Social/Community" in MMOs
by Joseph McCarthy · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 11/18/2007 (8:21 am) · 6 replies
Ever since I started playing MMO games (MUDs to be specific, even though I doubt they qualified for the "massive" portion of MMO), I've found that the games that gave me the most enjoyment were ones that had actual social interaction.
So I'd love to see an MMO with real guild/group-centric game play. Something that would require teamwork and group dynamics. Here's an idea
in a Fantasy MMORPG setting, each character has a set of common skills that are improved by working at related tasks (i.e. Fighting with certain weapons gains proficiency in said weapon, etc.). Character specialization is possible through race/alignment selection as well as which skills they choose to work on.
However, the real cool stuff is only available to characters who join guilds--player run organizations that give bonuses or abilities based on whatever that guild decides to specialize in. For example, a guild of Mages decides to specialize in Elemental based attacks. They would spend their money on research and materials in order to increase their power as a whole. Each member would become much more powerful that they would be able to as an individual, and has a vested interest in making the guild work. Any special skills they gained while a member would be stripped of them if they decided to leave. (or conversely, they could keep them but they would be considered trade secrets...would the rest of the guild be willing to let them live to spread the information to another group?)
The groups could be led by a choice of different systems, from dictatorship to a council of elected leaders.
As the guild grows in power, they can acquire land and build their own cities which would generate revenue. Other players would journey to the cities either to join, or perhaps take advantage of the services provided.
Imagine a guild of highly skilled assassins in a mountain keep, killing for the highest bidder. Or even a guild of blacksmiths, who's shops are capable of producing the finest possible weapons. I It all makes sense when meshed with the magic and crafting system's I've been devising, but I think it would lend itself to some pretty cool possibilities.
The question though, is could it work in practice? Are people willing to put forth effort into a group-even if it will benefit them, or when we plop our collective buts down in front of the computer are we ultimately only out for number one?
So I'd love to see an MMO with real guild/group-centric game play. Something that would require teamwork and group dynamics. Here's an idea
in a Fantasy MMORPG setting, each character has a set of common skills that are improved by working at related tasks (i.e. Fighting with certain weapons gains proficiency in said weapon, etc.). Character specialization is possible through race/alignment selection as well as which skills they choose to work on.
However, the real cool stuff is only available to characters who join guilds--player run organizations that give bonuses or abilities based on whatever that guild decides to specialize in. For example, a guild of Mages decides to specialize in Elemental based attacks. They would spend their money on research and materials in order to increase their power as a whole. Each member would become much more powerful that they would be able to as an individual, and has a vested interest in making the guild work. Any special skills they gained while a member would be stripped of them if they decided to leave. (or conversely, they could keep them but they would be considered trade secrets...would the rest of the guild be willing to let them live to spread the information to another group?)
The groups could be led by a choice of different systems, from dictatorship to a council of elected leaders.
As the guild grows in power, they can acquire land and build their own cities which would generate revenue. Other players would journey to the cities either to join, or perhaps take advantage of the services provided.
Imagine a guild of highly skilled assassins in a mountain keep, killing for the highest bidder. Or even a guild of blacksmiths, who's shops are capable of producing the finest possible weapons. I It all makes sense when meshed with the magic and crafting system's I've been devising, but I think it would lend itself to some pretty cool possibilities.
The question though, is could it work in practice? Are people willing to put forth effort into a group-even if it will benefit them, or when we plop our collective buts down in front of the computer are we ultimately only out for number one?
#2
Then again, if said game didn't include leveling, it would be a lot easier/funner to have this type of game.
11/18/2007 (9:41 am)
I doubt you should make a guild centric game. Too many big egos would of course ruin it, and the whole idea of playing a game that you can only do well in with others is dumb. People don't always have a lot of time and just want to enjoy a game by themselves, not always play with a bunch of people. I can tell you I used to have a lot more fun in MMO's when I played them questing solo, having a guild to just talk to people or help a lowbie when I got bored, and groups were really for Instances. Then again, if said game didn't include leveling, it would be a lot easier/funner to have this type of game.
#3
And solo play in the game is definitely still there. I want to include enough content that you don't have to rely on groups to still have a good time, or get stuck being unable to be competitive because you can't find a group.
That's a main reason I stopped playing World of Warcraft. Most of my time was spent sitting around waiting for an instance run.
The way I envision the guilds isn't a group of people you have to constantly game with. It's more like a social group and a way to pool resources and accomplish things outside of dungeon crawls that couldn't be done solo.
About leveling, I'm not a fan of the level based system most games have. I understand the need to feel like you're accomplishing something--and levels are a great way to do so--but I think there are ways to do that without making hitting lvl 100 be the only reason to play.
As far as the tech required to have player owned cities, what about a system where the guild could chose a central structure or guild hall, what have you and choose the basic design of the city. At this point the AI would take over, the city "growing" as npcs move in & more money is spent to upgrade the amenities & defenses.
11/18/2007 (10:16 am)
The whole ego thing is what I'm most worried about. I've definitely considered an ability for the guild to have a coup and oust a leader if they felt a need. And solo play in the game is definitely still there. I want to include enough content that you don't have to rely on groups to still have a good time, or get stuck being unable to be competitive because you can't find a group.
That's a main reason I stopped playing World of Warcraft. Most of my time was spent sitting around waiting for an instance run.
The way I envision the guilds isn't a group of people you have to constantly game with. It's more like a social group and a way to pool resources and accomplish things outside of dungeon crawls that couldn't be done solo.
About leveling, I'm not a fan of the level based system most games have. I understand the need to feel like you're accomplishing something--and levels are a great way to do so--but I think there are ways to do that without making hitting lvl 100 be the only reason to play.
As far as the tech required to have player owned cities, what about a system where the guild could chose a central structure or guild hall, what have you and choose the basic design of the city. At this point the AI would take over, the city "growing" as npcs move in & more money is spent to upgrade the amenities & defenses.
#4
RE leveling and instancing, with all these radical changes, I'm not sure your game will count as an MMORPG any more... [that was sarcasm, that ;) ]. I like it. Because when you apply guild-centric gameplay to WoW or something, it doesn't necessarily work. However, with entirely new gameplay mecahnics, you can make sure guilds serve the purpose you want them to.
11/19/2007 (10:42 am)
When I said technology, I meant it in the sence of software, the engine servers, etc. That's not really an isue if this is just a concept, but I threw it out there.Quote:And solo play in the game is definitely still there. I want to include enough content that you don't have to rely on groups to still have a good time, or get stuck being unable to be competitive because you can't find a group.Then you get cool stuff like lone wolves who don't belong to any guild, just make their own way in the world - that could be a key part of your setting, etcetera. The problem is, then everyone wants to be a loner (oddly enough...), and the guilds get ignored. It's a fine line...
Quote:The way I envision the guilds isn't a group of people you have to constantly game with. It's more like a social group and a way to pool resources and accomplish things outside of dungeon crawls that couldn't be done solo.I think that's as it should be.
RE leveling and instancing, with all these radical changes, I'm not sure your game will count as an MMORPG any more... [that was sarcasm, that ;) ]. I like it. Because when you apply guild-centric gameplay to WoW or something, it doesn't necessarily work. However, with entirely new gameplay mecahnics, you can make sure guilds serve the purpose you want them to.
Quote:Too many big egos would of course ruin it, and the whole idea of playing a game that you can only do well in with others is dumb.People still play team deathmatch, and you very much rely on your team, at least to kill enemies and not just dick around. The big egos wouldn't be attracted to the game, or they'd end up as loners without the benefits of being a member of a guild. I think in this regard it's important for guilds to be able to communicate within themselves, kick or suspend members, etc.
Quote:People don't always have a lot of time and just want to enjoy a game by themselves, not always play with a bunch of people.It's true, but with different goals and focuses than a traditional MMORPG, you don't have to all be one big mob in the same place. For example, you could go and pick mushroms to help your guild research their properties for alchemy, bully other guilds into paying tribute, assassinate an important rival, etc. I haven't played WoW much, but the whole Instance thing seems to be 'flood the cave with our warriors - the more meat for the grinder, the beter'. It's partly because of the extremely artificial combat system, which is a problem that could be solved easily. When you get past that sort of mentality, 'team play' can mean more than all having to be in the same place at the same time killing the same ridiculously, artificially strong monsters - it simply can mean cooperating towards the same broad goal.
#5
Egos are controllable; you set the metrics. Most games use levels as the metric for how well a player is doing, you just have to change that metric in your game. What you're talking about is a completely different style of play, so you can't necessarily apply other game's tendencies. It wouldn't matter if you removed the individual player's ability to level up, if you left them a way to gain personal experience and abilities.
A good example here is Eve Online. To get every skill on Eve it would take 27 years (IIRC, that's off the top of my head.) You get skills based on how long your account is active. 1 day = 24 hours of real time, whether you play or not. You can carebear (mine ore, mostly) in empire ("safe" space) without joining a Corporation, but you can't do much else. The game requires a large number of players with varied skills and abilities to succeed as an individual. They don't have levels, either. Skills are the entirety of your abilities. You set your initial stats when you start, and after that the only bonuses you get are from skills or implants. You can't play in most of the Eve world without being in a Corporation.
A mistake we're all making is assuming everyone will come in completely fresh and then need to find people to play with. If you set a group dynamic then groups will come. I'll use SETI as an example this time: some friends of mine that I've known since I was a kid on IRC run a SETI team. They buy computers just to gain team points, and points for themselves. There are a ton of groups out there that would join together if a game was made for that kind of team play. Daniel had it dead on. Team deathmatch is team play, but you can't play well for the team if you don't pwn the opposing team. As for the new players, they would have an incentive to join a guild/clan because it would make them stronger, and they may forge new relationships in the process.
I would suggest that the person that starts a guild should control it to the end. If other people want a new guild they can go make one, but you shouldn't force the creator of a guild out of his position because people disagree with him. Edit: I suppose if it's his choice when he makes the guild, it doesn't really matter.
The gaming industry has moved towards much more open ended game-play, but don't forget your place as a developer. The game player is really fighting you. When you play KOTOR you don't pick the option that you think best suits your world view, you pick the option that matches what you want to be - light or dark. Think about what you would do for the best outcome and you'll likely know what they will do for the best outcome.
12/09/2007 (2:30 am)
If you really like the idea you should go for it. It's different than what we have on the market, but what we have on the market is geared for the 'average' player.Egos are controllable; you set the metrics. Most games use levels as the metric for how well a player is doing, you just have to change that metric in your game. What you're talking about is a completely different style of play, so you can't necessarily apply other game's tendencies. It wouldn't matter if you removed the individual player's ability to level up, if you left them a way to gain personal experience and abilities.
A good example here is Eve Online. To get every skill on Eve it would take 27 years (IIRC, that's off the top of my head.) You get skills based on how long your account is active. 1 day = 24 hours of real time, whether you play or not. You can carebear (mine ore, mostly) in empire ("safe" space) without joining a Corporation, but you can't do much else. The game requires a large number of players with varied skills and abilities to succeed as an individual. They don't have levels, either. Skills are the entirety of your abilities. You set your initial stats when you start, and after that the only bonuses you get are from skills or implants. You can't play in most of the Eve world without being in a Corporation.
A mistake we're all making is assuming everyone will come in completely fresh and then need to find people to play with. If you set a group dynamic then groups will come. I'll use SETI as an example this time: some friends of mine that I've known since I was a kid on IRC run a SETI team. They buy computers just to gain team points, and points for themselves. There are a ton of groups out there that would join together if a game was made for that kind of team play. Daniel had it dead on. Team deathmatch is team play, but you can't play well for the team if you don't pwn the opposing team. As for the new players, they would have an incentive to join a guild/clan because it would make them stronger, and they may forge new relationships in the process.
I would suggest that the person that starts a guild should control it to the end. If other people want a new guild they can go make one, but you shouldn't force the creator of a guild out of his position because people disagree with him. Edit: I suppose if it's his choice when he makes the guild, it doesn't really matter.
The gaming industry has moved towards much more open ended game-play, but don't forget your place as a developer. The game player is really fighting you. When you play KOTOR you don't pick the option that you think best suits your world view, you pick the option that matches what you want to be - light or dark. Think about what you would do for the best outcome and you'll likely know what they will do for the best outcome.
#6
I sure hope so, cause it's allmost as our system is being designed ;)
Our characters progress will be centered around actual gameplay, and usage of specific skills just as you suggest there. And should they join Hordes (player guilds) or affiliate themself with Guilds (Npc societies) there is some neat, nifty and sweet bonuses to that.
As Neil mention, it have to be really thought through and balanced. And with a ton of different options to allow for on the fly balancing or changing whats going on... it is a hard nut to crack.
And I agree with Joseph as well, in case the top goes down there needs to be some way structures can handle this. But, with enough low/middle contentto keep every casual player happy for ages, the horde/group banding things will just be a 'neat lil cookie for the crazy'.
And for the difference in what a Horde/Guild and on the fly Group is, I also have to agree with Joseph -they suit different needs. And having a Horde bonus in your daily Group finding is just another bonus of the back-end social network. Wether players can run off with this knowledge, or be stripped is a hard one to determine. Ours is a mixture of stripping, nerfing and allowance.
As for Daniels comments about the lone wolfers.Well loners are cool, and can handle most things. But stuff like attacking Thor, Odin or some other deity for some really special rewards is best dealth with if your a bunch ;)
And I agree totally that if the game mechanics are clever done, and not to restrictive, they can actually encourage Horde/Guild play and RPG as well.
Overall (as to conclude on Josiahs words as well)
The whole 'bash and stash' (bash mobs in an endless level grind, to get 'X' to buy in various menus) is in my book worn out, and is a leftover of the old D&D invented in the 70's -it's time it changes ;)
And removing levels, sure takes away a parameter most players use for setting groups -it would become a question of skill needs then!
And making sure a Horde/Guild satisfy/reward every playstyle/member is an important one for sure.
-and the developer vs gamer is dead on right ;)
/Just my 2 cents
12/09/2007 (6:13 am)
@ JosephI sure hope so, cause it's allmost as our system is being designed ;)
Our characters progress will be centered around actual gameplay, and usage of specific skills just as you suggest there. And should they join Hordes (player guilds) or affiliate themself with Guilds (Npc societies) there is some neat, nifty and sweet bonuses to that.
As Neil mention, it have to be really thought through and balanced. And with a ton of different options to allow for on the fly balancing or changing whats going on... it is a hard nut to crack.
And I agree with Joseph as well, in case the top goes down there needs to be some way structures can handle this. But, with enough low/middle contentto keep every casual player happy for ages, the horde/group banding things will just be a 'neat lil cookie for the crazy'.
And for the difference in what a Horde/Guild and on the fly Group is, I also have to agree with Joseph -they suit different needs. And having a Horde bonus in your daily Group finding is just another bonus of the back-end social network. Wether players can run off with this knowledge, or be stripped is a hard one to determine. Ours is a mixture of stripping, nerfing and allowance.
As for Daniels comments about the lone wolfers.Well loners are cool, and can handle most things. But stuff like attacking Thor, Odin or some other deity for some really special rewards is best dealth with if your a bunch ;)
And I agree totally that if the game mechanics are clever done, and not to restrictive, they can actually encourage Horde/Guild play and RPG as well.
Overall (as to conclude on Josiahs words as well)
The whole 'bash and stash' (bash mobs in an endless level grind, to get 'X' to buy in various menus) is in my book worn out, and is a leftover of the old D&D invented in the 70's -it's time it changes ;)
And removing levels, sure takes away a parameter most players use for setting groups -it would become a question of skill needs then!
And making sure a Horde/Guild satisfy/reward every playstyle/member is an important one for sure.
-and the developer vs gamer is dead on right ;)
/Just my 2 cents
Torque Owner Daniel Buckmaster
T3D Steering Committee
As you say, it'd be an extremely cool system. You'd need some serious technology, though, if you want things like guild-constructed cities. Still, I guess it can be done, and it'd be the coolese game ever when things like that happened.