Mmorpg

#1 Personally, I like the fact that while I'm running around in WoW, I might randomly see some person getting whomped and save his sorry ass from the monsters 8 lvls above him.

It's not really killstealing, and it's always nice when some random person saves me when I'm getting whomped.

I dunno. Doesn't sound particularly enticing to me, but please feel free to show me otherwise :-)

Gary (-;

#2 What would be the point of a fully instanced MMORPG? That kinda removes the first 2 M's :) Then you're left with an ORPG...

Some instancing is great, like the dungeons in WoW, but the community aspect of playing with 2-3000 people outside of the instances is what keeps people playing MMORPGS.

#3 Fully instanced MMORPG = Diablo 2.

#4 I've been engaged in a very lengthy, and most very hot debate about the excessive use of Instancing in another forum. There are a couple of confusion factors about what "instancing" is, but here's my take:

1) If you are instancing simply to handle server loads, and it does not limit in any way access to content, then it's more properly called dynamic load balancing. I have no problem with that in any game, and I personally think dynamic load balancing is much better than static load balancing (zones in EQ being on their own "boxes" for example is static load balancing, while assigning certain geographic locii of action, which may change in size based on total amount of things going on, to their own server farm resources is dynamic load balancing).

2) Instancing that isolates content and game action to a subset of your players in any manner is my personal definition of "instancing". By this, I mean anything from EQ's concept of 5 copies of a zone with players being shoveled off to different "places" even if they occupy the exact same game coordinates, yet cannot see each other, to CoH's mission areas (whatever they are called). An example would be things like two raids going on at once with 100 people each, and both of them killing the EXACT same mobs/accomplishing the EXACT same quests, but doing it separately and at the same time. I personally think this is a massive band-aid to cover up huge game design flaws on multiple levels. It completely breaks immersion in an MMOG, and is extremely difficult to reconcile persistent world states, not to mention economy, or even action consequences. It does work in a game like CoH, where you really aren't worried about persistent world states, but again as a designer I think it causes a whole lot more issues then it may solve.

2a) There is a sub-set of 2) used for things like realm v realm/guild v guild battles (WoW's upcoming Battlegrounds is an obvious example) that is designed to balance forces and make major fights "fair". Again, I personally think that this is a bandaid for game design flaws--if you cannot balance your game, then you have to force artificial constraints like this.

3) Instancing to allow for the "I only want to play with my friends" type of play. While as a whole I don't see a flaw in this concept, I certainly wouldn't personally play any game like this--if I wanted to do that, I would find what I've named a "Minimally Multiplayer" game like Diablo/Diablo II, Warcraft 3, or similar games. Some people feel strongly about wanting to play this type of game, and that's fine, but it's not for me...it completely invalidates the entire concept of making a Massively Multiplayer game in the first place.

3a) If you are going to market/design your game as a Minimally Multiplayer game, then why set it up as a MMOG in the first place? You are limiting (in some cases, severely with current technology) your ability to implement all the features of a Single/Min-Multi player game due to the networking issues, not to mention that you will still require ALL of the infrastructure that a full MMOG would. At an Indy's budget especially, if you want to make a Minimally Multiplayer game like this, then make it that way from the beginning...don't shackle yourself with all of the issues and costs of a MMOG design when it's not even what you plan on marketing to your customers in the first place.

An argument was recently made regarding this last point (just today, actually) that pointed out that a MMOG's architecture combined with marketing what is really a Mini-Multi game as a MMOG does allow for a constant revenue stream that a Mini-Multi architecture and design won't (subscription fees). For big budget companies with publisher control, I do see that as a valid argument, but for Indy's, I think you are setting up losing complete control of your game (from IP to execution to profit) if you force yourself into having to get funding of whatever sort to purchase the infrastructure when your game doesn't actually need it.

#5 The reason I brought this up is that I'm looking for that middle ground between 1 to 5 player rpgs and the 250k player MMORPGs. That space between Minimally Multiplayer and Massively multiplayer. Most fps manage it but rpgs haven't really made it there yet. There either big or small.
if you have any ideas on how to get to this middle point let me know.

#6 From what I can tell of the write-up, this was basically a marketing speech, but at GDC there was a speaker that talked about ways to do MMOG infrastructure differently. You'll have to sign up for GamaSutra, but membership at this level is free. The article was Online Game Architecture: Back End Strategies

Just a clarification by the way on my thesis above: I don't have any market research to specifically prove that my opinions have any weight with what players really want--in fact, in the (small, and extremely jaded) player community forum where I had that debate, the count was about 5:1 against my opinions--most of the community members felt that the average online gamer was so frustrating to deal with that they want the complete separation from the "masses" that instancing gives. To me, if I wanted to play with a small group of friends, I wouldn't play a massively multiplayer online game, but I was very much the minority in that small community. I really don't know what the real "masses" think.

#7 World of Warcraft has the right balance in my opinion, but that is for now. Most MMORPG get a little stale after awhile, so any fresh idea could catch on for quite some time. Also this could allow for much more grand whole game quests. How would you get Frodo to Mt. Doom in World of Warcraft? Is it possible at all to have a grand quest with instancing?

#8 While on the subject.

I don't know if this is a interest to anyone, but Anarchy online is doing an all free thing. Software is free and service till the end of the year.

if anyone is interested they can check it out here.
link

#9 Free AO? Not quite, you get the Original client for free and free play until the end of the year, but if you want to play any of the expansion packs, not only do you have to buy them, but you also have to start paying the monthly service charge....

Still, the original AO was pretty decent.

#10 @Stephen:

Why do you like MMO games? I haven't been playing them for vary long and I'm older (over 30), however, I don't really see the fascination with the ability of having thousands of strangers from the internet, most of which will do things they would never think of doing in public, all in the same space at the same time so-to-speak.

It may be my personality, but I'd rather hangout with maybe 5 good friends in an a game than I would with 1000 strangers!

I don't do it in real life so why would I want to in-game?

This is not intended to anger, I'm just asking for someone elses point-of-view on the matter.

I've been playing SWG, EQ2 and WoW. I'll have to admit, I don't see the real need in any of those games being called MMO's other than maybe benefiting the game company since they can squeeze lots of people onto a set amount of hardware.

Thanks,

Steve

#11 @Steven: Not trying to be sarcastic, but giving examples that may help to explain it:

Do you go to sports events? Do you go to bars? How about concerts?

All of these are things that the "massively" portion of MMOG's tend to emulate--the interaction with new, unknown, and somewhat (to extremely!) unpredictable outsiders to your social group. In some cases (a concert for example) you aren't injecting yourself into the bigger social group for individual interaction, but for the psychological benefits of being part of a larger group.

Additionally, some conflict structures necessitate cross purposes, and true (as opposed to artificial, such as what you would see in a small D&D session for example) opposition--for example, it's really hard to be a roving horde of mauraders that invade someone's territory if that territory is controlled by your best friend. Currently, no MMOG's do a really good job of either allowing for this type of conflict, or for those that do, don't manage it positively, so I don't think we've seen the benefits of that type of interaction at the "massively" scale yet. And it truly bothers me that the current trend is to band-aid the Massively portion down to Minimally Multiplayer by the use of instancing, etc. Instead, what I would like to see (and what I personally hope to achieve) is better massively multiplayer game design at the fundamental level to provide for a gaming experience that is enhanced by the "massive" aspect, instead of reduced in enjoyment.

#12 @Stephen: Yes, I can sort of see what your getting at with the examples of sports events, bars, concerts.

I guess I'm a minority in the fact that I don't like to be around too many of these unknown and unpredictable people. I enjoy a more predictable environment. Don't like bars (anymore), concerts etc.. One of the reasons you stated is precisely why I don't like those places.

There is nothing wrong with people enjoying that type of unpredictability! I guess that's what makes our world great. Not everyone is the same.

I'm definately not a fan on instancing per se. I guess what bothers me about the internet is that it gives others an excuse to do things they wouldn't do in public. I mean, if some guy was acting like a jerk to you in a bar you may pop in the nose! On the net, they just get away with it.

That's probably my biggest gripe with these games.

Others would say, "Then why do you play an MMO game?". The reason for me is actually updates! I enjoy the updated content. With most offline games you don't get updates to content with the exception of bug fixes for the most part. With an online game, I know there will be new content added.

And your right, I don't think we've seen an MMO done right yet where there is an actual benefit of thousands of us actually together in the same place.

Thanks for your reply.

#13 @Steve: Your playstyle is absolutely an important one, and one that IMO is currently not supported very well at all in the industry. There is absolutely a very good market niche for exactly what you want--it's what I call a "Minimally Multiplayer" game--one where instancing is the defacto method of gameplay, because the entire goal is to provide what you want: a game where you completely control who you interact with (your circle of friends), but where you also have the benefits of content/functionality updates over a long term cycle. There are a couple of projects that are going that route, both in release (WoW in some ways, CoH, etc), as well as a few early projects that are designing themselves to fit this niche exactly, but right now it really doesn't exist much except for things like Diablo 2, and even there you don't get the updates--just the Minimally Multiplayer aspect.

What is fundamentally dissapointing to me is that the MMOG industry appears to be all following the pack and heading this route--and I think that is a bad thing. Yes, the niche is there, but going Mini-Multi is only one way to fix the issues the market has with the problem you described (griefer syndrome in a way--no consequences for actions that are appropriate for the actions)--and I think it's a step back for MMOGs as a genre that we see it as the only design currently being followed.

Please understand that this isn't a dig against Mario's original post--I think it's a good idea, and have seen the market trends that indicate it will be a popular design. My issue is that all MMOG's seem to be heading in this way, at least the ones in current production, and near to release.

#14 I think one thing that may help to get it more like what you'd want Stephen is game world size. While it is pretty cool to have such huge areas to roam around in, it just makes everyone spread out. To use your example it like going to a concert where everyone is standing at least 20 feet from the next person. I think there is a trend to make larger and larger worlds but really don't have the populations to support them. In WoW you can see this problem because everyone uses the General Chat, because its uncommon to have enough people within your local chat radius.

So small worlds, same number of people.

#15 I agree with your observation, but personally think instancing would be absolutely the wrong "fix" to this scenario (not saying that's what you meant, but again, I've seen instancing become a panacea for many truly unrelated design flaws).

However, there are some game genres where larger worlds really are a requirement of the game design (consider an empire management game where geographical territory separation is a critical factor of conflict management).

Shadowbane is a good example of this: it suffered from both too large of a world, and too small at the very same time: the ability to form summon chains (where you could theoretically move an entire army completely across the world in less than 10 minutes) caused the entire world to fundamentally have zero logistics costs--and therefore any single combat could theoretically involve the entire server. Even though the game world was "big enough", the ability to transit the world just about instantaneously, even for large combat forces, caused it to be "too small".

That instant transportation also negated any concept of "defense in depth", in that it didn't matter if you controlled a large amount of territory--again, an entire army could arrive literally on your doorstep in under 10 minutes.

#16 Instancing content can solve a good variety of problems, in most cases its the best solution for:

- Respawning mobs and overcrowding. The fact that mobs "respawn" in games is a necessity with non-instanced content. The problem is that if a world is crowded, playres can easily bypass large areas because there are no spawns. Mobs can also spawn behind players because someone else cleared at an unpredictable time, or in a non-crowded area after a while everything behind you is respawned, which can cause a train if you get in trouble, wiping out other players in the zone. The main problem thoug his just with crowding and everyone competing over spawns. You could try to solve the probelm by simply adding more zones, but that means developing more content ($$$) to solve the same problem. The argument that instanced zones kills socializing could also be used for providing ample number of zones to make you simply not deal with crowding. Isn't having 10 people in a zone isntead of 100 doing the same?

- Bypassing content is a stated effect of overcrowding above... But it also allows players to not have to deal with significant portions of a dungeon, and allows them to not have to earn the right to certain things in the way that the designers intended. An instanced zone would always have to be done from beginning to end, which would allow you to more easily balnace the playres trials and tribulations.

- Competition of guilds for raid mobs. Now that's a big one, especially in a PVE only environment. Nothing causes more bad blood than "this guild is taking spawns every time they are up". Instanced content allows you to give everyone an equal opportunity at monsters.

- Instanced content allows for more interactive areas. Things like scripts, traps and puzzles. These are things that don't work all that well in non-instanced content, because of all of the players trampling over each other.

- Instanced content allows for generated content. That's something that's going to become more of an issue over time. Budgets are skyrocketing because playres expect a game to ship with a huge amount of content these days. Generated content could help a lot here if done properly. However it doesn't work to well without instances.

As for character interaction, not everything needs to be instanced. A mix of instanced content and static content is probably the best, using instances for things they are strong at (dungeons primarily) and shared content for things like wilderness areas or pvp conflict areas (instances don't work for things like land control or player created cities). That having being said there are projects in the pipline now that are almost fully instanced with only using a city zone for characters to form groups, gear up, etc. Whether they work or not remains to be seen. Time will tell.

J.C. Smith
OGaming

#17 See GuildWars All pvp and pve content is instanced. * off topic * btw.. its also a FREE mmorpg. ( free in the sense that you pay for the game but No monthly fees. Ala battlenet )

#18 @J.C: In my personal opinion, every scenario you gave are examples of instancing being used as a band-aid to "fix" otherwise poorly designed game mechanics:

--Respawning: "The fact that mobs respawn in games is a necessity with non-instanced content." Absolutely not true at all. At least, not the static respawn (same mob, same place, chance of named/elite/whatever). The "respawn" concept has been broken for a long long time, and instancing is simply yet another band aid on top of the problem without actually fixing the design.

--Bypassing content: while what you say taken out of context is true, what if the designers intend the game world to actually take notice of players actions? All instancing does in this case is to make sure that no matter WHAT a player does, it has absolutely no effect on what any other player (that isn't in their instance) ever sees. Basically, you are now playing a single player, or small group game, with a massive chat lobby--not the reasons I personally play MMOG's at all!

--Competition: again, the reason I personally play a MMOG is because of the the competition/interaction with other players/guilds/what have you. Why would you want to remove this competition entirely by making everything available all the time to everyone? Instead, re-design the competition itself.

--more interactive areas: again, all this does is to separate the player from the game world, in effect making them play a single player game. If that's the type of game you want to market, then make it single player!

--generated content: It works plenty fine without instances. Not sure where you are coming from here--nothing about instances actually affects this design principle at all.

#19 Why do we even need MMORPG's anyway? Aside from Final Fantasy 11, look at how well the FF series has done in the past. I've loved those games, especially FF6 and 7. While they weren't true multiplayer, you could play single, then switch to multi when you wanted for battles, yet continue on throughout the game on your own as well as with others. FF Crystal Chronicles gave you more the option of moving your own character independently of the others and could fight and cast your own spells separately, but you could also combine and join up together and make spells even more powerful. Think also of the other older school games, like Secret of Mana for the SNES. My brothers and I beat that game many many times because it was such fun to play together. But we've never needed several hundred people around us playing to make it a great experience. And besides, what happens when you play those huge-number-of-player games? Usually you talk with friends beforehand and see if they are going to get the game and if so, what server to join, what times to meet and play together and form your group. Some people yes obviously go to chat with others, meet up with new friends and form new groups...but the majority of players of MMORPGs are those that either want to play the game by themselves or with friends they already have. I think that quickly takes us back down to the console market or at the very least, PCs that don't need to handle huge server loads and chat rooms all that much because the games could easily be hosted on someone's machine. Just connect up and go. Just a thought, but I think most MMORPGs are overrated and unnecessary as MM's. I've played EverQuest, SWG, Anarchy Online, Ultima Online and really, I have had very little contact with other players. SWG uses a player-based economy but really it's like E-bay: you post your item for sale, people bid on it, it ends and you have your item, no real interaction. So I come back to my thinking of "What's the point" of an MMORPG really?

#20 This is a dual-response letter to Jonathan and Stephan, I'll address my thoughts on each separeately.

For Jonathan: From a developer standpoint they are entrhalled with the MMOG because it means residual income for many years. A succesful MMOG will still be making revenue five years down the road, and much more sizable amount than a typical single player game. From a player standpoint it's the social interaction, the competition and the fact that you don't lose the time invested. Not all MMOG players organize with set numbres of friends before playing the game, I find it quite the contrary (and I've been playing these games for a long time). It's very common for players to go into a new game and server without knowing many other players (or any in some cases). You may not enjoy the games you've played, but clearly many players have. It's a hugely succesfuly genre, and it's only in it's infancy.

For Stephan: While I agree with you on a lot of your opinions and respect the work you've done for the community, I disagree with what your saying here.

With regards to respawning, what other solution would you suggest? Over the years I've written and read countless articles, but noone seems to have a good approach to this. Sure you could randomize spawn points within an area, make rare spawns completely random, make variable time limits... but you still have the problem of needing enough mobs to appear to keep players busy and not becoming bored. You also still have hte problem ina shared dungeon experience of respawnining behind players and creating trains. It also don't solve the problem of monsters appearing from thin air in a spawn point.

Triggered spawns is one way you can handle spawning differently. Having mobs spawn from trigger areas. In a multi-group setting though the triggers can be trampled all over by other groups. Triggered spawns have been used with some success in some games (AC and SWG) for load balance purposes in outdoor areas. So they are worth mentioning.

Out of curiosity, what are your reasons to play an MMOG? What is the difference in interacting in a dungeon with your group, and interacting in a dungeon with 10 other groups competing over spawns? Unless your purpose is to grief other players, I can't see the point of wanting other players in a dungeon zone with you.

Obviously MMOGs are social games, and there needs to be places for players to meet and interact with new faces. In a PVP environment there needs to be places for players to find enemies to kill and (hopefully) conquer and hold territory. Outdoor zones in particular work well for non-instanced content, but I can't see much reason for dungeons to not be instanced. What do other groups in my dungeon do for you?

- They can help you with corpse recoveries if the game requires that... This is good. Of course many would argue there should be no corpse recovery at all (and many games do not feature it).
- They can band together with you to kill a raid mob. Of course they could also do that for you with instanced content, you simply would be forming outside of the dungeon instead of inside.
- They can kill steal from you, if the game rules allow it. That's never fun and causes nothing but bad blood. From a developer standpoint the goal is to cause your players to all have fun, not to discourage them and make it easier for them to stop playing.
- They can beat you to a monster that your going after... Again that's not fun. It's fun if you are the one doing the beating perhaps, but it also discourages other players. In a PVP game you could try to kill them for punishment if the rules allowed. But if they beat you there, then it further discourages you.
- They can cause you to compete for spawns, or worse yet to completely run out of spawns. There is no fun in sitting and waiting.