No, I mean it. Look at the replies to this thread - it's amazing* how people have been conditioned to associate freedom with abuse. Virtually every post here has made the explicit assumption that the only thing that anyone wants with freedom is the ability to harm others. It's literally all you can think of to do with it.
MMOs are far from the only venue where one can see this notion, I can tell you for a fact, attitudes in our society have changed a lot in the last couple of decades.
*And by "amazing" I mean "appalling".
When you look at the things the OP says he wants to do, are you surprised that people assume he means to abuse the freedom he is asking for? Basically he says he doesn't want game developers protecting other players from him doing whatever he wants to do to them. I certainly don't think that anyone who wants freedom is only looking to abuse other players, but it's awfully naive to assume that nobody will. And allowing that changes a game from one thing to something else entirely. The whole game revolves around the meta-game of 'good players vs. bad players'. This is a lot of fun for the people who want to play 'cops and robbers', but nobody has figured out a way to make it equally enjoyable for the people who just want to play regular citizens.
It's fun for a robber to rob a liquor store. It's fun for a cop to chase the robber who just robbed the liquor store. Now how do we make it fun to operate a liquor store that gets robbed on a regular basis?
Short thinker.
What the designer do is simple: If he has a game where one player can rob the liquor store, and another player can be the owner of the liquor store that gets to be robbed. INSTEAD OF PREVENTING FREEDOM.
What he does? He gives the liquor store player TOOLS. The liquor store can set up a trap, a surveillance camera, he can hire security personel, he can put an alarm... WE OFFER THE PLAYER TOOLS FOR HIM TO WORK AROUND THE PROBLEM CAUSED BY THE OTHER PLAYER FREEDOM.
JUST LIKE IN REAL LIFE.
You dont have to be a genios to come up with a solution like that. I read your post and instantly figured out. Instead of preventing interaction, I created a design that PROMOTES INTERACTION.
We will have the liquor store player working with other players to prevent a random guy to rob him. He will have tools at his disposal to feel secured. He can set up a trap, get the player who tried to rob him and send him to jail, or blow his face of with a shotgun under the tabble. The possibilities for gameplay experience originated from my design are endless, as endless at the ammount of tools I offer them.
A design based on freedom increases social elements, promotes interaction, complexity, variety, longevity.
The liquor store guy dont have to cope up with the robber, just like in real life, some invest in their security, some dont.
THE PLAYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. They can accept, prevent, punish, ITS UP TO THEM.
Arent you competent enough to take care of your liquor store security, others will be. In fact, if you protect your liquor store, the robbers will go after the unprotected liquor store, or whatever other activities presented.
Think out side of the box, and not just about mashing things on your skull silly.
wow... yet another person so fanatically stuck in opinionland they forgot how a discussion works... but alright... let's just say i agree with everything you said... saves me brain cells for later....
@ DAoC screenshot guy:
While I do share your apparent love for DAoC, I must correct you... those are not 2003 screenshots of DAoC. Those are post Catacombs screenshots ( 3rd full expansion) which released in December of 2004... so just a couple of months before that other title... this is what DAoC looked like back in 2001 (still ok graphics for the time)
Only ignorant fools repplied with the idea that freedom itself is inerently bad, with a short thought, pessimistic, one sided, blind sided view of it. They cant think ahead of their noses, they only see "gank", "grief". Dont even realize they can use their heads to find a creative solution.
I honestly think you've never even played a game with as much personal freedom as you clamor for. Do us all a favor and try to get settled in the free trial server of Wurm Online and tell us about your general experiences with the 'neighbors'. You will have some horror stories. This is mainly due to the fact that it's *free*, and that attracts jackasses with no regard for others because of there being no risk of losing any kind of investment put into it.
You can keep screaming about how we are all short-sighted as to the true meaning behind all of this, but the fact is that you refuse to see the obvious flaws in "total freedom". People abuse it, and that's all it takes to convince others to stay away. It's the very reason why FFA-sandboxes are so niche, people just don't like dealing with those kinds of players, and would rather leave them to their own devices and play something else. Developers want a successful product, not one that caters to a select crowd of people that can "take the heat". Because the heat will *always* be there, do not give mankind more credit than it deserves. We wouldn't need police, jails and other institutions if real society was as logical as you claim an online one could be.
Add anonymity to the mix, like you get with *any* online game, and you get the people that scream into the mic on counterstrike, just to piss you off, going further with it. Open your eyes to the facts at hand - it does happen - it will happen - and it's not going to change without specific rulesets to balance out that fact. Total freedom is overrated, that is, unless you secretly *are* the guy screaming into a mic on your spare time. Anyone with a basic experience with these kinds of game will tell you this, and have been throughout this entire thread. Your wishful thinking is not going to make people magically behave, limitations will.
THIS ^^^
Reminds me of my starting of SWG.. On day 1 I thought SWG was the best game ever, then as the days, weeks and months went by, it became clear just how ugly a game can get when you have a sandbox with no rules.. All I have to say is player city milita gankfest. What could of been the best sandbox game ever made turned into a FFA gankathon that droves away thousands of players, myself included..
Say there's this NPC who drives a wagon from one town to the next.
.
I wan't to rob him so I chop down a tree to block the road.
.
Simple right?
.
What MMO will give me the freedom to do this?
.
None, really, unless you know of an MMO that wants to deal with every jackass and his brother covering the roads with trees.
Lofty philosophical and social babble aside, that scenario simply needs to be examined by its core components - collision detection and the placement of objects in the game world.
From a design standpoint, the issue isn't tech or mechanics. The issue how badly and how often the small number of douchebags in your community will ruin the game for everyone with the tech or mechanic.
This, and only this.
I can even use actual examples from a game that at one time had plenty of freedom built in, SWG. Which had placeable objects that could be used in the wrong manner (to grief). Terminals as an example could be placed in front of doors, blocking players inside.
Another occurance (im not sure how often this actually happened). The incident was known as the Rayen petting zoo on my server. In short a player was rezzed while 4 players sat terminals around him trapping him in place. Of course these players were banned, so was the player who was trapped if I recall correctly.
This is why we most likely will never see freedom in the scale the OP is calling for. While it would be great if it would work, it wouldn't be long before people started abusing those freedoms. I really can't see it turning out any other way.
Of course you can't have absolute freedom, but with map zoning, and the ability to server hop at will, the trapped player could easily escape.
It can be done to a certain extent, but it is all about implementation. I love obstacle usage in games.. countless hours of amusement... I am so easily amused.
So, the Dev's should waste how many precious man hours of time/effort, talent and creativity to appeal to what is really a very small percentage of the general player base? Its become obvious over the years that most players do NOT want all of this "freedom" that the OP speaks of.
That is just one of the reasons for the rise of theme park games, and the decline of games in the west that allow (or encourage) ganking and griefing. Unless the Dev's wish to engage in an endless arms race with such types, its best to keep human nature in mind. Look at the evolution of Concord and the high sec rule set in EVE as an example of how even a PvP centric company like CCP has to protect its business model.
No, I mean it. Look at the replies to this thread - it's amazing* how people have been conditioned to associate freedom with abuse. Virtually every post here has made the explicit assumption that the only thing that anyone wants with freedom is the ability to harm others. It's literally all you can think of to do with it.
MMOs are far from the only venue where one can see this notion, I can tell you for a fact, attitudes in our society have changed a lot in the last couple of decades.
*And by "amazing" I mean "appalling".
Its tragic, but given past history and personal experience, thats how it has turned out, time after time after time. I've seen the same trends in society at large. But given the various trend lines, its hardly surprising.
What the designer do is simple: If he has a game where one player can rob the liquor store, and another player can be the owner of the liquor store that gets to be robbed. INSTEAD OF PREVENTING FREEDOM.
What he does? He gives the liquor store player TOOLS. The liquor store can set up a trap, a surveillance camera, he can hire security personel, he can put an alarm... WE OFFER THE PLAYER TOOLS FOR HIM TO WORK AROUND THE PROBLEM CAUSED BY THE OTHER PLAYER FREEDOM.
Uh huh, and how is that going to prevent his liqour store from being successfully robbed. He might not be online to defend it, or the surveilance cameras do jack but report who did it (to no retribution), or his hired NPCs get whacked (no player is going to stay online guarding his place). His place is still going to get robbed, and he is going to tire of being a liqour store owner and go play pet shop owner in Hello Kitty.
Nothing you can do will prevent it, besides limitations on *when* and *how* it can happen, so that all parties involved are satisfied. As is, you are only satisfying the robber by added a miniscule amount of challenge. Quit insulting people when it's *you* who are the "short thinker".
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Say there's this NPC who drives a wagon from one town to the next.
.
I wan't to rob him so I chop down a tree to block the road.
.
Simple right?
.
What MMO will give me the freedom to do this?
.
None, really, unless you know of an MMO that wants to deal with every jackass and his brother covering the roads with trees.
Lofty philosophical and social babble aside, that scenario simply needs to be examined by its core components - collision detection and the placement of objects in the game world.
From a design standpoint, the issue isn't tech or mechanics. The issue how badly and how often the small number of douchebags in your community will ruin the game for everyone with the tech or mechanic.
This, and only this.
I can even use actual examples from a game that at one time had plenty of freedom built in, SWG. Which had placeable objects that could be used in the wrong manner (to grief). Terminals as an example could be placed in front of doors, blocking players inside.
Another occurance (im not sure how often this actually happened). The incident was known as the Rayen petting zoo on my server. In short a player was rezzed while 4 players sat terminals around him trapping him in place. Of course these players were banned, so was the player who was trapped if I recall correctly.
This is why we most likely will never see freedom in the scale the OP is calling for. While it would be great if it would work, it wouldn't be long before people started abusing those freedoms. I really can't see it turning out any other way.
Of course you can't have absolute freedom, but with map zoning, and the ability to server hop at will, the trapped player could easily escape.
It can be done to a certain extent, but it is all about implementation. I love obstacle usage in games.. countless hours of amusement... I am so easily amused.
So, the Dev's should waste how many precious man hours of time/effort, talent and creativity to appeal to what is really a very small percentage of the general player base? Its become obvious over the years that most players do NOT want all of this "freedom" that the OP speaks of.
That is just one of the reasons for the rise of theme park games, and the decline of games in the west that allow (or encourage) ganking and griefing. Unless the Dev's wish to engage in an endless arms race with such types, its best to keep human nature in mind. Look at the evolution of Concord and the high sec rule set in EVE as an example of how even a PvP centric company like CCP has to protect its business model.
1. Socializers, social games, farmville. Do an association thinking and you should understand.
2. Players never had a taste of a well designed game with good implementation, like we are discussing on this topic.
People dont want what they experienced. But what they experienced was crap. I dont blame them, But from that concluding by induction that there isnt a market from what we are talking about. Falacy.
so? too much freedom makes a bad game. i dont see the need of all those freedoms in games.
I dont see evidence that too much freedom makes a bad game. All I see is evidence that bad design (i.e. lack of tools) around the existance of freedom makes a bad game.
Say there's this NPC who drives a wagon from one town to the next.
.
I wan't to rob him so I chop down a tree to block the road.
.
Simple right?
.
What MMO will give me the freedom to do this?
.
Eudemons Online and Silkroad have similar things.
Dark and Light promised that, but didnt delivered.
But thats the example of freedom I was talking about. Freedom to cause effect on the world and other players.
If there is this is narrow path from where the wagon has to go and it has a block of wood blocking it, the player on the wagon would have to option to remove it out of the way or to cut it down, or to go back, or wait, or chose another path if available.
Thats the sort of consequence that one player freedom has on the world. He cut down the tree, made a block, blocked the road. Untill someone remove that block, it will remain there. The tree cut wont exist anymore, so the next time it will be different and such...
Same way with a bridge, for example... Players can make a bridge, or make a boat to cross a river, or swim across, or steal a boat, or destroy the bridge.
This is the kind of awesome possibility of freedom that we dont have.
so? too much freedom makes a bad game. i dont see the need of all those freedoms in games.
I dont see evidence that too much freedom makes a bad game. All I see is evidence that bad design (i.e. lack of tools) around the existance of freedom makes a bad game.
Ganking in UO
Tank mage everywhere because there is no class restrictions
Complaints about Eve's lack of new players' experience (and they try to revamp the "training")
On the flip side, there are great games (Half LIfe 1/2, Diablo, Batman Arkham ...) that does not necessarily have a lot of freedom.
Only ignorant fools repplied with the idea that freedom itself is inerently bad, with a short thought, pessimistic, one sided, blind sided view of it. They cant think ahead of their noses, they only see "gank", "grief". Dont even realize they can use their heads to find a creative solution.
I get the feeling you misunderstand the responses so I will try once more to clarify. MMOs are a business. Subscribers pay to have fun. Most MMO gamers do not find your wishlist to be a list of things they find fun, nor do they want to be subjected to those things. It is not some pessimistic view of MMORPG.com posters, rather an understanding of the interests and experiences of the majority MMO gamers.
For many, the changes to MMOs over the years have granted more freedom. Freedom to keep what you've gathered. Freedom to travel without fear or random attack. Freedom to have nice things. Freedom to engage in individual or private group events/activities without interruption.
Since you grow more pretentious and insulting with each post, this is the last I'll contribute to this discussion. Hope the above helps clarify things a bit for you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I completely agree, and have made similar posts in years past. Many MMORPGS these days are lacking player freedom. I disagree with those that think that " freedom" should be limited to SPRPGs. There ARE games that have more freedom in many areas but are lacking in polish and need much work to make them successful. From my understanding, when the developers spend all their money on new graphix engines creating competing graphix, they do not seem to be able to fund the content as much as would be required to deliver a quality content enriched game.
These days people seem to think that customization means being able to change their items different colors rather than determine the weapons stats. Game customization became more like that old barbie head girls used to play with when we were kids. Like you get this barbie head, and you can change her makeup, hair color, jewlery- but really the thing can do no more than it could when you started. They focused on cosmetic rather than ability.
There are games where quests are optional. There are games where you can access all game content on one character. There are games that allow players to determine their weapon stats. There are games where you can mage in range armor, melee in mages robes and range in warrior gear. These do exist, but are not as polished as they should be, and do not have all this content in one game. There are games that have zones for different activities, yet you can still do all activities on one server. There are games where you can hop servers at will with your character. There are games where you can craft a great variety of items in the game.
The difference between these games and the others is kinda like the difference between an underground band that is playing out of their garage with crappy equipment and a " boy band". The mainstream companies support the boy bands and give them tons of cash even if they have no talent just to sell their products. It is easy money for them, wheras the more controversial metal band playing in the garage that may be insanely skilled musicians cannot get that kind of support simply because they do not follow the guidelines set by the mainstream.
What needs to happen is a major developer takes all the good from these games, changing the bad, and combine them into one content enriched game and it would be awesome.
Those who enjoy the linear, tell me what to do games can still play them, there are plenty for you to choose from out there, it just would be nice to have one for the rest of us.
IS asking for one polished , content enriched , quality mmorpg with player freedom really too much to ask? Why would it bother those who oppose player freedom that much if we actually received one? Why is freedom so offensive to some people?
The reason why nobody is making 'polished, content rich quality mmorpgs with player freedom' is because the market for them is not that big. It's like a fan of 'Brokeback Mountain' demanding that Disney put a romantic subplot between Orlando Bloom and Johnny Depp into the next 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movie. Nobody is going to give the garage metal band in your example a multi-million dollar recording contract, set them up in a studio with a top producer and then send them on a stadium tour because they won't sell enough tickets to be profitable. And if they do change their style in some ways to be more acceptable to a mainstream audience, their 'hardcore' fans will cry over them 'selling out'.
That being said, I have no problem if a major game developer decides to make a game like this. My problem is with the droves of people who show up on the pre-launch forums of every game that comes out demanding that the game developers change their design decisions to accomodate them.
There is a bunch of reasons for this...
Time, Effort, Resources, Expertise... The initial minimum investment to make sure it works is too high.
Compared to what game companies are offering and what people are accepting to buy. Just look at the market and see hundreds of games labeling themselfs as MMOs, trying to sell virtual power for real money, with strict focus on combat, linear, balanced gameplay, very simple, low investment... Its obvious.
The kind of freedom we are talking here requires major work. Some people say it wont work, I say it can work, but it has strict conditions. Some say it doesnt have demand, I say there is huge demand for it, increasing ridiculously fast.
I even made a comparison about the Fall of Great Empires of our history. We are getting to a point in MMORPGs that the current design crippled itself too much, its canibalizing itself, killing itself, making games boring, unentertaining, empty and meaningless, wasting precious time... At this stage, there is a need for evolution, for change. Topics about people feeling the same about todays games multiply by the minute. There is this whole "social" aspect of MMORPGs that got left behind in the design boards that one day will have to be picked up again... with the advent of "social games", many eyes are being opened, there is a huge opportunity.
In short, freedom can work and there is demand for it. Seing how freedom potentializes social interaction, as long as its well designed (i.e. tools to allow people to addapt, evolve and get around the problems originated by said freedom organically).
Since you grow more pretentious and insulting with each post, this is the last I'll contribute to this discussion. Hope the above helps clarify things a bit for you.
While it's very unlike me, I think I will join you.
Most of my funny and serious posts have been removed from this thread, and he is blatantly ignoring my most recent solid arguments to pick on lesser ones by others, so at this point I am assuming he has blocked me, or is ignoring me, on top of having a mod buddy stifle the opposition in his favor. He also seems to have a serious stick up his ass over why FFA-sandboxes aren't popular, and is determined to convince us that we are stupid for not wanting to put up with the community issues in them.
Bottom line, games with unhindered freedom attracts jerks, and people don't like to play games with jerks. Done.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Only ignorant fools repplied with the idea that freedom itself is inerently bad, with a short thought, pessimistic, one sided, blind sided view of it. They cant think ahead of their noses, they only see "gank", "grief". Dont even realize they can use their heads to find a creative solution.
I get the feeling you misunderstand the responses so I will try once more to clarify. MMOs are a business. Subscribers pay to have fun. Most MMO gamers do not find your wishlist to be a list of things they find fun, nor do they want to be subjected to those things. It is not some pessimistic view of MMORPG.com posters, rather an understanding of the interests and experiences of the majority MMO gamers.
For many, the changes to MMOs over the years have granted more freedom. Freedom to keep what you've gathered. Freedom to travel without fear or random attack. Freedom to have nice things. Freedom to engage in individual or private group events/activities without interruption.
Since you grow more pretentious and insulting with each post, this is the last I'll contribute to this discussion. Hope the above helps clarify things a bit for you.
Freedom to "not be just another insignificant dude"
Freedom to "never have to lose, specially to another player, that cant be!"
Freedom to "always be able to compete despite playing a massivelly multiplayer online role playing game where the world and other players continuously evolve and it doesnt stop when the player has to go work or sleep or whatever".
Freedom to "not need to socialize, despite it being in essence a virtual social environment ".
Freedom to "not be responsible or fail for their actions"
Freedom to "not have to learn, think or addapt"
Freedom to "not be affected by other players, not even the market!"
Freedom.
All of this freedom you speak off are in reality artificial protections from the freedom.
What Im talking about if a Freedom in an environment where those protections are offered by players in-game, as tools.
I sorry but the problem with your desire for a more self-governing MMO community is finding enough players that wish to govern and enough who are willing to be governed. The thing is most MMO players and most people on this forum do not think very highly of their fellow players. This can be seen by just heading over to any past topic that covered the ReadID debacle and you too can witness for yourself all kinds of colorful characters they think populate the games we play.
And this leads me to my next point......anonymity. This will be a thorn in the side of any self-governing community, yet alone a online one where players wish to kick back a bit. Until you can remove most of the bureaucracy and mental legwork associated with such a system, you will never find enough players to uphold it.
I believe a semi-automated system is required. Hear me out for a second:
In the event of a crime you would have a perp, victim and possible witnesses. Say that you have a witness system in place that flags any given player as a witness if they see a crime, but it automatically reports that crime to npc guards if that person reaches a town. Then the npc system kicks in to send out a warning notice to all npc guards to fine on sight and merchants to increase the price of doing business to shady players.
This helps keep your game running smoothly without overburdening your playerbase. Now the victim of the crime gets the option of either opening a bounty on their killer (for pvpers to participate) or curse them (which would take effect immediately) with a effect that debuffs who they group with for 1 hour. So the victim is left with a decision of either take cash from a possible bounty or label their killer a outcast. This puts some power in the hands of victims.
The last thing we come to is the perp, who also has some decisions to make. They can either kill someone with a bounty on their head (which removes their curse and pays the bounty out) or kill an innocent (nets them FFA loot)
Now what ever system is put in place, it has to be able to do 3 things:
Wow, this thread is really on fire. I was just browsing around offline, but I just HAVE to take part in this. Call me a noob, call me a rebel, whatever you want, I don't care.
There are many ways you can go into this, because so many of you have discussed so many aspects on the subject. But my opinion on the initial topic, is well, yes, freedom is good. I think many of us misunderstand what definition of freedom we are talking about here. My definition of freedom, is to be able to craft our own story in an RPG and yes, some of our actions may bring consecuences, but that's the whole thrill about it.
Yes, maybe in real life such actions like speeding past a red light might cause a crash and most likely followed by death. But to me, that's the whole point of a videogame, to ESCAPE reality, my philosophy on games is that, all the developers and the whole team in it's entirity work together to IMAGINE something, form it into a DREAM, and sculpt that dream into our "REALITY". Think of it this way, our fast asleep in your bed, and your in the middle of a dream. All these big game companies and what not, are handing you the control to your dream, allowing you to do whatever you want.
Now, obviously there is a difference to theme park games and a sandbox game. In a theme park, the devs are giving you the scenery and a certain backstory for you to guide yourself in. A sandbox, just offers your the scenery, it's up to you what happens in it.
Now, I think what our friend here is trying to say is, that some games kinda do strip some of our freedoms. Like such games that make you follow a story line, and there really anything else to do but that. Now obviously everyone has their own opinion and they might even like games like that. But I really have to agree with the one line about "Making mistakes and having to deal with the domino effect later", the whole talk about balance really does make games feel kinda dull. So what if some overpowered player comes out of nowhere and woops your ass? your just gonna quit the game? I don't care who you are, I just see you as a wimp. Instead that should fill you with energy and momentum to take your character and spend countless hours buffing your character and finnaly wooping that guys ass, It feels rewarding.
Now another example I would like to include on my own account, is how linear some games can get. (I'm using WoW in my example since it's a very simple one to relate to) Games like WoW are a bit "free" but after spending days forming a group, or rallying your guild, and say spend countless hours and casualties raiding ICC, yeah it's rewarding throughout the way, but in the end, you finnaly down the Lich King.....now what? So that would be another example of my definition of freedom...
Umm, I hope I haven't left anything out. Excuse my horrible grammer skills. And hopefully you either agree or disagree in a civilized manner. So in conclusion, I say yes to freedom, complete freedom.
The part where you talk about people quitting after losing. You know, some people are just like that. Sometimes its not the game's design' fault.
Maybe this is the invincible argument against freedom. That some people are just like that. In my vision, I would like to see a game is designed in a way that even after they got their ass whooped once, they would still give the game a chance and try to do whatever the game allows them to do, to prevent getting their ass whooped, and off course, the game being fun and rewarding while they do it.
Sometimes people quit, because they just didnt found the game fun, for whatever reason (there are hundreds of them), but quitting due to other players interference is the one that removal of freedom prevents. I ask myself if this is an inate problem of human nature, as in, some people are just quitters and even if they get all the tools at their disposal, they still would not make good use of them.
Like people playing Starcraft II on battle.net. The game is perfectly well designed, perfectly balanced, but the differences between the players themselfs, causing direct effect on each others demise. Most people quit, instead of try to learn of get better. Off course, some of them are like that, because they simply dont like strategy at all, but Im talking about those who like strategy, just dont like to compete, to get owned, and to try harder next time to get better/evolve.
Some are like that, the question is... how many of them are "type B" players. You see... the whole problem of freedom, gets even more pronounced when we are talking about "combat focused games", games where "power over others" and the "acquisition of power" is the focus of the game.
Completelly changing the axis of the games, back into a social simulators, while still having an actual fun and entertaining gameplay activity and content that is not focused on combat... Certainly it would be more forgiving, because the combat side of freedom wouldnt be as intense, wouldnt appear as frequently, or in a way that is ultimatelly intolerable.
So its both a matter of rethinking fun gameplay that doesnt revolve around power/combat, and designing a game that offer said freedoms while still giving players the tools to work around/prevent abuses...
In terms of players, we would be looking for the players who are not easily frustrated (wich there are many) and for players that would actually get interested by a game that doesnt revolve around what 99% of other games do: combat, those two elements together would soften the intolerance to frustration of said players by not causing effects 99% as often...
I like freedom but it seems with more freedom comes more exploiters/griefers. Most people dont have the stomach nor the time to deal with people like this, hence the games have evolved into ... well just "games" instead of worlds. Now these type of games are nitch, because most don't want to play them and tehy certainly dont bring in as much money as today's model for MMO's. So here we are ....
I sorry but the problem with your desire for a more self-governing MMO community is finding enough players that wish to govern and enough who are willing to be governed. The thing is most MMO players and most people on this forum do not think very highly of their fellow players. This can be seen by just heading over to any past topic that covered the ReadID debacle and you too can witness for yourself all kinds of colorful characters they think populate the games we play.
And this leads me to my next point......anonymity. This will be a thorn in the side of any self-governing community, yet alone a online one where players wish to kick back a bit. Until you can remove most of the bureaucracy and mental legwork associated with such a system, you will never find enough players to uphold it.
I believe a semi-automated system is required. Hear me out for a second:
In the event of a crime you would have a perp, victim and possible witnesses. Say that you have a witness system in place that flags any given player as a witness if they see a crime, but it automatically reports that crime to npc guards if that person reaches a town. Then the npc system kicks in to send out a warning notice to all npc guards to fine on sight and merchants to increase the price of doing business to shady players.
This helps keep your game running smoothly without overburdening your playerbase. Now the victim of the crime gets the option of either opening a bounty on their killer (for pvpers to participate) or curse them (which would take effect immediately) with a effect that debuffs who they group with for 1 hour. So the victim is left with a decision of either take cash from a possible bounty or label their killer a outcast. This puts some power in the hands of victims.
The last thing we come to is the perp, who also has some decisions to make. They can either kill someone with a bounty on their head (which removes their curse and pays the bounty out) or kill an innocent (nets them FFA loot)
Now what ever system is put in place, it has to be able to do 3 things:
Empower agressive and non-agressive players with a real choice
Promote non-combative progression as a viable long term option
Everyone can govern. The tools would be there. But are they good enough to govern? Would others follow them? Like in real life some people are not good enough at politics to even get there. To be able to govern something, they would first be legitmally elected by their friends and all the people they talked too. You know, socialize.
They can be kings on their shower. But if a hundred other players dont give them legitimacy, they will not be oficially elected. They can try. They will have to try and do their best, within the possibilities, it will not be for everyone. But some will.
Like the leaders of the in-game guilds, some people just get there. If at some point they arent good enough at leading, others will stop following them, like in real life.
If they are not good at making others following them and they dont want to follow others, they can do that too. They can even whine about "how come Im not president", but its expected from the player the minimum of maturity to live in a social environment. Thats how society works.
Well, in the game tools would be available for the player so that even if he is not popular, he would still be able to get the power by force, by economic superiority, or religious influence... All the tools would be there. Off course, the tools existing would mean that the player can use them, but he still would have to work for it, to get things done according to the pre-established conditions of the given tools.
The player could then become a dictator of a big town. How did he made it? Well, he hired or convinced an army to do his will and take whoever was in charge out. What about the other players? They will have their tools as well, some will not care about it, some will try to get a piece of the slack, others will try to bring him to justice. Everyone possibility will be there as in-game tools.
The player who became the dictator worked his way to get there and he has to know that others will be working to take him out as well, thats obvious.
Just like real life.
If they want, they can do anything about it. If they think its too much trouble, they dont need to. If they think they are powerless to do so, despite the game offering them the tools, they cannot blame anybody else, but themself for their lack of action.
About the three things you mentioned.
Automating mundane tasks is one thing. Making a fun gameplay out of it is more like it. You see, a lot of time and effort developing a fun gameplay to make a report? How is that possible?
How is that possible to even have a fun gameplay that is not derived from combat?
What I answer to that is this: if someone has to fill a report, for whatever reason they are doing it, is because they need to do it, or accepted to do it. They werent forced to do it, unless they wanted to do it, they wouldnt be doing it. If for some reason they are in an administrative position and according to whatever rules are in place (wich the player had to agree with at first), he has to make a report about something.... making said report is part of his responsabilities, duties, if he does feel fun and rewarding being in a position where at such point he has to make a report, then by all means, dont do it, dont be in said position. The next time they decide if said administrative position has to make a report, he will be able to express himsself and work towards the goal to make said position does not need to make a report. We will give him the tools to change/remove any "burocratic" activites he does not want to. If he loses the "vote", he will have to make a choice, between all the good fun of being in said administrative position versus the negative side of having to make a report. He, the player, will be the chooser in the end.
Its not the design's fault. We allowed him to change it, but he couldnt manage to do that. Can the player cope with the failure in influencing other players to change a rule that determines he has to make a report?
What kind of person wouldnt understand or accept that?
Say there's this NPC who drives a wagon from one town to the next.
.
I wan't to rob him so I chop down a tree to block the road.
.
Simple right?
.
What MMO will give me the freedom to do this?
.
None, really, unless you know of an MMO that wants to deal with every jackass and his brother covering the roads with trees.
Lofty philosophical and social babble aside, that scenario simply needs to be examined by its core components - collision detection and the placement of objects in the game world.
From a design standpoint, the issue isn't tech or mechanics. The issue how badly and how often the small number of douchebags in your community will ruin the game for everyone with the tech or mechanic.
This, and only this.
I can even use actual examples from a game that at one time had plenty of freedom built in, SWG. Which had placeable objects that could be used in the wrong manner (to grief). Terminals as an example could be placed in front of doors, blocking players inside.
Another occurance (im not sure how often this actually happened). The incident was known as the Rayen petting zoo on my server. In short a player was rezzed while 4 players sat terminals around him trapping him in place. Of course these players were banned, so was the player who was trapped if I recall correctly.
This is why we most likely will never see freedom in the scale the OP is calling for. While it would be great if it would work, it wouldn't be long before people started abusing those freedoms. I really can't see it turning out any other way.
Of course you can't have absolute freedom, but with map zoning, and the ability to server hop at will, the trapped player could easily escape.
It can be done to a certain extent, but it is all about implementation. I love obstacle usage in games.. countless hours of amusement... I am so easily amused.
So, the Dev's should waste how many precious man hours of time/effort, talent and creativity to appeal to what is really a very small percentage of the general player base? Its become obvious over the years that most players do NOT want all of this "freedom" that the OP speaks of.
That is just one of the reasons for the rise of theme park games, and the decline of games in the west that allow (or encourage) ganking and griefing. Unless the Dev's wish to engage in an endless arms race with such types, its best to keep human nature in mind. Look at the evolution of Concord and the high sec rule set in EVE as an example of how even a PvP centric company like CCP has to protect its business model.
1. Socializers, social games, farmville. Do an association thinking and you should understand.
2. Players never had a taste of a well designed game with good implementation, like we are discussing on this topic.
People dont want what they experienced. But what they experienced was crap. I dont blame them, But from that concluding by induction that there isnt a market from what we are talking about. Falacy.
Personal experience, and understanding of human nature and history demonstrates that this "freedom" approach gets abused by a certain number of gankers/griefers. Its happened time after time after time. I didn't say there is NO market, I stated that the appeal of such games is limited (in other words niche). But given the time and money these games take to create, its entirely understandable that they be focused at the much larger audience that doesn't want all of those above "freedoms".
I've read some of this thread throughout it's progression, so I haven't read everything that's been posted. That being said, I prefer my crusades for freedom to take place in the realm of the real world, where it applies most to me. I need my games to have some limitations, otherwise they would cease to be games to me.
I look at limitations within the game as the social contract, and the company as the governing body. Some individual freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the overall community, just like games have their rules so to dictate their progression (in any form).
What some people seem to be unwittingly concerned with, is the Tragedy of the Commons. The game world is the commons that we all share, and with the right rules, we can easily affect others. Some do not want their own experience to be at the mercy of another player, which is entirely their right.
Luckily, most of us live in free societies where we can choose our games, thus allowing players to pick and choose games that cater towards their preferred rulesets. Yet there are plenty in this world that do not have the luxury of playing such games, let alone have the ability to pick and choose which game they are going to play. I am lucky enough to live in a civilized, developed country, which allows me to have the freedom to choose which game I going to play, and that's good enough for me.
so? too much freedom makes a bad game. i dont see the need of all those freedoms in games.
I dont see evidence that too much freedom makes a bad game. All I see is evidence that bad design (i.e. lack of tools) around the existance of freedom makes a bad game.
That all depends on what the "freedom" allows the bad acters to do. Personally, I'd consider it an example of Bad Design, if it allows ganking and/or griefing. Its not a "lack of tools" thats the problem. Its more a "lack of experience with human nature" that results in many design flaws, and results in a lack of player retention. Rather few people are going to hang around to be others punching bags, when there are so many other options that do not require that.
Say there's this NPC who drives a wagon from one town to the next.
.
I wan't to rob him so I chop down a tree to block the road.
.
Simple right?
.
What MMO will give me the freedom to do this?
.
Eudemons Online and Silkroad have similar things.
Dark and Light promised that, but didnt delivered.
But thats the example of freedom I was talking about. Freedom to cause effect on the world and other players.
If there is this is narrow path from where the wagon has to go and it has a block of wood blocking it, the player on the wagon would have to option to remove it out of the way or to cut it down, or to go back, or wait, or chose another path if available.
Thats the sort of consequence that one player freedom has on the world. He cut down the tree, made a block, blocked the road. Untill someone remove that block, it will remain there. The tree cut wont exist anymore, so the next time it will be different and such...
Same way with a bridge, for example... Players can make a bridge, or make a boat to cross a river, or swim across, or steal a boat, or destroy the bridge.
This is the kind of awesome possibility of freedom that we dont have.
Nor do many, many people want it. Why should I have to deal with these gankers and griefers? Let them go play some niche game (lots of Asian games actively encourage ganking and griefing) and leave me and others who want nothing to do with their antics alone.
Freedom to assembly three hundred players in the same screen. YEAH. Freedom of 2d games, really poor graphics, or magic low ping connections
I laughed at just about every one of your "rebuttals" but the one that took the cake was saying that the only way to get 300 people on screen is to have 2D graphics.
That's just sad, that MMOs have fallen so far, that such a simple goal seems like an impossibility to the simple minded like you.
You realize that Dark Age of Camelot, a game from 2001 that had state of the art graphics of its time, regularly had 400+ people on the screen in large battles?
And I didn't know that freedom was something only pretentious people liked. I'm sorry, but wanting to think/struggle a little in a game does not make one pretentious.
You absolutely disgust me.
I can't believe you would try to argue that, when "state of the art in it's time" is "really poor graphics" now. Every one of his points is sound, and you need to be hit with a rolled-up newspaper for being dense. Try fitting 300 people into a small space within a modern game and see what happens. anyone remembering the event in TR where the server blew up will tell you that it's impossible without the "state of the art graphics" from 1999. Idiot.
First off, you missed the point entirely. Just goes to show, the type of people that defend dumbed down games are usually dumb themselves. I said that, in 2001 (not 1999, wtf) there was a game (Dark Age of Camelot) that allowed you the freedom to bring as many people together as you wanted. The largest battle on my low pop server that I remember was a 250 vs 200 vs 350 man battle, and guess what, the server held and the battle is one of the most memorable MMORPG experiences of my 12 years of playing. If it was possible to have 500+ people fighting with the extremely limited tech of 2001 (30 man dev team, mostly dial up connections, and the graphics of the game were REALLY demanding at the time) then there is absolutely no reason it should be impossible today.
This doesn't even take into account how many more actions are logged in modern games, compared to "state of the art 10 years ago" crap.
Really? Because almost all modern MMOs give characters far less abilities, and have slower simpler combat than in Dark Age of Camelot.
Here's an example of the graphics in the "1999 crap" game, this is from 2003, this game could handle 500+ people fighting with siege towers, battering rams, boiling oil, trebuchets, bows, crossbows, magic, and every melee weapon imaginable.
If a small dev team could do that back in 2001, then the 200+ dev team of Blizzard should have figured out a way to do it now, especially considering its graphics are far FAR less complicated than Dark Age of Camelot's.
Originally posted by khanstruct
300+ characters on the screen at one time is... not likely.
Wrong. Multiple MMORPGs have done it, see above. Dark Age of Camelot did it. Darkfall currently does it, and Darkfall's combat system is far more complicated than anything else on the market. AAA MMO devs are just lazy and uninspired, that's why they rely on instancing so much, and keep getting WoW clones.
DAoC is a great example of how siege warfare should be done. It amazes me that people can even be content with the poo on a platter they serve up these days they try to call " pvp" combat. I guess if they have never tasted anything better they have not been able to develop a taste for it yet.
Seems like it. And its adorable how GTWander can rant and rave about the technical impossibilities, then you call him out, prove him wrong, and he completely ignores your post. Methinks he's just a troll at this point.
so? too much freedom makes a bad game. i dont see the need of all those freedoms in games.
I dont see evidence that too much freedom makes a bad game. All I see is evidence that bad design (i.e. lack of tools) around the existance of freedom makes a bad game.
That all depends on what the "freedom" allows the bad acters to do. Personally, I'd consider it an example of Bad Design, if it allows ganking and/or griefing. Its not a "lack of tools" thats the problem. Its more a "lack of experience with human nature" that results in many design flaws, and results in a lack of player retention. Rather few people are going to hang around to be others punching bags, when there are so many other options that do not require that.
Hit the nail on the head. More freedom = more exploiting toward the actual players. i'm all for freedom in games making them more a virtual world than a game, but the griefers/exploiters are the reasons most won't play these games. And no amount of so called "world" police stops them.
Comments
Short thinker.
What the designer do is simple: If he has a game where one player can rob the liquor store, and another player can be the owner of the liquor store that gets to be robbed. INSTEAD OF PREVENTING FREEDOM.
What he does? He gives the liquor store player TOOLS. The liquor store can set up a trap, a surveillance camera, he can hire security personel, he can put an alarm... WE OFFER THE PLAYER TOOLS FOR HIM TO WORK AROUND THE PROBLEM CAUSED BY THE OTHER PLAYER FREEDOM.
JUST LIKE IN REAL LIFE.
You dont have to be a genios to come up with a solution like that. I read your post and instantly figured out. Instead of preventing interaction, I created a design that PROMOTES INTERACTION.
We will have the liquor store player working with other players to prevent a random guy to rob him. He will have tools at his disposal to feel secured. He can set up a trap, get the player who tried to rob him and send him to jail, or blow his face of with a shotgun under the tabble. The possibilities for gameplay experience originated from my design are endless, as endless at the ammount of tools I offer them.
A design based on freedom increases social elements, promotes interaction, complexity, variety, longevity.
The liquor store guy dont have to cope up with the robber, just like in real life, some invest in their security, some dont.
THE PLAYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. They can accept, prevent, punish, ITS UP TO THEM.
Arent you competent enough to take care of your liquor store security, others will be. In fact, if you protect your liquor store, the robbers will go after the unprotected liquor store, or whatever other activities presented.
wow... yet another person so fanatically stuck in opinionland they forgot how a discussion works... but alright... let's just say i agree with everything you said... saves me brain cells for later....
@ DAoC screenshot guy:
While I do share your apparent love for DAoC, I must correct you... those are not 2003 screenshots of DAoC. Those are post Catacombs screenshots ( 3rd full expansion) which released in December of 2004... so just a couple of months before that other title... this is what DAoC looked like back in 2001 (still ok graphics for the time)
http://www.levelattack.de/daoc/daoc_journal/images/journal_soth27.jpg
http://images.mmorpg.com/images/screenshots/012003/inline/22.jpg
<S.T.E.A.L.T.H>
An Agency that kicks so much ass it has to be written in all capital letters... divided by dots!
www.stealth-industries.de
THIS ^^^
Reminds me of my starting of SWG.. On day 1 I thought SWG was the best game ever, then as the days, weeks and months went by, it became clear just how ugly a game can get when you have a sandbox with no rules.. All I have to say is player city milita gankfest. What could of been the best sandbox game ever made turned into a FFA gankathon that droves away thousands of players, myself included..
So, the Dev's should waste how many precious man hours of time/effort, talent and creativity to appeal to what is really a very small percentage of the general player base? Its become obvious over the years that most players do NOT want all of this "freedom" that the OP speaks of.
That is just one of the reasons for the rise of theme park games, and the decline of games in the west that allow (or encourage) ganking and griefing. Unless the Dev's wish to engage in an endless arms race with such types, its best to keep human nature in mind. Look at the evolution of Concord and the high sec rule set in EVE as an example of how even a PvP centric company like CCP has to protect its business model.
Its tragic, but given past history and personal experience, thats how it has turned out, time after time after time. I've seen the same trends in society at large. But given the various trend lines, its hardly surprising.
Uh huh, and how is that going to prevent his liqour store from being successfully robbed. He might not be online to defend it, or the surveilance cameras do jack but report who did it (to no retribution), or his hired NPCs get whacked (no player is going to stay online guarding his place). His place is still going to get robbed, and he is going to tire of being a liqour store owner and go play pet shop owner in Hello Kitty.
Nothing you can do will prevent it, besides limitations on *when* and *how* it can happen, so that all parties involved are satisfied. As is, you are only satisfying the robber by added a miniscule amount of challenge. Quit insulting people when it's *you* who are the "short thinker".
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
1. Socializers, social games, farmville. Do an association thinking and you should understand.
2. Players never had a taste of a well designed game with good implementation, like we are discussing on this topic.
People dont want what they experienced. But what they experienced was crap. I dont blame them, But from that concluding by induction that there isnt a market from what we are talking about. Falacy.
I dont see evidence that too much freedom makes a bad game. All I see is evidence that bad design (i.e. lack of tools) around the existance of freedom makes a bad game.
I notice you have no rebuttal to my last two points, are you dodging them, or did you block me for making too much sense?
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Eudemons Online and Silkroad have similar things.
Dark and Light promised that, but didnt delivered.
But thats the example of freedom I was talking about. Freedom to cause effect on the world and other players.
If there is this is narrow path from where the wagon has to go and it has a block of wood blocking it, the player on the wagon would have to option to remove it out of the way or to cut it down, or to go back, or wait, or chose another path if available.
Thats the sort of consequence that one player freedom has on the world. He cut down the tree, made a block, blocked the road. Untill someone remove that block, it will remain there. The tree cut wont exist anymore, so the next time it will be different and such...
Same way with a bridge, for example... Players can make a bridge, or make a boat to cross a river, or swim across, or steal a boat, or destroy the bridge.
This is the kind of awesome possibility of freedom that we dont have.
Ganking in UO
Tank mage everywhere because there is no class restrictions
Complaints about Eve's lack of new players' experience (and they try to revamp the "training")
On the flip side, there are great games (Half LIfe 1/2, Diablo, Batman Arkham ...) that does not necessarily have a lot of freedom.
I get the feeling you misunderstand the responses so I will try once more to clarify. MMOs are a business. Subscribers pay to have fun. Most MMO gamers do not find your wishlist to be a list of things they find fun, nor do they want to be subjected to those things. It is not some pessimistic view of MMORPG.com posters, rather an understanding of the interests and experiences of the majority MMO gamers.
For many, the changes to MMOs over the years have granted more freedom. Freedom to keep what you've gathered. Freedom to travel without fear or random attack. Freedom to have nice things. Freedom to engage in individual or private group events/activities without interruption.
Since you grow more pretentious and insulting with each post, this is the last I'll contribute to this discussion. Hope the above helps clarify things a bit for you.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There is a bunch of reasons for this...
Time, Effort, Resources, Expertise... The initial minimum investment to make sure it works is too high.
Compared to what game companies are offering and what people are accepting to buy. Just look at the market and see hundreds of games labeling themselfs as MMOs, trying to sell virtual power for real money, with strict focus on combat, linear, balanced gameplay, very simple, low investment... Its obvious.
The kind of freedom we are talking here requires major work. Some people say it wont work, I say it can work, but it has strict conditions. Some say it doesnt have demand, I say there is huge demand for it, increasing ridiculously fast.
I even made a comparison about the Fall of Great Empires of our history. We are getting to a point in MMORPGs that the current design crippled itself too much, its canibalizing itself, killing itself, making games boring, unentertaining, empty and meaningless, wasting precious time... At this stage, there is a need for evolution, for change. Topics about people feeling the same about todays games multiply by the minute. There is this whole "social" aspect of MMORPGs that got left behind in the design boards that one day will have to be picked up again... with the advent of "social games", many eyes are being opened, there is a huge opportunity.
In short, freedom can work and there is demand for it. Seing how freedom potentializes social interaction, as long as its well designed (i.e. tools to allow people to addapt, evolve and get around the problems originated by said freedom organically).
While it's very unlike me, I think I will join you.
Most of my funny and serious posts have been removed from this thread, and he is blatantly ignoring my most recent solid arguments to pick on lesser ones by others, so at this point I am assuming he has blocked me, or is ignoring me, on top of having a mod buddy stifle the opposition in his favor. He also seems to have a serious stick up his ass over why FFA-sandboxes aren't popular, and is determined to convince us that we are stupid for not wanting to put up with the community issues in them.
Bottom line, games with unhindered freedom attracts jerks, and people don't like to play games with jerks. Done.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Freedom to "not be just another insignificant dude"
Freedom to "never have to lose, specially to another player, that cant be!"
Freedom to "always be able to compete despite playing a massivelly multiplayer online role playing game where the world and other players continuously evolve and it doesnt stop when the player has to go work or sleep or whatever".
Freedom to "not need to socialize, despite it being in essence a virtual social environment ".
Freedom to "not be responsible or fail for their actions"
Freedom to "not have to learn, think or addapt"
Freedom to "not be affected by other players, not even the market!"
Freedom.
All of this freedom you speak off are in reality artificial protections from the freedom.
What Im talking about if a Freedom in an environment where those protections are offered by players in-game, as tools.
I sorry but the problem with your desire for a more self-governing MMO community is finding enough players that wish to govern and enough who are willing to be governed. The thing is most MMO players and most people on this forum do not think very highly of their fellow players. This can be seen by just heading over to any past topic that covered the ReadID debacle and you too can witness for yourself all kinds of colorful characters they think populate the games we play.
And this leads me to my next point......anonymity. This will be a thorn in the side of any self-governing community, yet alone a online one where players wish to kick back a bit. Until you can remove most of the bureaucracy and mental legwork associated with such a system, you will never find enough players to uphold it.
I believe a semi-automated system is required. Hear me out for a second:
In the event of a crime you would have a perp, victim and possible witnesses. Say that you have a witness system in place that flags any given player as a witness if they see a crime, but it automatically reports that crime to npc guards if that person reaches a town. Then the npc system kicks in to send out a warning notice to all npc guards to fine on sight and merchants to increase the price of doing business to shady players.
This helps keep your game running smoothly without overburdening your playerbase. Now the victim of the crime gets the option of either opening a bounty on their killer (for pvpers to participate) or curse them (which would take effect immediately) with a effect that debuffs who they group with for 1 hour. So the victim is left with a decision of either take cash from a possible bounty or label their killer a outcast. This puts some power in the hands of victims.
The last thing we come to is the perp, who also has some decisions to make. They can either kill someone with a bounty on their head (which removes their curse and pays the bounty out) or kill an innocent (nets them FFA loot)
Now what ever system is put in place, it has to be able to do 3 things:
Automate mundane task (reporting, collection, etc)
Empower agressive and non-agressive players with a real choice
Promote non-combative progression as a viable long term option
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
The part where you talk about people quitting after losing. You know, some people are just like that. Sometimes its not the game's design' fault.
Maybe this is the invincible argument against freedom. That some people are just like that. In my vision, I would like to see a game is designed in a way that even after they got their ass whooped once, they would still give the game a chance and try to do whatever the game allows them to do, to prevent getting their ass whooped, and off course, the game being fun and rewarding while they do it.
Sometimes people quit, because they just didnt found the game fun, for whatever reason (there are hundreds of them), but quitting due to other players interference is the one that removal of freedom prevents. I ask myself if this is an inate problem of human nature, as in, some people are just quitters and even if they get all the tools at their disposal, they still would not make good use of them.
Like people playing Starcraft II on battle.net. The game is perfectly well designed, perfectly balanced, but the differences between the players themselfs, causing direct effect on each others demise. Most people quit, instead of try to learn of get better. Off course, some of them are like that, because they simply dont like strategy at all, but Im talking about those who like strategy, just dont like to compete, to get owned, and to try harder next time to get better/evolve.
Some are like that, the question is... how many of them are "type B" players. You see... the whole problem of freedom, gets even more pronounced when we are talking about "combat focused games", games where "power over others" and the "acquisition of power" is the focus of the game.
Completelly changing the axis of the games, back into a social simulators, while still having an actual fun and entertaining gameplay activity and content that is not focused on combat... Certainly it would be more forgiving, because the combat side of freedom wouldnt be as intense, wouldnt appear as frequently, or in a way that is ultimatelly intolerable.
So its both a matter of rethinking fun gameplay that doesnt revolve around power/combat, and designing a game that offer said freedoms while still giving players the tools to work around/prevent abuses...
In terms of players, we would be looking for the players who are not easily frustrated (wich there are many) and for players that would actually get interested by a game that doesnt revolve around what 99% of other games do: combat, those two elements together would soften the intolerance to frustration of said players by not causing effects 99% as often...
I like freedom but it seems with more freedom comes more exploiters/griefers. Most people dont have the stomach nor the time to deal with people like this, hence the games have evolved into ... well just "games" instead of worlds. Now these type of games are nitch, because most don't want to play them and tehy certainly dont bring in as much money as today's model for MMO's. So here we are ....
Everyone can govern. The tools would be there. But are they good enough to govern? Would others follow them? Like in real life some people are not good enough at politics to even get there. To be able to govern something, they would first be legitmally elected by their friends and all the people they talked too. You know, socialize.
They can be kings on their shower. But if a hundred other players dont give them legitimacy, they will not be oficially elected. They can try. They will have to try and do their best, within the possibilities, it will not be for everyone. But some will.
Like the leaders of the in-game guilds, some people just get there. If at some point they arent good enough at leading, others will stop following them, like in real life.
If they are not good at making others following them and they dont want to follow others, they can do that too. They can even whine about "how come Im not president", but its expected from the player the minimum of maturity to live in a social environment. Thats how society works.
Well, in the game tools would be available for the player so that even if he is not popular, he would still be able to get the power by force, by economic superiority, or religious influence... All the tools would be there. Off course, the tools existing would mean that the player can use them, but he still would have to work for it, to get things done according to the pre-established conditions of the given tools.
The player could then become a dictator of a big town. How did he made it? Well, he hired or convinced an army to do his will and take whoever was in charge out. What about the other players? They will have their tools as well, some will not care about it, some will try to get a piece of the slack, others will try to bring him to justice. Everyone possibility will be there as in-game tools.
The player who became the dictator worked his way to get there and he has to know that others will be working to take him out as well, thats obvious.
Just like real life.
If they want, they can do anything about it. If they think its too much trouble, they dont need to. If they think they are powerless to do so, despite the game offering them the tools, they cannot blame anybody else, but themself for their lack of action.
About the three things you mentioned.
Automating mundane tasks is one thing. Making a fun gameplay out of it is more like it. You see, a lot of time and effort developing a fun gameplay to make a report? How is that possible?
How is that possible to even have a fun gameplay that is not derived from combat?
What I answer to that is this: if someone has to fill a report, for whatever reason they are doing it, is because they need to do it, or accepted to do it. They werent forced to do it, unless they wanted to do it, they wouldnt be doing it. If for some reason they are in an administrative position and according to whatever rules are in place (wich the player had to agree with at first), he has to make a report about something.... making said report is part of his responsabilities, duties, if he does feel fun and rewarding being in a position where at such point he has to make a report, then by all means, dont do it, dont be in said position. The next time they decide if said administrative position has to make a report, he will be able to express himsself and work towards the goal to make said position does not need to make a report. We will give him the tools to change/remove any "burocratic" activites he does not want to. If he loses the "vote", he will have to make a choice, between all the good fun of being in said administrative position versus the negative side of having to make a report. He, the player, will be the chooser in the end.
Its not the design's fault. We allowed him to change it, but he couldnt manage to do that. Can the player cope with the failure in influencing other players to change a rule that determines he has to make a report?
What kind of person wouldnt understand or accept that?
Personal experience, and understanding of human nature and history demonstrates that this "freedom" approach gets abused by a certain number of gankers/griefers. Its happened time after time after time. I didn't say there is NO market, I stated that the appeal of such games is limited (in other words niche). But given the time and money these games take to create, its entirely understandable that they be focused at the much larger audience that doesn't want all of those above "freedoms".
I've read some of this thread throughout it's progression, so I haven't read everything that's been posted. That being said, I prefer my crusades for freedom to take place in the realm of the real world, where it applies most to me. I need my games to have some limitations, otherwise they would cease to be games to me.
I look at limitations within the game as the social contract, and the company as the governing body. Some individual freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the overall community, just like games have their rules so to dictate their progression (in any form).
What some people seem to be unwittingly concerned with, is the Tragedy of the Commons. The game world is the commons that we all share, and with the right rules, we can easily affect others. Some do not want their own experience to be at the mercy of another player, which is entirely their right.
Luckily, most of us live in free societies where we can choose our games, thus allowing players to pick and choose games that cater towards their preferred rulesets. Yet there are plenty in this world that do not have the luxury of playing such games, let alone have the ability to pick and choose which game they are going to play. I am lucky enough to live in a civilized, developed country, which allows me to have the freedom to choose which game I going to play, and that's good enough for me.
I'm not here to complete my forum PVP dailies.
That all depends on what the "freedom" allows the bad acters to do. Personally, I'd consider it an example of Bad Design, if it allows ganking and/or griefing. Its not a "lack of tools" thats the problem. Its more a "lack of experience with human nature" that results in many design flaws, and results in a lack of player retention. Rather few people are going to hang around to be others punching bags, when there are so many other options that do not require that.
Nor do many, many people want it. Why should I have to deal with these gankers and griefers? Let them go play some niche game (lots of Asian games actively encourage ganking and griefing) and leave me and others who want nothing to do with their antics alone.
Seems like it. And its adorable how GTWander can rant and rave about the technical impossibilities, then you call him out, prove him wrong, and he completely ignores your post. Methinks he's just a troll at this point.
Hit the nail on the head. More freedom = more exploiting toward the actual players. i'm all for freedom in games making them more a virtual world than a game, but the griefers/exploiters are the reasons most won't play these games. And no amount of so called "world" police stops them.