Kylotan
Let me first say that so far you are the only person to really debate these issues with me and we may just get to the point where was have a differenace of opinion. Anyways, to my counter to your post =)

I give you Quake was a bad example. Quake is considerably more graphic intensive and requires considerable reaction speed (otherwise known as twitch reflexes) and thus a very fast connection is ideal. But Quake doesn''t support 2000+ players at one time in a game either. And for that reason MMORPGs use less graphic intensive engines (or have in the past) and divide areas by zones. Both of which reduce lag and processor burden. But as I''m sure you are aware, future MMORPGs do not use zones (hell I believe EQ was the only one) and they are becoming comperable to FPS''s in graphical quality (ie Horizons). I also give you that people enjoy MMORPGs because it allows them to do something that Quake can''t. But I don''t agree that it is because they don''t have to have as fast a connection, or at least that it won''t be that way for long.
I think you confuse what I''m saying as commentary on current MMORPGs (though I do use them as examples since I can''t really use a game as an example that doesn''t exist) when in reality I''m giving my opinion (which is widely agreed with) as to the course and future of MMORPGs.

I agree entirely that people will not buy a processor to buy only one game (as to where MY game came from, I''m not quite sure where you got that ). Thus is the reason I don not play console games. There are maybe one or two games that I enjoy playing, but they aren''t worth forking over the bucks to buy the game and the entire console for that one game. But computer games are different. Most computer games that are released within a reasonable time frame of each other support similar system requirements. Thus purchasing a system would support all of those games, and as the technology increased, slowlyt become obsoleite, whereas you would either upgrade or buy an entire new system. But that was not my point, as I still think you are hung up on the misconception that I''m saying that if you spent 1k on a very fast system thay I think they should spend 1k on the fastest connection they can find. I''m not going to repeat myself so inlight of what I just said please reread my 2 previous posts dealing with this issue.

I think you misinterrupt what I mean by playable speed. I once cranked up the graphics of a FPS (namely Unreal) on a P1 233 to see if I could support it. It ran like a lead brick, every 30 seconds the frame would change. That is what a MMORPG is like with high lag. Once again I believe you may think I am referring to current MMORPGs. I know that a 56k connection (even a 33.6) can run current MMORPGs surprisingly well. Though I run off a DSL my friend runs off a 33.6 and the difference is only really noticable when there are several other players around us (sometimes it gets so bad then that he looses his connection entirely, but as you said...not really grounds for upgrading to a very expensive very fast connection for something that doesn''t happen very often). A 56k won''t cut it in future MMORPGs however. But that doesn''t mean you will have to spend an arm and a leg to get a faster connection as you seem to think. I currently get my ISP and DSL for $20 a month. If you are willing to spend 10 for the game I think you might be willing to spend another 10 (only DSL, not including ISP which I assume you are already payig for) to play the game with as few latency problems as possible, but I may be wrong.

Note: I took no offense in what you said =)
Actually I was recently informed what a MUSH was. As I understand it, it is basically another name for a MUD (perhaps slightly different). Though, I admit, I have never played a MUD I do know quite a bit about their mechanics and "philossphy" through discussion with other players. But, I do not think MUDs (or MUSHs) can relate at all to current MMORPGs, and thus a poor basis for comparison. Most MUDs consisted of a player base of around 30 players (not anywhere near 2000+ on 20+ servers, ie EQ...though a gamecurrently in dev will not have sperate servers so, assuming all player s from EQ went straigh to that game, a single server would be hosting 40000+ players) and most were textual or minor, 2D, low-res graphics. Thus, beyond that fact that they''re set in similar worlds (ie magic, dragons, warriors, thieves, etc...basically fantasy) they have very little in common. But if I do not know what I am talking about please inform me (especially if it pertains to my "philosophy") so that I may grow and expand, and I really mean that.

I know what you are saying, and I really wish it were true. But you are comparing MUDs where its easy to get a player base that wants roleplay in a game not specifically designed for roleplaying. Let me use your example, the table, though not designed for roleplaying can easily be made into that with you and a few of your friends deciding it and making it so. That is an easy to control player base. Now take that same example and place it in a schools cafeteria. 30+ tables, all not designed for roleplaying, but do you think because you and your friends want to roleplay that you can convince\force all the other people sitting at those tables to do that same?

Just out of curiosity, do you have any online roleplaying experience outside of MUDs, MUSHs, etc? If so which games? (I think this might provide an interesting basis for comparison)

Amarok Windburn

Well, people in multiplayer games like to fight each other. It''s a neat way to test out how comparitively good they are. In UO, for example, you''re healthy until you are dead, but that doesn''t matter because you just come back to life. In a permadeath game, though, you''d have to have fights to first blood, submission or unconsciousness be easy alternatives to to the death.

Well hang on a second, would be out of the question to give the character a sole for the purpose of suppling a way that the player can some how have their character killed off but at the same time keep their character. Doesn''t this make sence. The xp that they gain in life is temporary XP and when they die it gets added to their sole. Sole XP is called permanent XP. This way your character is progressing on two levels at once.

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!