The fun part though wasn't that you killed (x) amount and returned. No. It actually made sense. "Kill as many as you can." We don't want 5 to disappear. We want them ALL to disappear. Afterall, if I'm going to pay you--- I should have the entire job done! Extermination is more like it, not "quell the population."
That's similar in design to some of the quests in EverQuest. For example, in the East Commonlands, which was one step over from the newbie area, there were camps of Orcs. If you killed the Orcs some of them had belts. If you kept the belts and took them back into Freeport, the nearby city, and handed them to an NPC he would award you gold, experience and faction increases. The more Orcs you killed, the more Belts you got, the more experience rewards, gold and faction you gained.
Ah yes... I remember the belts!
Wow... I loved those quests!!
I will surely include them in my game.
Wait. Weren't you just complaining about lazy game developers copying other game's mechanics?
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
I think the main problem with the OPs ideal is that not every quest can be some big involved epic questline and the method he stated would only benefit the first few gamers. What happens to new players what quests can they do if the first players have alreay purged every kill quest. The kill quest are simple and give you a reason to kill the mobs instead of just mindlessly grinding away.
If you actually read the full Original Post, it would be quite clear my ideal is NOT that every quest must be big, involved, and epic. So the main problem with my ideal is not a problem at all, because that is not my ideal. The method I stated? You mean the extremely simple version of "Kill [x] rats" quests? I really do not believe that putting a population limit on kill quests is big, involved, or epic. Instead, it's actually just as simple as the kill quests. The only difference is that the quests disappear after [x] mobs die, and reappear later.
What quests can players do if the kill quests are already completed? Hmm...any of the other quests in the game? It would be quite idiotic to make 99% of the content kill quests which disappear. Why would I as a developer make kill quests anything more than small side-quests or a different, less common variety of quests?
My argument to you is that Kill quests do NOT give you a reason to kill mobs instead of mindlessly grinding away. These kill quests ARE the mindless grinding. Mindless in that they make no sense, and grinding because they are nothing more than non-sensical killing of mobs who never disappear.
If you want to know my ideal: it is to have a very large variety of different tasks, quests, adventures, dungeons, PvP encounters, crafting, harvesting, and trading. Not to make two types of quests: Delivery Boy & Kill Tasks- then be lazy and just change WHAT you kill and WHERE the quest is. Instead, to make many different types of quests. You know... actually give players CONTENT, but make that content modular where it can be different because it is built with randomized pieces. I mainly just have to make the Quest once-- and because it was built with modular pieces in mind, I can easily place different mobs, objectives, areas, etc. within these quests which deliver a large variety. Instead of 1 Kill Task, it's more like a Kill Task Type with 5 Kill Task Components. That's 5x more development into a simple kill task than lazy developers do.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
because combat is usually the main focus in any game, mmorpg or otherwise. Although they can be repetative and sometimes boring, you usually advance your toon so you get to use new abilties etc so its not as boring.
Would you honestly want to constantly go deliver some unimportant item for an npc just for xp? They're only good if you're going to an area you've not been before. They're not amazing and their not bad either. Even in single player rpg's that are generally far superior to MMO's you get the same kind of quests anyway.
DING DING DING DING! Give the man a cookie!
These games are about 98% combat, that's what they're designed around. The whole point of most of these games is to go out and kill things, simply because they exist, and get stuff for doing it. Kill X quests are the fastest and easiest types of XP-building quests you can design, go to an area where these creatures are prevalent and hack away. Lots of people can do the same quest at the same time and anything in an MMO has to be designed so that it can be repeated endlessly by virtually everyone.
If you've ever played the game Animal Crossing, it's the ultimate in grindy game. All you do is the same thing over and over and over and over. Catch fish. Catch bugs. Dig up fossils. Do endless delivery quests. After a while, all you want to do is hack up those obnoxious animal neighbors. What I wouldn't do to be able to smack Tom Nook over the head with my shovel...
I would find it funnier if you weren't so serious about this, actually believing any of it to be true.
Why people defend lazy game developers is beyond me. We should all just play it safe and copy WoW. It's the only scientifically proven evidence we have-- and we all know that science is infallible proof that can never be disputed.
I believe it because efficiency and simplicity apply to all design (not just games, and certainly not just WOW.) There's a certain acceptable pacing to things.
It's a little ironic that my post ran a little long, and you stopped reading, thus proving how universal this concept is.
If I ever do stop reading, it is not because your post is too long. It is because your posts are always empty and completely opposite of what I think is true.
Oh... and I didn't actually stop reading. If I did, I wouldn't have been able to reply.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
But the fact is, not every single person loves to grind. Sure the kill x amount of monster quests get really really old, but you know that if you had kill 250 total wolves to eradicate them people would finish it somewhat quick and have absolutely no wolves to kill anymore. What then? Introduce a new enemy into the area and have the same quest? That wouldn't work properly unless you had a lot of people working constantly on new enemies to introduce, or new quests for 5 people to work on then never see again. It would be an endless strain for your company to push out new quests for people to do since people kept completing them and running out of things to do. The kill X quests are filler so that the company can have a few epic quests. EVERY quest can't be epic.
Killing about 15 things is the scientific sweet spot of anti-grind. It's not too short. It's not too long (grindy). It's the length of time players want to spend doing one particular thing.
Science? LOL...
MMORPG designers have had many years to test out what players like, and players generally prefer this number.
In lamen terms, "MMORPG designers saw this work with a successful game and copied it repeatedly."
Why make a game yourself when you can half-ass it by copying WoW?
So they're not "lazy". They're scientifically providing what has proven to work.
Wow... just wow...
"Lazy" would be passing judgement without having done the legwork oneself.
Implementing "Kill 15 quests" is one of the easiest types of quest to implement. It is lazy because not only is it easy to do as a developer, but developers do not go beyond this type of system... it is lazy.
You act as if no one except published game developers with popular IP's have ever done any form of "quest"...
No wonder these games take millions of dollars to make! Only a select few programmers could EVER create a "Kill 15 Rats" quest, and it would take them years with a large group of elite programmers to accomplish such a task.
And well..if it's the simplicity you're attacking then you really really need to read more design literature and/or test out some actual designs (and not with friends, with normal people.) You'll quickly realize that overbloated overcomplicated designs rapidly nosedive.
Yawn... I get it. No one else has any experience with anything except for the developers of WoW and developers who copied WoW. Software programmers are rare, elite geniuses who are a part of an elite society of game design which can only be learned through a jedi master apprenticeship in the skull & bones society of the most prestigious of schools.
One must study and experiment for years with a professional team of beta testers to determine if a game design (which has been done before...) could ever be possible to program.
Wat?! Study and experiment for years with pro-team of beta testers before they even start programming?
So "kill x badguys" or "Kill this boss" is as complicated as the quests should be. If complication is implemented it needs to be in the presentation of those quests (ie completely on the backend where players don't witness the complexity.) If some mobs come out to ambush you halfway through or if killing the boss means going through an interesting dungeon, then you have a deeper experience without excessive complication.
I cannot answer any more of your post, I must sell everything I have and fly to the mystical mountains of tibet to access a secret spaceship so I can fly into orbit to learn from Richard Garriott-- the last of the living game designers, and the only one capable of programming the legendary "Kill...16 Rats" quest, which goes far beyond the "Kill 15" of the elite programmers on earth (who are alien superhumans).
I would find it funnier if you weren't so serious about this, actually believing any of it to be true.
Why people defend lazy game developers is beyond me. We should all just play it safe and copy WoW. It's the only scientifically proven evidence we have-- and we all know that science is infallible proof that can never be disputed.
It is astounding how you made that post all about WoW when he didn't mention it, not once. Your response is very confusing. Give me some of what you're smoking.
I apologize that it confused you. I must have been too subtle. You are correct to assume I am smoking something because of how goofy and sarcastic I was.
All of this is extremely sarcastic and exaggeratory. I was being sarcastic about his beliefs on the inability of people who are not already successful (World of Warcraft lead developers, Richard Garriott, etc.) We are all incapable of creating game design or adjusting it to be simple because we do not sit with the Dalai Lama to discuss for months how to make something simple. His philosophy is that simplicity is far more important than anything else- even good game mechanics or fun.
I mentioned WoW because it is the most successful game, it requires the least amount of thought to quote because of its success, and has the most money spent on teams devoted to design and making it simple for the simpleminded.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
because combat is usually the main focus in any game, mmorpg or otherwise. Although they can be repetative and sometimes boring, you usually advance your toon so you get to use new abilties etc so its not as boring.
Would you honestly want to constantly go deliver some unimportant item for an npc just for xp? They're only good if you're going to an area you've not been before. They're not amazing and their not bad either. Even in single player rpg's that are generally far superior to MMO's you get the same kind of quests anyway.
DING DING DING DING! Give the man a cookie!
These games are about 98% combat, that's what they're designed around. The whole point of most of these games is to go out and kill things, simply because they exist, and get stuff for doing it. Kill X quests are the fastest and easiest types of XP-building quests you can design, go to an area where these creatures are prevalent and hack away. Lots of people can do the same quest at the same time and anything in an MMO has to be designed so that it can be repeated endlessly by virtually everyone.
If you've ever played the game Animal Crossing, it's the ultimate in grindy game. All you do is the same thing over and over and over and over. Catch fish. Catch bugs. Dig up fossils. Do endless delivery quests. After a while, all you want to do is hack up those obnoxious animal neighbors. What I wouldn't do to be able to smack Tom Nook over the head with my shovel...
So THAT is why Animal Crossing bored me so fast, lol. I always wondered why.
Both of you are correct. I definitely side with this explanation that combat is focused on 99.99%, with the other 0.01% being poorly developed crafting/harvesting.
I believe that to say "anything in an MMO has to be designed so that it can be repeated endlessly by virtually everyone" is to close one's mind to a better game world. Why does this have to be true? It doesn't. The core mechanic of the quest might need to be, but that is obvious. It does not mean that the quests can't change, disappear, etc.
One of the most interesting things in Ultima Online is that every morning the rares respawn. So you have to log in at the exact minute to grab a rare and cheese it to the bank ASAP. Only one person per server, per day, can get this item. And there are MANY items like this.
If there is enough variety and the game is fun in the parts that stay consistent-- then it is okay to have items, dungeons, quests, mobs, or even zones close off or spawn rarely.
Just look at harvesting in Ultima Online. Ore spawns randomly in different places. Once ore is harvested completely- it is no longer in that spot on the mountain. Any player who goes will get a message "There is no ore left in this spot."
Does this destroy the game? No. It makes rare ore...rare. It makes exploration more fun. It makes harvesting an adventure, not just a grind. It makes getting a vein full of valorite ore...totally drool worthy. If it was me, I would immediately message all of my friends/guilds to tell them "GET DOWN HERE! I FOUND A VALORITE VEIN!!!!!!!!"
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
These quests should fall into one of two areas, kill x number within a given time period "To Prove Yourself" or kill mob x until you get item Y, and have the drop rate of item Y such that on average you have to kill #Z of the mob to get the drop or for the really devilish developers have the drop rate be a formula that is tweaked based on the number of mob X you've killed. This way the wouldn't appear to be kill X of Y.....
This is another case of the player base having too much information. The more hard numbers that get exposed to the player the more immersion suffers and is replaced by a treadmill.
The only ones that annoy me are the back tracking collection quests.
Kill X number of Y quests are the basis of the game. All the stats, all the gear, all the abilities and tactics* exist to KILL things. We gain xp for it and having these quests gives a little story and possibly an item reward.
It's not the most complex thing in the world, but pretty much why NOT make quests geared toward the whole reason RPG systems were built in the first place? To kill things. That's it. You can try and make it more complex than that or wish that it is or hope that it is or whatever.
Now go kill 2 hours by typing 300 characters or less apology to game makers, with whom you are to worship.
Originally posted by Emergence In lamen terms, "MMORPG designers saw this work with a successful game and copied it repeatedly."
Question: What exactly does it mean when something is put in lamen's terms? Answers: it's "Layman's Term(s)". usage: "in layman's term"; it's figurative for "simple words" -- words that an ordinary person would understand, especially if that person is talking with a professional such as an engineer, doctor, pilot, scientist and the likes.
Wow, my first mispelling in 3 years. Props! :P
No problem^^
Just trying to be helpful.
You should probably use simplier terms you can understand better to get your point across.
But the fact is, not every single person loves to grind. Sure the kill x amount of monster quests get really really old, but you know that if you had kill 250 total wolves to eradicate them people would finish it somewhat quick and have absolutely no wolves to kill anymore. What then? Introduce a new enemy into the area and have the same quest? That wouldn't work properly unless you had a lot of people working constantly on new enemies to introduce, or new quests for 5 people to work on then never see again. It would be an endless strain for your company to push out new quests for people to do since people kept completing them and running out of things to do. The kill X quests are filler so that the company can have a few epic quests. EVERY quest can't be epic.
I disagree entirely. And why do you think a company would have to produce new quests every day?
It is impossible to create a system which spawns, respawns, despawns, and adjusts multiple quests in a zone based on only a few variables? I do not think so. I do not think developers are forced to create new quests constantly, unless they are very unique and specific. But no one said that simple, repeatable, basic tasks have to be dull, lazy, and boring. I will give an example of one zone, and only [x] quests involved. The developers need never add any new content, but the content will "always" feel fresh. (Maybe not always, but if randomized and without a pattern, it is unpredictable.)
There are three "areas" in this example. The Town (NPC's), The Forest, The Field inbetween these two.
Monster Populations include: [300] Goblin Camp in the Forest, [50] Goblin Camp in the Field, [100] huntable animals in the forest.
Variables: Huntable Animal Population = MaxAnimals / (Forest Goblin Population / 5).
Spawn Rates: GoblinSpawnRate = Population * ####. The higher the population, the faster the respawn rate. If population is low, the respawn is very long.
The zone starts with 300 goblins in the forest. Max animals are 100, but because there are so many goblins, the population of huntable animals is maxed at 40. The goblins do not actually hunt the animals. Their number just affects spawn rate. This appears to be a real world, but is actually just scripts & triggers.
All NPC's who are marked as "Relies on Furs" spark up anti-goblin quests and pro-furs quests based on the huntable animals rate. These quests have their own spawnrate, based on animal spawnrates. This could include different types of quests: Kill Goblins, Steal Box of Food from Goblins, Kill Goblin Boss, Burn Goblin Camp, Escort Character through Goblin Area, etc.
Each quest lowers the Goblin Population, which raises the Animal Spawnrate. Once the animal population is high enough, quests begin to slow down and become uncommon to appear in the Town. Goblins spawn at a low rate. The camps are not worth fighting, the quests are not worth waiting for. What's left to do? Hunt, that's it. This is now a zone opened up for harvesters, crafters, and traders. There is no more adventure here. But ONE trigger happened once the goblin population went below [10].
If GoblinPopulation < 10, then... Goblin Invasion = Begins. Quests start appearing, warning of an invasion of goblins. They want this territory. These quests are a different set, including "Intercept the message", "Kill the Invaders", etc.
What do we have so far?
Two sets of quests, with 5-10 types of repeatable, simple quests in each. Only ONE quest is actually epic, which is the "Massive Invasion" which triggers every 10 invasions. This is a zone-wide warning of a siege against the city.
So you have an entire zone which has 10-20 repeatable quests, three factions, (Town, Goblins, Animals), all who react to each other which can change the environment. Yes, it is a LOOP. But the game's biggest feature is that of Invasions. Taking, Defending, and Losing Land. Two different zones in each zone. Yes... this HALVES the amount of zones in the game if you want to think of it that way... but it allows for an ever-changing world...kindof! And people always have SOMETHING to do. That is either attacking or defending territories. If there is NOTHING to do because the zone is at peace and there are several hours before the next invasion? There are other zones to travel to, to defend or take over.
It does not require a massive guild or collection of players to take over a zone via siege. (This may happen, similar to DAoC Forts, but is a PvP element and less common). It requires individuals and small groups to grind quests which trigger events which change the zone. The reward? Peace for harvesters/crafters, who supply the soldiers equipment.
Monsters --> Lower Animals
Animals --> Provide Merchants
Merchants --> Provide Adventurers
Adventurers --> Kill Monsters
It's the circle of life!
And no, it is not ridiculously complex. For being one of the main features of the game, it is quite simple to implement after being created. You only need to program the type of quest once. After this-- you insert variables, and computations do the rest for you. That... and playtesting. Lots and lots and lots and lots... of playtesting.
Not only are these quests repeatable like all quests-- but players MAY want to repeat this significantly more than specific quests like "Go kill 5 goblins for the Mace of Power". Every newbie knows the Mace of Power quest. But in my system of moving quests, every newbie's experience will be different. Afterall, they may not even stay in this zone for very long.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
In lamen terms, "MMORPG designers saw this work with a successful game and copied it repeatedly."
Question: What exactly does it mean when something is put in lamen's terms?
Answers:
it's "Layman's Term(s)". usage: "in layman's term"; it's figurative for "simple words" -- words that an ordinary person would understand, especially if that person is talking with a professional such as an engineer, doctor, pilot, scientist and the likes.
Wow, my first mispelling in 3 years. Props! :P
No problem^^
Just trying to be helpful.
You should probably use simplier terms you can understand better to get your point across.
It keeps the topic flowing nicely that way.
I fully understand the term "layman's terms". I also knew that it was spelt "layman" not lamen. I just type 150wpm and do not spell out that word on a regular basis. Props to you though... it is probably better for me to use simpler words for others to understand more easily.
Oh, and by the way... it's spelt simpler, not simplier :P
Question: What is the correct spelling of simpler?
Answers: S I M P L E R
Maybe in the future you should stick to words you know better and have less chance of mispelling.
Hahahhaa, just teasing :P
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
But the fact is, not every single person loves to grind. Sure the kill x amount of monster quests get really really old, but you know that if you had kill 250 total wolves to eradicate them people would finish it somewhat quick and have absolutely no wolves to kill anymore. What then? Introduce a new enemy into the area and have the same quest? That wouldn't work properly unless you had a lot of people working constantly on new enemies to introduce, or new quests for 5 people to work on then never see again. It would be an endless strain for your company to push out new quests for people to do since people kept completing them and running out of things to do. The kill X quests are filler so that the company can have a few epic quests. EVERY quest can't be epic.
I disagree entirely. And why do you think a company would have to produce new quests every day?
It is impossible to create a system which spawns, respawns, despawns, and adjusts multiple quests in a zone based on only a few variables? I do not think so. I do not think developers are forced to create new quests constantly, unless they are very unique and specific. But no one said that simple, repeatable, basic tasks have to be dull, lazy, and boring. I will give an example of one zone, and only [x] quests involved. The developers need never add any new content, but the content will "always" feel fresh. (Maybe not always, but if randomized and without a pattern, it is unpredictable.)
There are three "areas" in this example. The Town (NPC's), The Forest, The Field inbetween these two.
Monster Populations include: [300] Goblin Camp in the Forest, [50] Goblin Camp in the Field, [100] huntable animals in the forest.
Variables: Huntable Animal Population = MaxAnimals / (Forest Goblin Population / 5).
Spawn Rates: GoblinSpawnRate = Population * ####. The higher the population, the faster the respawn rate. If population is low, the respawn is very long.
The zone starts with 300 goblins in the forest. Max animals are 100, but because there are so many goblins, the population of huntable animals is maxed at 40. The goblins do not actually hunt the animals. Their number just affects spawn rate. This appears to be a real world, but is actually just scripts & triggers.
All NPC's who are marked as "Relies on Furs" spark up anti-goblin quests and pro-furs quests based on the huntable animals rate. These quests have their own spawnrate, based on animal spawnrates. This could include different types of quests: Kill Goblins, Steal Box of Food from Goblins, Kill Goblin Boss, Burn Goblin Camp, Escort Character through Goblin Area, etc.
Each quest lowers the Goblin Population, which raises the Animal Spawnrate. Once the animal population is high enough, quests begin to slow down and become uncommon to appear in the Town. Goblins spawn at a low rate. The camps are not worth fighting, the quests are not worth waiting for. What's left to do? Hunt, that's it. This is now a zone opened up for harvesters, crafters, and traders. There is no more adventure here. But ONE trigger happened once the goblin population went below [10].
If GoblinPopulation < 10, then... Goblin Invasion = Begins. Quests start appearing, warning of an invasion of goblins. They want this territory. These quests are a different set, including "Intercept the message", "Kill the Invaders", etc.
What do we have so far?
Two sets of quests, with 5-10 types of repeatable, simple quests in each. Only ONE quest is actually epic, which is the "Massive Invasion" which triggers every 10 invasions. This is a zone-wide warning of a siege against the city.
So you have an entire zone which has 10-20 repeatable quests, three factions, (Town, Goblins, Animals), all who react to each other which can change the environment. Yes, it is a LOOP. But the game's biggest feature is that of Invasions. Taking, Defending, and Losing Land. Two different zones in each zone. Yes... this HALVES the amount of zones in the game if you want to think of it that way... but it allows for an ever-changing world...kindof! And people always have SOMETHING to do. That is either attacking or defending territories. If there is NOTHING to do because the zone is at peace and there are several hours before the next invasion? There are other zones to travel to, to defend or take over.
It does not require a massive guild or collection of players to take over a zone via siege. (This may happen, similar to DAoC Forts, but is a PvP element and less common). It requires individuals and small groups to grind quests which trigger events which change the zone. The reward? Peace for harvesters/crafters, who supply the soldiers equipment.
Monsters --> Lower Animals
Animals --> Provide Merchants
Merchants --> Provide Adventurers
Adventurers --> Kill Monsters
It's the circle of life!
And no, it is not ridiculously complex. For being one of the main features of the game, it is quite simple to implement after being created. You only need to program the type of quest once. After this-- you insert variables, and computations do the rest for you. That... and playtesting. Lots and lots and lots and lots... of playtesting.
Not only are these quests repeatable like all quests-- but players MAY want to repeat this significantly more than specific quests like "Go kill 5 goblins for the Mace of Power". Every newbie knows the Mace of Power quest. But in my system of moving quests, every newbie's experience will be different. Afterall, they may not even stay in this zone for very long.
I like this idea, it seems fun and, dare I say dynamic. However, it seems to me that kill X still exists whereas X is now variable rather than constant.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Theme park MMO players have to have their hand held and be told what to do. Kill quests can be churned out in rapid numbers with little effort . If a theme parker doesn't have a quest to do and just has to randomly kill mobs for no apparent reason to fill up their progress quest bar they get upset. Give them a few hundred kill quests and you have effectively shut them up. Magically, they become content. Go kill 400 scorpions of various types isn't grinding, it's "questing" and "following the storyline". The theme parker has an objective, and it is content.
I don't get it. I don't see how doing five hundred kill 10 of this and that for no reason is any better than just killing something five hundred times just because you need to fill your progress quest bar. In the newer hold your hand while gently walking you through how to wipe your ass step by step theme parks where they put a fat giant arrow ontop of your head to tell you where to go kill quests also function as a tour guide leading you through the various exhibits there are to see in the zoo.
Theme park MMO players have to have their hand held and be told what to do. Kill quests can be churned out in rapid numbers with little effort . If a theme parker doesn't have a quest to do and just has to randomly kill mobs for no apparent reason to fill up their progress quest bar they get upset. Give them a few hundred kill quests and you have effectively shut them up. Magically, they become content. Go kill 400 scorpions of various types isn't grinding, it's "questing" and "following the storyline". The theme parker has an objective, and it is content.
I don't get it. I don't see how doing five hundred kill 10 of this and that for no reason is any better than just killing something five hundred times just because you need to fill your progress quest bar. In the newer hold your hand while gently walking you through how to wipe your ass step by step theme parks where they put a fat giant arrow ontop of your head to tell you where to go kill quests also function as a tour guide leading you through the various exhibits there are to see in the zoo.
Because its different from a sandbox when you have to grind 500 of the same rock to get a thousand lobs/ore/epic mats to make an epic glove?
Just scrap the entire rat killing quest type instead. Let quests be long and epic things, like saving a princess, throwing down a ring into a volcano, take the throne of Aqualonia or similar epic things.
Finding the holy grail is the classic quest. Picking 10 flowers outside the village walls is not. There are just far too many crappy grind and fedex quests and while your idea possibly make grind quests somewhat more fun it is just a slight improvement.
Just can all stuff that doesn't need a hero. To have some bounty NPCs that pay for orc totems, troll horns or whatever is fine but you should not get extra XP for just regular grinding.
The majority of people here (who support kill quests...which idk why...) argue that you CAN'T make every quest an epic quest.
What do you have to say about that?
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
But the fact is, not every single person loves to grind. Sure the kill x amount of monster quests get really really old, but you know that if you had kill 250 total wolves to eradicate them people would finish it somewhat quick and have absolutely no wolves to kill anymore. What then? Introduce a new enemy into the area and have the same quest? That wouldn't work properly unless you had a lot of people working constantly on new enemies to introduce, or new quests for 5 people to work on then never see again. It would be an endless strain for your company to push out new quests for people to do since people kept completing them and running out of things to do. The kill X quests are filler so that the company can have a few epic quests. EVERY quest can't be epic.
I disagree entirely. And why do you think a company would have to produce new quests every day?
It is impossible to create a system which spawns, respawns, despawns, and adjusts multiple quests in a zone based on only a few variables? I do not think so. I do not think developers are forced to create new quests constantly, unless they are very unique and specific. But no one said that simple, repeatable, basic tasks have to be dull, lazy, and boring. I will give an example of one zone, and only [x] quests involved. The developers need never add any new content, but the content will "always" feel fresh. (Maybe not always, but if randomized and without a pattern, it is unpredictable.)
There are three "areas" in this example. The Town (NPC's), The Forest, The Field inbetween these two.
Monster Populations include: [300] Goblin Camp in the Forest, [50] Goblin Camp in the Field, [100] huntable animals in the forest.
Variables: Huntable Animal Population = MaxAnimals / (Forest Goblin Population / 5).
Spawn Rates: GoblinSpawnRate = Population * ####. The higher the population, the faster the respawn rate. If population is low, the respawn is very long.
The zone starts with 300 goblins in the forest. Max animals are 100, but because there are so many goblins, the population of huntable animals is maxed at 40. The goblins do not actually hunt the animals. Their number just affects spawn rate. This appears to be a real world, but is actually just scripts & triggers.
All NPC's who are marked as "Relies on Furs" spark up anti-goblin quests and pro-furs quests based on the huntable animals rate. These quests have their own spawnrate, based on animal spawnrates. This could include different types of quests: Kill Goblins, Steal Box of Food from Goblins, Kill Goblin Boss, Burn Goblin Camp, Escort Character through Goblin Area, etc.
Each quest lowers the Goblin Population, which raises the Animal Spawnrate. Once the animal population is high enough, quests begin to slow down and become uncommon to appear in the Town. Goblins spawn at a low rate. The camps are not worth fighting, the quests are not worth waiting for. What's left to do? Hunt, that's it. This is now a zone opened up for harvesters, crafters, and traders. There is no more adventure here. But ONE trigger happened once the goblin population went below [10].
If GoblinPopulation < 10, then... Goblin Invasion = Begins. Quests start appearing, warning of an invasion of goblins. They want this territory. These quests are a different set, including "Intercept the message", "Kill the Invaders", etc.
What do we have so far?
Two sets of quests, with 5-10 types of repeatable, simple quests in each. Only ONE quest is actually epic, which is the "Massive Invasion" which triggers every 10 invasions. This is a zone-wide warning of a siege against the city.
So you have an entire zone which has 10-20 repeatable quests, three factions, (Town, Goblins, Animals), all who react to each other which can change the environment. Yes, it is a LOOP. But the game's biggest feature is that of Invasions. Taking, Defending, and Losing Land. Two different zones in each zone. Yes... this HALVES the amount of zones in the game if you want to think of it that way... but it allows for an ever-changing world...kindof! And people always have SOMETHING to do. That is either attacking or defending territories. If there is NOTHING to do because the zone is at peace and there are several hours before the next invasion? There are other zones to travel to, to defend or take over.
It does not require a massive guild or collection of players to take over a zone via siege. (This may happen, similar to DAoC Forts, but is a PvP element and less common). It requires individuals and small groups to grind quests which trigger events which change the zone. The reward? Peace for harvesters/crafters, who supply the soldiers equipment.
Monsters --> Lower Animals
Animals --> Provide Merchants
Merchants --> Provide Adventurers
Adventurers --> Kill Monsters
It's the circle of life!
And no, it is not ridiculously complex. For being one of the main features of the game, it is quite simple to implement after being created. You only need to program the type of quest once. After this-- you insert variables, and computations do the rest for you. That... and playtesting. Lots and lots and lots and lots... of playtesting.
Not only are these quests repeatable like all quests-- but players MAY want to repeat this significantly more than specific quests like "Go kill 5 goblins for the Mace of Power". Every newbie knows the Mace of Power quest. But in my system of moving quests, every newbie's experience will be different. Afterall, they may not even stay in this zone for very long.
I like this idea, it seems fun and, dare I say dynamic. However, it seems to me that kill X still exists whereas X is now variable rather than constant.
In essence, everything that includes combat is a "kill X" quest.
The types of quests I implement into this design is NOT going to be the basic "Kill Goblins" quest. Otherwise, I might as well NOT HAVE QUESTS and just let players grind to change the environment or trigger events.
Instead, there are different types of quests which have different effects.
NPC's or Animals have populations too, so some quests are there to INCREASE their population, in case the Goblins are winning. In PvP or PvEvP (Indirect Player vs Player Quest Competition) some Monsters are playable Monster Factions which have "Harm the Humans" quests.
One can think of completing quests as providing zone buffs to entire factions. There will be quests to raise/lower populations by direct confrontation, indirect confrontation, etc. There will be quests which raise/lower population regeneration rates, increase/decrease spawn rates, and adjust all of the variables involved in the circle of life.
This can be done in many different ways. "Burn the Windmill" can cause -20 population loss without actually killing a single human. Why? Because it lowers their food, which kills them off. Likewise, this same quest could INSTEAD be a debuff against the Town NPC's, which makes them -10% weaker. This can be invisible (lowering population loss rate or recovery rate) or can be visible in the form of every [TIME] NPC goblins attack NPC peasants, regardless if players help or not. Dice is randomly rolled, and populations are adjusted based on the outcome.
This is part of the "Invasion" concept of the game. In essence, who wins is completely a random roll of the dice if players are NEVER involved. More often than not though, it is a 50/50 split between monsters and players. So players DETERMINE the extra "push" which affects the faction wars (and thus zone control). Monster players push while Players do.
This is in both direct PvP encounters or PvP quests, or PvEvP which are indirect non-pvp quest competition. For example, both a group of goblin players and a group of human players enter a dungeon, having accepted a PvEvP quest. The first to make it to the treasure at the end of the dungeon wins. They never fight each other and can't attack each other (unless PvP is enabled, which can be optional) or perhaps never have a chance to (separate, except at the ending). but they ARE in direct competition with each other.
This is a concept of the game, PvEvP. Not only do monsters compete against players, but some quests are Humans vs Humans. Such as requiring TWO groups to even ENTER a dungeon- but only ONE can get the bigger treasure. There IS a reward for the loser, but it is not as big.
I'll provide one PvEvP example competition quest.
Goblins: Burn Down the Windmill.
Humans: Recruit Guards for the Windmill.
Goblin Goal: Slowly kill the guard Population (remember, population is a variable). Once population is at 0, burn the windmill.
Human Goal: Quest to raise guard Population. The more quests completed, the higher the guard population and the more difficult it is to harm the Windmill. Population is capped at a reasonable amount.
The Goblin's quests are simple. Destroy and Kill.
The Human's quests are a bit more varied. Collect resources to build a defensive wall. Aid local villagers to get them to volunteer at the barracks. Help Farmer Henry's son find his lost sword so he can defend the Windmill, providing a "Boss" named npc to the Windmill's defense.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Because its different from a sandbox when you have to grind 500 of the same rock to get a thousand lobs/ore/epic mats to make an epic glove?
Sounds more like a theme park objective, imo. I never spent a significant amount of time grinding mats for epicz in UO, SB, DF. EVE you do, but not to the extent I did in WoW. The grinding in SB, DF, and EVE all revolved around guilds. You did have to do a fair bit of grinding to build a city, but nothing compared to running the same instance over and over for the fat purples.
because guess it's there for something to do. I mean you can have so many good quests, but what fills inbetween? Although I do think there is still an appeal of sit-grinding.
Theme park MMO players have to have their hand held and be told what to do. Kill quests can be churned out in rapid numbers with little effort . If a theme parker doesn't have a quest to do and just has to randomly kill mobs for no apparent reason to fill up their progress quest bar they get upset. Give them a few hundred kill quests and you have effectively shut them up. Magically, they become content. Go kill 400 scorpions of various types isn't grinding, it's "questing" and "following the storyline". The theme parker has an objective, and it is content.
I don't get it. I don't see how doing five hundred kill 10 of this and that for no reason is any better than just killing something five hundred times just because you need to fill your progress quest bar. In the newer hold your hand while gently walking you through how to wipe your ass step by step theme parks where they put a fat giant arrow ontop of your head to tell you where to go kill quests also function as a tour guide leading you through the various exhibits there are to see in the zoo.
Because its different from a sandbox when you have to grind 500 of the same rock to get a thousand lobs/ore/epic mats to make an epic glove?
would you play the game tho if you had the full set of epicness after the 500 kills, to me it makes no sense defending boring quests with a...its less grindy, its only less of a grind if you actually care about the quests, agreed with mr snay
imo its much more fun to get your rewards from the environment (including monsters ofc)....the fedex quests can easy be player made ;P
Because its different from a sandbox when you have to grind 500 of the same rock to get a thousand lobs/ore/epic mats to make an epic glove?
Sounds more like a theme park objective, imo. I never spent a significant amount of time grinding mats for epicz in UO, SB, DF. EVE you do, but not to the extent I did in WoW. The grinding in SB, DF, and EVE all revolved around guilds. You did have to do a fair bit of grinding to build a city, but nothing compared to running the same instance over and over for the fat purples.
I always found EVE to be way more grind heavy than WoW. Running instances repetively gets boring but it still beats out farming the same asteroid belt for hours.
I apologize that it confused you. I must have been too subtle. You are correct to assume I am smoking something because of how goofy and sarcastic I was.
All of this is extremely sarcastic and exaggeratory. I was being sarcastic about his beliefs on the inability of people who are not already successful (World of Warcraft lead developers, Richard Garriott, etc.) We are all incapable of creating game design or adjusting it to be simple because we do not sit with the Dalai Lama to discuss for months how to make something simple. His philosophy is that simplicity is far more important than anything else- even good game mechanics or fun.
My comments are made from the grounds of strong game design. I have no clue when Richard Garriott entered into it (not that I'm bashing his designs.)
Again, these things are pretty well established at this point despite the game industry being somewhat new. Go read some books on design (not just games). Koster's A Theory of Fun is an excellent start and will at least get you on the right track.
I mean you're like the biker dude who goes to bars and picks fights -- people aren't criticizing you for being a biker dude, they're criticizing the process you go about living life (or in this case: talking about game design.) New designers can do amazing things as long as they're willing to realize that game designers before them have done the legwork figuring out what works and what doesn't.
Automatic rejection of accumulated up knowledge on a subject is not something a wise person does. Rather than digging deeper and asking the "whys" and "hows" of things, you just want to fight.
Honestly I hoped this thread was a genuine quest for the knowledge "why" quests are like that. But it's clear that rather than searching for the underlying reasons behind design decisions, you've mostly just rejected accumulated knowledge based on a theory that all the designers who've come before you are wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But it's clear that rather than searching for the underlying reasons behind design decisions, you've mostly just rejected accumulated knowledge based on a theory that all the designers who've come before you are wrong.
I apologize that it confused you. I must have been too subtle. You are correct to assume I am smoking something because of how goofy and sarcastic I was.
All of this is extremely sarcastic and exaggeratory. I was being sarcastic about his beliefs on the inability of people who are not already successful (World of Warcraft lead developers, Richard Garriott, etc.) We are all incapable of creating game design or adjusting it to be simple because we do not sit with the Dalai Lama to discuss for months how to make something simple. His philosophy is that simplicity is far more important than anything else- even good game mechanics or fun.
My comments are made from the grounds of strong game design. I have no clue when Richard Garriott entered into it (not that I'm bashing his designs.)
Again, these things are pretty well established at this point despite the game industry being somewhat new. Go read some books on design (not just games). Koster's A Theory of Fun is an excellent start and will at least get you on the right track.
I mean you're like the biker dude who goes to bars and picks fights -- people aren't criticizing you for being a biker dude, they're criticizing the process you go about living life (or in this case: talking about game design.) New designers can do amazing things as long as they're willing to realize that game designers before them have done the legwork figuring out what works and what doesn't.
Automatic rejection of accumulated up knowledge on a subject is not something a wise person does. Rather than digging deeper and asking the "whys" and "hows" of things, you just want to fight.
Honestly I hoped this thread was a genuine quest for the knowledge "why" quests are like that. But it's clear that rather than searching for the underlying reasons behind design decisions, you've mostly just rejected accumulated knowledge based on a theory that all the designers who've come before you are wrong.
I would normally respond with maturity as opposed to sarcasm but...
This is about the 10th time you have lectured me as a game developer on simplicity, even after our long conversation which ended in agreement that simplicity IS VERY IMPORTANT.
I am not automatically rejecting your supreme wisdom and experience. I am rolling my eyes on how this is the 10th time you've stated it, as if it supercedes all thought, as if everyone is incapable of understanding this concept if they don't somehow prove to you their complex ideas are simple, and *yawn*
Really I don't have time to respond anymore. I have never liked any of your posts, since 90% of them are mystical vague "wisdom" which is so vague it barely has any meaning, and the other 10% is the same reiteration of what you've been telling me (and everyone else) repeatedly for months: "Simplicity is a key component in intellectual game design and ignoring it is foolish blah blah blah."
Maybe you're like me though and don't get tired of hearing yourself talk. And yes, I do love to fight people. Especially people who don't think things through. Like in another thread someone mentioned how if you don't reward people for killing mobs- they will get bored. Yet they forget that 90% of video games DONT reward XP for killing monsters. Instead, the killing of monsters is a reward itself, as well as the survival of your character and the completion of quests. That you can reward players for completing an adventure, regardless of how many monsters they kill or don't kill. That gameplay can go beyond combat, making sure to kill every single mob in a zone before leaving. That the brain can be used to act in ways to AVOID combat, not embrace it like a suicidal maniac. So I purposefully tried to pick a fight with this person. It's fun!
I assume you do the exact same. You try to pick fights with me because you believe I don't think things through or focus on simplicity or whatever it is. There is one difference though... the people I fight don't actually think beyond "Dur, that won't work because WoW doesn't do it!" I doubt I am not understanding them correctly. You on the other hand are constantly saying my ideas are not simple enough, and that instead of a fun, challenging way to Kill 10 rats, I should get rid of all originality and just keep the "Kill 10 Rats" quest because of how simple it is, and people want simple!
I own books on game design. I think every idea i have through thousands of times per day. This is my job AND my passion. Why would I not put every idea i have through several channels of scrutiny to absolve all problems and develop as much foresight as possible? I am not as stupid as you appear to think I am. If I can make it fun (and I'm not saying I can...) but I may be the first MMO developer to produce a game with permadeath that isn't frustrating or endlessly stupid. Yes, a game where players DONT quit on death, and instead say "WOW, That was THRILLING!" And if I have to scratch the idea of permadeath because people are right- it just isn't worth it- then at least I will have a game that goes beyond "Kill 10 Rats", even if that game is needlessly complex.
To be honest, I am quite tired of games that cater to the simpleminded, the lazy, and those with a sense of entitlement. I don't want to make a second job for gamers, but I do want to make a fun and challenging game which is very rewarding because it is NOT oversimplified mush.
And yes. I am EXACTLY like a biker dude. In every single way.
Bike on my brethren. Ride long. Ride hard. Life is a highway. Ride it all night long.
Biker guy = Me 100%
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Comments
Wait. Weren't you just complaining about lazy game developers copying other game's mechanics?
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
If you actually read the full Original Post, it would be quite clear my ideal is NOT that every quest must be big, involved, and epic. So the main problem with my ideal is not a problem at all, because that is not my ideal. The method I stated? You mean the extremely simple version of "Kill [x] rats" quests? I really do not believe that putting a population limit on kill quests is big, involved, or epic. Instead, it's actually just as simple as the kill quests. The only difference is that the quests disappear after [x] mobs die, and reappear later.
What quests can players do if the kill quests are already completed? Hmm...any of the other quests in the game? It would be quite idiotic to make 99% of the content kill quests which disappear. Why would I as a developer make kill quests anything more than small side-quests or a different, less common variety of quests?
My argument to you is that Kill quests do NOT give you a reason to kill mobs instead of mindlessly grinding away. These kill quests ARE the mindless grinding. Mindless in that they make no sense, and grinding because they are nothing more than non-sensical killing of mobs who never disappear.
If you want to know my ideal: it is to have a very large variety of different tasks, quests, adventures, dungeons, PvP encounters, crafting, harvesting, and trading. Not to make two types of quests: Delivery Boy & Kill Tasks- then be lazy and just change WHAT you kill and WHERE the quest is. Instead, to make many different types of quests. You know... actually give players CONTENT, but make that content modular where it can be different because it is built with randomized pieces. I mainly just have to make the Quest once-- and because it was built with modular pieces in mind, I can easily place different mobs, objectives, areas, etc. within these quests which deliver a large variety. Instead of 1 Kill Task, it's more like a Kill Task Type with 5 Kill Task Components. That's 5x more development into a simple kill task than lazy developers do.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
DING DING DING DING! Give the man a cookie!
These games are about 98% combat, that's what they're designed around. The whole point of most of these games is to go out and kill things, simply because they exist, and get stuff for doing it. Kill X quests are the fastest and easiest types of XP-building quests you can design, go to an area where these creatures are prevalent and hack away. Lots of people can do the same quest at the same time and anything in an MMO has to be designed so that it can be repeated endlessly by virtually everyone.
If you've ever played the game Animal Crossing, it's the ultimate in grindy game. All you do is the same thing over and over and over and over. Catch fish. Catch bugs. Dig up fossils. Do endless delivery quests. After a while, all you want to do is hack up those obnoxious animal neighbors. What I wouldn't do to be able to smack Tom Nook over the head with my shovel...
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
If I ever do stop reading, it is not because your post is too long. It is because your posts are always empty and completely opposite of what I think is true.
Oh... and I didn't actually stop reading. If I did, I wouldn't have been able to reply.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
But the fact is, not every single person loves to grind. Sure the kill x amount of monster quests get really really old, but you know that if you had kill 250 total wolves to eradicate them people would finish it somewhat quick and have absolutely no wolves to kill anymore. What then? Introduce a new enemy into the area and have the same quest? That wouldn't work properly unless you had a lot of people working constantly on new enemies to introduce, or new quests for 5 people to work on then never see again. It would be an endless strain for your company to push out new quests for people to do since people kept completing them and running out of things to do. The kill X quests are filler so that the company can have a few epic quests. EVERY quest can't be epic.
I apologize that it confused you. I must have been too subtle. You are correct to assume I am smoking something because of how goofy and sarcastic I was.
All of this is extremely sarcastic and exaggeratory. I was being sarcastic about his beliefs on the inability of people who are not already successful (World of Warcraft lead developers, Richard Garriott, etc.) We are all incapable of creating game design or adjusting it to be simple because we do not sit with the Dalai Lama to discuss for months how to make something simple. His philosophy is that simplicity is far more important than anything else- even good game mechanics or fun.
I mentioned WoW because it is the most successful game, it requires the least amount of thought to quote because of its success, and has the most money spent on teams devoted to design and making it simple for the simpleminded.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
So THAT is why Animal Crossing bored me so fast, lol. I always wondered why.
Both of you are correct. I definitely side with this explanation that combat is focused on 99.99%, with the other 0.01% being poorly developed crafting/harvesting.
I believe that to say "anything in an MMO has to be designed so that it can be repeated endlessly by virtually everyone" is to close one's mind to a better game world. Why does this have to be true? It doesn't. The core mechanic of the quest might need to be, but that is obvious. It does not mean that the quests can't change, disappear, etc.
One of the most interesting things in Ultima Online is that every morning the rares respawn. So you have to log in at the exact minute to grab a rare and cheese it to the bank ASAP. Only one person per server, per day, can get this item. And there are MANY items like this.
If there is enough variety and the game is fun in the parts that stay consistent-- then it is okay to have items, dungeons, quests, mobs, or even zones close off or spawn rarely.
Just look at harvesting in Ultima Online. Ore spawns randomly in different places. Once ore is harvested completely- it is no longer in that spot on the mountain. Any player who goes will get a message "There is no ore left in this spot."
Does this destroy the game? No. It makes rare ore...rare. It makes exploration more fun. It makes harvesting an adventure, not just a grind. It makes getting a vein full of valorite ore...totally drool worthy. If it was me, I would immediately message all of my friends/guilds to tell them "GET DOWN HERE! I FOUND A VALORITE VEIN!!!!!!!!"
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
These quests should fall into one of two areas, kill x number within a given time period "To Prove Yourself" or kill mob x until you get item Y, and have the drop rate of item Y such that on average you have to kill #Z of the mob to get the drop or for the really devilish developers have the drop rate be a formula that is tweaked based on the number of mob X you've killed. This way the wouldn't appear to be kill X of Y.....
This is another case of the player base having too much information. The more hard numbers that get exposed to the player the more immersion suffers and is replaced by a treadmill.
Why the hate for kill quests?!
The only ones that annoy me are the back tracking collection quests.
Kill X number of Y quests are the basis of the game. All the stats, all the gear, all the abilities and tactics* exist to KILL things. We gain xp for it and having these quests gives a little story and possibly an item reward.
It's not the most complex thing in the world, but pretty much why NOT make quests geared toward the whole reason RPG systems were built in the first place? To kill things. That's it. You can try and make it more complex than that or wish that it is or hope that it is or whatever.
Now go kill 2 hours by typing 300 characters or less apology to game makers, with whom you are to worship.
No problem^^
Just trying to be helpful.
You should probably use simplier terms you can understand better to get your point across.
It keeps the topic flowing nicely that way.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I disagree entirely. And why do you think a company would have to produce new quests every day?
It is impossible to create a system which spawns, respawns, despawns, and adjusts multiple quests in a zone based on only a few variables? I do not think so. I do not think developers are forced to create new quests constantly, unless they are very unique and specific. But no one said that simple, repeatable, basic tasks have to be dull, lazy, and boring. I will give an example of one zone, and only [x] quests involved. The developers need never add any new content, but the content will "always" feel fresh. (Maybe not always, but if randomized and without a pattern, it is unpredictable.)
There are three "areas" in this example. The Town (NPC's), The Forest, The Field inbetween these two.
Monster Populations include: [300] Goblin Camp in the Forest, [50] Goblin Camp in the Field, [100] huntable animals in the forest.
Variables: Huntable Animal Population = MaxAnimals / (Forest Goblin Population / 5).
Spawn Rates: GoblinSpawnRate = Population * ####. The higher the population, the faster the respawn rate. If population is low, the respawn is very long.
The zone starts with 300 goblins in the forest. Max animals are 100, but because there are so many goblins, the population of huntable animals is maxed at 40. The goblins do not actually hunt the animals. Their number just affects spawn rate. This appears to be a real world, but is actually just scripts & triggers.
All NPC's who are marked as "Relies on Furs" spark up anti-goblin quests and pro-furs quests based on the huntable animals rate. These quests have their own spawnrate, based on animal spawnrates. This could include different types of quests: Kill Goblins, Steal Box of Food from Goblins, Kill Goblin Boss, Burn Goblin Camp, Escort Character through Goblin Area, etc.
Each quest lowers the Goblin Population, which raises the Animal Spawnrate. Once the animal population is high enough, quests begin to slow down and become uncommon to appear in the Town. Goblins spawn at a low rate. The camps are not worth fighting, the quests are not worth waiting for. What's left to do? Hunt, that's it. This is now a zone opened up for harvesters, crafters, and traders. There is no more adventure here. But ONE trigger happened once the goblin population went below [10].
If GoblinPopulation < 10, then... Goblin Invasion = Begins. Quests start appearing, warning of an invasion of goblins. They want this territory. These quests are a different set, including "Intercept the message", "Kill the Invaders", etc.
What do we have so far?
Two sets of quests, with 5-10 types of repeatable, simple quests in each. Only ONE quest is actually epic, which is the "Massive Invasion" which triggers every 10 invasions. This is a zone-wide warning of a siege against the city.
So you have an entire zone which has 10-20 repeatable quests, three factions, (Town, Goblins, Animals), all who react to each other which can change the environment. Yes, it is a LOOP. But the game's biggest feature is that of Invasions. Taking, Defending, and Losing Land. Two different zones in each zone. Yes... this HALVES the amount of zones in the game if you want to think of it that way... but it allows for an ever-changing world...kindof! And people always have SOMETHING to do. That is either attacking or defending territories. If there is NOTHING to do because the zone is at peace and there are several hours before the next invasion? There are other zones to travel to, to defend or take over.
It does not require a massive guild or collection of players to take over a zone via siege. (This may happen, similar to DAoC Forts, but is a PvP element and less common). It requires individuals and small groups to grind quests which trigger events which change the zone. The reward? Peace for harvesters/crafters, who supply the soldiers equipment.
Monsters --> Lower Animals
Animals --> Provide Merchants
Merchants --> Provide Adventurers
Adventurers --> Kill Monsters
It's the circle of life!
And no, it is not ridiculously complex. For being one of the main features of the game, it is quite simple to implement after being created. You only need to program the type of quest once. After this-- you insert variables, and computations do the rest for you. That... and playtesting. Lots and lots and lots and lots... of playtesting.
Not only are these quests repeatable like all quests-- but players MAY want to repeat this significantly more than specific quests like "Go kill 5 goblins for the Mace of Power". Every newbie knows the Mace of Power quest. But in my system of moving quests, every newbie's experience will be different. Afterall, they may not even stay in this zone for very long.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
I fully understand the term "layman's terms". I also knew that it was spelt "layman" not lamen. I just type 150wpm and do not spell out that word on a regular basis. Props to you though... it is probably better for me to use simpler words for others to understand more easily.
Oh, and by the way... it's spelt simpler, not simplier :P
Question: What is the correct spelling of simpler?
Answers: S I M P L E R
Maybe in the future you should stick to words you know better and have less chance of mispelling.
Hahahhaa, just teasing :P
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
I like this idea, it seems fun and, dare I say dynamic. However, it seems to me that kill X still exists whereas X is now variable rather than constant.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Theme park MMO players have to have their hand held and be told what to do. Kill quests can be churned out in rapid numbers with little effort . If a theme parker doesn't have a quest to do and just has to randomly kill mobs for no apparent reason to fill up their progress quest bar they get upset. Give them a few hundred kill quests and you have effectively shut them up. Magically, they become content. Go kill 400 scorpions of various types isn't grinding, it's "questing" and "following the storyline". The theme parker has an objective, and it is content.
I don't get it. I don't see how doing five hundred kill 10 of this and that for no reason is any better than just killing something five hundred times just because you need to fill your progress quest bar. In the newer hold your hand while gently walking you through how to wipe your ass step by step theme parks where they put a fat giant arrow ontop of your head to tell you where to go kill quests also function as a tour guide leading you through the various exhibits there are to see in the zoo.
Because its different from a sandbox when you have to grind 500 of the same rock to get a thousand lobs/ore/epic mats to make an epic glove?
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
Because quests are just masked grinding and people are stupid enough to think theyre some kind of great innovation.
The majority of people here (who support kill quests...which idk why...) argue that you CAN'T make every quest an epic quest.
What do you have to say about that?
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
In essence, everything that includes combat is a "kill X" quest.
The types of quests I implement into this design is NOT going to be the basic "Kill Goblins" quest. Otherwise, I might as well NOT HAVE QUESTS and just let players grind to change the environment or trigger events.
Instead, there are different types of quests which have different effects.
NPC's or Animals have populations too, so some quests are there to INCREASE their population, in case the Goblins are winning. In PvP or PvEvP (Indirect Player vs Player Quest Competition) some Monsters are playable Monster Factions which have "Harm the Humans" quests.
One can think of completing quests as providing zone buffs to entire factions. There will be quests to raise/lower populations by direct confrontation, indirect confrontation, etc. There will be quests which raise/lower population regeneration rates, increase/decrease spawn rates, and adjust all of the variables involved in the circle of life.
This can be done in many different ways. "Burn the Windmill" can cause -20 population loss without actually killing a single human. Why? Because it lowers their food, which kills them off. Likewise, this same quest could INSTEAD be a debuff against the Town NPC's, which makes them -10% weaker. This can be invisible (lowering population loss rate or recovery rate) or can be visible in the form of every [TIME] NPC goblins attack NPC peasants, regardless if players help or not. Dice is randomly rolled, and populations are adjusted based on the outcome.
This is part of the "Invasion" concept of the game. In essence, who wins is completely a random roll of the dice if players are NEVER involved. More often than not though, it is a 50/50 split between monsters and players. So players DETERMINE the extra "push" which affects the faction wars (and thus zone control). Monster players push while Players do.
This is in both direct PvP encounters or PvP quests, or PvEvP which are indirect non-pvp quest competition. For example, both a group of goblin players and a group of human players enter a dungeon, having accepted a PvEvP quest. The first to make it to the treasure at the end of the dungeon wins. They never fight each other and can't attack each other (unless PvP is enabled, which can be optional) or perhaps never have a chance to (separate, except at the ending). but they ARE in direct competition with each other.
This is a concept of the game, PvEvP. Not only do monsters compete against players, but some quests are Humans vs Humans. Such as requiring TWO groups to even ENTER a dungeon- but only ONE can get the bigger treasure. There IS a reward for the loser, but it is not as big.
I'll provide one PvEvP example competition quest.
Goblins: Burn Down the Windmill.
Humans: Recruit Guards for the Windmill.
Goblin Goal: Slowly kill the guard Population (remember, population is a variable). Once population is at 0, burn the windmill.
Human Goal: Quest to raise guard Population. The more quests completed, the higher the guard population and the more difficult it is to harm the Windmill. Population is capped at a reasonable amount.
The Goblin's quests are simple. Destroy and Kill.
The Human's quests are a bit more varied. Collect resources to build a defensive wall. Aid local villagers to get them to volunteer at the barracks. Help Farmer Henry's son find his lost sword so he can defend the Windmill, providing a "Boss" named npc to the Windmill's defense.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Sounds more like a theme park objective, imo. I never spent a significant amount of time grinding mats for epicz in UO, SB, DF. EVE you do, but not to the extent I did in WoW. The grinding in SB, DF, and EVE all revolved around guilds. You did have to do a fair bit of grinding to build a city, but nothing compared to running the same instance over and over for the fat purples.
because guess it's there for something to do. I mean you can have so many good quests, but what fills inbetween? Although I do think there is still an appeal of sit-grinding.
would you play the game tho if you had the full set of epicness after the 500 kills, to me it makes no sense defending boring quests with a...its less grindy, its only less of a grind if you actually care about the quests, agreed with mr snay
imo its much more fun to get your rewards from the environment (including monsters ofc)....the fedex quests can easy be player made ;P
I always found EVE to be way more grind heavy than WoW. Running instances repetively gets boring but it still beats out farming the same asteroid belt for hours.
My comments are made from the grounds of strong game design. I have no clue when Richard Garriott entered into it (not that I'm bashing his designs.)
Again, these things are pretty well established at this point despite the game industry being somewhat new. Go read some books on design (not just games). Koster's A Theory of Fun is an excellent start and will at least get you on the right track.
I mean you're like the biker dude who goes to bars and picks fights -- people aren't criticizing you for being a biker dude, they're criticizing the process you go about living life (or in this case: talking about game design.) New designers can do amazing things as long as they're willing to realize that game designers before them have done the legwork figuring out what works and what doesn't.
Automatic rejection of accumulated up knowledge on a subject is not something a wise person does. Rather than digging deeper and asking the "whys" and "hows" of things, you just want to fight.
Honestly I hoped this thread was a genuine quest for the knowledge "why" quests are like that. But it's clear that rather than searching for the underlying reasons behind design decisions, you've mostly just rejected accumulated knowledge based on a theory that all the designers who've come before you are wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Or lazy.
Spot on. Great post.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I would normally respond with maturity as opposed to sarcasm but...
This is about the 10th time you have lectured me as a game developer on simplicity, even after our long conversation which ended in agreement that simplicity IS VERY IMPORTANT.
I am not automatically rejecting your supreme wisdom and experience. I am rolling my eyes on how this is the 10th time you've stated it, as if it supercedes all thought, as if everyone is incapable of understanding this concept if they don't somehow prove to you their complex ideas are simple, and *yawn*
Really I don't have time to respond anymore. I have never liked any of your posts, since 90% of them are mystical vague "wisdom" which is so vague it barely has any meaning, and the other 10% is the same reiteration of what you've been telling me (and everyone else) repeatedly for months: "Simplicity is a key component in intellectual game design and ignoring it is foolish blah blah blah."
Maybe you're like me though and don't get tired of hearing yourself talk. And yes, I do love to fight people. Especially people who don't think things through. Like in another thread someone mentioned how if you don't reward people for killing mobs- they will get bored. Yet they forget that 90% of video games DONT reward XP for killing monsters. Instead, the killing of monsters is a reward itself, as well as the survival of your character and the completion of quests. That you can reward players for completing an adventure, regardless of how many monsters they kill or don't kill. That gameplay can go beyond combat, making sure to kill every single mob in a zone before leaving. That the brain can be used to act in ways to AVOID combat, not embrace it like a suicidal maniac. So I purposefully tried to pick a fight with this person. It's fun!
I assume you do the exact same. You try to pick fights with me because you believe I don't think things through or focus on simplicity or whatever it is. There is one difference though... the people I fight don't actually think beyond "Dur, that won't work because WoW doesn't do it!" I doubt I am not understanding them correctly. You on the other hand are constantly saying my ideas are not simple enough, and that instead of a fun, challenging way to Kill 10 rats, I should get rid of all originality and just keep the "Kill 10 Rats" quest because of how simple it is, and people want simple!
I own books on game design. I think every idea i have through thousands of times per day. This is my job AND my passion. Why would I not put every idea i have through several channels of scrutiny to absolve all problems and develop as much foresight as possible? I am not as stupid as you appear to think I am. If I can make it fun (and I'm not saying I can...) but I may be the first MMO developer to produce a game with permadeath that isn't frustrating or endlessly stupid. Yes, a game where players DONT quit on death, and instead say "WOW, That was THRILLING!" And if I have to scratch the idea of permadeath because people are right- it just isn't worth it- then at least I will have a game that goes beyond "Kill 10 Rats", even if that game is needlessly complex.
To be honest, I am quite tired of games that cater to the simpleminded, the lazy, and those with a sense of entitlement. I don't want to make a second job for gamers, but I do want to make a fun and challenging game which is very rewarding because it is NOT oversimplified mush.
And yes. I am EXACTLY like a biker dude. In every single way.
Bike on my brethren. Ride long. Ride hard. Life is a highway. Ride it all night long.
Biker guy = Me 100%
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.