As I see it, the only way this type of MMORPG would work is if the first 'M' applied to the size of the world and not to the number of players in it.

Each player within a game world requires content and activities to keep them occupied and interested. If there is a finite amount of either then there is a limit on the number of players and how much time they can play.

About this empire thing, why would anyone listen to some random player trying to form their own government? It wouldn't be like "I'm a level 70 Mage and I demand that everything in [some-place] is mine. Every warrior is now in my army". Instead people would just ignore him/her because no one wants to listen to real people when playing games... (Unless this player was able to gain a massive NPC army to control everyone, because they played the game so much)

Maybe, -MAYBE-, this kind of thing could work if you start with an absolute state of nature. Release the game with no buildings, no factions, no roads, no nothing. A spaceship crashed, and the first players are blank clones of humans with only rudimentary knowledge implants and no memories of anything. They find themselves on a lush, life-supporting moon (which they were supposed to be colonizing), filled with forests, and mineral deposits, and rivers and bunnies and badgers and bears (oh, my!).

So they get to play the game by salvaging some gear from the ship, cutting down trees, damming the streams, and generally working to stay alive. Make it possible to dedicate your character to studying the wreckage of the ship, and "unlocking" mining equipment, construction gear, computer records of how to build different things, and of course weapon designs. Over the course of about two years let all the factions, cities, roads and other in-game objects be made by players.

You'd never have a glowing tower of light at the center of the imperial capital, with tidy shops and a big wall surrounding it, because players never actually use those shops anyway, and you'd be better off selling your axe handles right next to the forest. The cities would look more like RTS bases, and the game would be a perfect cradle for the grind.

That's the perfect MMOG, because only about 200 players would really stick with it from start to maturation, and they'd be like gods in the game. The other players would work for them.

Naturally, this wouldn't work either, because players would hate it and you'd have to patch every few weeks to nerf whatever game-breaking exploit they discovered.

But just putting a few factions in and fabricating a war so they can gain and lose territory turns into PlanetSide, where you fight the same desperate battle for the same "key installation" six times every week, and the front never moves. Screw that crap.

Quote:

About this empire thing, why would anyone listen to some random player trying to form their own government?

Because every game forms 'clans'. Multiple players working together work better. People are social creatures and will naturally socialize...

The problem comes in keeping the big clan from having a stranglehold on gameplay.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage Maybe, -MAYBE-, this kind of thing could work if you start with an absolute state of nature. Release the game with no buildings, no factions, no roads, no nothing. A spaceship crashed, and the first players are blank clones of humans with only rudimentary knowledge implants and no memories of anything. They find themselves on a lush, life-supporting moon (which they were supposed to be colonizing), filled with forests, and mineral deposits, and rivers and bunnies and badgers and bears (oh, my!).

I'm not sure it would work for a true MMO, but it might make an interesting small scale multiplayer game. Let players host their own servers and see how the societies develop from frequent players.

I just want to encourage the OP to keep thinking about his idea, in light of the apparent consensus that this is impossible.
You can let the common man worry about incrimental improvements to MMORPGs, while you try to make a breakthrough in the field. We'll all thank you for it later if you do succeed ;)

In the meantime i'll be thinking of ways I can experiment with this idea.

After all, large-scale economic simulations DO exist. The question is if you can replace each of those AI Agents in the simulation with a real human avatar in a way that the human's own motivations can't destroy the macro properties of the simulation, yet still provide enough freedom to have an impact on the system. And of course have this be fun in one way or another.

Thank you all for your comments. First I'd like to clarify that the example in my Original Post is only one possible scenario. Empires can form, or small tribes can hold their little corner of the world. The political system is set up in such a way that players will need to delegate power to manage their resources. None of the conflicts are predesigned, and the game would begin with extremely limited technology. The idea is that things can build up but then they can break down again. If an empire falls it might split into factions, trade might grind to a halt, technologies can be lost, etc.

The logistics that are involved in extending your power would be based on many things. Resources are not evenly spread over the map. You need MANY MANY players to cooperate in order to facillitate long distance trade and keep the market going. Gaining power in this game doesn't mean that you come into an area, claim it is yours and yours alone and then killing anyone that comes into it. You would never get anywhere with that kind of attitude. You NEED people to come into your area. You need people to do the crafting and support industry. You want to establish trade with neigbooring areas. You want to make your area safe from random PKers so that people will want to be a part of what you are doing. So power actually comes from being able to organize and tap resources and protect those assets. Why would you want to make life difficult for the guy who wants to buy your ore and craft weapons to sell to your army?

The problem is that with most games a player can grind up the levels in a totally self-sufficient way. He doesn't really need anything from anyone except what he can buy for all the cash he gets from killing monsters. In fact, may games make equipment available from the monsters or NPCs, so basically that player can put in the time to be ALL POWERFUL without having interacted with another player in any way. Then in open PvP (as in this game) he can run around and attack people, or make a guild and call some area his turf, just cuz he can, and can kill anyone that crosses the line, just for fun and there isn't really any consequence for this kind of behavior.

The point of such a game would be to pull together and try to build something. Everyone who wants to get involved would find many interesting roles and situations and real problem solving scenarios cropping up everywhere. Those that didn't want to get involved could go off and bash monsters in their corner of the world. In fact there is no problem with that kind of play style at all, and sometimes most of the game world would be at that state of existence. Of course eventually some people are going to get together and try and build something up. The adventure is in the journey, the interaction, not the 'end game content' as we are so conditioned to grind towards. Perhaps it wouldn't be for everyone but there could be something for most people.

Quote:

Why would you want to make life difficult for the guy who wants to buy your ore and craft weapons to sell to your army?

Because it's quicker, less risky, and possibly far more entertaining to just kill the guy and take his money and crafted weapons.

I thought of a scenario using this system: Some high level player gains immense power and he grows an empire (emp1) gradually gaining more and more players to his/her cause. But there happens to be an incident involving another huge empire (emp2). A random player from emp1 goes on an assination mission. This sparks a war... between 2 major empires. The thing is this war could last for a few hours or even a few years depending on how far the players go on this situation.

(And none of this was planned out by the developers? I could see a system like this in a few long years but not in the near future)

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn Quote: Why would you want to make life difficult for the guy who wants to buy your ore and craft weapons to sell to your army? Because it's quicker, less risky, and possibly far more entertaining to just kill the guy and take his money and crafted weapons.

It is unlikely that a player would craft or repair any weapons at all if that happens and I think someone aspiring for an empire would find it hard to craft/repair all weapons for his entire army as well as mine the ore to make those weapons, as well as manage the food production to feed the soldiers AND the logistics of keeping those supply lines open. I suppose if he has fun just killing the other player that is up to him, but he won't have much control over anything and will probably end up hunted like a criminal. That's just fine too. Although killing for no objective doesn't really do anything for you since they will just come back with another character or whatever. What you really want to do is get control of your assests and protect them. A game like this doesn't depend so much on which characters live or die, but by the larger community they belong to and keep comming back to and what it has built. I mean, the kingdom that you and your friends have built may fall after a while, but you can all still stick together as a rebel faction, harrasing your oppressors at every turn. They can't get rid of you completely. They have to set things up in such a way that they are protected from threats, at least in the interior of thier domain. You will always be there to attack the borderlands if that is what you want to do. They will always have to watch out and take losses from you unless they find some way to pacify your demands.

[Edited by - ironore on February 13, 2006 1:56:02 PM]