If you only want a niche MMO with a small population, full loot and corpse runs are on the table, but I would imagine that is going to appeal to a very small subset of MMO players. That may not be an issue, there seem to be players out there looking for these sorts of MMOs.
As a PvP fan (I doubt I would play a MOO without it), I really think you are wrong about associating those who do not want full loot with those who do not want PvP. We have gone over this many times on here and discussed many systems we have seen, but I have never seen anything that will not make full loot a turn off. It is simply not needed as a death penalty.
Full Loot: Not for it, but your idea sounds at least feasible to me. If I spend days camping an item, I'm not playing a game where someone can kill me for it in seconds.
Reward: This should be comparable to risk. There should be places that "not everyone" will get to.
Itemization: I'm not sure what you mean here. Cash shops? Weapons/armor? "Things" in the world? "Things" for you character?
Death Penalty: I wish more MMOs had one. One has to be careful, though. Too harsh and players won't want to "risk" it. Yet when the "death penalty" can be used as a form of fast travel, something is wrong. EQ1 had a system I could live with, though it was not perfect. It took an inordinate amount of time to gain back lost XP after dieing. I actually liked the corpse runs, and that made some classes valuable to others by finding corpses, while sometimes encouraging social interactions in the game.
By itemization i mean "how much the equipment would impact the game, how to acquire or lose it" and stuff like that.
One principle must be set: It's too hardcore (and we don't want that) to make people working to hard toward certain "elements" (cause they're important and give big advantages) that can be easily strippen away. This must be true for both items and buildings: only a small percentage of players would be able to avoid ragequitting after putting incredible amount of efforts on designing and building their home (or guild hall, or shop, something that matters and you could not realistically make overnight) and seing all destroyed by random guys, maybe while you're offline. You don't necessarely need full loot, especially if you use the "approach number 4" from the previous pages (almost everything is tied to meaningful PvPvE dynamic event advanced systems, you don't really do many skirmishes just to loot somebody's sword) but if you want to use a more sandbox approach (on the line of #2 and #3) i think full loot shouldn't be dismissed right away. If you think about a 1vs1 "random" fight and you just come up with a penalty for the looser and almost nothing for the winner, you would face an unwanted lack of initiative in that compartment: you need to put something on the table for the winner of a fight. If items were all relatively cheap and close in performance, you might come up with a question like "how do you push crafters to better themselves, if there's not much difference in performance between a regular sword and a good one?" I have an idea for that: a good sword maker doesn't try to improve himself to make harder/better/faster/stronger swords,he seek to improve the production method (wasting less materials, riducing the chances of failures) becoming able to win the market by having lower prices.
It's all really interconnected, isn't it?
If "items" are game changers, and one has to "camp" an item, full loot sucks, big time. But if "items" are just ordinary everyday items, then full loot makes sense to me. I guess my rule of thumb would be... "If I can replace the items as fast I lost them, awesomesauce!"
For crafting, make it deep enough where certain materials from specific places make better "items" than average, ordinary materials. These could be a lot of different things to make an item (weapon/armor) better than just normal. Maybe ore from near a volcano area gives a little fire resistance? Maybe only a certain grade of ore can be enchanted? Or make the refinement process itself a major aspect of crafting, similar to the folding of steel?
Production waste is a good idea, too. The better a crafter becomes, the less waste they produce, thus less basic materials needed. Just remember that many crafters won't need too much incentive to craft, though making it worthwhile is always a good idea to me
I have to admit that this is tough for me theorycraft. I'm not a PvP'er it's hard for me to think like one
- 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
@Scot after thinking more about it, in a game with approach #4 you could skip full loot, at least in the "main game mode" (we already talked about separation of content). In the approach #4 you heavily rely on PvPvE dynamic event system, I'd say to develop it at its finest to cover everything possible, then simply take out the chance to gank random strangers. I think you need to implement at least equipment deterioration, otherwise crafting and economy would stagnate (for this reason, even without full loot you don't want to make an heavily item based game). I still believe that, if we're taking full loot out, you should add a more immediate reward for every player that successfully menage to kill another player in a fight, on top of personal satisfaction / not facing death penalty / contributing to your "side" in the event. Any idea about that? I think it should be somehow connected to character progression (which we haven't discussed yet) but I can't come up with something. Be noted that, while in the end the gameplay should come first, I really want to find a way to do things that looks "realistic".
@Scot after thinking more about it, in a game with approach #4 you could skip full loot, at least in the "main game mode" (we already talked about separation of content). In the approach #4 you heavily rely on PvPvE dynamic event system, I'd say to develop it at its finest to cover everything possible, then simply take out the chance to gank random strangers. I think you need to implement at least equipment deterioration, otherwise crafting and economy would stagnate (for this reason, even without full loot you don't want to make an heavily item based game). I still believe that, if we're taking full loot out, you should add a more immediate reward for every player that successfully menage to kill another player in a fight, on top of personal satisfaction / not facing death penalty / contributing to your "side" in the event. Any idea about that? I think it should be somehow connected to character progression (which we haven't discussed yet) but I can't come up with something. Be noted that, while in the end the gameplay should come first, I really want to find a way to do things that looks "realistic".
Death penalty is a tricky one, we have gone in the history of MMOs, from corpse runs to barely noticing it happened. There has to be a better balance, I would favour player downtime, the more deaths you rack up the more of a penalty you get. You have to go to a downtime area like an inn and spend some time there, various activates would speed up getting rid of the penalty. As a roleplayer this really appeals to me.
Another one is the faction penalty, usually associated with fighting over zones of control. It may not be player specific, but if you side is doing badly so are you...don't throw your life away but do get involved in pvp.
You're talking about death penalty (that must certainly be discussed) but I wanted to hear ideas on how to reward the single successful kill for a player, if you don't get a chance to loot the corpse of the defeat.
For a pve player, items are tied to feeling of accomplishment. This means the effort and skill put into obtaining an item corrosponds to the value of that item, so the best items require a lot of tme and effort to obtain. This is what drives a pve player, and the competetive plane of the pve player is comparison of achievements, often measured in realised items, mounts, house, guild, titles. Loosing any such item, you had to spend days getting, to full loot is a complete no-go for a pve player. This also kindda explains why most pve players don't really want free pvp. Free pvp is not regarded as a rewarding challenge in the long run; it just become a non-fun part of the game standing in the way of what you really want to do.
Since I am not a pvp'er other than I find it fun occasionally and in controlled environment, arena fight, battleground, 3v3 sort of stuff, I can only comment from observations. It is pretty clear that pvp players don't play for the same reasons, at least not to a very high degree. Pvp players look to be challenged by entities that are unpredictable; tbh, I find players in-combat actions highly predictable after awhile anyways, but I guess the game around the actual combat is the point. Pve players fun joy in outsmarting, surviving and optimizing the environment (what the game set up) which is considered skill; while pvp players see this as repetitive and boring - Even if it is AI controlled so it becomes more unpredictable it will never be "true" in the mind of a pvp player (this is my interpretation, and I could be wrong).
For a pvp focused game, it can work really well with items having less value and be replaceable with lesser effort, because the real game is not about obtaining the items but about using them. Therefore full loot and even full craftable (err items all come from crafting process) would work in a pvp mmo. However, even in a pvp mmo, as it become more advanced and items become more valuable, this design also starts to fail. You would probably want to transfer power value from items onto systems and character feats.
The point is, pve players and pvp players will never understand eachother on an emotional and driving level, only from a technical view. You can bend a mmo to be a little more inviting to the opposite, but it will alway be either a pvp mmo or a pve mmo.. At least it seem impossible to make both great, and no one has ever succeeded yet so.. Some think that only a pvp mmo can be sandbox, some think that a sandbox has to contain player destructable/modifyable landscape .. It is all misconceptions. A sandbox is not defined by players having direct incluence on the world, but can also be in form of indrect influences and governed by AI and response systems, AND the changes does not have to be physical - As long as what players do, has an effect on the world in some way, it is a sandbox.
You're talking about death penalty (that must certainly be discussed) but I wanted to hear ideas on how to reward the single successful kill for a player, if you don't get a chance to loot the corpse of the defeat.
Karma system in UO for ex , i always thought was nice way to reward either side of the coin , earning Titles that involved PVe and PVP were very proudly displayed for ex...
The Glorious Lord Scorch Legendary Archer
The Nefarious Dread Lord Aries
Along with the different Tiers of titles it would be a nice touch i think if Cosmetics could be purchased and used associated with each Tier .. Including weapon Skins/ Mounts/Clothing/House Deco(like Banners)... Of course , dying lowers the Karma/Fame title and you would lose the privlige of showing off said Title and cosmetic rewards until you regained that Tier of Fame/Karma ..
So this system causes players to strive for success in PVP and PVE to retain these titles and items ...
Also the Fame/Karma does detoriate so sitting idle will also lose those titles/items continued participation is required...The detoration does not happen over nite , it actually takes a while ..(like weeks ) to lose a title/item
An heavily equip based sandpark should be a no go imho, even without full loot. If somebody wants the vertical progression and the ever increasing gear, he should look for traditional themepark. The key of a more "appealing" full loot system is, as we both hinted, to lower the importance of it and all the "rewards" that are associated with PvE activity (slay the rare creature, reach the end of a dungeon etc) will no longer be 1000 gold coins or the hypersword of the God, but perks / power upgrades that won't be stripped away all together upon your death. As I said, if we use approach #4 that you suggested at first, we could easily avoid adding full loot (also fits better with the hypothetical average player of the game imho). But I firmly believe you still have to introduce a reward system (ideally, something "logical") for a successful killing.
The old exp and level system doesn't fit and need to be surpassed imho, you can have the classical "training skills by using them " and work with it to add a reward for a player that was able to defeat another one, but that's not "logical" (so not my first choice). Why delivering 3 sword blows should make your swordmanship level more of the opponent dies, but less if he somehow menages to get away? That's odd. You can still work with magic and stuff if you use a fantasy setting, to achieve both gameplay functionality and retain a certain logic. For example, if you kill somebody you could maybe "absorb" part of his soul or some crap like that (wathever the use of it might be).
Full Loot: Not for it, but your idea sounds at least feasible to me. If I spend days camping an item, I'm not playing a game where someone can kill me for it in seconds.
Reward: This should be comparable to risk. There should be places that "not everyone" will get to.
Itemization: I'm not sure what you mean here. Cash shops? Weapons/armor? "Things" in the world? "Things" for you character?
Death Penalty: I wish more MMOs had one. One has to be careful, though. Too harsh and players won't want to "risk" it. Yet when the "death penalty" can be used as a form of fast travel, something is wrong. EQ1 had a system I could live with, though it was not perfect. It took an inordinate amount of time to gain back lost XP after dieing. I actually liked the corpse runs, and that made some classes valuable to others by finding corpses, while sometimes encouraging social interactions in the game.
By itemization i mean "how much the equipment would impact the game, how to acquire or lose it" and stuff like that.
One principle must be set: It's too hardcore (and we don't want that) to make people working to hard toward certain "elements" (cause they're important and give big advantages) that can be easily strippen away. This must be true for both items and buildings: only a small percentage of players would be able to avoid ragequitting after putting incredible amount of efforts on designing and building their home (or guild hall, or shop, something that matters and you could not realistically make overnight) and seing all destroyed by random guys, maybe while you're offline. You don't necessarely need full loot, especially if you use the "approach number 4" from the previous pages (almost everything is tied to meaningful PvPvE dynamic event advanced systems, you don't really do many skirmishes just to loot somebody's sword) but if you want to use a more sandbox approach (on the line of #2 and #3) i think full loot shouldn't be dismissed right away. If you think about a 1vs1 "random" fight and you just come up with a penalty for the looser and almost nothing for the winner, you would face an unwanted lack of initiative in that compartment: you need to put something on the table for the winner of a fight. If items were all relatively cheap and close in performance, you might come up with a question like "how do you push crafters to better themselves, if there's not much difference in performance between a regular sword and a good one?" I have an idea for that: a good sword maker doesn't try to improve himself to make harder/better/faster/stronger swords,he seek to improve the production method (wasting less materials, riducing the chances of failures) becoming able to win the market by having lower prices.
It's all really interconnected, isn't it?
If "items" are game changers, and one has to "camp" an item, full loot sucks, big time. But if "items" are just ordinary everyday items, then full loot makes sense to me. I guess my rule of thumb would be... "If I can replace the items as fast I lost them, awesomesauce!"
For crafting, make it deep enough where certain materials from specific places make better "items" than average, ordinary materials. These could be a lot of different things to make an item (weapon/armor) better than just normal. Maybe ore from near a volcano area gives a little fire resistance? Maybe only a certain grade of ore can be enchanted? Or make the refinement process itself a major aspect of crafting, similar to the folding of steel?
Production waste is a good idea, too. The better a crafter becomes, the less waste they produce, thus less basic materials needed. Just remember that many crafters won't need too much incentive to craft, though making it worthwhile is always a good idea to me
I have to admit that this is tough for me theorycraft. I'm not a PvP'er it's hard for me to think like one
You basically just used Gathering Crafting system of Ultima Online , it runs abit deeper than this but the premise is UO
IMO somewhere between Ultima Onlines Gathering/Crafting/FullLootPVP and SWG Gathering/Crafting/PVP.... Is the perfect system
Everyting being discussed here has been done already in one the other or both ,altho both systems need tweaking and step into the 21st century , The basic ideas are there and work
They worked for a certain type of players, a lot of people here would't like to play a 2018 UO 2 for example. We're theory crafting on some sort of hybrid for those people who want to steer away from the classic WoW but don't want an hardcore sandbox. A pure sandbox is like moving to Belize and opening a bar on the beach and downshifting: a lot of people think about that when they get stressed at their office job, but most of them would come back after few months cause they missed the "old life".
There is also the question of just how many rewards a player should get? He could potential get levelling xp, pvp xp (some sort of pvp items can be bought etc), some gold, titles, faction and guild bonuses.
Now I know in most MMOs you don't get all that but you at least get a couple of rewards in every MMO I have played. I don't see why you need more.
You will get this it "makes the game feel more alive and dangerous" argument, but I am not sure there are many players who agree. Enough to fill one indie MMO that comes out with it yes, enough to fill two? I doubt it. Also long term by which I mean a few months in to no longer than a year it creates all sorts of issues that players may have originally been able to handle themselves before the servers start to turn sour. That's what happened in the open world PvP in AC and AoC.
I am not sure how many times you have to see or hear about it failing, two is enough for me.
@Scot are you answering to the guy who said to look back at UO and SWG?
More a general comment to your question:
"You're talking about death penalty (that must certainly be discussed) but I wanted to hear ideas on how to reward the single successful kill for a player, if you don't get a chance to loot the corpse of the defeat."
So there is some penalties and rewards, to me the penalty is a reward to the player who won because he knows his opponent is now suffering it.
Is it the actual process of taking some loot that you think is important, to me the player who wins is getting all sorts of rewards? I mentioned gold could be a reward, what about the game generating an item or two for the player to "loot"?
If you want a hybrid mmo you will have to solve the umpossible old problem: how to make pvp consensual without introducing "unnatural" gamey conditions. Area restricted pvp is wierd in open world, what logic would explain that ? Consent pvp (flag) is also wierd, and what would be the risk vs reward scheme ? Karma is not a great solution either, at least for a pve player there is not much difference between free pvp and karma driven pvp, you still get dragged into pvp you don't want to participate in.
It seem that the only hybrid a pve player would really accept is the event driven (area restricted, instanced or similar), meaning the mission type of pvp where there is a goal and pvp is the means to achieve it. Though that kind of pvp may not be acceptable for the hardcore pvp mmo player, as it is lacks that personal direct influence. I wonder if there are more softcore pvp players ? If there are, they are not very loud.
If you want a hybrid mmo you will have to solve the umpossible old problem: how to make pvp consensual without introducing "unnatural" gamey conditions. Area restricted pvp is wierd in open world, what logic would explain that ? Consent pvp (flag) is also wierd, and what would be the risk vs reward scheme ? Karma is not a great solution either, at least for a pve player there is not much difference between free pvp and karma driven pvp, you still get dragged into pvp you don't want to participate in.
It seem that the only hybrid a pve player would really accept is the event driven (area restricted, instanced or similar), meaning the mission type of pvp where there is a goal and pvp is the means to achieve it. Though that kind of pvp may not be acceptable for the hardcore pvp mmo player, as it is lacks that personal direct influence. I wonder if there are more softcore pvp players ? If there are, they are not very loud.
It's not an impossible problem at all. Simply do what Blizzard is now doing(really what they've done in the past with their servers). Group pvpers who want to pvp together, leave everyone else out of it. Blizzard achieved this with their servers previously, but they also had some of the other things like flagging and area restricted pvp(though after a certain level that went away).
Now, they're even doing away with the server clumping and simply letting people talk to an npc in their capital city to opt in for pvp or not and pvpers will be grouped together regardless what server they're on which means a lot more owpvp will be on the table again, especially for low pop pvp servers.
PvErs who played on pvp servers to play with friends no longer have to worry about it anymore since they don't have to opt in for pvp if they don't want to anymore. Or, they could go the route GW2 went which is perfectly acceptable I think.
@Scot are you answering to the guy who said to look back at UO and SWG?
More a general comment to your question:
"You're talking about death penalty (that must certainly be discussed) but I wanted to hear ideas on how to reward the single successful kill for a player, if you don't get a chance to loot the corpse of the defeat."
So there is some penalties and rewards, to me the penalty is a reward to the player who won because he knows his opponent is now suffering it.
Is it the actual process of taking some loot that you think is important, to me the player who wins is getting all sorts of rewards? I mentioned gold could be a reward, what about the game generating an item or two for the player to "loot"?
Now I understand! I don't think the mere satisfaction from killing the other would be enough. As we said, with approach #4 there's zero pointless pvp in the game (at least in the "main mode") and you only get a chance to fight people inside a dynamic event. You could say that the only "reward" you should get by besting an opponent is pushing your "side" in the event one step closer to victory, but this has 2 flaws: 1) You'd need to wait for the end of the event to eventually see the fruit of your success. 2) If your side of the event fail, it looks illogical to recieve a reward even if you performed well
But you do want people to recieve a reward based on their effort even if their side loose the event, like in real life team sports: you do want to make your team win to benefit even more, but if you're the best player in the team you'll get paid more than the others at the end of the season.
I would then enstablish 3 levels of "reward" for playing: - character progression (skill training) that's not strictly linked to winning or loosing on either personal and "team" leve. Ofc if you die without landing a single blow you can't expect to improve like staying alive for 2 minutes and putting up a true fight. - event reward (I'm thinking mostly gold, but not only) that should be given only to the winning side. In the example we used before for the PvPvE event system (dragon cult vs villagers) I'd find odd for somebody who sided with the dragon cult to recieve a reward from them even when they loose and the whole cult get killed / disbanded. - personal reward for succesfull killling. If we don't want to add full loot or directly link the skill training to that, as you and me said, you should generate something for the winner to loot. Something "realistic" again, cause duplicating some looser's items and giving them to the killer is dumb. I imagined some sort of "soul currencty" that you might use on stuff, you need a fantasy setting for the game but the idea would look solid.
@kjempff you were the one wanting to see a "PvPvE" game, I really liked the idea (would probably be the most appealing to a larger audience) and that's why I'm exploring that path. Ofc you cannot avoid "gamey" solutions (like that word, I kept using "unrealistic" but "gamey" should be the right term) on certain aspects, even if you should try really hard to not abuse that: sandboxes are all about being the least gamey as possible. Flagging system is gamey as fuck AND would probably need more thinking and testing compared to any system we've ever seen in an MMO, but I can "see" the light at the end of the tunnel and i believe there's no other way
@Sephiroso ; that's not a bad idea, in the last 2 pages we were exploring the PvPvE approach suggested earlier, yours would be a GW2 on steroids!
I don't think the mere satisfaction from killing the other would be enough. As we said, with approach #4 there's zero pointless pvp in the game (at least in the "main mode") and you only get a chance to fight people inside a dynamic event. You could say that the only "reward" you should get by besting an opponent is pushing your "side" in the event one step closer to victory, but this has 2 flaws: 1) You'd need to wait for the end of the event to eventually see the fruit of your success. 2) If your side of the event fail, it looks illogical to recieve a reward even if you performed well
But you do want people to recieve a reward based on their effort even if their side loose the event, like in real life team sports: you do want to make your team win to benefit even more, but if you're the best player in the team you'll get paid more than the others at the end of the season.
I would then enstablish 3 levels of "reward" for playing: - character progression (skill training) that's not strictly linked to winning or loosing on either personal and "team" leve. Ofc if you die without landing a single blow you can't expect to improve like staying alive for 2 minutes and putting up a true fight. - event reward (I'm thinking mostly gold, but not only) that should be given only to the winning side. In the example we used before for the PvPvE event system (dragon cult vs villagers) I'd find odd for somebody who sided with the dragon cult to recieve a reward from them even when they loose and the whole cult get killed / disbanded. - personal reward for succesfull killling. If we don't want to add full loot or directly link the skill training to that, as you and me said, you should generate something for the winner to loot. Something "realistic" again, cause duplicating some looser's items and giving them to the killer is dumb. I imagined some sort of "soul currencty" that you might use on stuff, you need a fantasy setting for the game but the idea would look solid.
You could think of it that way. It is a traditional pvp player way of thinking, and it is def. a possibility to explore that. I would just mention that with my dragon event example you need to apply a different way of thinking, to understand the core of my thinking anyways
So the dragon event is a large scale event (possibly a chain) that can last for days or weeks. Within this dragon event, are parameters to move the event forward, and for example a pvp "mission" is one part of effecting this event.
The reward is not really directly the "mission" (except I guess loot, xp, faction/fame is included), but instead the reward is more long term and it what you get from supporting either the dragon or townsfolk. So say you and a lot of other dragon lovers succeed in helping the dragon "win" the event, you will get access to something valuable you need and can only get by befriending a dragon (this event is one of those ways). It will probably be a matter of dragon faction points in reality (for the sake of creating some game systems that works), but that is details. So the point is your reward is not your standard and instant type (kill something, loot, kill more, loot). You have to think about it as a living breathing world (sandbox), and the pvp you do in this world is just your way to effect the world.. you are not a special hero with direct effect on the world, you are just an entity living in the world trying to make a name for yourself (or whatever your preferences are.. some just want to build a house, others want to build a trade empire, others want to go out and adventure and kill monsters, others again want to pvp .. and of course a mix is most likely). Hope it makes more sense now You just have to think about it a little differently.
It maked sense even before, I just think that would satisfy less people. By combining the 2 type of rewards, you satisfy more players and don't get the other people angry (never heard anybody complaining about recieving more!)
They worked for a certain type of players, a lot of people here would't like to play a 2018 UO 2 for example. We're theory crafting on some sort of hybrid for those people who want to steer away from the classic WoW but don't want and hardcore sandbox. A pure sandbox is like moving to Belize and opening a bar on the beach and downshifting: a lot of people think about that when they get stressed at their office job, but most of them would come back after few months cause they missed the "old life".
A 2018 UO2 without trammel would be a failure just like UO back then ended failing because of the constant ganking.
I'm sure I would be able to run a "pure" sandbox on a personal level. This means, my server, my rules, and a limited amount of players. The asshats who camp lowbies without a valid RP reason (and NO, "I'm roleplaying Hannibal Lecter" is not a valid reason when 10 people are using it) are perma-banned quickly.
On the scale of a MMORPG? I don't see it ever working. FFA PvP means failure. Proved, over and over again. Because it automatically means PvP takes over the whole game.
But i think a 2018 UO with Trammel could work , UO to date still has more player activities than any other game out ..
Its still a great game but most are put off by the graphics and UI , or i think it would have a stronger pop now ..
An updated version with Trammel/Fel should work fine , The folks who are intimidated by the PvP mechainics can stay in the shallow end of the pool (Trammel) .. Venturing into the deepend if they choose on there own terms .. Those who want the Full Loot Pvp experience that UO delivers can stay in Fel the Deepend of the pool ... Or bounce over to Trammel to hang out with friends there for a more relax nite of PVe ..
And i know , some are going to say thats what broke the community , Ive been in UO for all 20 years , i dont believe that to be the entire story , with other games coming out at fast pace it made it easy to leave UO ,(games with better graphics and UI , the 2 biggest complaints of UO) I think players today would really welcome an Updated version as the PVE in UO is very good and Fel offers the blood pumping challenge of a real risk reward system..
But it will likely not happen anyway, not by EA , altho UO makes them a little money its not enough to justify the resources on an MMO to them , as an EA investor i have made the suggestion to others , and its quickly dismissed for obvious reasons ..
I think another FFAPVP could work as i agree there have been many half assed attmpts at and failures , but games like Eve and UO prove it can succeed ...and there are many other small niche games that are proving there is a market for this style , there are quite a few established niche titles and several up and coming ,several trying to simulate the UO experince still, along with dozens of private servers for UO SWG Lineage etc.. , This community is fragmented but worthy of a good game , it just needs to be done right ..
I'd like to ask a bit about crafting: in real life, the act of making something is crucial. In a game you cannot properly replicate the act of crafting (we should wait VR for that) so that opens up some questions. Would you introduce minigames to replicate real life skills (never seen this done right, do you know any example) or would you like to shift focus on knowing the raw material gathering the resources etc?
If you want a hybrid mmo you will have to solve the umpossible old problem: how to make pvp consensual without introducing "unnatural" gamey conditions. Area restricted pvp is wierd in open world, what logic would explain that ? Consent pvp (flag) is also wierd, and what would be the risk vs reward scheme ? Karma is not a great solution either, at least for a pve player there is not much difference between free pvp and karma driven pvp, you still get dragged into pvp you don't want to participate in.
It seem that the only hybrid a pve player would really accept is the event driven (area restricted, instanced or similar), meaning the mission type of pvp where there is a goal and pvp is the means to achieve it. Though that kind of pvp may not be acceptable for the hardcore pvp mmo player, as it is lacks that personal direct influence. I wonder if there are more softcore pvp players ? If there are, they are not very loud.
You are not the only one so far to talk about "realism", we have to remember this is a game, that comes first and foremost. But if you really need realism, I will make it real for you.
Area restricted PvP: MMOs are a "slice in time", they reflect events over a short period no more than several years, usually starting out as year one. Wars, even modern fast moving military campaigns have "theatres" where the war takes place. All that is happening here is the theatres are far smaller, and in a medieval world more suitable to the concept of a fantasy MMO they were far smaller. France and Germany had issues with Alsace-Lorraine over many years, that's was their pvp zone.
Consent: This is like declaring yourself as a privateer or becoming a pirate, highwayman or a band of rebels (guild), becoming a member of a great house (guild).
Karma: your concerns here seem to be about gameplay not realism. I have the same ones you do, but a work around could be found. Rewards and consequences from PvP and PvE need to be differentiated, that should be at the core of any such system.
From Chimborazo Crafting: The flow of that gameplay should be for crafters, not for players like me who have little interest in it. I would only say a game where you must craft is too realistic (many of us would get bored). More importantly how crafting relates to what you can buy and how the economy works are a foundation of success.
About the gathering part. Warframe introduced (with Eidolonj a really refreshing new take on the process of mining and fishing. It is sort of very short minigames with output result that depends on skill. With mining you have steer a drill to match a pattern of "ore" you only see while scanning. Fishing is a listening game where the direction of sound splashes tells you where the fish are, and then a precision game of casting at some dark shadows of the fish, which can be obstructed by ripples on the surface and light conditions. It should be tried hands on I think (not sure a youtube will express the feeling), but I think it is amazingly fun and progressive, and a shining example for mmos to learn from.
About crafting, EQ2 is still my favorite. The minigames could be improved with fun factor, but the basic ideas. They f..ked it up a bit, and the original version at launch was better. The key features to note and replicate in my opinion:
Skill based minigame (with a touch of luck on top) where your skill in the minigame resulted in different tiers of quality product, and you could fail (even a expensive recipe). Later they remoted the product quality factor in the name of simplicity (oh how many mmos this has ruined), but anyways I would suggest a variety in product quality, including subcomponents, so that crafting with sub-par components also has an effect on the max quality of the produced item (subtracting also the minigame mistakes). So a perfectly crafted sword is valuable because it requires both skill and luck to produce perfect subcomponents and the perfect final product too.
Also something they removed (another mistake) was that there were cross interdepence of subcomponents, so tradeskillers had to trade and form connections (gasp, socializing within the game systems) with other players. For example to make a sword with smithing you needed leather straps for the hilt (leatherworking).. and with a little imagination you could follow this idea longer for more advanced items.. Gemcutting and precious metalworks for ornamentations, alchemy for advanced curing.
The basic idea was that crafting should be an actual profession to have (it is strange but some types of players like doing rhis day in and day out). Crafting should be so advanced that players (with sane playing hour) should not really have the "time" to be both highly skilled crafters and endgame adventurers at the same time. This is one of the core ideas in my vision for an inclusive sandbox (sandpark, pvpve whatever you call it), that we want a variety of play styles to all be empowered and have importance because all the various roles are interconnected by game systems. Adventurers need gear, potions, services of all sorts. Crafters need components from the world (rare components may only drop from monster, or require high faction standing to buy), maybe protection services for transported goods (pve and/or pvp). Also hopefully emergent gameplay in form of new roles may appear from these.. Housebuilders, shipmakers, trade cooperations and specialized merchants, contracts for goods (player to player, deliver me x of y before tomorrow noon for some payment). Anyways I am starting to ramble again, but it was important to understand crafting as being more than just the process.
Didn't know that somebody actually made good minigames for crafting, thanks for sharing! I think we should definitely add that. VR support for minigames would be amazing, but we're not going down that path right now. I think we've discussed most things
Good procedural spawning combined with procedural questing, developer tools, GM tools is what I believe will be required for good sandbox.
What do you mean with "procedural spawning"?
Procedural spawning is a script based or AI based spawning system is that is controls what spawns where over time. This is more for a sandbox style game only.
For example my idea is to divide the map into Risk like zones that have finite NPC's stored in them. Depending on stats some zones can form a balance. For example you have intelligent life, predators, monsters and prey. If intelligent life is eco friendly, and predators have the right prey in the right numbers you have a balance. This is simulated in the background. You can assume most players will destroy this balance like in real life likely killing off most life nearby and introducing domestic animals barring those who breed fast.
Each type of NPC has stats that dictate what they do to players and to each other. For example if the developer wanted to introduce drama they would add intelligent life that grows fast, aggressive, expansionist and good combat strength. Now place this in an empty zone and they will grow a nation in that zone. They will expand into neighboring zones. Depending on the strength of intelligent race already there they may stop them or lose or battle. Friendly NPCs types underdress will start help quest in local and nearby zones. Players then can ignore it or help beat it back or eradicate the aggressive NPCs.
Developer could introduce an evil dragon into an area. Dragon being powerful and ranging with flight may terrorize NPCs and players towns within 2 or 3 zone area surrounding its lair. Monsters form lairs (dungeons or raids depending on type) then will make appearances terrorizing locals. They can be driven away but only defeated properly in their raids or dungeons. Developers can tweak the raids and dungeons as they arise.
The purpose is to have evolving and on going content to merge with players on going players play.
Comments
As a PvP fan (I doubt I would play a MOO without it), I really think you are wrong about associating those who do not want full loot with those who do not want PvP. We have gone over this many times on here and discussed many systems we have seen, but I have never seen anything that will not make full loot a turn off. It is simply not needed as a death penalty.
If "items" are game changers, and one has to "camp" an item, full loot sucks, big time. But if "items" are just ordinary everyday items, then full loot makes sense to me. I guess my rule of thumb would be... "If I can replace the items as fast I lost them, awesomesauce!"
For crafting, make it deep enough where certain materials from specific places make better "items" than average, ordinary materials. These could be a lot of different things to make an item (weapon/armor) better than just normal. Maybe ore from near a volcano area gives a little fire resistance? Maybe only a certain grade of ore can be enchanted? Or make the refinement process itself a major aspect of crafting, similar to the folding of steel?
Production waste is a good idea, too. The better a crafter becomes, the less waste they produce, thus less basic materials needed. Just remember that many crafters won't need too much incentive to craft, though making it worthwhile is always a good idea to me
I have to admit that this is tough for me theorycraft. I'm not a PvP'er it's hard for me to think like one
- 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
I think you need to implement at least equipment deterioration, otherwise crafting and economy would stagnate (for this reason, even without full loot you don't want to make an heavily item based game).
I still believe that, if we're taking full loot out, you should add a more immediate reward for every player that successfully menage to kill another player in a fight, on top of personal satisfaction / not facing death penalty / contributing to your "side" in the event.
Any idea about that? I think it should be somehow connected to character progression (which we haven't discussed yet) but I can't come up with something.
Be noted that, while in the end the gameplay should come first, I really want to find a way to do things that looks "realistic".
Another one is the faction penalty, usually associated with fighting over zones of control. It may not be player specific, but if you side is doing badly so are you...don't throw your life away but do get involved in pvp.
This also kindda explains why most pve players don't really want free pvp. Free pvp is not regarded as a rewarding challenge in the long run; it just become a non-fun part of the game standing in the way of what you really want to do.
Since I am not a pvp'er other than I find it fun occasionally and in controlled environment, arena fight, battleground, 3v3 sort of stuff, I can only comment from observations. It is pretty clear that pvp players don't play for the same reasons, at least not to a very high degree. Pvp players look to be challenged by entities that are unpredictable; tbh, I find players in-combat actions highly predictable after awhile anyways, but I guess the game around the actual combat is the point. Pve players fun joy in outsmarting, surviving and optimizing the environment (what the game set up) which is considered skill; while pvp players see this as repetitive and boring - Even if it is AI controlled so it becomes more unpredictable it will never be "true" in the mind of a pvp player (this is my interpretation, and I could be wrong).
For a pvp focused game, it can work really well with items having less value and be replaceable with lesser effort, because the real game is not about obtaining the items but about using them. Therefore full loot and even full craftable (err items all come from crafting process) would work in a pvp mmo. However, even in a pvp mmo, as it become more advanced and items become more valuable, this design also starts to fail. You would probably want to transfer power value from items onto systems and character feats.
The point is, pve players and pvp players will never understand eachother on an emotional and driving level, only from a technical view. You can bend a mmo to be a little more inviting to the opposite, but it will alway be either a pvp mmo or a pve mmo.. At least it seem impossible to make both great, and no one has ever succeeded yet so..
Some think that only a pvp mmo can be sandbox, some think that a sandbox has to contain player destructable/modifyable landscape .. It is all misconceptions. A sandbox is not defined by players having direct incluence on the world, but can also be in form of indrect influences and governed by AI and response systems, AND the changes does not have to be physical - As long as what players do, has an effect on the world in some way, it is a sandbox.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
The key of a more "appealing" full loot system is, as we both hinted, to lower the importance of it and all the "rewards" that are associated with PvE activity (slay the rare creature, reach the end of a dungeon etc) will no longer be 1000 gold coins or the hypersword of the God, but perks / power upgrades that won't be stripped away all together upon your death.
As I said, if we use approach #4 that you suggested at first, we could easily avoid adding full loot (also fits better with the hypothetical average player of the game imho).
But I firmly believe you still have to introduce a reward system (ideally, something "logical") for a successful killing.
The old exp and level system doesn't fit and need to be surpassed imho, you can have the classical "training skills by using them " and work with it to add a reward for a player that was able to defeat another one, but that's not "logical" (so not my first choice). Why delivering 3 sword blows should make your swordmanship level more of the opponent dies, but less if he somehow menages to get away? That's odd.
You can still work with magic and stuff if you use a fantasy setting, to achieve both gameplay functionality and retain a certain logic.
For example, if you kill somebody you could maybe "absorb" part of his soul or some crap like that (wathever the use of it might be).
A pure sandbox is like moving to Belize and opening a bar on the beach and downshifting: a lot of people think about that when they get stressed at their office job, but most of them would come back after few months cause they missed the "old life".
Now I know in most MMOs you don't get all that but you at least get a couple of rewards in every MMO I have played. I don't see why you need more.
You will get this it "makes the game feel more alive and dangerous" argument, but I am not sure there are many players who agree. Enough to fill one indie MMO that comes out with it yes, enough to fill two? I doubt it. Also long term by which I mean a few months in to no longer than a year it creates all sorts of issues that players may have originally been able to handle themselves before the servers start to turn sour. That's what happened in the open world PvP in AC and AoC.
I am not sure how many times you have to see or hear about it failing, two is enough for me.
So there is some penalties and rewards, to me the penalty is a reward to the player who won because he knows his opponent is now suffering it.
Is it the actual process of taking some loot that you think is important, to me the player who wins is getting all sorts of rewards? I mentioned gold could be a reward, what about the game generating an item or two for the player to "loot"?
Area restricted pvp is wierd in open world, what logic would explain that ?
Consent pvp (flag) is also wierd, and what would be the risk vs reward scheme ?
Karma is not a great solution either, at least for a pve player there is not much difference between free pvp and karma driven pvp, you still get dragged into pvp you don't want to participate in.
It seem that the only hybrid a pve player would really accept is the event driven (area restricted, instanced or similar), meaning the mission type of pvp where there is a goal and pvp is the means to achieve it. Though that kind of pvp may not be acceptable for the hardcore pvp mmo player, as it is lacks that personal direct influence.
I wonder if there are more softcore pvp players ? If there are, they are not very loud.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
I don't think the mere satisfaction from killing the other would be enough.
As we said, with approach #4 there's zero pointless pvp in the game (at least in the "main mode") and you only get a chance to fight people inside a dynamic event. You could say that the only "reward" you should get by besting an opponent is pushing your "side" in the event one step closer to victory, but this has 2 flaws:
1) You'd need to wait for the end of the event to eventually see the fruit of your success.
2) If your side of the event fail, it looks illogical to recieve a reward even if you performed well
But you do want people to recieve a reward based on their effort even if their side loose the event, like in real life team sports: you do want to make your team win to benefit even more, but if you're the best player in the team you'll get paid more than the others at the end of the season.
I would then enstablish 3 levels of "reward" for playing:
- character progression (skill training) that's not strictly linked to winning or loosing on either personal and "team" leve. Ofc if you die without landing a single blow you can't expect to improve like staying alive for 2 minutes and putting up a true fight.
- event reward (I'm thinking mostly gold, but not only) that should be given only to the winning side. In the example we used before for the PvPvE event system (dragon cult vs villagers) I'd find odd for somebody who sided with the dragon cult to recieve a reward from them even when they loose and the whole cult get killed / disbanded.
- personal reward for succesfull killling. If we don't want to add full loot or directly link the skill training to that, as you and me said, you should generate something for the winner to loot.
Something "realistic" again, cause duplicating some looser's items and giving them to the killer is dumb. I imagined some sort of "soul currencty" that you might use on stuff, you need a fantasy setting for the game but the idea would look solid.
Ofc you cannot avoid "gamey" solutions (like that word, I kept using "unrealistic" but "gamey" should be the right term) on certain aspects, even if you should try really hard to not abuse that: sandboxes are all about being the least gamey as possible.
Flagging system is gamey as fuck AND would probably need more thinking and testing compared to any system we've ever seen in an MMO, but I can "see" the light at the end of the tunnel and i believe there's no other way
@Sephiroso ; that's not a bad idea, in the last 2 pages we were exploring the PvPvE approach suggested earlier, yours would be a GW2 on steroids!
So the dragon event is a large scale event (possibly a chain) that can last for days or weeks. Within this dragon event, are parameters to move the event forward, and for example a pvp "mission" is one part of effecting this event.
The reward is not really directly the "mission" (except I guess loot, xp, faction/fame is included), but instead the reward is more long term and it what you get from supporting either the dragon or townsfolk. So say you and a lot of other dragon lovers succeed in helping the dragon "win" the event, you will get access to something valuable you need and can only get by befriending a dragon (this event is one of those ways). It will probably be a matter of dragon faction points in reality (for the sake of creating some game systems that works), but that is details.
So the point is your reward is not your standard and instant type (kill something, loot, kill more, loot). You have to think about it as a living breathing world (sandbox), and the pvp you do in this world is just your way to effect the world.. you are not a special hero with direct effect on the world, you are just an entity living in the world trying to make a name for yourself (or whatever your preferences are.. some just want to build a house, others want to build a trade empire, others want to go out and adventure and kill monsters, others again want to pvp .. and of course a mix is most likely).
Hope it makes more sense now
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
In a game you cannot properly replicate the act of crafting (we should wait VR for that) so that opens up some questions.
Would you introduce minigames to replicate real life skills (never seen this done right, do you know any example) or would you like to shift focus on knowing the raw material gathering the resources etc?
Area restricted PvP: MMOs are a "slice in time", they reflect events over a short period no more than several years, usually starting out as year one. Wars, even modern fast moving military campaigns have "theatres" where the war takes place. All that is happening here is the theatres are far smaller, and in a medieval world more suitable to the concept of a fantasy MMO they were far smaller. France and Germany had issues with Alsace-Lorraine over many years, that's was their pvp zone.
Consent: This is like declaring yourself as a privateer or becoming a pirate, highwayman or a band of rebels (guild), becoming a member of a great house (guild).
Karma: your concerns here seem to be about gameplay not realism. I have the same ones you do, but a work around could be found. Rewards and consequences from PvP and PvE need to be differentiated, that should be at the core of any such system.
From Chimborazo
Crafting: The flow of that gameplay should be for crafters, not for players like me who have little interest in it. I would only say a game where you must craft is too realistic (many of us would get bored). More importantly how crafting relates to what you can buy and how the economy works are a foundation of success.
It should be tried hands on I think (not sure a youtube will express the feeling), but I think it is amazingly fun and progressive, and a shining example for mmos to learn from.
About crafting, EQ2 is still my favorite. The minigames could be improved with fun factor, but the basic ideas. They f..ked it up a bit, and the original version at launch was better. The key features to note and replicate in my opinion:
Skill based minigame (with a touch of luck on top) where your skill in the minigame resulted in different tiers of quality product, and you could fail (even a expensive recipe). Later they remoted the product quality factor in the name of simplicity (oh how many mmos this has ruined), but anyways I would suggest a variety in product quality, including subcomponents, so that crafting with sub-par components also has an effect on the max quality of the produced item (subtracting also the minigame mistakes). So a perfectly crafted sword is valuable because it requires both skill and luck to produce perfect subcomponents and the perfect final product too.
Also something they removed (another mistake) was that there were cross interdepence of subcomponents, so tradeskillers had to trade and form connections (gasp, socializing within the game systems) with other players. For example to make a sword with smithing you needed leather straps for the hilt (leatherworking).. and with a little imagination you could follow this idea longer for more advanced items.. Gemcutting and precious metalworks for ornamentations, alchemy for advanced curing.
The basic idea was that crafting should be an actual profession to have (it is strange but some types of players like doing rhis day in and day out). Crafting should be so advanced that players (with sane playing hour) should not really have the "time" to be both highly skilled crafters and endgame adventurers at the same time. This is one of the core ideas in my vision for an inclusive sandbox (sandpark, pvpve whatever you call it), that we want a variety of play styles to all be empowered and have importance because all the various roles are interconnected by game systems.
Adventurers need gear, potions, services of all sorts. Crafters need components from the world (rare components may only drop from monster, or require high faction standing to buy), maybe protection services for transported goods (pve and/or pvp). Also hopefully emergent gameplay in form of new roles may appear from these.. Housebuilders, shipmakers, trade cooperations and specialized merchants, contracts for goods (player to player, deliver me x of y before tomorrow noon for some payment).
Anyways I am starting to ramble again, but it was important to understand crafting as being more than just the process.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Procedural spawning is a script based or AI based spawning system is that is controls what spawns where over time. This is more for a sandbox style game only.
For example my idea is to divide the map into Risk like zones that have finite NPC's stored in them. Depending on stats some zones can form a balance. For example you have intelligent life, predators, monsters and prey. If intelligent life is eco friendly, and predators have the right prey in the right numbers you have a balance. This is simulated in the background. You can assume most players will destroy this balance like in real life likely killing off most life nearby and introducing domestic animals barring those who breed fast.
Each type of NPC has stats that dictate what they do to players and to each other. For example if the developer wanted to introduce drama they would add intelligent life that grows fast, aggressive, expansionist and good combat strength. Now place this in an empty zone and they will grow a nation in that zone. They will expand into neighboring zones. Depending on the strength of intelligent race already there they may stop them or lose or battle. Friendly NPCs types underdress will start help quest in local and nearby zones. Players then can ignore it or help beat it back or eradicate the aggressive NPCs.
Developer could introduce an evil dragon into an area. Dragon being powerful and ranging with flight may terrorize NPCs and players towns within 2 or 3 zone area surrounding its lair. Monsters form lairs (dungeons or raids depending on type) then will make appearances terrorizing locals. They can be driven away but only defeated properly in their raids or dungeons. Developers can tweak the raids and dungeons as they arise.
The purpose is to have evolving and on going content to merge with players on going players play.