Crawl:
There are a few threads in this forum that explore delegation at length (most involving Wavinator, Dauntless, Sandman and myself); search for them.

fingh:
I think that the current crop of MMO players do not want a zero-retun time investment, but if we can expand the MMO paradigm such that casual gamers can get into it for short periods at a time and diversify the available genres then the userbase dynamic changes entirely. Were a census of all people who play any form of computer game to be taken, I am convinced that the top games would be Soitaire, Snood, Minesweeper, Spades, Freecell and the like. Thousands log on to Yahoo! Games daily to play spades with others; is it possible to expand more games, and develop new ones, that provide the same combination of gentle learning curve, endless fascination and episodic conduciveness - all based in a multiplayer environment where the inclusion of other players adds to the experience?

That''s what MMO as a paradigm is all about. I''m not interested in (ever) writing an MMORPG (I don''t particularly care for RPGs, a fact I''ve made very known around here), and I don''t intend to bother with subscription and commercial support. I''d rather approach things FPS-style: sell you the server and client software both, and let you freely host your own "maps" or "worlds", leaving bandwidth and admin issues to the user. That''s just my personal take on it, though; I have no problems with others attempting to figure out how to market MMOs with lower overhead (and I''d take advantage of their solution if they did).

And, as you mention, virtually noone is focusing on MMO Sports (except World Baseball Online, but baseball games suck rocks!) Check out my Sports RPG? thread. You might find it interesting.

The MMO paradigm and particularly the concept of the MMO puzzle isolates two important systemic/social laws: a) a society cannot function unless each of its members are equally decentered from a shared goal (money and hierarchy both facilitate this in reality); b) the mechanism by which members are decentered (linguistic, material, etc.) is arbitrary to the goal as long as the collective functioning of the society/system produces the desired end-result.

In one sense, the MMO puzzle is the same concept as engineering, which waters its conceptual impact down somewhat; in another sense, the MMO puzzle allows social construction to be totally reconceived, which is where the concepts real power lies. Imagine a MMO puzzle environment in which the end result of solving the arbitrary 3d puzzle is a choice of architectural pieces. A co-operative RPG-esque society is thereby established with a genuine work economy (as opposed to monetary), which is able to build itself according to the friendships and agreements, formed on a plane that can be totally _rebuilt_ by internal/socio-political changes in the game. By feeding the puzzle back into a feedback loop by which the end-product is determined, you create a meaningful puzzle process which easily forms the basis of a continued online society.

I must say I am extremely impressed by the isolation of MMO as a paradigm and will definately be giving it a lot more thought.

For an example of an MMO type experience, has anyone every read the book that Blade Runner is based on? In "Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep" by Philip K. Dick (late sixties i''m thinking), the protaganist Decker "plays a game" where he assumes the role of Mercer, a man who is trying to climb a mountain. In the game he joins with a everyone in the world who is playing the game at the same time. Through whatever interface thats used Decker feels the pain that is inflicted on Mercer by falling debris etc... and so does everyone else. When Mercer reaches the top, which he sometimes does, everyone wins. Dick portrays the event as social and spiritual exercise for the participants but in reality may have been a metaphor for his leftist philosophies. Could this be the first example of the MMO paradigm in print?

quote:

---

Original post by deClavier
Imagine a MMO puzzle environment in which the end result of solving the arbitrary 3d puzzle is a choice of architectural pieces. A co-operative RPG-esque society is thereby established with a genuine work economy (as opposed to monetary), which is able to build itself according to the friendships and agreements, formed on a plane that can be totally _rebuilt_ by internal/socio-political changes in the game.

---

This creates an eventual problem in that, as the RPG-esque society evolves and ever more complex pieces of architecture are made, the scope of the game widens and greater time commitments become necessary to maximize utility. A major problem I have with current MMO offerings is the necessity of intense involvement (I am a very casual gamer; I''ve probably finished only three of the games I''ve ever played, and I hardly play most of those I currently own). It is currently neither feasible, possible nor desirable (given the subscription fees) to partake of MMO games on an intermittent, casual basis. I think this limits the long-term attractiveness of MMO games to the larger audience.

quote:

---

Original post by nonnus29
For an example of an MMO type experience, has anyone every read the book that Blade Runner is based on?

---

Haven''t read any Dick; I think I should.

quote:

---

Could this be the first example of the MMO paradigm in print?

---

MMO = Massively Multiplayer Online. Not multi-spectator. Not even multi-participant. While such textual quibbles are silly, I think it really does highlight the core of the MMO experience: working either in concert with or against (or both) other people as unpredictable and irrational as a person can be, actively pursuing social interaction as a deeper level of play. In Dick''s corporate fantasy, it appears (from your description) that while one "participant", if we can even abuse that word so, may be aware of the others, she does not interact with them other than possibly co-experiencing reflected and shared elation. This is a lot more like a short story in an Asimov-edited collection, Dreaming is a Private Affair, in which dreams were canned and "shared" at "dream theatres", each dream subliminally colored by the individual''s tastes, preferences and experiences (though in this story, the actual dream experience remains private).

Oluseyi: moderating time investment is simple, just make the value of whatever is the currency (coin, work, etc.) proportional to the time spent online. ie. 2 buildings in one hour is worth 4 buildings in two hours.

But that will be unfair? Actually, no, more skilled players will still be better off.

quote:

---

Original post by deClavier
Oluseyi: moderating time investment is simple, just make the value of whatever is the currency (coin, work, etc.) proportional to the time spent online. ie. 2 buildings in one hour is worth 4 buildings in two hours.

---

Unfortunately, this only works when you equate MMO with persistence. I am asking if it is possible to create games which provide an MMO experience, but don''t necessarily involve persistence (and therefore don''t create the divisions between new and established players). Say we took MMO sports (soccer, with all the World Cup hoopla of the moment). Established players would have rankings and would be very attractive to the better clubsides while newer players would play in Junior Leagues and develop their skills. All players would have the option of playing pickup games if they prefer, totally ignoring the rankings race and merely playing for fun.

This model involves persistence, but mitigates its effects somewhat which levels the playing field. At the same time, more experience players will naturally gravitate towards playing with each other, but on the basis of quality of play rather than numerical stats.

quote:

---

Original post by deClavier
Oluseyi: moderating time investment is simple, just make the value of whatever is the currency (coin, work, etc.) proportional to the time spent online. ie. 2 buildings in one hour is worth 4 buildings in two hours.

---

quote:

---

Original post by Oluseyi
Unfortunately, this only works when you equate MMO with persistence. I am asking if it is possible to create games which provide an MMO experience, but don't necessarily involve persistence (and therefore don't create the divisions between new and established players).

---

I think the MMO experience is based on community, whether it is fostered by in-game chat, team play, or out-of-game forums. I know that sony Station has a lot of "casual games", but I don't know that any of them offer the MMO experience as you call it. I'm not talking about Tanarus and Infantry, I'm talking about Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune and the like. One way to foster community is through recognition, even a "high score" board. But even that is persistence to an extent.

quote:

---

Original post by Solinear
Well, that's cause you work there

---

Only partially true. I believe that beating out Verant/SOE will be difficult because they have a 'hit-list' on the horizon that is quite amazing, I would refer readers back to my original post for a partial list.

quote:

---

Original post by Solinear
They're paying for more than the continued development and support with their $12+/month anyway.

---

Tell that to the people SOE has layed off at various times over the last year. Realistically, yeah the money from EQ is supporting several development teams, in addition to several non-revenue generating entities. But that holds true in most corporations. Remember that games is big business these days. The company makes games to make money so they can make more games. Players don't have to have the latest expansions to play the game, so they aren't forced to buy them.

As far as Mythic goes, they did a very good job at launch. They had the first really successful launch in the MMO market as far I have seen. But they quickly realized that no matter what they promised, players find ways to throw any game out of balance, and re-work has to be done - something they promised they wouldn't do. It's all part of being a newcomer... Now they are moving on to their next game. I wish them well, because they are going to bring more people into the market and into the pay-to-play business model.



[edited by - fingh on July 6, 2002 4:37:35 AM]

quote:

---

Tell that to the people SOE has layed off at various times over the last year. Realistically, yeah the money from EQ is supporting several development teams, in addition to several non-revenue generating entities.

---

Believe me, I''m not faulting only SOE for this (charging as much for expansions as they do for the actual game), I fault all online game developers for doing this. I think that UO came out with 2 expansions that they charged as much (or nearly so) as they did for the original game.

Laying off employees is something that any company should do at various times though. Particularly when those employees are no longer useful to the company, such as customer service employees that are highly needed during the initial stages of a deployment (as in the case of EQ or any other online game), but not as necessary when the bugs are worked out. Sometimes in the interest of being ''fair'' companies don''t notice these necessities.

Back to Mythic though, I think that their game has a number of inherent flaws that mean that they can''t add new realms without crippling that realm because of the other realms immediately dominating over them. Thus their only option is to create a ''neutral ground'' realm or something similar, where players from all realms can participate in combat. If they do it right, then the rest of the game is just a precursor to everyone (of the 3 realms) working together, if they do it wrong, then it''s just more of the same and they''re sorely lacking in content currently. It''s yet to be seen what they''re planning.

quote:

---

I once thought of a RTS game where you have a command structure, as you have in real life (see diagram).

---

Actually, I''ve done a little bit of work involving a space game where there is a command structure, very similar to what you''re proposing. Commanders are given ships based upon their status (record) in combat and also given ships under them (NPCs) to direct, but not control.

It has definite potential and I''m sure as the internet develops further (broadband as an example), these types of games will have a greater chance of happening. There are issues with the games, but not as much as there are with some other games.

quote:

---

I always thought it would be cool if my character could stay active after I logged of.

---

Advancement of the better macro designer? I hate this concept. More than I hate it when I used to see someone macroing in UO. Might as well consider ''Progress Quest'' a real game.

quote:

---

A major problem I have with current MMO offerings is the necessity of intense involvement (I am a very casual gamer; I''ve probably finished only three of the games I''ve ever played, and I hardly play most of those I currently own). It is currently neither feasible, possible nor desirable (given the subscription fees) to partake of MMO games on an intermittent, casual basis. I think this limits the long-term attractiveness of MMO games to the larger audience.

---

There is a flaw in your arguments though. It''s the fact that you never finished the vast majority of games that you''ve played. That''s not what MMOGs are about, they are more social gaming than power gaming.

Indeed, it honestly sounds like you really don''t play games much. Time investment? Irrelevant. You''re not playing to finish the game anyway. Can''t remember when I heard about the guy who ''finished'' Everquest, UO or DAoC. That''s like beating D&D or getting to the end of the internet.