How about letting our characters join class guilds. Wizards guilds, thieves guilds, temples etc.
Let us progress in rank within these guilds, pay dues, get quests have responsibilities.
As for magic - I kind of like the old d&d opposing schools type of magic, so you dont get everything. Another system was runequest where the deity you worshipped determind what spells you could learn. Some were banned, and you had other races / deities you were hostile to.
Let us get involved in political organizations, merchants guilds, criminal cartels etc.
Give us quests that relate to these. Merchant clans could be fighting a trade war. They might hire thieves, fighters to raid the other guilds wagon trains, headquarters etc.
Fighters can join the mercenary guild. Let them join companies, hire out as bodyguards, fight in wars.
Let Wizard guilds research and invent new spells.
Send priest out to preach, paladins out to destroy those pesky evil necromancers.
Give necromancers grave sites and battlefields they can raise corpses from. Then let the local villagers get hostile at the grave robbers.
Give us reputation and make it mean something. Let us change the world.
You want better social experience - ditch the 40 man raids. How can anyone develop friendships in a group of 40. 8 is great.
So crafters could all be in the respective guild houses - jewellers, smiths, tanners etc. Then make the form wagon trains to get their goods to market. Let them hire guards etc. Make the journey part of the process and make it interesting instead of this instant - grab 3 lumps of iron and click a button you have a sword.
It doesnt matter if the world is static if the guilds and organizations are dynamic and driving the story.
While I dislike the methods suggested in the article, the basic premise of trying to appeal to more roleplayers is a good one. The whole genre MMORPG is named after the roleplayers who were the founding interest for it, and yet most companies are doing a pathetic job of strictly trying to chase after the PvP market.
Chasing after a niche is a recipe for mediocrity and turning away most of your potential playerbase.
At some time some developer is going to develop a game that appeals to the RPer niche in a major way and they will flock to it. I just hope we don't swing to extremes all the time by doing this and someone can make a good game that has elements to appeal to all gamer groups.
SWG had a bit of the "group storage" idea, what with you being able to build a "house" and then give your citymates the ability to pick up and leave things there. SWG had a lot going for it now that I look back on it. Too bad really.
Well hell, if we're gonna talk about good ideas that have been done before and should be done again...
- group storage, rights of adding and removing. (some games have this of course) ~The aforementioned SWG has it ~Ultima Online had it first, though, and even allowed for personal storage boxes within someone's house
- events. Why can't the social unit have a calendar of events in the guild hall? jeeze. ~UO had the ability to do this, though it was hardly fully-functional. Before they finally implemented in-game Message Boards, my guild left a book posted in the guild-house where we listed events
- forum. in game forum of announcements, forum posts, discussion rooms, chat rooms. ~UO again, has this. It took them way, way too long, but they finally implemented player-crafted Message Boards which could be posted in a player-house. You could only post one board per house, though.
This sort of thing definitely needs to find a new home in newer games, though. Airhead's point that this stuff all needs to be in-game, rather than requiring someone to go to a website is well made, too. Calendars and Forums especially allow for a more visible way of demonstrating what a given group is all about. The idea of systemized loans could definitely allow for merchants' guilds and bankers to give loans, and allow in-game law enforcement to go after those who default on their loans.
Originally posted by DariusWolfe Given the ratio of worthwhile players to non-worthwhile players, I think the chance that I'm going to run into someone worthwhile during play is about the same as randomly being dropped into a "family" with them.
The average ratio of good vs. bad people is of course the same in any group that is chosen totally randomly, but in a family system you have to co-exist with the bad ones too. If you don't, people will just do the same thing they do right now but within a family group: find a few others they like (to get the bonuses), and ignore the rest. Family or not, they still have to go through others individually to get to know them.
Originally posted by DariusWolfe group storage, rights of adding and removing.
I used to play SWG, and there was often pretty serious drama when some disgruntled guild member looted the entire storage house and quit the guild. I would rather have the officers control what is put into the storage and what is taken out, by whom and for what reason. Of course then you need to be able to trust the officers, but one would imagine they are on average more trustworthy than initiates.
Originally posted by DariusWolfe events. Why can't the social unit have a calendar of events in the guild hall?
We use an add-on in WoW called the "Guild Event Manager". You get an icon in your game interface which you can click to open a calendar. People make events, designate the time, required number and levels of people, and others then sign up for those events. We mostly use it for raid scheduling but any and all guild events are always added there. Notifying 50+ people of events would be hard otherwise.
Originally posted by DariusWolfe forum. in game forum of announcements, forum posts, discussion rooms, chat rooms?
There have been several server wide chat channels in each game I have played, and you were able to create new ones for specific topics and groups too. You speak of visibility within the game, but much of the information guilds post within their message boards is restricted to members only on purpose. Having the guild charter accessible directly from the game itself might be handy, but one would first need to find the house where it is in. Most guilds require a sponsor anyway, random people who just happen to stop by are rarely invited. If you get a sponsor, you know where to find the charter.
Having everything a guild needs within the game doesn't seem feasible, you would always need a website for one purpose or another anyway, be it DKP lists, screenshot galleries, special hand-crafted tools, etc etc. Although I do admit some basic tools could of course be implemented within the game just to help out technologically challenged guild masters.
.... You speak of visibility within the game, but much of the information guilds post within their message boards is restricted to members only on purpose ....
Having everything a guild needs within the game doesn't seem feasible, you would always need a website for one purpose or another anyway, be it DKP lists, screenshot galleries, special hand-crafted tools, etc etc. ....
1. So the guild members are given a security key to control visibility...even better than a user-name and password, cause the game server keeps up with it, and it's tied to your account.... 2. Nothing magical about screenshots either, there's a photo album in the guild, or a painting on the wall showing our latest group mug shot.
The ONLY possible issue with having more group-interaction tools within game is bandwidth and storage, and can the hosting companies handle it. It's like in-game voice. Of course it needs to exist and should exist. In some games it does. However, it usually doesn't work that great because it's coming through the same hole as the game content, so using teamspeak etc on other servers works better. That's the only real objection I see to putting everything in-game.... HOWEVER, there are alternative architectures that would make it possible, and achieve the same effect that is achieved now: having a gaming server, seperate from their voice server, seperate from their website with pictures server, etc.
But everything in-game was just an additional point I threw in that would help people stay engaged with others while playing. The main point is multiple structures, multiple organizations. Somebody further up the thread listed out a bunch of 'i wants' that really hit on it. I want to be in a thieves guild. I want to be a cogwheel in an economincally motivated business. I want to be a member of a secret order of assassins that kills griefers and farmers on contract. I want to blah blah. Ultimately, i want to be a member of 20+ different organizations, each organized around a different purpose, with different structures, rules, requirements, etc. IF such a thing was ever implemented, having the means for the all the interaction that will occur should be in-game, otherwise the player would get really taxed with keeping up with it all...
The average ratio of good vs. bad people is of course the same in any group that is chosen totally randomly, but in a family system you have to co-exist with the bad ones too. If you don't, people will just do the same thing they do right now but within a family group: find a few others they like (to get the bonuses), and ignore the rest. Family or not, they still have to go through others individually to get to know them.
You make a good point, but I'm personally just not seeing this as a bad thing. I'm like this in my own real-life family, and I *love* all of them. I just don't spend a lot of time with those that I don't share some special bond with. Having that sort of thing in game is cool with me, because while it may not affect me directly, it can affect me indirectly, and I'll have to deal with that. If one member of the family starts doing things that bring down the family rep, we'd have to take steps. It'd be kinda mafia, but that's cool too.
I used to play SWG, and there was often pretty serious drama when some disgruntled guild member looted the entire storage house and quit the guild. I would rather have the officers control what is put into the storage and what is taken out, by whom and for what reason. Of course then you need to be able to trust the officers, but one would imagine they are on average more trustworthy than initiates.
Definitely an issue, sure, but again I don't see you saying that it's a bad idea. It's a social dynamic problem rather than a game mechanic one. I never bothered to store stuff at anyone's house myself, but there was a section of the guild-hall set aside for storage. As I remember, all of our officers had access to it, so if you wanted to store or pull something out of there, you went through them. In UO, I maintained a Supply Room, and a separate Vault. Anyone in the guild was given full access to the supply room, with mid-grade weapons, armor, reagents, etc. More often than not, guild-members would dump stuff there, rather than taking it. When it would begin to pile up, some of the stuff would go on vendors, and the proceeds would be used to buy more things like reagents, which were occasionally depleted. The vault was accessible only by myself and my officers, who were people I'd known for years and trusted implicitly.
We use an add-on in WoW called the "Guild Event Manager". You get an icon in your game interface which you can click to open a calendar. People make events, designate the time, required number and levels of people, and others then sign up for those events. We mostly use it for raid scheduling but any and all guild events are always added there. Notifying 50+ people of events would be hard otherwise.
Very cool. Not quite as cool as a publicly available board that non-guildies could check, though. I know on SWG and UO both, there were a lot of guild-sponsored events that were open to non-guildies, and I even heard of several that were massive successes and became annual or monthly events for a while. SWG's email system worked for this mostly, though obviously you had to be on the list to get the notification, which has much the same issue as the WoW add-on.
There have been several server wide chat channels in each game I have played, and you were able to create new ones for specific topics and groups too. You speak of visibility within the game, but much of the information guilds post within their message boards is restricted to members only on purpose. Having the guild charter accessible directly from the game itself might be handy, but one would first need to find the house where it is in. Most guilds require a sponsor anyway, random people who just happen to stop by are rarely invited. If you get a sponsor, you know where to find the charter.
Again, Server-Wide Chat-Channels don't serve the same function. The idea here is a place that can be checked for messages at the player's leisure, not where you'd have to be online at the same time the announcement is made. And sure, a lot of times such a forum is going to be made private.. But a lot of times, guild-forums on websites are made private, too. On the other hand, those that want to reach out to other players are going to have a public forum in addition to their private forum, and having this in game is a lot more visible than having to navigate to a website to find it. I've run through many bustling cities in SWG and wondered what sort of people lived there. I've seen many grand houses in UO with their guildstone out-front, and beyond a charter, I've been unable to determine anything about them. If the cities or guilds had had a public calendar or message board, I could have found out a little more about them, and made a judgement about whether or not they were someone I wanted to get involved with.
Now, obviously you don't want to create systems to force people to interact with those they don't want to (forced grouping ::cough cough::). The idea is to create systems that encourage people to meet new people, and to facilitate community.
Originally posted by DariusWolfe Player-customized organizations: What I'm not sure I understand is why you feel the need to have mechanical definition to the structure. ... What specific benefit does having mechanical conditions have over simply delegating authority and responsibility, and coming up with a fair system of your own?
This is something I deal with frequently in my day job as a project manager -- under what circumstances should an informal system be formalized?
The first thing to note about a formal organization-defining tool is that it would be optional. Anyone who prefers to roleplay organizational functions and roles could still do so.
For those who want it, I think a formal organization-defining tool would have several virtues:
takes some of the subjectivity out of advancement within the group by clearly defining the requirements
distributes responsibility for managing the roles and achievements of subordinates from one person to many
the game itself could provide visible markers of status within the organization (badges, titles, etc.)
Over-formalizing an effective informal process is usually a bad idea. So I'm leery of such things. But bearing that concern in mind, giving players a formal (but optional) system for defining the internal structure of their organizations strikes me as adding capability, rather than imposing unnecessary formalism.
I'm open to hearing reasoning to the contrary, though.
Originally posted by DariusWolfe
Factions and Faction Ratings: The biggest problem I have with faction rating systems overall is that there's rarely any real reason for certain ratings to change. I kill a whole camp of ewoks on Endor, none escapes.. Why exactly is the rest of the faction going to hate me more? And why exactly are the ewoks' enemies going to like me? It's not like I'm necessarily going to go brag about my killing, and I was definitely careful to leave no witnesses. That's my one gripe with the systems.
Fortunately that's a concern beyond the scope of my suggestion.
But to try to speak to it, that plausibility thing bugs me, too. On the other hand, I recognize that getting it would require several features:
an NPC observer
action occurs inside the awareness range of the observer
observer is able to exit the player's observation range
The question is, given that so much is already being abstracted in these games, is there enough direct benefit to enough players from implementing these features to justify that development time? In other words, where faction is concerned, isn't it a useful abstraction to just conclude that "somebody I didn't see saw me do it"?
Or is "abstraction" another word for "interesting gameplay feature opportunity"? Maybe there's some kind of gameplay that would be worth adding to answer the questions of how factional NPCs know what you do, and how they communicate with other NPCs of their faction, and how NPCs of opposing factions come to be aware of actions that go against their interests....
Originally posted by Flatfingers Just to follow up.... Originally posted by DariusWolfe Player-customized organizations: What I'm not sure I understand is why you feel the need to have mechanical definition to the structure. ... What specific benefit does having mechanical conditions have over simply delegating authority and responsibility, and coming up with a fair system of your own?
This is something I deal with frequently in my day job as a project manager -- under what circumstances should an informal system be formalized?
This is very good discussion/point here. Formalized systems are of course easier to implement, and easier for the user (gamer in this case) to use. The negative is of course that it's limiting.
For example, it seems that most MMOs i've played have this single guild-leader concept that you can be a member of, and it's organized with a king (guild-leader), who may have a level of people below him (officers) who have varying kinds of rights and responsibilities, etc. All a top-down, leader-king kind of mentality, with some degree of power transference possible. Let's call that the "guild-leader" formalized system.
I've always toyed with the idea of creating a guild that was based on the US Constitution.... (waits for laughing to stop)... it would go something like this: the guild is formed, there are three branches of government. Guild rules go thru legislative, executive veto, overwridden with 60% of legislative, etc. Then a judicial branch that governs disputes. And executive that organizes activities and enforcements, with elections held every so often etc. (blah blah, don't mean to blab on, just making sure you see that i mean the 'whole' shabang). Let's call that the "constitutional" formalized system.
That's just 2. What if a game had let's say 10 or so different formalized systems to pick from? That would at least be more interesting than having just 1. The only other way I could see it happening is to try and break it all down and have some method of letting the players create the structure/type of government for the groups. While I think that could be possible, one might end up with something so complex that it's no longer enjoyable. So I'm kinda leaning towards a choice between multiple organizational forms, (formalized and implemented in-game of course), and use that when forming the multiple organizations that I can be a member of etc.
We're not talking on quite the same wavelength, Flatfingers.
Y'see, the organization I mentioned with my old UO guild was highly formalized. We had a laws document, with penalties for breaking rules and everything. The difference between what I had going and what you were talking about back in your previous post is the difference between a formalized system, and a system that is supported by the laws of physics.
In my system, it was like so (superior to subordinate): Oh, you've made your requisite skill level, and all the other requirements for the next rank? Cool. I'll let the man in charge of promotions know, and we'll get you that promotion.
In your system it's more like (superior to subordinate): Wow I notice a sudden aura of greater power and authority about you. I guess that means you made your requisite skill level and met your other requirements. Good to find that out.
Which isn't to say that your system is bad. I'm just not sure how it's beneficial. If your guild members are doing as they should and so are you, then the promotions will happen as they should. If they're not, then having an automated system will just hide the problem. I'm just imagining what it would have been like to wake up one morning and suddenly realize my rank (back when I was in the military) had gone from Sergeant to Staff Sergeant, and the reactions of those around me when they realized it too.
Edit (to respond to Airhead's points on the idea): Again, there's the difference between formalized and mechanically enforced. Anyone can formalize any system they choose. Consider the fact that our own government isn't reinforced or even supported by any outside agency. It's supported by people, and people's actions. No physical law says I must obey the laws of the land. I can break them, but if I do, and get caught, I'm subject to sanctions by other people. It's other people enforcing the laws, not the nature of reality. If I get promoted at work, it's because a person promoted me, not because I fulfilled requirements dictated to the laws of physics. Basically, what I'm saying is this; The game code and mechanics is basically like the laws of physics. Sometimes it's beneficial to hard-code social rules in a game. I'm not saying it's not. But I don't, myself, see the benefit in this particular case.
As for the faction ratings bit: I didn't say that my problem would be capable of being solved in any reasonable fashion. I'm just saying that it's my one major peeve with Faction Systems. All the same, it's possible that it can be reasonably solved, if I, or someone better qualified, gave it enough thought.
Hey Nathan another great article yet again! I like this idea as well, I'm not much of combat person but will play those type of games if I want something different. I think the new MMORPG Seed seems to be going in this direction, you work with other players to advance your status and there's very little combat. As for how to implent such ideas of being put into a family (or opting out of one) that would be more complicated and best left to someone who's more computer savy than I am!
You're right; I was using "formal" in the way that you mean "mechanical." As some developer put it, what we're talking about is the observation that in these online worlds, "code is law." "Code is physics" is another way to put it, and it's also true. In fact, the reality is that code is both those things -- it defines many of both the physical and social rules of the world. Code, by enabling some abilities, simultanously limits or prevents others.
It's that last bit I think I understand you being concerned about. By creating a code mechanism (what I'd call a formalized feature) for defining and enforcing roles in a player organization, some flexibility is lost. Again, that's the usual risk of formalizing informal processes.
I like a nice medium level of formalism because too much flexibility winds up getting important things lost, while too much formality limits adaptability to new situations. This is why I advocate a bunch of new code with which players can define organizations, but that's both very flexible and completely optional. I think it hits the sweet spot of "tool to help aspiring social group organizers create the kinds of organizations they want," but I'm admittedly biased.
I think my last supporting point of three also goes to your question: an in-game organization-defining system can much more easily be tied into a game's features for displaying visible signs of a character's organizational rank/role. By keying visible markers like rank badges or role titles to an automatic system, the developers don't have to have personal communications with every organization leader for every promotion -- the update just happens.
Finally, it's a minor hack, but I think the specific concern you mentioned about rank changes happening mysteriously in the night could be answered very simply: add a condition that says a promotion doesn't become active until concurred by a higher-ranked member of the organization.
Overall I don't propose a system like this because I want to take control away from organization leaders, but to provide a useful tool for designing their organizational structures. Although it might be a little odd, there's nothing that says a group leader couldn't use the tool to create the role grid... and never apply any conditions to a box, handling all promotions personally.
I favor giving players flexible tools to do the things they like doing. I think a player organization tool would be a good example of that, but I'm always open to better alternatives.
This is an interesting viewpoint. Personally, I feel most true roleplayers would welcome it even without the "incentives", perhaps especially without them. The incentives immediately cause some players to feel they are being gimped if they don't create a random character rather than random characters being rewarded. Rewards should not really be necessary for true roleplayers.
The idea of more "problems" for a "good" family would probably be valid versus more "luck" for those trying to overcome their less desirable personalities.
Players would not have to stick close to the family if they didn't like their relations, but it does still allow for a serious role playing foundation. They could always distance themselves and even perhaps adopt into a different family of their own choosing.
Re-rolling could be limited to once every week or so for those who truly are unhappy with the choice and perhaps they would try a bit harder to roleplay until that time and even come to accept their life. Poor lives serve a purpose too in rolelplaying...it gives the player a purpose in a game...to overcome that view of themselves if they want to.
It rather disappoints me that people come into a game and expect it to be tailored to THEIR way of thinking/playing...and of course there are too many viewpoints for this to ever be done. Everyone wants and expects to be "top dog", the best at everything there is, better than any other race/class/etc. True roleplayers do their best to achieve certain things but most don't expect the game to be tailored just for them to be able to do that; they adapt and get into things as they are.
Believe it or not, some players even purposely make off-beat characters just for the challenge. I've played with a number of them.
Developers have a right to make a game to suit their vision, not conform to others' views (although some things need to be addressed at times, don't get me wrong). The main problem with this is of course economics...the almighty dollar...and since the games are so very expensive to make and they want big profits in return, the status quo is perpetuated...unfortunately so.
But what is the point if all games are alike...why must we insist they all conform to making ourselves the best at any and all things in each game? There are plenty of games already of that mode. Why not just play to enjoy something? Make friends, take time to enjoy the landscapes, socialize, etc. Actually, there are a few games now that do break the mold and hopefully this will increase.
Perhaps keeping the server population smaller, and even the worlds, would help foster more cooperation, such as develops in most betas. People there are working together to achieve something and those people tend to stay together when the game opens.
The main problem I think is that there might not be enough true roleplayers to make a huge scale game effective. But I for one would truly like to be able to try something along these lines. Those who don't agree don't have to play it, it's that simple.
Nathan Knaack's weekly column is back with a look at alternative social structures in MMORPGs. Every Monday, this former Rapid Reality developer pens a design-themed column for MMORPG.com.
Weve seen many forms of social interaction in MMORPGs over the years, from loose-knit and temporary groups of people who come together with blind invitations to multiple game-spanning guilds composed of hundreds, even thousands of dedicated members. The internet will soon have more websites dedicated to MMORPG guilds than porn, it seems. Its also no secret that game developers are starting to design content specifically for groups of 40 or more players, fully realizing that this puts most of that content beyond the scope of individuals, even those who might be willing to work with other strangers. In most games, its tough to keep a group of eight players together before someone crashes, leaves to do their own thing, or has to log off for some reason. In a game like WoW, where most of the high-end content requires a good-sized guild to conquer, there is a growing population of casual players, people with lacking social skills, or individuals that just prefer to play solo that are being left out. What I believe MMORPGs could use are some additional social structures, different systems in place to give those people the option of getting involved in larger groups without having to wait in long cues, harass existing members, brown-nose their way into an elite guild. Some readers are already formulating their dont force anything on me rebuttals, so Ill remind them of the key word in this paragraph: additional. Im not talking about changing or eliminating the faction/guild/clan/corporation structure of existing MMORPGs, but adding more optional structures that would provide more dynamic character interaction. Ive spoken of this tactic before, referring to it as tricking people into role-playing. In this case, perhaps a more accurate description is tempting them into it. You can read the full column here.
The problem with MMORPG's today, is that everyone is in a race to get the best loot, the best guild, and beat the hardest content, leaving everything else by the wayside. These aren't roleplaying games anymore. To be honest, it's not the games themselves that are flawed, it's the communities surrounding the game and everyones mindset. Casual gamers complain because they aren't able to get the loot from the 40 man raids becuase they don't hae time to get in a guild like that, Hardcore gamers yelling about content not being released for them to beat. And others complaining abotu the lack of roleplaying and trying to force it down peoples thraots with game mechanic changes, and other things. There definitely is a MMORPG culture going on, it's just more real life than people would want.
Just an observation, Bt given enough time any game develops an ingame culture, take UO for instance. Despite the open pvp, it became a battle between the pk's, and the blues. That was the game, despite others who just joined in not getting the norms of the society when they joined and started complaining when they got killed around 4:00 PM mining over at the minoc mines not knowing that once school gets out you're going to have a flood of "Reds." THe complaining leads to the developers adding fellucca and totally ruining the culture /society that had been developed over the last 4 years of the games existance. It totally went downhill from there for a while.
I've only started looking at the forums here since E3 and since I've started posting on other forums I thought I'd post here, too. Now, I'm just done with Wow and my regulargames arent doing it for me anymore. Not even the GW expansion is enough to keep my happy. I happened onto a forum here at mmorpg that really has people yelling at each other. I looked into the game to see what the fuss was and now I see this thread.
There is a game with guilds and two opposing factions. its got your basic crafting and quests etc etc. What caught my eye was that it has politics. I mean like I play a preist or cleric in games but here I can really be a preist. I can choose a god to worship and I can get higher with that god and it will help me yeah kill things but I would have to spend time with other clerics or paladins or I dunno, they mix up what classes can worship the different gods. And I have an astrology birth day. It's way cool .you should check it out. I never heard of the game before its called dark and light.
it's supposed to come out at the end of the month. not everyone thinks it will but hey, it's not long to wait. why havent I heard of this before?
Comments
How about letting our characters join class guilds. Wizards guilds, thieves guilds, temples etc.
Let us progress in rank within these guilds, pay dues, get quests have responsibilities.
As for magic - I kind of like the old d&d opposing schools type of magic, so you dont get everything. Another system was runequest where the deity you worshipped determind what spells you could learn. Some were banned, and you had other races / deities you were hostile to.
Let us get involved in political organizations, merchants guilds, criminal cartels etc.
Give us quests that relate to these. Merchant clans could be fighting a trade war. They might hire thieves, fighters to raid the other guilds wagon trains, headquarters etc.
Fighters can join the mercenary guild. Let them join companies, hire out as bodyguards, fight in wars.
Let Wizard guilds research and invent new spells.
Send priest out to preach, paladins out to destroy those pesky evil necromancers.
Give necromancers grave sites and battlefields they can raise corpses from. Then let the local villagers get hostile at the grave robbers.
Give us reputation and make it mean something. Let us change the world.
You want better social experience - ditch the 40 man raids. How can anyone develop friendships in a group of 40. 8 is great.
So crafters could all be in the respective guild houses - jewellers, smiths, tanners etc. Then make the form wagon trains to get their goods to market. Let them hire guards etc. Make the journey part of the process and make it interesting instead of this instant - grab 3 lumps of iron and click a button you have a sword.
It doesnt matter if the world is static if the guilds and organizations are dynamic and driving the story.
While I dislike the methods suggested in the article, the basic premise of trying to appeal to more roleplayers is a good one. The whole genre MMORPG is named after the roleplayers who were the founding interest for it, and yet most companies are doing a pathetic job of strictly trying to chase after the PvP market.
Chasing after a niche is a recipe for mediocrity and turning away most of your potential playerbase.
At some time some developer is going to develop a game that appeals to the RPer niche in a major way and they will flock to it. I just hope we don't swing to extremes all the time by doing this and someone can make a good game that has elements to appeal to all gamer groups.
Airhead,
SWG had a bit of the "group storage" idea, what with you being able to build a "house" and then give your citymates the ability to pick up and leave things there. SWG had a lot going for it now that I look back on it. Too bad really.
Bringing Chaos to your locale.
Well hell, if we're gonna talk about good ideas that have been done before and should be done again...
- group storage, rights of adding and removing. (some games have this of course)
~The aforementioned SWG has it
~Ultima Online had it first, though, and even allowed for personal storage boxes within someone's house
- events. Why can't the social unit have a calendar of events in the guild hall? jeeze.
~UO had the ability to do this, though it was hardly fully-functional. Before they finally implemented in-game Message Boards, my guild left a book posted in the guild-house where we listed events
- forum. in game forum of announcements, forum posts, discussion rooms, chat rooms.
~UO again, has this. It took them way, way too long, but they finally implemented player-crafted Message Boards which could be posted in a player-house. You could only post one board per house, though.
This sort of thing definitely needs to find a new home in newer games, though. Airhead's point that this stuff all needs to be in-game, rather than requiring someone to go to a website is well made, too. Calendars and Forums especially allow for a more visible way of demonstrating what a given group is all about. The idea of systemized loans could definitely allow for merchants' guilds and bankers to give loans, and allow in-game law enforcement to go after those who default on their loans.
The average ratio of good vs. bad people is of course the same in any group that is chosen totally randomly, but in a family system you have to co-exist with the bad ones too. If you don't, people will just do the same thing they do right now but within a family group: find a few others they like (to get the bonuses), and ignore the rest. Family or not, they still have to go through others individually to get to know them.
I used to play SWG, and there was often pretty serious drama when some disgruntled guild member looted the entire storage house and quit the guild. I would rather have the officers control what is put into the storage and what is taken out, by whom and for what reason. Of course then you need to be able to trust the officers, but one would imagine they are on average more trustworthy than initiates.
We use an add-on in WoW called the "Guild Event Manager". You get an icon in your game interface which you can click to open a calendar. People make events, designate the time, required number and levels of people, and others then sign up for those events. We mostly use it for raid scheduling but any and all guild events are always added there. Notifying 50+ people of events would be hard otherwise.
There have been several server wide chat channels in each game I have played, and you were able to create new ones for specific topics and groups too. You speak of visibility within the game, but much of the information guilds post within their message boards is restricted to members only on purpose. Having the guild charter accessible directly from the game itself might be handy, but one would first need to find the house where it is in. Most guilds require a sponsor anyway, random people who just happen to stop by are rarely invited. If you get a sponsor, you know where to find the charter.
Having everything a guild needs within the game doesn't seem feasible, you would always need a website for one purpose or another anyway, be it DKP lists, screenshot galleries, special hand-crafted tools, etc etc. Although I do admit some basic tools could of course be implemented within the game just to help out technologically challenged guild masters.
2. Nothing magical about screenshots either, there's a photo album in the guild, or a painting on the wall showing our latest group mug shot.
The ONLY possible issue with having more group-interaction tools within game is bandwidth and storage, and can the hosting companies handle it. It's like in-game voice. Of course it needs to exist and should exist. In some games it does. However, it usually doesn't work that great because it's coming through the same hole as the game content, so using teamspeak etc on other servers works better. That's the only real objection I see to putting everything in-game.... HOWEVER, there are alternative architectures that would make it possible, and achieve the same effect that is achieved now: having a gaming server, seperate from their voice server, seperate from their website with pictures server, etc.
But everything in-game was just an additional point I threw in that would help people stay engaged with others while playing. The main point is multiple structures, multiple organizations. Somebody further up the thread listed out a bunch of 'i wants' that really hit on it. I want to be in a thieves guild. I want to be a cogwheel in an economincally motivated business. I want to be a member of a secret order of assassins that kills griefers and farmers on contract. I want to blah blah. Ultimately, i want to be a member of 20+ different organizations, each organized around a different purpose, with different structures, rules, requirements, etc. IF such a thing was ever implemented, having the means for the all the interaction that will occur should be in-game, otherwise the player would get really taxed with keeping up with it all...
The average ratio of good vs. bad people is of course the same in any group that is chosen totally randomly, but in a family system you have to co-exist with the bad ones too. If you don't, people will just do the same thing they do right now but within a family group: find a few others they like (to get the bonuses), and ignore the rest. Family or not, they still have to go through others individually to get to know them.
You make a good point, but I'm personally just not seeing this as a bad thing. I'm like this in my own real-life family, and I *love* all of them. I just don't spend a lot of time with those that I don't share some special bond with. Having that sort of thing in game is cool with me, because while it may not affect me directly, it can affect me indirectly, and I'll have to deal with that. If one member of the family starts doing things that bring down the family rep, we'd have to take steps. It'd be kinda mafia, but that's cool too.
I used to play SWG, and there was often pretty serious drama when some disgruntled guild member looted the entire storage house and quit the guild. I would rather have the officers control what is put into the storage and what is taken out, by whom and for what reason. Of course then you need to be able to trust the officers, but one would imagine they are on average more trustworthy than initiates.
Definitely an issue, sure, but again I don't see you saying that it's a bad idea. It's a social dynamic problem rather than a game mechanic one. I never bothered to store stuff at anyone's house myself, but there was a section of the guild-hall set aside for storage. As I remember, all of our officers had access to it, so if you wanted to store or pull something out of there, you went through them. In UO, I maintained a Supply Room, and a separate Vault. Anyone in the guild was given full access to the supply room, with mid-grade weapons, armor, reagents, etc. More often than not, guild-members would dump stuff there, rather than taking it. When it would begin to pile up, some of the stuff would go on vendors, and the proceeds would be used to buy more things like reagents, which were occasionally depleted. The vault was accessible only by myself and my officers, who were people I'd known for years and trusted implicitly.
We use an add-on in WoW called the "Guild Event Manager". You get an icon in your game interface which you can click to open a calendar. People make events, designate the time, required number and levels of people, and others then sign up for those events. We mostly use it for raid scheduling but any and all guild events are always added there. Notifying 50+ people of events would be hard otherwise.
Very cool. Not quite as cool as a publicly available board that non-guildies could check, though. I know on SWG and UO both, there were a lot of guild-sponsored events that were open to non-guildies, and I even heard of several that were massive successes and became annual or monthly events for a while. SWG's email system worked for this mostly, though obviously you had to be on the list to get the notification, which has much the same issue as the WoW add-on.
There have been several server wide chat channels in each game I have played, and you were able to create new ones for specific topics and groups too. You speak of visibility within the game, but much of the information guilds post within their message boards is restricted to members only on purpose. Having the guild charter accessible directly from the game itself might be handy, but one would first need to find the house where it is in. Most guilds require a sponsor anyway, random people who just happen to stop by are rarely invited. If you get a sponsor, you know where to find the charter.
Again, Server-Wide Chat-Channels don't serve the same function. The idea here is a place that can be checked for messages at the player's leisure, not where you'd have to be online at the same time the announcement is made. And sure, a lot of times such a forum is going to be made private.. But a lot of times, guild-forums on websites are made private, too. On the other hand, those that want to reach out to other players are going to have a public forum in addition to their private forum, and having this in game is a lot more visible than having to navigate to a website to find it. I've run through many bustling cities in SWG and wondered what sort of people lived there. I've seen many grand houses in UO with their guildstone out-front, and beyond a charter, I've been unable to determine anything about them. If the cities or guilds had had a public calendar or message board, I could have found out a little more about them, and made a judgement about whether or not they were someone I wanted to get involved with.
Now, obviously you don't want to create systems to force people to interact with those they don't want to (forced grouping ::cough cough::). The idea is to create systems that encourage people to meet new people, and to facilitate community.
Just to follow up....
This is something I deal with frequently in my day job as a project manager -- under what circumstances should an informal system be formalized?
The first thing to note about a formal organization-defining tool is that it would be optional. Anyone who prefers to roleplay organizational functions and roles could still do so.
For those who want it, I think a formal organization-defining tool would have several virtues:
Over-formalizing an effective informal process is usually a bad idea. So I'm leery of such things. But bearing that concern in mind, giving players a formal (but optional) system for defining the internal structure of their organizations strikes me as adding capability, rather than imposing unnecessary formalism.
I'm open to hearing reasoning to the contrary, though.
Fortunately that's a concern beyond the scope of my suggestion.
But to try to speak to it, that plausibility thing bugs me, too. On the other hand, I recognize that getting it would require several features:
The question is, given that so much is already being abstracted in these games, is there enough direct benefit to enough players from implementing these features to justify that development time? In other words, where faction is concerned, isn't it a useful abstraction to just conclude that "somebody I didn't see saw me do it"?
Or is "abstraction" another word for "interesting gameplay feature opportunity"? Maybe there's some kind of gameplay that would be worth adding to answer the questions of how factional NPCs know what you do, and how they communicate with other NPCs of their faction, and how NPCs of opposing factions come to be aware of actions that go against their interests....
--Flatfingers
This is something I deal with frequently in my day job as a project manager -- under what circumstances should an informal system be formalized?
This is very good discussion/point here. Formalized systems are of course easier to implement, and easier for the user (gamer in this case) to use. The negative is of course that it's limiting.
For example, it seems that most MMOs i've played have this single guild-leader concept that you can be a member of, and it's organized with a king (guild-leader), who may have a level of people below him (officers) who have varying kinds of rights and responsibilities, etc. All a top-down, leader-king kind of mentality, with some degree of power transference possible. Let's call that the "guild-leader" formalized system.
I've always toyed with the idea of creating a guild that was based on the US Constitution.... (waits for laughing to stop)... it would go something like this: the guild is formed, there are three branches of government. Guild rules go thru legislative, executive veto, overwridden with 60% of legislative, etc. Then a judicial branch that governs disputes. And executive that organizes activities and enforcements, with elections held every so often etc. (blah blah, don't mean to blab on, just making sure you see that i mean the 'whole' shabang). Let's call that the "constitutional" formalized system.
That's just 2. What if a game had let's say 10 or so different formalized systems to pick from? That would at least be more interesting than having just 1. The only other way I could see it happening is to try and break it all down and have some method of letting the players create the structure/type of government for the groups. While I think that could be possible, one might end up with something so complex that it's no longer enjoyable. So I'm kinda leaning towards a choice between multiple organizational forms, (formalized and implemented in-game of course), and use that when forming the multiple organizations that I can be a member of etc.
We're not talking on quite the same wavelength, Flatfingers.
Y'see, the organization I mentioned with my old UO guild was highly formalized. We had a laws document, with penalties for breaking rules and everything. The difference between what I had going and what you were talking about back in your previous post is the difference between a formalized system, and a system that is supported by the laws of physics.
In my system, it was like so (superior to subordinate): Oh, you've made your requisite skill level, and all the other requirements for the next rank? Cool. I'll let the man in charge of promotions know, and we'll get you that promotion.
In your system it's more like (superior to subordinate): Wow I notice a sudden aura of greater power and authority about you. I guess that means you made your requisite skill level and met your other requirements. Good to find that out.
Which isn't to say that your system is bad. I'm just not sure how it's beneficial. If your guild members are doing as they should and so are you, then the promotions will happen as they should. If they're not, then having an automated system will just hide the problem. I'm just imagining what it would have been like to wake up one morning and suddenly realize my rank (back when I was in the military) had gone from Sergeant to Staff Sergeant, and the reactions of those around me when they realized it too.
Edit (to respond to Airhead's points on the idea): Again, there's the difference between formalized and mechanically enforced. Anyone can formalize any system they choose. Consider the fact that our own government isn't reinforced or even supported by any outside agency. It's supported by people, and people's actions. No physical law says I must obey the laws of the land. I can break them, but if I do, and get caught, I'm subject to sanctions by other people. It's other people enforcing the laws, not the nature of reality. If I get promoted at work, it's because a person promoted me, not because I fulfilled requirements dictated to the laws of physics.
Basically, what I'm saying is this; The game code and mechanics is basically like the laws of physics. Sometimes it's beneficial to hard-code social rules in a game. I'm not saying it's not. But I don't, myself, see the benefit in this particular case.
As for the faction ratings bit: I didn't say that my problem would be capable of being solved in any reasonable fashion. I'm just saying that it's my one major peeve with Faction Systems. All the same, it's possible that it can be reasonably solved, if I, or someone better qualified, gave it enough thought.
Heidi
Gotcha, DariusWolfe.
You're right; I was using "formal" in the way that you mean "mechanical." As some developer put it, what we're talking about is the observation that in these online worlds, "code is law." "Code is physics" is another way to put it, and it's also true. In fact, the reality is that code is both those things -- it defines many of both the physical and social rules of the world. Code, by enabling some abilities, simultanously limits or prevents others.
It's that last bit I think I understand you being concerned about. By creating a code mechanism (what I'd call a formalized feature) for defining and enforcing roles in a player organization, some flexibility is lost. Again, that's the usual risk of formalizing informal processes.
I like a nice medium level of formalism because too much flexibility winds up getting important things lost, while too much formality limits adaptability to new situations. This is why I advocate a bunch of new code with which players can define organizations, but that's both very flexible and completely optional. I think it hits the sweet spot of "tool to help aspiring social group organizers create the kinds of organizations they want," but I'm admittedly biased.
I think my last supporting point of three also goes to your question: an in-game organization-defining system can much more easily be tied into a game's features for displaying visible signs of a character's organizational rank/role. By keying visible markers like rank badges or role titles to an automatic system, the developers don't have to have personal communications with every organization leader for every promotion -- the update just happens.
Finally, it's a minor hack, but I think the specific concern you mentioned about rank changes happening mysteriously in the night could be answered very simply: add a condition that says a promotion doesn't become active until concurred by a higher-ranked member of the organization.
Overall I don't propose a system like this because I want to take control away from organization leaders, but to provide a useful tool for designing their organizational structures. Although it might be a little odd, there's nothing that says a group leader couldn't use the tool to create the role grid... and never apply any conditions to a box, handling all promotions personally.
I favor giving players flexible tools to do the things they like doing. I think a player organization tool would be a good example of that, but I'm always open to better alternatives.
Thanks for the comments!
--Flatfingers
This is an interesting viewpoint. Personally, I feel most true roleplayers would welcome it even without the "incentives", perhaps especially without them. The incentives immediately cause some players to feel they are being gimped if they don't create a random character rather than random characters being rewarded. Rewards should not really be necessary for true roleplayers.
The idea of more "problems" for a "good" family would probably be valid versus more "luck" for those trying to overcome their less desirable personalities.
Players would not have to stick close to the family if they didn't like their relations, but it does still allow for a serious role playing foundation. They could always distance themselves and even perhaps adopt into a different family of their own choosing.
Re-rolling could be limited to once every week or so for those who truly are unhappy with the choice and perhaps they would try a bit harder to roleplay until that time and even come to accept their life. Poor lives serve a purpose too in rolelplaying...it gives the player a purpose in a game...to overcome that view of themselves if they want to.
It rather disappoints me that people come into a game and expect it to be tailored to THEIR way of thinking/playing...and of course there are too many viewpoints for this to ever be done. Everyone wants and expects to be "top dog", the best at everything there is, better than any other race/class/etc. True roleplayers do their best to achieve certain things but most don't expect the game to be tailored just for them to be able to do that; they adapt and get into things as they are.
Believe it or not, some players even purposely make off-beat characters just for the challenge. I've played with a number of them.
Developers have a right to make a game to suit their vision, not conform to others' views (although some things need to be addressed at times, don't get me wrong). The main problem with this is of course economics...the almighty dollar...and since the games are so very expensive to make and they want big profits in return, the status quo is perpetuated...unfortunately so.
But what is the point if all games are alike...why must we insist they all conform to making ourselves the best at any and all things in each game? There are plenty of games already of that mode. Why not just play to enjoy something? Make friends, take time to enjoy the landscapes, socialize, etc. Actually, there are a few games now that do break the mold and hopefully this will increase.
Perhaps keeping the server population smaller, and even the worlds, would help foster more cooperation, such as develops in most betas. People there are working together to achieve something and those people tend to stay together when the game opens.
The main problem I think is that there might not be enough true roleplayers to make a huge scale game effective. But I for one would truly like to be able to try something along these lines. Those who don't agree don't have to play it, it's that simple.
Firefly
Just an observation, Bt given enough time any game develops an ingame culture, take UO for instance. Despite the open pvp, it became a battle between the pk's, and the blues. That was the game, despite others who just joined in not getting the norms of the society when they joined and started complaining when they got killed around 4:00 PM mining over at the minoc mines not knowing that once school gets out you're going to have a flood of "Reds." THe complaining leads to the developers adding fellucca and totally ruining the culture /society that had been developed over the last 4 years of the games existance. It totally went downhill from there for a while.
I've only started looking at the forums here since E3 and since I've started posting on other forums I thought I'd post here, too. Now, I'm just done with Wow and my regulargames arent doing it for me anymore. Not even the GW expansion is enough to keep my happy. I happened onto a forum here at mmorpg that really has people yelling at each other. I looked into the game to see what the fuss was and now I see this thread.
There is a game with guilds and two opposing factions. its got your basic crafting and quests etc etc. What caught my eye was that it has politics. I mean like I play a preist or cleric in games but here I can really be a preist. I can choose a god to worship and I can get higher with that god and it will help me yeah kill things but I would have to spend time with other clerics or paladins or I dunno, they mix up what classes can worship the different gods. And I have an astrology birth day. It's way cool .you should check it out. I never heard of the game before its called dark and light.
it's supposed to come out at the end of the month. not everyone thinks it will but hey, it's not long to wait. why havent I heard of this before?