Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Affect the World! [MMORPG vs SPRPG]
AlBQuirky
Member EpicPosts: 7,432
"I want my actions to affect the world."
I've seen this sentiment in a few threads and often wonder how it works when thousands (sometimes multiple thousands) of players are sharing that world.
In a single player game where I am the only one playing I can see this and want it, which many SPRPGs seem to be steering away from these days.
When I think about MMORPGs, the choices made, the quests accomplished, the actions taken that may "change the world", how is this commuinicated to other players that took different, or opposite choices, actions, quests in the same world area?
One player saves a King. Another ignores the quest and the King dies. When both players enter the capital, is there a King present? The same one, or a different one? What do the other layers see who haven't gotten to that quest yet? Will they ever get the chance to "save the King?"
A player finds a group and they attack an enemy encampment. Is that encampment gone for all time (one time event) or will another appear for other players to enjoy wiping out?
Not that many MMOs today offer such depth, but if they did, how would it work?
"Instances" remove the MMO part of the equation, so while that may be a solution to some, I don't see it.
PS: Ancient_Exile, this for you 
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Comments
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
It could be done in a pve way as well but it would probably have to involve instances. Maybe a sort of competition on which player alliance did it first? Not sure.
I have no problems with instances in mmorpg's if they are done well but I understand why others don't like it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
For quests you can't really have an outcome affect anyone else unless it is a single quest not tied to any other, it's more like an event instead of a quest so when it goes live anyone online at the time has a chance to complete it first, or the quest changes so subtly that anyone can still complete it and the difference is so small no one notices anyway.
For example the king could need saved once a month and for the entire remaining month between the player that contributed the most gets a special label. Or perhaps it's a quest and every time someone completes it the quest changes from King, Queen, Lord, Jester, or any other member of the royal family, but the point being that it's still effectively the same quest it just changes up between different players and eventually will roll back around to the king again.
The encampment scenario is a lot easier to handle on an immersion level and it becomes a more technical hurdle. SWG had encampments that would spawn around the area and when all the enemies were killed it would get destroyed and spawn somewhere else. You get the dynamic nature of destroying an encampment, but no one else has to miss out on fighting that NPC. It's just not found in the same area any more.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
And you are totally satisfied with that? Simply reliving the same experiences over and over?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
If I take a walk in any of our national parks they aren't going to change "that" much. Oh sure, trees might be taller or have died but the feeling is still there.
Maybe the bigger thing would be to have the forest stay the same but what's happening in the forest change?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
That's what I would like. For the game world to be dynamic rather than static.
I think that's what Everquest Next was going for but it's not clear if they ever achieved any part of it before it was shelved.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It should not end immediately, the MOBs should respawn with a limit based on "reinforcements" set by the attacking side's supply end.
This is a place where my idea of Guild Militaries works.
A PvEer joins a Guild, but they don't want to PvP. They don't join the Guild's Military.
But they can fill supply orders. They can use their Hirelings (attuned to their Crafting Skill) to build things, but if that's out in the field, they can lose those Hirelings to an enemy attack. The Player would have the option to send their Hirelings out there, or only use them in safe areas.
* These PvE Players can go anywhere they want, including the battle zones. But if in radius of a battle, they lose their Blocking, they turn almost transparent and ghostlike, and they can't battle with PvPers or their aligned NPC's/MOBs.
However, if PvPers train outside MOBs in, the PvEers can battle with those.
Mainly the PvEers are supply side actors. But see Quests, below.
Quests can be added for both PvP and PvE.
In the case of PvEers, their quests can be to attack supply caravans and bases.
* This is important as it affects the Respawn rate of the main battle, based on supply, as stated above.
These supply caravans and outlying bases can't be attacked by the Militaries (the PvPers)
* in a reversal of the above outline, because they are "secret" runs disguised as normal caravans. They are not "officially" in the war.
(This part can also be instanced, but I really don't like instancing.)
So both get to do their part in a larger scale Event.
Once upon a time....
Not my cup of tea. You may drink different tea of your choosing.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
WOW has been doing it for more than a decade with their "before and after" phased versions of villages and other battlefields. ESO does it as well although the architecture and terrain doesn't change much but the population and which notable NPCs are or are not there, before and after you do the local quest chain.
EQN had plans to bring this to another level for anyone who remembers more than the hype about voxels: NPCs were going to react to you differently and give you one of many possible quests or none at all depending on how they "felt" about you - i.e. the whole common faction things was to be done at the individual NPC/player level as well. There were also going to be community area development projects and roving mobs trying to keep you from completing it.
If they had managed to launch it as they were describing it, EQN would have shaken up MMORPG design in many important ways. They were actually trying to create a game where everyone would get a slightly different experience and servers would develop over time in ways unique to them and unlike how the other servers were developing.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that.
I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.
Honestly, I don't like the idea of catering so much to PVE-only players and designing whole systems around their particular preferences. Personally, I think I would rather take the risk of alienating certain kinds of players rather than implementing such unrealistic designs (insofar as allowing some players to be incapable of being attacked by others).
The only way your going to see world changing is within survival games.I was going to say the Minecraft looking games as well but a few i can think of do nothing but look like LEGO versions of shallow games we already have.
It is easy for a developer to give us the world changing tools,the problem is how to implement restrictions and working around other players.
So the end result is survival games with possibly a few thousand players spread across several shards.
We have heard lot's of advertising when coems to the "CLOUD" gaming potentials but like everything else,i wouldn't expect much more than what it is,a gimmick to promote some new business venture.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.