But the hard part is, how many people would you need to work on that?
Having players create the dynamics could be a solution (imagining additional terrains and zones), but how about quality control?
Work on the changing world or the game project as a whole?
When I said dynamic content, I didn't necessarly mean player made content. Based on the world map I have designed, not sure if that would actually help. And what did you mean by quality control? Over what aspect in particularly?
On changing world. It takes manpower. Either from us players (with given tools) or from devs.
If from us than I'm sure there needs to be some kind of quality control to ensure the content meets specific standards. The devs won't let us ruin their game :-)
But it's better to have devs create the changes, I honestly can't see how we can do that anyway. But having devs do this cost a lot of money. It's basicaly a constant evolution. Like every month a major patch that is released after 5 months in normal games.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
There's no level cap I presume? So basically joins up a year before you and plays the same amoutn of time that you do on a weekly basis there is little chance of you ever being as strong as him. Few other questions.
Do the characters age? If so does anything happen to them re: stats, abilities, speed etc? Do they die after a certain amount of time? (might be a way to combat late arrivals being turned off actually. Sure it could be annoying to lose your character to old age, but if the world is truly dynamic than it would be fun to reroll and play a, basically, entirely new game ).
There are other problems. Namely that modern gamers are all about themselves and what they can get, rather than being about the community, and a whole host of issues could come up with people wanting to ruin the world. If say an alliance/clan/guild formed that went on to dominate the server/world and turn it into something of a dictatorship (what they and their leader say goes, they just go around ganking everyone etc.) do developers/GMs step in? Basically do the GMs/devs ever step into the world once it's created is a question too?
It's interesting, but there are so many things that could go wrong with it it might be unworkable
I don't think jumping in late is a problem. In MMORTS games we see that people join late all the time, actually contribute a lot, and don't mind being behind. Further only a small subset of players will play many years in a row without taking a break. So you wouldn't get as far behind as you image.
Hand in hand with the issue of "late players" is the issue of immortality in a narrative world. I don't think ti's necessarily a good idea to allow the same character to exist through eternity.
I think people should very much consider character death/retirement as a game mechanic. It might be palatable if there was advantages or trade-offs for losing your character and starting over as well.
I don't think jumping in late is a problem. In MMORTS games we see that people join late all the time, actually contribute a lot, and don't mind being behind. Further only a small subset of players will play many years in a row without taking a break. So you wouldn't get as far behind as you image.
There is neither world history nor narrative to an MMORTS. A player starting LoL today will experience the same things that veteran players experience.
- no cities rose or fell
- no one-time server events and world items were missed,
- no entrenched power blocks exist
For a game world to move forward, the content has to move forward, as well. To speak to a previosu point, this is the hurdle that a lot of people with these ideas overlook. For example, a dev can't still have quests and content that send players to places and NPCs in Bloomville if Bloomville was levelled a year ago.
In a game world where quests and raids and other tasks have a vital purpose to world history and can change story lines depending on what players do, the time and resources required just to maintain continuity would be extensive and a major extension of the already massive team required to move the world forward on a reactive and timely basis.
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 don't think jumping in late is a problem. In MMORTS games we see that people join late all the time, actually contribute a lot, and don't mind being behind. Further only a small subset of players will play many years in a row without taking a break. So you wouldn't get as far behind as you image.
There is neither world history nor narrative to an MMORTS. A player starting LoL today will experience the same things that veteran players experience.
- no cities rose or fell
- no one-time server events and world items were missed,
- no entrenched power blocks exist
For a game world to move forward, the content has to move forward, as well. To speak to a previosu point, this is the hurdle that a lot of people with these ideas overlook. For example, a dev can't still have quests and content that send players to places and NPCs in Bloomville if Bloomville was levelled a year ago.
In a game world where quests and raids and other tasks have a vital purpose to world history and can change story lines depending on what players do, the time and resources required just to maintain continuity would be extensive and a major extension of the already massive team required to move the world forward on a reactive and timely basis.
What the hell does LoL have to do with MMORTS games???
And if you have ever played a serious mmorts like OGame or WF or SpaceFed, there is history and narratives and world and experience altering events.
I think he was referring to mmorts' such as Evony (blech), instead of MOBA's like LoL. There's really no history or narrative in those MMORTSs either, but that's much a symptom of sucking hard than anything else.
If you want to be inspired by how high quality and fair MMORPGs are, and/or find motivation to commit random acts of violence, play an MMORTS. God that genre is just waiting for a real game to come in, grab by the neck, tell it to stop being a bully, and kick it out of business.
Anyway, since we're on the subject of MMORTS'...
People have discussed content creation as a possible issue because of balance, quality, etc.
What if the "content" for an MMORPG was actually created through a (good) MMORTS that plays a little bit like dungeon keeper, and includes the ability to attach quests and simple scripts to the content?
EDIT: I have never played those MMORTSs listed in above posts.
Yeah sure its a good idea but i cant really see it ever working..
What happens if soemone misses the chance at killing a super rare boss and at getting the super rare drop from that boss because someone killed him and is no gone forever..? How pissed off would you be because you had to work while that boss spawned..
You need certain persistant things in MMORPGs for everyone to experiance the fun, sure yes you can have things change over time but i dnot think a truly dynamic world would work..
I don't think jumping in late is a problem. In MMORTS games we see that people join late all the time, actually contribute a lot, and don't mind being behind. Further only a small subset of players will play many years in a row without taking a break. So you wouldn't get as far behind as you image.
There is neither world history nor narrative to an MMORTS. A player starting LoL today will experience the same things that veteran players experience.
- no cities rose or fell
- no one-time server events and world items were missed,
- no entrenched power blocks exist
For a game world to move forward, the content has to move forward, as well. To speak to a previosu point, this is the hurdle that a lot of people with these ideas overlook. For example, a dev can't still have quests and content that send players to places and NPCs in Bloomville if Bloomville was levelled a year ago.
In a game world where quests and raids and other tasks have a vital purpose to world history and can change story lines depending on what players do, the time and resources required just to maintain continuity would be extensive and a major extension of the already massive team required to move the world forward on a reactive and timely basis.
What the hell does LoL have to do with MMORTS games???
And if you have ever played a serious mmorts like OGame or WF or SpaceFed, there is history and narratives and world and experience altering events.
Relax. If you're going to get into Bite Heads mode again, I'm not even going to bother here.
The OP is talking about a seamless persistent 3D virtual world. OGame is not that. It is a 2D browser game.
The OP is talking about a game where quests and raids determine world changing events. OGame is not that. It is a strategy empire builder sim. Conquest gameplay changes the game world independent of backstory or ongoing lore.
Yes, Cuathon, in an MMORTS, the players change the ownership of areas and what pieces sit there. I never said they didn't. That's very different from what the OP is describing.
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 think he was referring to mmorts' such as Evony (blech), instead of MOBA's like LoL.
Exacrtly. Error on my part. I have LoL on the brain lately. He saw one word, latched on to it and ran with it with complete disregard for the pint of the post.
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
Yeah sure its a good idea but i cant really see it ever working..
What happens if soemone misses the chance at killing a super rare boss and at getting the super rare drop from that boss because someone killed him and is no gone forever..? How pissed off would you be because you had to work while that boss spawned..
You need certain persistant things in MMORPGs for everyone to experiance the fun, sure yes you can have things change over time but i dnot think a truly dynamic world would work..
There will be other super rare bosses available while you're not working. Obviously the idea of everyone gets to do the same stuff gets tossed by the wayside (and good f***ing riddance).
Yeah sure its a good idea but i cant really see it ever working..
What happens if soemone misses the chance at killing a super rare boss and at getting the super rare drop from that boss because someone killed him and is no gone forever..? How pissed off would you be because you had to work while that boss spawned..
You need certain persistant things in MMORPGs for everyone to experiance the fun, sure yes you can have things change over time but i dnot think a truly dynamic world would work..
There will be other super rare bosses available while you're not working. Obviously the idea of everyone gets to do the same stuff gets tossed by the wayside (and good f***ing riddance).
It's a double edged sword. As a developer, you're regularly working against the First on Patch Day dilemma, where the minute new content goes in (and your players will ALWAYS find out when it is in) the most organized group with the fastest ability to get in game will get the Global Announcment or complete the content or trigger the switch or affect the world outcome. Players very quickly realize that if you aren't part of group X you have no chance of taking part in the cool stuff so they just start to ignore it or, worse, get upset that instead of developing content for the majority of the playerbase you're catering to a small group.
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 don't think jumping in late is a problem. In MMORTS games we see that people join late all the time, actually contribute a lot, and don't mind being behind. Further only a small subset of players will play many years in a row without taking a break. So you wouldn't get as far behind as you image.
There is neither world history nor narrative to an MMORTS. A player starting LoL today will experience the same things that veteran players experience.
- no cities rose or fell
- no one-time server events and world items were missed,
- no entrenched power blocks exist
For a game world to move forward, the content has to move forward, as well. To speak to a previosu point, this is the hurdle that a lot of people with these ideas overlook. For example, a dev can't still have quests and content that send players to places and NPCs in Bloomville if Bloomville was levelled a year ago.
In a game world where quests and raids and other tasks have a vital purpose to world history and can change story lines depending on what players do, the time and resources required just to maintain continuity would be extensive and a major extension of the already massive team required to move the world forward on a reactive and timely basis.
What the hell does LoL have to do with MMORTS games???
And if you have ever played a serious mmorts like OGame or WF or SpaceFed, there is history and narratives and world and experience altering events.
Relax. If you're going to get into Bite Heads mode again, I'm not even going to bother here.
The OP is talking about a seamless persistent 3D virtual world. OGame is not that. It is a 2D browser game.
The OP is talking about a game where quests and raids determine world changing events. OGame is not that. It is a strategy empire builder sim. Conquest gameplay changes the game world independent of backstory or ongoing lore.
Yes, Cuathon, in an MMORTS, the players change the ownership of areas and what pieces sit there. I never said they didn't. That's very different from what the OP is describing.
Not on an abstract level. In an MMORTS like Warring Factors conquests ARE lore. So are colonizing and research. They even have a lot of RP and many history threads. So there IS history and there IS narrative. The players make it themselves. Like a sandbox. All you have is an overarching plot, each faction wants to rule the universe.
You still haven't explained what LOL has to do with anything.
Now if the OP wants a themepark, he can play GW, its pretty close. But none of the problems you listed apply at all to a sandbox.
Trying to have a dev team run a story like a PnP GM is a shit idea. You will never under any circumstances keep up with players. Firstly there is not one world designer per 4 to 8 players and secondly they have to make 3d objects instead of a list of stats and your imagination like PnP. Also PnP is typically a couple hours on the weekend.
If the OP is suggesting something like that, he is insane.
I think he was referring to mmorts' such as Evony (blech), instead of MOBA's like LoL.
Exacrtly. Error on my part. I have LoL on the brain lately. He saw one word, latched on to it and ran with it with complete disregard for the pint of the post.
This is a blatant lie. I made one throwaway comment about LoL that had nothing to do with the rest of my post and then moved on to actual MMORTS games.
Yeah sure its a good idea but i cant really see it ever working..
What happens if soemone misses the chance at killing a super rare boss and at getting the super rare drop from that boss because someone killed him and is no gone forever..? How pissed off would you be because you had to work while that boss spawned..
You need certain persistant things in MMORPGs for everyone to experiance the fun, sure yes you can have things change over time but i dnot think a truly dynamic world would work..
There will be other super rare bosses available while you're not working. Obviously the idea of everyone gets to do the same stuff gets tossed by the wayside (and good f***ing riddance).
I know what your saying and I do like the idea but I cant see it working as why should one guy be able to get the hammer of world destroying and another guy has no chance of getting it because he is in work or bed or whatever.. so instead the other guy does a quest when he wakes up and gets the super flower of the pansy kings?
casual players could not realyl exist in this game..
I dont like themepark games myself and only play PVP sandbox games so im used to crafting my own stuff and getting on in the game myself.. but i would still be pissed at hving 0% chance of getting certain items or crafting materials becausei was sleeping/working/having a life..
I know having everyone with the same weapons and armor sucks donkey balls, but they way around that is to have a great selection of weapons and armor that are actually balanced out so not everyone uses the same thing..
It's a double edged sword. As a developer, you're regularly working against the First on Patch Day dilemma, where the minute new content goes in (and your players will ALWAYS find out when it is in) the most organized group with the fastest ability to get in game will get the Global Announcment or complete the content or trigger the switch or affect the world outcome. Players very quickly realize that if you aren't part of group X you have no chance of taking part in the cool stuff so they just start to ignore it or, worse, get upset that instead of developing content for the majority of the playerbase you're catering to a small group.
This is a non-issue, because this model is completely unsustainable with a "patch day" model.
There needs to be dynamic story-telling or player made content with a rule system associated with the creators. Those are the only options that I see.
That is a good question. I should of been more precise in explaining it in the OP. The major plot line of the game would be the one that is dynamic and could change by determing how the players react to different world, regional or local events or even progression through campaigns. If there is a quest or something that was designed from day one, and it's not dynamic it will be there when the late arrive. Other sub quests, sub events will more than likely be static.
The purpose of this game design element is to focus in an immersion level that your not playing a game, your playing in a world. If you arrive late you can still have access to many different events, and content, however, there will be set staged world, regional, and local events that will change history. You could also say this mechanic is a good marketing tool because it could keep subscriptions. There would be another level of enticement that players would like to stay aboard.
If you're sleeping through world war 3 and you miss it but then you wake up, you will see the aftermath of it. Sort of the same logic. That logic is what the poll was designed for. I wanted to get a small sample of people to see if they liked the idea. And it seems as if many do.
I know having everyone with the same weapons and armor sucks donkey balls, but they way around that is to have a great selection of weapons and armor that are actually balanced out so not everyone uses the same thing..
Actually the goal isn't to differentiate weapons from players, but to differentiate the content players go through. The very thing you're concerned about is the goal
Really though, if a player misses out on Hammer of Doom, they might find that the Greatsword of Salvation is available for them instead.
Can definitely be casual friendly as well. If there's a dynamic story-telling engine, unique personal quests can be created for each player as well.
I know having everyone with the same weapons and armor sucks donkey balls, but they way around that is to have a great selection of weapons and armor that are actually balanced out so not everyone uses the same thing..
Actually the goal isn't to differentiate weapons from players, but to differentiate the content players go through. The very thing you're concerned about is the goal
Really though, if a player misses out on Hammer of Doom, they might find that the Greatsword of Salvation is available for them instead.
Can definitely be casual friendly as well. If there's a dynamic story-telling engine, unique personal quests can be created for each player as well.
I dont think we have the technology to run a truly dynamic world wehre everything is different for everyone.. maybe for a single play game yeah..
I think MMORPGs need to stear away from all this personal quest stuff.. MMORPGS need to be massive, it shuold not be about a single person but about the world..
So long as there is also the real and actualized threat of continual regression, then yes, of course.
But you'd have to have some sort of Dynamic Story Telling Engine to make this possible, otherwise it's just not possible to keep up with the content.
Or you could have players create content, and find a system that allows it to work naturally within the world.
To trim it down to its most realistic implementation, you could just have a finite continuum of progression and regression. The more progress players make, the harder it is to hold onto. The world would be in a constant state of flux, but within a closed system.
Might not be as awesome as an open ended ever-progressing system, but still a big step forward over completely static worlds, and a lot more reasonable to implement, and control across multiple servers. All at their own individual points along the continuum, due to how their players are doing.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
It's a double edged sword. As a developer, you're regularly working against the First on Patch Day dilemma, where the minute new content goes in (and your players will ALWAYS find out when it is in) the most organized group with the fastest ability to get in game will get the Global Announcment or complete the content or trigger the switch or affect the world outcome. Players very quickly realize that if you aren't part of group X you have no chance of taking part in the cool stuff so they just start to ignore it or, worse, get upset that instead of developing content for the majority of the playerbase you're catering to a small group.
This is a non-issue, because this model is completely unsustainable with a "patch day" model.
There needs to be dynamic story-telling or player made content with a rule system associated with the creators. Those are the only options that I see.
But isn't it more unsustainable with a dynamic/organinc progression? I don't follow what would manage and maintain continuity and rate at which content changes. Would you be able to elaborate a bit more on that?
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
Yeah sure its a good idea but i cant really see it ever working..
What happens if soemone misses the chance at killing a super rare boss and at getting the super rare drop from that boss because someone killed him and is no gone forever..? How pissed off would you be because you had to work while that boss spawned..
You need certain persistant things in MMORPGs for everyone to experiance the fun, sure yes you can have things change over time but i dnot think a truly dynamic world would work..
There will be other super rare bosses available while you're not working. Obviously the idea of everyone gets to do the same stuff gets tossed by the wayside (and good f***ing riddance).
It's a double edged sword. As a developer, you're regularly working against the First on Patch Day dilemma, where the minute new content goes in (and your players will ALWAYS find out when it is in) the most organized group with the fastest ability to get in game will get the Global Announcment or complete the content or trigger the switch or affect the world outcome. Players very quickly realize that if you aren't part of group X you have no chance of taking part in the cool stuff so they just start to ignore it or, worse, get upset that instead of developing content for the majority of the playerbase you're catering to a small group.
Who said that they these world changing dynamic events has to happen at one time and one location? Think outside of the box. As I mentioned before, I am taking a "war time" scenario into affect into some, if not most of these events. For one, I also agree that it wouldn't be fair that if a majority of the players are in the EST time zone and the event is at 5 pm on a Monday but the PST players will be left out because of the time differential. The best way I could see this working is to have an "event day or an event week" where all players from many different levels can enjoy the same experience. However, the location and time may not be the same.
How could we explain this through a lore perspective? Let's say that the orcish NPC kingdomg is going to raid the north west of the world. That whole region. Maybe that would be the centeralized area of battle. What happens if they send a flank from the west to capture another city or a region that was not necesseraly written in the war document or whatever? Why does the evil NPC's have to follow the rule of law for war? Something to think about.
have you even built one game, no matter how simple, yet?
I have wrote out high concept documents regarding different mechanics. I have created some mods, but didn't have anything to do with the ideas I have had for this particular project. I do have some experience. I don't actually have a team, it's just written documents that could be ready to be translated into programing.
There is a much greater leap from "written documents" to "translated into programming" than you realize, especailly with something as complex as a massively multiplayer persistent 3D world. It doesn't make a difference what looks good on paper, as a great game mechanic is often completely indistinguishable from a horrible one until coded and executed along side and in conjunction with the rest of the game. Now, to really throw a wrench in the works... sprinkle in user behavior.
I'm not going to ask you to take my word on that. I encourage, beg and implore you to talk to a friend or relative that is a professional programmer and let them explain it to you.
Yes, I would really like to sit down with someome to see if my ideas are plausable and can be done in reasonable milestones. Lok, don't you have some industry experience?
Comments
On changing world. It takes manpower. Either from us players (with given tools) or from devs.
If from us than I'm sure there needs to be some kind of quality control to ensure the content meets specific standards. The devs won't let us ruin their game :-)
But it's better to have devs create the changes, I honestly can't see how we can do that anyway. But having devs do this cost a lot of money. It's basicaly a constant evolution. Like every month a major patch that is released after 5 months in normal games.
What happens to players who arrive late?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
One big problem right here.
There's no level cap I presume? So basically joins up a year before you and plays the same amoutn of time that you do on a weekly basis there is little chance of you ever being as strong as him. Few other questions.
Do the characters age? If so does anything happen to them re: stats, abilities, speed etc? Do they die after a certain amount of time? (might be a way to combat late arrivals being turned off actually. Sure it could be annoying to lose your character to old age, but if the world is truly dynamic than it would be fun to reroll and play a, basically, entirely new game ).
There are other problems. Namely that modern gamers are all about themselves and what they can get, rather than being about the community, and a whole host of issues could come up with people wanting to ruin the world. If say an alliance/clan/guild formed that went on to dominate the server/world and turn it into something of a dictatorship (what they and their leader say goes, they just go around ganking everyone etc.) do developers/GMs step in? Basically do the GMs/devs ever step into the world once it's created is a question too?
It's interesting, but there are so many things that could go wrong with it it might be unworkable
I don't think jumping in late is a problem. In MMORTS games we see that people join late all the time, actually contribute a lot, and don't mind being behind. Further only a small subset of players will play many years in a row without taking a break. So you wouldn't get as far behind as you image.
Hand in hand with the issue of "late players" is the issue of immortality in a narrative world. I don't think ti's necessarily a good idea to allow the same character to exist through eternity.
I think people should very much consider character death/retirement as a game mechanic. It might be palatable if there was advantages or trade-offs for losing your character and starting over as well.
There is neither world history nor narrative to an MMORTS. A player starting LoL today will experience the same things that veteran players experience.
- no cities rose or fell
- no one-time server events and world items were missed,
- no entrenched power blocks exist
For a game world to move forward, the content has to move forward, as well. To speak to a previosu point, this is the hurdle that a lot of people with these ideas overlook. For example, a dev can't still have quests and content that send players to places and NPCs in Bloomville if Bloomville was levelled a year ago.
In a game world where quests and raids and other tasks have a vital purpose to world history and can change story lines depending on what players do, the time and resources required just to maintain continuity would be extensive and a major extension of the already massive team required to move the world forward on a reactive and timely basis.
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
What the hell does LoL have to do with MMORTS games???
And if you have ever played a serious mmorts like OGame or WF or SpaceFed, there is history and narratives and world and experience altering events.
While the idea sounds fun in thoery I think it would be really hard to turn it into a game.
I didn't vote, if you could solve all the problems with it the game could be fun.
I think he was referring to mmorts' such as Evony (blech), instead of MOBA's like LoL. There's really no history or narrative in those MMORTSs either, but that's much a symptom of sucking hard than anything else.
If you want to be inspired by how high quality and fair MMORPGs are, and/or find motivation to commit random acts of violence, play an MMORTS. God that genre is just waiting for a real game to come in, grab by the neck, tell it to stop being a bully, and kick it out of business.
Anyway, since we're on the subject of MMORTS'...
People have discussed content creation as a possible issue because of balance, quality, etc.
What if the "content" for an MMORPG was actually created through a (good) MMORTS that plays a little bit like dungeon keeper, and includes the ability to attach quests and simple scripts to the content?
EDIT: I have never played those MMORTSs listed in above posts.
Yeah sure its a good idea but i cant really see it ever working..
What happens if soemone misses the chance at killing a super rare boss and at getting the super rare drop from that boss because someone killed him and is no gone forever..? How pissed off would you be because you had to work while that boss spawned..
You need certain persistant things in MMORPGs for everyone to experiance the fun, sure yes you can have things change over time but i dnot think a truly dynamic world would work..
Relax. If you're going to get into Bite Heads mode again, I'm not even going to bother here.
The OP is talking about a seamless persistent 3D virtual world. OGame is not that. It is a 2D browser game.
The OP is talking about a game where quests and raids determine world changing events. OGame is not that. It is a strategy empire builder sim. Conquest gameplay changes the game world independent of backstory or ongoing lore.
Yes, Cuathon, in an MMORTS, the players change the ownership of areas and what pieces sit there. I never said they didn't. That's very different from what the OP is describing.
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
Exacrtly. Error on my part. I have LoL on the brain lately.
He saw one word, latched on to it and ran with it with complete disregard for the pint of the post.
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 will be other super rare bosses available while you're not working. Obviously the idea of everyone gets to do the same stuff gets tossed by the wayside (and good f***ing riddance).
It's a double edged sword. As a developer, you're regularly working against the First on Patch Day dilemma, where the minute new content goes in (and your players will ALWAYS find out when it is in) the most organized group with the fastest ability to get in game will get the Global Announcment or complete the content or trigger the switch or affect the world outcome. Players very quickly realize that if you aren't part of group X you have no chance of taking part in the cool stuff so they just start to ignore it or, worse, get upset that instead of developing content for the majority of the playerbase you're catering to a small group.
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
Not on an abstract level. In an MMORTS like Warring Factors conquests ARE lore. So are colonizing and research. They even have a lot of RP and many history threads. So there IS history and there IS narrative. The players make it themselves. Like a sandbox. All you have is an overarching plot, each faction wants to rule the universe.
You still haven't explained what LOL has to do with anything.
Now if the OP wants a themepark, he can play GW, its pretty close. But none of the problems you listed apply at all to a sandbox.
Trying to have a dev team run a story like a PnP GM is a shit idea. You will never under any circumstances keep up with players. Firstly there is not one world designer per 4 to 8 players and secondly they have to make 3d objects instead of a list of stats and your imagination like PnP. Also PnP is typically a couple hours on the weekend.
If the OP is suggesting something like that, he is insane.
This is a blatant lie. I made one throwaway comment about LoL that had nothing to do with the rest of my post and then moved on to actual MMORTS games.
I know what your saying and I do like the idea but I cant see it working as why should one guy be able to get the hammer of world destroying and another guy has no chance of getting it because he is in work or bed or whatever.. so instead the other guy does a quest when he wakes up and gets the super flower of the pansy kings?
casual players could not realyl exist in this game..
I dont like themepark games myself and only play PVP sandbox games so im used to crafting my own stuff and getting on in the game myself.. but i would still be pissed at hving 0% chance of getting certain items or crafting materials becausei was sleeping/working/having a life..
I know having everyone with the same weapons and armor sucks donkey balls, but they way around that is to have a great selection of weapons and armor that are actually balanced out so not everyone uses the same thing..
This is a non-issue, because this model is completely unsustainable with a "patch day" model.
There needs to be dynamic story-telling or player made content with a rule system associated with the creators. Those are the only options that I see.
That is a good question. I should of been more precise in explaining it in the OP. The major plot line of the game would be the one that is dynamic and could change by determing how the players react to different world, regional or local events or even progression through campaigns. If there is a quest or something that was designed from day one, and it's not dynamic it will be there when the late arrive. Other sub quests, sub events will more than likely be static.
The purpose of this game design element is to focus in an immersion level that your not playing a game, your playing in a world. If you arrive late you can still have access to many different events, and content, however, there will be set staged world, regional, and local events that will change history. You could also say this mechanic is a good marketing tool because it could keep subscriptions. There would be another level of enticement that players would like to stay aboard.
If you're sleeping through world war 3 and you miss it but then you wake up, you will see the aftermath of it. Sort of the same logic. That logic is what the poll was designed for. I wanted to get a small sample of people to see if they liked the idea. And it seems as if many do.
Actually the goal isn't to differentiate weapons from players, but to differentiate the content players go through. The very thing you're concerned about is the goal
Really though, if a player misses out on Hammer of Doom, they might find that the Greatsword of Salvation is available for them instead.
Can definitely be casual friendly as well. If there's a dynamic story-telling engine, unique personal quests can be created for each player as well.
I dont think we have the technology to run a truly dynamic world wehre everything is different for everyone.. maybe for a single play game yeah..
I think MMORPGs need to stear away from all this personal quest stuff.. MMORPGS need to be massive, it shuold not be about a single person but about the world..
by the way i did vote in favor of this hehe
To trim it down to its most realistic implementation, you could just have a finite continuum of progression and regression. The more progress players make, the harder it is to hold onto. The world would be in a constant state of flux, but within a closed system.
Might not be as awesome as an open ended ever-progressing system, but still a big step forward over completely static worlds, and a lot more reasonable to implement, and control across multiple servers. All at their own individual points along the continuum, due to how their players are doing.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
But isn't it more unsustainable with a dynamic/organinc progression? I don't follow what would manage and maintain continuity and rate at which content changes. Would you be able to elaborate a bit more on that?
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
Who said that they these world changing dynamic events has to happen at one time and one location? Think outside of the box. As I mentioned before, I am taking a "war time" scenario into affect into some, if not most of these events. For one, I also agree that it wouldn't be fair that if a majority of the players are in the EST time zone and the event is at 5 pm on a Monday but the PST players will be left out because of the time differential. The best way I could see this working is to have an "event day or an event week" where all players from many different levels can enjoy the same experience. However, the location and time may not be the same.
How could we explain this through a lore perspective? Let's say that the orcish NPC kingdomg is going to raid the north west of the world. That whole region. Maybe that would be the centeralized area of battle. What happens if they send a flank from the west to capture another city or a region that was not necesseraly written in the war document or whatever? Why does the evil NPC's have to follow the rule of law for war? Something to think about.
Yes, I would really like to sit down with someome to see if my ideas are plausable and can be done in reasonable milestones. Lok, don't you have some industry experience?