Reviving the "Roleplaying experience" thread
by Alfred Norris · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 06/05/2005 (11:47 pm) · 110 replies
Wow. I just read the thread down there and it had some interesting throughts. Hopefully people would still like to discuss those issues?
1) Live people playing in-game monsters:
I believe you will see this more and more as long as the finances can support it. The Themis Group (MMO econ think tank) believes that the future of MMOs will be guided excursions.
In our project we are implementing 2 interfaces for GMs (who at release will be my online gaming guild that has 50+ members and plays SB and WoW)
a) An RTS-like interface - so that one person can control in-game mobs with one interface for much more realistic encounters. GM spawns 10 mobs of level 35 next to 6 characters average level 30. They send some mobs for what they think is the leader and scattered mobs for various other players. In the end its real people reacting to what they see.
b) Acting as NPCs - the ability to jump into any NPC and speak, attack, move around as that character. This can lead to highly customized reactions or conversations about a multitude of things. I can see that a GM might have to cook dinner and play at the same time in real life. Ok. Jump into a guard who is patrolling an area. The guard is scripted to move around, but when the GM can be at the computer he sees a player trying to sneak into the control room.
2) Do stats break immersion?:
There's a post about designing MMOs called "Mu's unbelievably long rant about designing MMOs" or something like that. He wrote it several years back and called for a no-stats game. The idea is tempting...but I just dont think it should be done.
a) people will find a way to make their character more powerful
Try as hard as you might to vary xp, randomly change xp based on lvl of mob, location and other factors...some geek is going to sit there with a pad and a pencil and find out that 1000 kills of Mob X = 32 skill points. You will get found out.
b) people LIKE to min/max stats - It lets them feel more in control and that that can really have a good character
c) can you realistically give non-numerical information that is as good?
Ok. So your character limps when his leg is broken and is a pretty good lock pick. But how does a character know that he only has 30 hp left out of 3000? If hes only pretty good at lockpicking...wont he get tired of trying to open an uber-hard safe...and just get frustrated?
Perhaps you can come up with an entire info feedback replacement for numbers, but I feel they are necessary. Besides PnP roleplaying is even MORE mathmatical but you dont hear people saying they roleplay LESS in PnP.
3) Player-run quests:
Im not opposed to this..but most of the examples given could have been fixed by going to the bazaar or teaming up with friends. You dont have the Ogre Staff of Pummelling? Why post a whole quest when you can buy one? (Personally Id rather go get it myself but Im being realistic about how MMO players work) Why post a quest when your buddies will help you get it? To be fair...perhaps you could work out a system where they post a quest that their buddies can accept, which gives more xp than merely going and killing the mob, but there has to be more than that...otherwise its just extra xp for clicking a button. You would need to link it to getting increased faction with the wizard guild (if the quest maker is a wizard) or increased standing in the city nearby.
4) Unreal Gameplay:
Someone spoke of Onslaught gameplay earlier and you must be looking at our game doc ;)
Why dont more MMOs (FPS or not) include UT2K4 gameplay? Assault maps in UT have multiple objectives like quests do. In fact they feel a little more immersive. But they fall flat because planting the bomb is just holding the "E" key down for 10 seconds. Why not link that to an RPG skill to make the whole thing more immersive? Or how about having Invasion gameplay...your clan town is invaded by a nearby religious cult? Or Capture the flag? Youve stolen a virus that the guards want to get back?
1) Live people playing in-game monsters:
I believe you will see this more and more as long as the finances can support it. The Themis Group (MMO econ think tank) believes that the future of MMOs will be guided excursions.
In our project we are implementing 2 interfaces for GMs (who at release will be my online gaming guild that has 50+ members and plays SB and WoW)
a) An RTS-like interface - so that one person can control in-game mobs with one interface for much more realistic encounters. GM spawns 10 mobs of level 35 next to 6 characters average level 30. They send some mobs for what they think is the leader and scattered mobs for various other players. In the end its real people reacting to what they see.
b) Acting as NPCs - the ability to jump into any NPC and speak, attack, move around as that character. This can lead to highly customized reactions or conversations about a multitude of things. I can see that a GM might have to cook dinner and play at the same time in real life. Ok. Jump into a guard who is patrolling an area. The guard is scripted to move around, but when the GM can be at the computer he sees a player trying to sneak into the control room.
2) Do stats break immersion?:
There's a post about designing MMOs called "Mu's unbelievably long rant about designing MMOs" or something like that. He wrote it several years back and called for a no-stats game. The idea is tempting...but I just dont think it should be done.
a) people will find a way to make their character more powerful
Try as hard as you might to vary xp, randomly change xp based on lvl of mob, location and other factors...some geek is going to sit there with a pad and a pencil and find out that 1000 kills of Mob X = 32 skill points. You will get found out.
b) people LIKE to min/max stats - It lets them feel more in control and that that can really have a good character
c) can you realistically give non-numerical information that is as good?
Ok. So your character limps when his leg is broken and is a pretty good lock pick. But how does a character know that he only has 30 hp left out of 3000? If hes only pretty good at lockpicking...wont he get tired of trying to open an uber-hard safe...and just get frustrated?
Perhaps you can come up with an entire info feedback replacement for numbers, but I feel they are necessary. Besides PnP roleplaying is even MORE mathmatical but you dont hear people saying they roleplay LESS in PnP.
3) Player-run quests:
Im not opposed to this..but most of the examples given could have been fixed by going to the bazaar or teaming up with friends. You dont have the Ogre Staff of Pummelling? Why post a whole quest when you can buy one? (Personally Id rather go get it myself but Im being realistic about how MMO players work) Why post a quest when your buddies will help you get it? To be fair...perhaps you could work out a system where they post a quest that their buddies can accept, which gives more xp than merely going and killing the mob, but there has to be more than that...otherwise its just extra xp for clicking a button. You would need to link it to getting increased faction with the wizard guild (if the quest maker is a wizard) or increased standing in the city nearby.
4) Unreal Gameplay:
Someone spoke of Onslaught gameplay earlier and you must be looking at our game doc ;)
Why dont more MMOs (FPS or not) include UT2K4 gameplay? Assault maps in UT have multiple objectives like quests do. In fact they feel a little more immersive. But they fall flat because planting the bomb is just holding the "E" key down for 10 seconds. Why not link that to an RPG skill to make the whole thing more immersive? Or how about having Invasion gameplay...your clan town is invaded by a nearby religious cult? Or Capture the flag? Youve stolen a virus that the guards want to get back?
#62
this is just one example of it, definately would take alot of time and effort, but I think it would work... and still give the player the feeling when they are in an "instanced" quest or a single player game while still keeping them a part of the "Massive" and persisting work that they can actually develop and change.
07/08/2005 (4:54 pm)
Now this would require a combination of good writing, plot development, and design, as well as some "clever" coding for dynamic content that trigger multiple levels of branch outs and opening multiple sets of quests depending on what happens, and probably might even require a human guiding it all, but I think if a balance were met the persistence could be sustatained, with the players still being able to change the world and actually persist in the world, while still keeping that feeling people get in a single player game, that they are the action and driving force behind it, but in this case on a "Massive" scale, so their actions could determine the outcome of the event..this is just one example of it, definately would take alot of time and effort, but I think it would work... and still give the player the feeling when they are in an "instanced" quest or a single player game while still keeping them a part of the "Massive" and persisting work that they can actually develop and change.
#63
- Assortment provides A through Z (overall plot).
- We know A will not exist without Z (no goal, no reason).
- We know A will not exist without B (no continuation, no execution).
- We know Z will not exist without A or Y (route to completion).
- Linear Situation Assortment can provide an A to Z relative to a greater A to Z (any number of high end plots with any number of low end plots).
- Completion of one plot can involve many aspects provoked by many players and their unique abilities involved within that plot (everyone has their part to do that involves them directly).
- Key abilities can be integral to the plot while involving more than one player, opening key quests to obtain the satisfactory ability or otherwise provide for it (A smith, who may need to make a unique item for a mage, may require certain skill, materials, knowledge, tools, a partnership, or a mix of any).
- Failsafe measures can be applied to place many paths to take in order to accomplish a task within a plot, opening likewise participation through many parties which, upon linear completion, can stem off into non-assocciated plots and further questing (side-quests for those who complete their part behind others who've already advanced the plot).
- Rewards for completion or participation can be awarded individually or per party.
The general plot I've posted above does all of this throughout the game in it's entirity. Every ability brought into the plot by players can be generated to influence the plot directly, focusing on the individual or the party, and within constraints of time to completion of said participation. In the end, only one instance will advance the plot in the overall direction, meanwhile others will advance their own instanced plot which is still linear with the game world. Balance is achieved and everyone still comes out the hero in their own adventures.
Alex stated...
There are many, you just get a glimpse of the ones you are forced to focus on. Everyone knows Lord Of The Rings, a shining example (if not over-relative ;). Many characters do come into focus that are integral to the overall plot, just in their own ways. You still don't see everything that was integral to the plot in it's entirity, only what pertains to those key characters. MMORPGs can be done this same way, just focusing on every aspect of the plot in it's entirity (every player who participates).
(Continued...)
07/09/2005 (11:35 am)
I think this is a good time to talk about Linear Situation Assortment And Assessment. This can be based on a few general principals applied to the overall plot:- Assortment provides A through Z (overall plot).
- We know A will not exist without Z (no goal, no reason).
- We know A will not exist without B (no continuation, no execution).
- We know Z will not exist without A or Y (route to completion).
- Linear Situation Assortment can provide an A to Z relative to a greater A to Z (any number of high end plots with any number of low end plots).
- Completion of one plot can involve many aspects provoked by many players and their unique abilities involved within that plot (everyone has their part to do that involves them directly).
- Key abilities can be integral to the plot while involving more than one player, opening key quests to obtain the satisfactory ability or otherwise provide for it (A smith, who may need to make a unique item for a mage, may require certain skill, materials, knowledge, tools, a partnership, or a mix of any).
- Failsafe measures can be applied to place many paths to take in order to accomplish a task within a plot, opening likewise participation through many parties which, upon linear completion, can stem off into non-assocciated plots and further questing (side-quests for those who complete their part behind others who've already advanced the plot).
- Rewards for completion or participation can be awarded individually or per party.
The general plot I've posted above does all of this throughout the game in it's entirity. Every ability brought into the plot by players can be generated to influence the plot directly, focusing on the individual or the party, and within constraints of time to completion of said participation. In the end, only one instance will advance the plot in the overall direction, meanwhile others will advance their own instanced plot which is still linear with the game world. Balance is achieved and everyone still comes out the hero in their own adventures.
Alex stated...
Quote:
How many novels have you read or movies have you watched where every single character (of thousands) in the film is a compelling protagonist, all at the same time? The basic structure of archetypes required to make a good storyline - particularly a heroic storyline - requires focus on a small group of central protagonists.
There are many, you just get a glimpse of the ones you are forced to focus on. Everyone knows Lord Of The Rings, a shining example (if not over-relative ;). Many characters do come into focus that are integral to the overall plot, just in their own ways. You still don't see everything that was integral to the plot in it's entirity, only what pertains to those key characters. MMORPGs can be done this same way, just focusing on every aspect of the plot in it's entirity (every player who participates).
(Continued...)
#64
This all leads us to the technicalities of such a system within a MMORPG universe, focusing on how to encompass the varied player base. Some general things that apply:
- Participation requirements - Basicly, if a player who wishes to participate dosen't meet a requirement to achieve the upper-end plot completion (under-skilled) they are suggested (lower-end) routes to reach the desired ability linear with the situation though varied from another instance (player who wishes to participate) under the same conditions. This is how quest instancing can be achieved based on the high-end plot. This same instancing can also be applied to those not participating in the overall plot while still effecting the game world.
- Time constraints - Not everyone can jump in and complete an entire line of tasks for the assocciated plot in their average sitting. A way of both limiting plot advancement at high rates and allowing those with less time to apply to the plot to effect it is required. This can be achieved with two ways.
-- 1) Time alloted to quest instances should approximate from 15 minutes to an hour dependant on the average playtime of said player.
-- 2) Plot continuation can be limited for those who have more time to advance the plot by instancing side-quests as a requirement to advance the overall plot further once they have advanced it to a far enough point. This can be done feasibly by relative plots between participators (We did our part, now we must wait for the signal) or through a forced side-quest relative to the next plot instance (since we were able to thwart the plans of the wizard so quickly, we found out some bad news about his plans. We are going to need reinforcements, and some stronger armour! The mage sent us to gather these at once).
- Content/processing restraints - How can so much content be accounted for with such high numbers of instancing? First off, content can be stored for when it's needed at required intervals. Second, if you have the architecture set up as a multi-client-server base, you can have some client-servers focusing on background tasks for certain elements (this requires stable security for the handling client-servers as well as multiple client-servers handling the same tasks and/or comparing and certifying data in case of a security breach or one of them fails).
- Still, how can a scope of such magnitude be achieved? Planning, persistance and lots of work! Men can move mountains, can't they? ;)
- Ronixus
07/09/2005 (12:36 pm)
(Continued from above...)This all leads us to the technicalities of such a system within a MMORPG universe, focusing on how to encompass the varied player base. Some general things that apply:
- Participation requirements - Basicly, if a player who wishes to participate dosen't meet a requirement to achieve the upper-end plot completion (under-skilled) they are suggested (lower-end) routes to reach the desired ability linear with the situation though varied from another instance (player who wishes to participate) under the same conditions. This is how quest instancing can be achieved based on the high-end plot. This same instancing can also be applied to those not participating in the overall plot while still effecting the game world.
- Time constraints - Not everyone can jump in and complete an entire line of tasks for the assocciated plot in their average sitting. A way of both limiting plot advancement at high rates and allowing those with less time to apply to the plot to effect it is required. This can be achieved with two ways.
-- 1) Time alloted to quest instances should approximate from 15 minutes to an hour dependant on the average playtime of said player.
-- 2) Plot continuation can be limited for those who have more time to advance the plot by instancing side-quests as a requirement to advance the overall plot further once they have advanced it to a far enough point. This can be done feasibly by relative plots between participators (We did our part, now we must wait for the signal) or through a forced side-quest relative to the next plot instance (since we were able to thwart the plans of the wizard so quickly, we found out some bad news about his plans. We are going to need reinforcements, and some stronger armour! The mage sent us to gather these at once).
- Content/processing restraints - How can so much content be accounted for with such high numbers of instancing? First off, content can be stored for when it's needed at required intervals. Second, if you have the architecture set up as a multi-client-server base, you can have some client-servers focusing on background tasks for certain elements (this requires stable security for the handling client-servers as well as multiple client-servers handling the same tasks and/or comparing and certifying data in case of a security breach or one of them fails).
- Still, how can a scope of such magnitude be achieved? Planning, persistance and lots of work! Men can move mountains, can't they? ;)
- Ronixus
#65
07/11/2005 (12:02 pm)
@ChristopherQuote:I am quite familliar with arrays; I make my living as a programmer. I was just stumpped by "simple yet complex". Thats an oxymoron (like saying "constant variable") and is more confusing than descriptive. However, Alex is right and what you are trying to get at is fairly apparant.
Quote Michael:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is a "simple yet complex array?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrays are data referances used in programs. By setting up pre-defined arrays of all possible 'pieces' and their uses (assembling properties), you could easily supply a wide and varied arrangement of parts for use in the manufacturing of items and objects in the game while minimizing the effects of persistent data (ie - it's still there, just not being used). This could be done with just about any type of game object for maximum customization by players without it being truely created by them.
Quote:It's easier to code than to describe I guessI doubt that in any situation! Plain english is always more descriptive thus the need for code comments!
#66
See, here is the problem - everyone will want to be Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, or one of the Hobbits - nobody wants to be Gondorian soldier #6537, whose whole part in the plot is help hold the third Gondorian gate for an extra 30 seconds by sacrificing himself on orcish blades. Even realtively significant characters like Glorfindel would not satisfy the average MMO player's desire for heroism. What glory is there in carrying a hobbit to Rivendell (and subsequently being replaced by Liv Tyler in the film)? Glorfindel does not warrant another mention in the entire saga, but commits a single heroic act that contributes greatly to the overall plot.
That is awesome, but imagine playing Glorfindel - you get one moment of glory, completing a small piece of some huge quest... and then spend the rest of your time doing what? Hunting down wandering monsters? From the perspective of an player in the game, how do you even know that the quest you completed was significant?
The problem that I see with MMOs is that, truly, only a few dozen players will get to be real movers and shakers, and everyone else will just be extras. Certainly they do have a role to play, but that role is usually inglorious, and most people do not want to play inglorious roles in an RPG.
There is a reason that films do not focus on every part of the plot - and why traditional RPGs do not either - because it would be boring. Recounting the day to day duties of Gondorian soldier #6537 prior to his heroic demise attempting to hold the third gate would probably be rather unexciting. Even said heroic demise likely warrants little more than a footnote - 458 other soldiers died in the same attempt. Shall we recount each of their tales in detail?
I do not argue that it would not be possible to create a fantasically detailed world and plot that many people could participate in advancing in a small way. Certianly, you could provide them all with tasks that would in some way effect a global plot, but ultimately the plot would not revolve around them. They would not be driving the plot, rather, they are driven by the requirements of the plot.
I think that a game of that nature would be neither compelling nor fun. It would still lack much of what contemporary MMOs lack in terms of depth, except for a few incredibly dedicated players, who are in turn unlikely to have the (social) skills to play out the role of heroes well.
Edit: Apparently I cannot spell or type
07/11/2005 (12:24 pm)
Quote:Everyone knows Lord Of The Rings, a shining example (if not over-relative ;). Many characters do come into focus that are integral to the overall plot, just in their own ways.
See, here is the problem - everyone will want to be Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, or one of the Hobbits - nobody wants to be Gondorian soldier #6537, whose whole part in the plot is help hold the third Gondorian gate for an extra 30 seconds by sacrificing himself on orcish blades. Even realtively significant characters like Glorfindel would not satisfy the average MMO player's desire for heroism. What glory is there in carrying a hobbit to Rivendell (and subsequently being replaced by Liv Tyler in the film)? Glorfindel does not warrant another mention in the entire saga, but commits a single heroic act that contributes greatly to the overall plot.
That is awesome, but imagine playing Glorfindel - you get one moment of glory, completing a small piece of some huge quest... and then spend the rest of your time doing what? Hunting down wandering monsters? From the perspective of an player in the game, how do you even know that the quest you completed was significant?
The problem that I see with MMOs is that, truly, only a few dozen players will get to be real movers and shakers, and everyone else will just be extras. Certainly they do have a role to play, but that role is usually inglorious, and most people do not want to play inglorious roles in an RPG.
Quote:MMORPGs can be done this same way, just focusing on every aspect of the plot in it's entirity (every player who participates).
There is a reason that films do not focus on every part of the plot - and why traditional RPGs do not either - because it would be boring. Recounting the day to day duties of Gondorian soldier #6537 prior to his heroic demise attempting to hold the third gate would probably be rather unexciting. Even said heroic demise likely warrants little more than a footnote - 458 other soldiers died in the same attempt. Shall we recount each of their tales in detail?
I do not argue that it would not be possible to create a fantasically detailed world and plot that many people could participate in advancing in a small way. Certianly, you could provide them all with tasks that would in some way effect a global plot, but ultimately the plot would not revolve around them. They would not be driving the plot, rather, they are driven by the requirements of the plot.
I think that a game of that nature would be neither compelling nor fun. It would still lack much of what contemporary MMOs lack in terms of depth, except for a few incredibly dedicated players, who are in turn unlikely to have the (social) skills to play out the role of heroes well.
Edit: Apparently I cannot spell or type
#67
The key here is going back to the roots - what makes RPG gameplay significantly a "role" played game. The GM dosen't exactly draw up the plot completely based on who's playing, but rather let's them glide into it on their own. In a sense, a plot could be compared to a sweet juice, but the roles (players) are what give it it's unique flavour.
And how do you know his significance actually ended there? Maybe he went off to aid the plot elsewhere, possibly after a threat unbeknownst to the audience. Maybe there's plans for a sequel following his own epic quest.
Yes, you are mostly right that the story may get a little sidetracked if it focused on everyone, but that's why the story focuses on the main party and not every role.
A MMORPG could focus on every role, every story, and every individual epic quest all at once!
It was significant to the roles which played their part in it, just like in a traditional RPG!
Like I've stated before, we can assimilate the A (start) and Z (ending) of a story, the flavour comes in when the player(s) provide their own B through Y to arrive at the end. This is where in the significance lies!
- Ronixus
07/11/2005 (2:36 pm)
@ Alex -The key here is going back to the roots - what makes RPG gameplay significantly a "role" played game. The GM dosen't exactly draw up the plot completely based on who's playing, but rather let's them glide into it on their own. In a sense, a plot could be compared to a sweet juice, but the roles (players) are what give it it's unique flavour.
Quote:
Glorfindel does not warrant another mention in the entire saga, but commits a single heroic act that contributes greatly to the overall plot.
That is awesome, but imagine playing Glorfindel - you get one moment of glory, completing a small piece of some huge quest... and then spend the rest of your time doing what? Hunting down wandering monsters?
And how do you know his significance actually ended there? Maybe he went off to aid the plot elsewhere, possibly after a threat unbeknownst to the audience. Maybe there's plans for a sequel following his own epic quest.
Yes, you are mostly right that the story may get a little sidetracked if it focused on everyone, but that's why the story focuses on the main party and not every role.
A MMORPG could focus on every role, every story, and every individual epic quest all at once!
Quote:
From the perspective of an player in the game, how do you even know that the quest you completed was significant?
It was significant to the roles which played their part in it, just like in a traditional RPG!
Like I've stated before, we can assimilate the A (start) and Z (ending) of a story, the flavour comes in when the player(s) provide their own B through Y to arrive at the end. This is where in the significance lies!
- Ronixus
#68
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Morrowind, the leveling up system works in a way where the best characters are the ones who buy up their stats 10 points at a time instead of earning them through combat. Most MMOs have a way to exploit "power leveling" through adventuring with powerful friends. Camping spawn points, farming dungeons, all of this is meant to level oneself up in a quick manner.
If the fun of the game is getting stronger, why do people want to be strongest right at the beginning? My suggestion is that maybe the geeky D&D playing side of us game designers is at fault. Maybe the average person does not want to spend 100 hours leveling their character up properly. They just want to go out into the world, kick ass, and have fun.
So considering that, a possible proposal for avoiding this whole mess is to avoid a linear "leveling up" progression for your character. What if your skills went up based on the missions that you do? Or you gain new abilities instead of just bigger numbered stats? What if your skills didn't go up at all? What if your MMO was more exciting and less like busy work?
My suggestion is to put away the D&D in our role-playing experiences, and start looking at what the public wants. Through my own observations, I believe the public are looking for more than "my +2 sword of squirrelhood can kill the ogre in 45 seconds!" or "click the pick, click the rock, rinse and repeat until your stamina is sapped". People should not have to worry about finding something STRONGER, they should have to worry about finding something that best fits their playing style, and the designer should take on the burden of making sure all of this stuff is equally balanced.
But how do you keep an MMO exciting when everyone has balanced (not necessarily similar, but balanced) stats? Well, lets take the standard "Tolkien ripoff fantasy" style that is so popular. Not everyone can be Frodo, but everyone can be a warrior if they so choose. Now all we need is a war. Not a one-time random event spawned for a week during TV sweeps. An ongoing war between good and evil, where battles break out multiple times per day. In one of these skirmishes you may just be a peon slaughtering orc. In another, you may be key to holding the front line. In the third, after finding that one-time use potion of "Turn into Dragon" you may be able to turn this skirmish around single-handedly. By keeping the existance of these items to a minimum (they expire after a week, and a limited number can be good at a time, is one possible solution) you can give each and every player a time when they can shine.
Anyway, the point is, to get "long term play value" from an RPG doesn't mean that the player has to be stat hungry, and to get people to stop exploiting for higher stats you can make stats less vital to the experience.
07/11/2005 (4:19 pm)
I recently posted this in the IGDA Game Design forums, and after posting I thought that it would also pertain to the current conversation in this thread. The topic was: How do we avoid players camping spawn points, power leveling, and using all mechanisms to break the flow of gameplay in order to get stronger faster (the path of least resistance)?-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Morrowind, the leveling up system works in a way where the best characters are the ones who buy up their stats 10 points at a time instead of earning them through combat. Most MMOs have a way to exploit "power leveling" through adventuring with powerful friends. Camping spawn points, farming dungeons, all of this is meant to level oneself up in a quick manner.
If the fun of the game is getting stronger, why do people want to be strongest right at the beginning? My suggestion is that maybe the geeky D&D playing side of us game designers is at fault. Maybe the average person does not want to spend 100 hours leveling their character up properly. They just want to go out into the world, kick ass, and have fun.
So considering that, a possible proposal for avoiding this whole mess is to avoid a linear "leveling up" progression for your character. What if your skills went up based on the missions that you do? Or you gain new abilities instead of just bigger numbered stats? What if your skills didn't go up at all? What if your MMO was more exciting and less like busy work?
My suggestion is to put away the D&D in our role-playing experiences, and start looking at what the public wants. Through my own observations, I believe the public are looking for more than "my +2 sword of squirrelhood can kill the ogre in 45 seconds!" or "click the pick, click the rock, rinse and repeat until your stamina is sapped". People should not have to worry about finding something STRONGER, they should have to worry about finding something that best fits their playing style, and the designer should take on the burden of making sure all of this stuff is equally balanced.
But how do you keep an MMO exciting when everyone has balanced (not necessarily similar, but balanced) stats? Well, lets take the standard "Tolkien ripoff fantasy" style that is so popular. Not everyone can be Frodo, but everyone can be a warrior if they so choose. Now all we need is a war. Not a one-time random event spawned for a week during TV sweeps. An ongoing war between good and evil, where battles break out multiple times per day. In one of these skirmishes you may just be a peon slaughtering orc. In another, you may be key to holding the front line. In the third, after finding that one-time use potion of "Turn into Dragon" you may be able to turn this skirmish around single-handedly. By keeping the existance of these items to a minimum (they expire after a week, and a limited number can be good at a time, is one possible solution) you can give each and every player a time when they can shine.
Anyway, the point is, to get "long term play value" from an RPG doesn't mean that the player has to be stat hungry, and to get people to stop exploiting for higher stats you can make stats less vital to the experience.
#69
I think that a static stat RPG has a lot of potential, and is easier to translate into a computer game than some of the statless systems speculated about above. I would like to see a game of this sort.
On a tangent: It would also be interesting if, in a battle-oriented game like you mentioned, there was a brief progression, but player death resulted in a resetting of that progression.
Eg. A starting character would be maybe 1/2 as powerful as a verteran of 2 battles, but as battles only take perhaps 30 minutes to an hour each, it would not be hard to reach that point. Having a fairly low power limit would be key to keeping players from getting too upset at character death - maybe after surviving 5-8 battles the players would have maxed out their character for that lifetime. That way you don't get this horrendous sense of bitterness at character death - sure you have to start again, but it will only take a few hours to get back to where you were rather than the thousands of hours you might pour into a traditional MMO.
Who knows if such a system would actually work... but it would definitely make for an interesting and different game experience. It would also give the games a sort of hero & soldier battle feeling, but the lack of persistance would make everyone switch back and forth between those roles as time went on, rather than having all the power always held by those who could put in 24 hours a day of play.
07/11/2005 (4:58 pm)
@Joe:I think that a static stat RPG has a lot of potential, and is easier to translate into a computer game than some of the statless systems speculated about above. I would like to see a game of this sort.
On a tangent: It would also be interesting if, in a battle-oriented game like you mentioned, there was a brief progression, but player death resulted in a resetting of that progression.
Eg. A starting character would be maybe 1/2 as powerful as a verteran of 2 battles, but as battles only take perhaps 30 minutes to an hour each, it would not be hard to reach that point. Having a fairly low power limit would be key to keeping players from getting too upset at character death - maybe after surviving 5-8 battles the players would have maxed out their character for that lifetime. That way you don't get this horrendous sense of bitterness at character death - sure you have to start again, but it will only take a few hours to get back to where you were rather than the thousands of hours you might pour into a traditional MMO.
Who knows if such a system would actually work... but it would definitely make for an interesting and different game experience. It would also give the games a sort of hero & soldier battle feeling, but the lack of persistance would make everyone switch back and forth between those roles as time went on, rather than having all the power always held by those who could put in 24 hours a day of play.
#70
The idea of being able to "max out" your character in the short order of a couple of hours is a bit drastic I think. I think it would be more appropriate to be longer, say max out in a week. This is where I think Ultima Online has maintained some of its staying power. The 100 point system is easy to achieve a "maxed out character" in a few days of good play, a couple of weeks in casual play, while still maintaining the air of advancement. I do like the idea though; the idea of maxing out quickly to keep play fresh and let players get to "the good stuff" quickly and with only minimum fuss is a simple answer I never thought of. I think it would be well recieved too.
This thread is addicting ;)
07/11/2005 (7:26 pm)
Another point I think would make a big difference in designing a game to revive the role playing experience is staying far far away from catagorizing your labelling as an MMORPG. As an MMORPG people expect certain things out of it and become frustrated and disappointed when things within are missing or completely changed. Remove leveling and I think most MMORPG players would go into shock in other words. This might be a pessemistic attitude, but I seriously wonder how well a level-less MMORPG would be accepted.The idea of being able to "max out" your character in the short order of a couple of hours is a bit drastic I think. I think it would be more appropriate to be longer, say max out in a week. This is where I think Ultima Online has maintained some of its staying power. The 100 point system is easy to achieve a "maxed out character" in a few days of good play, a couple of weeks in casual play, while still maintaining the air of advancement. I do like the idea though; the idea of maxing out quickly to keep play fresh and let players get to "the good stuff" quickly and with only minimum fuss is a simple answer I never thought of. I think it would be well recieved too.
This thread is addicting ;)
#71
On the other hand, nobody ever really complains that FPS games are always the same: reload, shoot to kill, rinse, repeat. Alex might be on the right track and concentrating on gameplay rather than character-play (i.e. role play, or character-development). If you consider the amount of effort it takes to A: Manually add game content to the game world. or B: the difficulty in creating robust and balanced procedually based content generators (random quest generators, etc)
07/12/2005 (8:52 am)
I think that game content is really the key for an RPG and that traditional methods couldn't hope to provide enough content for the massive player base of MMOs. The attempts at creating random quest generators thus far have proven woefully inadequate. However, I do feel that they are on the right track. The failing comes not from the quest generator but from the fundamentally static game world design. Cities are enplaced, monsters and bandits are all spawned in predictable locations, and overall game worlds feel like the movie Ground Hogs Day.On the other hand, nobody ever really complains that FPS games are always the same: reload, shoot to kill, rinse, repeat. Alex might be on the right track and concentrating on gameplay rather than character-play (i.e. role play, or character-development). If you consider the amount of effort it takes to A: Manually add game content to the game world. or B: the difficulty in creating robust and balanced procedually based content generators (random quest generators, etc)
#72
I have long awaited the rise of the [strike]M[/strike]MORPG - sans "Massive".
IMO, the future of the online RPG will not be ruled by relatively few titles each serving enormous player bases, rather it will be ruled by a large number of smaller, more focused titles each serving relatively small player bases.
Let's look at this from a pragmatic standpoint for a moment - as businessmen.
Entry into the MMO market, for the most part requires significant economic resources - both on the part of the hardware and technology that will be required to handle the sheer volume of client activity and bandwidth, as well as that of the software and development time involved.
It simply isn't something that (any) company could afford to jump into without seriously weighing out the pro's and con's of undertaking such a massive endeavor.
On the other hand, a smalle scaled, more focused title would make much more financial sense. For one, the costs associated with the technology necessary to run a smaller-scaled game would scale down - almost exponentially by comparison.
Additionally, and this is purely speculation on my own part, the ability to provide a much more focused and somewhat individualized gaming experience (made possible by catering to a much smaller player-base) could, in theory, lead to less customer turn-over.
This would in-turn prove a more stable revenue stream, if not less "spectacular".
I say this because IMO it would be considerably easier to hone your title to the tastes and desires of, say, 1000 players than it would be to attempt the same when 100,000 players are involved.
Surely, such titles would not boast the grandious sales and subscription figures of their MMO counterparts, but the question then becomes, "would they need to?"
I say no.
As I stated previously, the cost of running such titles would be significantly less than the cost of running an MMO - I personally theorize that from a percentile perspective, you could d@mn near maintain parity with the larger titles.
Ask youself this - would the afore mentioned 1000 players, each paying a moderate monthly fee of, say $10 per month, be worth the investment? I say yes - and I believe that there are many other independents out there who are beginning to think along these lines as well.
Hell, given enough time, I personally think that our corporate counterparts are going to "see the light", so-to-speak and make their own forays into such endeavors - that is, after some of our more enterprising bretheren pave the way and prove that it's a viable business model.
Heh...
07/12/2005 (11:42 am)
Let me start by saying that I am, and have been for quite sometime, of the same mind as Alex. I personally feel that he's dead on in his assesment of MMO's vs. smaller, more focused titles.I have long awaited the rise of the [strike]M[/strike]MORPG - sans "Massive".
IMO, the future of the online RPG will not be ruled by relatively few titles each serving enormous player bases, rather it will be ruled by a large number of smaller, more focused titles each serving relatively small player bases.
Let's look at this from a pragmatic standpoint for a moment - as businessmen.
Entry into the MMO market, for the most part requires significant economic resources - both on the part of the hardware and technology that will be required to handle the sheer volume of client activity and bandwidth, as well as that of the software and development time involved.
It simply isn't something that (any) company could afford to jump into without seriously weighing out the pro's and con's of undertaking such a massive endeavor.
On the other hand, a smalle scaled, more focused title would make much more financial sense. For one, the costs associated with the technology necessary to run a smaller-scaled game would scale down - almost exponentially by comparison.
Additionally, and this is purely speculation on my own part, the ability to provide a much more focused and somewhat individualized gaming experience (made possible by catering to a much smaller player-base) could, in theory, lead to less customer turn-over.
This would in-turn prove a more stable revenue stream, if not less "spectacular".
I say this because IMO it would be considerably easier to hone your title to the tastes and desires of, say, 1000 players than it would be to attempt the same when 100,000 players are involved.
Surely, such titles would not boast the grandious sales and subscription figures of their MMO counterparts, but the question then becomes, "would they need to?"
I say no.
As I stated previously, the cost of running such titles would be significantly less than the cost of running an MMO - I personally theorize that from a percentile perspective, you could d@mn near maintain parity with the larger titles.
Ask youself this - would the afore mentioned 1000 players, each paying a moderate monthly fee of, say $10 per month, be worth the investment? I say yes - and I believe that there are many other independents out there who are beginning to think along these lines as well.
Hell, given enough time, I personally think that our corporate counterparts are going to "see the light", so-to-speak and make their own forays into such endeavors - that is, after some of our more enterprising bretheren pave the way and prove that it's a viable business model.
Heh...
#73
Agreed. Nexon has already made a pretty good business out of Dark Ages and Nexus:Kingdom of Wind, and there are only 500-1000 players at any given time. Because of that, they were able to really focus on a community aspect, and after playing for a month or two you start to know most of the people on the server and really get a feeling of "multiplayer".
Also, to add to your post, I also think that smaller titles will allow developers to innovate more, since they don't have to please 100,000 people, they only have to make a game that makes a small market want to keep coming back. Puzzle Pirates did this to great success.
07/12/2005 (11:56 am)
@KirbyAgreed. Nexon has already made a pretty good business out of Dark Ages and Nexus:Kingdom of Wind, and there are only 500-1000 players at any given time. Because of that, they were able to really focus on a community aspect, and after playing for a month or two you start to know most of the people on the server and really get a feeling of "multiplayer".
Also, to add to your post, I also think that smaller titles will allow developers to innovate more, since they don't have to please 100,000 people, they only have to make a game that makes a small market want to keep coming back. Puzzle Pirates did this to great success.
#74
I had always been interested in how those games played. I am glad to hear that they are closer to the sort of community feel one would expect from an online RPG. I have never had time to try them out, but it might be a worthwhile experiment now that I hear what you say about them.
@Kirby: Economically speaking, a 1000 player base at $10 each will get you about $10,000 a month, or $120,000 a year. My estimate is that this would be only enough to pay 2 full-time employees an industry-standard wage, plus expenses such as insurance, servers, office space, advertising, etc. The scale of the project might have to be slightly larger in order to see real success that could support a small company. Having several servers, each with around 1000 players would hopefully provide enough revenue without things getting too out of hand.
I think this business model could work equally well for a huge company like Blizzard - running 5,000 instances of their server with 1,000 players each would probably not tax their hardware and bandwidth much more than their current setup - it would just require different optimization. I think that it would make a much more enjoyable game experience as well - though you *would* run into the problem of how people would make sure that their friend could join their server.
Perhaps an invite-only system after the first 250 player signed up for the server? I do not think that it would be an insurmountable problem.
07/12/2005 (12:56 pm)
@Joe:I had always been interested in how those games played. I am glad to hear that they are closer to the sort of community feel one would expect from an online RPG. I have never had time to try them out, but it might be a worthwhile experiment now that I hear what you say about them.
@Kirby: Economically speaking, a 1000 player base at $10 each will get you about $10,000 a month, or $120,000 a year. My estimate is that this would be only enough to pay 2 full-time employees an industry-standard wage, plus expenses such as insurance, servers, office space, advertising, etc. The scale of the project might have to be slightly larger in order to see real success that could support a small company. Having several servers, each with around 1000 players would hopefully provide enough revenue without things getting too out of hand.
I think this business model could work equally well for a huge company like Blizzard - running 5,000 instances of their server with 1,000 players each would probably not tax their hardware and bandwidth much more than their current setup - it would just require different optimization. I think that it would make a much more enjoyable game experience as well - though you *would* run into the problem of how people would make sure that their friend could join their server.
Perhaps an invite-only system after the first 250 player signed up for the server? I do not think that it would be an insurmountable problem.
#75
Initially the game is free to download and game subscriptions cost a modest amount, probably around $10. After a small but stable player base is establised of 200-250 players, game downloads are no longer free and new players must purchase the game for a very modest amount of around $10 per download. Monthly subscriptions must still be purchased. At this point subscribing players will also begin to be given an invite after each billing cycle, accumilating to a small maximum number of invites (4-6 may be a good number). An invite will act as a cupon, waving the download fee for new subscribers and awarding the player who issued the invite one free month. Once the target player base is reached (1000 - 2000?), no new invites will be awarded and the download fee will be increased to a more appreciatable level of $20-30. If sales and new subscriptions continue to rise and bring the server close to it's limit, the download fee should be increased to the $30-50 range. If player subscriptions fall below the target base, then the invite system will be re-established and the download fee may possibly be reduced back to the more modest price.
What I really like about this business model is that it allows a small indie company to encourage and accelerate growth when the player base is below acceptable levels and to also curb potential for sales to out-pace the ability of the company to grow. If the company were to receive a huge glut of new subscriptions before the proper hardware could be established to handle the new subscriptions, then the initial experience of these players will be a laggy and poor one. It would be very unfortunate to put a bad taste in the mouth of so many customers while the game is still in its infancy. Slow growth allows for excellent customer service and excellent customer service will encourage word-of-mouth advertising and increase player "loyalty" to the game.
It may also be possible to use an invite system for new players while the game is still in its beta stage, allowing the developer to grow the player base as the game is stabalized and balanced.
---This post was a bit off topic... sorry about that.
07/13/2005 (7:14 am)
The problem with an invite-only system is that you may fall into a small clique of players who do not know anyone or care to invite anyone else into the game. I think a hybred approach would be better:What I really like about this business model is that it allows a small indie company to encourage and accelerate growth when the player base is below acceptable levels and to also curb potential for sales to out-pace the ability of the company to grow. If the company were to receive a huge glut of new subscriptions before the proper hardware could be established to handle the new subscriptions, then the initial experience of these players will be a laggy and poor one. It would be very unfortunate to put a bad taste in the mouth of so many customers while the game is still in its infancy. Slow growth allows for excellent customer service and excellent customer service will encourage word-of-mouth advertising and increase player "loyalty" to the game.
It may also be possible to use an invite system for new players while the game is still in its beta stage, allowing the developer to grow the player base as the game is stabalized and balanced.
---This post was a bit off topic... sorry about that.
#76
To clarify the whole "have 250, invite only after that" is to say that this would be on a per-server basis - new servers would be added so that there were always a couple that could be freely joined, but if you want to play with your friend's character, you'd have to be invited to his or her server.
Just one possibility of many, though. Price controls would be another interesting approach, but I would be afraid that it would confuse current users and potentially drive off new customers due to a general feeling that you were constantly "hiking the price" or something. Then again, maybe that is the goal in order to keep things at the right population. It seems as though it would work better in a single server game than in a multi-server game.
07/14/2005 (2:02 pm)
It would be an interesting business model to try, for sure. I do think that it would be difficult to strike a good point of stasis, keeping server populations near a certain level due to people losing interest and dropping out of the game, then picking it back up later, etc. Of course the funnest part of an MMO is playing with friend, so you don't want to limit the number too much.To clarify the whole "have 250, invite only after that" is to say that this would be on a per-server basis - new servers would be added so that there were always a couple that could be freely joined, but if you want to play with your friend's character, you'd have to be invited to his or her server.
Just one possibility of many, though. Price controls would be another interesting approach, but I would be afraid that it would confuse current users and potentially drive off new customers due to a general feeling that you were constantly "hiking the price" or something. Then again, maybe that is the goal in order to keep things at the right population. It seems as though it would work better in a single server game than in a multi-server game.
#77
For players who don't want to commit to a guild or spend much time playing, you could also have freelance characters who start out with unique powers and hire themselves out to guilds for individual quests, but can only play for the same guild a certain number of times per week or month or whatever.
I'm not up on networking technology, though, so I'm not sure how practical an idea this is.
07/15/2005 (10:32 am)
I always thought an MMO based on peer to peer network technology might be interesting. Players use the main web site to form or join relatively small guilds and everybody in that guild then acts as a server for the guild's "instance" of the game. If one computer goes down, other members' computers pick up the slack. A side benefit is that this would largely spare the publisher the cost of buying and maintaining servers.For players who don't want to commit to a guild or spend much time playing, you could also have freelance characters who start out with unique powers and hire themselves out to guilds for individual quests, but can only play for the same guild a certain number of times per week or month or whatever.
I'm not up on networking technology, though, so I'm not sure how practical an idea this is.
#78
You're right about the confusion that model would create amongst players. Rather than making several shards, the model would work better if the server environment was extensible to allow additional processors to be placed behind one single unified game world. That would allow the developer to up the target user load as finances and time allow for new hardware to be added to the server cluster. (Receive 3 months of income, buy new server, add new server to database cluster, up target level another 250 users, repeat...)
@Erin
I've given P2P MMOs a good amount of thought and really keept getting tripped up on how to prevent cheating. Eventually someone will create a create a client of their own that processes monster AI so that it is benificial to the player, Process equipment sales and transactions so that it is benificial to the player, move the player faster, respond better to events, etc. Very hard.
07/15/2005 (2:00 pm)
@AlexYou're right about the confusion that model would create amongst players. Rather than making several shards, the model would work better if the server environment was extensible to allow additional processors to be placed behind one single unified game world. That would allow the developer to up the target user load as finances and time allow for new hardware to be added to the server cluster. (Receive 3 months of income, buy new server, add new server to database cluster, up target level another 250 users, repeat...)
@Erin
I've given P2P MMOs a good amount of thought and really keept getting tripped up on how to prevent cheating. Eventually someone will create a create a client of their own that processes monster AI so that it is benificial to the player, Process equipment sales and transactions so that it is benificial to the player, move the player faster, respond better to events, etc. Very hard.
#79
07/15/2005 (2:06 pm)
@Michael: But the point of having the small servers was not for any load issue - rather to create the sense of a world with fewer heroes where one can actually attempt to be unique or have an impact on their particular branch of the world. Continually upping the player count would just create your standard MMO experience all over again - WoW with 5000 identical night elves all running around waiting to the next quest mob to spawn.
#80
I think another thing that could help to bring forth a community feel is a sort of population system set up to account for PCs who live in an area, listing who they are, what they do, and where they have set up shop. This would be optional, though, just like a phone listing.
@ Erin -
Like Michael mentioned above, the main concern would most likely be security. I've thought well into this myself which is why I began working on some fairly sophisticated security features. I hope to have something more solid on it in the next few weeks. Otherwise, I believe the benifits would be great once configured correctly.
- Ronixus
07/15/2005 (2:33 pm)
I have thought long and hard about what measures to take to integrate a community feel into a large game. For starters, one option is to allow new PCs the immediate option of joining a party/guild as soon as they join the game, allowing them a chance to get familiar with the gameplay alongside fellow party/guild members, not to mention some item benifits. Another approach is to make local taverns the meeting places for parties to assemble before going on a quest. Still, another is to allow a sort of advertising service for guilds seeking new members with an added option of requesting PCs which have desired skills.I think another thing that could help to bring forth a community feel is a sort of population system set up to account for PCs who live in an area, listing who they are, what they do, and where they have set up shop. This would be optional, though, just like a phone listing.
@ Erin -
Like Michael mentioned above, the main concern would most likely be security. I've thought well into this myself which is why I began working on some fairly sophisticated security features. I hope to have something more solid on it in the next few weeks. Otherwise, I believe the benifits would be great once configured correctly.
- Ronixus
Torque 3D Owner Matthew Langley
Torque
I know what you mean, The original Everquest attempted those type of events. They ended up just like you said, stale and with no real experience behind them, just a bunch of player flocking in for some "uber" loot and then leaving a couple hours later.
What I'm proposing is much more than that type of "event". Something that doesn't get forced to happen but an actual persistent aspect of the game world. I left a lot of holes where I had the details thought out so it came out much more truncated that I'm envisioning it.
Going off of the same example of the Wood Elves having a war with the orcs it would be something that could be dynamically incited and even more so a persistent building towards. Player could incite it in multiple ways, convincing the Orcs to attack the wood elves, others convincing the Wood Elves of the oncoming attack and then even preparing approriate defenses. At an even lower level there would be multiple plot lines that multiple players could follow, some resulting in betrayal, sabotage, setting up certain sides for blame, thevery, etc... to make it all flow would take a skilled writer and designer however...
Then once this were to start it would still flow through persistently. The orcs wouldn't be the traditional spawn that comes back after 10 minutes. They would be persistent being, once killed they would return. A good design would be required, in this case of orcs raiding a city the orcs would probably raid the outlining hunting and questing grounds in groups, then moving on towards the city in a massive army, a bit chaotic though somewhat organized (this being lead by the designer based on the events, in this case being orcs this type of action would make more sense), depending on how the players could defend or assist the sides the world would be affected. If the defenses weren't enough or the players weren't able to convice the wood elves to defend (and multiple handfuls of other things that could inhibit the oncoming orcs depending on how many players discover the quests or attempt to aid the wood elves - or themselves if they're a wood elf) then the orcs would seige the city.
From there many quests could be given that the player would partake in, really more than quests, but actual persistent aspects in the battle. This would allow the players to choose the outcome of the battle. If they were able to sabotage seige equipment, assinate leaders or generals of the orc army the wood elves would get closer to victory. Again this would have to persist over days, weeks, even months depending on how successful each side was. In the end the game would have to follow through with the result, if the wood elves couldn't defend and the players couldn't involve themselves enough to ensure they defend then the city would be taken over, maybe the wood elves are put into slavery, then hideouts could be made, players could still play from that point, but the world would be changed, even moreso the players would effect the outcome.