Co-op is the future. It combines the dynamic elements of human players with the predictable satisfaction of AI enemies. The most exciting way to advance virtual world gaming is to consider how the game system can more effectively manage the user experience - blending cooperative and competitive play with a dynamic world system.
The Warcraft 3 map mod Defense of the Ancients did this pretty well. Having stupid AI grunts running around while powerful player heroes fought it out together and against each other added the kind of fun depth we're always looking for. The kind that excites you with possibilities rather than dragging you down with details.
I think WoW started out with this vision, and you can see it in Alterac Valley which I understand was originally not intended as an instance. They never got close though, and you can appreciate the immense technical and gameplay hurdles to be overcome. Still, I think that is the next gen, and someone had better be working on it.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
We've always been each other's greatest nemesises...nemesee...
Named mobs should be treated like players rather than like generic mobs. Let them learn and improve, and keep them at the same relative power level as the player. Going a step further, let them have limited rez-type options (clones, protective magic, call it whatever). In fact, why not spawn a nemesis NPC for each new character and let the player struggle against him or her throughout their career.
Given a character system where players can determine the type of character, relationships and reputation they have, their nemesis can mirror their development. In fact, a former friend can become a bitter, recurring enemy. A faceless enemy can build up a grudge to become a fearsome foe. All those standard comic/fantasy/sci-fi motifs can come into play.
And because these nemesis NPCs are player-specific, the player's story becomes more dynamic. The big boss at the end of that long quest chain doesn't have to be the same guy everyone and their brother kills every night. Further, one character's nemesis can play cameo roles for other characters - alts, guild mates, frequent party mates. They can also be invoked to cross taboo lines like taking items away from players to build up emotional investment.
Cool, reasonable way to add dynamic, personal story elements to the quest system.
Given a character system where players can determine the type of character, relationships and reputation they have, their nemesis can mirror their development. In fact, a former friend can become a bitter, recurring enemy. A faceless enemy can build up a grudge to become a fearsome foe. All those standard comic/fantasy/sci-fi motifs can come into play.
And because these nemesis NPCs are player-specific, the player's story becomes more dynamic. The big boss at the end of that long quest chain doesn't have to be the same guy everyone and their brother kills every night. Further, one character's nemesis can play cameo roles for other characters - alts, guild mates, frequent party mates. They can also be invoked to cross taboo lines like taking items away from players to build up emotional investment.
Cool, reasonable way to add dynamic, personal story elements to the quest system.
All Your Base
Current dungeon mechanics are very limited. Go in, kill everything. Pull groups of high HP mobs over and over again. This may be occasionally interesting, but should hardly be the only or primary option. Missions that send you into enemy cities and bases to accomplish some specific goal offer far more interesting possibilities.
Pulling as a combat mechanic can be challenging and interesting and even makes sense in open spaces where you are picking off stray guards or herd members. In a closed, organized area like a base it isn't nearly so effective. To be more specific, pulling is based on three principles: mobs have an alert radius, mobs become aware when attacked and mobs are linked to each other. When a mob is alerted to a player, it attacks that player.
In a base, mob responses should be far more coordinated. First we break the area into sections to simulate line-of-sight/hearing. A long hallway is a section as is an open courtyard while rooms off to the side are separate sections. All mobs in a section are aware of what is going on in that section. Lots of technical tricks apply to doorways, but the point is that awareness is linked to architecture.
Next, we replace the single attack response with a set of possible behaviors. A mob, on becoming aware of an enemy, can:
1) charge the enemy and melee attack
2) attempt to maintain range and range attack
3) retreat and range attack
4) hide
5) cower in fear
6) flee
You could also add in the idea of "cover" to make options 2 and 3 more interesting.
The key now is that if you are in one section (say a side room) and you are fighting, a mob may choose to flee out into the large hallway outside, which will alert all the mobs in that section to your presence. How is that different than mobs that flee or call for help in other games? Well, we're making it harder so far.
Harder is good, because it forces a different mentality. No more methodically exterminating an entire base. Now we need some kind of stealth game play, and any new option should always make us think about player abilities. We can now have numerous schools of disguise and stealth, for example:
1) disguises are consumables, allow unchallenged movement in "public" areas
2) psionics can cause a fleeing mob to forget you are there
3) illusion can hide a party standing still
4) stealth training can help a player move about undetected
etc, etc...
We also need a communication system for enemy bases, perhaps terminals that mobs can get to and alert central command to dispatch hunters. Parties must then fight quickly and efficiently in isolated sections and be prepared to flee into adjacent sections and hide until search is abandoned. This also opens the strategic options of creating distractions and manipulating enemy deployment. Players can sabotage things, create chaos amongst non-combat NPCs and tap into the enemy communications to see where hunting parties are.
Base combat should be the centerpiece of tactical play, and it needs sophisticated mechanics to give it variety and depth.
Pulling as a combat mechanic can be challenging and interesting and even makes sense in open spaces where you are picking off stray guards or herd members. In a closed, organized area like a base it isn't nearly so effective. To be more specific, pulling is based on three principles: mobs have an alert radius, mobs become aware when attacked and mobs are linked to each other. When a mob is alerted to a player, it attacks that player.
In a base, mob responses should be far more coordinated. First we break the area into sections to simulate line-of-sight/hearing. A long hallway is a section as is an open courtyard while rooms off to the side are separate sections. All mobs in a section are aware of what is going on in that section. Lots of technical tricks apply to doorways, but the point is that awareness is linked to architecture.
Next, we replace the single attack response with a set of possible behaviors. A mob, on becoming aware of an enemy, can:
1) charge the enemy and melee attack
2) attempt to maintain range and range attack
3) retreat and range attack
4) hide
5) cower in fear
6) flee
You could also add in the idea of "cover" to make options 2 and 3 more interesting.
The key now is that if you are in one section (say a side room) and you are fighting, a mob may choose to flee out into the large hallway outside, which will alert all the mobs in that section to your presence. How is that different than mobs that flee or call for help in other games? Well, we're making it harder so far.
Harder is good, because it forces a different mentality. No more methodically exterminating an entire base. Now we need some kind of stealth game play, and any new option should always make us think about player abilities. We can now have numerous schools of disguise and stealth, for example:
1) disguises are consumables, allow unchallenged movement in "public" areas
2) psionics can cause a fleeing mob to forget you are there
3) illusion can hide a party standing still
4) stealth training can help a player move about undetected
etc, etc...
We also need a communication system for enemy bases, perhaps terminals that mobs can get to and alert central command to dispatch hunters. Parties must then fight quickly and efficiently in isolated sections and be prepared to flee into adjacent sections and hide until search is abandoned. This also opens the strategic options of creating distractions and manipulating enemy deployment. Players can sabotage things, create chaos amongst non-combat NPCs and tap into the enemy communications to see where hunting parties are.
Base combat should be the centerpiece of tactical play, and it needs sophisticated mechanics to give it variety and depth.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Master craft
Continuing the theme of exploration vs. achievement, would an exploration-based crafting system add something new over the same old achievement systems?
Achievement stand-bys are: grinding for mats, raiding for mats and leveling by creating piles of stuff.
I'd argue that that works best for consumables and toys - potions and temporary buffs, purely aesthetic clothes, minor pets and gadgets. You don't have to grind too much because the flow of such things doesn't need to be rigidly controlled. Leveling by "practice" still sucks, but can be fun particularly for new players. The system fails miserably when it comes to core use items like weapons and armor because quality must be limited and the grind must be enormous. Now, to some people that's not failing, but around here it is.
So there is an achievement crafting system for those consumables and toys, maybe some common but useful items as well, then we add master crafting.
The goal is a system that gatekeeps by exploration. Achievement systems gatekeep via long grinds (time invested) and large group content (organization). The former is just annoying while the latter breeds much resentment among those who dislike large group content. We start by imagining a combat-like interface for master crafting, complete with group dynamics. The process of creation is simulated as a protection fight - keeping the item "alive" until the process is complete. Different techniques are applied at different times to keep a complex equilibrium, but the total trace of the process contributes to the final product. The process is based on the materials used (which have random elements) such that only real-time feedback can tell the crafters how to react. Using a hidden item model, as discussed below, the output is not simply success or failure. Discerning the potential (quality) of an item becomes a skill in and of itself. This is a game to be learned, not a template to be followed.
Practice looks different because techniques can be awarded like abilities, and they must be tried out with other techniques for the player to learn them. Materials are still required for this practice, but it does not seem so arbitrary. The ongoing war in a dynamic environment provides a sink for practice pieces.
Achievement stand-bys are: grinding for mats, raiding for mats and leveling by creating piles of stuff.
I'd argue that that works best for consumables and toys - potions and temporary buffs, purely aesthetic clothes, minor pets and gadgets. You don't have to grind too much because the flow of such things doesn't need to be rigidly controlled. Leveling by "practice" still sucks, but can be fun particularly for new players. The system fails miserably when it comes to core use items like weapons and armor because quality must be limited and the grind must be enormous. Now, to some people that's not failing, but around here it is.
So there is an achievement crafting system for those consumables and toys, maybe some common but useful items as well, then we add master crafting.
The goal is a system that gatekeeps by exploration. Achievement systems gatekeep via long grinds (time invested) and large group content (organization). The former is just annoying while the latter breeds much resentment among those who dislike large group content. We start by imagining a combat-like interface for master crafting, complete with group dynamics. The process of creation is simulated as a protection fight - keeping the item "alive" until the process is complete. Different techniques are applied at different times to keep a complex equilibrium, but the total trace of the process contributes to the final product. The process is based on the materials used (which have random elements) such that only real-time feedback can tell the crafters how to react. Using a hidden item model, as discussed below, the output is not simply success or failure. Discerning the potential (quality) of an item becomes a skill in and of itself. This is a game to be learned, not a template to be followed.
Practice looks different because techniques can be awarded like abilities, and they must be tried out with other techniques for the player to learn them. Materials are still required for this practice, but it does not seem so arbitrary. The ongoing war in a dynamic environment provides a sink for practice pieces.
My sword can beat up your sword
Items are fun. Grinding for incremental improvements is a great hook, but ultimately shallow and frankly somewhat misanthropic. Today I'm thinking about a non-achievement oriented item system, the heart of which is that items grow with you and are better for particular things rather than being better in an absolute, statistical sense. Is this complexity that adds depth or just tedium and learning curve?
Let's think about weapons. We start with a weapon with no stats on it, just a type. Okay, well clearly different types of weapons should be better at different things - ranged, piercing, blunt, reach, weight, magic-channeling, etc. So the underlying model allows only certain attacks and defense, and gives bonuses or penalties to some as well. Through use, perhaps these modifiers change to fit your style. And because feedback is important, we add flashy light effects to indicate when a weapon is getting "good" at a certain attack in a certain context. This also opens up a new realm of gameplay - discerning the nature of a weapon. But how easy or hard should it be? We want the casual player to be able to enjoy the game, and their weapon, without having to consult spreadsheets to see if it is the best weapon possible.
Alright then, we introduce tiers of weapons. Something like common, exceptional, magical and legendary. The higher tier weapons are not inherently more powerful, they have more potential to be more powerful, and with that they also require more effort and knowledge to use properly. By having a hidden user/item specific underlying model, we try to avoid min/maxing based on templates and force actual gameplay to determine success. Perhaps the bottom two tiers give the casual player room to grow without getting overly involved, while the top tiers allow the obsessive to squeeze out that extra little advantage. So the common sword you've been using for months is in fact superior for you to the shiny new magical one that just became available, but if you're willing to make the investment, that shiny one can become better.
Then we parameterize the weapons. We already have type, let's add in material, crafting school, runes, gems, magical embuing...All these things can serve to customize the weapon in a visible way, while still allowing the underlying model to control the specific numbers. So you can make your weapon more suited to defense, but not in terms of specific numbers.
Because two weapons can't be directly compared except by actual use, and because the value of an item is tied to the player using it, this system is as much about exploring as it is about achievement. Is that good? I think so, but at the very least it is different.
This also addresses a huge problem with crafting - can you craft better weapons than you can find? Can you fail to make the best weapon and make a mediocre one instead? These questions are less problematic if you don't live in a shallow world where items can be ranked pretty absolutely in terms of value.
Let's think about weapons. We start with a weapon with no stats on it, just a type. Okay, well clearly different types of weapons should be better at different things - ranged, piercing, blunt, reach, weight, magic-channeling, etc. So the underlying model allows only certain attacks and defense, and gives bonuses or penalties to some as well. Through use, perhaps these modifiers change to fit your style. And because feedback is important, we add flashy light effects to indicate when a weapon is getting "good" at a certain attack in a certain context. This also opens up a new realm of gameplay - discerning the nature of a weapon. But how easy or hard should it be? We want the casual player to be able to enjoy the game, and their weapon, without having to consult spreadsheets to see if it is the best weapon possible.
Alright then, we introduce tiers of weapons. Something like common, exceptional, magical and legendary. The higher tier weapons are not inherently more powerful, they have more potential to be more powerful, and with that they also require more effort and knowledge to use properly. By having a hidden user/item specific underlying model, we try to avoid min/maxing based on templates and force actual gameplay to determine success. Perhaps the bottom two tiers give the casual player room to grow without getting overly involved, while the top tiers allow the obsessive to squeeze out that extra little advantage. So the common sword you've been using for months is in fact superior for you to the shiny new magical one that just became available, but if you're willing to make the investment, that shiny one can become better.
Then we parameterize the weapons. We already have type, let's add in material, crafting school, runes, gems, magical embuing...All these things can serve to customize the weapon in a visible way, while still allowing the underlying model to control the specific numbers. So you can make your weapon more suited to defense, but not in terms of specific numbers.
Because two weapons can't be directly compared except by actual use, and because the value of an item is tied to the player using it, this system is as much about exploring as it is about achievement. Is that good? I think so, but at the very least it is different.
This also addresses a huge problem with crafting - can you craft better weapons than you can find? Can you fail to make the best weapon and make a mediocre one instead? These questions are less problematic if you don't live in a shallow world where items can be ranked pretty absolutely in terms of value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)