Mmorpg
by Mario N. Bonassin · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 03/11/2005 (12:06 pm) · 47 replies
Heres an idea I had and I'd like to see what you all think of it viability.
A mmorpg that uses nothing but "instancing" quests/missions. There would be a general area where everyone hangs out but if you want to complete missions they are all instancing. Everything can be this way like pvp too. so you know that if you go into an instance you are fighting what you want and that they will be balanced. For instance no 1 lvl and 100 lvl characters can enter the same pvp instance, but they can enter the same pve. If done right and the right editors created you can have player created instances. This would put an end to the normal grind of just running around the world killing the randomly roaming animals and monsters.
this is just a brain fart after playing WoW and seeing that Dark Age of Camelot is adding its own instanced dungeons.
So do you think this kind of set up would work?
Would it lessen or increase some of the work to put together an mmorpg?
any other comments?
A mmorpg that uses nothing but "instancing" quests/missions. There would be a general area where everyone hangs out but if you want to complete missions they are all instancing. Everything can be this way like pvp too. so you know that if you go into an instance you are fighting what you want and that they will be balanced. For instance no 1 lvl and 100 lvl characters can enter the same pvp instance, but they can enter the same pve. If done right and the right editors created you can have player created instances. This would put an end to the normal grind of just running around the world killing the randomly roaming animals and monsters.
this is just a brain fart after playing WoW and seeing that Dark Age of Camelot is adding its own instanced dungeons.
So do you think this kind of set up would work?
Would it lessen or increase some of the work to put together an mmorpg?
any other comments?
About the author
#42
On a side note. EU/UK players may not play on US servers in WoW afaik for example. (Or so it said in the manual)
And I would of course keep my servers centralized or I would run into all sorts of issues, what I'm talking about is knowing which countries you may hire helpers from without legal issues. Even if you get hired on a US server you may still sue the company if they target UK customers... (again as far as I know, I'm no lawyer)
05/12/2005 (5:46 am)
No no, I wouldn't limit you to where you can play. I would limit myself from hiring you as a helper.On a side note. EU/UK players may not play on US servers in WoW afaik for example. (Or so it said in the manual)
And I would of course keep my servers centralized or I would run into all sorts of issues, what I'm talking about is knowing which countries you may hire helpers from without legal issues. Even if you get hired on a US server you may still sue the company if they target UK customers... (again as far as I know, I'm no lawyer)
#43
Instancing has it's place, but when you instance everything but a 'lobby' zone(Cities in Guild Wars, and similar areas in Phantasy Star Online), It's no longer an MMO to me.
I think that if project WISH had been given the chance to be completed, it would have been one of the first MMO's to 'get it'. It was truely persistant(well, except for the boring ol 'random tasks')... Player actions MATTERED, once a quest was finished, it was finished. When a dungeon was cleared, it STAYED cleared, untill some other group of baddies decied to call it home(not neccessarily the ones who were the previous tenants). Of course the team ran out of money shortly into the second beta. It just cost too much to constantly deliver new content I think(as apposed to everyone getting the same quests like most other MMOs).
Indies HAVE done MMO's before, look at Graal Online(not the best MMO by any means, but it WAS done by an Indie). I think the trick is to bring back the old concept of 'user created content'(you'd STILL need to create content though, the quality of user created content varies wildly). UO USED to have it too, with their seer program(killing that program was one of the worst mistakes EA made during the life of that game)
05/22/2005 (7:35 pm)
Sounds like Guild Wars... I don't classify it as an MMO though, simply because outside of town, you only see your own party members, or members of a rival party(if it's a PvP mission).Instancing has it's place, but when you instance everything but a 'lobby' zone(Cities in Guild Wars, and similar areas in Phantasy Star Online), It's no longer an MMO to me.
I think that if project WISH had been given the chance to be completed, it would have been one of the first MMO's to 'get it'. It was truely persistant(well, except for the boring ol 'random tasks')... Player actions MATTERED, once a quest was finished, it was finished. When a dungeon was cleared, it STAYED cleared, untill some other group of baddies decied to call it home(not neccessarily the ones who were the previous tenants). Of course the team ran out of money shortly into the second beta. It just cost too much to constantly deliver new content I think(as apposed to everyone getting the same quests like most other MMOs).
Indies HAVE done MMO's before, look at Graal Online(not the best MMO by any means, but it WAS done by an Indie). I think the trick is to bring back the old concept of 'user created content'(you'd STILL need to create content though, the quality of user created content varies wildly). UO USED to have it too, with their seer program(killing that program was one of the worst mistakes EA made during the life of that game)
#44
There is enough of that in the towns. I couldn't possibly imagine it being enjoyable outside in a quest. I mean how much of a quest is it if 50 other people are also running around in the woods trying to beat you to the finish line?
Then again I loved Diablo II. Played Everquest at a friends house once. Ever since I've avoided MMORPG's with a passion until Guild Wars came around. Not to mention it's free online play. There's no way I'll ever pay $10-15 a month to play 1 game.
05/30/2005 (1:18 pm)
I personnally enjoy Guild Wars. I can adventure with friends or make new friends to go adventuring with, and not have to worry about somebody named "Betty Sukks" coming in and ruining the atmosphere, or the quest.There is enough of that in the towns. I couldn't possibly imagine it being enjoyable outside in a quest. I mean how much of a quest is it if 50 other people are also running around in the woods trying to beat you to the finish line?
Then again I loved Diablo II. Played Everquest at a friends house once. Ever since I've avoided MMORPG's with a passion until Guild Wars came around. Not to mention it's free online play. There's no way I'll ever pay $10-15 a month to play 1 game.
#45
but the idea I think is a good one, the problem with MMO's is they are a weak subset of a single player game
in terms of content, in terms of gameplay, in terms of AI, etc etc.
in single players games the content isnt diluted like MMO's the AI is better, the gameplay is better (single
player games dont make you kill 1000 rabbits to get anywhere).
so moving to a instance based MMO is interesting, it would allow for a light weight MMO, and possibly
still provide that awesome gameplay experience availabl in single player games and missing from MMO's.
smaller more controlled areas what let you have more detail, better ai, richer content, more particles, more bad guys, etc.
dont get hung up on symantics with this or thats is not a MMO, just cause you cant see 500 people doesnt mean its not an MMO
you definition is broken.
you can still interact with thousands of players, just not all at once (which is a bad idea anyway).
guild wars might not have nailed it but its a step in the right direction i think.
06/01/2005 (11:48 am)
Going back to first post, its called Guild Wars. but the idea I think is a good one, the problem with MMO's is they are a weak subset of a single player game
in terms of content, in terms of gameplay, in terms of AI, etc etc.
in single players games the content isnt diluted like MMO's the AI is better, the gameplay is better (single
player games dont make you kill 1000 rabbits to get anywhere).
so moving to a instance based MMO is interesting, it would allow for a light weight MMO, and possibly
still provide that awesome gameplay experience availabl in single player games and missing from MMO's.
smaller more controlled areas what let you have more detail, better ai, richer content, more particles, more bad guys, etc.
dont get hung up on symantics with this or thats is not a MMO, just cause you cant see 500 people doesnt mean its not an MMO
you definition is broken.
you can still interact with thousands of players, just not all at once (which is a bad idea anyway).
guild wars might not have nailed it but its a step in the right direction i think.
#46
06/01/2005 (11:56 am)
Look at Phantasy Star online Blue Burst www.PSOBB.com it basicly does exactly that there is "ships" that every one logs into you gather a party or select solo and then go into an instanced world .....
#47
06/01/2005 (2:51 pm)
I think EVE Online (www.eve-online.com) has a much more 'perfectly' instanced mmo world where each star system may hold around 250 players each. But I think it's missing a few immersion features like being able to land on planets, collide with other objects and of course... you can't actually pilot your ship per se. Tho EVE online is a very good example on how to execute a MMO, it might not be so good a game design in itself. (That can of course be argued). 
Torque Owner Philip Mansfield
Default Studio Name
However, there is nothing stopping me from creating a character on a US server and playing there. If I were then recruited as a helper, whose laws apply? UK because that's where I am, or US, because that's where the server is?
So you stop me from playing on a US server, and limit me to a UK/EU server. You then end up with loads of servers that need to be dotted about all over the world to comply with different laws regarding employment/voluntary work.