It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Good morning to everybody!
I've just decided to register to this forum (been lurking for quite some time tbh) cause I wanted to discuss with you guys about certain topics regarding "hypothetical" MMO features. Don't get me wrong: I'm not a developer nor a publisher, just a game lover (both online and single players) that started a discussion on the subject with a friend, and wanted to hear some thoughts and opinions about the matters we discussed.
I don't want this to be a "Describe your perfect MMO" thread that goes on an on, deep into details, just limit the discussion on certain "generic" aspects bit by bit.
My friend and me have always been fascinated about sandbox-styles online games, but always had trouble enjoying what the marked had offered us in the last years (often for a lack of refinement) and we're also mildly hyped about the titles that should be released in the future.
One thing that we've come to believe is that in the end we're talking about GAMES: despite how much cool a deep and complete fantasy life simulator would sound, the fact that very few people would be able to play it for a 10+ hours a day creates the need for semplification, becoming more enjoyable for a wider audience. This is the reason we're not excited for a game like Chronicles of Elyria: assuming that everything promised by the devs would be implemented funtuonally (and that's a long shot) the overcomplexity of the product might result in lack of enjoyment for most people that might be interested in finding a Sandbox MMO.
Apart for these initial considerations, I want to introduce 2 subjects of discussion:
Players shaping and running the world
The main focus of a sandbox MMO should be player interaction (between them and with the environment): the purest form for this approach can be found in the "survival" genre, where everything is demanded to player creations with almost zero pre-existent structure.
This approach has certainly its plus, but flaws as well:
- You can't (as a game master) control the world development and make sure that your games stays funny without derailing.
- If everybody spawn naked on a beach like other survivals, for the first wave of players in the early hours the game experience can be totally different compared to what people might experience after few months.
- It's always hard to balance fun, variety, time and technological progression: if you think about human history, before civilization reached a point that you could consider "suitable for playing" (technology, political system, warfare, let's say ancient Greece level) millennias had passed. I feel that most survivals do the technological advancement in a really fast and odd way, but if you slow it down too much the game could become pretty boring.
- All survival games are played in small servers with just several dozens of players: this shows that probably, for some reasons, on large numbers the system bring further complications that I can't imagine yet.
What are your thoughts about the subject? Do you think that the all player-driven, naked-on-the-beach approach of the survival games is the right starring point? What would you do to improve the systems we already see on the market, adapting it for an MMORPG?
Or do you belive that there should be some sort of pre-existing backbone made of NPC organizations? Something that could coexist with a player driven system and eventually being taken over by them?
World division
Everybody has his own playstile, objectives, activity that enjoys or dislike: an RPG should be all about choyes, but when we talk about "massive" an excess of choices and freedom might end up constantly spoling the fun for a big part of the player base, driving them away and starting a chain reaction that will cause the game to eventually die. Some games use separate small servers with different rulesets and features and leave to the players the job of finding the "shard" that's right for them: I personally dislike this approach in a game that wants to be "massive":
- Servers with small population are more prone to become underpopulated, merging afterward doesn't seem like a smooth option.
- The game experience is maimed for anybody who's not a purist: a lot of players (myself included) like variety and might want to try out different approaches, without the need of making a new character on a new shard
Imho, a game like Crowfall (on paper) seems to handle this aspect pretty well: IIRC you have different worlds (that are similar to "game modes") with different targets of players regarding hardcoreness, risk appetite, playstile, group sizes etc. And somebody can switch between "modes" with a certain degree of freedom (I believe there are certain sort of limitations)
What do you think about this subject?
Comments
There are sandbox game which have NPCs (Minecraft, Terraria, Fable, Grand Theft Auto...) but those are usually absolutely terrible excuses for NPCs which are more like robots than people. Skyrim has pretty decent NPCs but they do suffer from a bit of design schizophrenia where some NPCs are unkillable, and whole locations where NPCs are exterminated get repopulated too fast. So Skyrim's NPCs might make a decent design starting point, but those problematic aspects would have to be rethought a bit when designing NPCs for use in a multiplayer sandbox game.
As far as NPC factions being able to be taken over by players, I'd b absolutely opposed to that. Kind of for the same reason that I think stone age or tribal cultures are perfectly suitable for playing - politics is pretty gross, and I'd like a game world that minimized it; and player-politics is 10x worse than NPC/lore politics, so I really wouldn't want to enable or encourage players to do political garbage in a sandbox game.
Kind of unrelated to the above, but I want to suggest that you think about the possibility of a world map where new terrain can be inserted mid-game between two squares or hexes of existing terrain. Or in a game which is made of may islands or worlds, it's even easier to add new ones. And for the same reason, the newbie spawn point can move so that it's always in relatively fresh empty territory. Or there can be a tutorial island where players cannot build houses, where players complete tutorials before joining the main game world where they can build.
I agree that a certain degree of PvE content is needed, doesn't need to be vast like a traditional Themepark, but should definitely be something that's available and enjoyable.
You can do things in a slightly less thoughtful way (without overcomplicating) and achieve an higher degree on enjoyment.
You could put a layer of hunting wild animals with decent AI (beginning with unharmful creatures that don't let you approach and slaughter them, feral beasts that moves and hunts in packs, rare creatures that must be tracked down).
Some NPC "chaotic" faction (like savages) that can launch small scale attacks from time to time to provide additional challenges and spice things up
Some nice old school dungeon, with puzzle / traps etc. It is a very difficult aspect to develop, cause you have to balance the feeling of being "unique" and not something istanced that can be played by 300 people over and over, but you can't have their position known and turned into a brothel with random people that come in and out.
About "taking over the npc backbone": I wasn't talking about controlling the faction and using it to make war with 2000 NPC army and destroy half the game world: what I'd like to avoid is the necessity for everybody to spawn naked on a beach: with an "NPC backbone" (I'm talking about outposts with guards, shops, products available for the market) you can let people choose to start their adventure in a more "civilized" envirorment,: if you want to become a master weaponsmither and you start naked on a beach, it feels incredibly odd being able to start your own forgery out of nowhere after few hours of gameplay. Much better (for a player who already knows what he wants to do) and realistic would be giving the choice to spawn in an NPC town where there's an NPC weaponsmith able to teach you the basics of the crafting, so later on you could go outside and open your shop in another area being completely independent, or maybe "take over" (more ranking up) in the NPC faction and become a "bigger part" of the system (without being able to replace it completely)
PvE for most sandbox players is just a lame thing that should be limited as much as possible, but they see it this way only because they're used to a type of PvE that's not good for a sandbox. NPC and players are complementary, not every NPC must be dumb and not every real player is a great addition to the game!
How would you guys implement a more "dungeon-like" type of content?
The idea of having them "public" in the world map is not great IMHO: for start, you get a risk of having the entire dungeon zerged by players and turned into a PvP fest. Second, if you make them "non repeatable" (once explored by the first group / solo players, the dungeon is "expired") you need to add a lot of game areas filled with these "dungeons" on a weekly basis: that's a lot of work. If you make them "instanced" you can chill out more as a developer, but it's a static and conservative approach.
I have a couple ideas on the subject, but I'd like to hear what you guys think!
For me the attraction of MMOs is participating in virtual fantasy world that is interesting and both challenging and comfortable but it has to feel legitimate while I'm in the game. Immersion in rich lore and events is a prerequisite for me and I get that much more from NPCs than I do from other players who these days, are all about meta gaming if not outright trolling.
Sandboxes were an interesting concept 20 years ago when MMOs were populated by a majority that shared an interest in making the fantasy world work. But that time is long gone and now there are just as many if not more people playing MMOs whose idea of fun of building the tallest and most phallic looking tower for yuks.
Nothing will make me turn away faster from an MMO these days than hearing it described as a "sandbox" despite the fact that I enjoyed the more sandy aspects of many MMOs 15-20 years ago.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
My own favoured option is a thempark in MMO bread sandwich. You do the meat, the themepark and can then go out into the wastelands for the sandbox and build a community. Huge ask I know, you can but dream.
-5 know that they want a classical themepark.
-2 think they'd like an hardcore sandbox game run entirely by players, with no quest, full loot, wars etc. They don't really know what they want, after few hours they quit and go back to a themepark.
-2 think like the previous 2, they could really enjoy several sandbox features and more freedom, but find sandboxes on the market to be unrefined and with an unbalanced design (I place myself in this category)
-1 is the hardcore sandbox fan
Basically, I like a lot of "sandbox" features, but dislike how other players would use those same features. A true "sandbox" places no limitations and I can't play in a multiplayer game like that.
That "sandpark" or "themebox" sandwich sounds mighty delicious to me
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
The world is a "circle", at the very center there's a "safe" starting area developed by friendly NPCs (I can't get over the idea of starting naked on a beach, better offering a traditional start and then, eventually, offering a possibility to go Robinson Crusoe in a later moment, if someone likes the style). All outside the starting area there is wildland, harsh conditions, organized hostile NPC faction (like orks with keeps, blockades, towers etc).
At first there's a PvE "warfare" part, you help your allied NPC faction taking over a piece of the enemy territory (and here you have dynamic quests given by NPCs like burn that tower, defend this spot, assist us in this siege etc).
After this first part a "perimeter" is established around the area you've conquered and players can begin to do more sandbox things (housing, gathering, trading etc) with still some allied NPC presence. While time is passing, the area becomes more and more "friendly", not ever becoming "safe" like the starting area and always offering PvE options. At the same time, the allied faction will keep expanding in hostile territories.
At any time you'll have a chance to choose between playing "big" scale PvE contents in the hostile territories, play softer "small" scale PvE in the areas that have been already conquered (tracking down a special creature, doing a "dungeon") and do sandbox activity according to your risk appetite:
-areas that are closer to the starting zone would be more tamed and safer, good option when you want to just plant some vegetables and build a small cottage.
-areas farther to the center (and freshly conquered) will be more dangerous, most suited for people that like risk. Every area has new resource and valuable stuff, if you want a chance to get them you have to move quick while the situation is still "hot" and enter competitions with other players (small scale PvP, Pk etc)
I've read about Ryzom ecosystem feature before, that's a fine example of doing something "basic" with care and giving a new level of depth to your game!
Full freedom online is even worse, cause somebody WILL mess up your game experience: I'm still interested in seeing a proper MMORPG that steers away from a classical themepark, offering more freedom without becoming like those survivals.
In the end you guys are probably right: If you want full freedom you need less people playing with you (so not so massive) and forget about a lot of PvE content, then you're looking for a survival.
"Sandpark" should be the way to go, thread name has changed!
Key is separation: you can't put very different players in a cauldron and apply the same type of rules to everybody, but taking them apart in a way that's too strict (like having multiple small population servers) reduces interactions way to much and spread the population too tin.
An approach similar to Crowfall or one I described in the previous page would be a good starting point
For example making deer run faster than players should be easy. Giving deer a dection radiuses for sound and sight should be easy. Giving player a noise creation and visibility radius should be easy. A guy clanking in bright plate makes more noise and more visible.
Maybe hunting comes down to waiting and camo.
"The gazelle noticed me from at least twenty feet away and then ran faster than I could chase it down in my rusty plate!!!!!????!!!!!"
This is why I very much like the idea of a dynamic sandbox, that has several layers of "life". This is also somewhat EQNext inspired, with a higher focus on pve sandbox than pvp driven conflict, such that conflicts become more of supporting various world factions - from two farmers who fight over land, to entire kingdoms or religions in conflict.
First by having as much systems and mechanics as possible in place to ensure that the world is ever changing and that players can not break the intentions of the game. These has to be continuously corrected by the developer as patches, and that means the developer has to be in touch of what happens in their game to be able to react fast enough (this also has the side effect of a developer that "listens" to its players much more, which is vital in a mmo).
Second, and this goes hand in hand with being in touch with the game and applying fast development cycles. The game needs a staff of GM (not your petition/police type of GM) to constantly watch the game, and make small adjustments to things that are getting out of control. What out of control means is that of course players should be given the freedom to influence the world so it maintains its dynamic sandbox nature, but are pulling it in a direction that will ruin the game experience and fun factor. This could be to add one time events and rewards to encourage players, or it could be to twitch power ratios of factions or create new conflicts between factions, or simply spawn more bears, or stop excessive wood growth.
These GM's must have tools and work tightly with development for this to work.
The last is that the world needs to be dynamic on a large scale. This is where story comes in, and GODS (vision holders, authors) form the direction and background story of the world. New lands, new gods or religions, and all that which is usually in expansions, GW2 calls it living story which is a good name for it. We don't want quest-stories in a sandbox, the players are supposed to form their own stories from their actions in game and interactions with other players.
The "living story" needs to be a faster iteration than a normal mmo and should be able to change with how the world is evolving - Players are chaotic and awesome things may happen, and story writers need to be able to roll with that.
Probably sound jibberish, but in my mind it makes perfect sense
It is basically the developer embracing "dynamic" completely and letting emergent gameplay and chaos steer the direction of the game, while not loosing control.
Of course this requires completely different development than your usual mmo, it is no longer about creating content, but more about creating the tools, systems and design to allow for the game and world to evolve, which again causes tools, systems and design to change.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Easy example: a dragon is attacking an area, an evil NPC (that you spent time developing, with background/previous ecounters / voice acting / dialogues etc) is trying to kill the dragon to acquire a lot of power. The more RPG-like story part is choosing between killing the evil NPC (and figuring out another way to kill the dragon later) or helping the npc kill the dragon and acquire power (hoping you could befriend him later). In the open world, saving the dragon means more attacks from it, helping the npc means that he'll be the one attacking the area.
How do you implement the choice? If you leave the "choice" in the open world (so everybody can either stop or help the npc) you end up getting a pvp match (people that want to help him vs people that want to kill him) with ton of problems. If you make it istanced (allowing everybody to make their own choice and experience a decent PvE boss battle alone or with a group of friends) how do you decide which choise is "canon" for the world? If you allow just a single player (or a small group) to make the choice and influence the rest of the world, you're putting a lot of effort (character design, encounter design, several hours of work) for a piece of content that will be enjoyed by the 0,1% of your player base. I think it would be much easier to keep thing separated: the open dynamic pve content will remain relatively "shallow" as choices, storytelling etc, chain of events like Gw2 that can have multiple outcomes. Then you can add pieces of content (istanced or not, repeatable or not) that are "deeper" and similar to a regular theme park dungeon, but they have nearly zero impact on the open world.
Overall, though, sandboxes do give the most "feeling of freedom" one can get
Don't get me started with adding other kids, also known as players to the box. This is when freedoms truly go out the door, for one person's freedom stomps on other players' freedoms
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR