[3] Defining player liberty

The first choice is how easy it is to add new things in the game. Total liberty is cool, because if I want a new hat for my avatar, I just have to create one, and, abracadabra, I can use it. The bad part is that some children will use it to show off with avatar that have enormous genital organs. My opinion about this question is that big nude dicks are just a small inconvenience compared with the benefit that anyone can add its own graphics and the children will be quickly banned from serious community.

Another question is how easy it is to add some new area. We can design a multiverse where every body can add its new world that can contradict the other, or do we make strict rules in the aim to have a unique and consistent world?

[4] Leveling and grinding?

Does the game involve a leveling process or not? Personally, I can not find any good reason to include a leveling process with xp in the game. But I should be an exception because so much game is based on leveling. Thus, there should have some fun on the leveling process.

However there is several advantages to not implement a leveling process. First newcomer do not need to spend six months killing zombies before being able to play with high level character. The other is everything about cheating and bot to leveling quickly will pose no problem.

Personally I am for creating a social game without character levels or need to farm resources for a long time but to find new way to play a MMORPG.

[5] How about graphics?

[6] Centralized or distributed servers?

This is a tough question. Should we must centralized everything on few expensive servers or do we build a peer-to-peer game.

Every body understand the notion of a server that control everything, so I am going to explain the distributed programming concept and related questions.

The aim of distributed computing is to distribute task between several computers. For example, when you chat, every message is send to a server that forwards them to the other players. The server is a bottleneck: if it is not quick enough, it has effect on everybody. In a distributed solution, you do not send the message to a server but you send it directly to the players.
advantage:
- no server bandwidth is necessary for the chat system because the server does not receive or send any message.
- if A say something to B, the program can send each character separately when A is typing its message. Thus B does not have to wait that A types "enter" to read what A is saying. This is possible because without server, ther e is less need to limit the bandwidth consumption.
problem:
- it is easy to know the address IP of someone.
- the server can not censure messages

Another point is about monsters. With a centralized server, the server manages every monster. So, big computers are needed because if there is lot of players, then there is lot of monsters that are fighting.
In a distributed version, the administrator can tell which computer control the monster. So important one can be managed by the server to avoid cheating, when small ones are controlled by the player computer (exactly like when you play mono-player games) or controlled by another player computer.

Woah wait a sec, go back to the 2d python game.
If you can provide the right 2d game engine and in-game editor I'd be ready to produce all the animations and assets for you and i know plenty of others i could drag in to the mix too.

What we would require is a game platform with an in-built editor. the more flexible, the more content we can provide.
Essentially what would be ideal is a customisable "camera" ala. most point'n'click adventure games but taken a step further.
For example you're in the overworld, it could be isometric, enter the bar near by, it switches to a point of view from the corner of the room, you go up the stairs it switches to a side view that pans when you come close to the edge. etc. etc.

Now the reason i suggest an in-game editor is my friends would be all over this if they would work on an area at the same time, not necessarily the same room, but have little sessions where they can chat, check what changes or progress some one else has made and even contribute assets to a particular scene some one else worked on. Pretty much, a wiki but 2d. =P

How ever the one thing that'd probably be a good idea is at some point allow for 3d characters, with those changing viewpoints some world builders would probably want it.

So, yeah? Up side to this whole thing is 2d is a lot easier to pick up than 3d, and it only takes me an hour to speed paint an environment. By providing flexibility people could produce many different styles of games and instead of forcing to produce specific things like an object at this angle, have fun approaching it how ever they want. =)

Not to mention you'd get lots of attention for being the first of it's kind, scripting for puzzles etc. would also be pretty important but with the promise of easy content creation you could expect exploration and mystery to keep people pretty darn busy while the project progresses.

Are we defining a world or a framework for multiple worlds

Allowing client side decisions is a bad idea. The server designer should always assume the client has been haked.

As I see it, this group has a good ideas. If something is going to happened we
need some key decisions makers & project leader ( section ). In my opinion
KrYoS, Han seams to be the right kind of people to lead the development
of this future project.

Maybe we should consider to act and make a vote ?

I think that many of us want's this, to take one steep further...and make
something of this before it falls down to nothing.

Strong leadership is indeed the most dire thing needed. Without that, the reins on those below may easily get out of hand, and then who knows what could happen. A vote on leadership may be a good thing, but then it could be a bad thing as well. As more often than not, votes are usually a popularity contest in this sort of thing, and not necessarily a contest of who is more qualified or capable. So I can't really condone using a vote for that reason alone.

I’d go for the roundtable solution for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this whole thing is still too new to have a feel for who is competent and who are the leaders and who are the passionate people who consistently step in and guide things when the forums die down. Secondly, while a strong leader can keep the ship afloat after it has been at sea for a while, a consensus approach might be needed to get going. A would-be leader can easily alienate the rest of the team if they have not yet established credibility. If our goals are not too deep and we aim at the broadest solution possible, the consensus approach may be suitable.