The Great MMO Discussion

[Ronin Storm]

That's the angriest i've ever heard you, Ronin.

Yeah, sorry about that. Uhm... I can't claim to have calmed down but I don't feel hot-angry about it. Read it more as annoyed. Not sure that helps, though...

 

[VibroAxe]

I dont think I have too much to add to this thread, but I do feel it highlights all of my complaints with MMO's in general.

With a previous community which I dont see much of any more (uberducks anyone) I started playing both City of Heros and Guild Wars. In both caes I really enjoyed myself, but, being at school and then Uni (oh yeah, and having a Fiancée) I found myself slipping behind my comrades. CoH had a nice feature which enabled you to team with a higher player and get them to help you to level up quicker, then at some point, it was decided this ruined the game and so they axed it. I spent quite a few days playing with elD gaining exp which I was behind on. But eventually I fell behind the other guys, and at that point, I decided to go and find something else I could play on an equal. From that point on I loathed the shout of CoH on the irc, as I knew it meant me being excluded from the "gang" for a good couple of hours

Anyway, if someone could come up with a good way for different "levels" to play together in more MMO's i'd consider it! (Apprentising i believe CoH called it)

 

[Ronin Storm]

Anyway, if someone could come up with a good way for different "levels" to play together in more MMO's i'd consider it!

Yeah, I'm working on that in the back of my mind.

The problem, as I see it, is one of market model and not a fundamental problem with achievement-based games. Long before MMORPGs existed, MUDs were doing a steady business in the "kill monster, get loot" arena and they attracted dozens and sometimes hundreds of players at once. There is a substantial market for these games. Add 3D graphics, thousands more players and glowing weapons and people are prepared to pay monthly fees for that stuff! (Yeah, I know that was a massive simplification ).

As the developer/distributor of an MMORPG, you want as much money as possible; in part, this is because you want to make more cool stuff and that's not happening for free, but also because these are big businesses with shareholders that need pleasing.

So, you charge a monthly fee for this stuff. As soon as you do that, a small percentage of the market won't touch your game but that's okay... it's only maybe 1 in 20 who'll say that.

What'll keep people paying that fee, month after month? That's what the achievement game offers: more kit, more levels, more power, if only you stay on for one more month... oh and if you hang around for another two or three months see all this other cool stuff you could get.

Of course, after a while, people also become highly invested in their avatars and the game becomes hard to put down because they've got so much put in that they don't want to just drop it; after all, it doesn't matter if you play once or a thousand times in that month, it's the same fee. When you've put 300+ hours into something, would you just want to walk away?

What else would make people pay, month after month, to play this game? Answer that and you'll probably have yourself a viable alternate MMORPG mechanism.

Personally, I'd prefer to drop both the "massively" part of the acronym and, with it, the need for monthly fees. But then I'm not going to be selling any game concept I come up with to EA or Blizzard or whoever...

So, if I'm ditching the need for massively multiplayer and, with it, the fees to support it I guess I'm going to have to focus on player investment in the game and their character.

If I do that I uncover a secondary problem that I find in MMORPGs that every player is born equal into the world and, as such, can experience all facets of the game as if it had just launched. As a result, nothing really changes. Sure, there are patches and problems are resolved and loopholes are closed, but the prime substance of the game remains the same throughout. Change in any substantial way is a huge problem for the MMORPG because change brings about the possibility of it ending... and ending means no more cash from your subscribers for this thing your company has invested millions in.

Now, it's not that I think that players shouldn't all have a fair crack at "being the best" at any particular point in the game, whatever "best" might mean, but that change is inevitable and just stalling or stopping at some point is a crap ending for a game.

I'd like to build a game that actually embraces change, accepts it as inevitable and, with that, accepts that the game will have an end. Maybe the game is iterative, running cyclically like A Tale in the Desert? That's pretty neat.

I'd like to build a game that takes player input and uses it to form its future; not necessarily in terms of players building things and these becoming somehow mandated but more in terms of player actions defining the flow of the game. Say the evil ones attack a town... if the players successfully defend the town, maybe it becomes more of a fort afterwards... but if they fail, there's just burnt out buildings and the place becomes haunted by the souls of the lost peasants.

In such a game, where change is not just accepted but encouraged, character death could become a possibility. And if we're accepting character death, then any advancement in the game needs to be relatively bounded. Maybe characters fall into three or four tiers, depending on player experience with the game? Think something like "green recruit", "regular soldier", "battle-hardened veteran", "heroic elite"... as a new player you start at the lowest level, "recruit", just getting used to the game and learning the controls and the way it all works. Your character builds up and you learn more about how the game works and so you both step up to "regular" status. Over time, you get even better, more experienced, and become "veteran". Maybe then your character is killed in some heroic battle, some valiant stand against the forces of darkness... and when you next generate a character you don't come back in as a "recruit" but as a "regular". Or something.

But the difference between "recruit" and "regular" isn't huge. It's something like 25%... 50% tops. And the same between "regular" and "veteran". So your mates start playing 3 months down the road and you're in there as a veteran and they're recruits... but that's okay because you're only about twice as good as they are and, as such, they can mob up and still be pretty effective against the forces of evil.

I'm just kicking these ideas about... don't have a certain plan there. I also feel that there's no way that such a game is going to fly, commercially. But as a small scale project, done MUSH style, it could easily work. Easily, I tell you.

 

[VibroAxe]

is this a hint of things to come ronin?

SOunds like a pretty cool idea in my opinion! Keep mussing this over, maybe it could become a THN game!

softwaredev.thehaventnet.org.uk

I like the sound if it anyway!

 

[Ronin Storm]

is this a hint of things to come ronin?

Maybe.

I'm looking for something that's focused on role-play, first, hence the MUSH connection (see note below)... but I also recognise the need for a stronger game than freeform role-play generally provides as this opens the game up to newer or less confident players.

I'm going to stay fairly quiet on any specifics as I'm not ready to discuss them; all too much like thin air just now.

Note on MUSH for the uninitiated: MUSH is the role-play oriented brother of MUD and, traditionally, it focuses on dice-lite, rules-lite, collaborative prose. It can be a little hardcore for some as it's not graphical and it needs a little patience (writing prose takes time and effort... usually five or so minutes per paragraph) but it can offer just about the best online role-play environment and, in my opinion, the best role-play opportunity period.

 

[Haven]

Well as a self stated master of being ganked There's nothing more satisfying than getting ganked by a pair/group of players and then calling in the re-inforcements over guild channel and getting a response.

Interaction is the name of the game, alliances, guilds and friendships all make death from lack of kit/skill irrelevant.

If you are solely basing win/loss on kit then you're missing what the majority of MMO's is about i.e. interaction and group work.

 

[thatbloke]

Well as a self stated master of being ganked There's nothing more satisfying than getting ganked by a pair/group of players and then calling in the re-inforcements over guild channel and getting a response.

Interaction is the name of the game, alliances, guilds and friendships all make death from lack of kit/skill irrelevant.

If you are solely basing win/loss on kit then you're missing what the majority of MMO's is about i.e. interaction and group work.

Yes. And No. The point I believe here is that to GET TO the same level as those guild/clan/whatever mates you first have to put in the same kind of time investment that they have... which in some cases is not possible. And then you get the whole idea of the best content within a game only being available to those at the "End Game." I can understand having to work towards a goal but, for example, in WoW I have spent about 1200 hours playing it (when you take into account the time spent playing it when I didn't have XFire).

And where am I in WoW?

At a point where I now need a massive time investment (to go on the guild raids) to get any sense of progression within the game... I don't want that!

 

[Ronin Storm]

Interaction is the name of the game, alliances, guilds and friendships all make death from lack of kit/skill irrelevant.

I don't find that satisfying at all, unfortunately. Calling for help is all well and good and I really appreciate such help when it arrives but it utterly fails me as a reason to play. I want to be offering the help, not receiving it.

Put in the shoes of a shooter, I can be at least adequate in helping even an experienced/hardcore player out. That'll be fifteen/twenty years of playing lots of different shooters, I don't doubt.

Put in the shoes of an MMORPG, my ability to help only applies to people with characters the same level or lower than me, on the same server as my character. It's something of a hero complex, I guess.

I find the squad cooperation in Battlefield superior in both feel and coordination to the group cooperation in an MMO. I'm not saying that it is necessarily better, of course, just that the shooter works better for me. Probably because I'm more competent at it.

That said, I've never really understood the pull of the advancement/achievement game that is inherent in MMORPGs, either. I have made the serious mistake of trying to make an MMORPG into something it wasn't (see: Star Wars Galaxies). It's entirely possible that, in general, existing MMORPGs just can't work for me overall. There are facets of them that are extremely appealing but, I think, my enjoyment of them directly correlates to how much I can explore without needing hundreds of hours invested to be allowed/able to do that exploration.

 

[Haven]

You really do have a singular perspective on MMO's. Replace the "I" with "guild" and you have a very different picture of what can be achieved based on group dynamic rather than individualism.