Did WoW push the bounds of the MMOG genre?

#61 Mmm. I'm not entirely sure of that. Anyhow though, that goes along with my comment just a few lines further than you quoted that you'd have to be working from the roots up. In other words, such a game doesn't have a goal of being 'massive massive' so much as being a coherent community. Different design goals, though they can interlink.

#62 One of the "roots" I've given some thought to lately is the very point of building "community" as opposed to building "purpose".

I tire of MMO's quickly, and a large part of this is that I do not require that sense of "community" from online environments.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy partying up and hunting things I could never hope to solo, but even that only goes so far. Admitedly, my particualr game interests are limited and generally VERY action oriented.

IMO, many MMO's put community at the forefornt, which is not - in and of itself - a bad thing, but they seem to do so at the expense of player purpose.

In a single player game, the player has a clearly defined purpose and a reason for being. They are not AN integral part of the game, they are THE integral part of the game. The game, and subsequent storyline (assuming there is one) cannot advance without there interaction and as a direct consequence of their actions.

Of course, this comes full-circle to the different paradigms at play. How would you go about defining and instituting that feeling of purpose in an online game with thousands of players?

Granting finality to the actions of a player (aka: Killing the 'spiders' for good, or eradticating Trog the Troll King') would seem to take steps in that direction, but land, once again, right back here where I started. =\

I am a victim of circular logic! Somebody make it stop! *L*

#63 Player limits:
The server that's handling 1000 players could probably handle 3000, and that would make it easier to pay the bills. It's financially advantageous to fill your servers full.

#64 Yeah - I had thought about that Ken, but then there's another point.

One of the turn off's for me when it comes to "traditional" MMO's is the typical combat model, you know, point, click, watch...

Even some of the "newer" games that claim to break that mold really don't.

Take Star Wars Galaxies for instance. There claim was tactical and involving combat, but utterly, they failed to deliver IMO.

What they brought to the table was essentially the same tired old model with a few twists - like not being completely sequential ala turn based games, with a smattering of special moves that turned into a spam-fest.

I understand that this model is much more freindly when it comes to the networking code and bandwidth, and that it's also 'better' in that everything can be handled server-side, but in the end, it just bores me to tears.

FPS's are far more exciting, but get exclusive pretty quickly. Essentially, you wind up penalizing and alienating players with slower reflexes, so that's not the best idea either if you want to target a wider demographic. (Kudos to Planetside for proving it could be done though. ;-)

I have been toying with an idea that borders on Hybrid - not that I plan to take a stab at the MMO market anytime in the forseeable future - I just like to theorize.

Basically, it's a combat model that takes CHARACTER skill into account moreso than player reflex, but has the pacing and time sensitivity of a First Person Shooter. Lara Croft and the Tomb Radier series is a pretty close example of what I'm getting at. It's her accuracy that decides the hits, your job is really just to pull the trigger and position her appropriately.

My thinking is that, while the server could technically handle a larger load, it'd be nice to find the "sweet spot" and just cap there. In so doing, you'd theoretically improve client response time by limiting the amount of traffic and clients that the server had to respond to. Wouldn't you?

It's just a thought, though I could be waaaaaay off base for all I know. I'm definitely no networking guru - not even close. =\ Just brain storming "out loud".

#65

Quote:Basically, it's a combat model that takes CHARACTER skill into account moreso than player reflex, but has the pacing and time sensitivity of a First Person Shooter. Lara Croft and the Tomb Radier series is a pretty close example of what I'm getting at. It's her accuracy that decides the hits, your job is really just to pull the trigger and position her appropriately.

That would be ideal, but there's a bunch of problems with it, many of which you talked about yourself. If you're doing an MMO, then your demographic changes and you have a lot less "twitch" players playing your game. Basing the hits off of character traits is a good start towards changing that, but I'm not sure that it's the whole answer.

What is the whole answer? I have no idea... But I'd love to find out.

#66

Quote:
Take Star Wars Galaxies for instance. There claim was tactical and involving combat, but utterly, they failed to deliver IMO.

Yeah, I found SWG's combat to be really boring. Queue up a bunch of special moves, wait for it to die.

WoW is better, but there's a reason it's so easy for bots to play these games.

Quote:
Basically, it's a combat model that takes CHARACTER skill into account moreso than player reflex, but has the pacing and time sensitivity of a First Person Shooter. Lara Croft and the Tomb Radier series is a pretty close example of what I'm getting at.

A lot of console-based shooters allow you to "tag" your target and then all your shots go at that target. You can dodge around all you like but as long as you're facing the target that's where the shots will go.

This isn't far from WoW. It has a pretty arcadey feel to it. It (WoW) lacks depth though.

#67 Another thing to remember is that within a week of WoW going live, there were level 60 players. Not many mind you, but a few. People like that are a serious danger to a "controlled content" situation. The standard MMO model is very robust in this regard. Those people can't spoil it for the others.

#68 Well, I may be in a minority here, but I loathe the "time-played" and "level dependant" character progression model.

I believe that it's an entirely unecessary model - if you have an engaging story at least.

Borrowing from my previous example - I never required Lara to get more accurate in order to stay entertained and engaged in the game. Granted, I did get access to additional and more powerful weapons, but those were very situational and ammunition dependant, ergo, I stuck to the default pistols as much as possible.

The point is that the story and gameplay was what kept me playing, not an artificial progression.

Now, having said that, I do believe that any RPG should provide some form of character progression - maybe not as pronounced as we currently see in 'typical' RPG's though.

For starters, if the staple of an RPG is character development and customizability, then I want someone to actually deliver on that premise d@mnit!

Instead of "pigeon holing" me into a predefined role, one that essentially leads to a "cookie cutter" or "template" mentality, give me a skill based system and throw everything on a buffet! I garauntee you'll see a breadth of unique characters the likes of which has not been seen before in an MMO with such a system!

IMO it would certainly beat the snot out of looking different but essentially being the same as every other [insert class/ profession stereotype here].

Secondly, loose the 'uber character' mentality and approach the effect of skills realistically.

The long and the short of it is, even an untrained civilian has a pretty good chance to hit a given (reasonably sized) target at short range with a pistol. Consider that and start there.

A more skillful marksman with that same pistol would be more accurate, perhaps even get a bit more range out of the weapon for their expertise - but they will never outpace a rifle where range is concerned... ever!

Approach character development horizontally rather than purely vertically! Instead of trying to make the skills I do have impossibly powerful, why not make a broader range of realistically scaled skills available to me as my character progresses?

I realize that I've gone on a bit of a tirade here, but my thinking is that by eliminating the vertical progression model, you essentially shift a portion of the players focus from running the "leveling treadmill" and onto the story that is unfolding for their character.

Progression would then mean additional options, not purely more powerful versions of the options they already have.

Granted, that doesn't really attack the 'power-gamer' mentality as a whole, but does address certain motives which drive that mentality... to a degree. ;-)

#69 Wow didnt push any boundaries, its an mmo just warcraft flavored : )

#70 Wow if anything was a small evalutionary step forward. certainly nothing really innovative, but it is a small step forward in improvement (in some areas).

I have to agree with a couple people, non of these games are really PSW's (worlds are not persisted, characters are). They are persistent state character games. A next step
would be a trur persistent state world.

There is a game that attempted this, one that was actually the first MMOFPS and that was 10Six.
It was the first and as far as I know the only real PSW. Not only was the players data persisted but the world data as well. In fact the player built the world they would then play in.
way ahead of its time, and not managed well, it only lasted a few years but it was a true
innovative step forward.

Ever since then companies have decided to take the tried and true route that they know will get some subscribers and make money. why be innovative and risk blowing it all when you can be a copy cat with some evolutionary changes and make millions?

Its a money thing as well, if your gonna spend millions you expect to make millions and in doing so you want to minimize your risk as much as possible. Innovation is risky plain and simple.

Seems thats why its up to the indie developers to take the risk and head down the innovative path because it really doesnt appear that big companies are willing to take that rather expensive risk for us.

Of course WoW isnt perfect, there lack of technological experience with MMO's/large scale database systems/server process designed for large scalability are biting them in the ass as we speak. Sure the game design is decent and fun, but the lack of experience in the technical side of things is really hurting them. You have people wanting to give them money to play but cant even find the game to buy it because there arent any (their systems cant handle anymore anyway). tough lesson to learn im afraid.

so WoW is certainly not a technical marvel, yes its a polished/balanced/fun to play game but thats only half of what you need for a MMO. and still no true world persistence. (and I dont consider things like housing to be true PSW either, more like another character you save called a house).

just like many other discussions on this topic its up to the indie developers to lead the way.

#71

Quote:
Instead of "pigeon holing" me into a predefined role, one that essentially leads to a "cookie cutter" or "template" mentality, give me a skill based system and throw everything on a buffet! I garauntee you'll see a breadth of unique characters the likes of which has not been seen before in an MMO with such a system!

I guarantee that hordes of powergamers will find best combinations of skills and after all the info is posted on many web pages/forums you 'll have many "cookie cutter" characters anyway.

Quote:
Progression would then mean additional options, not purely more powerful versions of the options they already have.

Granted, that doesn't really attack the 'power-gamer' mentality as a whole, but does address certain motives which drive that mentality... to a degree. ;-)

To a very small degree. But maybe that's not all bad. In creating a NSMMOG it's probably better to target a smaller market. You cannot please everyone anyway.

Some method of throttling back the powergamers (until they removed themselves or "see the light") would be needed. Maybe it could be as easy as creating quest chains (A leads to B to C, etc) where many of the links are non-combat (and not just FedEx). If someone tries to be a combat monster they simply won't be able to progress through the quests, so they have a choice of playing through the story or leaving.

#72

Quote:Instead of "pigeon holing" me into a predefined role, one that essentially leads to a "cookie cutter" or "template" mentality, give me a skill based system and throw everything on a buffet! I garauntee you'll see a breadth of unique characters the likes of which has not been seen before in an MMO with such a system!

I was considering a more dynamic system like this a while back(about 2 years before Fable; that's the closest I've seen a game get to this). Instead of defining the job, then making the player stick to it somewhat, let the player choose whatever he/she wants to do, and then use the 'job' or 'class' identification system to name the character as the progress: if he uses mostly magic, it will be a mage-ish name, or swords to warrior-ish, etc. But all the while the player still developes his character how he wants.

Quote:A more skillful marksman with that same pistol would be more accurate, perhaps even get a bit more range out of the weapon for their expertise - but they will never outpace a rifle where range is concerned... ever!

That's the fine line between games like FPS and RPGs. In an FPS, accuracy is dependent on player-skill or reflexes, and power is dependent on weapon power and range, but the raw damage is static. RPGs, on the flipside, tend to give way to player-based accuracy, and level-dependent damage; Somehow the Lv60's Pistol can kill Rock Giant A with one hit, but Lv5 can barely shoot a Bee... although its unrealistic (what....does he pull the trigger harder when he levels up??), higher damages and other status-based actions make the character less player-dependent, and more development-dependent. I don't think that the issue is that its still a 'random' event when the player shoots something within 2ft and misses, but if its going to be stat-based, it might as well be stat-based, but maybe within a certain range, all pistol attacks would be 99% accurate (100% is a little unreal, and unfair at times), regardless of player ability.

#73 IGDA Online Games SIG
2004 Persistent Worlds Whitepaper
www.igda.org/online/IGDA_PSW_Whitepaper_2004.pdf

A few excerpts:

The IGDA Online Games SIG Persistent Worlds White Paper is intended to provide a summary of contemporary issues in the development and operation of massively multi-player online persistent worlds.

...the authors point out that the growth of the persistent worlds market is almost predicated upon its moving away from its origins in fantasy role-playing type games.

The focus of this paper is to provide developers, operators and publishers of persistent worlds with information to help them decide whether or not to proceed with development; to identify pitfalls along the way; to deliver; and then to support these games successfully.

Formed by the crucible of MUD development, PSW design is only now beginning to diversify, and there are still remarkably few completed designs that explore new mechanics and genres beyond the Fantasy 'level treadmills' that originated in text online worlds.

#74

Quote:...but maybe within a certain range, all pistol attacks would be 99% accurate (100% is a little unreal, and unfair at times), regardless of player ability.

I understand what you're saying, but wanted to clarify a bit.

The system I see in my minds' eye essentially starts every player out with, say 75% accuracy w/ a ranged weapon. Weapon skills only have 5 tiers at +5% each tier, so at best you get 100% (maybe a little more if you have an outstanding agility/ dexterity attribute).

The thing is, you're not going to be getting a full 100% on moving targets - that percentage is a base number which would then get modified by player movement, target movement, evasion tactics, etc.

When all of this comes into play,. the overall accuracy at any given point is going to be decreased significantly (which is why I wouldn't worry about accuracy scores over 100%). Sure, you can blow cans off a fence consistently and with ease, but when it comes to actual combat, the numbers would change and scale with the events of the moment. ;-)

In such a system, the damage of a projectile would be a set number. A more experienced and trained character is going to do more damage because they are going to hit their target more consistently, but they wouldn't be 'uber'.

#75 Eric - wanted to thank you for sharing that link. =)

It's a fascinating read and is going to take me a bit to digest, but I wanted to share this:

Quote:Small can be Beautiful, or at least Cheap
All of the above applies to the large-scale massively multiplayer games, not to
the very small games run by teams of 2-10 people for small audiences (less than
20,000 subscribers). These games can be profitable at lower subscriber levels
because their costs are very different. For example, almost all of these games
are distributed online rather than via retail, they have a more limited set of
content, and they provide a more personalized service to their smaller audiences.

The above refers to a discussion regarding the percentage of net profitability per active subscriber in an MMO. Basically, the more subscribers, the higher the % of net profit per sunscription, though in games under 20,000, they seem to indicate that t's easier to draw and maintain a hgiher % per subscription.

That made me smile. ;-)

#76 I don't know if any of you have read Mu's Unbelievably Long and Disjointed Ramblings About RPG Design, but it definitely has some great ideas on where MMORPG should go.

He has some mechanics for making different shards play out different scenarios without much effort. There is also a great argument for making magic much more difficult. You can't just start out as a magician, it has to come with time, lots of education, and almost epic quests.

There is a legal system he's conceived of that no MMORPG has even attempted. Admittedly, some of this system couldn't be implemented today, but easily within 2 years.

Within my own games and prototypes I've tried to use some of his ideas with mixed results. I'd be interested in seeing what some of you think of it.

#77 Damnit. I knew I forgot something last night!

I can't access the link provided from work - "Access Denied", but I did want to read it through when I got home. =\

Guess I'll have to check it out tonight - and thanks for sharing William - I'm getting sooo much interesting information out of this thread. =D

#78 @William:
I liked your link. I must admit that I haven't made it all the way through yet though :)

#79

Quote:I don't know if any of you have read Mu's Unbelievably Long and Disjointed Ramblings About RPG Design, but it definitely has some great ideas on where MMORPG should go.

Spent about 5 hours today reading and taking notes of that page (amazing stuff to read!). This is clearly the MMO equivalence of such deep-thought subjects as Music Theory or other more philosophical thinkings; MOG Theory ^^

#80 Wow didnt pushed any bounds in MMORPG games, Blizzard did only one thing, they made it simple.

This game is the simplest game ever, and all is easy to do, all is fun at the end.

They just took all the good things from games like DAOC, AO, EQ, and made that things simple.

The interface is user Friendly.

The LVL system is easy to follow, by colors in MOOBS and lots of places to hunt.

All i can say, there is nothing great about WOW, just that its simple and fun, what else do we want from a game?

Note: at some points the simplicity of this game makes me wonder if this is the kind of game i want to play, honestly and at the end, i think not, but well the rest of the world dont think like me..