Here I'll respond as a game Developer and not as a player.
We all search ways to make dynamic content, players having impact on the world. Those are all great ideas, but there are major problems to this:
Let's say we let you freely influence the world, like being able to kill a quest giver, what happens? the next player won't be able to do that quest, ok, let's say some crazy player goes on a quest to kill all of them, what's left as for quests?
That's also true for the Red Dragon you killed and will kill forever, you have to leave a chance to new players to enjoy the content, if the red dragon is gone, well, what do casual players have left?
Creating content takes some time, it goes from concept, through designing, programming, scripting, testing, implementing...that's not a fast process, and players literally "eat" content. When a new dungeon is out, it's a matter of hours before someone is through and finds a way to beat it.
Players just play faster then devs can develop, that's a BIG limitation. in WoW for example, there are 8 million players who try to beat the new dungeon, and only so many devs who can create content.
If you think you have good ideas and want to influence a game, come have a look at Followers of Armageddon.
Many of the ideas you talk about are in there and I hope you'll give us way more ideas, because I, like you, think things have to change.
Don't consider this as advertising, because it's far from that, it's more a call to players. Here is your chance to change things, so take it.
"Influence in the world" does not have to mean every consequence must be permanent.
If all the quest givers are killed, let whichever faction controls the village send in a replacement. Most mmorpg quest givers are military types anyway, if the military in a village you control is taking a beating, you send reinforcements. I suppose my point here is that the npcs need to react to the situations the players create, rather than letting the players run rampant.
For the dead dragon - in most lore, dragons are territorial. If one got killed by a player, a young dragon my take the opportunity to make a claim for the now vacant territory. Again, the npcs need to be 'aware' enough to react to the players' actions.
You could think of it all as a "shove-of-war". If players are killing too may orcs in a given area, those orcs should become tougher, or put up fortifications, reatreat back to the hills, whatever. Once the orc-killing dies down to less than the orc-birthrate, they'll expand outside these walls again. Similarly, if players don't kill enough orcs, they should gain in confidence, spread over a large area, and start organising raiding parties. They could even make war on a neighbouring tribe. If a tribal leader is killed, the orcs could get sloppy with their defenses for a while, after which a bunch of their grunts could scrap it out for the top spot.
Of course, there should always be a way for the orcs to repopulate in the case of extinction. Perhaps the next tribe over splits in two, the server generates a name for the new tribe, and they take over the dead tribe's land. Maybe wild animals move into the area instead.
Another thing you could do, would be to have no 'official' quest givers at all. Let the players (as a group) start with nothing but a small village in an isolated part of the map. Have wild animals, hostile nations, monstrous tribes, and territorial monsters like dragons control the rest of the map. Give the players solid enough crafting skills to expand, but make them fight the npcs for resources. Give them a noticeboard so they can post their own 'quests'. If players need iron, and the only way to get it is to run those pesky spiders out of the mine so the miners can do their stuff, then the smiths can post for "Protect the Miners, until they have gathered x Iron ore. Reward: Iron Helm".
Let the players build new settlements, expand over the world, whatever. To prevent it getting out of hand, the npcs could get more agressive globally if the players took too much land. They could start producing well-trained troops or 'heroes' to turn the tide, or call on allies from a more distant area. Which would, of course, lead to player-created towns or nations getting sacked or razed, forcing them to retreat for a while.
All that would provide "influence on the game world", though not all of it would be permanent. (And why should it? The players should not always be victorious). I'm sure a few permanent cities would spring up. Maybe an npc nation could declare war on a particular city once it gets "too big", and start sending armies to attack it.
All this relies on one thing, of course: giving groups of mobs a "big picture" AI, though I can't see why that wouldn't work in MMOs, that type of AI is used for RTs games, after all. Granted, it's rarely a match for a decent player in RTs games, but remember that, in an MMO, the "leader" AIs would be facing a group of individuals, rather than a unified force.
Great reply to my post Greg, or at least I think it was to my reply you are reffering to.
I think the idea has to start from the bottom with the questing system. You have to start with a mindset of having two catagories of quests. Replayable static quests, dynamic triggered quests, and build these questing hubs around a believe them with in the game world. To define replayable static quests means thousands of players could complete the quest and it would still make sense for others to complete it. Create a few pieces art assets to reinforce the idea of the quest, track the amount of players completing the quest and apply the art assest as needed to keep the idea feasible.
A fantasy example of this would be a Miller in a starter town who requests stacks of wood to run through his Mill which he sells to the local economy and sends to a larger town down the river. He would give you a reward for bringing him stacks of wood. The art assets you would need is the Mill on the river, the Miller himself, a barge, and maybe a few workers, also a storage area that shows stacks of wood. When the server launches the storage area is empty, after every hundred or so times the quest is compeleted the storage area begins to fill up with art assest, basically stacks of wood. As more and more of this quest is completed through out the day you start to see barges leaving down the river with loads of wood. Now 2 months after release a new player comes to the area and it is pretty deserted as far as other players, but it still makes sense that this guy needs wood and why. Go the next step and tie in this resource gathering into an economy of sorts and it impacts the world.
This is the basic idea, and could taken to a much higher level, but what is required is creating content knowing the world is impacted by it, and how to make it seem to make sense to anyone that takes the quest.
I signed up on you forum, so I would love to discuss it more with you there if your willing.
Rage - Head Honcho of the Revilers "Ragemore and Whine Less"
(3) Social Advancement. This is the one that most games totally miss. Another way to advance characters is socially. Why not let players/guilds become kings/dukes/etc. As players advance they should have more options as to how they can affect the world. If you purchase a home/fort you should have the priveledges of that.location as well as the reponsibility. You should be called to defend it, help the people in the area and other dynamic content. The people who play the game the most should have the ability to affect the world in far reaching ways. Giving them those types of perks doesn't muck up your PvP and keeps characters more equal in terms of combat capability. It does however, reward them for time spent in game.
Finally more directly aimed at end game content then player development:
(4) Dynamic Content. There are no games that I know of that have this. We don't all need to do the same quests. Monsters should move into areas and cause problems. If heroes don't root them out, they get stronger, etc. People in the area complain to the heads of state (see #3) those heads of state put out bounties (read quests) for varrious players to complete. If the players stop an incursion, those monsters need to go somewhere else and the cycle starts anew. It doesn't have to just be monsters either. If there is a drought in an area, players may have to quest for someting to change the weather, or what not.
Computers are getting to the point where this type of content should be possible. We don't need static quests for everything. Give us living beathing worlds that react to certain conditions that we can affect with our actions and you don't have to worry about end game content. The game is the journey and there is no end.
These two points are exactly the ones that would keep me playing a single MMORPG for ages if done well and constantly updated. Ofcourse the game would have to have both PVE and PVP endgame aswell, but dynamic content and a MEANINGFUL property, be it a merchant or a duke.
A fantasy example of this would be a Miller in a starter town who requests stacks of wood to run through his Mill which he sells to the local economy and sends to a larger town down the river. He would give you a reward for bringing him stacks of wood. The art assets you would need is the Mill on the river, the Miller himself, a barge, and maybe a few workers, also a storage area that shows stacks of wood. When the server launches the storage area is empty, after every hundred or so times the quest is compeleted the storage area begins to fill up with art assest, basically stacks of wood. As more and more of this quest is completed through out the day you start to see barges leaving down the river with loads of wood. Now 2 months after release a new player comes to the area and it is pretty deserted as far as other players, but it still makes sense that this guy needs wood and why. Go the next step and tie in this resource gathering into an economy of sorts and it impacts the world.
Interesting idea, how adding about some visual assets to show the impact players are having on the NPC Miller?
Add a couple of skins showing the Miller either as wealthy and properous or poor and destitute. If players do his quests his model becomes the prosperous one and his NPC text is happy. As the servers mature he reverts back to poverty and he speaks more desperately until more players come along and help him. These would just be visual changes, they would not influence his quest or make local items more expensive, it is simply a visual representation of the impact players have on an NPC.
This could be extended to an entire village, again so long as the changes are only visual and don't lessen game play.
Though this does essentially triple the number of assets one needs to make. That's the rub.
I have added you in the forums Ragemore, sorry for the delay, but bots are all around the place apparently, so I prefer being sure. It's for your security too.
Your ideas aren't bad, we can go on discussing things on FoA forums...and I invite anyone to join us. I want a fun game, something DIFFERENT.
when is the last time you got onto vent/ts with 40 of your buddies?
if you have recently, then how often do you get on vent/ts with 40 of your buddies, and for how long at a time?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
MMORPGs are the ONLY genre of video games in existance with the mentality of severely punishing players. This is a hold-over from the 'good old days' when game developers thought tedious timesinks were the only way to make a MMORPG and this was just another way to force players to play longer. Early MMORPG developers forgot that what they were supposed to making were GAMES and they chose to ignore all the other games out there.
game developers still think tedious timesinks are the only way to make an mmorpg. even the latest one out - vanguard - is boasting that it too, will soon have the uber-stupidity called raiding.
if a game doesn't have death penalties, then what makes a player become better? in an fps, some yahoo bozo with no clue can go feed kills to the enemy all day long and never get any better, but he sure is back in action to give them another kill quickly. i don't think that's a good thing. i think stat penalties are crap. you should be able to be a full health/strength and maybe not full looting by mobs/pcs but at least partial looting. why? next time you'll think twice before pulling an LJ.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Get rid of character levels. Do you see people walking around in real life asking each other what level they are?
Get rid of attributes that constantly increase. If a person wants more strength in real life they go work out. If a person wants to be a puletzer prize winning author they write a lot of books. Your Skills and attributes should adjust themselves depending on what you spend your time doing in the game. Also, when attributes and skills raise, another attribute or skill lowers. If you spend 20 years weight-lifting, you will be a very strong and muscular person. But that weight-lifter will not be very flexible or dexterous. Skills and attributes should not constantly level up. You should be able to customize your characters skills and attributes by increasing one at the cost of another.
If the level system is done away with then there is no brick wall at "end game". Getting rid of the level system will allow new players to play with old players. This will allow games to more social than they are now.
Get rid of character levels. Do you see people walking around in real life asking each other what level they are?
Get rid of attributes that constantly increase. If a person wants more strength in real life they go work out. If a person wants to be a puletzer prize winning author they write a lot of books. Your Skills and attributes should adjust themselves depending on what you spend your time doing in the game. Also, when attributes and skills raise, another attribute or skill lowers. If you spend 20 years weight-lifting, you will be a very strong and muscular person. But that weight-lifter will not be very flexible or dexterous. Skills and attributes should not constantly level up. You should be able to customize your characters skills and attributes by increasing one at the cost of another.
If the level system is done away with then there is no brick wall at "end game". Getting rid of the level system will allow new players to play with old players. This will allow games to more social than they are now.
hehe you should really check out Followers of Armageddon, you'd probably like the ideas there, and maybe contribute to it.
How about a radically idea - the end game is...well the end!
Everything ends; Football seasons, civilisations, films, books, single players games, marthon races - why is it that a MMORPG has no end other than the day the developers decide to pull the plug? It makes no sense other than financial.
End game "raiding" is akin to heroin. You never ever get the same high as you did the first time and there is no closure. How about instead , an end that is the result of either player action or a pre-determined date. So for example, 3 years after the game server opens, a massive barbarian army starts to form in distant lands. Over a few weeks, it speads and starts to reap havoc - pillaging towns, decimating whole regions until it emerges at the gates of the main cities.
The heroic actions of the player community may prevail defeating the scourge or the evil barbarians may wipe out every last player - but either way, the game is over. Players are now rewarded for their effort with something tangible, maybe a small percentage refund of monthly fee's, prizes for best guild, best pvp , most completed quest, best dressed, or even .. gasp...a free three month trial of the developers new MMORPG waiting in the wings.
Think back to all the single games you have played - finishing the game was satisfying, a sense of achivement . I want that in a MMORPG, i dont want to just burn out and quit one day or keep jumping through the same hoops like pavlov's dog. I think some of the suggestion on the forum post are great for game content but why would you want to play the same game forever?
it's like you'd say the world explodes or so, but it doesn't.
The day you die, the earth will still be there...so it doesn't end, not before a few million years anyway. of course there would be an aging system, but even then, your char would die only when you do. So your idea is strange and actually non-sense to me.
it's like you'd say the world explodes or so, but it doesn't.
The day you die, the earth will still be there...so it doesn't end, not before a few million years anyway. of course there would be an aging system, but even then, your char would die only when you do. So your idea is strange and actually non-sense to me.
Hmm it's not a "world", it is a game..and worlds do end, it just takes a few billion years. I guess my writting style is a bit off as if the idea of an ending is "strange" then that must be due to my lack of clarity. BountyGreg..what is your favourite film? How does it end? did you enjoy the progession of the film - start, middle , end? was there a sequal, did you watch that?
Now think about the answers to thoes questions and change film for MMORPG. The start for many MMO players is designing characters and picking skills. The middle part of understanding the game dynamics and leveling up characters. And the end-game consits of raiding, raiding, raiding, raiding ...hmmm.. raiding, raiding, raiding - where is the end? The end for many players that i jave met over the years is normally burnout, boredom or real world events taking over.
There is a MMO game, i think called World War 2 or something similar (cant be bothered to Google) that has an ending, one side allied/axis wins the war and the servers reset before the whole thing starts again. I think i played it on a free 10 day trial a while back courtesy of mmorpg.com and the gameplay was somewhat poor but the idea of players achieving something final, either winning or losing, is for me a refreshing element to gameplay.
it's like you'd say the world explodes or so, but it doesn't.
The day you die, the earth will still be there...so it doesn't end, not before a few million years anyway. of course there would be an aging system, but even then, your char would die only when you do. So your idea is strange and actually non-sense to me.
Hmm it's not a "world", it is a game..and worlds do end, it just takes a few billion years. I guess my writting style is a bit off as if the idea of an ending is "strange" then that must be due to my lack of clarity. BountyGreg..what is your favourite film? How does it end? did you enjoy the progession of the film - start, middle , end? was there a sequal, did you watch that?
Now think about the answers to thoes questions and change film for MMORPG. The start for many MMO players is designing characters and picking skills. The middle part of understanding the game dynamics and leveling up characters. And the end-game consits of raiding, raiding, raiding, raiding ...hmmm.. raiding, raiding, raiding - where is the end? The end for many players that i jave met over the years is normally burnout, boredom or real world events taking over.
There is a MMO game, i think called World War 2 or something similar (cant be bothered to Google) that has an ending, one side allied/axis wins the war and the servers reset before the whole thing starts again. I think i played it on a free 10 day trial a while back courtesy of mmorpg.com and the gameplay was somewhat poor but the idea of players achieving something final, either winning or losing, is for me a refreshing element to gameplay.
typo's abound in this post - sorry
I would tell you, you actually played the wrong games. You seem to talk about WoW here, and even though it has many players, it's not the only game out there.
If you look at Star Wars Galaxies for example, there is nothing like raiding.
My favorite film, well I couldn't tell you because I watch so many of them. I sure love the Star Wars Universe, but it goes on in books and comics and games...so it actually doesn't end.
I know for sure our game won't be like WoW. It's a game evolving with time. So here again I don't see how you'd want to implement an end.
But seriously, when I play an MMO, spend tons of money and time in it, I don't want my char to be wiped and all my possessions taken away. Some of the goals in MMO is to gather many trophies and unique items, souvenirs and so on. I'd actually be very angry if all that would be gone.
The only goal in WW2 online is to win a war. All you do all day is kill ennemies. To me it's not an MMO, it's a persistent world. In MMO you can craft things, sometimes have your own house, go to a bar and chat with friends and of course fight. But it's also about exploration, visiting places.
it's like you'd say the world explodes or so, but it doesn't.
The day you die, the earth will still be there...so it doesn't end, not before a few million years anyway. of course there would be an aging system, but even then, your char would die only when you do. So your idea is strange and actually non-sense to me.
Hmm it's not a "world", it is a game..and worlds do end, it just takes a few billion years. I guess my writting style is a bit off as if the idea of an ending is "strange" then that must be due to my lack of clarity. BountyGreg..what is your favourite film? How does it end? did you enjoy the progession of the film - start, middle , end? was there a sequal, did you watch that?
Now think about the answers to thoes questions and change film for MMORPG. The start for many MMO players is designing characters and picking skills. The middle part of understanding the game dynamics and leveling up characters. And the end-game consits of raiding, raiding, raiding, raiding ...hmmm.. raiding, raiding, raiding - where is the end? The end for many players that i jave met over the years is normally burnout, boredom or real world events taking over.
There is a MMO game, i think called World War 2 or something similar (cant be bothered to Google) that has an ending, one side allied/axis wins the war and the servers reset before the whole thing starts again. I think i played it on a free 10 day trial a while back courtesy of mmorpg.com and the gameplay was somewhat poor but the idea of players achieving something final, either winning or losing, is for me a refreshing element to gameplay.
typo's abound in this post - sorry
I would tell you, you actually played the wrong games. You seem to talk about WoW here, and even though it has many players, it's not the only game out there.
If you look at Star Wars Galaxies for example, there is nothing like raiding.
My favorite film, well I couldn't tell you because I watch so many of them. I sure love the Star Wars Universe, but it goes on in books and comics and games...so it actually doesn't end.
I know for sure our game won't be like WoW. It's a game evolving with time. So here again I don't see how you'd want to implement an end.
But seriously, when I play an MMO, spend tons of money and time in it, I don't want my char to be wiped and all my possessions taken away. Some of the goals in MMO is to gather many trophies and unique items, souvenirs and so on. I'd actually be very angry if all that would be gone.
The only goal in WW2 online is to win a war. All you do all day is kill ennemies. To me it's not an MMO, it's a persistent world. In MMO you can craft things, sometimes have your own house, go to a bar and chat with friends and of course fight. But it's also about exploration, visiting places.
Hmmm, played a few MMO games, WOW is the one of the most recent but not my only experiance. Think star wars galaxies is probably a red herring in this debate - it seemed to have no point at all and then was dumbed down even further. But anyhow, i respect your postion BountyGreg but i think we are talking about different things.
You think of this as a real world, with infinte posibilities and opptunities and i wish you well in your game development. I just have a different view. It is just a game to me!, a transiant hobby - akin to watching a great film, eating a meal with friends, going to the park with my kid, i am not fan of Pikamon (gotta collect them all $$$) and i dont want to spend 70% of my free time playing a game beacuse then it becomes work. I play MMORPG because it is convienient and i like my cosy spot in front of my PC.
It's just the phrase: "end game" - The ned game is Chess is just that, move, move, check - mate! Ok - lets not call it the end game, lets call it the game
f you say to me: " by implementing this great feature, or that great concept..." then the game experiances is enhanced, well i belive you. But to suggest that games should go on forever like real life seems a bit pointless. To me, they will always be games and no substitute for the reality that is infintely better than a digital fantasy.
Ahhh sorry to ramble, gone of on a small tangent - anyway, can anybody tell me of a MMORPG that actually has an end?
Ahhh the old endgame debate I love these. In my opinion it's the idea that a game has to limit the scope of it's endgame has laways puzzled me. Sure there will be raiding, and pvp is big as well, but aren't there other options? I think so. For starters endgame lasts as long as it takes a game to make an expansion, and then we need a new endgame, but if a company can keep content coming at a steady stream then when really is endgame? Also why not take a page from CoH/CoV they had two endgames one where we raided and PvPed and one where we unlocked an even more powerful character and ran them up. The only downfall is that they didn't get a different story arc to follow. No one wants to do the same stuff all over again. I think there are certainly ways to keep a game very interesting for players other thasn raiding and pvp, but before we can judge them somebody must first dare to put it intheir game. Leveling will be around in one form or another always in games of adventure it's almost a neccessity. It may not look like leveling sometimes but in the end it is. All I can say is that out there somewhere is someone whose got a real good idea for a game that's really innovative and fixes all of these problems the only problem is we don't know where that person is.
Ahhh sorry to ramble, gone of on a small tangent - anyway, can anybody tell me of a MMORPG that actually has an end?
There is one I know off, or at least more or less; A Tale in the Desert.
If I'm not mistaken progress of setting and story is entirely driven by the players, which is then acted upon by the developers. At a certain time however, when conditions are met for story/setting progression the 'era' ends and a new one is developped or started up.
This may mean starting over, but as the game is very different from mainstream games, it caters to those who can 'cope' with those conditions. It certainly isn't a game that apeals to many.
Then there's also those few games that have Live events and/or the aspiration to be a dynamic world with an evolving storyline.
Ryzom (the Saga of) for instance was originally planned to be an evolving story that would take up 8 years to reach to it's conclusion. Playeractions would define the outcome for each server/shard, new continents and planets would be discovered, and technology/magical research would progress over time as the story unfolds.
In Eve the game is the story, made by the corporations; wether it was designed to have an end I can not say as I don't know the game well enough.
Neither of these two games' story involvement limits players by their progression. Everyone could potentially get involved and leave it's mark. Endgame is non-existant, except when the game literally ends or it's story comes to an end.
I'm not going to say such things would apeal to a majority of players, but there's certainly a portion of the MMO playerbase that seems to find interaction and involvement with story and world progression on any level of experience is as equally important as character progression through experience/gear. With a lot of games currently going 'easymode' and without dynamic worlds, where the high level caps are so easily reached and story involvment means squat, it's no surprise many either go bored with the game, find themselves uninspired, unimpressed or have only a long raiding/pvp threadmill to face. Till the next expansion comes around which adds a measily couple levels and more of the same threadmill.
And that's where most if not all mainstream games seem to end.
Why is everyone thinking on how to remedy the "Endgame" plague when you can avoid it in the first place? There have been examples out there of how games can effectively bypass the "problem" in the first place, with player achivement almost a seperate entity.
When you disect an MMO, the main points are;
Achievement
Customization
Social Exposure
Exploration
So, why then, are most developers merging Achievement and Exploration together? Why not use them as totally seperate entities?
However, there was one game that did something radically different in my opinion, and thats The Matrix Online.
Yeah, so MxO doesn't have huge raids that require a horde of people to be involved. It doesn't have cool equipment that "everyone wants" and ultimately, look like carbon copies of each other. It doesn't have a diverse ladder system that would reward a player with items and prestige.
But what it has, is evolving storyline.
Storyline!? In an MMO!? Like ZOMG! But yes, the primary driving force of "traditional" games and all things fiction and entertainment related has long been ignored. Do not mix Storyline with Lore. WoW has a great Lore, but no driving storyline that could be affected by players.
But what about Quests, you might ask. To me, Quests are but sub-plots of a general storyline. Most if not all other MMOs have a base but unchanging storyline. But what MxO did was to have events (monthly if I recall it right) that would continue the storyline... to the point where it is the major, if only factor that keeps players coming back.
But an evolving storyline will not do if the players are not convinced.
And thats where roleplay comes in.
Roleplay!? n3rD1! G33k!!1
But really, what better way to immerse a player then slowly involving them, little by little, and before they realize it, they are totally submerged, to put it poetically?
Think back to a game where you had fun with. Or rather, think back to a singleplayer game you had fun with. For me, one of such games was Dues Ex. Why? It was Immersive. Why is WoW the way it is? It also is immersive, lack of evolving storyline aside.
In the words of Randy in Southpark; "In real life, I am but a geologist. But in here, I am Felcorn, Defender of the Alliance!"
And that is the kind of feeling that MMOs should give. Anything less "attached" should be reserved for the realm of competitive deathmatch games like Quake or Unreal.
Check out the MxO forums. Any event related stuff posted on it. And you will soon realize, that most posts posted about the game or specifically events in the game are all done "in-character". Truth be told, it is much easier to pull off in MxO with the setting (present day to futuristic), but with that said, there has been a substantial emphasis of immersiveness.
So, without rambling on about a totally new angle at approching MMOs, namely evolving storylines and immersiveness, we just have to wait to see what developers would do.
Oh and, if Ragnar Tornquist of Funcom has anything to do with Conan, I might just get what I want
I'm not here to answer the End-game problem, that's for people who get paid to be game developers. What I want to address are obvious answers to the questions the article raised about Death Penalties. Remember those old days of Ultima Online; you were scared to walk out of the city. You could get ganked at any time and lose all of your stuff!. Remember those old days when MMORPGs could only attract a small niche market of gamers? Remember those old days when the majority of gamers wouldn't touch MMORPGs with a 10-foot pole because of moronic game mechanics you never see in another genre of games? When did it actually become easier to die in a game and come right back? Why did we reach this point? When did this happen? This is the STANDARD in EVERY other game besides MMORPGs!!
FPS games? These are the epitome of PvP-oriented gameplay and yet you die you pop right back and you're not given a crippled charcater as punishment. At worse you lose weapons or health packs that are easily replaced while playing. You don't have to grind through tedious mechanics just to have fun again.
Single player RPGs? Ever hear of save points? If your character dies you can pop right back into the game with minimal loss of time (compared to the hours it takes to recover from harsh MMORPG death penalties).
RTS games? You lose a game and you start another one without any penalities. Your previous losses don't mean you have less resources in your next game.
Arcade fighting games? Side-scrolling games? Freaking Space Invaders? It has ALWAYS been easy to die in a game and come right back. Do you really think Diablo would have sold as well if it only offered perma-death gameplay?
MMORPGs are the ONLY genre of video games in existance with the mentality of severely punishing players. This is a hold-over from the 'good old days' when game developers thought tedious timesinks were the only way to make a MMORPG and this was just another way to force players to play longer. Early MMORPG developers forgot that what they were supposed to making were GAMES and they chose to ignore all the other games out there. The EA Mythic developers had a very wise viewpoint expressed in some of their recent articles. They acknowledged that dying is part of playing the game. And they have stated they have no intention of punishing players for playing their game. (One of the many reasons I'm looking forward to Mythic's Warhammer game!) MMORPGs are finally evolving and it's astounding that people still can't see why. There were many reasons why previous MMORPGs never attracted many players and WoW has shattered so many records. Death penalities is one of those reasons. They are NOT the answer to End-game content. They are a wretched game mechanic that never should have been implemented and they will be left in the dust where they belong.
OVer 200k subs is a smashing success sure WoW has done way better but look at WoW- it had a HUGE budget and took years to develop versus UO was made by a really small Austin company. Not to mention how many yrs ago when UO was developed trust me computers were not even as common back then and were not capable of the nice, realistic graphics we have today. People that spew off all this WoW comparisons are simply not looking at the whole picture
In RPGs you can die and yes you have to revert to a saved game. But still you die in the context of the game and if you do not have a save then you are permenantly dead period. In the context of an RPG you are dead, permadeath. Some other RPGs have debt or respawns
In Counterstrike if you die you gotta watch the match- you are dead the whole match there is no respawn what FPS games you play? Same with tactical Ops. The same with Rainbow 6: Vegas you can be dead for almost 20 minutes! Get your facts straight.
I agree that debt can really suck but other mechanics such as being able to lose items can be fun if done correctly. For instance, say someone infiltrates a player run city and steals a valuable item. The defenders / cops should have the opportunity to slay the player and retrieve their stolen item. This adds a nice player run dynamic that could be very fun if designed properly. Player looting does not have to suck we just need to use our imaginations here and think outside the box.
And yes Warhammer Online is sometihng i lok forward to but I do not expect anything ground breaking. It's not really player run content and because there is no risk/reward it wont have a lot of depth. In WAR I will most likely charge into an entire army and go for all the kills I can because I do not fear death or losing anything. At least in Age of Conan you can lose Blood Money
If I were a developer I would look at character development in a couple of ways:
(1) Skills/Abilities. This is the classic MMO method of character imporvement. However, I'd also have it so that little used abilities would decrease over time and that you have to do things to maintain your uber leet skills. Keep a character always involved in their characters development, not finalized at a certain level. Also, skills should improve at a decreasing level. Your first few levels/advancementns get you a lot of ability and it tapers off the more you advance that ability. That way people can get up to speed quickly and then continue to work for an edge. (2) Loot/Gear. Not only items that make you more powerful, but things like houses, towns, pets, NPCs and what not. All of these things should be carrots to keep you in the world and working for a goal. (3) Social Advancement. This is the one that most games totally miss. Another way to advance characters is socially. Why not let players/guilds become kings/dukes/etc. As players advance they should have more options as to how they can affect the world. If you purchase a home/fort you should have the priveledges of that.location as well as the reponsibility. You should be called to defend it, help the people in the area and other dynamic content. The people who play the game the most should have the ability to affect the world in far reaching ways. Giving them those types of perks doesn't muck up your PvP and keeps characters more equal in terms of combat capability. It does however, reward them for time spent in game. Finally more directly aimed at end game content then player development:
(4) Dynamic Content. There are no games that I know of that have this. We don't all need to do the same quests. Monsters should move into areas and cause problems. If heroes don't root them out, they get stronger, etc. People in the area complain to the heads of state (see #3) those heads of state put out bounties (read quests) for varrious players to complete. If the players stop an incursion, those monsters need to go somewhere else and the cycle starts anew. It doesn't have to just be monsters either. If there is a drought in an area, players may have to quest for someting to change the weather, or what not. Computers are getting to the point where this type of content should be possible. We don't need static quests for everything. Give us living beathing worlds that react to certain conditions that we can affect with our actions and you don't have to worry about end game content. The game is the journey and there is no end.
I 100% agree with all these points these are ideas similar to my own. This is what baffles us both I suspect- many people all recite this is what they want but we are not seeing this.
The problem with Dynamic Content are these factors:
1) Dynamic Lightning is expensive to compute. You will need to use cutting edge methods like PSSM or CSM for lighting a huge virtual enviroment. So it will take a pretty nice PC to compute the shadows for dynamic entities. The beenfit is that we can get day and night cycles etc. Problem is developers are used to static lighting (lightmaps). they can be computed offline and are really fast during real time. Computers in general just handle static data much better
2) A lot more network packets being replicated. Now you have to replicate when a tree gets destroyed. Whats worse, this event needs to be replicated to all the clients in the game because they can no longer collide with it, etc. You can no longer rely on the client having a reliable land mass you now need to 'stream' all this data
3) More CPU Power. The more complexity you add- the rule of thumb is the more hardware resources your game demands. Dynamic worlds will for sure be a lot more demanding
4) Have to worry about one uber guild ruining everything this is the fear of player run worlds to some Devs is my guess. its hard to design a system that deals with all the types of players.
5) Devs like Level based systems. This is really a huge timesink cause if a player wants to try a different class, well he has to reroll. If you go skill based, you are giving the players the freedom to design their own roles and classes. This removes the control from Developers and thats something they dont like
6) difficult to design a system whereas players dont kill off entire population. this can be remedied easily I think but it takes some thought
7) have to provide ways for the enviroment to naturally reclaim ownership. For instance an abanadoned city- either you charge taxes or let mobs destroy it if not defended or let other players to invade. These are all things you must design for and specilize your game towards that crowd. Versus "mainstream" in which dumbs down the MMO and focuses on a few things that "most" players want. which is much easier to design
Benefits:
1) You no longer have to fight the treadmill of having to constantly develop new quests
2) Player base can possibly be entertained indefinetly if each 'world' is player run. If you get bored on one world you can possibly jump to another for a totally different experience
3) No need for end game. This type of game can easily last for years and years because the more control you put in hands of the player the more content 'players' can put in your game. For instance, Half Life and Unreal Tournament have enjoyed looonnngggg lifetimes because the ability of Mod Makers to add content. Well, the more control you put in hands of players it can possibly be a big win for MMOs. World Of Warcraft got part of this right on client side code with the LUA modules for User Interfaces. Now, if we can that sort of complexity on the server side (like building cities, towns, controlling NPC population, etc). The toys we put in the sandbox the funnier the experience can be
Comments
"Influence in the world" does not have to mean every consequence must be permanent.
If all the quest givers are killed, let whichever faction controls the village send in a replacement. Most mmorpg quest givers are military types anyway, if the military in a village you control is taking a beating, you send reinforcements. I suppose my point here is that the npcs need to react to the situations the players create, rather than letting the players run rampant.
For the dead dragon - in most lore, dragons are territorial. If one got killed by a player, a young dragon my take the opportunity to make a claim for the now vacant territory. Again, the npcs need to be 'aware' enough to react to the players' actions.
You could think of it all as a "shove-of-war". If players are killing too may orcs in a given area, those orcs should become tougher, or put up fortifications, reatreat back to the hills, whatever. Once the orc-killing dies down to less than the orc-birthrate, they'll expand outside these walls again. Similarly, if players don't kill enough orcs, they should gain in confidence, spread over a large area, and start organising raiding parties. They could even make war on a neighbouring tribe. If a tribal leader is killed, the orcs could get sloppy with their defenses for a while, after which a bunch of their grunts could scrap it out for the top spot.
Of course, there should always be a way for the orcs to repopulate in the case of extinction. Perhaps the next tribe over splits in two, the server generates a name for the new tribe, and they take over the dead tribe's land. Maybe wild animals move into the area instead.
Another thing you could do, would be to have no 'official' quest givers at all. Let the players (as a group) start with nothing but a small village in an isolated part of the map. Have wild animals, hostile nations, monstrous tribes, and territorial monsters like dragons control the rest of the map. Give the players solid enough crafting skills to expand, but make them fight the npcs for resources. Give them a noticeboard so they can post their own 'quests'. If players need iron, and the only way to get it is to run those pesky spiders out of the mine so the miners can do their stuff, then the smiths can post for "Protect the Miners, until they have gathered x Iron ore. Reward: Iron Helm".
Let the players build new settlements, expand over the world, whatever. To prevent it getting out of hand, the npcs could get more agressive globally if the players took too much land. They could start producing well-trained troops or 'heroes' to turn the tide, or call on allies from a more distant area. Which would, of course, lead to player-created towns or nations getting sacked or razed, forcing them to retreat for a while.
All that would provide "influence on the game world", though not all of it would be permanent. (And why should it? The players should not always be victorious). I'm sure a few permanent cities would spring up. Maybe an npc nation could declare war on a particular city once it gets "too big", and start sending armies to attack it.
All this relies on one thing, of course: giving groups of mobs a "big picture" AI, though I can't see why that wouldn't work in MMOs, that type of AI is used for RTs games, after all. Granted, it's rarely a match for a decent player in RTs games, but remember that, in an MMO, the "leader" AIs would be facing a group of individuals, rather than a unified force.
Great reply to my post Greg, or at least I think it was to my reply you are reffering to.
I think the idea has to start from the bottom with the questing system. You have to start with a mindset of having two catagories of quests. Replayable static quests, dynamic triggered quests, and build these questing hubs around a believe them with in the game world. To define replayable static quests means thousands of players could complete the quest and it would still make sense for others to complete it. Create a few pieces art assets to reinforce the idea of the quest, track the amount of players completing the quest and apply the art assest as needed to keep the idea feasible.
A fantasy example of this would be a Miller in a starter town who requests stacks of wood to run through his Mill which he sells to the local economy and sends to a larger town down the river. He would give you a reward for bringing him stacks of wood. The art assets you would need is the Mill on the river, the Miller himself, a barge, and maybe a few workers, also a storage area that shows stacks of wood. When the server launches the storage area is empty, after every hundred or so times the quest is compeleted the storage area begins to fill up with art assest, basically stacks of wood. As more and more of this quest is completed through out the day you start to see barges leaving down the river with loads of wood. Now 2 months after release a new player comes to the area and it is pretty deserted as far as other players, but it still makes sense that this guy needs wood and why. Go the next step and tie in this resource gathering into an economy of sorts and it impacts the world.
This is the basic idea, and could taken to a much higher level, but what is required is creating content knowing the world is impacted by it, and how to make it seem to make sense to anyone that takes the quest.
I signed up on you forum, so I would love to discuss it more with you there if your willing.
Rage - Head Honcho of the Revilers
"Ragemore and Whine Less"
Interesting idea, how adding about some visual assets to show the impact players are having on the NPC Miller?
Add a couple of skins showing the Miller either as wealthy and properous or poor and destitute. If players do his quests his model becomes the prosperous one and his NPC text is happy. As the servers mature he reverts back to poverty and he speaks more desperately until more players come along and help him. These would just be visual changes, they would not influence his quest or make local items more expensive, it is simply a visual representation of the impact players have on an NPC.
This could be extended to an entire village, again so long as the changes are only visual and don't lessen game play.
Though this does essentially triple the number of assets one needs to make. That's the rub.
Your ideas aren't bad, we can go on discussing things on FoA forums...and I invite anyone to join us. I want a fun game, something DIFFERENT.
To the OP:
when is the last time you got onto vent/ts with 40 of your buddies?
if you have recently, then how often do you get on vent/ts with 40 of your buddies, and for how long at a time?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
game developers still think tedious timesinks are the only way to make an mmorpg. even the latest one out - vanguard - is boasting that it too, will soon have the uber-stupidity called raiding.
if a game doesn't have death penalties, then what makes a player become better? in an fps, some yahoo bozo with no clue can go feed kills to the enemy all day long and never get any better, but he sure is back in action to give them another kill quickly. i don't think that's a good thing. i think stat penalties are crap. you should be able to be a full health/strength and maybe not full looting by mobs/pcs but at least partial looting. why? next time you'll think twice before pulling an LJ.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
Get rid of attributes that constantly increase. If a person wants more strength in real life they go work out. If a person wants to be a puletzer prize winning author they write a lot of books. Your Skills and attributes should adjust themselves depending on what you spend your time doing in the game. Also, when attributes and skills raise, another attribute or skill lowers. If you spend 20 years weight-lifting, you will be a very strong and muscular person. But that weight-lifter will not be very flexible or dexterous. Skills and attributes should not constantly level up. You should be able to customize your characters skills and attributes by increasing one at the cost of another.
If the level system is done away with then there is no brick wall at "end game". Getting rid of the level system will allow new players to play with old players. This will allow games to more social than they are now.
Hi All,
this discussion is going very well...feel free to continue on with the ideas.
I believe that the end game scenarios we currently see in MMOs are only the tip of the ice berg.
Cheers,
Garrett
How about a radically idea - the end game is...well the end!
Everything ends; Football seasons, civilisations, films, books, single players games, marthon races - why is it that a MMORPG has no end other than the day the developers decide to pull the plug? It makes no sense other than financial.
End game "raiding" is akin to heroin. You never ever get the same high as you did the first time and there is no closure. How about instead , an end that is the result of either player action or a pre-determined date. So for example, 3 years after the game server opens, a massive barbarian army starts to form in distant lands. Over a few weeks, it speads and starts to reap havoc - pillaging towns, decimating whole regions until it emerges at the gates of the main cities.
The heroic actions of the player community may prevail defeating the scourge or the evil barbarians may wipe out every last player - but either way, the game is over. Players are now rewarded for their effort with something tangible, maybe a small percentage refund of monthly fee's, prizes for best guild, best pvp , most completed quest, best dressed, or even .. gasp...a free three month trial of the developers new MMORPG waiting in the wings.
Think back to all the single games you have played - finishing the game was satisfying, a sense of achivement . I want that in a MMORPG, i dont want to just burn out and quit one day or keep jumping through the same hoops like pavlov's dog. I think some of the suggestion on the forum post are great for game content but why would you want to play the same game forever?
The day you die, the earth will still be there...so it doesn't end, not before a few million years anyway. of course there would be an aging system, but even then, your char would die only when you do. So your idea is strange and actually non-sense to me.
Hmm it's not a "world", it is a game..and worlds do end, it just takes a few billion years. I guess my writting style is a bit off as if the idea of an ending is "strange" then that must be due to my lack of clarity. BountyGreg..what is your favourite film? How does it end? did you enjoy the progession of the film - start, middle , end? was there a sequal, did you watch that?
Now think about the answers to thoes questions and change film for MMORPG. The start for many MMO players is designing characters and picking skills. The middle part of understanding the game dynamics and leveling up characters. And the end-game consits of raiding, raiding, raiding, raiding ...hmmm.. raiding, raiding, raiding - where is the end? The end for many players that i jave met over the years is normally burnout, boredom or real world events taking over.
There is a MMO game, i think called World War 2 or something similar (cant be bothered to Google) that has an ending, one side allied/axis wins the war and the servers reset before the whole thing starts again. I think i played it on a free 10 day trial a while back courtesy of mmorpg.com and the gameplay was somewhat poor but the idea of players achieving something final, either winning or losing, is for me a refreshing element to gameplay.
typo's abound in this post - sorry
Hmm it's not a "world", it is a game..and worlds do end, it just takes a few billion years. I guess my writting style is a bit off as if the idea of an ending is "strange" then that must be due to my lack of clarity. BountyGreg..what is your favourite film? How does it end? did you enjoy the progession of the film - start, middle , end? was there a sequal, did you watch that?
Now think about the answers to thoes questions and change film for MMORPG. The start for many MMO players is designing characters and picking skills. The middle part of understanding the game dynamics and leveling up characters. And the end-game consits of raiding, raiding, raiding, raiding ...hmmm.. raiding, raiding, raiding - where is the end? The end for many players that i jave met over the years is normally burnout, boredom or real world events taking over.
There is a MMO game, i think called World War 2 or something similar (cant be bothered to Google) that has an ending, one side allied/axis wins the war and the servers reset before the whole thing starts again. I think i played it on a free 10 day trial a while back courtesy of mmorpg.com and the gameplay was somewhat poor but the idea of players achieving something final, either winning or losing, is for me a refreshing element to gameplay.
typo's abound in this post - sorry
I would tell you, you actually played the wrong games. You seem to talk about WoW here, and even though it has many players, it's not the only game out there.If you look at Star Wars Galaxies for example, there is nothing like raiding.
My favorite film, well I couldn't tell you because I watch so many of them. I sure love the Star Wars Universe, but it goes on in books and comics and games...so it actually doesn't end.
I know for sure our game won't be like WoW. It's a game evolving with time. So here again I don't see how you'd want to implement an end.
But seriously, when I play an MMO, spend tons of money and time in it, I don't want my char to be wiped and all my possessions taken away. Some of the goals in MMO is to gather many trophies and unique items, souvenirs and so on. I'd actually be very angry if all that would be gone.
The only goal in WW2 online is to win a war. All you do all day is kill ennemies. To me it's not an MMO, it's a persistent world. In MMO you can craft things, sometimes have your own house, go to a bar and chat with friends and of course fight. But it's also about exploration, visiting places.
Hmm it's not a "world", it is a game..and worlds do end, it just takes a few billion years. I guess my writting style is a bit off as if the idea of an ending is "strange" then that must be due to my lack of clarity. BountyGreg..what is your favourite film? How does it end? did you enjoy the progession of the film - start, middle , end? was there a sequal, did you watch that?
Now think about the answers to thoes questions and change film for MMORPG. The start for many MMO players is designing characters and picking skills. The middle part of understanding the game dynamics and leveling up characters. And the end-game consits of raiding, raiding, raiding, raiding ...hmmm.. raiding, raiding, raiding - where is the end? The end for many players that i jave met over the years is normally burnout, boredom or real world events taking over.
There is a MMO game, i think called World War 2 or something similar (cant be bothered to Google) that has an ending, one side allied/axis wins the war and the servers reset before the whole thing starts again. I think i played it on a free 10 day trial a while back courtesy of mmorpg.com and the gameplay was somewhat poor but the idea of players achieving something final, either winning or losing, is for me a refreshing element to gameplay.
typo's abound in this post - sorry
I would tell you, you actually played the wrong games. You seem to talk about WoW here, and even though it has many players, it's not the only game out there.If you look at Star Wars Galaxies for example, there is nothing like raiding.
My favorite film, well I couldn't tell you because I watch so many of them. I sure love the Star Wars Universe, but it goes on in books and comics and games...so it actually doesn't end.
I know for sure our game won't be like WoW. It's a game evolving with time. So here again I don't see how you'd want to implement an end.
But seriously, when I play an MMO, spend tons of money and time in it, I don't want my char to be wiped and all my possessions taken away. Some of the goals in MMO is to gather many trophies and unique items, souvenirs and so on. I'd actually be very angry if all that would be gone.
The only goal in WW2 online is to win a war. All you do all day is kill ennemies. To me it's not an MMO, it's a persistent world. In MMO you can craft things, sometimes have your own house, go to a bar and chat with friends and of course fight. But it's also about exploration, visiting places.
Hmmm, played a few MMO games, WOW is the one of the most recent but not my only experiance. Think star wars galaxies is probably a red herring in this debate - it seemed to have no point at all and then was dumbed down even further. But anyhow, i respect your postion BountyGreg but i think we are talking about different things.
You think of this as a real world, with infinte posibilities and opptunities and i wish you well in your game development. I just have a different view. It is just a game to me!, a transiant hobby - akin to watching a great film, eating a meal with friends, going to the park with my kid, i am not fan of Pikamon (gotta collect them all $$$) and i dont want to spend 70% of my free time playing a game beacuse then it becomes work. I play MMORPG because it is convienient and i like my cosy spot in front of my PC.
It's just the phrase: "end game" - The ned game is Chess is just that, move, move, check - mate! Ok - lets not call it the end game, lets call it the game
f you say to me: " by implementing this great feature, or that great concept..." then the game experiances is enhanced, well i belive you. But to suggest that games should go on forever like real life seems a bit pointless. To me, they will always be games and no substitute for the reality that is infintely better than a digital fantasy.
Ahhh sorry to ramble, gone of on a small tangent - anyway, can anybody tell me of a MMORPG that actually has an end?
If I'm not mistaken progress of setting and story is entirely driven by the players, which is then acted upon by the developers. At a certain time however, when conditions are met for story/setting progression the 'era' ends and a new one is developped or started up.
This may mean starting over, but as the game is very different from mainstream games, it caters to those who can 'cope' with those conditions. It certainly isn't a game that apeals to many.
Then there's also those few games that have Live events and/or the aspiration to be a dynamic world with an evolving storyline.
Ryzom (the Saga of) for instance was originally planned to be an evolving story that would take up 8 years to reach to it's conclusion. Playeractions would define the outcome for each server/shard, new continents and planets would be discovered, and technology/magical research would progress over time as the story unfolds.
In Eve the game is the story, made by the corporations; wether it was designed to have an end I can not say as I don't know the game well enough.
Neither of these two games' story involvement limits players by their progression. Everyone could potentially get involved and leave it's mark. Endgame is non-existant, except when the game literally ends or it's story comes to an end.
I'm not going to say such things would apeal to a majority of players, but there's certainly a portion of the MMO playerbase that seems to find interaction and involvement with story and world progression on any level of experience is as equally important as character progression through experience/gear. With a lot of games currently going 'easymode' and without dynamic worlds, where the high level caps are so easily reached and story involvment means squat, it's no surprise many either go bored with the game, find themselves uninspired, unimpressed or have only a long raiding/pvp threadmill to face. Till the next expansion comes around which adds a measily couple levels and more of the same threadmill.
And that's where most if not all mainstream games seem to end.
Why is everyone thinking on how to remedy the "Endgame" plague when you can avoid it in the first place? There have been examples out there of how games can effectively bypass the "problem" in the first place, with player achivement almost a seperate entity.
When you disect an MMO, the main points are;
So, why then, are most developers merging Achievement and Exploration together? Why not use them as totally seperate entities?
However, there was one game that did something radically different in my opinion, and thats The Matrix Online.
Yeah, so MxO doesn't have huge raids that require a horde of people to be involved. It doesn't have cool equipment that "everyone wants" and ultimately, look like carbon copies of each other. It doesn't have a diverse ladder system that would reward a player with items and prestige.
But what it has, is evolving storyline.
Storyline!? In an MMO!? Like ZOMG! But yes, the primary driving force of "traditional" games and all things fiction and entertainment related has long been ignored. Do not mix Storyline with Lore. WoW has a great Lore, but no driving storyline that could be affected by players.
But what about Quests, you might ask. To me, Quests are but sub-plots of a general storyline. Most if not all other MMOs have a base but unchanging storyline. But what MxO did was to have events (monthly if I recall it right) that would continue the storyline... to the point where it is the major, if only factor that keeps players coming back.
But an evolving storyline will not do if the players are not convinced.
And thats where roleplay comes in.
Roleplay!? n3rD1! G33k!!1
But really, what better way to immerse a player then slowly involving them, little by little, and before they realize it, they are totally submerged, to put it poetically?
Think back to a game where you had fun with. Or rather, think back to a singleplayer game you had fun with. For me, one of such games was Dues Ex. Why? It was Immersive. Why is WoW the way it is? It also is immersive, lack of evolving storyline aside.
In the words of Randy in Southpark; "In real life, I am but a geologist. But in here, I am Felcorn, Defender of the Alliance!"
And that is the kind of feeling that MMOs should give. Anything less "attached" should be reserved for the realm of competitive deathmatch games like Quake or Unreal.
Check out the MxO forums. Any event related stuff posted on it. And you will soon realize, that most posts posted about the game or specifically events in the game are all done "in-character". Truth be told, it is much easier to pull off in MxO with the setting (present day to futuristic), but with that said, there has been a substantial emphasis of immersiveness.
So, without rambling on about a totally new angle at approching MMOs, namely evolving storylines and immersiveness, we just have to wait to see what developers would do.
Oh and, if Ragnar Tornquist of Funcom has anything to do with Conan, I might just get what I want
http://www.mmogchart.com/Analysis.html
"UO approached 300,000 subscribers"
OVer 200k subs is a smashing success sure WoW has done way better but look at WoW- it had a HUGE budget and took years to develop versus UO was made by a really small Austin company. Not to mention how many yrs ago when UO was developed trust me computers were not even as common back then and were not capable of the nice, realistic graphics we have today. People that spew off all this WoW comparisons are simply not looking at the whole picture
In RPGs you can die and yes you have to revert to a saved game. But still you die in the context of the game and if you do not have a save then you are permenantly dead period. In the context of an RPG you are dead, permadeath. Some other RPGs have debt or respawns
In Counterstrike if you die you gotta watch the match- you are dead the whole match there is no respawn what FPS games you play? Same with tactical Ops. The same with Rainbow 6: Vegas you can be dead for almost 20 minutes! Get your facts straight.
I agree that debt can really suck but other mechanics such as being able to lose items can be fun if done correctly. For instance, say someone infiltrates a player run city and steals a valuable item. The defenders / cops should have the opportunity to slay the player and retrieve their stolen item. This adds a nice player run dynamic that could be very fun if designed properly. Player looting does not have to suck we just need to use our imaginations here and think outside the box.
And yes Warhammer Online is sometihng i lok forward to but I do not expect anything ground breaking. It's not really player run content and because there is no risk/reward it wont have a lot of depth. In WAR I will most likely charge into an entire army and go for all the kills I can because I do not fear death or losing anything. At least in Age of Conan you can lose Blood Money
I 100% agree with all these points these are ideas similar to my own. This is what baffles us both I suspect- many people all recite this is what they want but we are not seeing this.
The problem with Dynamic Content are these factors:
1) Dynamic Lightning is expensive to compute. You will need to use cutting edge methods like PSSM or CSM for lighting a huge virtual enviroment. So it will take a pretty nice PC to compute the shadows for dynamic entities. The beenfit is that we can get day and night cycles etc. Problem is developers are used to static lighting (lightmaps). they can be computed offline and are really fast during real time. Computers in general just handle static data much better
2) A lot more network packets being replicated. Now you have to replicate when a tree gets destroyed. Whats worse, this event needs to be replicated to all the clients in the game because they can no longer collide with it, etc. You can no longer rely on the client having a reliable land mass you now need to 'stream' all this data
3) More CPU Power. The more complexity you add- the rule of thumb is the more hardware resources your game demands. Dynamic worlds will for sure be a lot more demanding
4) Have to worry about one uber guild ruining everything this is the fear of player run worlds to some Devs is my guess. its hard to design a system that deals with all the types of players.
5) Devs like Level based systems. This is really a huge timesink cause if a player wants to try a different class, well he has to reroll. If you go skill based, you are giving the players the freedom to design their own roles and classes. This removes the control from Developers and thats something they dont like
6) difficult to design a system whereas players dont kill off entire population. this can be remedied easily I think but it takes some thought
7) have to provide ways for the enviroment to naturally reclaim ownership. For instance an abanadoned city- either you charge taxes or let mobs destroy it if not defended or let other players to invade. These are all things you must design for and specilize your game towards that crowd. Versus "mainstream" in which dumbs down the MMO and focuses on a few things that "most" players want. which is much easier to design
Benefits:
1) You no longer have to fight the treadmill of having to constantly develop new quests
2) Player base can possibly be entertained indefinetly if each 'world' is player run. If you get bored on one world you can possibly jump to another for a totally different experience
3) No need for end game. This type of game can easily last for years and years because the more control you put in hands of the player the more content 'players' can put in your game. For instance, Half Life and Unreal Tournament have enjoyed looonnngggg lifetimes because the ability of Mod Makers to add content. Well, the more control you put in hands of players it can possibly be a big win for MMOs. World Of Warcraft got part of this right on client side code with the LUA modules for User Interfaces. Now, if we can that sort of complexity on the server side (like building cities, towns, controlling NPC population, etc). The toys we put in the sandbox the funnier the experience can be