Quote: Hart said:
I dont really like player citys. it is good to give players a greedom to do things, but i dont really like having too many citys in a game world. also players dont usaully design them as well as if they were already implemented by the devs. but i would like it if guilds would be able to have control of citys. now they wouldnt really be able to control the players directly, like autamatically taking taxes from them. but they woud be able to set a tax, and the people in their guild + the npc guards of the city would enforce the tax and the other laws that players could set up. guild could fight for control of the city and the ruling guild would be able to set taxes for using different features of the city. the ruling guild could also set the NPC gaurds on a certain strictness though, like if a guard sees a player who has a certain amount of lawlessness(something players get for doing bad stuff like player killing and what not) they attack him. the ruler could also pay people for bringing in a player how has a certain amount of lawlessness.

Our design called for a few cities at game start, these cities would remain under the devs control, because we wanted to ensure that there was a city in which laws existed and new players could declare initial citizenship. Our other city was to be a place where the player that enjoyed a bit of lawlessness could get their teeth dirty.

Our design included all of what you have described above, guild dues, taxes, guards etc... The creation of a city would take more than just three guilds coming together to form a city, it would require a substantial sum of in-game money. We considered the creation of a city to be a high-end game - once players achieved city creation then the fun would really begin.

First of all they had a choice of governing types - let's say for example that a city was formed and it was a pure democracy (think Greek) then when that city was formed the first thing that they would have to do is vote on city leaders - every citizens vote would need to be cast, once the leaders where selected they would go to the task of establishing rules for the city, these would have to be voted on.

We had many more plans, and in fact, I'm sure that since my leave about 17 months ago that they have expanded on many aspects of the game... I really hope that they get funding soon... a) because I want to play the game and b) because I may get to actually work on the game :)

What is the biggest problem with permadeath vs. no permadeath? Lack of justification.

Why do characters keep being resurrected? Why don't they just die and stay dead?

I have 1 serious problem with permadeath: You lose everything that you've worked for. This can be weeks or months worth of work. Heck, look at some games (EQ or other MMOGs) and you're talking YEARS worth of work on the character. Forcing people to restart or even get pushed back more than a small amount is going to result with an amount of frustration more than is acceptable for most users. The only games that are acceptable for 'permadeath' are games where there is little or no progression beyond the initial start point. Those aren't acceptable for MMOGs, where character development, social interaction and long-term commitment are the goal.

The only way to make permadeath an option is to do something similar to SWG and have a 'hardcore' character slot, where there is one character for permadeath and the others are allowed for the standard resurrection. This allows someone to play with the permadeath option, but not consider it their main character and should they not like it, they can either ignore the 'hardcore' slot or just use it as a more 'blow off steam' occasional play character. Some things that I'd much rather see for the hardcore slots would be double progression. Greater risk provides greater reward.

Quote: Original post by solinear
The only way to make permadeath an option is to do something similar to SWG and have a 'hardcore' character slot, where there is one character for permadeath and the others are allowed for the standard resurrection. This allows someone to play with the permadeath option, but not consider it their main character and should they not like it, they can either ignore the 'hardcore' slot or just use it as a more 'blow off steam' occasional play character. Some things that I'd much rather see for the hardcore slots would be double progression. Greater risk provides greater reward.

yeah, the only problem i had with SWG is that there was no reward for PvP at all. if a bounty hunter comes after a jedi and the jedi kills him, who cares, the bounty hunter just comes right back and attacks him again. but if the bounty hunter catches the jedi off guard and kills him. he looses his character. not a very fun solution in my opinion.

I think that the majority of people who are dissatisfied with MMORPGs want more social interaction and roleplaying. My solution to this is to get rid of all the ingame gamey type systems. Like guilds, player cities, mission terminals, global chat, quests, laws, factions, everything. Every system that is added reduces the need for ingame communication. Give players the ability to talk, kill and be killed, and they will organise themselves into groups and create laws through necessity.

what i like in MMORPGs?
1) a lot of features (sword upgrades, etc.)
2) past (past and future in 1 game, no way dude)
3) sometimes i really like to play in a mmorpg that looks like drawing more than 3d (mm..like aoe1 and 2)
4) voice chats
5) bonuses for each team (israel, usa, etc. i dont mean to the teams that the user creates)
6) random and downloadable maps
7) good musics
8) easy to use
i dont like not real things, like a lot monsters
and i also dont like that the buildings i build during the game doesn't look like a part of my city. it will be very nice to create paths during the game, to make your city more reality.
(costs money or not, i dont care)

Quote: but if the bounty hunter catches the jedi off guard and kills him. he looses his character. not a very fun solution in my opinion.

Which is why I suggest 2 things: quantifiable in-game effects of your actions and increased benefit (skillups, weapon effects, whatever) for playing a hardcore character. I don't think that hardcore is for everyone. Indeed, it's not for me, but I'm not thinking of me when I make that suggestion, I'm thinking of the players who aren't like me. If you forget the players who aren't like you then you are doing your clientele a great disservice.

Quote: I think that the majority of people who are dissatisfied with MMORPGs want more social interaction and roleplaying. My solution to this is to get rid of all the ingame gamey type systems. Like guilds, player cities, mission terminals, global chat, quests, laws, factions, everything. Every system that is added reduces the need for ingame communication. Give players the ability to talk, kill and be killed, and they will organise themselves into groups and create laws through necessity.

Ultima Online is a direct example of why your suggestions do NOT work. There were huge lawless expanses of land, guilds were player created, no world-wide communications methods, few (if any) quests, no real factions (other than becoming an outlaw) and it's great failing was that the society created was largely kill or be killed. This was the number one reason that most people I know quit the game.

Guilds are very important. Player created cities give the player an in-game monument to themselves... for some people very important, quests give the players something to strive for. Kill or be killed simply creates frustration as players who are trying to learn the world are killed over and over by grief players with greater understanding of the system. People won't work to learn the system better after 2 days, they will simply mark up the game as $30 wasted and quit. Worldwide communications channels give people a way to communicate with their in-game friends, very important if you're trying to create a social structure in the game. These are all very important. Don't create barriers to social interaction, create ways to reinforce it. It's not the game that brings them back, it's the combination of competetion, social interaction for sometimes largely non-social people and advancement that brings people back time and time again. EQ, while not perfect, did this well and the success that SoE has enjoyed as a result is a testament to that.

Don't discount what is largely a shallow game because it is shallow, find what it did right, learn from it and find what it did wrong and find ways to improve it. Learn where it exceeded it's competitors and where it didn't live up to the hype.

Quote: Original post by Waverider
Fun is what you want to play.

It's even better if you're a game developer and you make a game you want to play.

I don't think there is any way in an MMORPG to make aholes pay a price that they can't exploit to make innocents pay. Case in point: Some FPS servers will kick a player for killing a teammate. So what do the griefers do? They take one shot at you so that you'll kill them and get kicked. Griefers are among the most resourceful of troublemakers. If they weren't resourceful, they wouldn't bother being griefers.

I know its not necessarily language that you guys are talking about, but there could be a program that censors inappropriate language. If we ever get to a place where true VR comes into play, we could censor the wrong emotions if they're always known to cause trouble. I've heard one quote that this stuff is 30 years away from coming to a fore(that doesn't seem so long to me) What a world that could be... The charisma of leadership, joint poetry, AI that balances with emotions to produce effect...