Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsTREASON89'S PROFILE
Treason89
360
Close
Magister in Chemistry boy who just likes RPG, programming and making his ideas to become real!
Three Treason Theories 
3xT explores RPG theories about battles being a short recipe of puzzles, challenge and a pinch of humor.
3xT explores RPG theories about battles being a short recipe of puzzles, challenge and a pinch of humor.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
MakerScore question about game rating
Excuse me, I really don't know if this topic comes here. I've just been thinking about it and I wanted to ask, why low rated games give MORE Makerscore than unrated games?
Say for example a game that is good but has not been reviewed. Makerscore of it will be low until somebody reviews it. That may not be a main issue, but if 10 persons review 4.0 for a complete game, the game still gives 510 MS and not 5100 MS. So after a game has been review once there is no reward for the developer, unless the new review changes the game MS in a positive way. That may discourage people to review already reviewed games if their rating doesn't produce a significant change in the overall score.
On the other hand imagine a terrible game, so maybe somebody reviews it for 0.5. but MS still rises from 15 to 37 in a complete game. Twice the MS for a very bad game? Isn't MS a measure of the contribution of the developer for the community?
I've just been wondering about this and wanted to ask it. If I'm being irrational or obnoxious I beg your forgiveness beforehand (please, let me know). I just want to understand and maybe, if it gives place, promote an idea or a positive change.
Say for example a game that is good but has not been reviewed. Makerscore of it will be low until somebody reviews it. That may not be a main issue, but if 10 persons review 4.0 for a complete game, the game still gives 510 MS and not 5100 MS. So after a game has been review once there is no reward for the developer, unless the new review changes the game MS in a positive way. That may discourage people to review already reviewed games if their rating doesn't produce a significant change in the overall score.
On the other hand imagine a terrible game, so maybe somebody reviews it for 0.5. but MS still rises from 15 to 37 in a complete game. Twice the MS for a very bad game? Isn't MS a measure of the contribution of the developer for the community?
I've just been wondering about this and wanted to ask it. If I'm being irrational or obnoxious I beg your forgiveness beforehand (please, let me know). I just want to understand and maybe, if it gives place, promote an idea or a positive change.
Fundamental RPGology Thread
Formulas would be easy... I think, because as it's a system that manages the system, aftes the rules of the rules are written, the universe of possibilities opens. As roulette and gear system both are cyclic, trigonometric functions would be the easier way. Which makes me wonder if the most recent makers can handle such functions (in scripts or so).
What if WE do? I've seen sparks of collaborative projects here, and I think that the most valuable product we could produce, as a group of people disscusing about RPGology stuff, is an actual game with our ideas working for good.
author=karins_soulkeeper
Now, if someone would just turn this into a game...
What if WE do? I've seen sparks of collaborative projects here, and I think that the most valuable product we could produce, as a group of people disscusing about RPGology stuff, is an actual game with our ideas working for good.
Fundamental RPGology Thread
author=TungerManU
pauueq? smojje?
Sorry, "banned" and "arrows". If the gears are spinning they may be downwards sometimes... looking that way :)
Fundamental RPGology Thread
That's a very creative concept! I'm not very tecnical (I have enough of it in my job) so excuse my vagueness. (And while I was writing this two post came in! so much movement jeje)
I just wonder... what would make the difference (using Hasvers example just to stretch this a bit) of changing the rule "swords attack" to "swords heal" of using holy/moon/vampire (or whatever) element into a weapon (like SD3 sabers)? At some point using magic and defeating the bad guy is breaking the rules... As I said before, just a stretched interpretation.
About an idea to make it work... Well it isn't like gods answers are immediate... and rules changing every turn would be a mess up (I think) and wouldn't give enough time to change stances as all the time the rules are being changed. Just after reading last NeverSilent comment a gear system came into my mind.
Just think about it: the player is god-like and can manipulate rules. Say, for attack (like swords heal) it would need two gears. A gear for objects (swords, axes, arrows, etc) and for effects (heal, attack, double attack, banned, etc). The player would need to move those gears so that the pins that have the words match, and they would move slow so that the effect would take a couple of turns to take place, then the need to think beforehand. Attached to those gears you could have another two or three uncontrollable gears. So... lets say player moves to match the pins"swords" and "heal" but the other gears move and, in other part of the gears the pins "arrows" and "fire" match. That would be great if you have an archer... or terrible if your enemy is an archer.
You may say "oh but that is so random! No strategy there" Well... probably. As the gears can have different number of pins they may be able to move at different velocities, hence not giving the same effects always OR you can spin the gears around and around until you get exactly the same setup. That would take more time but it would still be possible to reproduce a certain setup. Just a math game.
As I think my performance explaining may not be the best, I attach a little mock-up drawing of the system proposed above. Player controls BLUE gear and the GREEN gears move accordingly:
So pins "sword heal", "arrow fire" and "earth double" are matched. Accordingly swords would be curative, arrows would be covered in fire and earth magic would be more effective.
I just wonder... what would make the difference (using Hasvers example just to stretch this a bit) of changing the rule "swords attack" to "swords heal" of using holy/moon/vampire (or whatever) element into a weapon (like SD3 sabers)? At some point using magic and defeating the bad guy is breaking the rules... As I said before, just a stretched interpretation.
About an idea to make it work... Well it isn't like gods answers are immediate... and rules changing every turn would be a mess up (I think) and wouldn't give enough time to change stances as all the time the rules are being changed. Just after reading last NeverSilent comment a gear system came into my mind.
Just think about it: the player is god-like and can manipulate rules. Say, for attack (like swords heal) it would need two gears. A gear for objects (swords, axes, arrows, etc) and for effects (heal, attack, double attack, banned, etc). The player would need to move those gears so that the pins that have the words match, and they would move slow so that the effect would take a couple of turns to take place, then the need to think beforehand. Attached to those gears you could have another two or three uncontrollable gears. So... lets say player moves to match the pins"swords" and "heal" but the other gears move and, in other part of the gears the pins "arrows" and "fire" match. That would be great if you have an archer... or terrible if your enemy is an archer.
You may say "oh but that is so random! No strategy there" Well... probably. As the gears can have different number of pins they may be able to move at different velocities, hence not giving the same effects always OR you can spin the gears around and around until you get exactly the same setup. That would take more time but it would still be possible to reproduce a certain setup. Just a math game.
As I think my performance explaining may not be the best, I attach a little mock-up drawing of the system proposed above. Player controls BLUE gear and the GREEN gears move accordingly:
So pins "sword heal", "arrow fire" and "earth double" are matched. Accordingly swords would be curative, arrows would be covered in fire and earth magic would be more effective.
Fundamental RPGology Thread
Never Silent, wouldn't that end in "movement spamming"? Say, you have a character that has healing properties with items... Wouldn't you just use it for item healing? That just remembered me the Medic ability from FFVIII (where a lot of rule breaking as you propose it also exist)... which is a very nice entry but is, in fact, very dissapointing about character handling. As I see it, at the very end, only three characters would have done nicely, as the "characters" really are the junction combinations that the player uses or finds more suitable.
I get your idea... but probably if it was be more like a process it would be nicer, or more strategic... Like the need for at least two character interactions to make a good move (I think that was Azalathemad bull's-eye, right?) Something like that Medic ability is a buff, and not a passive ability.
I get your idea... but probably if it was be more like a process it would be nicer, or more strategic... Like the need for at least two character interactions to make a good move (I think that was Azalathemad bull's-eye, right?) Something like that Medic ability is a buff, and not a passive ability.
Fundamental RPGology Thread
Thanks to the judges, and other participants, for your opinions. All of them, positive or negative points of view, direct or funny comments, will definetely help me to go better!
Of course, as I said before, congratulations to Azalathemad for the gold! Also kudos for Aegix and Never Silent for reaching the podium! Gotta learn from you, guys.
About Hasvers question, I may just say my perception. I hope not to offend the judges, nor the winners or anybody. I see that the most appreciated systems are not only the most simple ones, but also the most similar ones to already existent and accepted systems. That even applies to the Almadana part of my entry. I think we (all) already have very strong ideas anchored in our minds, making creative thinking somehow difficult. It's to praise that there is people trying to break the pot, but I wonder how far we really are from the traditional systems.
I would highlight judges attention, as they were usually very aware of what was going on, and near to the participants. As the contest had also a lot in wide and height, being a very broad topic, a lot of different interpretations arose. That can be seen easily in all the different entries. So probably for further discussion about RPGology, why not focusing on an specific topic (we had four in this contest, as I understand it, the three rationales plus minimalism).
Thank you Hasvers for the main idea. Please go on with RPGology. I think that "continuous contest" isn't a good idea, but with this kind of discussion is always better do-and-see than write-and-answer. Ideas are great when floating but when a "game" (or entry or whatever) has to be done with those ideas is when their real potential can be seen and evaluated.
Of course, as I said before, congratulations to Azalathemad for the gold! Also kudos for Aegix and Never Silent for reaching the podium! Gotta learn from you, guys.
About Hasvers question, I may just say my perception. I hope not to offend the judges, nor the winners or anybody. I see that the most appreciated systems are not only the most simple ones, but also the most similar ones to already existent and accepted systems. That even applies to the Almadana part of my entry. I think we (all) already have very strong ideas anchored in our minds, making creative thinking somehow difficult. It's to praise that there is people trying to break the pot, but I wonder how far we really are from the traditional systems.
I would highlight judges attention, as they were usually very aware of what was going on, and near to the participants. As the contest had also a lot in wide and height, being a very broad topic, a lot of different interpretations arose. That can be seen easily in all the different entries. So probably for further discussion about RPGology, why not focusing on an specific topic (we had four in this contest, as I understand it, the three rationales plus minimalism).
Thank you Hasvers for the main idea. Please go on with RPGology. I think that "continuous contest" isn't a good idea, but with this kind of discussion is always better do-and-see than write-and-answer. Ideas are great when floating but when a "game" (or entry or whatever) has to be done with those ideas is when their real potential can be seen and evaluated.
Fundamental RPGology Thread
Well, passing by to say that I was amazed by Azalathemad entry. It was so, unexpected. I saw many good comments about it and after playing it I would highlight the weapon swapping (leaves me thinking) and the "I can do my move on everybody" (pretty interesting).
Crystalgate, thank you very much for your thoughts about my entry. I'll use them to improve as much as I can.
Crystalgate, thank you very much for your thoughts about my entry. I'll use them to improve as much as I can.
Fundamental RPGology Thread
This is just an experiment for you and for us, so public would be alright. If I made a mistake public exposure would also help other developers to avoid it. So yeah, go ahead, and congratulations beforehan to the winner! :)
Fundamental RPGology Thread
Thank you Never Silent. You too Kylaila and Yellow Magic. As I said in the game page, I'm afraid I just focused on the raw idea and not in a good implementation. Your feedback is always welcome as I can improve and maybe with those upgrades I can do a real good game!
Thank you all! By the way, just talking about the ideas in these games and implementation. Which ideas do you think would make it into a game? For example, Aegix idea is really nice, but I don't know how easy would it be to do all that AI's for each enemy (or groups of enemies that interact).
The Campaing system would also do a pretty fun game. As I see, Azalathemad is also thinking about it. I haven't played that entry but I'll go for it soon!
Thank you all! By the way, just talking about the ideas in these games and implementation. Which ideas do you think would make it into a game? For example, Aegix idea is really nice, but I don't know how easy would it be to do all that AI's for each enemy (or groups of enemies that interact).
The Campaing system would also do a pretty fun game. As I see, Azalathemad is also thinking about it. I haven't played that entry but I'll go for it soon!
Three Treason Theories
Thank you very much for yout comments. I know there are a lot of things to improve, and that I probably could have done better (time to start learning programming for more freedom, really!)
I recognize that the implementation of the ideas is quite poor, but as the contest was about the ideas itself I tried to showcase that, just the plain ideas. Now I realize even more of my mistakes, but the experiment was still cool, and getting feedback gets me better everyday, right?
I had thought about it very vaguely... but after you said it I think that now I have the events and so... It would be pretty easy and fun game... don't have to be long, and I can redeem myself of what I done wrong in this entry! Wait for it now. I'll start working on it soon! Thanks Yellow Magic!
I recognize that the implementation of the ideas is quite poor, but as the contest was about the ideas itself I tried to showcase that, just the plain ideas. Now I realize even more of my mistakes, but the experiment was still cool, and getting feedback gets me better everyday, right?
author=Yellow Magic
...were you to implement this in an actual game. It'd make a pretty cool one-off fight, that's for sure.
I had thought about it very vaguely... but after you said it I think that now I have the events and so... It would be pretty easy and fun game... don't have to be long, and I can redeem myself of what I done wrong in this entry! Wait for it now. I'll start working on it soon! Thanks Yellow Magic!
Games - Tester
Games - Other
