Hi,

For a theory based idea for a mmo crafting system, trying to allow player generated content into crafting.

When a blacksmith creates a weapon they can choose what type of model/skin to apply to fit that type of weapon.

Vetoed artists (approved artists, if they supply penis swords, their permissions can be revoked), can charge real money for models of weapons, so a blacksmith might want a certain theme with their crafted item or someone might want a one of a kind weapon. (can be used for other crafting, swords is an example, but it could be anything from swords to furniture)

Now the issue is I wanted to talk about it, a blacksmith buys a highly detailed model, but they don't put it on one of a kind weapon, they instead put it on a basic sword, that they supply for a cheap rate to every new adventurers.

Now they brought the model, its theirs to do as they please with (assuming the artist has given permission.), so in that regard its okay but in terms of the game does it break it to much? potentially having every player walking around with legendary looking weapons.

One solution that just occurred to me, is checking how detailed the model is, applying a rating it to, and then the ingredients used have to have a higher rating then the model, or you can't apply it, and are stuck using a default model or another model you own that's rated lower.

Any suggestions for how this could work? or if you don't think it would work.

make material cost relate to the volume occupied to the model. This'll keep cheap weapons small, expensive weapons can be bigger.

or allow artists to add a level requirement to their models, which can't be changed if the model changes hands. Although this doesn't stop unauthorized reproductions from being handed out to newbies, it allows artists to decide how legendary their model should be.

make material cost relate to the volume occupied to the model. This'll keep cheap weapons small, expensive weapons can be bigger.

or allow artists to add a level requirement to their models, which can't be changed if the model changes hands. Although this doesn't stop unauthorized reproductions from being handed out to newbies, it allows artists to decide how legendary their model should be.

Volume is a good idea, I wonder if between that and poly count, would be enough to judge via an automated system..

I don't think the artist could decide how legendary their model is, since it goes back to the original problem, they create a highly detailed model, and say it can be used for any weapon regardless of weapon strength or materials used.

Happy for the artists to specify, if the model is single use, can be made in bulk, or sell the model outright the buyer can do as they want.

looking after the artists rights would be a high priority.

Just realized, in terms of the artists specify if its legendary or not.. who species if its a sword or a bed.. you would hardly want player beds to be looking like a sword, lol.

a blacksmith buys a highly detailed model, but they don't put it on one of a kind weapon, they instead put it on a basic sword, that they supply for a cheap rate to every new adventurers.

when you empower the player, you surrender control.

what you need is a rating system for model "fanciness", and automated probably won't cut it. for any algo you come up with, i can create a BS mesh that maxes the rating, and breaks the "spirit" of the gameplay..

so user models would have to be rated for use in the game. you could even have them publicly rated by other players via a voting system.

once you have good ratings to work with, then you can place restrictions on what model can be used for what item based on ratings (and object type, obviously - no sword models for bed objects, etc).

volume and poly count probably won't really work. i can just make an over-sized object, or a ton of tris, or go under-sized and low poly, depending on which way it'm trying to "beat the system".

You probably want a more restricted system, such that the appearance of the sword/item actually carries information (and is not just meaningless/misleading noise).

For example, you might want a large selection of small components of various materials and shapes, that can be connected together into a sword design.

Youd then require acquiring those components to actually build the sword, so it would be impossible to create something deceptive.

Then naturally, the simpler and cheaper swords will look simpler and cheaper, simply because players learn to recognize the materials/components used, and know their worth (and you will of course make the art such that generally the better stuff looks more valuable even without actual player knowledge of the worth).

Overall, just giving players full control to create stuff that just looks good, will lead to an extremely shallow and pointless experience. Sure it will look equally good in the screenshots, but it will take 5 seconds for players to realize its just some random mesh slapped on the sword and then they learn to filter it out. If the appearance carries useful information, it will be part of the game.

An interesting point, as a few pointed out I suppose there are a few major issues to resolve with the primary being that the better looking models also need to be more rare/expensive to keep them feeling "special".

Two versions I could imagine could be the following:

1) Moderated design

Since you seem to envision there to be a real market with real money involved you would also like to retain some control of the market in my mind. One way could be to let new design go through a control stage where you (the company) approve each design and set a baseline cost/rarity etc. This would let you control the quality of models for different rarity. Although it does require manpower which might be an issue I would assume it to be the best way to keep an even quality level as a function of rarity (not to mention preventing half the world running around with buster swords and penis clubs)

2) Supply & Demand

A unmoderated but real world inspired system. Let existing model and new model by a specific artist be based on number of purchases of the specific model and by the artist in total. An artist making very nice model would thus be more epensive and therefore rarer, it also allows models which are growing in popularity to become more rare the more popular they become. It would also allow for the nice touch of getting a potentially valueble weapon cheap by being the first to discover a new artist

Well, my five cents at least -_-

I'm assuming you're talking about ORPGs or other MMO-ish games.

An interesting point, as a few pointed out I suppose there are a few major issues to resolve with the primary being that the better looking models also need to be more rare/expensive to keep them feeling "special".

Why? That just seems like it'd lead to a escalating war of one-upmanship of making weapons look more and more "impressive", which can rapidly become a downward spiral of tackiness.

I got a sword! Now I have a sword +1 with spikes on it! Now I have a sword +11 with blue energy or fire coming out of the spikes! Now I have a sword +27 that has other swords sticking out of it!!!!!!!!!

And let's not even get started on the bows...

Why are weapons just +1 increments of each other that rapidly get obsolete?

Why not make weapons be more unique gameplay tools with balanced tradeoffs, that have different usages in different circumstances or enable different styles of gameplay?

It seems the war of tackiness is an attempt to try to make players be impressed by the visuals to distract them from realizing the weapons themselves aren't any more impressive. We try to hide the '+1 extra damage' behind fancy glowy effects and intricate designs, so the player doesn't realize that the actual item is gameplay-shallow.

So instead, why not invest the effort into making the weapons gameplay-diverse and gameplay-enabling instead?

If you have 271 different swords, but the player doesn't have to do anything different regardless of which one he has equipped, is it really adding to the gameplay, or is it merely a content grind? And if it's merely a content grind, what do you do when the players run out of that content? Race them to try to create more, despite them always consuming faster than you are creating?

The same can be applied to your dungeons, spells, and many other things. Do players get it, get use it, and discard it? Why? Maybe it's because the 'content' isn't actually adding to the gameplay?

Look at World of Warcraft's dungeons. People play them, beat them, and forever leave them (until they create a new character).

Compare to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare's multiplayer arenas. Players play the same level, over and over, and over and over, for a thousand matches or more.

Look at the wildly popular League of Legends.... they have (basically) one level. One level. That 25 million people have played for more than 100 times each.

It's not the content that's the problem, it's the fundamental design of the game that the content is in.

Thanks for the replies, defiantly a tricky thing to try to add to a game.

I am not looking at a gear system based on throwaways, Id rather a player chooses a look, and that's the player, you see them and you know who it is, I want to make something where every player has that option to have a unique outfit/setup, I figure the best way to get all the art for it and closer to what the player wants, is to let them talk and bargain directly with the artists.

In terms of the artists, and human resources to review all the art, and see if it meets guidelines.

Have a artist level, and goes up based on their artwork, constant good artwork within the rules, and they can move up levels, high leveled artists are not checked as often

level 1 artists can't post items without it being checked by a staff member, before player voting

level 2 artists is checked randomly, and then goes upto a player vote.

level 3 artist is checked less regularly, and goes to player vote

level 4 artist is checked rarely, does not need to be voted in.

level 5 and the highest level, is the only one that can make individually crafted designs.

In terms of money, perhaps the cut taken by the game is reduced at each level, and if someone goes against the rules, they can be lowered in rank or banned.

we now have level 5 artists that can make one of a kind looking items

levels 4 or 5 can guarantee a design in game, since they don't need player votes

Using a reward system should in most cases stop bad entries before they make it into the game and can do damage.

I'm assuming you're talking about ORPGs or other MMO-ish games.

An interesting point, as a few pointed out I suppose there are a few major issues to resolve with the primary being that the better looking models also need to be more rare/expensive to keep them feeling "special".

Why? That just seems like it'd lead to a escalating war of one-upmanship of making weapons look more and more "impressive", which can rapidly become a downward spiral of tackiness.

I got a sword! Now I have a sword +1 with spikes on it! Now I have a sword +11 with blue energy or fire coming out of the spikes! Now I have a sword +27 that has other swords sticking out of it!!!!!!!!!

And let's not even get started on the bows...

Why are weapons just +1 increments of each other that rapidly get obsolete?
Why not make weapons be more unique gameplay tools with balanced tradeoffs, that have different usages in different circumstances or enable different styles of gameplay?

It seems the war of tackiness is an attempt to try to make players be impressed by the visuals to distract them from realizing the weapons themselves aren't any more impressive. We try to hide the '+1 extra damage' behind fancy glowy effects and intricate designs, so the player doesn't realize that the actual item is gameplay-shallow.

So instead, why not invest the effort into making the weapons gameplay-diverse and gameplay-enabling instead?

If you have 271 different swords, but the player doesn't have to do anything different regardless of which one he has equipped, is it really adding to the gameplay, or is it merely a content grind? And if it's merely a content grind, what do you do when the players run out of that content? Race them to try to create more, despite them always consuming faster than you are creating?

The same can be applied to your dungeons, spells, and many other things. Do players get it, get use it, and discard it? Why? Maybe it's because the 'content' isn't actually adding to the gameplay?

Look at World of Warcraft's dungeons. People play them, beat them, and forever leave them (until they create a new character).
Compare to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare's multiplayer arenas. Players play the same level, over and over, and over and over, for a thousand matches or more.

Look at the wildly popular League of Legends.... they have (basically) one level. One level. That 25 million people have played for more than 100 times each.

It's not the content that's the problem, it's the fundamental design of the game that the content is in.

I would have to disagree there, while i completely agree that for games like LoL and CoD it matters less there is still a lot of games that thrives on the apperence of items rather than functionality, and even in LoL they can make a lot of mobey from character skins

Some examples would be The Sims, Counter Strike (1000$ knifeskin, geez.. ) Diablo 3 etc. All these have major success with form rather than functionality only

So, yes it is perfectly viable to have AAA games even without any real variation but to say that focus should be on gameplay only is pushing your on preferences a bit rather what will engage a lot of players with different taste in gameplay

No offense meant, just of a different opinion