Online games?

[mopsy]

What kind of online games does everyone play? I currently play americas army (FPS) Maple Story (MMORPG) Conquerer II (MMORPG) Fate (RPG) and Diablo II LOD.

Looking for new games as a couple of these (pokes maplestory) get boring.

[Mikrondel]

I've come to the conclusion that I really don't have time for online games. LAN games with friends are as far as I go, and usually I don't even go that far.

However, I have an idea for a sort of coders' game.

In nearly every MORPG, using bots and scripts and the like is against the rules.

Now here's my idea: a game whose entire essence is writing scripts.

A game which players make, rather than play. Nothing comes from nowhere. Food must be grown. Players build their own cities (while first stone and wood must be quarried and cut), form their own governments, distribute their own currencies. Players can also be monsters and inhabit dungeons, or make quests for others to do. And most of this would be done with scripts.

How does that sound?

[mopsy]

That would be an awesome game but the code would be (assuming my understanding of this and other languages is fairly accurate) insanely difficult to write.

For somthing like that, if I found it when it first started out I would shell out a monthly fee which is for the most part against my religion. I'll do a one time fee but monthly ones are a nono.

[earlofqb]

I play:

Red Faction
America's Army (every now and then)
PartyPoker, or any other poker client (not too often)

Anymore, however, I haven't been playing too many games. I used to play them constantly, but anymore I can't really be bothered. I at least know the cause of some of them:

Netrek and Stellar Frontier both had their servers go down in the past year (can't play them anymore).
I'm a complete n00b to AA, and haven't had the time to practice with it (stupid thing requires you to be online so you can even play the SP mode).
I don't have money to spend on poker, and the free ones are always full of idiots who think highly of themselves.
I haven't played RF because I arg at it. Bloody Zilah and her pwnage of me in front of my clan (wasn't polite of her to deface the clan leader in front of everyone, then pwn me in front of them. You may remember my story about how our clan pwnd the frag^4 clan. Well, after that, Zilah thought that she'd be better off leading her own clan. I didn't really fight it, but wanted to have a final battle. Well, it was there that I lost with a score of 300 (Zilah) to 50 (me). Mine were all collateral damage (n00bs watching the battle who accidentally joined the server) ).

Anyway, back on topic:

That game would be great, but wouldn't you just be able to write it all by giving them all Python and providing a central server to host their mods (which is pretty much all they'd do. They'd get a list of game properties, and using a scripting language they'd modify them to create their world).

As far as paying for games: I never pay for a game. If I can't get it for free (or burned for me by a friend), I pretty much won't play it. If there's a monthly fee, I definately won't play it.

Mikrondel: Have you ever seen Nation States ? Its this online game where you build your own country and stuff. Sure, it isn't exactly script-based (just plug and chug numbers into fields), however it could give you some ideas on what to put in your game. As far as I know, I haven't found a single game that is more detailed in running your own country.

[Mikrondel]

Nation States? That thing was OK for a very short period of time. It's much too limited for me.

And it's nothing like what I'm thinking of.

Your other idea with the Python and the server is also vaguely similar. But I don't think that much freedom ought to be given, and it's a bit too disconnected from the actual game. And neither do I like Python.

My vision is more of a kind of tile-based game, where you can be any out of, say, 8 characters. On the side, you write scripts that you can apply to any of them. Alternatively you can just move around and talk, trade, read, attack, and your usual stuff. Plus a bit more.

Characters without active scripts will just stand around if you log out.

Or something. My train of thought just derailed into a tarpit.

[earlofqb]

So, it would be like a standard MMORPG, except that you have the option of writing your own advanced scripts to accomplish difficult tasks. Ie:

Eating, sleeping, moving and talking are all available.

You write your own scripts (which will be tested before use, to prevent damage to the game) to do the rest (ie plant/harvest food, build stuff, etc). Further, your scripts could influence the character's abilities (ie you write enough scripts to increase their strength or skill rating in something).

Intriguing, but I'm not sure how many people would want to learn a scripting language to play a game (programmers might love it, but as evidenced here, we're too busy). Despite your hatred of Python, it might be the most practical, as it would be easiest for beginners to pick up and get working on the advanced parts of their game.

[mopsy]

The game would have to be backed by some bigname company like Blizzard or Sony for anyone other than avid programers to look at it. And with the majority of people I know it would absolutley HAVE to be simple.

Or maybe have a simple version and a more complex version. Or two different servers. One for the simple stuff and one for the complicated one.

Which means that a new language would have to be made. Which wont happen from one of them unless they saw huge profits.

[Ildûrest]

No, Earl, I think you still have it wrong.
The scripts don't modify the game. They just use the actions you can normally do. (-Give or take a few.)
They're not all-powerful or anything of that sort. I'm sure many people would learn it if the game was interesting.


Sorry, what did you just say, dear mopsy? Don't you know that most computer users would never even try something related to programming?

Moreover I want to make this an open source thing.
I think anyone should be able to run a server of this and adapt it as they want. The coding wouldn't be all that complex to learn.

Anyway, most people who actually know their way about computers will be able to find out about this, if it turns out to be any good. And those are the kinds of people who I expect would like to, and should, play it.

[earlofqb]

I read an interesting article that says that gamers are getting more interested in this sort of thing.

Of course, I don't really think they'd appreciate scripting for less-than-common events. However, I suppose this could be likened to using macros (which are insanely popular in gaming). Instead of drilling through a list of players to do something with, the user would simply script it once, and run it whenever needed.

Aye, writing macros is fun. Netrek was a great game that hosted a myriad macros (as well as user-defined ones). It had a pre-set system of them, as well as a simple "language" to write your own in. Unfortunately, such a great game was pulled only a few months ago, and I'll miss the fun of writing macros for it.

Also, mopsy does have a valid point. Although programming is inherantly simple (remember the vast attempts to make everyone learn BASIC back in the late 80s/early 90s?), most people actually couldn't be bothered learning it. Fortunately, that's where we come in at. There's a reason that a good programmer can make 80,000 usd a year, despite the fact that almost anyone who put the time in to learn the language could code the stuff themselves. I love how lazy humanity is (not really, I just like this aspect of it; where I steal their money for writing simple stuff).

[Mikrondel]

Sorry Earl, I disagree. Most people just don't have minds built for programming.

I've seen people who put in heaps of work to try to learn to program, but still fail.

Good programmers tend to be people who think logically about everything and can handle heavy reductionism and recursion. No surprise that they often find it hard to socialise, as they just don't think the same way as most poeple.

Recently I discovered two good examples of how I'm logical to the extreme. UNIX-like. Very.
In short, a process I often do, I did as always, without thinking about other processes that may be affected. And this caused a problem, which is why I noticed this.

I think the majority of people are more "illogical" this way, that is that processes that are *technically* independent are still allowed to relate to each other.

[earlofqb]

True, I'd forgotten that (mostly because there's this new rush with C# that's been starting, and everyone throws propoganda out to "prove" morons can do anything if they try. Its suddenly thought that since C# is simple and powerful, it can be taught to the general masses).

I've been known to do things without thinking of the consequences. This is applicable to everyone, however I suppose that programmers are most guilty because we're supposed to know the consequences of our actions before we do it (you wouldn't write code without a good idea of what its supposed to do. So, society decided to expand this into everything else programmers touch).

Anyway, as your example was non-specific, I won't venture further and risk making a great fool of myself (rf to "programmers are supposed to know consequences" :up).

[Ildûrest]

Ok, I'll open up on one of them: I was teaching someone something on the computer.

When teaching I like to have all the information I need. So when I'm missing some information, I switch over to my "get information" routine. Which involves initialisation (get control of the computer - a process which would then involve kicking the person I'm teaching off), then hunting down the info as normal. Once I've got it, back to the calling process (i.e. back to teaching)

I've realised that kicking someone off, zipping through a few things, and then letting them back, without saying a word about what I'm doing, is not a good strategy when teaching them something.

And I've learnt things from teachers who knew less than me. Anyway, that's one of my experiences.

[Homeloaf]

I have dial up. There's no high-speed here. No good games I can play. Waaaanhhh!!!

[mopsy]

you could play runescape or somthing. Nevermind. Don't play runescape. You're brain will rot. It's bad.

[earlofqb]

I'm on dialup. Every one of the games I listed (with the possible exception of AA. I haven't played that online yet) is dialup-compatable.

The thing about teaching is true even for myself. If I'm not actually doing the work, I'll often be pointing "randomly" (well, I know what I'm pointing at, but I don't explain it so they know) and telling "cryptic" key press manuevers (ctrl + alt + delete is supposedly cryptic).

Now that I know where you're coming from, I think its because as programmers, we're used to doing things hands-on. Teaching isn't really something that computers are situated for anyway (even in my own CS (for lack of better term. They were comp classes in HS) classes, the teacher would often remotely control the PC or employ the "point and preach" (listed above). So, either computers are extremely difficult to teach, or every teacher I have is incompetent.

[Ildûrest]

Every teacher you have is incompetent. Just sometimes you find good teachers. Just sometimes.

I think I'm OK at it myself, but it's far from what it could be.
I usually veer off topic a little, for example by explaining the history of something, and I think this helps to make it interesting as well as making it easier to remember.

[earlofqb]

Yep, they are pretty incompetent, and that's only 10% joke. After thinking about it some last night, I realized that I've taught myself more about their subjects than they've ever taught me. No matter what subject it is, I learn more if I just read the book at my own pace than if I sit through a lecture. Well, at least I'll have an easy transition for college (where you do nothing but self-teach. Profs are to reinforce whatever you don't get after 6 hours of reading).

I too like to explain the history of something, although I fear I segue into trying to look smarter than I am. Still, if you have information, it is best to share it with everyone (9/10 times), than to keep it hidden forever.