MMORPG

Would you like to see Mount&Blade with a MMORPG play option?

  • Yeh, that'd be cool

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It would be alright, i suppose

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't care really

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I wouldn't mind it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I wouldn't play it and it's a bad idea

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

dannydeath75

Recruit
Wouldn't a MMORPG version of Mount & Bklade be amazing! You would have to have player made servers to limit lag but it would be amazing. You could fight other players armies and stuff. Work together, have massive wars, or even form alliances. I'm currently on the verge of buying the game for crimbo, but if it was made to a MMORPG it would be the best ever (and would give me a challenge, for a i have beaten forest abndits single handed many times :grin: )
 
MMORPGs all suck. They all turn into a wait-in-line while "enemy with the bad-ass weapon or quest item" spawns. Then it is a mad dash to be the one to kill it. Not to mention with every MMORPG you have the cheaters, who ruin the experience for everyone else...

Finally, when you want to immerse yourself in a game with a medieval setting, nothing ruins it more than seeing this fly across your screen during a battle:

BWAHHAHAHAHA, you totally suck dude!!! I pwned you!!! By the way, you see that new Usher video?

A big no thank you to MMORPG version of M&B for sure.

On a side note, could someone explain to me what pwned actually means? I'm guessing it is some derivation of "getting owned" by someone.
 
jrawlings said:
MMORPGs all suck. They all turn into a wait-in-line while "enemy with the bad-ass weapon or quest item" spawns. Then it is a mad dash to be the one to kill it. Not to mention with every MMORPG you have the cheaters, who ruin the experience for everyone else...

Finally, when you want to immerse yourself in a game with a medieval setting, nothing ruins it more than seeing this fly across your screen during a battle:

BWAHHAHAHAHA, you totally suck dude!!! I pwned you!!! By the way, you see that new Usher video?

A big no thank you to MMORPG version of M&B for sure.

On a side note, could someone explain to me what pwned actually means? I'm guessing it is some derivation of "getting owned" by someone.

2 things. pwned and owned= pwned means your getting battered while owned means they are loads better thasn you.

the other thing is if you have never tryed a skill mmorpg, go here and try endless online:
www.mmolands.com
the download takes a while but it's worthwhile. Skills mmorpg's are better than click adn go mmorpgs runescape. I hate them, its soooooooo level based. That's why I like knight-online. It's got that feeling of a good MMORPG but it's not...
 
Yes, a M&B MMORPG would be cool. On the other hand, being able to go to work by riding your PC would also be cool. And if the PC could also cook, write poems like ilex and repair windows it'd be even cooler.

Now the question is: what will we see first?
(oh and pwned is a leetspeak typo version of owned, and nothing else, no matter how hard people try to interpret different stuff into it)
 
dannydeath75 said:
Wouldn't a MMORPG version of Mount & Bklade be amazing! You would have to have player made servers to limit lag but it would be amazing. You could fight other players armies and stuff. Work together, have massive wars, or even form alliances. I'm currently on the verge of buying the game for crimbo, but if it was made to a MMORPG it would be the best ever (and would give me a challenge, for a i have beaten forest abndits single handed many times :grin: )


uhm MMORPG with player made servers . that doesn't quite add up.
MMORPG = MASSIVE multiplayer online rpg. if you limit it to servers it would simply be a MRPG or MORPG. the massive part would simply fall away.

and going the massive way is just stupid. it doesn't suit the game style. i guess it might be ok on a smaller scale but there are other features that are far mor important
 
MMORPGs all suck.
Quite possibly, at least all that I had a chance to play so far (excluding a couple or so of text based MUDs).

But suckiness is not an innate attribute of the genre, these are the implementations that suck. Recently released WoW perfected all the boring schemes of all the previous games, so I hope it is gonna remain the last of the 'sucky mmorpg' specimen.
 
*Vomits*

*looks at the thread again*

*Vomits again*

Yeah. I, too, think that the weakest link of all MMORPGS is that you have to stand an incredible amount of obnoxious bastards. Tried Anarchy Online, didn't like it. Tried WoW, didn't like it. I have played Guild Wars occasionally, mainly because you don't have to stand idiots outside of cities.
 
Now ask yourself, how realistic would a MMORPG be if there were not 98% of the "inhabitants" morons, after all, they're trying to simulate a world.
 
Like Armagan mentioned somewhere (or was it somebody else) - SURE,
BUT:
- You would need to provide a net-code which would support M&B.
- You would need to provide servers, capable of handling over 10'000 people from various countries.
- You would need to provide a team of customer support, tech support, and programmers to fix all of the patches, and increase the game size to a massive multiplayer dynamics.

If we can provide all of the above, I think Armagan would be more than happy. Otherwise, whereas it may be a nice to have, it is practically unrealistic at this point of time. If I am not mistaken, the FIRST STICKIED thread on the page is multiplayer discussion by the way. MMORPG support, self-server support etc. has all been suggested and discussed there.

Personally I would think it as practical and realistically possible to provide lan or direct connection support (like Q2 had), but that is ultimately for Armagan to decide, and if I'm not mistaken there are no plans at the moment or near future regarding this.

Last thing, once again I see people saying that they would hate to see M&B as MMORPG because 'they don't like MMORPG's and would not play them'. This response, to MANY similar suggestions, is pissing me off to be frank. That is because a simple 'multiplayer' mode, along with 'single player' mode, like in so many other games, would not mean that people who like single player would be FORCED to play multiplayer, while people who play multiplayer be forced to do vise versa. Unless I am mistaken, nobody is asking to remove the single-player version all-together. What somebody is suggesting, is for a possibility to HAVE a multiplayer, not convert the whole game. I am not supporting multiplay or anything, but this type of selfish response, is common to probably every single suggestion found on this forum. I am just using this as a tipical example. Personally I may or may not play M&B online should it somehow be implimented, and that is my business, just like everyone else has the right to play single player or multiplayer on every game, without other people interfering in their decision. Once again, I am only using this thread as a very tipical example of implimentations which 'may' benefit some, but will not provide any sensible inconveniences to other. In this situation, the multiplayer issue has been discussed, and unless I am mistaken, it has been made clear that M&B would not have mp support, but it 'may' be included in M&B2. Whether you LIKE playing multiplayer or single player, is your own preference. That is NOT a reason to argue against implimentation of something extra, just because an individual would not be using that specific feature. Hopefully, nobody here takes this personally however, since this 'problem' is our problem, of the community as a whole, and nobody has anyone else to blame, other than themselves. Hopefully we can all at least try to change our attitudes.

Lastly, I know that many persume MMORPGs to be a 'multiplayer only pay-per-month' games, but this is only true for MMO's which make money specifically from MMO-ing. Several games, (eg. Freelancer) have a 'mini MMORPG atmosphere' (which is basically same thing, but with less players. Freelancer supports 128 players, whose profiles are stored on the server) and at the same-time a heavy single-player story. MMO does NOT mean you have to pay every month, and have no other alternative to play the game. MMORPG simply means Mass Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. By 'mass' is several players within the same 'world environment' (several PC's connecting to one 'world' server, which does not reset the 'world time'), while most commonly having level advancements and other form of quests which they can perform in a group, and success of which is stored within that world. (ie. The world does not change or reset) Role-playing is basically that. (Infact, even 'text based' games thru mIRC where people roleplay, can be regarded as MMORPG since they fit all the requirements ::grin:) Just trying to make a point regarding multiplayer (PC to PC) and mmo (PC to SERVER). FPS is mostly also pc to server, but the server is not a 'constant world environment' so its somewhat different ::smile:

P.S. Koufodin@s no offence, but your avatar size is really annoying and wipes out half the frigging screen (as at the exact date of 25th November 2005). Just an advice to fix it, Narcissus can be scary sometimes when he unleashes his doomsday wrath ::razz:
 
chadz said:
Now ask yourself, how realistic would a MMORPG be if there were not 98% of the "inhabitants" morons, after all, they're trying to simulate a world.

Try illarion. search it on google, i 4got site. anyway, thats total role-play. out-of-character chat is incredibly limited. bad graphics, still in beta, but that's a game worth trying for someone of your sort.
 
Volkier said:
. If I am not mistaken, the FIRST STICKIED thread on the page is multiplayer discussion by the way. MMORPG support, self-server support etc. has all been suggested and discussed there.

read the 2nd post
 
I don't like the idea because MMORPG means level grind. I would like smallish (32 players or so) fixed equal character level battles, but a making it an MMO would just cheapen the whole experience.
 
I remember the good old days when thread like this were locked. Because there is already a thread.
 
Traa said:
I remember the good old days when thread like this were locked. Because there is already a thread.

i wish ppl would read all the posts. READ THE SECOND POST PEOPLE, THIS EXPLAINS THIS!!!
 
dannydeath75 said:
i read the 2nd sticky down and multiplayer. that sucks, cause CPU are too weak and i love a challenge.

I dont get it. How does that explain anything?
 
Traa said:
dannydeath75 said:
i read the 2nd sticky down and multiplayer. that sucks, cause CPU are too weak and i love a challenge.

I dont get it. How does that explain anything?

go on the second sticky, then clik on 1st multiplayer issue. btw=if ur doing this just to gain posts, thats lame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom