I apologize for being a bit of jerk and not really giving a detailed answer in my first post of this thread.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.
When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.
I understand. However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP. In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI. Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past. Because I don't want to totally rely on AI, and I don't think we need to do so. Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Well said, Sovrath. A lot people quit WoW when Cata launched. It literally changed Azeroth. What Amathe said about the human starting area was one such change.
I did quit WoW then, but not because of the world changes. It was what they did to the Guild structures with that change and my guild fell apart.
Maybe it's because EQ was my first MMOPG, so that's what formed my "expectations", but with 14 or so different starting areas, if I wanted a change, I could find it. Later on, there were still choices in areas to level up in, but not so many.
If what I spent days working on in an MMO was suddenly gone through no fault of my own, I'd leave. I don't mind developers changing "their world", but do not trust in giving that power to players. "Because I can!" is too common of a mantra for far too many people for my tastes.
It all comes down to expectations, I guess. I expect what I accomplished the last time playing an MMO to be there when I come back. I don't want to dance to thousands of other players actions each time I log in. I understand that some players enjoy, even thrive on this, though.
It does have its down side, for sure. An alt comes to the same farmer another character helped ages ago. That alt is given the exact same quest and you can't help but say, "Wolf problem again? Or is it still?" For me, I'd rather deal with "boring old repetitiveness" than "OMG! What the hell happened here!"
This old dog is learning new things here, though
Power can be given to players, but not too much power. And certainly not power without responsibility or consequences. People can do a lot of things in the real world, but most tend to refrain from exercising their freedom to the utmost degree. This is often due to the possible and potential consequences involved. Though morality, values, and beliefs can play a role as well. However, in an MMORPG, morality, values, and beliefs may or may not play as large a role unless the player is actually ROLE-PLAYING his or her character.
Now an MMORPG cannot enforce ROLE-PLAYING as such, but it can encourage it or incentivize it by rewarding reputation points for making certain choices or performing certain actions. (A character could also lose reputation points due to choices and actions as well.) A character could do enough good things to become Renowned in certain regions or enough bad things to become Infamous in certain regions. However, if the character is operating in an area dominated by evil or not-so-good factions, a character might gain Renown by doing evil and become Infamous for doing good (though evil factions would judge choices & actions more by whether they were helpful/advantageous to them or harmful/disadvantageous to them).
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.
When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.
I understand. However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP. In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI. Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past. Because I don't want to totally really on AI, and I don't think we need to do so. Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.
Ooo! You just game me an idea.
First, understand my concept of an AI. It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after. It's really kind of simple, and expanded. - Give MOBs this "want" AI. - Start building from the core brain up. (A) First series, basic animal.... - Fight or flight. - Food and shelter. - Defend young.
(B) Second series, more intelligent animal - Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves et.) - defend home. - Food storage.
(C) Third series, more advanced animal intel - use basic tools like stones and sticks.
(D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here - Build fires - Basic construction, stone age
(E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence - More advanced construction - more refined tool making - mining, farming, and the like
(F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence - Spells and magic - Advanced contraptions
There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it. "Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered" "Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"
Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score. Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive." Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale. Their actions are based on these rolls.
There would be roll charts for various circumstances, - wandering in search, - encounter - combat
This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea.
Now, the topic being players changing the world, what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave. What if their band size grew, and grew. What if Players defeat them, with some escaping. Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again. Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag). See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis.
And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands.
I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.
When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.
I understand. However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP. In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI. Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past. Because I don't want to totally really on AI, and I don't think we need to do so. Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.
Ooo! You just game me an idea.
First, understand my concept of an AI. It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after. It's really kind of simple, and expanded. - Give MOBs this "want" AI. - Start building from the core brain up. (A) First series, basic animal.... - Fight or flight. - Food and shelter. - Defend young.
(B) Second series, more intelligent animal - Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves et.) - defend home. - Food storage.
(C) Third series, more advanced animal intel - use basic tools like stones and sticks.
(D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here - Build fires - Basic construction, stone age
(E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence - More advanced construction - more refined tool making - mining, farming, and the like
(F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence - Spells and magic - Advanced contraptions
There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it. "Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered" "Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"
Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score. Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive." Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale. Their actions are based on these rolls.
There would be roll charts for various circumstances, - wandering in search, - encounter - combat
This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea.
Now, the topic being players changing the world, what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave. What if their band size grew, and grew. What if Players defeat them, with some escaping. Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again. Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag). See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis.
And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands.
That is the sort of thing that can make an MMORPG much more interesting.
And there are ways to keep players from killing off everything or defeating every enemy in a game world. There can be areas to which players do not have access. Or areas that are far too difficult and dangerous for players to consider traveling across/through or that into which delving comes at far too high a price. Forests which are too deep and dangerous to ever explore thoroughly. Hidden valleys, parts of the continent walled off by very dangerous mountain ranges, barren wastelands or deserts that are so vast (and dangerous) that they would have trouble carrying enough supplies (food, water) in order to cross. Unknown continents separated by vast expanses of ocean. Areas of the underground that are far too dangerous to explore to a great extent. There could even be portals to another world which players cannot find or close.
If something like stamina/energy is used, then players simply wouldn't be able to fight and clear a whole region of monsters or animals without needing to seek shelter and rest. (Giving time for monsters and animals to respawn.) Not to mention that they would only be able to carry so much food and water. Wagons couldn't be taken everywhere. There could even be areas that would be too difficult for horses or pack mules to navigate. And why should players be able to leave their mounts unguarded without fear of them being killed, eaten, or stolen? Or why should all mounts be able to magically fold up into their pockets (or wherever they go when they disappear in certain games).
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.
When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.
I understand. However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP. In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI. Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past. Because I don't want to totally really on AI, and I don't think we need to do so. Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.
Ooo! You just game me an idea.
First, understand my concept of an AI. It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after. It's really kind of simple, and expanded. - Give MOBs this "want" AI. - Start building from the core brain up. (A) First series, basic animal.... - Fight or flight. - Food and shelter. - Defend young.
(B) Second series, more intelligent animal - Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves et.) - defend home. - Food storage.
(C) Third series, more advanced animal intel - use basic tools like stones and sticks.
(D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here - Build fires - Basic construction, stone age
(E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence - More advanced construction - more refined tool making - mining, farming, and the like
(F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence - Spells and magic - Advanced contraptions
There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it. "Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered" "Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"
Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score. Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive." Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale. Their actions are based on these rolls.
There would be roll charts for various circumstances, - wandering in search, - encounter - combat
This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea.
Now, the topic being players changing the world, what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave. What if their band size grew, and grew. What if Players defeat them, with some escaping. Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again. Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag). See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis.
And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands.
That is the sort of thing that can make an MMORPG much more interesting.
And there are ways to keep players from killing off everything or defeating every enemy in a game world. There can be areas to which players do not have access. Or areas that are far too difficult and dangerous for players to consider traveling across/through or that into which delving comes at far too high a price. Forests which are too deep and dangerous to ever explore thoroughly. Hidden valleys, parts of the continent walled off by very dangerous mountain ranges, barren wastelands or deserts that are so vast (and dangerous) that they would have trouble carrying enough supplies (food, water) in order to cross. Unknown continents separated by vast expanses of ocean. Areas of the underground that are far too dangerous to explore to a great extent. There could even be portals to another world which players cannot find or close.
If something like stamina/energy is used, then players simply wouldn't be able to fight and clear a whole region of monsters or animals without needing to seek shelter and rest. (Giving time for monsters and animals to respawn.) Not to mention that they would only be able to carry so much food and water. Wagons couldn't be taken everywhere. There could even be areas that would be too difficult for horses or pack mules to navigate. And why should players be able to leave their mounts unguarded without fear of them being killed, eaten, or stolen? Or why should all mounts be able to magically fold up into their pockets (or wherever they go when they disappear in certain games).
Yes. A truly great world of extreme adventure could be made. Hireling henchmen to act as porters, Rangers and their Pets to hunt for fresh game, Druids to talk to the trees for information, Elves and Halflings to act as scouts (depending on terrain, I'd set up Elves for superior woodlands and Halflings for superior stoney/plains areas), Familiars to act as messengers, Mages to cast concealment spells, the whole darn gamut.
I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.
When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.
I understand. However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP. In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI. Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past. Because I don't want to totally really on AI, and I don't think we need to do so. Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.
Ooo! You just game me an idea.
First, understand my concept of an AI. It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after. It's really kind of simple, and expanded. - Give MOBs this "want" AI. - Start building from the core brain up. (A) First series, basic animal.... - Fight or flight. - Food and shelter. - Defend young.
(B) Second series, more intelligent animal - Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves et.) - defend home. - Food storage.
(C) Third series, more advanced animal intel - use basic tools like stones and sticks.
(D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here - Build fires - Basic construction, stone age
(E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence - More advanced construction - more refined tool making - mining, farming, and the like
(F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence - Spells and magic - Advanced contraptions
There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it. "Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered" "Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"
Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score. Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive." Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale. Their actions are based on these rolls.
There would be roll charts for various circumstances, - wandering in search, - encounter - combat
This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea.
Now, the topic being players changing the world, what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave. What if their band size grew, and grew. What if Players defeat them, with some escaping. Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again. Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag). See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis.
And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands.
That is the sort of thing that can make an MMORPG much more interesting.
And there are ways to keep players from killing off everything or defeating every enemy in a game world. There can be areas to which players do not have access. Or areas that are far too difficult and dangerous for players to consider traveling across/through or that into which delving comes at far too high a price. Forests which are too deep and dangerous to ever explore thoroughly. Hidden valleys, parts of the continent walled off by very dangerous mountain ranges, barren wastelands or deserts that are so vast (and dangerous) that they would have trouble carrying enough supplies (food, water) in order to cross. Unknown continents separated by vast expanses of ocean. Areas of the underground that are far too dangerous to explore to a great extent. There could even be portals to another world which players cannot find or close.
If something like stamina/energy is used, then players simply wouldn't be able to fight and clear a whole region of monsters or animals without needing to seek shelter and rest. (Giving time for monsters and animals to respawn.) Not to mention that they would only be able to carry so much food and water. Wagons couldn't be taken everywhere. There could even be areas that would be too difficult for horses or pack mules to navigate. And why should players be able to leave their mounts unguarded without fear of them being killed, eaten, or stolen? Or why should all mounts be able to magically fold up into their pockets (or wherever they go when they disappear in certain games).
Yes. A truly great world of extreme adventure could be made. Hireling henchmen to act as porters, Rangers and their Pets to hunt for fresh game, Druids to talk to the trees for information, Elves and Halflings to act as scouts (depending on terrain, I'd set up Elves for superior woodlands and Halflings for superior stoney/plains areas), Familiars to act as messengers, Mages to cast concealment spells, the whole darn gamut.
And then perhaps a game could finally fulfill the promise of a certain title released many moons ago.
"Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure."
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I understand. However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP. In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI. Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past. Because I don't want to totally rely on AI, and I don't think we need to do so. Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.
I will sound like a broken record, but even though I agree with you it is easier to make interesting dynamic worlds where players affect the world with PvP, it is not only possible but also being done right now via PvE without the use of AI in "A Tale in the Desert", "One Hour One Life" and with partial use of AI that can be affected by players in "Elite:Dangerous".
Btw @Amaranthar, the ideas you describe are very similar to what E:D does, where you can have factions behave different according to their beliefs (anarchists, autocrats, corporation, social), expanding, going to war with factions they do not like, etc. And all changes affect mission boards, the local economy etc.
Ashes of Creation is trying to achieve something similar with its node system. I think the main difference is that apart from the EVE example, E:D and AoC are trying to get these interactions on a larger scale and I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
Are the changes to the game world in A Tale in the Desert and E:D permanent? At least until they are altered again by Player Characters, Non-Player Characters, and or Mobs?
NPC factions fighting each other is interesting and something I'd like to see more of in MMORPGs. I'll have to read that article about EVE Online when I get a chance. Hopefully soon.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Dont care about changing the world, in fact I dont think players should be able to change the world to any significant degree. And if so then only through massive engagement of small or big groups. Never solo!
I guess my frustration stems from having a very broad discussion about a specific topic being argued from a very defined standpoint. I mean, I totally understand and agree that if a game is tailored for pvp and the premise of the game involves territory control that the people involved would be less likely (note: not completely) to get upset and quit if they wake up and their faction owned town is destroyed or taken over. That's what they signed up for. However that's a very specific discussion about a very specific game design.
When discussing a rather broad topic like this you can't really get nit picky about the specific details. I bet most people in this discussion that agree they would like to have "world changing events" probably don't fully agree on the type and degree of change that would be acceptable.
I understand. However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP. In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI. Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past. Because I don't want to totally really on AI, and I don't think we need to do so. Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.
Ooo! You just game me an idea.
First, understand my concept of an AI. It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after. It's really kind of simple, and expanded. - Give MOBs this "want" AI. - Start building from the core brain up. (A) First series, basic animal.... - Fight or flight. - Food and shelter. - Defend young.
(B) Second series, more intelligent animal - Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves et.) - defend home. - Food storage.
(C) Third series, more advanced animal intel - use basic tools like stones and sticks.
(D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here - Build fires - Basic construction, stone age
(E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence - More advanced construction - more refined tool making - mining, farming, and the like
(F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence - Spells and magic - Advanced contraptions
There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it. "Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered" "Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"
Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score. Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive." Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale. Their actions are based on these rolls.
There would be roll charts for various circumstances, - wandering in search, - encounter - combat
This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea.
Now, the topic being players changing the world, what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave. What if their band size grew, and grew. What if Players defeat them, with some escaping. Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again. Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag). See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis.
And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands.
That is the sort of thing that can make an MMORPG much more interesting.
And there are ways to keep players from killing off everything or defeating every enemy in a game world. There can be areas to which players do not have access. Or areas that are far too difficult and dangerous for players to consider traveling across/through or that into which delving comes at far too high a price. Forests which are too deep and dangerous to ever explore thoroughly. Hidden valleys, parts of the continent walled off by very dangerous mountain ranges, barren wastelands or deserts that are so vast (and dangerous) that they would have trouble carrying enough supplies (food, water) in order to cross. Unknown continents separated by vast expanses of ocean. Areas of the underground that are far too dangerous to explore to a great extent. There could even be portals to another world which players cannot find or close.
If something like stamina/energy is used, then players simply wouldn't be able to fight and clear a whole region of monsters or animals without needing to seek shelter and rest. (Giving time for monsters and animals to respawn.) Not to mention that they would only be able to carry so much food and water. Wagons couldn't be taken everywhere. There could even be areas that would be too difficult for horses or pack mules to navigate. And why should players be able to leave their mounts unguarded without fear of them being killed, eaten, or stolen? Or why should all mounts be able to magically fold up into their pockets (or wherever they go when they disappear in certain games).
Those were called time sinks back in the day. I called it "downtime" because after most EQ fights, the group needed to heal up and recover mana. EQ didn't allow players to rampage across Norrath killing everything in sight. An even level monster had as much chance of kicking your ass as you did its ass, solo.
They placed high level wandering monsters in almost all zones, like Griffins in The East Commonlands or Sand Giants in The Desert of Ro.
I can just hear the outcry if these methods were tried again. How dare you try to slow down players!
- 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
Are the changes to the game world in A Tale in the Desert and E:D permanent? At least until they are altered again by Player Characters, Non-Player Characters, and or Mobs?
NPC factions fighting each other is interesting and something I'd like to see more of in MMORPGs. I'll have to read that article about EVE Online when I get a chance. Hopefully soon.
In ATitD they are permanent within a tale. Iirc Tales last 1 to a couple years, not fixed, and then the world resets.
In E:D the changes are permanent. The issue that E:D has is that due to its size and player distribution, you could argue that they are mostly irrelevant. If a player trades something, then another group or the AI comes in and affects the system and breaks that player's trading route, they can always migrate to another system with similar characteristics.
You could argue that this is an advantage or a disadvantage depending on your preferences:
1) Players that don't like change to deeply affect their gameplay like this, because they can still play the game the way they want. They still get some sense of immersion from this illusion of change in the world and this is the objective of the world changing for them.
2) Players that want truly dynamic worlds feel that this is like cheating: the changes are irrelevant since they just shift some numbers around. They understand that real change will inconvenience them at times and challenge them because that's the whole point. For them, change needs to be driven by some sort of competition for resources.
(Note: I haven't tried a A Tale in the Desert because I'm not too terribly interested in an Ancient Egyptian setting.
About ATitD - Nothing wrong with an occasional server reset, IMHO. If an MMORPG has competing PC, NPC (Some which players can join, some which they can't join), and Mob Factions, then the game could allow for one Faction or an Alliance of Factions to win eventually. Then a few weeks to a month could be spent seeing what happens to the world when that Faction or Alliance is victorious. After that, the Server could be reset, reincarnating everyone on the Sever a little more powerful than they were initially (or at the time of the last Reset). New players could join a Reset Server, but they'd have to pay a little extra for a Reincarnated Character. This might depend on how many times the Server has been Reset. Possibly.
Every Server would be a little bit or a lot different than another Server, of course. Depending on how events unfolded. Some of which could be completely random. Though certain Pivotal Events could be introduced by the Game Developers in order to restore or maintain balance in the game world any time they desired.
E;D is set in Outer Space? If so, think I'll pass.
1) Kind of defeats the purpose of playing with other people.
2) Agreed.
Competition for resources is one of the most basic types of competition. Land is a resource (and can contain many different kinds of resources), so conflict over territory would be a subcategory of this, I believe. Disputes over trade routes and/or access to foreign markets could also be subcategories of this type of conflict. Even access to recently located ancient ruins (such an ancient city) wherein it is rumored (such as according to legend or prophecy) that great wealth and arcane/divine secrets can be discovered could cause a major conflict between powerful Factions.
There can also be divided Pantheons of deities who are at war or in some sort of conflict (even if it is just a game for them), which then filters down to the world they have created (or claimed for their own), and the beings they have created on its surface (or chosen to take an interest in after arriving in that plane). \
Factions can also be opposed to each based on conflicting Ethoses.
Examples: Good vs Evil, Not-so-Evil vs Not-so-Good, Not-so-evil vs Not-so-evil/Not-so-Good vs Not-so-Good (where the self-interest of each Faction is their guiding principle. Though they will most likely tend to portray their enemies as evil or more evil/less good than they are.)
Racial enmities or a history of conflict between two or more Factions can also play a role.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Those were called time sinks back in the day. I called it "downtime" because after most EQ fights, the group needed to heal up and recover mana. EQ didn't allow players to rampage across Norrath killing everything in sight. An even level monster had as much chance of kicking your ass as you did its ass, solo.
They placed high level wandering monsters in almost all zones, like Griffins in The East Commonlands or Sand Giants in The Desert of Ro.
I can just hear the outcry if these methods were tried again. How dare you try to slow down players!
Powerful andering Monsters or even groups of Wandering Monsters/Beasts.
Good point. They can be very effective as well.
Players can still play the games where they get to max level in one to two weeks and have nothing really interesting left to do after a month or two. No one will stop them. Though someone might try to convince them that there is a better way to design an MMORPG. Even make one and allow them to try it out.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Ancient_Exile said: Note: I haven't tried a A Tale in the Desert because I'm not too terribly interested in an Ancient Egyptian setting.
About ATitD - Nothing wrong with an occasional server reset, IMHO. If an MMORPG has competing PC, NPC (Some which players can join, some which they can't join), and Mob Factions, then the game could allow for one Faction or an Alliance of Factions to win eventually. Then a few weeks to a month could be spent seeing what happens to the world when that Faction or Alliance is victorious. After that, the Server could be reset, reincarnating everyone on the Sever a little more powerful than they were initially (or at the time of the last Reset). New players could join a Reset Server, but they'd have to pay a little extra for a Reincarnated Character. This might depend on how many times the Server has been Reset. Possibly.
Every Server would be a little bit or a lot different than another Server, of course. Depending on how events unfolded. Some of which could be completely random. Though certain Pivotal Events could be introduced by the Game Developers in order to restore or maintain balance in the game world any time they desired.
E;D is set in Outer Space? If so, think I'll pass.
Just to clarify: I am not trying to sell anyone on these games. I am also not playing them for specific reasons: ATitD is old and its UI is a turn off for me. And E:D, apart from its interesting BGS and great handling (flying a spaceship in E:D feels really damn great), has sloppy design written all over it and is being updated at the pace of an old snail.
But all these games are interesting in some way and give proofs-of-concept how you could have dynamic worlds with players affecting them in PvP, PvE, with and without AI
Re server resets, I only consider them interesting if there is some sort of final conclusion to them or some victory condition. In Foxhole you have a single shard with two factions entirely composed by players fighting each other. More than 50% of the structures are defenses built by players to help the war effort. Cities can be razed and rebuilt. Recently players can build bases and trench structures, affecting the landscape. Wars typically last 2 to 6 weeks until one side wins and then the map resets. Think GW2's WvW on a larger timescale and with deeper building and logistics mechanics - and with the players drastically affecting the world.
Crowfall has some interesting concepts as well with its Eternal Kingdoms and campaings, letting the player progress their account and "home worlds" through the campaign resets.
Re resource competition/scarcity: One Hour One Life has interesting systems built on top of it. If a colony/village aggressively farms the resources around the village, they will deplete, forcing smart ecology-friendly decision making and playstyles. That UI and controls though... ugh.
There are lots of crazy and excellent ideas out there already. But they hit a bump because many gamers do not really want to challenge themselves mentally and/or because the total package is messed up in one way or another.
I like the idea of Resources being finite in a game world. Or at least replenishing themselves at a slower rate. Furthermore, with more realistic Stamina and Encumbrance, it would not be so possible for one player to deplete a lake or river of fish, hunt a herd of animals to extinction (more difficult with a bow & arrow than with guns - even if the player just wanted to leave most of the corpses of the deer or whatever on the ground). Animals should also attack or run if they feel they're being threatened after awhile. Even just killing one animal could cause a herd to flee. Herbs/plants, lumber, and ore would also not be so easy to be gathered, cut, or mined by one player on his or her own.
I don't think players that don't want to challenge themselves mentally would normally even try some of the games you mentioned. So there must be other factors in the overall design of the games (or individual features/systems/mechanics). Like the idea of Wurm Online sounded a little cool until I tried to play it for myself. Cows wandering into caves and stuff like that. Hellhounds on the road just outside of town. lol.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
tzervo said: I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
The answer is obvious and simple:
1) players are not interested in such desings - they want to be part of the story 2) it's wasted effort - at the and you end up with same, standard and even more dull game play loop
tzervo said: I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
The answer is obvious and simple:
1) players are not interested in such desings - they want to be part of the story 2) it's wasted effort - at the and you end up with same, standard and even more dull game play loop
1) Players are not part of the story. They are Puppets being pulled along by Narrative Strings. Nothing they do actually makes a difference. And the story will go on whether they are there to participate in the somewhat interactive Novel/Movie/Game or not. Btw, good stories end.
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
It's trivial in single player games of course but even themeparks do this to some extent with trickery.
WOW has been doing it for more than a decade with their "before and after" phased versions of villages and other battlefields. ESO does it as well although the architecture and terrain doesn't change much but the population and which notable NPCs are or are not there, before and after you do the local quest chain.
EQN had plans to bring this to another level for anyone who remembers more than the hype about voxels: NPCs were going to react to you differently and give you one of many possible quests or none at all depending on how they "felt" about you - i.e. the whole common faction things was to be done at the individual NPC/player level as well. There were also going to be community area development projects and roving mobs trying to keep you from completing it.
If they had managed to launch it as they were describing it, EQN would have shaken up MMORPG design in many important ways. They were actually trying to create a game where everyone would get a slightly different experience and servers would develop over time in ways unique to them and unlike how the other servers were developing.
Phasing is a single player experience and doesn't affect the world for others like the op is discussing.
It affects it for anyone that goes through the transition. But like I said, it's just story telling trickery. EQN's idea wasn't.
If you complete a quest and see something different because of it that's a single player experience. If someone else completes a quest and you see the result is not. Phasing was an attempt to give the illusion that you are affecting the world without hindering someone else's experience and for those that like the single player experience it works really well.
EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that.
I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.
Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
Well, let's put it this way ...
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Well thats why we have games like ESO and GW2 , built from the ground up for casuals ..
Finally read the EVE Online article. Very interesting.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
It's trivial in single player games of course but even themeparks do this to some extent with trickery.
WOW has been doing it for more than a decade with their "before and after" phased versions of villages and other battlefields. ESO does it as well although the architecture and terrain doesn't change much but the population and which notable NPCs are or are not there, before and after you do the local quest chain.
EQN had plans to bring this to another level for anyone who remembers more than the hype about voxels: NPCs were going to react to you differently and give you one of many possible quests or none at all depending on how they "felt" about you - i.e. the whole common faction things was to be done at the individual NPC/player level as well. There were also going to be community area development projects and roving mobs trying to keep you from completing it.
If they had managed to launch it as they were describing it, EQN would have shaken up MMORPG design in many important ways. They were actually trying to create a game where everyone would get a slightly different experience and servers would develop over time in ways unique to them and unlike how the other servers were developing.
Phasing is a single player experience and doesn't affect the world for others like the op is discussing.
It affects it for anyone that goes through the transition. But like I said, it's just story telling trickery. EQN's idea wasn't.
If you complete a quest and see something different because of it that's a single player experience. If someone else completes a quest and you see the result is not. Phasing was an attempt to give the illusion that you are affecting the world without hindering someone else's experience and for those that like the single player experience it works really well.
EQN would be interesting, but who knows if/when will see something like that.
I think that's why the survival genre does so well. You can have the world affecting changes like we discuss here but it's isolated to small servers so if something isn't going the way you like you just switch or create your own. In an mmo that isn't an option so we get limitations to what we can change. It's kind of like PVP of you think about it. If the PVP affects everyone the same then fewer people tend to tolerate it for very long. If the world changes too much not as many will stick around.
Why do you think not as many would stick around if the world changes too much?
Well, let's put it this way ...
You have players who love the "Emerald Forest" or whatever it is. A few guilds take over the area and deforest it. Now, maybe the game has it so trees grow back repaidly but maybe it doesn't and the forest is now an area with a lot of nice trees.
Or, a Rift example, a player complained that the Rifts were taking over areas where he/she just wanted to "quest."
So get similar people who have their belongings in town but the town is taken over by some other group, could be players or could be an npc faction, and the idea would be for them to liberate their stuff.
However, I bet they just say screw it and quit.
There is a contingent of players who want to log in and get an "expected" experience that doesn't inconvenience them.
How many players would quit if their city was being razed as they logged in and everything they had there was destroyed?
Some wouldn't and some would love it. But there are players who aren't interested in things "changing."
Well thats why we have games like ESO and GW2 , built from the ground up for casuals ..
and then Anet like a dumbass put in raids to try and placate their wannabe hardcore population.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
tzervo said: All new MMORPG's have to offer is better systems and/or bigger scope involving multiple players.
...except that's exactly what they need to avoid since apparently players do not care about those - case in point EVE online again. A game with immense depth and unmatched level of game mechanics where +70% of game population live in high sec space and does not care about world design mechanics one bit...
tzervo said: All new MMORPG's have to offer is better systems and/or bigger scope involving multiple players.
...except that's exactly what they need to avoid since apparently players do not care about those - case in point EVE online again. A game with immense depth and unmatched level of game mechanics where +70% of game population live in high sec space and does not care about world design mechanics one bit...
Hence, wasted development effort.
(Note: Bold Emphasis added to Gdemami's original post.)
High Sec Space. High Security Space. This is your ship in High Security Space.
This is your ship in Low Security Space or Null Security Space.
Any questions?
What is your evidence that 70% of EVE Online's population "does not care about world design mechanics one bit..." Enquiring minds want to know.
Anyway, EVE is neither Medieval Fantasy, Cyberpunk, Gothic Horror, Alternate Reality Modern Day Superhero, Old West/Cowboys and Indians, Zombie Apocalypse Survival Horror, High School Dating & Demon-Slaying by Night (and on Weekends), or any number of more interesting genres.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I've seen this sentiment in a few threads and often wonder how it works when thousands (sometimes multiple thousands) of players are sharing that world.
In a single player game where I am the only one playing I can see this and want it, which many SPRPGs seem to be steering away from these days.
When I think about MMORPGs, the choices made, the quests accomplished, the actions taken that may "change the world", how is this commuinicated to other players that took different, or opposite choices, actions, quests in the same world area?
One player saves a King. Another ignores the quest and the King dies. When both players enter the capital, is there a King present? The same one, or a different one? What do the other layers see who haven't gotten to that quest yet? Will they ever get the chance to "save the King?"
A player finds a group and they attack an enemy encampment. Is that encampment gone for all time (one time event) or will another appear for other players to enjoy wiping out?
Not that many MMOs today offer such depth, but if they did, how would it work?
"Instances" remove the MMO part of the equation, so while that may be a solution to some, I don't see it.
PS: Ancient_Exile, this for you
I have been thinking about this question.
And I suppose it comes down to a aspect, or what someone means by "Affect the World"
Do they want their actions to have some meaning. or Do they just want to be able to fuck up the game for everyone else
See, being able to change things, to modify the game world is open to players in a game like Trove, where players can design dungeons, weapons, helms, as well as they can make and build their own club worlds and cornerstones, and since the game world is fully destructible, they could write their names in the mountains, or build islands in the middle of the oceans if they wanted to.
In a sense of irony, one time a group of players fully surrounded the starting area in a huge wall, just for the hell of it.
But, Trove is not an endlessly persistent world, the world's reset over time. So while players can affect their world, they can change their world anyway they want, with, a huge amount of freedom, their actions are not eternal.
So, I guess it comes down to what a player really wants.
The thing is, I believe players don't really want what they think they want. See, I would bet money that the players that want to be able to change the game world, would not want to open to door to let everyone else screw up the game world around them.
This is the Catch 22, that Dev's face.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I understand. However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to develop a game where players could effect or change the game world without including PVP. In fact, I don't know if it's really possible to allow players to effect or change the game world in any significant way without PVP or incredibly advanced AI. Which is why I have been so interested in solving the problems that PVP MMORPGs have faced in the past. Because I don't want to totally rely on AI, and I don't think we need to do so. Not that AI wouldn't play it's part.
I will sound like a broken record, but even though I agree with you it is easier to make interesting dynamic worlds where players affect the world with PvP, it is not only possible but also being done right now via PvE without the use of AI in "A Tale in the Desert", "One Hour One Life" and with partial use of AI that can be affected by players in "Elite:Dangerous".
Btw @Amaranthar, the ideas you describe are very similar to what E:D does, where you can have factions behave different according to their beliefs (anarchists, autocrats, corporation, social), expanding, going to war with factions they do not like, etc. And all changes affect mission boards, the local economy etc.
Ashes of Creation is trying to achieve something similar with its node system. I think the main difference is that apart from the EVE example, E:D and AoC are trying to get these interactions on a larger scale and I would be interested to know if this is lack of ambition, lack of dev resources or some other technical reason.
Yes, I just read your Eve link. That's fascinating and exactly what I want my idea to create. I want it so that the entire world and all it's denizens can run and change all on it's own, without players at all. Then allow players to enter this world and add their worthy 2 cents into the mix.
That includes plants spreading and regrowing. But not at light speeds, of course. Terrain types (including soil types) and weather to have an effect on what plants can grow where, and animals affecting it too (such as herds of grazers preventing trees from growing on great plains). This isn't complicated to simulate, although there's a development cost.
I am glad that Eve did this. It may be the start of something new and exciting for all MMORPGs.
Comments
First, understand my concept of an AI.
It's associated with UO's where MOBs wander and they have certain things they "want" and go after.
It's really kind of simple, and expanded.
- Give MOBs this "want" AI.
- Start building from the core brain up.
(A) First series, basic animal....
- Fight or flight.
- Food and shelter.
- Defend young.
(B) Second series, more intelligent animal
- Build/gain shelter (nests, branches for cover and bedding, caves et.)
- defend home.
- Food storage.
(C) Third series, more advanced animal intel
- use basic tools like stones and sticks.
(D) Fourth series, low intelligence creatures, think cave man here
- Build fires
- Basic construction, stone age
(E) Fifth series, normal human intelligence
- More advanced construction
- more refined tool making
- mining, farming, and the like
(F) Sixth series, advanced human intelligence
- Spells and magic
- Advanced contraptions
There should also be an ability for critters to be aware of what's happening and remember it.
"Opponent is casting spells- Reaction altered"
"Taking more damage than giving out (x1, x2, x3, etc.)"
Each critter has reactions available UP TO their INT score.
Each critter modifies their random die roll by what they "perceive."
Each critter will move by the modification towards high or low morale.
Their actions are based on these rolls.
There would be roll charts for various circumstances,
- wandering in search,
- encounter
- combat
This is not refined. It's the basic concept. But I hope you get the idea.
Now, the topic being players changing the world,
what if a band of Orcs, or whatever, moved into a cave.
What if their band size grew, and grew.
What if Players defeat them, with some escaping.
Now, by simply tagging those lands as "very dangerous", Orcs may be very reluctant to enter those lands again.
Until a few test it out (random die roll, very low chance but it hits) and find it's no longer dangerous and also make their way back to other Orcs, or get killed by Players (no change to the tag).
See what I'm getting at? Players could actually remove MOBs from an area of land on a semi permanent basis.
And a very large army of orcs would have a higher morale, and be much more likely to enter these "dangerous" lands.
Once upon a time....
Hireling henchmen to act as porters, Rangers and their Pets to hunt for fresh game, Druids to talk to the trees for information, Elves and Halflings to act as scouts (depending on terrain, I'd set up Elves for superior woodlands and Halflings for superior stoney/plains areas), Familiars to act as messengers, Mages to cast concealment spells, the whole darn gamut.
Once upon a time....
- 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
1) players are not interested in such desings - they want to be part of the story
2) it's wasted effort - at the and you end up with same, standard and even more dull game play loop
Exposition: Beginning of the Story
Rising Action
Climax or Turning Point
Falling Action
Resolution: End of the Story
Well thats why we have games like ESO and GW2 , built from the ground up for casuals ..
Finally read the EVE Online article. Very interesting.
It is is no kinda, you make false assumption in 1) and try to craft false, irrelevant justication in 2).
Hence, wasted development effort.
And I suppose it comes down to a aspect, or what someone means by "Affect the World"
Do they want their actions to have some meaning.
or
Do they just want to be able to fuck up the game for everyone else
See, being able to change things, to modify the game world is open to players in a game like Trove, where players can design dungeons, weapons, helms, as well as they can make and build their own club worlds and cornerstones, and since the game world is fully destructible, they could write their names in the mountains, or build islands in the middle of the oceans if they wanted to.
In a sense of irony, one time a group of players fully surrounded the starting area in a huge wall, just for the hell of it.
But, Trove is not an endlessly persistent world, the world's reset over time. So while players can affect their world, they can change their world anyway they want, with, a huge amount of freedom, their actions are not eternal.
So, I guess it comes down to what a player really wants.
The thing is, I believe players don't really want what they think they want. See, I would bet money that the players that want to be able to change the game world, would not want to open to door to let everyone else screw up the game world around them.
This is the Catch 22, that Dev's face.
I want it so that the entire world and all it's denizens can run and change all on it's own, without players at all.
Then allow players to enter this world and add their worthy 2 cents into the mix.
That includes plants spreading and regrowing.
But not at light speeds, of course.
Terrain types (including soil types) and weather to have an effect on what plants can grow where, and animals affecting it too (such as herds of grazers preventing trees from growing on great plains).
This isn't complicated to simulate, although there's a development cost.
I am glad that Eve did this. It may be the start of something new and exciting for all MMORPGs.
Once upon a time....