quote: Original post by LockePick
The problem with dynamic MMORPG''s is not the development time, not the technical limitations, and not that people aren''t smart enough. It''s that the mainstream player base does not want this sort of game. There are many players who do want this, but they are not mainstream, they are a niche.

I think it would be surprising just how many players would sign up for a "niche" product like this. But, I''ll be honest: I''m interested in developing products that cater to people with some level of intelligence and creativity, because thats how I view myself, and those are the types of games I like to play.

If it isn''t considered mainstream, then so be it.. but I know that a large number of Ultima Online players are aching for more intelligent content and roleplaying opportunities. Heck, Ultima Online may not be considered mainstream either, considering among other things that its graphics haven''t changed much in the last 6 years. But it currently boasts nearly 250,000 paid accounts.

****************************************

Brian Lacy
ForeverDream Studios

Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@foreverdreamstudios.com

"I create. Therefore I am."

What about the opportunities for power that come from being able to run your own government? Isn''t that something to aspire to, something that will get players "hooked" as you all seem to think is the most important issue?

You know, it worries me that so many of you are convinced the MMORPGs are about getting the player hooked. Maybe you''re right, but I think when designers are taking that attitude, the entire genre is doomed to fall into the same ridiculous pattern.

Why not let people get hooked because there is so much to do, so many opportunities to explore and try something new, that you never get sick of it?

We''re designers, supposedly, so lets think like designers and not like publishers. I''m getting sick of hearing "no it can''t be done" from the people who are supposed to be the problem solvers of the industry. If your not interested in the idea, thats just fine -- but if you have any interest in something like this at all, then help me figure out HOW it can be done, and quit being a bunch of pessimists. The industry has got enough nay-sayers dragging it down already.

Sheesh.

****************************************

Brian Lacy
ForeverDream Studios

Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@foreverdreamstudios.com

"I create. Therefore I am."

Ok, here is a hypothetical MMO game for you:

No classes
No skills
No magic
No technology
No levels

Limited NPC presence (a mostly PvP+ world)
Limited contract system (usually arrangements are player negotiated)

*Complex economic model (this means trading, rates, loans, etc)
*Complex clan hierarchy (you can have up to 8 tiers of leaders. Clan hierarchy also determines your enemies)
*Complex character building (you can buy things to get “ahead”)
*Multiple avatars per player in the same world at the same time (more than one PC!)
*Omnipresence over your PC’s (you can switch between player characters with a click)
*Truly a persistent world (You cannot log out)
*The ability to control other player’s characters if given permission
*About 20,000 to 40,000 player characters per server
*Semi-automated combat / trade
*Perma-Death of a player’s characters but never of the player’s presence itself (the player cannot die)
*The ability to take whatever position in the game world offered to you. No need to level to get the item of your affection, as long as it’s being offered to you.
*Player rating system similar to ebay. (Limited voting, use wisely)
*Ability to make Player made buildings that can trade, fight etc.

Over all of these things rests the burden of time. It takes an hour or so of travel to go between major cities. This consideration accommodates the movement of 20,000+ player characters that may or may not be at war. If movement was faster imagine 20,000 players fighting faster along with dieing faster as well. It would result in chaos. Hence slower travel times regulate conflict. Omnipresence relieves the player of the need to micromanage movement of individual PC’s so if a player is bored watching a single character he can switch to another elsewhere in the game world at a moments notice. Although there are many PC’s they are related directly to the player. They are not separate.

Ok, well what do you think of this hypothetical MMO game? It has a lot less emphasis on leveling. Notice most of the “old” MMORPG structure has been removed.

quote: Ok, here is a hypothetical MMO game for you:

No classes
No skills
No magic
No technology
No levels

Me likie! Add:

No items
No quests
No NPCs
Limited AI (monsters)

*Complex economic model (this means trading, rates, loans, etc)

*simplified economic model (no items, no money… back to cavemen days)

quote: *Complex clan hierarchy (you can have up to 8 tiers of leaders. Clan hierarchy also determines your enemies)

Yes. Clans/families/groups, whatever you want to call them, should be the focal point of a good MMO.

quote: *Complex character building (you can buy things to get “ahead”)

No money, but allow players to create more powerful characters while sacrificing potential power (in EQ example, you could start a character at level 20, but you couldn''t level up past 40).

quote: *Multiple avatars per player in the same world at the same time (more than one PC!)

An absolute must.

quote: *Omnipresence over your PC’s (you can switch between player characters with a click)

Exactly. Gimme complete control. (the only requirement for switching would be that your initial character needs to be in a relatively safe situation -> no nearby enemies)

quote: *Truly a persistent world (You cannot log out)

Not sure about this one. I''d say give players the ability to choose. (not logging out could have certain benefits, while logging out has the benefit of safety)

quote: *The ability to control other player’s characters if given permission

Another must. There''s no reason not to let players do this.

quote: *About 20,000 to 40,000 player characters per server

I don''t think the amount of characters per server matters much. You won''t interact with the vast majority of them.

quote: *Semi-automated combat / trade

Semi-automated if desired. Non-automated should be possible as well (as in, player controls each and every move).

quote: *Perma-Death of a player’s characters but never of the player’s presence itself (the player cannot die)

Yup, permadeath is what''s needed for a great MMO.

quote: *Player rating system similar to ebay. (Limited voting, use wisely)

NO! Ebay''s feedback rating is horrible!

Silvermyst and other who might read this, what do you think of the no classes, no levels etc? I am interested in your opinions.

The clan hierarchy can be insanely complex. It’s not just a clan or family but a greater system. A government if you will. You do not have to depend on your 8 levels of leaders alone if you ally horizontally. Example:

A very simplified democratic republic:

Congress---President---Judicial Branch
|
|
State congress---Representatives etc.
|
|
American Voters

While this is an over simplification it does somewhat work while only using Three levels of command hierarchy. A more realistic model could be achieved employing all eight levels.

---
“Not sure about this one. I''d say give players the ability to choose. (not logging out could have certain benefits, while logging out has the benefit of safety)”
---

What would stop a player from accumulating power infinitely then? If there is no threat to his PC’s? A wise player would play and then log out while accumulating fantastic wealth and power. Besides if a player logs out other players in his hierarchy can take over portions of command for him.

---
“No money, but allow players to create more powerful characters while sacrificing potential power (in EQ example, you could start a character at level 20, but you couldn''t level up past 40).”
---

Sorry man. Money is necessary. Bartering is just plain annoying without currency to back it up. Plus its just handy to have around. Remember there won’t be NPC monster dropping piles of gold everywhere.

---
“I don''t think the amount of characters per server matters much. You won''t interact with the vast majority of them.”
---

Except for the fact that there are only going to be only a few NPC monsters for players to interact with. The game world is huge (trust me) and this number of players will be necessary to give it a living feel.

---
“NO! Ebay''s feedback rating is horrible!”
---
Can you suggest a better system? It has to be simple. Remember feedback left on the server takes up bandwidth and space. Ebay’s is simple and straightforward.

I would be greatly interested in further feedback on points already covered for my hypothetical MMO game. I am sorta busy right now but I will be posting here in the future.

Why do terds exist?

quote: Silvermyst and other who might read this, what do you think of the no classes, no levels etc?

If it doesn''t serve a specific purpose, do away with it. This applies to every game element. If classes are needed in a certain design, use them. I just don''t think classes/races/levels/etc are elements that necessarily have to go into every game, even if the game will end up carrying an RPG label.

quote: The clan hierarchy can be insanely complex.

Persolly, I prefer to let each player decide for themselves what system they want to use. If they want a true democratic system (just so you know, the US is NOT a democracy, though most people seem to think it is), let each group member have the ability to cast one vote on each issue. Some players may want to be dictators, making all the decisions for themselves. It''s up to the design to create a system that will allow for all these many different types of clans.

quote: What would stop a player from accumulating power infinitely then?

Why would you want to stop a player from accumulating power infinitely?

quote: If there is no threat to his PC’s? A wise player would play and then log out while accumulating fantastic wealth and power. Besides if a player logs out other players in his hierarchy can take over portions of command for him.

Ah, I misunderstood. In my opinion, players should have the choice to
a) log out
b) leave character(s) logged in
Option a should remove all player''s characters from game and place them in safe haven. Option b would leave character(s) behind, risking their lives, but giving them a chance to do some of the more mundane things in the character''s life (find food?).

quote: Sorry man. Money is necessary.

I disagree. Money may be necessary in the majority of designs, but NOTHING is necessary in an individual design.

quote: Bartering is just plain annoying without currency to back it up.

People barter. Why couldn''t PCs?

quote: Plus its just handy to have around.

That''s not good enough of an argument to warrant money. Only use that which is absolutely necessary. If you want players to be able to acquire goods from others, use money when you want them to acquire lots of goods, but you can do with bartering if the average exchange of goods only happens once or twice a day. Bartering makes for a much more interesting game world.

quote: Except for the fact that there are only going to be only a few NPC monsters for players to interact with. The game world is huge (trust me) and this number of players will be necessary to give it a living feel.

By ''interact'', do you mean ''communicate'' or ''communicate and/or fight''?

quote: Can you suggest a better system? It has to be simple. Remember feedback left on the server takes up bandwidth and space. Ebay’s is simple and straightforward.

Ebay''s feedback system is HIGHLY corruptable. Anyone can leave you bad feedback even though it''s not warranted. Imagine a group of griefers setting out to leave bad feedback to as many people as they can. Question: what''s the feedback rating needed for?

I think one way to start getting more dynamic is make PKing possible always and have permanent death. I''ll explain each in detail:

For the PKing, there could be a law system to offer monetary rewards for wanted murderers. If a player attacks first and kills another player, and a third player witnesses it, that third player can report the murder to the police station, causing a wanted level to be created or increased for the killer. Witnessed murders would be stored in the player data, so a killer could protect himself by killing all the witnesses before they report the murder. The more wanted, the higher the reward. If a player is attacked by another, other players could also issue a special "defend" command to defend that player by engaging the attacker with impunity. A player cannot attain a wanted level for killing a wanted player. There''d be a time limit on the report. NPC guards would be in "safe" areas like cities to respond to distress calls, though they''d be roaming so that a sneaky killer could wait until the coast is clear. There would be a bulletin board where wanted posters would be. Anyone who helped kill the bad guy would get a share of the reward (attacked them within a certain time of their death, something in the minutes range).

For permadeath, I think safeguarding possessions would be enough. Players could store things in a bank, under their family name (account), so any character under their account could withdraw possessions.

Anyway, I think doing the above would increase the dynamic between players significantly:

Gangs of evildoers could protect their members. Gangs of vigilantes could go after the evildoers. Blackmail someone for a murder you witnessed. Players would have to be careful of going into unpopulated areas or areas where bad people hang out. Players could hire PC escorts to help get them from point A to point B. People could play assassins, as long as they don''t get caught the thrill could be unique.

It''s not perfect, but I might enjoy a game like that, it opens up a bunch of possibilities.

...

[edited by - Critical_Waste on April 28, 2003 7:17:27 PM]

In regards to my ideas of implementing something similar to the original proposed scenario... that''s not necessarily how I would implement it (hence the "just for the sake of arguement"). It''s just a hastily thought up idea, the point of which is that a system in place helps define and shape a community. Yes if it''s overly complex, or overly limiting, it''s obviously a bad thing, but take my suggestions with a pinch of salt because it was only meant to illustrate a point. Just wanted to make that clear

Cheers,

Steve