Quote:

Original post by Rattrap Quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage... 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.

It already exists. Well, sorta anyway. It's a pain to learn, but it has a cult following. An improved version with fewer ways to totally screw yourself might be more widely accepted.

And ironore, play EVE for the free trial period. You'll see what happens in this sort of situation. All but the most basic gear has to be built by human players, and high-level corporations (the EVE equivalent of guilds)and alliances (groups of corporations) build their own space stations. Eventually, they become self-sufficient and exclusive, mining, researching and producing entirely on their own.

Wars are fought, some of them spectacular (A particularly large space battle crashed the server in the early days), and trade routes are established. It's almost an experiment in sociology.

Federation Space is like a newbie training ground, except that you're a newbie for about six months before you can venture into the wild regions for more than short expeditions.

The game is astonishing in its scope and content. When you play it, you'll find it to be dizzyingly complex at first. Your idea sounds like it might be even more baffling to players. Make sure you know what you're proposing here.

MMORPGs exist where the players determine the world.

Second Life
A Tale in the Desert

The main problem is having the usual D&D gameplay plus a world where everything is determined by the player. Good luck, OP. You'll need it.

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.

It's funny; I was going to use almost the same analogy, but mine was going to be "Everyone thinks this create-the-world idea is great when they envision themselves doing it, but it doesn't seem as fun when LimpBizkitRulez0666 comes in and burns your town to the ground to replace it with a pile of crates that spell out 'U R GAY'".

Thank you all for your comments. The design is quite in-depth at this point and it is always good to keep in mind future advances so that we will be ready for them. I beleive I have made good progress in the area of PvP interaction and cutting down on ganking/greifing without reason.

It is true that the increasing complexity of such a game can be hard to manage and difficult for players to grasp. I have at this time a surprisingly intuitive user interface that is quite easy to learn. The idea is to blend different aspects of the game seamlessly and let players use the interface on varying levels depending on the type of gameplay they want. For example: The interface for creating a small party with a few hired NPCs is the same you use to organize a whole town, and even a vast empire. This is done by branching things out and delegating power to other individuals at certain places in the power-structure.

I also wanted to address some very good points brought up in an earlier post.

Quote:

Original post by manda 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):

Thank you for your specific points. They help me think and compare to the design I have and also help me see other angles and make any necessary adaptations. One thing I'm not sure I made clear is that there are NPC's in this game that are controlled in their basic tasks much like in a RTS type game. They are there mainly to provide a large enough population for complex civilizations to develop and to do the menial tasks that aren't fun and shouldn't be forced on players. The point is to manage these human resources and they must be treated with care as they can be killed and only multiply at a rate determined by certain factors. Of course population grows exponentially until carrying capacity of a given area is reached and it tops off. Of course if you only have 5 or 6 in the population, it won't reach 20 all that fast, especially if they keep dying back off to 5 or 6. So it requires management. Of course only some people like to handle those aspects of a game, and others can just find another role in the developing world that suits them. Planners, fighters, organizers, crafters, entertainers, etc. They all can have a place. The point is to build a society that supports the roles and scenarios that you enjoy.

Quote:

Original post by manda 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?

If an empire is destroyed then that is that. I myself would mourn the loss of my empire but it must have been accomplished through very epic events. The political system allows for free form development of governing bodies and power can be delegated and successors for positions can be appointed. Factions would surely result from a major overthow/revolution and they would have to recoalesce based on anything from force to diplomacy. Maybe they wouldn't at all or not for a long time. The system is designed to allow players to even break out of the power structure if they can get enough support on their side, but when this does happen, those lower down in the structure that didn't support the change will automatically get autonomy from the fractured structure for a time. They can solidify their independence at that time, or rejoin the main faction that they were severed from, or they might be brough back into submission by the new faction. As for there ending up with only one faction, I don't see it happening because it would be hard to manage the ENTIRE game map. Those seeking freedom can set off to far distant lands which might as well be different servers for all the contact they might have with distant players. Also on this point of one faction, I hope you see how it is possible for dissenters to break away if they can get support to do so. Most games just make everything too secure. There has to be a balance.

Quote:

Original post by manda 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.

The gaps between characters would not be huge like in current games. They would have access to many different skills and atributes, some of which might be ideal for certain situations and perhaps less than ideal elsewhere. The point is to gain the advantages that serve you best in the situations you most encounter. It is true that a 'theif-like-guy' might have skills that leave other companions to wait for a time. If this happens too often the others might want to think about gaining some more rogue-like skills unless of course this harms the advantage they have and like to use by diversifying roles. Most current games have A LOT of waiting around for uber-loot creatures to spawn. At least in a free-form world the players have determined their own goals and if they really want to suceed they will do what it takes. Also in a world where anything can happen, that fighter waiting at the gates never knows what situations may arise while he waits. He might have to quickly dispose of a roving guard so as not to compromise the mission. He will have to be alert at all times. This can make even a shift of vigilance exciting.
As for the example of a running and shooting archer, I don't see the implimentation of such unrealistic tactics. If however, a similar situation were to arise, the fighter would have to find ways to compensate. Certain armor might help, as well as getting a group to surround the archer. He can't fire in all directions at once. Also one might try staying out of range, finding cover that would force the archer to approach within inches if he really wants to get you. If you are on the offensive you can try and lure him into wasting his arrows. Then he will be at a loss.

Quote:

Original post by manda 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).

In order to simulate a realistic economy I have PLANNED for work to be carried out by the players and the NPCs at his disposal EVEN when offline. Otherwise production would be very sporadic. In other words, it is as if the bots are provided. The economy is expected to grind on at all times in this persistant world. The farmers have to produce grain, the miners need to mine and the smiths can craft away at their assignments as long as they have the materials. The point is not to force players into such menial grinds but to allow them to organize such things on whatever scale. Of course you can't have a bot that will be able to take care of things in a very complex tactical situation and crafting innovation and highly masterful items will require more concentrated work. Also keep in mind that cranking out items is not the way to rise in levels. Resources are realistically balanced and so you don't just crank out leather helmets to get skill, rather you only use that precious leather for those items you NEED or that you know are in demand. Many games make resources a MEANS to grind away at a craft to the goal of leveling up. In this game resources simply play into the economy in their functional way. We only need to craft as many woven baskets as are necessary or that can be traded for profit. Anything over this is a waste of resources both material and human because those people could be producing something more useful. It is true that certain tasks will eventually be abandoned to NPCs in large scale societies, but there may be advantages to more careful management of such industry, and some may still enjoy it in and of itself and find just as good a market for their lumber as any other, and this will support their needs. Also players starting out small-scale societies will surely have to do some of their own labor until they obtain a large enough work force.

Quote:

Original post by manda 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?

Most likely we won't implement complete annihilation of NPC creatures. However their population can be severly reduced in an area and the AI should be advanced enough to recognize simple deficencies in their needs/wants and how often they are getting slaughtered. Trolls may be wiped down to nothing and then a single troll will spawn elsewhere and then that one will double after a certain time interval, but it will take a long time to build population back up. The players may effectively keep them extinct for a long time, but nothing is permanant and the society that has undertaken this campaign of erradication may die out or move away and the troll population may reassert itself for a future player endeavor in that area. You may even see how this could apply to useful resources in a game like trees or deer. If the population is drastically harvested faster than it can renew itself then the players will be forced to support themselves by some other means. It is entirely possible to break your own economy in a given area. Take Europe for example. It used to be COVERED with vast forests and everything was built of wood, but once those forests were gone, they simply had to import wood for the things it was REALLY needed for and find other materials where they could make due, such as brick.
The example with a 'strong' player killing all the boars that some 'weaker' players depend on doesn't make much sense to me. Remember that no one player is that much stronger than another and if the other players have things organized in their area they should be able to put a stop to such actions. If they can't then they are at a disadvantage. Perhaps this trouble maker is from an enemy faction and is deliberately trying to compromise their food-stuffs. This is actual CONTENT being created on the fly. No quest needs to be generated like in current games where famer X says that orcs are killing his sheep and wants you to kill the orcs and so different players repeat this quest over and over changing nothing (because the orcs killing the sheep didn't really matter in the first palce). In the boar scenario the players will have to take some corrective action. Maybe a role will be created, rangers will rove the habitat of the boars and watch out for this illegal poaching, while at the same time managing this resource and harvesting what is necessary. Only through them can the meat be sold, other sources are under suspicion and would perhaps drive a black market. Maybe the enemy camp is PAYING for smuggled boar meat NOT cuz they value it but as bounty for any daring enough to sabatoge their enemie's livelyhood. Maybe the boar-sustained community will put out a reward for info on whoever is doing this so they can be added to the criminal lists so that posted NPC guards around the perimeter will know whom to attack on site. NOW THAT IS CONTENT THAT IS BEING CREATED ON THE FLY by PLAYERS! That would be the greatest.

Quote:

Original post by manda 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.

I thank you again for your comments, they help me solidify things and compare situations to my design. Sure it will take time. I've got time. Maybe we need slightly better technology. It increases everyday. It will require work. All great things do. I'll have to test play and balance and analyze. These forums help me do just that. Don't worry, I will keep at it. Ever since the days of UO I have been facinated with the potential of the genre. Some games have done pretty well but I look forward to the day when true adventure can be had through the complex interactions of thousands of players where you step into a world you have learned about and existed in, a world where anything can happen, where true adventure can be had if you make it happen.

Man, ironore, Im right there with you. I have been driven to the same goals since UO myself and think this is the definite path that MMORPGs are meant to take. I think the current crop of games in this genre are only popular because they are all thats available. Every forum I go to has someone lamenting about how MMORPGs today suck and propose something better, and everyone agrees with the something better, but feel its impossible/too much work.

I, too, have been trying to design something very similar to what you are proposing, or currently working on, and Im behind you all the way.

I think a game like this WILL work.

If farming is the least fun part of the game, then there will be less crops at markets, causing their purchasing price to go up. This would make farming a very profitable endeavor and players will be drawn to the money they can make if not for the fun of farming itself. When the game is balanced in this way, tipping the scales to one end makes the other end look more favorable. Eventually, an equilibrium could be achieved (in theory).

Of course, a game of balances will require lots of testing and/or patches to clean things up, but if most of this is done in the beta phases, then any imbalances left over will be taken care of by the players. This WOULD require an open world, with levelless and classless play, but I think is the way the game should be.

Over all, I think what MMORPGs need to steer themselves from is combat. Combat should become at least equal in worth, if not secondary, to player interaction. One could potentially 'play' this game and never pick up a sword. Its the concept Ive been calling 'games within a game', where to one player, this game is a farming-sim, while to another it could easily be 'just another combat-oriented MMORPG'. The difference is, its their choice. Sure, it might end up being massive, but games are never made unless someone tries to make them.

If you need any help ironore, or want to exchange more ideas, please add me to MSN. Ill be looking forward to shaping something like this with you. :)

Thank you for this very positive reply! I know exactly what you mean about games within games. There could be something for a wide variety of people, roles are spontaneously created with all the player interaction. I think it could potentially draw a lot of people that currently wouldn't want to play any game at all. That is A LOT of people. Perhaps it wouldn't be what the current market fans want, but there are PLENTY of games for them out there already.
In fact I don't see them having that much of a problem with a game like this.
Although they won't go out into the woods to bash monsters and get gold and loot (Mainly because most monsters don't have any). However I am sure there are plenty of towns-people (other players) who have worked hard to build up a livelyhood in a certain area and would be glad to PAY the gold and LOOT to the monster-slayers in return for this service. The monster basher gains skill and money and maybe even fame while doing the same thing they did in other MMORPGs. The great thing is that this isn't the ONLY thing to do and now there is a reason for it.

There are so many possibilities. In some aspects it is an economic simulator, you can build up a business. There can be one on one combat aspects, maybe even competitions in the arena. You could organize events for others or just socialize, tell stories, etc. There are small-scale tactical situations or LARGE scale combat simulations. You might be directing the troops or just a small detachment or you might be right down there on the battle field as one of them. On the other hand you might just enter chariot-racing competitions that might focus more on twitch skill and play much like a standard racing game. This might be ALL you do because you enjoy it so much but it is all PART of something larger. Players will work together to build the kind of societies that support the gameplay that they enjoy. Make the world big enough that there is room for diversity. Sure there will be conflict, but there could also be great cooperation. With such diversification just traveling around to SEE new places would be great, and you never know what adventures you would have on the way and things would always be different when you came back. The possibilities are virtually endless.

Exactly. And some players are suited to lead and do well at it. Others are more followers and like to be told what to do, and there is surely a place for them as well. A skilled leader can even put people to the grind if that is what they really really want, but I suspect a game that provided something else would be welcome.

That kind of player interaction and cooperation that you spoke of is exactly what games are missing.