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]

1246

Comments

  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 7,223
    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: 5,110
    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 LegendaryPosts: 7,223
    edited May 2020
    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 LegendaryPosts: 7,223
    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: 5,110
    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. 
    ChildoftheShadows[Deleted User]GdemamiAncient_ExileAlBQuirky

    Once upon a time....

  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 7,223
    edited May 2020
    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.

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,146
    Ungood said:
    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.

    You are wrong in your assessments. You've been told a million times by people who like things differently than you WHY they like them and yet you still come back to the same ignorant conclusion, "they must be assholes".

    You like single player games. We get it. We understand. That's not what we want in our MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAMES. Good thing you have many to choose from.
    bcbullyAncient_Exile[Deleted User]GdemamiAlBQuirky
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    Ungood said:

    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. 

    How do you know that I "vastly underestimate the level of "depraved ****ery" to which people will aspire?
    Gdemamibcbully
    "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 LegendaryPosts: 7,223
    edited May 2020
    tzervo said:
    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".
    If you just wanted to Affect other people, Nothing is stopping you from making an open Pug, inviting newbs into your groups, leading raids, giving build advice, or even just giving new players some gear to help them out.

    Many people in DDO have become famous on their own servers for doing that.

    Or did you just want to be an asshole and make their game less fun? 

    Then nothing is stopping you from putting up an Open Pug and making a huge douche of yourself belittling other people, who knows you might even get every Trolls dream of getting some of them to quit.

    So, not sure what it is you are really looking for to be honest.

    With that said.

    Give me one advantage to letting players "Derail" the world?

    I mean, if the devs wanted to allow players to as you said derail the game, there is no point in putting rails to start with, they are far, far, better off just making one big open world sandbox game of do whatever.  

    Have you noticed.. those games of "Do whatever" are somehow not popular.. I wonder why?
    AmarantharAncient_Exile
    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 LegendaryPosts: 7,223
    Ungood said:

    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. 

    How do you know that I "vastly underestimate the level of "depraved ****ery" to which people will aspire?
    By the nature of every single idea you have put out so far.
    Ancient_ExileAmaranthar
    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: 5,110
    edited May 2020
    Ungood said:
    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.

    After all the things I've posted about Justice Systems (for years!) that have no loopholes and really work, why do you continue to accuse me of wanting that sort of game where players are content for other players? 

    Ancient_ExileGdemamibcbully

    Once upon a time....

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,110
    edited May 2020
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:

    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. 

    How do you know that I "vastly underestimate the level of "depraved ****ery" to which people will aspire?
    By the nature of every single idea you have put out so far.
    You mean like NPC/MOB Guardians, deities, and Factional rules? 

    Edit to add...
    This stuff really needs to be discussed so that effectiveness can be found. 
    Too many games have made claims and then not implemented a plan that works (prison, for example). 

    Once upon a time....

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 2020
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:

    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. 

    How do you know that I "vastly underestimate the level of "depraved ****ery" to which people will aspire?
    By the nature of every single idea you have put out so far.

    Whatever, dude.

    Dungeons & Dragons Online is calling.  It misses you dearly.  Please go play with it. 
    "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.)

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 2020
    tzervo said:
    Ungood said:
    If you just wanted to Affect other people, Nothing is stopping you from making an open Pug, inviting newbs into your groups, leading raids, giving build advice, or even just giving new players some gear to help them out.

    Many people in DDO have become famous on their own servers for doing that.

    Or did you just want to be an asshole and make their game less fun? 

    Then nothing is stopping you from putting up an Open Pug and making a huge douche of yourself belittling other people, who knows you might even get every Trolls dream of getting some of them to quit.

    So, not sure what it is you are really looking for to be honest.
    Ah ok you are one of those guys :)

    You already know me and lookee there, you even stuck a lot of cute adjectives to describe me, no need for me to say anything then :)

    Dammit!  Our wicked scheme to make a game in which we can ruin the lives of other players has been revealed!  Who would have imagined that our villainous conspiracy would have been foiled so quickly?  How will we force innocent and unassuming MMORPG players to seek professional psychiatric care and/or therapy now? 






    [Deleted User]AlBQuirky
    "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.)

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    tzervo said:
    You mean like NPC/MOB Guardians, deities, and Factional rules? 

    Edit to add...
    This stuff really needs to be discussed so that effectiveness can be found. 
    Too many games have made claims and then not implemented a plan that works (prison, for example). 
    Well, if the devs intend to prevent something, this has to be done on the code level or at least on the EULA level. If you consider that a player can break your game through their actions, then you need to prevent these actions, because they will. The devs should always put hard stops in whatever they think is breaking or disruptive, that should be part of their design and their responsibility.

    Putting measures to make a player action harder (i.e. through karma, prisons etc), is just a balancing act on the risk-vs-reward scale, it is not prevention in any way.

    I don't think there's anyway to absolutely prevent or eliminate griefing, but there are ways to limit its effects on other players.  Also, one player's definition of griefing can be different from another player's definition.  I believe that many players will not be so upset by the negative things other players can do to them if they actually have a chance of fighting back, getting revenge, and/or eventually turning the tables on the offending player.  Something which practically unlimited Character Level/Gear/Combat Power progression often makes very difficult to accomplish in many MMORPGs.  Which is why Gear & Combat Power Progression needs to be limited.  And I would rather have Skill, Ability, Proficiency, and Talent Progression rather than Character Level Progression.

    In my view, a top tier veteran player should still be vulnerable to attacks or ambushes by 10-20 noobs or mobs.
    AlBQuirky
    "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 LegendaryPosts: 7,223
    Ungood said:
    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.

    After all the things I've posted about Justice Systems (for years!) that have no loopholes and really work, why do you continue to accuse me of wanting that sort of game where players are content for other players? 

    Lets go back to my one Question for you. 

    Give me one advantage of letting players "Derail" the game world.

    In fact, lets say this as we are two gamers, talking about games we love, which is ideally what we should be doing here anyway, not fighting, but more so talking about what we love, and what we would desire to see in a game.

    So you have this, what it might be, this idea that you love, as it were, so, we are at the gaming table, playing a nice game of Table To Blood Bowl, I'm playing Orks, you are playing whatever team you like.

    So you mention to me this idea of players being able to affect the world, change it, derail it as were. 

    I let out a scoff and ask "What's THE Advantage of letting players Derail a game world?"

    Your Turn.. what do you say ?
    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 LegendaryPosts: 7,223
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:

    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. 

    How do you know that I "vastly underestimate the level of "depraved ****ery" to which people will aspire?
    By the nature of every single idea you have put out so far.

    Whatever, dude.

    Dungeons & Dragons Online is calling.  It misses you dearly.  Please go play with it. 
    LOL, I am playing it, I just finished TRing.. Life 11, rolling a Rogue this life.

    Now as opposed to telling other people what do to, Why don't you go play a few other Open World PvP games with your time and catch a clue.
    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.

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 2020
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:

    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. 

    How do you know that I "vastly underestimate the level of "depraved ****ery" to which people will aspire?
    By the nature of every single idea you have put out so far.

    Whatever, dude.

    Dungeons & Dragons Online is calling.  It misses you dearly.  Please go play with it. 
    LOL, I am playing it, I just finished TRing.. Life 11, rolling a Rogue this life.

    Now as opposed to telling other people what do to, Why don't you go play a few other Open World PvP games with your time and catch a clue.

    Great.  I'm so glad you're enjoying playing DDO for the 11th time.

    Now, you keep telling us that we can't make a game the way we want to make it.  Or that a game like the one we want to be made will never work or be successful.  And nothing we write will convince you otherwise.  Because, honestly, I think you're something of a Zealot on this matter.  Anyway, you are constantly trying to tell us what to think.  Or that what we think is wrong.  Is telling someone what to think better or worse or the same as telling them what to do?
    IselinGdemami
    "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.)

  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,662
    I mean if you're going to make threads to strike debates, you should acknowledge them even if you disagree. All I see some of you do is rebuttal anyone that is against your ideas. Seems to me you just want people to just agree with your ideas.
    AlBQuirky

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 17,518
    Bloodaxes said:
    I mean if you're going to make threads to strike debates, you should acknowledge them even if you disagree. All I see some of you do is rebuttal anyone that is against your ideas. Seems to me you just want people to just agree with your ideas.
    Not the OP. Just the usual logorrheic suspects trying to make yet another thread about their imaginary ideal MMORPG.
    Ancient_ExileBloodaxesAlBQuirkyUngood
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    Bloodaxes said:
    I mean if you're going to make threads to strike debates, you should acknowledge them even if you disagree. All I see some of you do is rebuttal anyone that is against your ideas. Seems to me you just want people to just agree with your ideas.

    There's some people on this forum that are totally against the idea of a functional Faction-based OWPVP/PVE Sandbox MMORPG.  Or they say that any way to make it work has already been tried, and it is futile to try to develop methods/systems/mechanics that help to make it work.  And by work, I mean make it fair, fun, and enjoyable for the majority of players.  By fair, I don't always fair in every battle or encounter.  Obviously, some battles and encounters may not be fair (as in both or all sides are equal in power or numbers).  Nor do I believe that any MMORPG which gives more skills to characters/classes than, say, a game like Street Fighter II can ever properly create balanced classes.  Nor should developers attempt to do so.  It is practically impossible to balance characters/classes with so many different skills & abilities and so many different possible combinations of those skills & abilities.  Any MMORPG game developer that tells they can balance the classes in their game (like for PVP) is either humoring players or just outright lying to them.  An MMORPG should focus on giving players the ability to form balanced teams, not promise them they can somehow balance a magic-user who wears cloth (casting spells should be able to be interrupted btw) with a warrior who wields a sword and wears plate armor. 

    More to making a decent PVP/PVE MMORPG than that, but I'll stop here for now.
    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.)

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    Iselin said:
    Bloodaxes said:
    I mean if you're going to make threads to strike debates, you should acknowledge them even if you disagree. All I see some of you do is rebuttal anyone that is against your ideas. Seems to me you just want people to just agree with your ideas.
    Not the OP. Just the usual logorrheic suspects trying to make yet another thread about their imaginary ideal MMORPG.

    Incoherent?


    Iselin
    "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.)

  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,662
    Bloodaxes said:
    I mean if you're going to make threads to strike debates, you should acknowledge them even if you disagree. All I see some of you do is rebuttal anyone that is against your ideas. Seems to me you just want people to just agree with your ideas.

    There's some people on this forum that are totally against the idea of a functional Faction-based OWPVP/PVE Sandbox MMORPG.  Or they say that any way to make it work has already been tried, and it is futile to try to develop methods/systems/mechanics that help to make it work.  And by work, I mean make it fair, fun, and enjoyable for the majority of players.  By fair, I don't always fair in every battle or encounter.  Obviously, some battles and encounters may not be fair (as in both or all sides are equal in power or numbers).  Nor do I believe that any MMORPG which gives more skills to characters/classes than, say, a game like Street Fighter II can ever properly create balanced classes.  Nor should developers attempt to do so.  It is practically impossible to balance characters/classes with so many different skills & abilities and so many different possible combinations of those skills & abilities.  Any MMORPG game developer that tells they can balance the classes in their game (like for PVP) is either humoring players or just outright lying to them.  An MMORPG should focus on giving players the ability to form balanced teams, not promise them they can somehow balance a magic-user who wears cloth (casting spells should be able to be interrupted btw) with a warrior who wields a sword and wears plate armor. 

    More to making a decent PVP/PVE MMORPG than that, but I'll stop here for now.
    This will be my only response as again this has derailed from the original point OP made the thread.

    You CAN'T please everyone! There's absolutely no method that can make PVE'rs and PVP'rs happy EQUALLY in the same game. The sooner you get it in your head the better. 
    AlBQuirkyUngood

  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,662
    Iselin said:
    Bloodaxes said:
    I mean if you're going to make threads to strike debates, you should acknowledge them even if you disagree. All I see some of you do is rebuttal anyone that is against your ideas. Seems to me you just want people to just agree with your ideas.
    Not the OP. Just the usual logorrheic suspects trying to make yet another thread about their imaginary ideal MMORPG.
    Yeah, I didn't mean OP, just you know who.
    Ancient_Exile

Sign In or Register to comment.