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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)