Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Quest System Discussion
jagust05
Member Posts: 27
I only have one concern so far about the quest system: will the fact that no two quests are the same cause others not to join in a quest with you?
What if a friend and I want to go out questing but we can't effectively accomplish that because we don't have the same quests?
your thoughts? preferably a dev if possible.
Comments
You can pretty much join up with anyone, any time, on any quest. You can join a friend's personal quest, and for a time, your paths will merge, and whenever you want you can leave that friend and continue your story on your own. What you did while you were with the other player becomes part of your story, but your story is not dependant on staying with the other player.
I know this brings up as many questions as answers, believe me, we have spent hours and hours with a host of game designers going around the question of how to make this all work. Just let me tell you, we have it figured out and can offer unique personal quests and group missions (either of which can have multiple players involved).
This system is one of the key elements to the game, and one which we are proud of and can't wait to show players. I hope this answers most of your question. The rest may have to wait until you play.
I think the best quests in an mmorpg is runescape.
Thats the only reason why the game is still running.
Interesting storyline with so much suspence/thrill, and cutscenes(not too much) that are entertaining interesting and cool
. PLEASE!
This game will not be like that, luckily.
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
1. I have to say I remain skeptical of the ability of any computer-generated quest system to create engaging, immersive content. It has to get its goals and dialogue from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is going to be a finite pool of human-generated material. Once you've done enough "dynamically" generated quests, you are going to start running into the same situations over and over again, and the whole thing is going to take on a certain sameness and monotony.
But this is a discussion for a different thread.
2. I do not claim to be an expert on very many subjects, but I think I am something of an expert on the subject of grouping in MMOGs -- why people group and why they don't, as well as what game systems engender a group-friendly or -unfriendly environment.
So far, I see nothing here that will prompt anyone to group. It seems as if each player in CoS has his own story to pursue, and each quest or mission is designed to scale itself to the size of the group, even if that size is one.
Without common goals, people will not group. Without a game-systems incentive (such as a hefty XP bonus), people will not group. Unless you have a top-notch player search interface integrated with your LFG system, people will not group. If travel time is even the slightest issue, people will not group.
I really get the impression that you are expecting people to group up just for the heck of it. I am telling you it simply doesn't work that way. Even if you have friends of the same level in the same game, people tend not to go to the trouble of teaming up unless you give them very good reasons to.
You always have the option of grouping up. You can go help somebody with a quest..Or mabye you could go with a friend and help save a city, or go kill a monster which was terrorizing the town.
The game just never FORCES you to group up, although you always have the option of doing so.
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
That is my point exactly. You have the option of grouping in every MMOG; the MMOGs where it actually happens are few and far between.
If you don't strongly engourage it in some way, it is not going to happen.
I am not advocating "forced" grouping. That's just as bad as a game where everyone solos all the time. It takes talent and effort on the part of the designer to walk the fine line, but it can be done.
The first step is deciding that you want players to be social and that you want to promote teamwork. If this is not important to the designers, it's not going to happen for most of the players.
Now this is not true. I am actually going to play with my cousin, and I plan on playing with him. If I meet a friend, why not play with him and go kill a murderer which haas been haunting the town? There is no force against me to group, but I like doing quests/killing monsters while interacting with other players.
Some MMO's do force you, but in this game, it gives you the options, so if I feel like playing for a friend for a while, then I will. After he leaves, now I will not be forces to group up with someone I don't know, I can just play by myself and lead my exciting adventure.
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
Again, I explicitly said you should not be forced to group.
Also, saying people have the option to group is totally irrelevant, as there is an option to group in every MMOG.
Playing with your cousin is also beside the point. It is something you can do in any MMOG.
What I am asking for is that the game mechanics encourage people to look for groups, be social, take advantage of the multiplayer opportunies. Not force them. Encourage them.
Why is everything so black-and-white for some people?
Encourage? Wanting to play with someone, or having the ability to help out a noob (there is more info about this in article), that should be encouraging. People can team up with others and go save cities, or go help a towns folk, which, I'm going to guess would be less fun to do if you are doing it with an NPC. So in a way, it does encourage you to play with others, since you always have that ability. But it doesn't force you to. There is not many oppirtunities to just encourage, instead of forcing.
So you are playing another game where you are grinding. Now this game gives you the option where you can either level painfully slow by yourself, or make it faster if you team up with a large group of people. This is hardly encouraging, as it is either saying, join up or train an extra 3 hours.
Now this game ALWAYS gives you the option of grouping up, so you are never forced to work alone. If you meet a new friend and you would like to spend more time, well wouldn't that be encouraging you to group up with this person and do something? So now I can play with this person, instead of playing by myself. /Remember, that people's paths can, and probably will, cross, so you will always run into other people to have the option of working with.
There is a fine line between encouraging and forcing, and this line is easily crossable. One day you encourage them to do this, but then it leads them into forcing to do something else. These elements are very important, as nobody wants to be forced to group up.
Why are things so black-and-white for some people?
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
Giving a person the option of doing something is not encouraging. It is, in fact, completely neutral. Meeting a person in the game is not encouragement -- that is like saying if I bump into some schmuck in the street in real life, the universe is encouraging me to take him to lunch.
And at what point did I ever say they should make soloing take three hours longer? (Do you mean three hours per level, or per quest, or what?)
There are countless ways to encourage grouping that are not nearly as draconian as your narrow view of the subject seems willing to allow.
I said I don't want to make the solo game painful. Then you spit back an example where soloing is torturous. One of us isn't reading very carefully.
Also, I fully acknowledged that there was a fine line between encouraging and forcing, so I don't see how you feel like you've won a point by repeating the exact same thing back to me.
Your closing makes absolutely no sense, as I'm asking for a system that is acceptable to both solo players and group players, whereas you seem only interested in protecting your own interests as a soloist, and you act like a mixture of the two is impossible.
This quest system seems like it will appeal to both Soloist and groupist. I do see that the grouping will probably comprise only people that you know. However i see this system as really no different from other Quest systems. You group or you dont. This generator just seems to make it so your Quests and your personal Story read like a book.
This is partially true, yet you are forgetting that our quests change along the way depending on your choices, and many other factors. A book would read the same each time, in Citadel of Sorcery the choices you made in the past and your choices during the quest will change your story as you progress and alter the vary outcome of the quest.
I see nothing wrong in having quests that requires player co-operation providing the tools and rewards are provided.
The biggest block in my opinion to group play is the time it takes to organise and gather players to form a group. No one likes spending hours spamming for group members then waiting for hours while they gather themselves together as they, stop to sell gear. go to toilet, repair before making their way to gathering point only to have to go to dinner part way through quest. With groups of 6 it is hard work in CoS 8 man groups this could be a real pain. One part of the answer is mixed level groups with an appropriate reward system. The only game I have played that got this right was Horizons who, if memory serves, had 8 member groups.
There are situations that encourage grouping
If you hear a village is under attack from a large group of Mobs you will want to gather a group in order to fight them.
A quest may demand a number of skills to accomplish which no single player can possess.
Guild members will group simply out of friendship and to help guild status.
Players group to avoid getting in each others way.
A long complicated quest attracts groups as it reduces quest completion time.
An area is too dangerous to play in alone.
There will be lots of reasons to group with people one I can see is that while grouped you will be able to teach people in the group or learn from them , so an option to increase dormant abilities.
I have a feeling that the jigsaw quest generation will be based on faction and the quest generated may be a summ of the factions of both players, which may be a easy mechanism of encountering up until now un encountered foes . Once you have grouped with a person once gained a new enemy you have expanded your own gaming experience. So I see lots of reasons to group.
On the flip side the quests can be generated around single play as well.
Options give benefits which can be very encouraging.
"The Blacksmith Adoran sits near his anvil hammer in hand. The lone adventurer enters and asks about services provided wanting to sharpen his weapons, Adoran spits on the floor muttering you are no friend of the Assilians until then I will not help the likes of you."
You now need to develop your Assilian faction to get your weapon sharpened .
Frederik wanders in and begins to trade with the Blacksmith ....( He has Assilian faction), You now have options leave or speak with Frederik as to how he is a friend of the Assilians.
This is my understanding of how a well implemented faction system is developed and also a core game mechanic here.
So options cna be very very encouraging, ignoring Frederik you may just have to go find an enemy of the Assilians and kill them for faction. So you can acheive solo but also have fun acheiving with others lots of ways and options to acheive the same thing.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Two separate things being talked about here.
1) Social interaction. That's what Mike and Isane are pretty much getting at. Important because it builds community and gets people to know one another - but really doesn't scale well to large player sizes. Given it's probably a single-shard architecture on the macro scale - what'll need to happen is the formation of small communities within the larger population of players.
MMOM should design systems to encourage the formation and self-identity of these small communities (i.e. a small collection of guilds) by either providing ways for guild alliances to build villages on the open world, or providing ways for guild alliances to control neighbourhoods of the Citadel itself.
2) Grouping. That's the kind of think Hex is driving at (it seems). Actual reasons for players to need to work with other players in the course of their normal play. Many (if not most) modern MMOGs are "solo-friendly" meaning that the vast majority of the playerbase doesn't need to (and thus generally doesn't choose to) rely on other players at all. It usually falls down when players hit higher levels where grouping becomes more common - and they've never learned how to work with others in a tactical sense.
Probably the biggest make-or-break decision MMOM has to make. Honestly - it really needs to be one-or-the-other, I've yet to see a MMO that successfully caters to all player types right off the mark. The ones that I've seen try have universally failed.
My suggestion to Jatar and Co would be to pick their core demographic and stick to it unwaveringly. In time, as the game grows, systems can be developed to support other play styles than the core demo, but trying to develop a solo-friendly, group encouraged, PvP friendly, in-depth PvE, immersive and expansive game is an absolute recipe for a mediocre mess that will sink within months (see Pirates of the Burning Sea for example).
I am still uncertain of the Adventure limitation as against quest where overland situations occur not sure if this is a generic area where more people can participate but they may not be within groups, more info needed.
If I am reading the game right groups will generate circumstances in quests based on playeers involved and (lets call the summ of deeds factions) their combined factions. The nice thing here is that new friends or foes may be easier to gain through groups and I can see this as a nice dynamic. Where certain high faction or low may give access to specific quests or even abilities. But then again it may not be complex at all but I am hoping that at least 3 brain cells are required to play !!!
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
I see what you mean; and player interaction is of course a very important part of the game.
But what I do not see is how these small communities can own parts of Citadel.
Perhaps guilds are able to buy the land from the NPC's and make shops there. For instance, an NPC owns a strip of land in Citadel, and a guild would like to make more of an income. To do this, they decide to purchase a street in Citadel where shopping is popular. The guild then assigns times for when the guild members must be working in the shops and attempt to sell the items in the store. This is one way how a guild could control land in Citadel.
Another way players could control parts in Citadel is combat. Perhaps two guilds want the same part of land in Citadel, so they decide to challenge eachother in the colleseum and do battle! The victorious guild then takes home the prize of land in Citadel.
Remember, there will be no open PvP fighting for control of land. It is not that kind of game. Too much PVP with this kind of system can backfire. It is important to realize that there probably won't be any guilds fighting in the open streets for land, but instead the main PVP will be in coleseums.
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
I would never say never on any aspect of a game this early in development with so little actually released for public consumption. As currently designed supposedly there isn't any PvP outside the colluseum - but that doesn't mean it won't change over the course of design or in post-release.
PvMP in LOTRO was a pretty late addition for instance (and probably the smartest way to implement a PvP system in a PvE game IMO).
I can't recall any mention of the elder game for instance - I really don't know what players are meant to do with their time after they have the majority of their skills in place.
As good as the quest system may be, unless it's a quantum leap forward in design random missions will eventually become old hat. More power to MMOM if they've got something that'll be continuously engaging for hundreds of game hours played- but I'm not so sure it's possible long term.
EVE has territorial control, WoW (and it's various clones) has raiding and "sport PvP", many games have crafting and/or economy play, DAoC and WAR have Realm vs. Realm combat. What all these pursuits have in common is that they involve other players as their key motivators.
No game in existance to date (that I can think of anyway) has an endgame solely focused around PvE pursuits (questing). Even raiding is mainly focused around working as a group with many other players moreso than focused on defeating a PvE challenge.
This is what I refer to when I say core demographic. What pursuits are the players expected to occupy themselves with. That decision (which - as I say - I'm not certain we know yet in CoS) pretty much drives everything else in the game. If the early game doesn't set a foundation for the later game you end up with a dissatisfied playerbase that a small game such as this cannot afford. WoW is an anomaly in this regard and I don't think it could be repeated.
So my question for Jatar is - what's the elder game in CoS? I appreciate that it's probably different from the examples above, but what would I (as a player) be doing past my first (let's say) fifty or a hundred hours in game?
I can't recall any mention of the elder game for instance - I really don't know what players are meant to do with their time after they have the majority of their skills in place.
As good as the quest system may be, unless it's a quantum leap forward in design random missions will eventually become old hat. More power to MMOM if they've got something that'll be continuously engaging for hundreds of game hours played- but I'm not so sure it's possible long term.
EVE has territorial control, WoW (and it's various clones) has raiding and "sport PvP", many games have crafting and/or economy play, DAoC and WAR have Realm vs. Realm combat. What all these pursuits have in common is that they involve other players as their key motivators.
No game in existance to date (that I can think of anyway) has an endgame solely focused around PvE pursuits (questing). Even raiding is mainly focused around working as a group with many other players moreso than focused on defeating a PvE challenge.
This is what I refer to when I say core demographic. What pursuits are the players expected to occupy themselves with. That decision (which - as I say - I'm not certain we know yet in CoS) pretty much drives everything else in the game. If the early game doesn't set a foundation for the later game you end up with a dissatisfied playerbase that a small game such as this cannot afford. WoW is an anomaly in this regard and I don't think it could be repeated.
So my question for Jatar is - what's the elder game in CoS? I appreciate that it's probably different from the examples above, but what would I (as a player) be doing past my first (let's say) fifty or a hundred hours in game?
Citadel of Sorcery is a story driven adventure. I can't tell you what that story will be exactly, as each person's path through the game is different. What drives you on is your progress toward the climax. But I can't tell you what that will be, no one can. Think of it as if you had read the first two books of a new fantasy series, and book three has not yet been written by the author... then ask what will come. I can't tell you, it isn't written yet, but you will want to read that third book to find out what happens. In the case of our game, you will write that third book for your character, you write it by the choices you make, which affect the future of your story.
Quests in this MMO game, though partially generated (customized to the character's story would be closer) are not unconnected, nor are they a linear sequence everyone follows. Quests in Citadel of Sorcery tie together into your ongoing story, each bringing you closer to your own grand climax. What keeps you playing is the same thing that keeps you watching a good movie or reading a good book, only you are even more involved. When this story reaches the grand conclusion... a new one will start, that's the fun of a good sequel.
I would never say never on any aspect of a game this early in development with so little actually released for public consumption. As currently designed supposedly there isn't any PvP outside the colluseum - but that doesn't mean it won't change over the course of design or in post-release.
PvMP in LOTRO was a pretty late addition for instance (and probably the smartest way to implement a PvP system in a PvE game IMO).
While there are ways that it could be implemented, that does not mean it will be implemented correctly. The wrong use of PVP in this type of game can backfire extremely. Remember, LOTRO is a PvE game, while this is...well it's never been done before really.
So I see what you are getting at, but in a game where questing is a key component, PVP will not be the main aspect of a game. I understand that player interaction is important, but it does not have to be implemented through PVP. There are so many other ways of adding player interaction instead of making the full town an open PVP to fight for territory. Look what happened to Shadowbane.
The safest way (and smartest way IMO) to have PVP in a game like this is to have it in a restricted area, instead of trying to complete an adventure without being ganked. If you throw in the PVP like you said, then you will be forcing players to play together; which completely takes away the ability to solo.
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
OK.
So there is a web of partially hand-crafted / partially generated questing which allows a player to run through a contiguous storyline. Cool.
Once again - if the quest system is in fact a quantum leap forward in game design then more power to you. You will all become very rich through licensing if nothing else.
However, I would be more inclined to expect that sooner or later the patterns to the quests would become apparent. Humans are evolved to pick out patterns - it's our nature. The window dressing may be different - but will the actual actions be very different?
I point to PotBS as an example - most of their 5000 advertised missions were created via templates, and though the text and ship types were different, the basic quest types were the same few types over and over.
I would also expect that if the content is handcrafted at all, there will be a point where the players catch up to development. It's a truism that players consume content far faster than developers can create it.
Example: I'm a huge fan of George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. I started it late and was able to read the first three books in pretty rapid succession, but then I was waiting a year for the next (which I read in a week) and years for the one after, and so on.
So - are you saying that the way this game is designed the player will never reach that point of waiting for the next sequel? That the system is designed to produce a functionally endless stream of varied and interesting quest content?
Or if not - what is the intended pursuit for players that have completed their "climax" for the time being and are waiting for the start of the next installment?
OK.
So there is a web of partially hand-crafted / partially generated questing which allows a player to run through a contiguous storyline. Cool.
Once again - if the quest system is in fact a quantum leap forward in game design then more power to you. You will all become very rich through licensing if nothing else.
However, I would be more inclined to expect that sooner or later the patterns to the quests would become apparent. Humans are evolved to pick out patterns - it's our nature. The window dressing may be different - but will the actual actions be very different?
I point to PotBS as an example - most of their 5000 advertised missions were created via templates, and though the text and ship types were different, the basic quest types were the same few types over and over.
I would also expect that if the content is handcrafted at all, there will be a point where the players catch up to development. It's a truism that players consume content far faster than developers can create it.
Example: I'm a huge fan of George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. I started it late and was able to read the first three books in pretty rapid succession, but then I was waiting a year for the next (which I read in a week) and years for the one after, and so on.
So - are you saying that the way this game is designed the player will never reach that point of waiting for the next sequel? That the system is designed to produce a functionally endless stream of varied and interesting quest content?
Or if not - what is the intended pursuit for players that have completed their "climax" for the time being and are waiting for the start of the next installment?
Fortunately, there are no laws to break in making an MMO differently from previous MMO games. In this case I think you may believe that an MMO must be 'endless'. We have no such belief. The fact is that most players leave current MMOs at some point. The actual length of time they stay is debatable, but it is an accepted fact that the average player gets bored and moves on to another game at some point. Our goal is to keep them longer than average simply by having a richer quest experience that climbs to a grand climax worth reaching... an end. From the beginning we've made no secret of the fact that there is an end to each player’s story. The idea is simply that we will try to make a unique adventure for each player, their progress driven by several factors: character progression, Tier ascension, new exploration, opponent intelligence progression and finally and most importantly, story progression and the knowledge that if they keep playing there will be the big payoff of a grand climax.
If at that point in time the average player wants to keep playing Citadel of Sorcery, well, we’ve already succeeded in our goals… we’ve kept them entertained longer than other MMO games. There is an old saying, keep them wanting more.
When a player does reach the end, and if they still want to play the game, they have two possible options. First, they could start a new character and play through the game again. Unlike other MMO games, we have an advantage here, you can create a whole new character and class, and the game story will be different this time through. However, the second possibility is that we will have the next sequel story finished, at which point they can choose to start that story and progress their character further. However, we will consider the game a success if we simply keep the average player for the full length of the original story, which will mean they enjoyed our game more than most, and played it longer than most.
Analogies can be risky at times, but I’ll risk one now… would you rather watch an epic movie once or an endless soap opera? Yes, there are people who like soap operas, and there are those who will want to play endless MMO games, no matter how repetitious the game. But we believe there are more people who want an epic thrill ride, even if it eventually comes to a grand completion.
Thanks for the responses Jatar - best of luck.
Thanks for the responses Jatar - best of luck.
I should add... it is our intention to have the next sequel story ready before players reach the end of the first one so that they can keep playing the game and advancing their character and that character's story. But you were posing the question of what if they reach the climax before we manage to write the next sequel. Our goal is to not let that happen. We have plenty of time to write the next sequel since each story is quite involved. Episodic, though technically correct, does not bring up the correct image. Each story would put a large epic fantasy book series to shame in terms of content. Our epic adventures should take players a minimum of a year to complete, and for many players, even longer (up to three or so). That gives us plenty of time to have the next one ready to go, so although our stories reach a climax, most players can continue to adventure without pause.