eye candy. Yet developers seem to consistently place far more weight on the graphics of their games than they purport to.

I agree that gameplay trumps graphics. That should be a given.

However, I think animations and gameplay go hand in hand. If you have poor animation, your game won"t do as well, no matter how the game plays.

Character identity and AC1"s character development do not mesh at all. Baring a mele weapon choice and war magic everyone that wanted a good character chose the same exact skill set behind those two choices in the end. Don"t take anything from AC1 please.

I know it was a balance nightmare, but i loved in original AO how nothing had class restrictions. While an enforcer might be better than you with that big bad ass 2 hand sword, your doctor could wield it ifhe wanted to gimp himself in other areas and tons did.

I love freeedoms like that.

I know reality has no place in most games, but why couldnt a rogue put on a set of platemial if he wanted to? Yes it would be next to impossible to stealth and he would dodge like shit, but give people choices.

For the most part it didnt cause issues in AO (except aimed shot) and led to so much fun and freedom to try things and be original. Wanna be a fixer who dual wields swords? go for it, but the skills were dark blue to learn and ate up 3x as many skill points as going SMG but you could if you wanted to and many did.

sorry but I like being that unique snowflake. my doc (priest class for non AOers) used a sub machine gun, that was good stuff!

Bongk said:

I know it was a balance nightmare, but i loved in original AO how nothing had class restrictions. While an enforcer might be better than you with that big bad ass 2 hand sword, your doctor could wield it ifhe wanted to gimp himself in other areas and tons did.

I love freeedoms like that.

Click to expand...

Doctors with Gelids became quite the norm in the early zones of SL. PVP docs with shotties, while some stuck with rifles. I think my doc still hasthisin her bank.

Rayne said:

Doctors with Gelids became quite the norm in the early zones of SL. PVP docs with shotties, while some stuck with rifles. I think my doc still hasthisin her bank.

Click to expand...

yea i stuck withthisdamn I loved that thing, could keep the group all healed up and still place 2nd or 3rd behind the soliders and fixers for DPS.

damn this is making me want to fire up AO, my Keeper was one of the coolest classes ever. I loved that guy!

Flight said:

The Diablo loot system is unparalleled. Don"t just have 3 or 4 levels of rarity- use a "chest" system like D1 and D2. 100 chests, of increasing levels, with higher levels becoming available as you/the mob increases in level. When loot drops the game rolls for a chest, with higher numbers much rarer, then it rolls for the type of item in the chest (a chest might have 12 possible item to roll, with some types more weighted than others) then it rolls for the rarity of that item type - common, uncommon, rare, set, class set, class unique, unique.

Get more staff working on a huge loot system = you win at making MMOs hold players attention. Sets and uniques at all levels that people really want. And some of it INCREDIBLY rare. Make it so at lvl 30, people may want to keep doing that one boss loot run right up to lvl 35, because theres a small chance of a really rare item. Pack those solo instances in, like no-one else has done. The game that competes with WoW will do this.

Click to expand...

With this system is loot random generated or mob specific though? One thing I want to see is mob specific loot, the rare shadowknight mob dropping the rare shadowknight only sword for example. If they do instance dungeons or even EQ style non-instanced those rare mobs that drop a rare piece of loot make for interesting leveling and keeps people in dungeons. The only problem EQ had was in original release only Guk was worthwhile as a dungeon, and as such got swamped and camped to death.

WOW irks me in that the best loot in the game previous to the maximum level is the purple drops that are entirely random, how about instead having some unique rare drops on all of the named mobs in the dungeons that they might drop on each trip through? Instead of having the bulk of the top items in the game dropping off random world mobs like a Raptor in STV the best items should be rare drops in the dungeons off of mobs that it makes sense for those items to drop off to begin with.

The rare world mobs in WOW are a HUGE disapointment, dropping entirely random green items normally that have nothing to do with that mob. Compared to a rare mob in EQ1 such as the pegasus in South Karana that dropped the levitation cloak I like EQ1"s system FAR better. Mob drops should for the most part be mob specific. Orcs in a certain area dropping certain types of armor and weapons, certain type of bird mob being a decent source for gems and other shiny things, rare named mobs dropping loot that makes sense (aka a rare archer mob sometimes dropping a rare great bow or a named boss in an underwater dungeon dropping an underwater breathing item). Don"t go with WOW"s system and make all the best loot pre-raid level be totally random world drops. Put great and rare mob specific loot in the dungeons and on rare world mobs. If we have raid content in the game for levels previous to the maximum level (you really need to do this, it allows a longer level curve and deters the race to the top somewhat) then there is another place to put some of the best level specific loot.

As much as I like and prefer named mobs dropping unique items to that mob, the reality is the RMT market is bigger now than it ever has been. Putting those mobs in the game wouldn"t matter to most of us if the only way you could get their items was buying it from farmers. I don"t want this to veer into thoughts and ideas about RMT, but I do think you have to have a robust loot system thatdoesfactor this in.

So play on a PVP server, kill the farmers in between spawns. That could be fun.

Jerrith said:

Yes, even back when I was at NCsoft, we were looking at UE3 with the asset loading/streaming being one of the most interesting changes. If Vanguard had been made with UE3, I doubt chunking would have been an issue. The solution that was written for UE2.5 (which was all that was available at the time, it"s not like UE3 was an option then), was good, especially offline, but it wasn"t as good online, which was what mattered to everyone playing the game.

I can"t talk about BigWorld due to contractual obligations but Ngruk"s comments about the general benefits of 3rd party technology for an MMO is quite accurate.

Click to expand...

The biggest drawback imo with using 3d party tech in MMOs is that you run into eventually "the problem" - you want to do something that the engine/backend/etc doesn"t support. With your own tech, no big deal, if the feature is important enough you change the code.

With a 3d party tool, even if you have the source forking the code sucks - one of the big selling points was getting "free" new features/bugfixes/etc down the road, you just took a step back by forking. You eventually become the tool developer by debugging it, patching new changes, etc. So all you really bought was a bootstrap up, which is fine if you treat it that way, instead of a piece that you just use and someone else updates/fixes.

For console games its not a big deal, you have a limited scope and lifespan for the game. MMOs can survive 20+ major patch rounds and big expansions, there is no possible way you can forsee every single new feature you want to implement over 2-5 years, especially since players will absolutely suprise you with what they consider cool/important.

I think a famous recent example is Blizzard"s patch 2.1 (2.2?) where they updated the sound engine to allow voicecomms, it took a giant company like that months to iron out all the bugs with just plugging in the updated engine.

Tyen said:

Thats what I always thought buying an MMO engine is all about. Getting the core back end and then coding in the tools/etc that fit your game best.



I was under the impression that with any game engine, it is already a given. You buy it, then tear it up implementing the game.

Click to expand...

Most software you add to but you don"t get into the core engine. That is a copyright no-no and the source code is normally not available to even attempt that. You are stuck with the core, "black boxes", modules, etc. doing what the original programmers let it do and until they change it you are basically screwed.

So if you don"t have swimming below the surface, climbing hillsides, jumping, etc... then you don"t add them until the engine is changed.

gnomad said:

So if you don"t have swimming below the surface, climbing hillsides, jumping, etc... then you don"t add them until the engine is changed.

Click to expand...

That would certainly explain why the 38 Studios crew wanted to look at the nitty-gritty of each engine; it sure would suck to have a vision of an underwater dungeon only to find you can"t actually swim underwater.

I"d also like to throw in my support for (mostly) free-range choice of equipment. I may be playing a Wizard, but if I want to throw on some chainmail for better protection (or just for aesthetic purposes) at the cost of my magical prowess it"d be nice to have that choice. I"m certainly for class-specific gear on occasion--armor sets, for example--but more choices can make for more fun and interesting gameplay.

Cadrid said:

That would certainly explain why the 38 Studios crew wanted to look at the nitty-gritty of each engine; it sure would suck to have a vision of an underwater dungeon only to find you can"t actually swim underwater.

I"d also like to throw in my support for (mostly) free-range choice of equipment. I may be playing a Wizard, but if I want to throw on some chainmail for better protection (or just for aesthetic purposes) at the cost of my magical prowess it"d be nice to have that choice. I"m certainly for class-specific gear on occasion--armor sets, for example--but more choices can make for more fun and interesting gameplay.

Click to expand...

I"ve always been a proponent of that as well. It makes both lore and "realistic" sense. I realize that"s at the expense of balance headaches, but depending on how steep those costs in balance are, I believe it"s worth it.

Plus, Gandalf used a sword.Gandalf.

Gandalf is also a demi-god, not your average tankmage scrub.

Most middleware and engine licenses come with source code. In many cases, this is a necessity for making a finished product.

I can think of two middleware packages off the top of my head that aren"t really practical for a real game because of crazy amounts of small memory allocations.