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.
You know that is a very good idea and would compliment the immersion factor of the world. I have designed the map to allow 3 or 4 alts to be made to fully explore and enjoy the world. That is a very intreresting idea and someting that should be considered. Also, read the reply to comrademario as it may also answer your question 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.
Dynamic weapon system or more variables on the common lookup table method could manage something like that. Spawned items could occasionally do a user check and adject stats to complement the owner's stats. For example, the loot table for the container/mob/trigger could have "weapon" defined as an item and the stats undefined until the next trigger is set. That could be the user that obtains it, the person that owns it when identified/inspected or even through a later quest.
One could even do it in such a manner as the Atlan/Isparian Weapon quests in AC, where the item needs to be combined by a certain person and, based on the glyph they choose to use and their skill, the stats of the item are created.
So, in the case of a dynamic quest system, the combination of a few variables from the quest plus a few from the player/group could yield some interesting results, especially on the group level.
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
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'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.
There is a level cap. The main objective for a continula world is the story line and what is experienced through a story line. It will not conistitute a player stronger or not versus another who may or may not have experienced the same.
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 ).
At the moment, I didn't even consider aging a possibility. If there is age then death or retirement like Sythion said in his post could be a means for that. You do bring a good point Com, it could entice late arrivals. This whole idea brings in a whole flood of ideas for different gameplay mechanics, like heirlooms, a will, generations under a character from alts. That would be very interesting.
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?
I don't think I would give the players or a guild that much power because of that very thing to become a dictatorship. The dev's would be in full control of it all because it would be designed to bring forth an experience. The way I envision it is, it's sort of like there is a tree. You start out at the trunk and work your way up. At the top of the tree there are leaves and a lot of branches. But what branch at the top is the real end? There are many differeny ways to get there. It's like a version of those choose your own adventure books. Essentially, players are writing the history of the world from present to future. There will be a beginning, middle and end that would be planned out, it's how to get there.
You're totally right, it's all about me me me, that selfishness and instant gratification. My design is to cater to the old school mmo crowd before the WoW instant gratification. I hope it also caters to new age gamers as well that is looking for a journey and a challenge. My game design wasn't for everyone. It was built for a niche.
It's interesting, but there are so many things that could go wrong with it it might be unworkable
I am going to answer in blue underneath your text.
It seems like it would be a real worthwhile endeavor to fire up a MUD, script a few of these things you're looking to do and set the plan in motion with a couple dozen players. It would not onlyhelp identify the strengths and weaknesses of the various aspects of the ideas you have here, but probably would make for a unique and engaging experience for the players involved.
The reason I suggest a MUD is because it eliminates almost all graphics and rendering so that you can concentrate entirely on the dynamic virtual world design without getting bogged down by some massive (and, to a certain degree, unnecessary) art burden.
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
It's exactly the kind of thing I'd like to see. However, I'm not so phobic about instancing and can see ways they may used, that enhance the game rather than detract from it.
I'd certainly be far more plugged into a world when I knew that things can change permanently from one day to the next, and that if I'm not there, I'll never get to see it. The potential for addiction is high.
It seems like it would be a real worthwhile endeavor to fire up a MUD, script a few of these things you're looking to do and set the plan in motion with a couple dozen players. It would not onlyhelp identify the strengths and weaknesses of the various aspects of the ideas you have here, but probably would make for a unique and engaging experience for the players involved.
The reason I suggest a MUD is because it eliminates almost all graphics and rendering so that you can concentrate entirely on the dynamic virtual world design without getting bogged down by some massive (and, to a certain degree, unnecessary) art burden.
I have been doing this for a bit on my game. C++ is such a pain, especially for GUI stuff. I am not a big fan of cegui and I really don't wanna role my own, but it looks like I'll have to. Bah. Web based games have amazingly easy to deal with GUI.
I am setting up the spell system and the lairs and monsters for dynamic PvE. Not sure if should implement the city system. Maybe res and crafting.
Nice answers Eronakis, thanks for taking the time to do so.
That sounds like something I'd be masisvely interested in to be honest. I'm crying out for an immersive world where I can develop my own storyline around my character. I wish you well in this, if I ever see it around I'll most definitely be joining.
Nice answers Eronakis, thanks for taking the time to do so.
That sounds like something I'd be masisvely interested in to be honest. I'm crying out for an immersive world where I can develop my own storyline around my character. I wish you well in this, if I ever see it around I'll most definitely be joining.
Develop your own story line sounds like something incompatible with MMOs where a lot of what happens is out of your control. We see this a lot in various kinds of RP where players try to roleplay as godly and always winning and it pisses off other players. In this case the game itself limits your control over your character storyline.
Nice answers Eronakis, thanks for taking the time to do so.
That sounds like something I'd be masisvely interested in to be honest. I'm crying out for an immersive world where I can develop my own storyline around my character. I wish you well in this, if I ever see it around I'll most definitely be joining.
Develop your own story line sounds like something incompatible with MMOs where a lot of what happens is out of your control. We see this a lot in various kinds of RP where players try to roleplay as godly and always winning and it pisses off other players. In this case the game itself limits your control over your character storyline.
GW2 is doing something similiar to that. I am twisting it and saying that your story is apart of the larger part of the story, instead of having 40 million different stories. I am looking at it from a larger portion rather than a minute one.
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?
So what you're essentially asking about is narrative balance: controlling how much "stuff" happens so that the world isn't the plane of chaos, and so that players always have interesting things to do. Also, there's a concern "world progression" which needs to be met as well.
For the balance part, I envision having a sort of delta variable for each quest that takes into consideration how many players and NPCs, buildings, objects, etc. could be impacted by the various outcomes (success, defeat, degree of success, method of success, etc.) The sum of these delta variables for active quests will try to stay at or around a certain threshold, possibly modified by degree of "change" caused by outcomes of recent quests.
For the second, there needs to be an idea of "negative" change as well. Quests can fail. Even when they succeed there can be consequences. They could have timelines that could impact the degree of success, etc. Having a dynamic story-telling engine opens up possibilities that would be completely unfeasable in a traditional associate developer -> content design method.
Here is something that was not brought up within the thread. Say this exists and works well. Players participate in world events that happen once a month, for a week long.
These events are well scripted, gives you an extra immersion feel like you're really experiencing a war or whatever the event may be. There would be dev's and GM's that would oversee and control events world wide.
For one that says, yes I would like this to happen, would you pay extra a month or even per event to take place in? I ask this because this model for this particular gameplay will could cost a lot to maintain for this experience.
How much would you pay extra? 5 bucks? 10 bucks a month? How much would you pay for a week long event? 5 bucks? 10 bucks?
I think something like this is likely to need an actual endgame or set of finishing conditions i.e. if all the player cities get captured by the monsters of if all the top boss mobs are killed and all the dungeons cleared then the game comes to an end and the server is reset a bit like an EQ progression server.
I think something like this is likely to need an actual endgame or set of finishing conditions i.e. if all the player cities get captured by the monsters of if all the top boss mobs are killed and all the dungeons cleared then the game comes to an end and the server is reset a bit like an EQ progression server.
Good point. I would also agree that it does need an actual end game. The actual end game will come once the storyline is completed and everything is exposed. Remember, the continual world progression is mainly based on a continual story line that the players can manipulate depending on thier actions through various types of events.
I think something like this is likely to need an actual endgame or set of finishing conditions i.e. if all the player cities get captured by the monsters of if all the top boss mobs are killed and all the dungeons cleared then the game comes to an end and the server is reset a bit like an EQ progression server.
Good point. I would also agree that it does need an actual end game. The actual end game will come once the storyline is completed and everything is exposed. Remember, the continual world progression is mainly based on a continual story line that the players can manipulate depending on thier actions through various types of events.
Perhaps an "Ultimate Evil" could be overcome through player cooperation and then an option for a player to take up the mantle of the "Ultimate Evil" by backstabbing/betraying his allies. This would create a dynamic event and keep the storyline and leave multiple options open for Dev's and players alike.
Of course the idea sounds great. But it's the feasibility that determines whether the execution is possible.
RIFT's world events are viable. They established a baseline of content. They added somewhat dynamic world content (Rifts.) And then they periodically do World Events which shake up things even more.
You have a few factors at work:
Any events which are "done", never to return, are thrown away dev hours. You might have spent the last 2 years creating world events, but new players will only see the most recent 0.25 years worth of world events.
This factors into content consumption as well, as each individual piece of content will become old and boring after a while -- and having 2 years of content for players to work through is a lot more than 0.25 years worth of content.
This necessitates the need for a baseline content, which is what you see in RIFT.
If world progression disables parts of the zone (the orcs control that quest hub) then you've effectively erased some of your baseline content (although you'll probably want to do this only in the short term; once the orcs are gone, the old content comes back so you don't lose that dev hour investment.)
You can certainly produce more clever world events than RIFT has (stuff more like WOW's Cthun gate resource stockpiling, where visuals of the world changed in relation to player actions.) But RIFT is a good base for establishing how much content your world needs at a baseline compared to how much you can move things around with dynamic world-changing events.
...assuming you have a team at least as well-funded and skilled as TRION, that is. (Big assumption.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Themeparks are not suited to dynamic events. Period.
And your reasoning behind your claim?
Dynamic events applied as the basis for the game means that people will always have a moving target for what experiences thay have.
If you make a character now in RIft or WoW, even though they have special and world events you still get the same introductory experience and first see the same general world. It's only as you progress further into the game you see any of the 'chenges' which more often than not is expanding content, not adapting content.
You have isolated instances with the likes of Asheron's Call (though overall experience, quests, and progression remained the same, aspects of the world have changed, towns have been destroyed, and some hallmark moments are irreversible) or WoW Cataclysm (though that's a mixed bag as the events tie loosely for new players and it's largely world cosmetics that leave most the progressiong of the prior content intact).
Dynamics events applied to the game's core would imply that new gamer experience would be different almost every time. What was once your starting zone for a faction may a week later be held enemy territory or even rubble due to a quest chain forcing the population back. Or the leader of a capitol might die and a new one is chosen who moves to a new main city hub, drawing the general flow of missions and economy to it.
This is terrible for a themepark because it is less likely to guarantee the experience of the player and it is harder to ensure they will get the specific feel and progression you would want.
In other words, it'd be a themepark without any rails or trails. Which would make it a bad themepark for a guided experience.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Themeparks are not suited to dynamic events. Period.
And your reasoning behind your claim?
Dynamic events work great in themeparks. Rifts were the most popular part of RIFT, particularly the zone events (the largest and most dynamic of their dynamic events.)
I'm sure the equivalent events in GW2 will be popular as well, depending on execution quality.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is terrible for a themepark because it is less likely to guarantee the experience of the player and it is harder to ensure they will get the specific feel and progression you would want.
In other words, it'd be a themepark without any rails or trails. Which would make it a bad themepark for a guided experience.
Themeparks aren't about rails. They're about fun rides. If the rides are more interactive, they're more fun.
The only time when interactivity works against a themepark is when it ruins the fun of the rides, which only happens with things like world bosses (where one group gets the kill and the loot, and another doesn't.)
The reason themeparks are popular is they don't let bad game mechanics ruin the rides. Rails aren't the goal of themeparks, but merely one way that themeparks provide substantially higher-quality rides (gaming experiences) than sandboxes.
The only gaurantee themepark players want is a gaurantee that asshats can't ruin the experience. Apart from that, dynamic content is highly desired in themeparks.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not really sure I get what you are defining a themepark in total as then.
The hallmark titles display rather well the concept of rails with zone levels and the flow of one quest hub to the next being a matter of following the road from the newbie zones all the way to the portals to the bosses private realms. It may not be the goal, but then what is if not a guided experience?
That's why I say it's conterintuitive, because like I mentioned having a system where quests always push the narrative in a meaningful fashion means the world will be pushed with it and zones would not remain what they were originally made as.
EDIT: Guess my question is what are you defining as 'rides' versus 'rails'. Because that's likely to make quite the distinction between opinions on what they mean as well as the common 'themepark versus sandbox' argument.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Themeparks are not suited to dynamic events. Period.
And your reasoning behind your claim?
Dynamic events work great in themeparks. Rifts were the most popular part of RIFT, particularly the zone events (the largest and most dynamic of their dynamic events.)
I'm sure the equivalent events in GW2 will be popular as well, depending on execution quality.
I was referring to scripted story elements. Not rifts which have very little to do with the story. Events which effect the world are sandbox elements. Armies conquering cities, quests involved in that, various other things like world bosses. Themeparks can never achieve the same value for these features as sandboxes because they will interfere with the themepark elements like static NPC cities and so forth.
This is terrible for a themepark because it is less likely to guarantee the experience of the player and it is harder to ensure they will get the specific feel and progression you would want.
In other words, it'd be a themepark without any rails or trails. Which would make it a bad themepark for a guided experience.
Themeparks aren't about rails. They're about fun rides. If the rides are more interactive, they're more fun.
The only time when interactivity works against a themepark is when it ruins the fun of the rides, which only happens with things like world bosses (where one group gets the kill and the loot, and another doesn't.)
The reason themeparks are popular is they don't let bad game mechanics ruin the rides. Rails aren't the goal of themeparks, but merely one way that themeparks provide substantially higher-quality rides (gaming experiences) than sandboxes.
The only gaurantee themepark players want is a gaurantee that asshats can't ruin the experience. Apart from that, dynamic content is highly desired in themeparks.
Originally posted by Cuathon
I was referring to scripted story elements. Not rifts which have very little to do with the story. Events which effect the world are sandbox elements. Armies conquering cities, quests involved in that, various other things like world bosses. Themeparks can never achieve the same value for these features as sandboxes because they will interfere with the themepark elements like static NPC cities and so forth.
Technically, there are no set parameters that define a themepark or a sandbox title. This is another thread for another discussion. But I will say this because it ties in within this conversation. This whole thread is a new way of thinking of how to implement different game play elements to create an immersive world. I don't know why people believe there is a written law that says themepark mmos has to be designed this way and sandbox mmos have to be designed another.
I would like to have players experience an immersive world that does not have "sandbox" elements for player to mob or player to player interaction. However, I do want a sandbox world with class design, a sense of progression. I believe with the designs I currently have a "themepark" and a "sandbox" game can be implemented. If there are classes, it does not consititute it to be a themepark. I agree with Axehilt, that dynamic content is desired into a "themepark" universe.
Everquest is a good example of infusing themepark and some sandbox elements. Yes, Everquest had a character level progression and classes. The game also had different skills in which a character can train at, also zones where a blend of mix leveled mobs that entwined high and low level characters. Zones also complimented a specified level range for players with a certian level. But there were also content for higher level players.
I am taking that game design philosophy and tuning it a different direction into dynamic events. There is a lot of assumption in this discussion because I haven't talked about quest mechanics, class or combat mechanics or anything else that would constitute this idea to be a bad idea with themepark game design elements. Essentially, the vision is to merge both "types" of gameplay attributes of themepark and sandbox but still hold true to the "themepark" gameplay. If you know my game design, it is not designed for players who want their hand held or on "rails".
Because there may be dynamic content doesn't mean that it's not a guided experience. Cauthon, I never mentioned of how much of the games portion is dynamic or static. The only dynamic features would be ones that are in line with the major plot. Events would be the dymanic part. Is there a law to say that some content is dynamic at certain intervals of gametime while other are static? Who says that is bad game design? I don't think I have ever seen a title shipped that has the way of thinking I have put in this. It's something new. Essentially, it's different game design philosophy outside of the box. The only real way to fully know if this is a great idea and is plausable is through testing.
Themeparks are not suited to dynamic events. Period.
I was referring to scripted story elements. Not rifts which have very little to do with the story. Events which effect the world are sandbox elements. Armies conquering cities, quests involved in that, various other things like world bosses. Themeparks can never achieve the same value for these features as sandboxes because they will interfere with the themepark elements like static NPC cities and so forth.
So dynamic events don't work, period, except when they're unrelated to story. Right. Got it. Any more caveats to your extremist statement?
Rifts having to do with the story is irrelevant. Rifts are a dynamic ride/event offered in a themepark. They work.
Sandboxes are about the sand. World manipulation driven by players. Player authorship.
Themeparks are about rides. Players don't change the rides, but the more dynamic and interactive those rides are the better. (Rides are completed linearly, but chosen non-linearly. So an assumption that themeparks must be linear is mostly incorrect because linearity is merely a partial output of the true goal of a themepark: having fun rides.)
So dynamic events are completely at home in a themepark. They're potentially better rides, as long as they avoid some of the pitfalls.
Not letting them ruin existing ride quality
Not letting them create content gaps
Not designing them in a way so that the overall content amount is considerably diminished (Rift is built on a baseline of content; the events spice up that content, but don't overwrite it.)
And there's also the fact that the knowledgebase of how to create a fun dynamic experience is much smaller than how to create a fun static experience, which results in a lot of not-so-fun mistakes, and typically dev teams are far more efficient at creating static experiences (which end up being higher quality as a result.) I wouldn't necessarily say dynamic experiences will always be worse than static ones, given the same x dev hours (especially since when x is very small, dynamic experiences tend to outshine the static ones) but that the level of "design technology" for creating dynamic experiences is dwarfed by the technology for creating compelling static experiences.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
You know that is a very good idea and would compliment the immersion factor of the world. I have designed the map to allow 3 or 4 alts to be made to fully explore and enjoy the world. That is a very intreresting idea and someting that should be considered. Also, read the reply to comrademario as it may also answer your question as well.
Dynamic weapon system or more variables on the common lookup table method could manage something like that. Spawned items could occasionally do a user check and adject stats to complement the owner's stats. For example, the loot table for the container/mob/trigger could have "weapon" defined as an item and the stats undefined until the next trigger is set. That could be the user that obtains it, the person that owns it when identified/inspected or even through a later quest.
One could even do it in such a manner as the Atlan/Isparian Weapon quests in AC, where the item needs to be combined by a certain person and, based on the glyph they choose to use and their skill, the stats of the item are created.
So, in the case of a dynamic quest system, the combination of a few variables from the quest plus a few from the player/group could yield some interesting results, especially on the group level.
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
Yes. This afternoon
I am going to answer in blue underneath your text.
It seems like it would be a real worthwhile endeavor to fire up a MUD, script a few of these things you're looking to do and set the plan in motion with a couple dozen players. It would not onlyhelp identify the strengths and weaknesses of the various aspects of the ideas you have here, but probably would make for a unique and engaging experience for the players involved.
The reason I suggest a MUD is because it eliminates almost all graphics and rendering so that you can concentrate entirely on the dynamic virtual world design without getting bogged down by some massive (and, to a certain degree, unnecessary) art burden.
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
It's exactly the kind of thing I'd like to see. However, I'm not so phobic about instancing and can see ways they may used, that enhance the game rather than detract from it.
I'd certainly be far more plugged into a world when I knew that things can change permanently from one day to the next, and that if I'm not there, I'll never get to see it. The potential for addiction is high.
I have been doing this for a bit on my game. C++ is such a pain, especially for GUI stuff. I am not a big fan of cegui and I really don't wanna role my own, but it looks like I'll have to. Bah. Web based games have amazingly easy to deal with GUI.
I am setting up the spell system and the lairs and monsters for dynamic PvE. Not sure if should implement the city system. Maybe res and crafting.
Nice answers Eronakis, thanks for taking the time to do so.
That sounds like something I'd be masisvely interested in to be honest. I'm crying out for an immersive world where I can develop my own storyline around my character. I wish you well in this, if I ever see it around I'll most definitely be joining.
Develop your own story line sounds like something incompatible with MMOs where a lot of what happens is out of your control. We see this a lot in various kinds of RP where players try to roleplay as godly and always winning and it pisses off other players. In this case the game itself limits your control over your character storyline.
GW2 is doing something similiar to that. I am twisting it and saying that your story is apart of the larger part of the story, instead of having 40 million different stories. I am looking at it from a larger portion rather than a minute one.
So what you're essentially asking about is narrative balance: controlling how much "stuff" happens so that the world isn't the plane of chaos, and so that players always have interesting things to do. Also, there's a concern "world progression" which needs to be met as well.
For the balance part, I envision having a sort of delta variable for each quest that takes into consideration how many players and NPCs, buildings, objects, etc. could be impacted by the various outcomes (success, defeat, degree of success, method of success, etc.) The sum of these delta variables for active quests will try to stay at or around a certain threshold, possibly modified by degree of "change" caused by outcomes of recent quests.
For the second, there needs to be an idea of "negative" change as well. Quests can fail. Even when they succeed there can be consequences. They could have timelines that could impact the degree of success, etc. Having a dynamic story-telling engine opens up possibilities that would be completely unfeasable in a traditional associate developer -> content design method.
Here is something that was not brought up within the thread. Say this exists and works well. Players participate in world events that happen once a month, for a week long.
These events are well scripted, gives you an extra immersion feel like you're really experiencing a war or whatever the event may be. There would be dev's and GM's that would oversee and control events world wide.
For one that says, yes I would like this to happen, would you pay extra a month or even per event to take place in? I ask this because this model for this particular gameplay will could cost a lot to maintain for this experience.
How much would you pay extra? 5 bucks? 10 bucks a month? How much would you pay for a week long event? 5 bucks? 10 bucks?
I think something like this is likely to need an actual endgame or set of finishing conditions i.e. if all the player cities get captured by the monsters of if all the top boss mobs are killed and all the dungeons cleared then the game comes to an end and the server is reset a bit like an EQ progression server.
Good point. I would also agree that it does need an actual end game. The actual end game will come once the storyline is completed and everything is exposed. Remember, the continual world progression is mainly based on a continual story line that the players can manipulate depending on thier actions through various types of events.
Perhaps an "Ultimate Evil" could be overcome through player cooperation and then an option for a player to take up the mantle of the "Ultimate Evil" by backstabbing/betraying his allies. This would create a dynamic event and keep the storyline and leave multiple options open for Dev's and players alike.
Of course the idea sounds great. But it's the feasibility that determines whether the execution is possible.
RIFT's world events are viable. They established a baseline of content. They added somewhat dynamic world content (Rifts.) And then they periodically do World Events which shake up things even more.
You have a few factors at work:
Any events which are "done", never to return, are thrown away dev hours. You might have spent the last 2 years creating world events, but new players will only see the most recent 0.25 years worth of world events.
This factors into content consumption as well, as each individual piece of content will become old and boring after a while -- and having 2 years of content for players to work through is a lot more than 0.25 years worth of content.
This necessitates the need for a baseline content, which is what you see in RIFT.
If world progression disables parts of the zone (the orcs control that quest hub) then you've effectively erased some of your baseline content (although you'll probably want to do this only in the short term; once the orcs are gone, the old content comes back so you don't lose that dev hour investment.)
You can certainly produce more clever world events than RIFT has (stuff more like WOW's Cthun gate resource stockpiling, where visuals of the world changed in relation to player actions.) But RIFT is a good base for establishing how much content your world needs at a baseline compared to how much you can move things around with dynamic world-changing events.
...assuming you have a team at least as well-funded and skilled as TRION, that is. (Big assumption.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Themeparks are not suited to dynamic events. Period.
And your reasoning behind your claim?
Dynamic events applied as the basis for the game means that people will always have a moving target for what experiences thay have.
If you make a character now in RIft or WoW, even though they have special and world events you still get the same introductory experience and first see the same general world. It's only as you progress further into the game you see any of the 'chenges' which more often than not is expanding content, not adapting content.
You have isolated instances with the likes of Asheron's Call (though overall experience, quests, and progression remained the same, aspects of the world have changed, towns have been destroyed, and some hallmark moments are irreversible) or WoW Cataclysm (though that's a mixed bag as the events tie loosely for new players and it's largely world cosmetics that leave most the progressiong of the prior content intact).
Dynamics events applied to the game's core would imply that new gamer experience would be different almost every time. What was once your starting zone for a faction may a week later be held enemy territory or even rubble due to a quest chain forcing the population back. Or the leader of a capitol might die and a new one is chosen who moves to a new main city hub, drawing the general flow of missions and economy to it.
This is terrible for a themepark because it is less likely to guarantee the experience of the player and it is harder to ensure they will get the specific feel and progression you would want.
In other words, it'd be a themepark without any rails or trails. Which would make it a bad themepark for a guided experience.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Dynamic events work great in themeparks. Rifts were the most popular part of RIFT, particularly the zone events (the largest and most dynamic of their dynamic events.)
I'm sure the equivalent events in GW2 will be popular as well, depending on execution quality.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Themeparks aren't about rails. They're about fun rides. If the rides are more interactive, they're more fun.
The only time when interactivity works against a themepark is when it ruins the fun of the rides, which only happens with things like world bosses (where one group gets the kill and the loot, and another doesn't.)
The reason themeparks are popular is they don't let bad game mechanics ruin the rides. Rails aren't the goal of themeparks, but merely one way that themeparks provide substantially higher-quality rides (gaming experiences) than sandboxes.
The only gaurantee themepark players want is a gaurantee that asshats can't ruin the experience. Apart from that, dynamic content is highly desired in themeparks.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not really sure I get what you are defining a themepark in total as then.
The hallmark titles display rather well the concept of rails with zone levels and the flow of one quest hub to the next being a matter of following the road from the newbie zones all the way to the portals to the bosses private realms. It may not be the goal, but then what is if not a guided experience?
That's why I say it's conterintuitive, because like I mentioned having a system where quests always push the narrative in a meaningful fashion means the world will be pushed with it and zones would not remain what they were originally made as.
EDIT: Guess my question is what are you defining as 'rides' versus 'rails'. Because that's likely to make quite the distinction between opinions on what they mean as well as the common 'themepark versus sandbox' argument.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I was referring to scripted story elements. Not rifts which have very little to do with the story. Events which effect the world are sandbox elements. Armies conquering cities, quests involved in that, various other things like world bosses. Themeparks can never achieve the same value for these features as sandboxes because they will interfere with the themepark elements like static NPC cities and so forth.
Technically, there are no set parameters that define a themepark or a sandbox title. This is another thread for another discussion. But I will say this because it ties in within this conversation. This whole thread is a new way of thinking of how to implement different game play elements to create an immersive world. I don't know why people believe there is a written law that says themepark mmos has to be designed this way and sandbox mmos have to be designed another.
I would like to have players experience an immersive world that does not have "sandbox" elements for player to mob or player to player interaction. However, I do want a sandbox world with class design, a sense of progression. I believe with the designs I currently have a "themepark" and a "sandbox" game can be implemented. If there are classes, it does not consititute it to be a themepark. I agree with Axehilt, that dynamic content is desired into a "themepark" universe.
Everquest is a good example of infusing themepark and some sandbox elements. Yes, Everquest had a character level progression and classes. The game also had different skills in which a character can train at, also zones where a blend of mix leveled mobs that entwined high and low level characters. Zones also complimented a specified level range for players with a certian level. But there were also content for higher level players.
I am taking that game design philosophy and tuning it a different direction into dynamic events. There is a lot of assumption in this discussion because I haven't talked about quest mechanics, class or combat mechanics or anything else that would constitute this idea to be a bad idea with themepark game design elements. Essentially, the vision is to merge both "types" of gameplay attributes of themepark and sandbox but still hold true to the "themepark" gameplay. If you know my game design, it is not designed for players who want their hand held or on "rails".
Because there may be dynamic content doesn't mean that it's not a guided experience. Cauthon, I never mentioned of how much of the games portion is dynamic or static. The only dynamic features would be ones that are in line with the major plot. Events would be the dymanic part. Is there a law to say that some content is dynamic at certain intervals of gametime while other are static? Who says that is bad game design? I don't think I have ever seen a title shipped that has the way of thinking I have put in this. It's something new. Essentially, it's different game design philosophy outside of the box. The only real way to fully know if this is a great idea and is plausable is through testing.
So dynamic events don't work, period, except when they're unrelated to story. Right. Got it. Any more caveats to your extremist statement?
Rifts having to do with the story is irrelevant. Rifts are a dynamic ride/event offered in a themepark. They work.
Sandboxes are about the sand. World manipulation driven by players. Player authorship.
Themeparks are about rides. Players don't change the rides, but the more dynamic and interactive those rides are the better. (Rides are completed linearly, but chosen non-linearly. So an assumption that themeparks must be linear is mostly incorrect because linearity is merely a partial output of the true goal of a themepark: having fun rides.)
So dynamic events are completely at home in a themepark. They're potentially better rides, as long as they avoid some of the pitfalls.
Not letting them ruin existing ride quality
Not letting them create content gaps
Not designing them in a way so that the overall content amount is considerably diminished (Rift is built on a baseline of content; the events spice up that content, but don't overwrite it.)
And there's also the fact that the knowledgebase of how to create a fun dynamic experience is much smaller than how to create a fun static experience, which results in a lot of not-so-fun mistakes, and typically dev teams are far more efficient at creating static experiences (which end up being higher quality as a result.) I wouldn't necessarily say dynamic experiences will always be worse than static ones, given the same x dev hours (especially since when x is very small, dynamic experiences tend to outshine the static ones) but that the level of "design technology" for creating dynamic experiences is dwarfed by the technology for creating compelling static experiences.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver