DiabloFans

Quote from "Tyriddik" »

its not that bad..

*shudders*

I used to play it, shamefully...
ok, so it's pretty good at the start, mostly because I love to watch my mines (or whatever they're called) bring in resources faster and faster each day; but once I got through that stage, I realized how flawed and annoying this game really was.

I absolutely hate games that add a ton of emphasis on paying real cash to grow faster in-game, and Evony does a very good job of advertising their products to snatch your money.
Oh, while on the topic of advertising... have you ever seen the Evony ads? This is probably one of the funniest concepts for an ad I have ever seen. They're all basically half-stripped down women in some kind of erotic pose, with a heading saying "Save the Queen before it's too late".
They also have a few versions of the same kind of advertisement strategy. I guess the Evony team has honed in on the idea that sex sells. Oh, and let me just remind you, there is no queen, or girl in the game whatsoever. Take a look for yourself: Evony

And I have seen one ad that says "Over 10 million players". This is false advertising to the extreme... that statistic actually is "over 10 million accounts have been created". When your player base is less than 1% of this statistic, I start to wonder how close these producers have come to being considered con-artists.

I actually took a look at this game a few days ago. No, not to play it, but to refresh my memory on how one of the mechanics in the game worked, so I can try figure out an optimal strategy for something that was itching me since I wasn't mathematically savy enough back when I used to play it.

Just in case you're interested: the optimal gold/hour from your population would be with 50% tax rate (actually, 50 loyalty), no matter what your max population is. It is also symmetrical about the 50% tax rate mark, i.e. 40% tax will give you the same output as 60% tax etc. So you should never go over 50% unless you just raised your population loyalty and expect your loyalty to be dropping, so you can take advantage of that and squeeze out as much gold as possible (with 100% tax) while you watch the loyalty drop to 50. Also, 40% tax will leave you with a higher sustainable population, so this is obviously better than the same income you'll receive from 60% tax, but with the less population you will sustain.

But even though I wanted to satisfy my curiosity, I still hate the game. Oh and to add to the game's... popularity... all the advertisements have lured kids by the thousands, and other types of sexually thirsty individuals, so all you'll be seeing in the chat is stuff like "press 111 if you're a hot girl, I want some fun"... seconds later.... the chat is spammed with 111's from dozens.
I never knew that hot girls play these kinds of games, or even get lured into these games by half-naked girl advertisements.

And one last thing before I let you run off to play Evony joyfully for hours on end: If you're looking to pass the time and want something that doesn't require a vast amount of computer resources, try this: OGame
It's also a text-based game, but I have to say it's been able to keep a hold on me way longer than Evony has.

Isn't that where jesus got his powers from?

To execute the special kill, do you need to be in a certain position relative to the boss with a predetermined amount of health, as LinkX suggested - or is it just that if the boss was about to kill you by a normal move, the animation automatically switches to the special move like scyberdragon said?

Quote from "italofoca" »

Frustrating.

People loosed the grasp of what gore is. Explicity gore and gross does not add nothing to the game but enthusiast to retarded kids.

Huh? Who says the point of the special animation kills is to add more gore to the game?

Quote from "LinkX;523778 »

The one hit K.O.'s would be after you reached a certain amount of health and were in a certain spot. The boss won't run in and bite your head off.

Quote from "scyberdragon"" »

The boss kills are a special animation that are triggered when the boss would have killed you anyway. Just instead of being hit by a normal attack you get a special animation. They are not 1 hit kills.

I dunno, but to me both these ideas contradict each other. It should be either one or the other.

If we keep this up, will anyone find it obvious anymore?

Why ask the obvious?

Quote from "emilemil1" »

I never said "exact mechanics". I said that I know how it will work. Just like I know the function of each computer component but not how it is made or works in detail.

You know the function of each computer component? Did you speculate how each component will work? Oh wait, you read it from a book or by some other means it was explained to you. So how does this compare to you knowing how the virtual reality mechanisms will work?
You might be off, by far. I'm not saying it's not possible the way you're putting it, but there are other ways - even ways we might not even have conceived yet to which virtual reality could be implemented.
How about rather than being connected directly between your brain and the system, you step into a large sphere that has a 3-d screen in every direction. You run and swing with your real body, and this translates into the game and what you see, hear etc.

Now, do you still know how virtual reality will work?

Pain in itself is not harmful. It is the chock that will cause us harm (mostly mental effects and possibly heart damage). I'm also separating everyday pain from injury pain. Everyday pain should be weak enough that you can feel it but not become distracted. Injury pain, like from beeing impaled, is what I think should be reduced to a point where you practically feel no pain from the wound itself. But you might feel the effects the wound has on your body, like that it can become slightly (sliiighly) painful to walk with a dagger in your leg. But never to a point where you would consider yourself hurt in real life.

Please point me out to where I ever said that pain should be the way it really is, and not reduced at all. You were the one to say pain was a bad thing, period, suggesting it should never be in the virtual reality games in any form whatsoever. From the very beginning I suggested a possible range of pain mitigations, such as 10-50% of the real thing, depending on the person and that person's preferences.

Horror games without limits would be a bad idea. Horror games with something to automatically remove unpleasant fear is a good idea.

Current horror game developers try their best to make it as scary as possible. The only limitations is the technology and the human psyche. Yes, the technology will get better, and thus scarier. a.k.a. virtual reality. But it has been getting better consistently to date, and as we have already agreed, Diablo vs. Resident Evil are incomparable in their scare factor. But players were freaked out by Diablo back then. So if technology is getting better and thus scarier, but players aren't being scared to death by now, and Diablo seems like childs play to them - isn't the human psyche towards horror games becoming stronger?
Couldn't this trend continue up until virtual reality is invented, and then the players could stand the full force of being in a realistic scene in Diablo's realms?
This would mean there is no need for the systems to intervene with your gaming experience. Of course, again, it may be that my prediction is false and virtual reality will be much too scary to handle, in which case precautions could be taken such as how Nacho_ijp has explained thanks dude!

And to remove unpleasant fear? I doubt the last time (if you have) you were shocked by an enemy jumping at you in a game was a pleasant fear, but it would have been a rush nonetheless. I wouldn't want these unexpected frights to be stripped from me, because the system detects higher levels of (however the hell the brain responds in cases of fear... releasing adrenaline?) in my body. I'm sure they would just warn users before they use it. Don't play the game if you suffer from heart problems... etc. etc.

A choice from none to everything wouldn't work in virtual reality. What if some kid, that absolutely can't handle it, tries it? It is just not safe. Any kind of free choice function must come with automatic adjustments to protect the user from his/her own foolishness.

Ahh bull. There is no harm done by one scary experience in a GAME (which I would hope they understand at least after they play it). If they get too scared, which they should be since you say they wouldn't be able to handle it, then they'll have learnt from the experience. Now, do they go back and try again? Doubt it.
They might even develop a phobia of going back into the machine. Well, the only way they would strip themselves of this phobia is to grow up and accept it, which they should have been before even trying the game out.
And don't under-estimate technologic advancements in the security sectors. These are like wild-fire and I have to say, if the kid can manage to bypass all the safety measurements and still play the game in its full force... this kid is probably a hacker



Whether you like it or not, virtual reality will be created, despite any and all fears you may have of its consequences. When there is a market for it, it will be developed. If it can be done, it will be done. There's no stopping it
I just hope to still be alive to try it out (I would prefer to die by Diablo scaring me than to die all quietly in bed anyway).

Quote from "emilemil1" »

I know how it will work...

Free movement in a virtual world is only possible by hooking up computers directly to your brain. They will replace all signals from your body to simulate a virtual world. This is at least what we have been discussing (if you read the prvious posts). I challenge you to come up with another way of creating full virtual reality (Matrix style)

Oh you know how it will work, huh? Yes scientists are trying to understand the brain more clearly, especially how to manipulate it with electrical impulses (Nacho_ijp has once again assisted in this idea, but thank his family to save him the trouble :P), but that doesn't mean plugs being connected directly to the brain is how it will work. Even now, wireless is a definite option; so no, you don't know the exact mechanics.

Quote from "emilemil1" »

Exactly, which is why there won't be pain.

I don't consider a mild sensation on the skin as a harmful effect on the player. Like I've already said, the pain is just a way of being able to feel the environment. Some people have different preferences. In extreme cases, some people might even think that touching bark on a tree is painful. This is why there is a definite possibility that developers will have an option to adjust the pain you feel.
And I'm unsure how it will work, but the pain will probably just be an impulse sent to your brain. No physical harm will come to the player...

Quote from "emilemil1" »

Exactly, that is what I am saying. You will never become too scared.

When were you ever saying that you will never become too scared? You were arguing that playing horror games in virtual reality would be a bad idea because the player will become too scared. Now you're saying it won't be possible to become too scared? Which is it?

Quote from "emilemil1" »

They will be more realistic than dreams. And dreams are controlled by yourself, not by a computer. You can always wake up from a dream, but what if the game stopped every time you became too scared? Annoying much...

In the same way the pain you feel can be adjusted, I'm sure the scare factor of the game can also be adjusted. It's already being done today! They've threatened to turn down the gore levels of Diablo 3 right here in Australia. But I would rather have the gore levels at full throttle, because I know I can handle it. If the game is too scary for me when I try it out though, I can always get the fairies, princesses and unicorns version of Diablo 3. Just as I would be able to do in the virtual reality of Diablo *add a number bigger than 3 here*.

Quote from "emilemil1" »

You can not become deaf or blind from virtual reality... You are not looking at a screen or listening to a sound.

Oh thankyou, you've chosen to argue about one of the least important points I made. Once again, you're assuming you know how the mechanics of these virtual reality systems will work, which you obviously cannot.
Well of course you'll listen to a sound and see bright objects; but whether this is what your "surrogate" will see and hear or the actual you is yet to be determined, but in the same way, the feelings you would have from interacting with the environment will also be directed upon you or your gaming counterpart.

These systems wouldn't be produced if there was a clear possibility of death or other harmful effects to the player. There will obviously be safe-guards to still be able to play horror games (and every other game genre for that fact) without giving the player a scare of their lives, and Nacho_ijp has made a perfectly valid prediction to the solution of safety-guards.

As a side note: if playing these virtual reality games would be like having a dream, is it possible to be psychologically harmed by a scary event in the game? i.e. are there any long-term side effects to having a scary nightmare?
And of course, if you can't handle the scare, you won't buy the game!

Quote from "Jamoose" »

The bad thing about virtual reality is that it will be used by people for sexual urges...

Please elaborate
This would actually be a huge market. Yep, who wouldn't want it?
And if it becomes good enough to be mistaken for the real thing... welll... then it's a bad thing. Why bother trying to claim it IRL when they're waiting for you IVR (in virtual reality)?

Pain for the sake of being able to feel like you're there - just as virtual reality should be - not for the actual purpose of causing psychological or physical harm... I already said that the user would be able to control the amount of pain inflicted upon themselves. I even gave a rough estimate, 10-50% of the real thing. Of course access to "the real deal" type of pain would be restricted, so don't get your panties soiled over it.

The sense of touch/feeling has already been brought into the gaming community in an early, primitive form. Dual shock controllers anyone?

I would've compared Diablo 1 to Resident Evil in exactly the same way! Everyone that played Diablo back then (which I didn't have the privelege to) said that the Butcher was scary as hell. When I got the game to see what all the fuss was about, it failed.... it failed hard. I barely even twitched when the Butcher came running at me. And oh yes, the same people are now saying that the Butcher "used to be scary" when the graphics were amazing for its time etc.
Who says we won't become accustomed to virtual reality? Maybe you might have a heart attack now, but who knows how you would react to it in the future...

As for the game crashes that would cause intense pain to you, first of all, the pain setting wouldn't be high enough that you would be too uncomfortable to play with. Secondly, if when the virtual reality console did crash and the pain setting was neglected (if this would be even possible with future technologies) so the player would feel continuous and grueling pain; what is to say the same thing can't happen for maybe, the sound, or the lighting? You could become deaf or blind in exactly the same way.
So I really don't think discussing flaws in the hardware mechanics is a good use of ones time right now. Especially when this tech doesn't even exist yet.

Quote from "emilemil1" »

Hmm, yes it might be scary when a siege breaker breaks out of a wall and charges you But I think that dying would just equal the screen turning black. It would obviously not include real pain

I've sat down and thought about the future of gaming technology once, and virtual reality was the main candidate. The #1 appealing factor for me was that it could and hopefully would make the player feel pain when they're hit. Of course, there would be a pain gauge that you can set like 10-50% the pain of the real thing actually happening, depending on your preferences.
Take the pain away after being hit, and thhat entire sense of feeling will be gone and you've lost touch with the virtual reality. You need SOME pain, even if it's small...

Oh and as for virtual reality being too scary: are you kidding me? There are so many players out there scrambling for a good new horror game. Was resident evil a failure because it could make you nearly shit your pants?

Quote from "Dauroth" »

I would really like to see the Sin War as a new storyline, even though it happened before the original Diablo Trilogy!

That is an awesome idea!!!

If you look at berserker - whirlwind, you'll notice it says max rank 1 but then for rank 1 = 25% wep dmg, and rank 2 = 30% wep dmg. If the max rank is 1, why would it add what rank 2 gives?

I like the idea of max 1 ranks though. Leap attack in particular, only 1 point is needed to get it, and then damage is increased through increased strength rather than more points in leap attack. Love it. (Unless I'm making a mistake thinking that ranks are just like adding skill points in the skill)

Juggernaut FTW!!!

Quote from "VodevilX" »

Who would start right away with a hardocre char doesn't even knowing the game yet?

Me, for one.

I want that feeling of not knowing. I've never been, but think about a soldier in war. They'd be shitting themselves since they're on hardcore and don't know the place either. I want that same shitting feeling

I seriously thought "the cruncher" was meant to mean when you mash the keyboard in frustration
but this other stuff.... weird...

I'd pay whatever my mum's wallet has to offer. Credits cards galore + a penny or two.