The MMOG genre has great untapped potential that is often discussed but never really fully realized. I have been working on a desgin that aims towards a more dynamic sort of game where players could actual affect the world they play in beyond simply improving individual characters that impact nothing but the repetitive tasks in which they engage. Here are some points to illustrate some aspects of the idea: 1. Play with other players - Clearly in any MMORPG there are lots of other players online, but are we really playing with them or just playing the same game at the same time? Sure there is the community but it doesn't really have any impact on the game world. Your interaction with another player ultimately has no effect on anything except as far as socializing/community are concerned, or if they like you and give you a hand-out. Also the grinding and the fighting seems so pointless, the quests are so linear and the 'new content' is so contrived. It seems for all that we might as well be playing a single player game with some interesting plot. 2. Continually changing world - As has been mentioned I have rarely seen a MMORPG world that truly changes. Adding new content is not a changing world it is simply changing the game. Sure adding deformable terrain and player-built structures are very important here but more important would be making a game in such a way the the players and their interactions one with another actually determine what the game is ultimately like and where the world is going. Not necessarily in the world's appearance but in what life there is like in a particular area and how it is different from life in another area and how this changes. This ability for actual dynamic change is tied to point #1 and relies heavily on having systems that give out actual political, economic, military, and social powers that have force in the game world. 3. Unique Character (ability to create a unique character) - Many games have tried to implement this uniqness. Sometimes it is just appearance, which is nice, other times it deals with combining certain attributes. This is all well and good though I would advocate some actual characteristics that stick with you for the life of that character. Certain body-types are good for different activities and none are ideal for everything. A muscle-bound hulk with all his strength will never be able to speed climb like a tough and wiry youth, nor fit down the narrow tunnels or between the gaps in bars. This would make things VERY interesting. Also keep in mind the inherent uniqueness in all actual people. If you have a game where a person can actually affect things based on more than their stats, such as their charisma as a leader, their kindness, their feelings, their organizational skills, their cunning THEN you will have truly unique characters. Now, with all this you can see that a dynamic world would develop. The designers would have to put very complex systems in place that were intuitive in their actual use in the interface. They would design the land and the creatures and the resources and where all these were located, how the behaved, what they were used for, etc. etc. Then comes the hard part, the part where they have to let go, to give some freedom to the players and let them start to create actual content. The designers do not make up some contrived history or create classes to follow or assign you to some nation or tell you that this race hates that race and for what reason. This is all yet to be created through the INTERACTIONS of players. Now this is the kind of system I am designing for and I have often wondered what the players will do with this power. I have thought about it extensively and tried to account for the basic things that could go wrong, but what I am really wondering is what the player reaction will be when things go right, that is when the dynamics of the world allow it to change in such a huge way that everything ends up different. Now of course the gameplay will be the same and the players always have the power and possibility to try and shape the world to the way they desire, but how will they react. Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that some like it to be structured so that things don't really ever get that different, but I think a game with such potential for change would provide for CONTINUAL entertainment. What do you think? Let me give you some examples of what I am talking about to get you thinking. Players had arrived in an untamed world and worked hard together to create a vast and prosperous empire that covers a large area of the world. For the most part everyone can do as they wish now, buying and selling, offering services, keeping order in town, tracking down criminals in the wilds, keeping the mountain trolls at bay, running a profitable trade-scheme on the black market and hundreds of other multi-level roles and functions that are as varied as the people who have fun doing them. Some just like to farm out in the country and sell goods at market. Sounds boring to me but some like to do it. The point is that all these things are supported by the community that the players have built themselves but the scarry thing is that none of it is permanent. What if raiders come now from across the sea. They were just players from another empire on another continent but things got crowded there, resources were in want and also they just thought it would be fun game-play to go out and explore and even conquer some other place that they might never have actually been in all the time they played the game. So off they go and in a matter of months the empire that you and your friends built has crumbled. However there is a resistance movement, the invaders don't establish themselves easily. In fact, anarchy reigns for quite some time. The trolls come down from the mountains and take their piece of the pie and some other tribes migrate to the area after being dispersed by another large kingdom to the north that is taking over vast areas of land. Now the empire across the sea realizes the potential profit from the newly discovered countries and wants to get in on the action as well. As you can see there would be so many layers of complexity. Those players that enjoyed their farming and buying and selling in the peaceful empire now might be scrounging around in the woods and hunting animals. They may be hiding out and training in weapons and launching raids on the their conquerors and generally causing trouble. They might be defending their lives from Trolls now on a daily basis because they no longer live behind city walls. You see how their game world has changed and they cannot do the things that they once could, at least not for a while, but keep in mind that the possibility to prevent this might have been within their grasp, this wasn't imposed by the programmers it is just a consequence of the dynamic world. I think players will be willing to accept this sort of thing far better as it is part of the game from the beginning. Also keep in mind that those players may be able to find the power to restore the old empire to its age of glory, they can fight for it and achieve it. It is a real possibility. On the other hand they may accept what has happened and find many other interesting roles to play under the new regime. In fact, once things settle down I don't see why things wouldn't advance again to the way they were and that little farmer might find himself settled again on a fine plot of ground selling his goods at market, and maybe, just maybe he was the better for having had that brief change of scenery while he was dodging trolls and shooting squirrels in the woods. Maybe he LEARNED something about how things work in the game and maybe he will be prepared to react differently (or the same) when circumstances repeat themselves, as they always do. And so it could go on and on, ever changing, always interesting and providing that real feeling that what players can do either individually or as a community and they way they interact with each other and the game world can actually affect the outcome of how things ARE and how they yet could BE. Do you think players could accept it, would it work? Let me know your thoughts. Be specific as I want to see if there are things I haven't accounted for as I've worked towards such a design, and if so I can begin to think of counter-measures. Thanks! IronOre - Forging the Future

This is an obvious and commonly suggested idea, and also a nearly impossible one to implement in the general case.

Also, I kinda don't want to play an MMORPG in which a group of dozens of players have painstakingly carved the wold "BUTTHOLE" in giant, indelible letters on the side of the tallest mountain in the land.

Quote:

Original post by Sneftel This is an obvious and commonly suggested idea, and also a nearly impossible one to implement in the general case. Also, I kinda don't want to play an MMORPG in which a group of dozens of players have painstakingly carved the wold "BUTTHOLE" in giant, indelible letters on the side of the tallest mountain in the land.

On the other hand, it may be kind of fun to be one of dozens of players painstakingly carving the word "BUTTHOLE" in giant, indeible letters on the side of the tallest mountain in the land. [grin]

Did anybody notice this guys name? Sounds like he plays Runescape. Sure it'd be desirable, but then there's the elements in the game that make this hard to cope with. It's mainly all about balance, and if you want to have something like that, there needs to be a balance to make sure it fits proportionally. Perhaps creation areas?

I don't think I'd like that much at all. The great thing about MMORPGs of today is that you can sort of identify with your character; however, there are no real-world-esque things.

I can imagine myself thinking "I don't want to play that game because I made a few mistakes. Now I'm blacklisted with the Empire and I can't get any jobs. I joined the resistance, but I get tired of grinding against the empire, taking back two towns only to realize when I log it the next day that they're gone because a whole bunch of 13 year olds who are on Spring Vacation played for 18 hours straight while I was at work and doing RL stuff. Great. Yay. I'll go back to World of Warcraft now."

Quote:

Original post by ShadowWolf I don't think I'd like that much at all. The great thing about MMORPGs of today is that you can sort of identify with your character; however, there are no real-world-esque things. I can imagine myself thinking "I don't want to play that game because I made a few mistakes. Now I'm blacklisted with the Empire and I can't get any jobs. I joined the resistance, but I get tired of grinding against the empire, taking back two towns only to realize when I log it the next day that they're gone because a whole bunch of 13 year olds who are on Spring Vacation played for 18 hours straight while I was at work and doing RL stuff. Great. Yay. I'll go back to World of Warcraft now."

WoW, a MMORPG for the common man. I approve!

Well I can't say that any of this is particularly constructive criticism. 'Hard to implement' might be true, but with the right design it can clearly be done. I have done a lot of anthropological/political/economic research and balance can be acheived. Keep in mind this wouldn't rely on traditional (and overused) methods of grinding and leveling up. The empires that are created can only extend so far before they come up against logistic barriers. It would be virtually imposible to control the entire map, or even the majority of it. There are many things that can be done to bring down large empires with the right tactics. You can disrupt supply lines, destroy crops, stir up desent. Bringing down that empire might be a worthy goal, but you need not feel like you are loosing if you can't accomplish it right away. The real entertainment would be all the adventures and close calls you have while trying to do it. If you happen to get bored with that, you can always start a new character and join the empire. I'm sure they would be glad to have you. Maybe you'll just overthrow the current regime after you get in the right positions and rule the land yourself. Anyway, does anyone see some particular scenarios that might cause specific problems? I'd appreciate some input.

Quote:

Original post by ironore Well I can't say that any of this is particularly constructive criticism.

I hope you'll understand. "next great MMORPG" is a pretty common thread. "it'll be great! just like real life, only with magic!" is less common, but still retread...

Quote:

'Hard to implement' might be true, but with the right design it can clearly be done.

Really? Such a design does not strike me as terribly do-able, let alone clearly or pratical.

Quote:

I have done a lot of anthropological/political/economic research and balance can be acheived.

Call me skeptical, but how do you think that's going to happen without any of the human disuasions that drive economies?

Quote:

The empires that are created can only extend so far before they come up against logistic barriers.

What logistical barriers are you going to codify? Most barriers of this sort I've seen in gameplay could be subverted by out of game coordination or the use of currency to buy more game accounts to offset some limitation.

Quote:

You can disrupt supply lines, destroy crops, stir up desent.

And they can commit mass genocide upon all enemies. In real life there's sympathy, and the general fact that the entire empire's population wouldn't effectively be part of the army.

And that's ignoring the largest possible problem scenario; trying to impliment thousands of variables and influences to a system full of unknowns [people] and having it be perfectly self-correcting [and fun] out of the box. Good Luck.

[edit: and there's the fact that players by and large don't like change (think of any patch that nerfed a weapon or changed even an exploit in the game). Continuous change won't allow for continual entertainment as much as it will exploitive speculators and people quitting due to changes ruining their well-laid-plans]

Quote:

Original post by ironore Well I can't say that any of this is particularly constructive criticism.

Insulting the people who are trying to help you is hardly constructive either. No criticism is constructive if the person being criticized is unwilling to consider it.

Quote:

'Hard to implement' might be true, but with the right design it can clearly be done.

What experience with game programming/world programming do you have to make an informed judgement on that? (Note that the complexity of participating in a game has absolutely nothing to do with the complexity of implementing it.)

Quote:

I have done a lot of anthropological/political/economic research and balance can be acheived.

You can basically throw most anthropological/political/economic research out the window when it comes to virtual worlds. One big problem is this: players have much different desires than their avatars should have. This is where griefing comes in. Since players have no reason to fear punishment or death, it is impossible for any civilization beyond despotism to arise. Trying to recreate the forces of civilization point-for-point in a video game is a quixotic and impossible goal. But technological obstacles mean you won't even get that far.

From your description, you want to create a virtual world, in which the players determine everything. Here are a few problems I see with this plan (assuming you were somehow able to create such a game):

1. What happens when a group of devoted players destroy the empire (or another faction)? I'm guessing there will be a capital, and a real emperor, given your wish to create a complete world for the players. When he dies, what will happen? Will a new faction be created? Will all the players under the empire be taken into the winning faction? Will the conquered like that (maybe they don't like being part of the raiders (whatever faction they are))? Will it be fun when one faction remains?

2. Regarding the character size and attributes: Wouldn't that keep some players from witnessing/experiencing some content? An example would be infiltrating a base. The thief-like guy can do it, but the warrior can't. Will the warrior enjoy waiting for his ally, the thief, while the thief opens the doors for the warrior? In PvP, don't you think the big warrior will be at a disadvantage (and I'm assuming that such a huge virtual world would have a free-for-all PvP system) against the small archer? The archer is smaller (no need for extreme muscles) and lighter (no mail armor), so the archer could shoot and run, making for a frustrating experience for the warrior.

3. What happens when bots come into play? We all know that it is almost impossible to secure games against bots. What happens when bots can be used to alter the game, given the players ability to alter the game? Won't that be unfair, given that within this real world-like game, the economy would also be simulated realistically? So, a bot can work out on his farm for 24 hours a day, while the player can only work out on his farm for 4 or 5 hours. How is that fair. That will make players abandon farming altogether, destroying a game mechanic (not that I think anyone will be farming, but this could be applied to mining, fishing, wood chopping, etc, and you see how bot owners would soon dominate the economy).

4. What happens when an extremely organized group of players on a server decide to cleanse the world of those trolls? They organize an army, and march into the mountains. If they are able to permanently destroy enemies such as trolls (NPC enemies), what will be left? Will you make a never ending spawn of trolls (which will defeat the goal of changing worlds), or will you risk it by making it possible to cleanse the world of all bad things, thus destroying the incentive to keep playing? What happens when a strong player goes to a weak region, and slaughters all of the boars? Wouldn't that be unfair for weaker players who won't be able to experience the boar killing, or receive the rewards from it?

While your vision is a great one, and certainly would be an interesting sight to behold, I can't help but think it wouldn't quite work. Especially given the time it would require to plan, code, and balance it (if it is even possible today), I don't think it would work.