Re:Superheroes are not suitable for MMORPGs
on
Marvel Goes MMPORG
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Do people _really_ role-play in MMORPGs? I haven't played any, so I really don't know.
And as far as it being armies trying to capture a city, I'm imagining it being more like groups of heroes claiming sections of the server as under their protection.
Scattered throughout the server would be "objectives", basically areas that have missions that villians can undertake (I'd imagine there would be missions that heroes could undertake, too). If a villian or multiple villians initiate a mission, the heroes in that area are alerted, so they can rush over in their superheromobile.
A mission objective would be something like a bank, or a mayoral debate, and would have goals and scripted events. For example, the bank goal is to open the vault and get the money. A random scripted event might be a NPC having a heart attack. Thus the villians have to decide whether to let some of the hostages in the bank take him out, and it would make the heroes have to decide quickly what to do.
There could be lots of these objectives scattered around, and they could have a variety of scripted events and mission conditions... So that every time you rob the same bank, it's a bit different.
There could also be certain time-limited missions. For example, the newspaper (which could flash up every time you log on) might report that there are protests today against a uranium shipment that is going through town... Villians could then decide - hey, let's hijack it! And heroes might think, well, let's go there in case some villians show up.
As far as armies go - you could also encourage "caps" on the size of supergroups... An easy way would be to only allow so many heroes to claim one neigborhood as their own. This wouldn't effect the villians, but there are other things you could do... Such as only allowing so many people to communicate on a shared channel, or something. OR, simply only allow X number of PCs to gain "karma" from a mission or encounter...
I think average people will be NPCs... The players will probably have the ability to create their own character.
Re:Superheroes are not suitable for MMORPGs
on
Marvel Goes MMPORG
·
· Score: 1
To me, superhero comics are about heroes vs villians.
_IF_ they make this game in such a way that it emphasises the competition between the two camps, then it could be really cool.
The old marvel game did this my having "Karma" points. Heroes got postive karma for beating villians, saving people. They lost it when they did bad deeds, or hurt a civilian, or even if they killed a villian. Villians, reversely, got negative karma for bad deeds.
You could use your karma points at certain times... To perform a "special" stunt, or (I believe) to guarantee a dice roll would succeed.
I think this game could be fun, even without a great emphasis on leveling, if it was more like a big competition between heroes and villians, with some sub competition between teams on both sides.
I mean, look at online shooters - there is no leveling in those games, yet people are fiercely competitive.
I can totally see people banding together as superhero groups, claiming a city on a server as their turf, and trying to defend it. Villians would be the flip side fo this coin... moving from city to city on the server, trying to find areas that aren't as defended, so they can knock over banks or what not.
Re:Comic book setting not appropriate for an MMORP
on
Marvel Goes MMPORG
·
· Score: 1
Well, for one, there could be multiple cities on one server, of course.
And, two, hopefully they will allow players to be heroes AND villians.
I'm imagining a game where there are certain areas (hopefully many and varied) that villians can "rob". Each area would have it's own "mission objectives", and some scripted events as well. Gangs of villians could band together to try and knock over a bank, or steal some technology, or kidnap someone, or whatever. Then the heroes could be alerted, and have to try and stop them.
Sounds like fun to me.
Re:So the whole world is about to be blown up and.
on
Marvel Goes MMPORG
·
· Score: 1
I think that could be awesome, actually. Caveat - I've never played a MMORPG. But the idea that you can fail to save the world and the game keeps going is appealing. I'm imagining a scenario where the players fail to stop a villian from conquering the world, and then for the next few weeks/months they have to fight against his armies "guerilla style". There could be curfews and the police would suddenly be against all heroes.
If the villians are played by actual humans, instead of the computer, maybe even some of the villians could join forces with the heroes, because they realize that the "new world order" isn't good for the jewel-thief business, or they have a change of heart, or whatever. This way you could switch from being a villian to a hero, after the "revolution".
Actually, I've read that most superhero comics today are bought by adults. I have noticed the fact that they don't seem to have comic racks in drug and convienance stores any more, like when I was a kid. Apparently this is because kids don't read them very much anymore... weird.
I guess they'd rather spend their allowance on video games, which sort of makes sense... Comics are EXPENSIVE. For the price of 6 comics you can get a PS2 game (used, or from their "best sellers" line). The PS2 game you can play for many, many hours (depending on the game). A comic is at MOST fifteen minutes worth of entertainment.
Sorta sad, since I _LOVED_ comics when I was a kid.
Again, as I have said - it's LEGAL for the user to patch the software (at least I think it should be, though it probably violates the EULA), but ILLEGAL for the competitor to distribute the patch.
An on ethically questionable why should anyone have to duplicte the effort, if it's such a great tool why not use it. They could spend there time and money on Feeding the world instead.
Haha, what a great way to argue - they should do it my way so they can feed the starving millions! Nevermind whether they would use the effort saved to do anything of the sort... if that even mattered.
It's ethically questionable because IT'S NOT THEIRS.
You could save a lot of effort by using someone else's term paper, too, but I think you'd still get in trouble if caught, even if you used your extra time to volunteer at the local homeless shelter...
Well, your analogy is a little flawed, because a gasket doesn't alter the car. A software patch alters the software. If it were a separate program running on the computer, that acted as a bridge between the DVD drive and iDVD, without changing iDVD in any way, then it would be like a gasket. But their patch (as I understand it from the meaning of the word "patch") alters the iDVD program itself, which is a piece of copywritten software.
Also, it's illegal (as I understand it, and in the US) to distribute a tool to alter a copyrighted work in this way. It's not illegal to do it yourself, but it's illegal for the company to distribute the tool - especially since they are doing it for financial gain, and selling the tool.
Beyond all that, it's just a little ethically questionable. I mean, if OWC wants to sell their drives with DVD writing software, they should get off their ass and write one, or include one that's already out there. Others exist besides iDVD.
Very funny. By "make" I mean the dictionary definition of the term:
1. To cause to exist; to bring into being; to form; to produce; to frame; to fashion; to create.
To make it more clear for you : If you write a patch for software on your computer, I believe that's perfectly acceptable (though it probably depending on licenses, I would guess). It's probably even okay for you to apply a patch someone else wrote. However, a company _distributing_ this patch to alter the software of a competitor sounds very questionable to me, and I doubt is legal in this circumstances, under the DMCA or maybe even under other laws.
Assuming local copyright law allows me to patch it, I can modify it as I want legally.
Yes, _you_ can. But is their _competitor_ allowed to distribute this tool? I don't believe they are, this is what is the problem. The fact that a company is distributing software to alter to software of a competitor.
That's still illegal. It's not illegal (as I understand it) for YOU to patch iDVD to make it work for you (though it might violate the EULA, I don't know, I haven't read the EULA for iMovie), but it is illegal for you to distribute that patch.
To me, this is clear-cut. OWC didn't want to write their own software, so they simply made a tool to alter a competitors. That's not the right way to do business.
Other World Computing didn't circumvent a copy-protection scheme, it circumvented a business model. You know, like writing a Perl script for use with the freely distributed Cue Cat, or a Java program to administer an AirPort base station.
This would be true EXCEPT that, instead of packaging their competing product with a piece of DVD-writing software, they instead packaged it with a piece of software that altered their competitors software. If they had taken the time and written a their own software to burn DVDs, instead of cutting corners and lifting from a competitor, then they would not have gotten in trouble.
Pushing "I agree" to install a piece of software no more means that you agree than pushing "yes" means you're a wuss when exiting the game "DOOM".
Well, you could say that... but you'd be wrong (in the US and, I believe EU, anyway). In many countries these contracts have proved to be binding. That's why they are there, after all.
That has nothing to do with the rest of my comment, regardless.
iDVD is a free version of DVD studio. iDVD only works on Apple drives. DVD Studio works on any drive.
Apple gives away iDVD to anyone who buys a Mac with a superdrive. It only works with the superdrive. They also let people download it on their web site.
A competing company wrote a piece of software to alter iDVD to allow it to work with their competing product. They coincidentally distributed their software along with this competing product. I don't see why you everyone is so upset about this. This other company was COMPLETELY trying to make a buck off software they didn't write. They got busted for it, that's the end of it.
Everyone misses the fact that it's NOT (as I understand it) illegal for YOU to patch an iDVD install on your machine (though it's probably against the EULA), however it IS illegal for their competitor to distribute this patch (especially since they are distributing it with their competing product).
Slashdot Mirror
You are right about that. Unbelievable to me, at the age I was when it came on... (ten or twelve).
I remeber that one... Great episode.
Do people _really_ role-play in MMORPGs? I haven't played any, so I really don't know.
And as far as it being armies trying to capture a city, I'm imagining it being more like groups of heroes claiming sections of the server as under their protection.
Scattered throughout the server would be "objectives", basically areas that have missions that villians can undertake (I'd imagine there would be missions that heroes could undertake, too). If a villian or multiple villians initiate a mission, the heroes in that area are alerted, so they can rush over in their superheromobile.
A mission objective would be something like a bank, or a mayoral debate, and would have goals and scripted events. For example, the bank goal is to open the vault and get the money. A random scripted event might be a NPC having a heart attack. Thus the villians have to decide whether to let some of the hostages in the bank take him out, and it would make the heroes have to decide quickly what to do.
There could be lots of these objectives scattered around, and they could have a variety of scripted events and mission conditions... So that every time you rob the same bank, it's a bit different.
There could also be certain time-limited missions. For example, the newspaper (which could flash up every time you log on) might report that there are protests today against a uranium shipment that is going through town... Villians could then decide - hey, let's hijack it! And heroes might think, well, let's go there in case some villians show up.
As far as armies go - you could also encourage "caps" on the size of supergroups... An easy way would be to only allow so many heroes to claim one neigborhood as their own. This wouldn't effect the villians, but there are other things you could do... Such as only allowing so many people to communicate on a shared channel, or something. OR, simply only allow X number of PCs to gain "karma" from a mission or encounter...
I think average people will be NPCs... The players will probably have the ability to create their own character.
To me, superhero comics are about heroes vs villians.
_IF_ they make this game in such a way that it emphasises the competition between the two camps, then it could be really cool.
The old marvel game did this my having "Karma" points. Heroes got postive karma for beating villians, saving people. They lost it when they did bad deeds, or hurt a civilian, or even if they killed a villian. Villians, reversely, got negative karma for bad deeds.
You could use your karma points at certain times... To perform a "special" stunt, or (I believe) to guarantee a dice roll would succeed.
I think this game could be fun, even without a great emphasis on leveling, if it was more like a big competition between heroes and villians, with some sub competition between teams on both sides.
I mean, look at online shooters - there is no leveling in those games, yet people are fiercely competitive.
I can totally see people banding together as superhero groups, claiming a city on a server as their turf, and trying to defend it. Villians would be the flip side fo this coin... moving from city to city on the server, trying to find areas that aren't as defended, so they can knock over banks or what not.
Well, for one, there could be multiple cities on one server, of course.
And, two, hopefully they will allow players to be heroes AND villians.
I'm imagining a game where there are certain areas (hopefully many and varied) that villians can "rob". Each area would have it's own "mission objectives", and some scripted events as well. Gangs of villians could band together to try and knock over a bank, or steal some technology, or kidnap someone, or whatever. Then the heroes could be alerted, and have to try and stop them.
Sounds like fun to me.
I think that could be awesome, actually. Caveat - I've never played a MMORPG. But the idea that you can fail to save the world and the game keeps going is appealing. I'm imagining a scenario where the players fail to stop a villian from conquering the world, and then for the next few weeks/months they have to fight against his armies "guerilla style". There could be curfews and the police would suddenly be against all heroes.
If the villians are played by actual humans, instead of the computer, maybe even some of the villians could join forces with the heroes, because they realize that the "new world order" isn't good for the jewel-thief business, or they have a change of heart, or whatever. This way you could switch from being a villian to a hero, after the "revolution".
That'd be pretty fun.
Actually, I've read that most superhero comics today are bought by adults. I have noticed the fact that they don't seem to have comic racks in drug and convienance stores any more, like when I was a kid. Apparently this is because kids don't read them very much anymore... weird.
I guess they'd rather spend their allowance on video games, which sort of makes sense... Comics are EXPENSIVE. For the price of 6 comics you can get a PS2 game (used, or from their "best sellers" line). The PS2 game you can play for many, many hours (depending on the game). A comic is at MOST fifteen minutes worth of entertainment.
Sorta sad, since I _LOVED_ comics when I was a kid.
I take it you missed the nationwide uproar a few years back when schools added programs designed to address the "ebonics" issue?
[Hey guys... I forgot. Why am I running Linux again?]
I run Linux because it's much more stable with older hardware on my server that Windows was. Why do you?
Unless they have a solar panel, of course.
And, as others have mentioned, the efficiency of a power plant is higher than that of a lawnmower.
Incredibly rich?
I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm going to patent "a process by which you use a computer to perform a standard task."
I'll make billions.
Analogy? I believe it's illegal under the DMCA, and that doesn't require the license or any sort of mis-representation.
There are also cases going to court now about distributing modified copyrighted materials, so it would be interesting to see how that applies here.
I think it's only questionably legal. Not saying I agree with the law, but I don't think it is legal.
Again, as I have said - it's LEGAL for the user to patch the software (at least I think it should be, though it probably violates the EULA), but ILLEGAL for the competitor to distribute the patch.
An on ethically questionable why should anyone have to duplicte the effort, if it's such a great tool why not use it. They could spend there time and money on Feeding the world instead.
Haha, what a great way to argue - they should do it my way so they can feed the starving millions! Nevermind whether they would use the effort saved to do anything of the sort... if that even mattered.
It's ethically questionable because IT'S NOT THEIRS.
You could save a lot of effort by using someone else's term paper, too, but I think you'd still get in trouble if caught, even if you used your extra time to volunteer at the local homeless shelter...
Well, your analogy is a little flawed, because a gasket doesn't alter the car. A software patch alters the software. If it were a separate program running on the computer, that acted as a bridge between the DVD drive and iDVD, without changing iDVD in any way, then it would be like a gasket. But their patch (as I understand it from the meaning of the word "patch") alters the iDVD program itself, which is a piece of copywritten software.
Also, it's illegal (as I understand it, and in the US) to distribute a tool to alter a copyrighted work in this way. It's not illegal to do it yourself, but it's illegal for the company to distribute the tool - especially since they are doing it for financial gain, and selling the tool.
Beyond all that, it's just a little ethically questionable. I mean, if OWC wants to sell their drives with DVD writing software, they should get off their ass and write one, or include one that's already out there. Others exist besides iDVD.
Assuming local copyright law allows me to patch it, I can modify it as I want legally.
Yes, _you_ can. But is their _competitor_ allowed to distribute this tool? I don't believe they are, this is what is the problem. The fact that a company is distributing software to alter to software of a competitor.
That's still illegal. It's not illegal (as I understand it) for YOU to patch iDVD to make it work for you (though it might violate the EULA, I don't know, I haven't read the EULA for iMovie), but it is illegal for you to distribute that patch.
To me, this is clear-cut. OWC didn't want to write their own software, so they simply made a tool to alter a competitors. That's not the right way to do business.
Other World Computing didn't circumvent a copy-protection scheme, it circumvented a business model. You know, like writing a Perl script for use with the freely distributed Cue Cat, or a Java program to administer an AirPort base station.
This would be true EXCEPT that, instead of packaging their competing product with a piece of DVD-writing software, they instead packaged it with a piece of software that altered their competitors software. If they had taken the time and written a their own software to burn DVDs, instead of cutting corners and lifting from a competitor, then they would not have gotten in trouble.
Pushing "I agree" to install a piece of software no more means that you agree than pushing "yes" means you're a wuss when exiting the game "DOOM".
Well, you could say that... but you'd be wrong (in the US and, I believe EU, anyway). In many countries these contracts have proved to be binding. That's why they are there, after all.
That has nothing to do with the rest of my comment, regardless.
iDVD is a free version of DVD studio. iDVD only works on Apple drives. DVD Studio works on any drive.
Apple gives away iDVD to anyone who buys a Mac with a superdrive. It only works with the superdrive. They also let people download it on their web site.
A competing company wrote a piece of software to alter iDVD to allow it to work with their competing product. They coincidentally distributed their software along with this competing product. I don't see why you everyone is so upset about this. This other company was COMPLETELY trying to make a buck off software they didn't write. They got busted for it, that's the end of it.
Everyone misses the fact that it's NOT (as I understand it) illegal for YOU to patch an iDVD install on your machine (though it's probably against the EULA), however it IS illegal for their competitor to distribute this patch (especially since they are distributing it with their competing product).