Games are about winning and losing. Even if an MMORPG is really about socializing and achieving, opportunities to win and lose keep things fresh. So in considering dynamic PvE, there seems to be great potential in shifting from the current area clearing design (pull, pull, pull) to tactical games.
Quests should be tactical games. Capture the flag, fortress, VIP - there are many established games to be tried out. Let's consider base combat as a potential reference game. That is, in a simulated world where factions are constantly fighting, the idea of trying to raid an enemy base seems fundamental. To be simple, we'll consider it in the context of an instanced dungeon crawl. Instead of moving through a sequence of tuned pulls and scripted boss fights, the dungeon acts as a base - with limited resources, fixed defenses and a production pipeline. In one scenario, the player team is tasked to get to the boss. They come in with a set of builds, and here is where levels of flexibility are key - the players need to leverage whatever mismatches they have and stay one step ahead of the base's reactions. They can do this by switching builds and loadouts, hampering production or choking off resources. They can feint towards different objectives and try to get the AI to set up the wrong defenses in the wrong places.
As usual, this is not intended to be a plan, only thoughts on the potential. Base combat is pretty well understood in other genres and provides real depth to an encounter. That's what we should be looking for in our MMORPG towns, dungeons and wildernesses.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
We built this city
Trying out a few betas lately a very simple point hit home to me. When we talk about next-gen MMORPGs, we should be looking for this: gameplay that is enjoyable even in the absence of progression. Progress would then be what it should be - icing. That is why some ideas, like more twitchy gameplay, integrated PvP and more compelling story, have some potential.
That got me to thinking about game systems that are fun, and city-building came to mind. From Civ to SimCity down to RTS standards, there's something compelling about that gather/build/maintain paradigm. So when thinking about an MMORPG character, can we cast it in terms of "building" a hero?
Currently we have stats, class/abilities, gear (which is appearance and more stats) and professions. There is also quest history and reputation, but both are so shallow in implementation as to have no impact on the hero.
On the class/ability front, clearly much has been done. Still, I feel that an opportunity is missed to make class-like decisions be more like a tech-tree. Diablo did this, of course, and WoW cloned it in the talent system, but it loses the sense of exploration that makes it so cool in an RTS setting. I begin to think that the unique-build-irrevocable-choice idea prevalent in MMORPGs is a relic of the past. Why not let people try things out as much as possible? Doesn't that open up more gameplay opportunities? Different scenarios, different teams, different builds. In an RTS you make relative commitments to certain units, buildings, upgrades, etc that span an attack, a base position, a phase of a game, a whole game, a night of playing, a week of playing, etc... An MMORPG could have the same levels of commitment that require tactical and strategic decisions, yet encourage exploration of the game space.
As to gear, I can only think that maintenance and upgrading should be a part of it. The fantasy trope of finding a legendary new sword is cool, but what about the equally compelling concept of a trusty, beloved weapon? Let existing weapons customize over time to the user, so that there is always a penalty to changing.
Professions are easy. The hero-as-merchant and hero-as-craftsman are quickly recognized. Let the hero build a network of workers, trade houses and shops. Deals for goods and services. This is an empire-building game waiting to happen and is close enough to deserve its own post.
Ah, but networks bring up a great idea. What hero doesn't have networks of allies, informants, suppliers, people they feel responsible for and people who sing their praise? Relationships with NPCs are a huge untapped system. It also opens up the way for personality customization. What sort of person is this hero? Does he drink and cavort before nobly saving the village? Does she watch from the shadows and strike without being seen? Does he befriend children and small animals and teach them wholesome life lessons? Personality and relationships can give narrative depth, open up new systems for exploration and achievement and allow the player to feel both ownership and impact on the world.
So what would such a system look like? Does the city building paradigm propose anything? I think I'll leave that to ponder a while and come back to it.
That got me to thinking about game systems that are fun, and city-building came to mind. From Civ to SimCity down to RTS standards, there's something compelling about that gather/build/maintain paradigm. So when thinking about an MMORPG character, can we cast it in terms of "building" a hero?
Currently we have stats, class/abilities, gear (which is appearance and more stats) and professions. There is also quest history and reputation, but both are so shallow in implementation as to have no impact on the hero.
On the class/ability front, clearly much has been done. Still, I feel that an opportunity is missed to make class-like decisions be more like a tech-tree. Diablo did this, of course, and WoW cloned it in the talent system, but it loses the sense of exploration that makes it so cool in an RTS setting. I begin to think that the unique-build-irrevocable-choice idea prevalent in MMORPGs is a relic of the past. Why not let people try things out as much as possible? Doesn't that open up more gameplay opportunities? Different scenarios, different teams, different builds. In an RTS you make relative commitments to certain units, buildings, upgrades, etc that span an attack, a base position, a phase of a game, a whole game, a night of playing, a week of playing, etc... An MMORPG could have the same levels of commitment that require tactical and strategic decisions, yet encourage exploration of the game space.
As to gear, I can only think that maintenance and upgrading should be a part of it. The fantasy trope of finding a legendary new sword is cool, but what about the equally compelling concept of a trusty, beloved weapon? Let existing weapons customize over time to the user, so that there is always a penalty to changing.
Professions are easy. The hero-as-merchant and hero-as-craftsman are quickly recognized. Let the hero build a network of workers, trade houses and shops. Deals for goods and services. This is an empire-building game waiting to happen and is close enough to deserve its own post.
Ah, but networks bring up a great idea. What hero doesn't have networks of allies, informants, suppliers, people they feel responsible for and people who sing their praise? Relationships with NPCs are a huge untapped system. It also opens up the way for personality customization. What sort of person is this hero? Does he drink and cavort before nobly saving the village? Does she watch from the shadows and strike without being seen? Does he befriend children and small animals and teach them wholesome life lessons? Personality and relationships can give narrative depth, open up new systems for exploration and achievement and allow the player to feel both ownership and impact on the world.
So what would such a system look like? Does the city building paradigm propose anything? I think I'll leave that to ponder a while and come back to it.
Upgrading for fun and profit
I'm playing around in the DOMO closed beta while I have the stomach flu and it has been a very pleasant diversion. I guess that says that atmosphere really matters to me, and as long as they put a thin veneer on the grinding, I'm okay with it for at least a couple days. The game has a nice look and feel, classes are interesting enough, and quests will keep you busy enough, even though grinding is clearly more efficient.
Got me thinking about leveling skills, and games that allow for choice in which skills to upgrade. Should I put my points in level 5 poking or level 7 slapping? Or branch into a new skill? I think it is a very good design principle to separate out base abilities from incremental improvements. This could mean having class templates that dictate your abilities and then talent/gear systems to customize. But it could also mean having mix-and-match abilities, limited by total number and/or mutual exclusion rules, again with a separate system on top. Either way it manages the game complexity better than presenting the user with too many opaque, number-crunching choices.
Got me thinking about leveling skills, and games that allow for choice in which skills to upgrade. Should I put my points in level 5 poking or level 7 slapping? Or branch into a new skill? I think it is a very good design principle to separate out base abilities from incremental improvements. This could mean having class templates that dictate your abilities and then talent/gear systems to customize. But it could also mean having mix-and-match abilities, limited by total number and/or mutual exclusion rules, again with a separate system on top. Either way it manages the game complexity better than presenting the user with too many opaque, number-crunching choices.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Swarm! Swarm!
MMORPG combat is too predictable. It's such a numbers game that the only real variable is players screwing up. A certain group of characters, with certain gear, can beat a certain number of certain mobs. Take one mob away and it's a trivial encounter. Add one more mob and the fight is literally un-winnable. That's not a recipe for fun.
Now, the roots of this are largely technical - you can't have things moving too fast and the AI is very limited by server load. This has led to the current state of auto-attack and wait combat that is highly dependent on crowd control methods. Every mob you remove from the fight has an exponential impact on difficulty. It's a shallow system that has it's moments but gets repetitive very quickly. And it leads to risk averse, efficiency focused gameplay. Think about "trash clearing" dungeon design - pull after pull of the same basic fight. Do you want challenge? Risk of losing and having to start over? No, because it's a tedious activity. So you go in overpowered and plow through as fast as you can. That is not gameplay.
Well, skill-based twitchy gameplay may be an answer, as may advances in tactical AI, but here is a simpler possibility. First, lower health, more mobs. When it takes 20 hits to kill a mob, the outcome is quite deterministic. He will run up to you and you sit there trading blows and it is quite simple to calculate about how much damage you will take before he dies. The outcome is not really in question unless you screw up. However, if there are 10 mobs that each take 2 hits to kill, the variance in how many times they will hit you dramatically rises. Range matters, line of sight matters, order of kills matters, and so on. Second, replace long term crowd control with movement impairment and positioning. Slowing, knockback, actual collision detection, teleporting, short stuns, etc. Instead of removing 1 of 4 mobs from the fight, you now have a continuous challenge of keeping 20 mobs out of attack position. That is a much more dynamic proposition.
Would it really work? No idea of course, but easy enough to try and find out. If there's a drawback it might be the exponential decrease in difficulty as these small mobs are killed off. If you start with 20, the fight might be really exciting until you get down to, say, 12, and then it's trivial. But big, high health mob fights are the same really. Often once the first 2 mobs are down, the fight is won. It only stays interesting if killing those first two effectively drains your resources such that you are less capable when fighting the last 3. And of course if that is the case then adds mean death, which is why you go in overpowered and risk decreases and blah, blah, blah... A constant stream of small mobs also drains resources and is simply more interesting.
Of course, you'd have to alter traditional AoE attacks which would anger lots of mage fans. But there's lots of interesting options there. Friendly fire would change everything. And if we're exploring positioning manipulation, AoE could play a big part there.
Now, the roots of this are largely technical - you can't have things moving too fast and the AI is very limited by server load. This has led to the current state of auto-attack and wait combat that is highly dependent on crowd control methods. Every mob you remove from the fight has an exponential impact on difficulty. It's a shallow system that has it's moments but gets repetitive very quickly. And it leads to risk averse, efficiency focused gameplay. Think about "trash clearing" dungeon design - pull after pull of the same basic fight. Do you want challenge? Risk of losing and having to start over? No, because it's a tedious activity. So you go in overpowered and plow through as fast as you can. That is not gameplay.
Well, skill-based twitchy gameplay may be an answer, as may advances in tactical AI, but here is a simpler possibility. First, lower health, more mobs. When it takes 20 hits to kill a mob, the outcome is quite deterministic. He will run up to you and you sit there trading blows and it is quite simple to calculate about how much damage you will take before he dies. The outcome is not really in question unless you screw up. However, if there are 10 mobs that each take 2 hits to kill, the variance in how many times they will hit you dramatically rises. Range matters, line of sight matters, order of kills matters, and so on. Second, replace long term crowd control with movement impairment and positioning. Slowing, knockback, actual collision detection, teleporting, short stuns, etc. Instead of removing 1 of 4 mobs from the fight, you now have a continuous challenge of keeping 20 mobs out of attack position. That is a much more dynamic proposition.
Would it really work? No idea of course, but easy enough to try and find out. If there's a drawback it might be the exponential decrease in difficulty as these small mobs are killed off. If you start with 20, the fight might be really exciting until you get down to, say, 12, and then it's trivial. But big, high health mob fights are the same really. Often once the first 2 mobs are down, the fight is won. It only stays interesting if killing those first two effectively drains your resources such that you are less capable when fighting the last 3. And of course if that is the case then adds mean death, which is why you go in overpowered and risk decreases and blah, blah, blah... A constant stream of small mobs also drains resources and is simply more interesting.
Of course, you'd have to alter traditional AoE attacks which would anger lots of mage fans. But there's lots of interesting options there. Friendly fire would change everything. And if we're exploring positioning manipulation, AoE could play a big part there.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The game outside the game
It is amazing to me that in a genre starved for content, so many game related activities are happening on message boards and websites rather than in the game.
Quest information websites are ubiquitous - everyone knows to go look up their quests on thottbot or allakhazam. Why not make trading knowledge about quests and mobs and drops part of the game? I'm not saying it would be easy, but what a rich opportunity.
Even more obvious is the constant whining and complaining about balance. Why not make nerfs and buffs part of the game play? Each "school" of combat in the game should be looking out for its own interests, right? Let players do quests for their schools, hold votes in game, play political mini-games to try and wrest control of the next ability changes. This would open up a whole new game mechanic, and there's plenty of space for experimenting with what sort of checks and balances would work best.
Quest information websites are ubiquitous - everyone knows to go look up their quests on thottbot or allakhazam. Why not make trading knowledge about quests and mobs and drops part of the game? I'm not saying it would be easy, but what a rich opportunity.
Even more obvious is the constant whining and complaining about balance. Why not make nerfs and buffs part of the game play? Each "school" of combat in the game should be looking out for its own interests, right? Let players do quests for their schools, hold votes in game, play political mini-games to try and wrest control of the next ability changes. This would open up a whole new game mechanic, and there's plenty of space for experimenting with what sort of checks and balances would work best.
Experience without the points
Since I'm against monotonic (always increasing) progression, I have to answer the question of what players are playing for. My answer is experiences. No, not XP, actual ones. It's a form of progression, but it puts the onus on the developers to create something that is worth spending time on. In the early stages of WoW there were plenty of experiences - getting a new ability to try out, seeing a new part of the world, following a new story line, meeting new people. As the game went on, however, it became less and less fun. Why? I'm going to say it's an even split between the constraints of keeping people playing (see last post for ranting on that) and simple, somewhat shallow game play becoming less interesting over time. Newness wears off, it just happens.
So the challenge in my mind is for a game to take its efforts away from keeping people playing through grinding progression and put them into keeping the game fresh and interesting.
Without going to far afield, let me throw out that such an effort begins with making the environment more dynamic. Now, there's a camp that says full PvP, player economy, player towns and all that goodness is the answer, and it certainly is an answer. But not, apparently, for the majority of players who like their more predictable PvE experience. No, I'm talking about dynamic PvE here.
Simulating the world isn't a hard thing, what is hard is getting it to play nice. NPC factions can gather resources, build things, attack each other, raze towns and all that RTS type goodness and how great would it be to have a world story that actually does something? But, such a story disturbs the individual characters' stories. Players don't like their quest objectives to change out from under them.
But what if you did log in and find that some faction you are aligned with, from who you reap certain benefits, had been wiped off the map? They now exist as a guerrilla presence harassing the factions in power. Is this a bad thing? Sure, there might be some inconveniences, but it opens up a new experience, to play as part of the oppressed group and fight the man. And perhaps a month later you shift loyalties or they regain ground and you get to play as the man.
Meanwhile, there are quests and goals of your own that do not rely on the shifts of power in the world. They provide a steady experience when that is what you are looking for. By giving players options, the game lets them choose for themselves the trade-off between dynamic experiences and control.
So the challenge in my mind is for a game to take its efforts away from keeping people playing through grinding progression and put them into keeping the game fresh and interesting.
Without going to far afield, let me throw out that such an effort begins with making the environment more dynamic. Now, there's a camp that says full PvP, player economy, player towns and all that goodness is the answer, and it certainly is an answer. But not, apparently, for the majority of players who like their more predictable PvE experience. No, I'm talking about dynamic PvE here.
Simulating the world isn't a hard thing, what is hard is getting it to play nice. NPC factions can gather resources, build things, attack each other, raze towns and all that RTS type goodness and how great would it be to have a world story that actually does something? But, such a story disturbs the individual characters' stories. Players don't like their quest objectives to change out from under them.
But what if you did log in and find that some faction you are aligned with, from who you reap certain benefits, had been wiped off the map? They now exist as a guerrilla presence harassing the factions in power. Is this a bad thing? Sure, there might be some inconveniences, but it opens up a new experience, to play as part of the oppressed group and fight the man. And perhaps a month later you shift loyalties or they regain ground and you get to play as the man.
Meanwhile, there are quests and goals of your own that do not rely on the shifts of power in the world. They provide a steady experience when that is what you are looking for. By giving players options, the game lets them choose for themselves the trade-off between dynamic experiences and control.
Progressing past progress
I'm going to go ahead and say that we've pretty well seen the limits of the achiever/progression model (diku, EQ, WoW). At its best, it takes a fun game and adds purpose, which is great. At its worst, it keeps people playing a game that ceased being fun long ago. But how else can you keep people playing? And I don't mean just from the cynical, bottom-line company viewpoint. Having reason to play is an important part of any game, and particularly those that try to build community. There are many intertwined assumptions that make it impossible to imagine something different, but perhaps by taking them out we can find new ground. Here's some I think need to go:
1) Playing 8 hours a day
It is assumed that any legit game must support players who play all the time. Consider that developers can only produce let's say 2 hours a day of entertaining content and is there any question why all MMOs involve grinding? Furthermore, anything you do that much becomes a job, that's just human nature. Thus the need for more and more dangling carrots. Wouldn't it be better to play a game say 2 nights a week that is really, really fun? With us gamers getting older and having families, I believe there is a sane audience out there that could power a game that doesn't bother supporting grinding.
2) Content must be endlessly repeatable
Companies want steady subscriptions. Conventional wisdom says that you cannot retain players unless they constantly have something to do, even something they dislike. This is a dead-end strategy. It is the equivalent of McDonalds locking the doors and trying to sell people as many burgers as they can before they get sick of them and escape. As consumers, it is ludicrous to play along with this. What we should be demanding is a quality meal that is good enough to bring us back. Perhaps we will complain about the delay between meals, but in a competitive market the winner is the game that puts out new content just good enough, just often enough to keep us coming back.
3) Diligence must be rewarded
This is tricky, because on the surface of it that is a good principle. If a player pays his money and puts in the effort, shouldn't he be rewarded? Problem is, that is antithetical to the competitive spirit of games. When you and your buddies get ready for a dungeon run, you're not wondering what is going to happen and whether you'll be able to surmount it, you're wondering how many tries it is going to take. By human nature, people in this situation become risk averse and focus on efficient use of time. At the end of an evening of playing a game we should be talking about the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, not how many beans we counted.
4) You can't take stuff away
When a game is based entirely on putting in huge amounts of time to gain things, taking those things away is a bad idea. Proponents of harsh death penalties seem to miss the fact that such a scheme does not generally encourage risk and excitement, it smothers it. However, you can't have winning and losing, risk and reward without some concept of failure. Gaining and losing things are both part of a vibrant, interesting experience. If losing is too painful, make gaining easier.
5) Progression never ends
The whole idea of a progression-based game continuing on and on is broken. Any progression aspect of a game has a clear end to it. Attempting to stretch it out with an "end-game" that is merely another form of progression is propagating the grind. Either make a game that ends (and possibly starts over) or make a game that isn't based on things constantly increasing.
1) Playing 8 hours a day
It is assumed that any legit game must support players who play all the time. Consider that developers can only produce let's say 2 hours a day of entertaining content and is there any question why all MMOs involve grinding? Furthermore, anything you do that much becomes a job, that's just human nature. Thus the need for more and more dangling carrots. Wouldn't it be better to play a game say 2 nights a week that is really, really fun? With us gamers getting older and having families, I believe there is a sane audience out there that could power a game that doesn't bother supporting grinding.
2) Content must be endlessly repeatable
Companies want steady subscriptions. Conventional wisdom says that you cannot retain players unless they constantly have something to do, even something they dislike. This is a dead-end strategy. It is the equivalent of McDonalds locking the doors and trying to sell people as many burgers as they can before they get sick of them and escape. As consumers, it is ludicrous to play along with this. What we should be demanding is a quality meal that is good enough to bring us back. Perhaps we will complain about the delay between meals, but in a competitive market the winner is the game that puts out new content just good enough, just often enough to keep us coming back.
3) Diligence must be rewarded
This is tricky, because on the surface of it that is a good principle. If a player pays his money and puts in the effort, shouldn't he be rewarded? Problem is, that is antithetical to the competitive spirit of games. When you and your buddies get ready for a dungeon run, you're not wondering what is going to happen and whether you'll be able to surmount it, you're wondering how many tries it is going to take. By human nature, people in this situation become risk averse and focus on efficient use of time. At the end of an evening of playing a game we should be talking about the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, not how many beans we counted.
4) You can't take stuff away
When a game is based entirely on putting in huge amounts of time to gain things, taking those things away is a bad idea. Proponents of harsh death penalties seem to miss the fact that such a scheme does not generally encourage risk and excitement, it smothers it. However, you can't have winning and losing, risk and reward without some concept of failure. Gaining and losing things are both part of a vibrant, interesting experience. If losing is too painful, make gaining easier.
5) Progression never ends
The whole idea of a progression-based game continuing on and on is broken. Any progression aspect of a game has a clear end to it. Attempting to stretch it out with an "end-game" that is merely another form of progression is propagating the grind. Either make a game that ends (and possibly starts over) or make a game that isn't based on things constantly increasing.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Crafty
Inspired by a discussion on KTR, was thinking about what the point is of crafting. Three come to mind.
First, it's a time and money sink, gives players some goals. Although I'm generally against anything that looks like it could encourage grinding, there's definitely some value in this. Collecting and harvesting resources is another topic, but it can be a fun activity and requires that you can do something besides vendor them. This type of crafting seems most appropriate for consumables - potions, ammo, one-time use items and repairing things.
Second, it's a mini game. Something to do besides combat. Some games have explored this avenue, making crafting like combat. This makes a lot of sense - attacks become techniques and mobs are replaced by materials and recipes. The key is to have enough possibly variety in the crafted items to make the game challenging and interesting. I believe this approach would be helped significantly by having "crafting centers" in towns and cities where the forges and looms and whatever are placed together. This would allow for group crafting, analogous to group combat, and also to give different locations their own crafting "feel" with specific breakdowns of techniques.
Third, there is real crafting - player created content. This could work even in a WoW clone. Imagine that there is a type of item, let's say weapons. The developers publish the 3d model format and even provides some helpful samples so that players can use their modeling software to create their own models and textures. It's amazing how many really talented people there are out there who would do such a thing. Now, you can't just flood them into the game, but you could allow players to submit "plans" to an NPC in game, let's call him the BigCity Blacksmithing Authority. Then players can come in game and browse the plans "under review" and vote for the ones they like. Every month, the highest ranked plans are added to the game world, say the top 10. Such a small number is trivial to have an underpayed employee screen for the inevitable Huge Phallus, and no big deal to download to the game clients. Add to crafting the ability to learn how to reforge a sword of some level of quality into one of the new models and just like that you have new, dynamic player created content that people will work hard to get. And the designer could get fame or some level of control over the plan. Lots of possibilities. Now think about armor, pets, furniture, hairstyles, animations...
First, it's a time and money sink, gives players some goals. Although I'm generally against anything that looks like it could encourage grinding, there's definitely some value in this. Collecting and harvesting resources is another topic, but it can be a fun activity and requires that you can do something besides vendor them. This type of crafting seems most appropriate for consumables - potions, ammo, one-time use items and repairing things.
Second, it's a mini game. Something to do besides combat. Some games have explored this avenue, making crafting like combat. This makes a lot of sense - attacks become techniques and mobs are replaced by materials and recipes. The key is to have enough possibly variety in the crafted items to make the game challenging and interesting. I believe this approach would be helped significantly by having "crafting centers" in towns and cities where the forges and looms and whatever are placed together. This would allow for group crafting, analogous to group combat, and also to give different locations their own crafting "feel" with specific breakdowns of techniques.
Third, there is real crafting - player created content. This could work even in a WoW clone. Imagine that there is a type of item, let's say weapons. The developers publish the 3d model format and even provides some helpful samples so that players can use their modeling software to create their own models and textures. It's amazing how many really talented people there are out there who would do such a thing. Now, you can't just flood them into the game, but you could allow players to submit "plans" to an NPC in game, let's call him the BigCity Blacksmithing Authority. Then players can come in game and browse the plans "under review" and vote for the ones they like. Every month, the highest ranked plans are added to the game world, say the top 10. Such a small number is trivial to have an underpayed employee screen for the inevitable Huge Phallus, and no big deal to download to the game clients. Add to crafting the ability to learn how to reforge a sword of some level of quality into one of the new models and just like that you have new, dynamic player created content that people will work hard to get. And the designer could get fame or some level of control over the plan. Lots of possibilities. Now think about armor, pets, furniture, hairstyles, animations...
Monday, June 11, 2007
Oh give me a home
Players want to own houses in the world. Store stuff, customize, bring friends over, etc. However, real estate is too valuable, or you get urban sprawl or huge empty areas. Is there a compromise?
I believe current games could solve this with little change, just by paying attention to the trade off between permanence and risk. That house in the middle of a big city is prime real estate and everyone wants it. So great, let the hardest of hardcore fight over it and actually be able to own the apartment next to the auction house. Towns on the outskirts, out in the wilderness have less valuable property, but still only worth it to the most dedicated players.
What about the casual player that doesn't want to log in every hour to make sure no one is plotting against their claim? Less risk, less commitment, less permanence. Boats are a good solution for the casual masses - mobile homes that can move in and out of the world proper, still providing many of the benefits but without the risks. Mobile fortresses of some sort form a middle ground for guilds who want their own place but can't defend it 24/7. All it takes is inventing an "ether", a not-in-the-world space which these fortresses can move in and out of. Then you simply have a ruleset that allows a guild to "warp in" and park their fortress over downtown, but with the attendant risk of having it nuked out of the sky. Put some kind of cooldown on how long before they can warp back out and you have a reasonable housing system with player controlled risk profiles.
I believe current games could solve this with little change, just by paying attention to the trade off between permanence and risk. That house in the middle of a big city is prime real estate and everyone wants it. So great, let the hardest of hardcore fight over it and actually be able to own the apartment next to the auction house. Towns on the outskirts, out in the wilderness have less valuable property, but still only worth it to the most dedicated players.
What about the casual player that doesn't want to log in every hour to make sure no one is plotting against their claim? Less risk, less commitment, less permanence. Boats are a good solution for the casual masses - mobile homes that can move in and out of the world proper, still providing many of the benefits but without the risks. Mobile fortresses of some sort form a middle ground for guilds who want their own place but can't defend it 24/7. All it takes is inventing an "ether", a not-in-the-world space which these fortresses can move in and out of. Then you simply have a ruleset that allows a guild to "warp in" and park their fortress over downtown, but with the attendant risk of having it nuked out of the sky. Put some kind of cooldown on how long before they can warp back out and you have a reasonable housing system with player controlled risk profiles.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
I have (more of) the power!
Leveling is a problem. Well, it has it good points, of course. Particularly:
- gives players clear goals
- feedback is simple and satisfying, strong sense of progress
- comparing against others is easy, very satisfying to many
- investment is rewarded
Now that last one is interesting. Rewarding investment is good for player retention, and that is the bottom line. But many players will cry that time invested should not replace skill. I agree in general, but it is not all bad. The time=power formula has some very compelling points in it's favor. It levels the playing field and broadens the audience. Everyone can succeed at leveling, as long as they have the time. More subtlely, a monster that you can't beat at level 50 becomes reasonable at 51 and easy at 52. This is a good thing for player satisfaction.
But there are problems:
- low level areas become ghost towns
- content becomes trivialized
- pvp degrades into ganking
- friends have difficulty staying "together" as they progress
- leveling ends
The latter three issues lead experienced players to view leveling as a necessary evil, a prerequisite to the "real game", and they burn through it as fast as possible. Why is this a problem? Because content creation is the problem and all these things waste content. Developers end up creating two if not more different games and you get all that "hardcore vs. casual" garbage that WoW spewed up.
Well, skill systems then? That's an interesting wrinkle, but I don't think it addresses the issues all that well. Because the problem I see here isn't just leveling, it's the use of an absolute power scale. Everything in the game is on a scale and as you "level" or "skill up" or whatever, you move up that scale. Rats at the bottom up through bandits, dragons, demons and demi-gods. The scales may be multi-dimensional, but you still start at 0 and move higher and higher. It can be with gear, the WoW endgame leveling, as well as levels or skills.
So what would happen if we change to relative power? After all, when you're busy fighting monster 2951094 its level does not matter, only the difference in levels between you and it. How would that work in a persistent world?
For simplicity let's imagine there are 3 kingdoms of bad guys, each with their own area. You, the great hero, are at level 0 with respect to all three. You go charging into the first area, equipped with all manner of quests to complete and discover bad guys who range from slightly less than you to several levels above you. Now, if you really are a skilled player, whatever that means in this particular game, you might beat enemies who outlevel you by quite a bit. Regardless, as you fight them you level with respect to them (call it learning their weaknesses or whatever) making it easier to defeat them. The more skilled player can take pride in completing his goals in the area without having to level much while the less skilled player can still complete it with more time invested.
The most important point, however, is that completing the first area does not level you past the second area which has it's own relative power scale. Content is not trivialized, areas don't get left behind, groups can play together more easily and it doesn't divide the game into leveling and end-game. Likewise, you always remain at the same relative power level with other players so PvP is not wrecked by PvE.
Because it has less drawbacks and is more flexible, a relative power scheme is a better foundation for a game than an absolute power scheme. However, it comes with its own significant drawback - the blind drive to see the numbers go up is compromised. Each area has to stand on its own as a fun and interesting to do because there is no underlying motivation to grind through an area just to get to the next one (under the blind fallacy that it will be different somehow). As a player, I think this is a good thing, because it raises the bar for developers to come up with alternative motivations.
- gives players clear goals
- feedback is simple and satisfying, strong sense of progress
- comparing against others is easy, very satisfying to many
- investment is rewarded
Now that last one is interesting. Rewarding investment is good for player retention, and that is the bottom line. But many players will cry that time invested should not replace skill. I agree in general, but it is not all bad. The time=power formula has some very compelling points in it's favor. It levels the playing field and broadens the audience. Everyone can succeed at leveling, as long as they have the time. More subtlely, a monster that you can't beat at level 50 becomes reasonable at 51 and easy at 52. This is a good thing for player satisfaction.
But there are problems:
- low level areas become ghost towns
- content becomes trivialized
- pvp degrades into ganking
- friends have difficulty staying "together" as they progress
- leveling ends
The latter three issues lead experienced players to view leveling as a necessary evil, a prerequisite to the "real game", and they burn through it as fast as possible. Why is this a problem? Because content creation is the problem and all these things waste content. Developers end up creating two if not more different games and you get all that "hardcore vs. casual" garbage that WoW spewed up.
Well, skill systems then? That's an interesting wrinkle, but I don't think it addresses the issues all that well. Because the problem I see here isn't just leveling, it's the use of an absolute power scale. Everything in the game is on a scale and as you "level" or "skill up" or whatever, you move up that scale. Rats at the bottom up through bandits, dragons, demons and demi-gods. The scales may be multi-dimensional, but you still start at 0 and move higher and higher. It can be with gear, the WoW endgame leveling, as well as levels or skills.
So what would happen if we change to relative power? After all, when you're busy fighting monster 2951094 its level does not matter, only the difference in levels between you and it. How would that work in a persistent world?
For simplicity let's imagine there are 3 kingdoms of bad guys, each with their own area. You, the great hero, are at level 0 with respect to all three. You go charging into the first area, equipped with all manner of quests to complete and discover bad guys who range from slightly less than you to several levels above you. Now, if you really are a skilled player, whatever that means in this particular game, you might beat enemies who outlevel you by quite a bit. Regardless, as you fight them you level with respect to them (call it learning their weaknesses or whatever) making it easier to defeat them. The more skilled player can take pride in completing his goals in the area without having to level much while the less skilled player can still complete it with more time invested.
The most important point, however, is that completing the first area does not level you past the second area which has it's own relative power scale. Content is not trivialized, areas don't get left behind, groups can play together more easily and it doesn't divide the game into leveling and end-game. Likewise, you always remain at the same relative power level with other players so PvP is not wrecked by PvE.
Because it has less drawbacks and is more flexible, a relative power scheme is a better foundation for a game than an absolute power scheme. However, it comes with its own significant drawback - the blind drive to see the numbers go up is compromised. Each area has to stand on its own as a fun and interesting to do because there is no underlying motivation to grind through an area just to get to the next one (under the blind fallacy that it will be different somehow). As a player, I think this is a good thing, because it raises the bar for developers to come up with alternative motivations.
Evolving the MMORPG
First off, here's my bias. I think MMORPGs have great potential. I watched other people play MUDs, then UO and EQ from the outside but never got the hook - it seemed like a whole lot of really boring, really repetitive stuff. Then I tried WoW, looking for a game to play with my brother across the country, and was blown away. Through the stress test, open beta and the first year it really felt like another place, full of interesting sights, people (the real ones) and things to do. I enjoyed the game for a solid year and half before the really boring, really repetitive foundation started to show through the cracks.
I'm not going to begrudge my "hardcore" friends their desire to burn through content as fast as possible, play 10-16 hours a day, repeat content ad nauseum and grind, grind, grind. But I'm not going to join them either.
The point of these posts is to ask how to improve on the current crop of options. I think it's wise to try to avoid a monolithic Vision(tm) since such a comprehensive, interlocking design can be boring to read and hard to discuss. Also, it's important to distinguish "new tech" ideas from things that could be reasonably done today. Finally, it is better to suggest a small but effective change from the norm than to start by trying to change everything.
Ideas in the absence of opportunity and will to implement them aren't worth much. But they can be fun to kick aounrd so hopefully there'll be things here that are fun to ponder and worth discussing.
I'm not going to begrudge my "hardcore" friends their desire to burn through content as fast as possible, play 10-16 hours a day, repeat content ad nauseum and grind, grind, grind. But I'm not going to join them either.
The point of these posts is to ask how to improve on the current crop of options. I think it's wise to try to avoid a monolithic Vision(tm) since such a comprehensive, interlocking design can be boring to read and hard to discuss. Also, it's important to distinguish "new tech" ideas from things that could be reasonably done today. Finally, it is better to suggest a small but effective change from the norm than to start by trying to change everything.
Ideas in the absence of opportunity and will to implement them aren't worth much. But they can be fun to kick aounrd so hopefully there'll be things here that are fun to ponder and worth discussing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)