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.
Monday, June 11, 2007
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)