Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Affect the World! [MMORPG vs SPRPG]

124678

Comments

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    tzervo said:
    Ancient_Exile said:
    Note:  I haven't tried a A Tale in the Desert because I'm not too terribly interested in an Ancient Egyptian setting.

    About ATitD - Nothing wrong with an occasional server reset, IMHO.  If an MMORPG has competing PC, NPC (Some which players can join, some which they can't join), and Mob Factions, then the game could allow for one Faction or an Alliance of Factions to win eventually.  Then a few weeks to a month could be spent seeing what happens to the world when that Faction or Alliance is victorious.  After that, the Server could be reset, reincarnating everyone on the Sever a little more powerful than they were initially (or at the time of the last Reset).  New players could join a Reset Server, but they'd have to pay a little extra for a Reincarnated Character.  This might depend on how many times the Server has been Reset.  Possibly.

    Every Server would be a little bit or a lot different than another Server, of course.  Depending on how events unfolded.  Some of which could be completely random.  Though certain Pivotal Events could be introduced by the Game Developers in order to restore or maintain balance in the game world any time they desired. 


    E;D is set in Outer Space?  If so, think I'll pass.  
    Just to clarify: I am not trying to sell anyone on these games. I am also not playing them for specific reasons: ATitD is old and its UI is a turn off for me. And E:D, apart from its interesting BGS and great handling (flying a spaceship in E:D feels really damn great), has sloppy design written all over it and is being updated at the pace of an old snail.

    But all these games are interesting in some way and give proofs-of-concept how you could have dynamic worlds with players affecting them in PvP, PvE, with and without AI

    Re server resets, I only consider them interesting if there is some sort of final conclusion to them or some victory condition. In Foxhole you have a single shard with two factions entirely composed by players fighting each other. More than 50% of the structures are defenses built by players to help the war effort. Cities can be razed and rebuilt. Recently players can build bases and trench structures, affecting the landscape. Wars typically last 2 to 6 weeks until one side wins and then the map resets. Think GW2's WvW on a larger timescale and with deeper building and logistics mechanics - and with the players drastically affecting the world.

    Crowfall has some interesting concepts as well with its Eternal Kingdoms and campaings, letting the player progress their account and "home worlds" through the campaign resets.

    Re resource competition/scarcity: One Hour One Life has interesting systems built on top of it. If a colony/village aggressively farms the resources around the village, they will deplete, forcing smart ecology-friendly decision making and playstyles. That UI and controls though... ugh.

    There are lots of crazy and excellent ideas out there already. But they hit a bump because many gamers do not really want to challenge themselves mentally and/or because the total package is messed up in one way or another.

    I like the idea of Resources being finite in a game world.  Or at least replenishing themselves at a slower rate.  Furthermore, with more realistic Stamina and Encumbrance, it would not be so possible for one player to deplete a lake or river of fish, hunt a herd of animals to extinction (more difficult with a bow & arrow than with guns - even if the player just wanted to leave most of the corpses of the deer or whatever on the ground).  Animals should also attack or run if they feel they're being threatened after awhile.  Even just killing one animal could cause a herd to flee.  Herbs/plants, lumber, and ore would also not be so easy to be gathered, cut, or mined by one player on his or her own.

    I don't think players that don't want to challenge themselves mentally would normally even try some of the games you mentioned.  So there must be other factors in the overall design of the games (or individual features/systems/mechanics).  Like the idea of Wurm Online sounded a little cool until I tried to play it for myself.  Cows wandering into caves and stuff like that.  Hellhounds on the road just outside of town.  lol.
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 605

    I don't think players that don't want to challenge themselves mentally would normally even try some of the games you mentioned. 
    Yeah this is what I meant. This also means that these games are going to be small and niche.

    But most of the times there is something else going wrong as well, be it a flaw in the design, bad UI, bad combat, or something else.

    The problem is that this is a negative feedback loop: a small game can get some nice and interesting ideas out but it is hard to get everything right because it is small. This hurts it and it becomes even smaller. Wurm Online for example I remember reading lots of nice thing going for it in terms of systems, but its controls, UI, very slow grinding pace and graphics turning lots of players off. There is always something that the low playerbase of these games can be tracked to.
    Ancient_ExileAlBQuirkyAmaranthar
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,250
    tzervo said:
    I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
    The answer is obvious and simple:

    1) players are not interested in such desings - they want to be part of the story
    2) it's wasted effort - at the and you end up with same, standard and even more dull game play loop

    Ancient_Exiletzervo
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    Gdemami said:
    tzervo said:
    I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
    The answer is obvious and simple:

    1) players are not interested in such desings - they want to be part of the story
    2) it's wasted effort - at the and you end up with same, standard and even more dull game play loop


    1) Players are not part of the story.  They are Puppets being pulled along by Narrative Strings.  Nothing they do actually makes a difference.  And the story will go on whether they are there to participate in the somewhat interactive Novel/Movie/Game or not.  Btw, good stories end.  

    Exposition: Beginning of the Story

    Rising Action

    Climax or Turning Point

    Falling Action

    Resolution: End of the Story


    Sure, you can have Episodic Storylines, but these are never as good as Climactic Storylines - https://department.monm.edu/cata/rankin/classes/cata171/Lectures/Chapter15.htm

    2) Yeah yeah, sure sure.







    Gdemami
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 7,413
    edited May 10
    Sovrath said:
    Iselin said:
    Iselin said:
    It's trivial in single player games of course but even themeparks do this to some extent with trickery.

    WOW has been doing it for more than a decade with their "before and after" phased versions of villages and other battlefields. ESO does it as well although the architecture and terrain doesn't change much but the population and which notable NPCs are or are not there, before and after you do the local quest chain.

    EQN had plans to bring this to another level for anyone who remembers more than the hype about voxels: NPCs were going to react to you differently and give you one of many possible quests or none at all depending on how they "felt" about you - i.e. the whole common faction things was to be done at the individual NPC/player level as well. There were also going to be community area development projects and roving mobs trying to keep you from completing it.

    If they had managed to launch it as they were describing it, EQN would have shaken up MMORPG design in many important ways. They were actually trying to create a game where everyone would get a slightly different experience and servers would develop over time in ways unique to them and unlike how the other servers were developing.
    Phasing is a single player experience and doesn't affect the world for others like the op is discussing. 
    It affects it for anyone that goes through the transition. But like I said, it's just story telling trickery. EQN's idea wasn't.
    If you complete a quest and see something different because of it that's a single player experience. If someone else completes a quest and you see the result is not. Phasing was an attempt to give the illusion that you are affecting the world without hindering someone else's experience and for those that like the single player experience it works really well.

    EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that. 

    I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.

    Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
    Well, let's put it this way ...

    You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.

    Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."

    So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.

    However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.

    There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.

    How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?

    Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."



    Well thats why we have games like ESO and GW2 , built from the ground up for casuals ..
    Ancient_Exiletzervo
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    tzervo said:

    ...EVE also has a similar system with NPC's roaming, mining, more recently even invading systems and putting them in lockdown with the introduction of the triglavians (which has effects on the system and requires players to drive them off), and even fighting one another: https://massivelyop.com/2019/06/23/eve-north-2019-a-huge-battle-once-broke-out-in-eve-online-but-not-a-single-player-was-involved/
    ....

    Finally read the EVE Online article.  Very interesting.
    tzervo
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,310
    Scorchien said:
    Sovrath said:
    Iselin said:
    Iselin said:
    It's trivial in single player games of course but even themeparks do this to some extent with trickery.

    WOW has been doing it for more than a decade with their "before and after" phased versions of villages and other battlefields. ESO does it as well although the architecture and terrain doesn't change much but the population and which notable NPCs are or are not there, before and after you do the local quest chain.

    EQN had plans to bring this to another level for anyone who remembers more than the hype about voxels: NPCs were going to react to you differently and give you one of many possible quests or none at all depending on how they "felt" about you - i.e. the whole common faction things was to be done at the individual NPC/player level as well. There were also going to be community area development projects and roving mobs trying to keep you from completing it.

    If they had managed to launch it as they were describing it, EQN would have shaken up MMORPG design in many important ways. They were actually trying to create a game where everyone would get a slightly different experience and servers would develop over time in ways unique to them and unlike how the other servers were developing.
    Phasing is a single player experience and doesn't affect the world for others like the op is discussing. 
    It affects it for anyone that goes through the transition. But like I said, it's just story telling trickery. EQN's idea wasn't.
    If you complete a quest and see something different because of it that's a single player experience. If someone else completes a quest and you see the result is not. Phasing was an attempt to give the illusion that you are affecting the world without hindering someone else's experience and for those that like the single player experience it works really well.

    EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that. 

    I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.

    Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
    Well, let's put it this way ...

    You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.

    Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."

    So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.

    However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.

    There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.

    How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?

    Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."



    Well thats why we have games like ESO and GW2 , built from the ground up for casuals ..
    and then Anet like a dumbass put in raids to try and placate their wannabe hardcore population.
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 605
    edited May 10
    Gdemami said:
    tzervo said:
    I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
    The answer is obvious and simple:

    1) players are not interested in such desings - they want to be part of the story
    2) it's wasted effort - at the and you end up with same, standard and even more dull game play loop

    Kinda:

    1) Some players are not interested in such desings - they want to also be part of a story.

    There you go. Ftfy. Noone ignores the crowd that already swarms the themeparks, going there for the social ambience plus story. The story is not even the focal point, otherwise TSW would be the most popular. It isn't, even though it constantly receives accolades for it. But between WoW, FFXIV, ESO, GW2, SWL, TSO, SWTOR and all the other smaller and irrelevant ones, plus the single-player coops, this is an already saturated market.

    2) You just described why existing attempts of most indie games going for something fancy fail. They get a system right, and the main game loop or many other things wrong.

    Wasted effort? Don't think so. BDO for example: noone plays it for the story yet it is popular. People play it (a) for its graphics, (b) for its combat (c) for its world and non-combat systems.

    A good portion of EVE players do not play EVE for its PVP, but for its systems regardless of the PVP. And it has no storyline

    Between part of the BDO, EVE, E:D (which also has no storyline), UO, and the "boomers" wanting their old school MMOs back there is a good crowd for fancy systems with a good overall package.

    New MMORPG's should be more ambitious with their systems. It is a wasted effort not to be. Otherwise you will lose those that love story to the established themeparks or coop SP's, you will lose those that need a single super-polished jump in and out game loop to games like LoL, MHW or Fortnite and you will lose your MMO PvP'ers to EVE, Rust and Albion. All new MMORPG's have to offer is better systems and/or bigger scope involving multiple players.
    GdemamiAncient_ExileAlBQuirky
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,250
    edited May 10
    tzervo said:
    A good portion of EVE players do not play EVE for its PVP, but for its systems regardless of the PVP. And it has no storyline
    ...and so it serves as a proof of lack of demand for such games.

    It is is no kinda, you make false assumption in 1) and try to craft false, irrelevant justication in 2).
    Ancient_ExileAmaranthar
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 605
    Gdemami said:
    tzervo said:
    A good portion of EVE players do not play EVE for its PVP, but for its systems regardless of the PVP. And it has no storyline
    ...and so it serves as a proof of lack of demand for such games.

    It is is no kinda, you make false assumption in 1) and try to craft false, irrelevant justication in 2).
    "Didn't read, still gonna answer" :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afMsXWRWbOk
    GdemamiAncient_ExileAmaranthar
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,250
    edited May 10
    tzervo said:
    All new MMORPG's have to offer is better systems and/or bigger scope involving multiple players.
    ...except that's exactly what they need to avoid since apparently players do not care about those - case in point EVE online again. A game with immense depth and unmatched level of game mechanics where +70% of game population live in high sec space and does not care about world design mechanics one bit...

    Hence, wasted development effort.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,250
    edited May 10
    tzervo said:
    "Didn't read, still gonna answer" :)
    ...I did read it, it is not my fault your reply isn't grounded in reality though. Neither you should be surprised when being called on it.
    Ancient_ExileAmaranthar
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 605
    Gdemami said:
    tzervo said:
    All new MMORPG's have to offer is better systems and/or bigger scope involving multiple players.
    ...except that's exactly what they need to avoid since apparently players do not care about those - case in point EVE online again. A game with immense depth and unmatched level of game mechanics where +70% of game population live in high sec space and does not care about world design mechanics one bit...

    Hence, wasted development effort.
    Already answered.
    GdemamiAncient_Exile
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 10
    Gdemami said:
    tzervo said:
    All new MMORPG's have to offer is better systems and/or bigger scope involving multiple players.
    ...except that's exactly what they need to avoid since apparently players do not care about those - case in point EVE online again. A game with immense depth and unmatched level of game mechanics where +70% of game population live in high sec space and does not care about world design mechanics one bit...

    Hence, wasted development effort.

    (Note:  Bold Emphasis added to Gdemami's original post.)

    High Sec Space.  High Security Space.  This is your ship in High Security Space.



    This is your ship in Low Security Space or Null Security Space. 



    Any questions?

    What is your evidence that 70% of EVE Online's population "does not care about world design mechanics one bit..."  Enquiring minds want to know.

    Anyway, EVE is neither Medieval Fantasy, Cyberpunk, Gothic Horror, Alternate Reality Modern Day Superhero, Old West/Cowboys and Indians, Zombie Apocalypse Survival Horror, High School Dating & Demon-Slaying by Night (and on Weekends), or any number of more interesting genres.

    Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
    GdemamiAlBQuirky
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,310
    AlBQuirky said:
    "I want my actions to affect the world."

    I've seen this sentiment in a few threads and often wonder how it works when thousands (sometimes multiple thousands) of players are sharing that world.

    In a single player game where I am the only one playing I can see this and want it, which many SPRPGs seem to be steering away from these days.

    When I think about MMORPGs, the choices made, the quests accomplished, the actions taken that may "change the world", how is this commuinicated to other players that took different, or opposite choices, actions, quests in the same world area?

    One player saves a King. Another ignores the quest and the King dies. When both players enter the capital, is there a King present? The same one, or a different one? What do the other layers see who haven't gotten to that quest yet? Will they ever get the chance to "save the King?"

    A player finds a group and they attack an enemy encampment. Is that encampment gone for all time (one time event) or will another appear for other players to enjoy wiping out?

    Not that many MMOs today offer such depth, but if they did, how would it work?

    "Instances" remove the MMO part of the equation, so while that may be a solution to some, I don't see it.

    PS: Ancient_Exile, this for you :)
    I have been thinking about this question.

    And I suppose it comes down to a aspect, or what someone means by "Affect the World"

     
    Do they want their actions to have some meaning.
    or
    Do they just want to be able to fuck up the game for everyone else

    See, being able to change things, to modify the game world is open to players in a game like Trove, where players can design dungeons, weapons, helms, as well as they can make and build their own club worlds and cornerstones, and since the game world is fully destructible,  they could write their names in the mountains, or build islands in the middle of the oceans if they wanted to.

    In a sense of irony, one time a group of players fully surrounded the starting area in a huge wall, just for the hell of it. 

    But, Trove is not an endlessly persistent world, the world's reset over time. So while players can affect their world, they can change their world anyway they want, with, a huge amount of freedom, their actions are not eternal.

    So, I guess it comes down to what a player really wants.

    The thing is, I believe players don't really want what they think they want. See, I would bet money that the players that want to be able to change the game world, would not want to open to door to let everyone else screw up the game world around them.

    This is the Catch 22, that Dev's face.
    AlBQuirky
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 605
    High Sec Space.  High Security Space.  This is your ship in High Security Space.



    This is your ship in Low Security Space or Null Security Space. 


    Damn paparazzis following me everywhere xD
    Ancient_ExileAlBQuirkyAmaranthar
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,242
    tzervo said:
    Ancient_Exile said:

    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally rely on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.  
    I will sound like a broken record, but even though I agree with you it is easier to make interesting dynamic worlds where players affect the world with PvP, it is not only possible but also being done right now via PvE without the use of AI in "A Tale in the Desert", "One Hour One Life" and with partial use of AI that can be affected by players in "Elite:Dangerous".

    Btw @Amaranthar, the ideas you describe are very similar to what E:D does, where you can have factions behave different according to their beliefs (anarchists, autocrats, corporation, social), expanding, going to war with factions they do not like, etc. And all changes affect mission boards, the local economy etc.

    EVE also has a similar system with NPC's roaming, mining, more recently even invading systems and putting them in lockdown with the introduction of the triglavians (which has effects on the system and requires players to drive them off), and even fighting one another: https://massivelyop.com/2019/06/23/eve-north-2019-a-huge-battle-once-broke-out-in-eve-online-but-not-a-single-player-was-involved/

    Ashes of Creation is trying to achieve something similar with its node system. I think the main difference is that apart from the EVE example, E:D and AoC are trying to get these interactions on a larger scale and I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
    Yes, I just read your Eve link. That's fascinating and exactly what I want my idea to create.
    I want it so that the entire world and all it's denizens can run and change all on it's own, without players at all. 
    Then allow players to enter this world and add their worthy 2 cents into the mix. 

    That includes plants spreading and regrowing. 
    But not at light speeds, of course. 
    Terrain types (including soil types) and weather to have an effect on what plants can grow where, and animals affecting it too (such as herds of grazers preventing trees from growing on great plains). 
    This isn't complicated to simulate, although there's a development cost. 

    I am glad that Eve did this. It may be the start of something new and exciting for all MMORPGs. 
    tzervoGdemamiAncient_Exile

    Once upon a time....

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,310
    tzervo said:
    Ancient_Exile said:

    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally rely on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.  
    I will sound like a broken record, but even though I agree with you it is easier to make interesting dynamic worlds where players affect the world with PvP, it is not only possible but also being done right now via PvE without the use of AI in "A Tale in the Desert", "One Hour One Life" and with partial use of AI that can be affected by players in "Elite:Dangerous".

    Btw @Amaranthar, the ideas you describe are very similar to what E:D does, where you can have factions behave different according to their beliefs (anarchists, autocrats, corporation, social), expanding, going to war with factions they do not like, etc. And all changes affect mission boards, the local economy etc.

    EVE also has a similar system with NPC's roaming, mining, more recently even invading systems and putting them in lockdown with the introduction of the triglavians (which has effects on the system and requires players to drive them off), and even fighting one another: https://massivelyop.com/2019/06/23/eve-north-2019-a-huge-battle-once-broke-out-in-eve-online-but-not-a-single-player-was-involved/

    Ashes of Creation is trying to achieve something similar with its node system. I think the main difference is that apart from the EVE example, E:D and AoC are trying to get these interactions on a larger scale and I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
    Yes, I just read your Eve link. That's fascinating and exactly what I want my idea to create.
    I want it so that the entire world and all it's denizens can run and change all on it's own, without players at all. 
    Then allow players to enter this world and add their worthy 2 cents into the mix. 

    That includes plants spreading and regrowing. 
    But not at light speeds, of course. 
    Terrain types (including soil types) and weather to have an effect on what plants can grow where, and animals affecting it too (such as herds of grazers preventing trees from growing on great plains). 
    This isn't complicated to simulate, although there's a development cost. 

    I am glad that Eve did this. It may be the start of something new and exciting for all MMORPGs. 
    EVE did this in 2003.. I have no idea if anyone followed them.

    Now would be a great time to try and figure out why.
    Gdemami
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,242
    Ungood said:
    tzervo said:
    Ancient_Exile said:

    I understand.  However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP.  In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI.  Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past.  Because I don't want to totally rely on AI, and I don't think we need to do so.  Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.  
    I will sound like a broken record, but even though I agree with you it is easier to make interesting dynamic worlds where players affect the world with PvP, it is not only possible but also being done right now via PvE without the use of AI in "A Tale in the Desert", "One Hour One Life" and with partial use of AI that can be affected by players in "Elite:Dangerous".

    Btw @Amaranthar, the ideas you describe are very similar to what E:D does, where you can have factions behave different according to their beliefs (anarchists, autocrats, corporation, social), expanding, going to war with factions they do not like, etc. And all changes affect mission boards, the local economy etc.

    EVE also has a similar system with NPC's roaming, mining, more recently even invading systems and putting them in lockdown with the introduction of the triglavians (which has effects on the system and requires players to drive them off), and even fighting one another: https://massivelyop.com/2019/06/23/eve-north-2019-a-huge-battle-once-broke-out-in-eve-online-but-not-a-single-player-was-involved/

    Ashes of Creation is trying to achieve something similar with its node system. I think the main difference is that apart from the EVE example, E:D and AoC are trying to get these interactions on a larger scale and I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
    Yes, I just read your Eve link. That's fascinating and exactly what I want my idea to create.
    I want it so that the entire world and all it's denizens can run and change all on it's own, without players at all. 
    Then allow players to enter this world and add their worthy 2 cents into the mix. 

    That includes plants spreading and regrowing. 
    But not at light speeds, of course. 
    Terrain types (including soil types) and weather to have an effect on what plants can grow where, and animals affecting it too (such as herds of grazers preventing trees from growing on great plains). 
    This isn't complicated to simulate, although there's a development cost. 

    I am glad that Eve did this. It may be the start of something new and exciting for all MMORPGs. 
    EVE did this in 2003.. I have no idea if anyone followed them.

    Now would be a great time to try and figure out why.
    The article states they started this "advanced AI" system in 2016? 

    I'm assuming they had a lesser system in place that you're talking about. 
    Was that a wandering MOB system or a random spawn system? Or something different? Or am I shooting wildly off base? 

    Once upon a time....

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    Ungood said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    "I want my actions to affect the world."

    I've seen this sentiment in a few threads and often wonder how it works when thousands (sometimes multiple thousands) of players are sharing that world.

    In a single player game where I am the only one playing I can see this and want it, which many SPRPGs seem to be steering away from these days.

    When I think about MMORPGs, the choices made, the quests accomplished, the actions taken that may "change the world", how is this commuinicated to other players that took different, or opposite choices, actions, quests in the same world area?

    One player saves a King. Another ignores the quest and the King dies. When both players enter the capital, is there a King present? The same one, or a different one? What do the other layers see who haven't gotten to that quest yet? Will they ever get the chance to "save the King?"

    A player finds a group and they attack an enemy encampment. Is that encampment gone for all time (one time event) or will another appear for other players to enjoy wiping out?

    Not that many MMOs today offer such depth, but if they did, how would it work?

    "Instances" remove the MMO part of the equation, so while that may be a solution to some, I don't see it.

    PS: Ancient_Exile, this for you :)
    I have been thinking about this question.

    And I suppose it comes down to a aspect, or what someone means by "Affect the World"

     
    Do they want their actions to have some meaning.
    or
    Do they just want to be able to fuck up the game for everyone else

    See, being able to change things, to modify the game world is open to players in a game like Trove, where players can design dungeons, weapons, helms, as well as they can make and build their own club worlds and cornerstones, and since the game world is fully destructible,  they could write their names in the mountains, or build islands in the middle of the oceans if they wanted to.

    In a sense of irony, one time a group of players fully surrounded the starting area in a huge wall, just for the hell of it. 

    But, Trove is not an endlessly persistent world, the world's reset over time. So while players can affect their world, they can change their world anyway they want, with, a huge amount of freedom, their actions are not eternal.

    So, I guess it comes down to what a player really wants.

    The thing is, I believe players don't really want what they think they want. See, I would bet money that the players that want to be able to change the game world, would not want to open to door to let everyone else screw up the game world around them.

    This is the Catch 22, that Dev's face.

    Design systems to keep the Virtual Vandals in line.  Just have to be smarter than the average Scare Bear.



    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,310
    edited May 11
    Ungood said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    "I want my actions to affect the world."

    I've seen this sentiment in a few threads and often wonder how it works when thousands (sometimes multiple thousands) of players are sharing that world.

    In a single player game where I am the only one playing I can see this and want it, which many SPRPGs seem to be steering away from these days.

    When I think about MMORPGs, the choices made, the quests accomplished, the actions taken that may "change the world", how is this commuinicated to other players that took different, or opposite choices, actions, quests in the same world area?

    One player saves a King. Another ignores the quest and the King dies. When both players enter the capital, is there a King present? The same one, or a different one? What do the other layers see who haven't gotten to that quest yet? Will they ever get the chance to "save the King?"

    A player finds a group and they attack an enemy encampment. Is that encampment gone for all time (one time event) or will another appear for other players to enjoy wiping out?

    Not that many MMOs today offer such depth, but if they did, how would it work?

    "Instances" remove the MMO part of the equation, so while that may be a solution to some, I don't see it.

    PS: Ancient_Exile, this for you :)
    I have been thinking about this question.

    And I suppose it comes down to a aspect, or what someone means by "Affect the World"

     
    Do they want their actions to have some meaning.
    or
    Do they just want to be able to fuck up the game for everyone else

    See, being able to change things, to modify the game world is open to players in a game like Trove, where players can design dungeons, weapons, helms, as well as they can make and build their own club worlds and cornerstones, and since the game world is fully destructible,  they could write their names in the mountains, or build islands in the middle of the oceans if they wanted to.

    In a sense of irony, one time a group of players fully surrounded the starting area in a huge wall, just for the hell of it. 

    But, Trove is not an endlessly persistent world, the world's reset over time. So while players can affect their world, they can change their world anyway they want, with, a huge amount of freedom, their actions are not eternal.

    So, I guess it comes down to what a player really wants.

    The thing is, I believe players don't really want what they think they want. See, I would bet money that the players that want to be able to change the game world, would not want to open to door to let everyone else screw up the game world around them.

    This is the Catch 22, that Dev's face.

    Design systems to keep the Virtual Vandals in line.  Just have to be smarter than the average Scare Bear.
    You vastly underestimate the level of depraved fuckery people will aspire to.

    And currently a lot of AAA MMO's already do design in systems to keep the "Virtual Vandals" in line, they simply don't let anyone truly screw up their game. 
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,310
    Anyway, I started to talk with some other people that were playing DDO with me, and one of the things I liked about DDO was how there was a lot of interwoven storylines into the game, if you pay attention there is a lot going on around you.

    And get this, even the open zones change as as you do some quests. So looking at that kind of system, maybe if we as players in an instance based MMO, could affect OUR game, but not exactly the WHOLE game.

    To use an opening example of "Saving the King"

    Let's say in DDO, there is a whole quest arc around an invading force, where in one of the instenec adventures, you are charged with saving the King as an Optional Objective.

    If you save the King it records that YOU saved the King's life, you get additional rewards, extra chest of loot, exp, kind of standard stuff.

    When you go back to the Open Instance, the Son is on the Throne, but Thanks you for saving his father.

    For another player who did not save the King they get a different flavor text.

    The thing here, is that as far as the world story goes, the King was going to step down anyway, either by retiring and letting his son take over, or by being killed. The player gets to have a minor role in the situation, and gets noted for what they did (or did not) do.

    Similar to how the Dreaming Dark keeps record of some of what the players has done, or how Menace of the Underdark has some visual changes to the Harbor when you progress the quest.

    This is a really great start to an MMO where players can feel and see their impact in the game, they see the game change around them as they progress it, the next step obviously is to keep track of some of their choices, and see how to make that matter in later packs, especially if the game has recurring NPC's, interwoven quest lines, and even something simple like liner quest lines.

    Like for example, when I did Sorrowdusk, when I finally completed the quest line, I thought it would have been a great ending, if when I went back the last time, that Hragg and Bruku would be there, waiting to greet me, with their new clan set up, their buildings rebuilt, and a kind of restoring to peace, and while that would be just for me, I think it would be cool if the game was et up like that, where what I did, felt like I did something.

    and Since it's all instance, it does not impose upon anyone else.

    I think ideally that would be a pretty cool way to build an MMO.
    AlBQuirky
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,242
    Ungood said:
    Anyway, I started to talk with some other people that were playing DDO with me, and one of the things I liked about DDO was how there was a lot of interwoven storylines into the game, if you pay attention there is a lot going on around you.

    And get this, even the open zones change as as you do some quests. So looking at that kind of system, maybe if we as players in an instance based MMO, could affect OUR game, but not exactly the WHOLE game.

    To use an opening example of "Saving the King"

    Let's say in DDO, there is a whole quest arc around an invading force, where in one of the instenec adventures, you are charged with saving the King as an Optional Objective.

    If you save the King it records that YOU saved the King's life, you get additional rewards, extra chest of loot, exp, kind of standard stuff.

    When you go back to the Open Instance, the Son is on the Throne, but Thanks you for saving his father.

    For another player who did not save the King they get a different flavor text.

    The thing here, is that as far as the world story goes, the King was going to step down anyway, either by retiring and letting his son take over, or by being killed. The player gets to have a minor role in the situation, and gets noted for what they did (or did not) do.

    Similar to how the Dreaming Dark keeps record of some of what the players has done, or how Menace of the Underdark has some visual changes to the Harbor when you progress the quest.

    This is a really great start to an MMO where players can feel and see their impact in the game, they see the game change around them as they progress it, the next step obviously is to keep track of some of their choices, and see how to make that matter in later packs, especially if the game has recurring NPC's, interwoven quest lines, and even something simple like liner quest lines.

    Like for example, when I did Sorrowdusk, when I finally completed the quest line, I thought it would have been a great ending, if when I went back the last time, that Hragg and Bruku would be there, waiting to greet me, with their new clan set up, their buildings rebuilt, and a kind of restoring to peace, and while that would be just for me, I think it would be cool if the game was et up like that, where what I did, felt like I did something.

    and Since it's all instance, it does not impose upon anyone else.

    I think ideally that would be a pretty cool way to build an MMO.
    So, in affect, you "live in your own little world"? 

    That sort of "MM"ORPG isn't what I want. That's a single player game. 

    I do think players can be allowed to affect the world without allowing them to destroy it. 
    PvW takes on a whole new meaning when the mythical World strikes back. 
    ChildoftheShadowstzervoGdemamiAncient_ExileAlBQuirky

    Once upon a time....

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,310
    edited May 11
    Ungood said:
    Anyway, I started to talk with some other people that were playing DDO with me, and one of the things I liked about DDO was how there was a lot of interwoven storylines into the game, if you pay attention there is a lot going on around you.

    And get this, even the open zones change as as you do some quests. So looking at that kind of system, maybe if we as players in an instance based MMO, could affect OUR game, but not exactly the WHOLE game.

    To use an opening example of "Saving the King"

    Let's say in DDO, there is a whole quest arc around an invading force, where in one of the instenec adventures, you are charged with saving the King as an Optional Objective.

    If you save the King it records that YOU saved the King's life, you get additional rewards, extra chest of loot, exp, kind of standard stuff.

    When you go back to the Open Instance, the Son is on the Throne, but Thanks you for saving his father.

    For another player who did not save the King they get a different flavor text.

    The thing here, is that as far as the world story goes, the King was going to step down anyway, either by retiring and letting his son take over, or by being killed. The player gets to have a minor role in the situation, and gets noted for what they did (or did not) do.

    Similar to how the Dreaming Dark keeps record of some of what the players has done, or how Menace of the Underdark has some visual changes to the Harbor when you progress the quest.

    This is a really great start to an MMO where players can feel and see their impact in the game, they see the game change around them as they progress it, the next step obviously is to keep track of some of their choices, and see how to make that matter in later packs, especially if the game has recurring NPC's, interwoven quest lines, and even something simple like liner quest lines.

    Like for example, when I did Sorrowdusk, when I finally completed the quest line, I thought it would have been a great ending, if when I went back the last time, that Hragg and Bruku would be there, waiting to greet me, with their new clan set up, their buildings rebuilt, and a kind of restoring to peace, and while that would be just for me, I think it would be cool if the game was et up like that, where what I did, felt like I did something.

    and Since it's all instance, it does not impose upon anyone else.

    I think ideally that would be a pretty cool way to build an MMO.
    So, in affect, you "live in your own little world"? 

    That sort of "MM"ORPG isn't what I want. That's a single player game. 

    I do think players can be allowed to affect the world without allowing them to destroy it. 
    PvW takes on a whole new meaning when the mythical World strikes back. 
    Sorta.

    I mean, I can't be the only the one that scoffs at the idea of being the content of the game for someone else.

    That's stupid, I am playing the game for ME to be playing a game, not be someone else's entertainment, If that is what you want to be, I won't stop you, but I would be hard pressed to join you. 

    Ideally, the whole point of an MMO is to able to play with other people, and more on your own terms that is, the better the overall game experience for all involved. 

    With instance content, you can affect your world, your decisions matter if to no one else, they can matter to you, and your characters progression.

    Equally so, you can join guild, play with other people, run dungeons and zones together, help each other out, trade, craft, or just socialize in the public zones, with dozens if not hundreds of other people.

    in a single day you could have run dungeons with a dozen or hundred different people, depending on how much you played and how open you ran your groups.

    So it is still a Massive Multiplayer game. Just controlled in a common sense way.

    Just like when games first started, we got a group going, and we would play with each other on our terms. Strangers didn't come over, Eat all the cheetos, drink the mountain dew, kill the princess and burn down the city, laugh and walk away. 

    The idea that players would want that in their Online MMO experience is almost painful to witness.

    Legit, the only reason why I can think anyone would actually want that, is because they want to be the assholes, and to be honest, the last thing on my gaming Bucket List is to cater to or play with those kinds of people.

    Ancient_ExileAlBQuirky
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 605
    edited May 11
    Ungood said:

    And get this, even the open zones change as as you do some quests. So looking at that kind of system, maybe if we as players in an instance based MMO, could affect OUR game, but not exactly the WHOLE game.

    ...

    When you go back to the Open Instance, the Son is on the Throne, but Thanks you for saving his father.

    For another player who did not save the King they get a different flavor text.

    The thing here, is that as far as the world story goes, the King was going to step down anyway, either by retiring and letting his son take over, or by being killed. The player gets to have a minor role in the situation, and gets noted for what they did (or did not) do.

    ...
    and Since it's all instance, it does not impose upon anyone else.
    I kept what I thought were the salient points in your example.

    This is very similar to how GW2 treated its personal story and how many themeparks with phasing treat small (sometimes temporary) variations in the story. It is convenient in that there is no way for the players to derail the world and affect other players. But it is very limited. If you just get a different flavor of text, or you saved the king but still get his son you changed nothing in the world compared to the next Joe beside you - that's the most simplistic story trickery that a game can employ (and many do already). If you want to get more ambitious with branches and instancing you just managed to:

    1) split your playerbase
    2) get the devs to put out up to 2^n more content (assuming binary choices in the story and all possible combinations) for the same bits of your story

    To me this sounds like existing themepark design 101 and is not interesting at all. For me, "affecting the world" in any meaningful way includes "affecting other people".
    Ancient_ExileGdemamiAmarantharAlBQuirky
Sign In or Register to comment.