Were I a griefer, I would burn all the trees down and slaughter all the animals. You cannot make a world large enough to stop a small team of griefers from doing this...and they will absolutely do this. Go look at the history of A Tale in the Desert...it is littered with precisely these kinds of activities.
The kind of ecosystems you are talking about only work in a world that either has strict laws for abusers or a player population that is civilized and cooperative. I implore you to look at the history of A Tale in the Desert if you want to keep insisting that this can be done, because this experiment has already been tried and has proven my perspective more right than yours.
Anyone can find griefers in any MMORPG, exploiting whatever holes in the system they can find. Such players are inevitable. However, I do not believe that the answer is reducing content. Other options can and will be used, in time.But if the industry's only solution is to reduce the MMORPG into a linear, heavily regulated and heavily restricted game experience, then the griefers have won.
Originally posted by ianubisi Were I a griefer, I would burn all the trees down and slaughter all the animals. You cannot make a world large enough to stop a small team of griefers from doing this...and they will absolutely do this. Go look at the history of A Tale in the Desert...it is littered with precisely these kinds of activities.The kind of ecosystems you are talking about only work in a world that either has strict laws for abusers or a player population that is civilized and cooperative. I implore you to look at the history of A Tale in the Desert if you want to keep insisting that this can be done, because this experiment has already been tried and has proven my perspective more right than yours.
I hear what you're saying, its most certainly a concern. But with a system THIS complex, they could easily control how much a creature/plant will spawn.
Just because it simulates an ecosystem, doesn't mean it has to BE one. I was more thinking in terms of how much an animal is getting killed, breeding, eating, being eaten, etc. affects how much it will spawn. If done correctly, you could make it take a year to wipe one species out of a game, in which case, you may have seen 4 more new species come into the ecosystem in the same amount of time.
It would really be up to the developers to decided, not the griefers, IF this type of system were to be executed correctly.
You could also allow natural selection to play a part, the more an animal begins to get wiped out, the stronger the few of them that are left will be. In time you could find that the little bunny rabbits that you used to step on as a newb might go "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" on you as a high level player. And making it so that certain areas have level or toughness caps on the mobs in their respective areas, would prevent the griefers from making uber MOBS over-run newbie areas.
Like I said, this system can be made to work, as long as enough thought and planning go into it.
I really hope that *insert game name here* will be the first game to ever live up to all of its pre-release promises, maintain a manageable hype level and have a clean release. Just don't expect me to hold my breath.
For any system like that to work there would have to be too many checks and balances to prevent griefing. That is unless only a handfull of people played the game. I mean seriously you guys have played plenty of mmorpgs where gamers can keep respawns cleared from farming in seconds. Whats to say thousands of hardcore gamers cant whipe your server clean making it resemble a nuclear holocaust. And the sole reason would be or could be to do so.
Even if griefing were not the case, you may have to have max population per server to control the system. That may work but then you would have problems that other friends wanted to join your server but it was maxed out. In all, it is futile. Not a bad idea but futile none the less.
Originally posted by ianubisi Were I a griefer, I would burn all the trees down and slaughter all the animals. You cannot make a world large enough to stop a small team of griefers from doing this...and they will absolutely do this. Go look at the history of A Tale in the Desert...it is littered with precisely these kinds of activities.The kind of ecosystems you are talking about only work in a world that either has strict laws for abusers or a player population that is civilized and cooperative. I implore you to look at the history of A Tale in the Desert if you want to keep insisting that this can be done, because this experiment has already been tried and has proven my perspective more right than yours.
Perhaps the players could take such problem players into their own hands. Round up a posse and put an end to their mischief!
Originally posted by Waffleton Perhaps the players could take such problem players into their own hands. Round up a posse and put an end to their mischief!
Perhaps they could, but the damage done by a small crew of rampant griefers would already be done. Your forest reduced to ash, your ecosystems decimated, and entire species annihilated. It takes far less time to destroy such things than it does for the ecosystem to regenerate.
And for what? Realism? If you want realism, go outside your house and enjoy the fully-immersive ecology that is directly outside your door. We don't play games for realism, we play them for escapism.
i know its not exactly what is being discussed, but eve-online has a pretty dynamic ecology - mainly based around asteroids (which yield minerals). These asteroids only hold a finite amount of ore, and disappear when mined out. They do respawn but the amount in the new asteroids is less than if you leave the asteroids to regain minerals without destroying them. This has led to many of the alliances controlling valuble roid fields to begin 'farming' them, setting quotas of how much can be mined from x asteroid etc. and limits being placed on those not in the controlling alliance.
it doesnt affect the market as much now as it used to due to a couple of reasons (and it is a dynamic player-driven market) but is still an issue for alliances in sparser regions.
At one stage entire systems had been completely mined out, resulting in some dev changes to mining.
---sig---
PvE in general is pretty lame, if you think long and hard about it. You are spending your time beating a severely gimped AI that would lose to a well trained monkey. Best not to think too long and hard why you are wasting time playing games in general actually...
Originally posted by ianubisi Were I a griefer, I would burn all the trees down and slaughter all the animals. You cannot make a world large enough to stop a small team of griefers from doing this...and they will absolutely do this. Go look at the history of A Tale in the Desert...it is littered with precisely these kinds of activities. The kind of ecosystems you are talking about only work in a world that either has strict laws for abusers or a player population that is civilized and cooperative. I implore you to look at the history of A Tale in the Desert if you want to keep insisting that this can be done, because this experiment has already been tried and has proven my perspective more right than yours.
Not true. EVE Online had the same system of depletable resources: asteroids. Players could mine the asteroids until there was nothing left. Once gone, it would take anywhere from a couple days to a few weeks for the rocks to respawn in a given system. There were large teams that would go out and strip mine entire solar systems -- i know because i was CEO of one of the largest corps in EVE and we ran regular mining ops with 10-15 players on a typical operation.
It could take a couple days to strip an entire system with a large team, and there were thousands of systems. Sometimes you have to travel further in order to find the ore types you wanted, but there was always some available. The mistake you are making is that you are not thinking on a big enough scale. If the world has so few trees that a small team could go burn them all, then there aren't enough trees. You are thinking too small. Just as EVE has shown it's certainly possible to create a virtual world with a dynamic eco system that doesn't fall to griefers.
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
Originally posted by pinkdaisy You are thinking too small. Just as EVE has shown it's certainly possible to create a virtual world with a dynamic eco system that doesn't fall to griefers.
The rocks respawn.
That is 100% antithetical to a "realistic" ecological system, where once those rocks are gone they are gone forever.
EVE is not a good example of the "realistic" ecological system that is being suggested here.
Originally posted by pinkdaisy You are thinking too small. Just as EVE has shown it's certainly possible to create a virtual world with a dynamic eco system that doesn't fall to griefers.
The rocks respawn.
That is 100% antithetical to a "realistic" ecological system, where once those rocks are gone they are gone forever.
EVE is not a good example of the "realistic" ecological system that is being suggested here.
Think a little harder. Instead of rocks think of trees and animals. Trees will indeed respawn, so will animals as long as their populations don't go to zero. You are being overly antagonistic here. If there are wolves, it would make sense that more wolves will be born. As long as there are trees, more will germinate. My point was that EVE HAS an ecosystem and none of the doomsday scenarios that you assert ever occur.
That's great that you would much rather have a static game where nothing ever changes and nothing you do ever impacts the world/players/economies. You have nearly every MMO waiting for you to play in such a carnival ride. I, for one, want a dynamic, breathing, changing world. Both in terms of economy, ecology, technology, and politics. Simplay saying it's can't be done and it will never work is the mindset of "the glass is half empty" person. I do not subscribe to such a negative outlook on what can be accomplished in a game.
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
Originally posted by pinkdaisy Think a little harder. Instead of rocks think of trees and animals. Trees will indeed respawn, so will animals as long as their populations don't go to zero. You are being overly antagonistic here. If there are wolves, it would make sense that more wolves will be born. As long as there are trees, more will germinate. My point was that EVE HAS an ecosystem and none of the doomsday scenarios that you assert ever occur. That's great that you would much rather have a static game where nothing ever changes and nothing you do ever impacts the world/players/economies. You have nearly every MMO waiting for you to play in such a carnival ride. I, for one, want a dynamic, breathing, changing world. Both in terms of economy, ecology, technology, and politics. Simplay saying it's can't be done and it will never work is the mindset of "the glass is half empty" person. I do not subscribe to such a negative outlook on what can be accomplished in a game.
It takes many months for a species to rear an offspring. It takes years, even decades, for trees to grow from saplings. Ecosystems which can be destroyed in a single action in a single day takes generations to redevelop.
Before you sit in judgement of my "antagonistic" and "doomsday" point of view, remember that the original thrust of this post was a realistic ecological cycle. We are not talking about some hybrid, pseudo-ecology where replenishment could be defacto by the presence of even a single gender pairing of the species.
"Thinking Big" does not resolve the problem of malicious players who WILL destroy these systems for pleasure, profit, and punishment. It is naive and absurd to consider a MMOG where such players will not assert their will in such a manner, and if you develop a concrete ecosystem with permanent consequences and realistic replenishment you will soon find yourself in a world where forests are razed, baby wolves are carcasses, and any livable thing will either be a hotly contested asset or a doormat.
This is not a "glass is half empty" view. Griefers are real, ubiquitous, and determined. The more dramatic the impact and consequence of their action, the greater the desirability to a griefer to do their dirty work. Simply willing it to be otherwise is not an optimistic outlook, it is downright fantasy.
Perhaps the players could take such problem players into their own hands. Round up a posse and put an end to their mischief!
Perhaps they could, but the damage done by a small crew of rampant griefers would already be done. Your forest reduced to ash, your ecosystems decimated, and entire species annihilated. It takes far less time to destroy such things than it does for the ecosystem to regenerate.
About griefing: If there's gonna be features like setting fires, then why not have npc and/or pc forest fire fighters and law enforcement too, maybe hired by 'local' players? Maybe there are protected npc zoo's in the game, releasing endangered animals? There are not any laws against speeding things up in a sim. We can't wait a real year for the animals in the game to reproduce, or 50-100 years for a tree to grow, cause by then we'll be old or dead.
And for what? Realism? If you want realism, go outside your house and enjoy the fully-immersive ecology that is directly outside your door. We don't play games for realism, we play them for escapism.
Not all of us can or wants to do that. For example, nice hunting can be very expensive, and there's a lot of travel involved.
Originally posted by AngryHippie There are not any laws against speeding things up in a sim. We can't wait a real year for the animals in the game to reproduce, or 50-100 years for a tree to grow, cause by then we'll be old or dead.
Then it's not a "real" ecosystem, is it? Then you are back to where we all started, with trees growing in a matter of hours or maybe days...and the "immersive" quality being sought by Waffleton is lost.
Originally posted by AngryHippie There are not any laws against speeding things up in a sim. We can't wait a real year for the animals in the game to reproduce, or 50-100 years for a tree to grow, cause by then we'll be old or dead.
Then it's not a "real" ecosystem, is it? Then you are back to where we all started, with trees growing in a matter of hours or maybe days...and the "immersive" quality being sought by Waffleton is lost.
Or a week, or 3 weeks? It's just more fast paced, it still has "immersive" qualities.
A real ecology would be a waste of time. One that "looks" real is enough. Why should a dev waste time programming animals having sex, or the complex behavioral AI for each individual animal?
I don't even think devs today spend enough time on innovative game design... and even if such an ecology became possible to implement in a MMO, ianubisi and others are correct in that griefers will raze it all to the ground.
Also, a real life ecology has a real population of humans that impact it; the players of MMO's are not the same in their intentions and morality. There is not the same desire to "save the trees" or protect the planet for posterity. Even if there are in game laws and repercussions, it won't stop them. Gamers do things in games they would never, ever dream about doing in the real world. And a disproportionate number of them are annoying sadistic griefers, as compared to a real world population.
Suppose its all sped up so that a forest regenerates in a week? Then to maintain this realistic immersion, your character, if human, should be dead of old age that same week.
A real ecology would be a waste of time. One that "looks" real is enough. Why should a dev waste time programming animals having sex, or the complex behavioral AI for each individual animal?
Enough for who? Yes if you're just interested in a raiding game or pvp or whatever then why bother with animal AI.
Hunting(killing or capturing) animals is basically fun, breeding them can be fun too. In games these activities tend to be boring and/or strange. One of the reasons for this is the simple AI.
I don't even think devs today spend enough time on innovative game design... and even if such an ecology became possible to implement in a MMO, ianubisi and others are correct in that griefers will raze it all to the ground.
Also, a real life ecology has a real population of humans that impact it; the players of MMO's are not the same in their intentions and morality. There is not the same desire to "save the trees" or protect the planet for posterity. Even if there are in game laws and repercussions, it won't stop them. Gamers do things in games they would never, ever dream about doing in the real world. And a disproportionate number of them are annoying sadistic griefers, as compared to a real world population.
So, if you give players weapons, you can't give them hospitals or law enforcement? Give them fire and a forest, but not fire fighters? I think most of us know how bad players can behave online, and the whole 'evil brain' thing, but game devs are still making mmo's.
Suppose its all sped up so that a forest regenerates in a week? Then to maintain this realistic immersion, your character, if human, should be dead of old age that same week.
That depends on what type of "realistic immersion" you want in your game. You want your character to die in a week?
Originally posted by stephen_sof the trees and wildlife could be from another planet most games arnt on earth so they could simply grow and reproduce fast
yeah hehe, eco system + sci-fi theme would be a nice match.
Recently in Daoc, theres an area in SI around Necht where certain mobs are in a group setting around rocks, near a beach.
It is a realitively safe spot to pull hunt from and sit till your hearts content except for the mobs, continualy attack each other. The ravagers, attack the soring mantras, the beach shrouders and if you are lucky and fast you can pull "the ravagers" left overs . We have seen areas being camped in other games by players, as a common place thing. But when the mobs them selves are doing the camping it can be frustrating, espcialy if it is a specific kill task or quest item one is going for.
So even with mob interaction there has to be a way to make it more realistic, instead of standing around waiting for the players to come to kill, but also such not an over kill where the mobs extinguish themselves with an "in game movie"............
One of the reasons that UO's simulated ecology was a failure was because its world was so damn small (another being that the ecology was poorly implemented). If you give players a small island to play on, and make chopping down trees take all of 5 seconds, then yes, it wouldn't be very hard to destroy entire forests.
On the other hand, if you offer the players a gigantic world (roughly proportionate to the real world's population/size ration, perhaps?) and make chopping trees a time consuming task (perhaps proportionate to one's skill in lumberjacking), it may prove to discourage a number of griefers, while still rewarding those who choose to cut down trees for more practical reasons.
If you would rather enjoy playing a game where the closest you have to an ecology is random monsters spawning on a regular basis under pre-determined circumstances, then I don't blaming you for finding a more realistic ecology implementation futile, seeing as such matters disinterest you. And, how lucky you are! Almost every MMORPG online today caters to your needs.
Originally posted by Waffleton One of the reasons that UO's simulated ecology was a failure was because its world was so damn small (another being that the ecology was poorly implemented). If you give players a small island to play on, and make chopping down trees take all of 5 seconds, then yes, it wouldn't be very hard to destroy entire forests.On the other hand, if you offer the players a gigantic world (roughly proportionate to the real world's population/size ration, perhaps?) and make chopping trees a time consuming task (perhaps proportionate to one's skill in lumberjacking), it may prove to discourage a number of griefers, while still rewarding those who choose to cut down trees for more practical reasons.If you would rather enjoy playing a game where the closest you have to an ecology is random monsters spawning on a regular basis under pre-determined circumstances, then I don't blaming you for finding a more realistic ecology implementation futile, seeing as such matters disinterest you. And, how lucky you are! Almost every MMORPG online today caters to your needs.
In a realistic ecology, fire plays a major part; especially in certain forests, where the fires clear out underbrush, and some seeds actually do not begin growing until it feels sufficiently high heat. Even if it takes a long time to cut down a tree, it can't take long to burn it. Or if its fantasy, launch fireball spells at trees, or in a sci-fi game frag it with a laser cannon. I'm sure the immature griefer would likewise enjoy the sight of the woodland creatures scurring away while they ride on their horse/motorcycle launching magical/technological doom.
I'm a D&D type gamer... so i do enjoy immersion and atmosphere. Unlike you however, i am not looking for a replacement world, or a virtual real life. Despite what you think, there is a middle ground between the ultra-realism you advocate and the obviously fake popping that we currently have. They can make animals forage and behave naturally. They can even make overhunting lead to creature rarity.
However, it goes too far (for me), when you think that a developer should spend time coding in sexual behavior patterns for every species. Or devote bandwidth to tracking the migration and pack behavior of each and every one of 4939 wolves, as well as their interaction with the thousands of bears, moose, deer and other species in the world. Once again, if they're going to be spending all this time, money and research on such an ecology i doubt they'll ever get to actually making a game. And in the event that it does become feasible, it'll easily be ruined.
I have no problem with "more" realistic. Its "exactly" realistic that i'm skeptical about.
Originally posted by Waffleton As both an MMORPG enthusiast and an ecologist, few things annoy me more than a poorly simulated ecology. Most MMORPGs today have ecologies that consist of "polar bear respawns here 5 minutes after it is killed, for the sole intention wandering around aimlessly until a PC gets to close". This totally breaks immersion from me. I personally would like to see an MMORPG that simulated a realistic ecological environment; the different species of animals hunt each other, forage for food, mate, etc. Overhunting can lead to plummeting animal populations and even extinctions. Plants and trees use various methods of seed dispersal to grow over time in different climates. Entire forests can become deforested, requiring the player population to constantly migrate for resources as they become consumed. Richard Garriot, creator of UO, once claimed that a realistic ecology in an MMORPG is futile. I do not share this belief, I think that if it is done correctly, it could add an entirely new layer of immersion. I am tired of walking by to see dozens of different animals stand idle next to each other until I get too close. Why in the world didn't that deer run away from me as I approached? Why is that bear completely ignoring that panther? In current MMORPGs, wild animals are designed specifically for interaction with players. I personally would prefer to see them interact in a realistic ecological setting. Anyone's thoughts?
Hello Waffleton,
Welcome to MMORPG.com!
Every single thing you posted about has already been done in one MMORPG.... it has been done in
Star Wars Galaxies. You can sit back and watch preditory animals and monsters hunt down prey. Watch as the prey attempts to run away. And depending on the animal, its size, and your size, animals will indeed run away from you as you approch. If you disturb a group of bushes, small flying creatures will burst out, flying into the sky. Animals hunt each other.
It is fun studying which animals hunt which animals. Then if you are in a jam, you can run by the den, or herd, or group of whatever other animals, and they will intercept whatever creature is about to kill you. (Like a pack of Razorcats hunting down a Humbaba.)
It is not possible to hunt animals to extinction though. I don't think any MMORPG could successfully have this... within 1 month hardcore players will kill every single thing in the game - just because they can. SWG does have something close to this. Many types of metals and minerals, once they are completly mined from a fresh vein, are forever gone from the game - f-o-r-e-v-e-r! If a player has a stock of "uber metal with all uber stats of 900" they can sit on it and sell it later when few new mining veins are discovered by players with good metals. The same applies to other minerals and resources (radioactive resources, etc...) So yes, an enterprising (hardcore) player could mine all the best metals on a planet, or on the entire server, and for a while have an impact on all players! Until another player discovers a new mining vein with stats as good or better.... but with 8+ planets, it is possible no other player will make a new discovery - possible.
Animals and monsters do re-spawn in SWG, but not as badly planned as in other MMORPGs. If you are doing a mission, then the NPC will not respawn ever again (during that mission.) Also the majority of NPCs do not respawn over and over in the exact same spot.
Originally posted by Genjing One of the reasons that UO's simulated ecology was a failure was because its world was so damn small (another being that the ecology was poorly implemented). If you give players a small island to play on, and make chopping down trees take all of 5 seconds, then yes, it wouldn't be very hard to destroy entire forests.On the other hand, if you offer the players a gigantic world (roughly proportionate to the real world's population/size ration, perhaps?) and make chopping trees a time consuming task (perhaps proportionate to one's skill in lumberjacking), it may prove to discourage a number of griefers, while still rewarding those who choose to cut down trees for more practical reasons.If you would rather enjoy playing a game where the closest you have to an ecology is random monsters spawning on a regular basis under pre-determined circumstances, then I don't blaming you for finding a more realistic ecology implementation futile, seeing as such matters disinterest you. And, how lucky you are! Almost every MMORPG online today caters to your needs.In a realistic ecology, fire plays a major part; especially in certain forests, where the fires clear out underbrush, and some seeds actually do not begin growing until it feels sufficiently high heat. Even if it takes a long time to cut down a tree, it can't take long to burn it. Or if its fantasy, launch fireball spells at trees, or in a sci-fi game frag it with a laser cannon. I'm sure the immature griefer would likewise enjoy the sight of the woodland creatures scurring away while they ride on their horse/motorcycle launching magical/technological doom. I'm a D&D type gamer... so i do enjoy immersion and atmosphere. Unlike you however, i am not looking for a replacement world, or a virtual real life. Despite what you think, there is a middle ground between the ultra-realism you advocate and the obviously fake popping that we currently have. They can make animals forage and behave naturally. They can even make overhunting lead to creature rarity.However, it goes too far (for me), when you think that a developer should spend time coding in sexual behavior patterns for every species. Or devote bandwidth to tracking the migration and pack behavior of each and every one of 4939 wolves, as well as their interaction with the thousands of bears, moose, deer and other species in the world. Once again, if they're going to be spending all this time, money and research on such an ecology i doubt they'll ever get to actually making a game. And in the event that it does become feasible, it'll easily be ruined. I have no problem with "more" realistic. Its "exactly" realistic that i'm skeptical about.
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest realistic fire dynamics into an MMORPG. Like you say, an MMORPG is a sort of middle-ground. I agree that there are many things that are not required in a simulated MMORPG ecology (geothermal dynamics, atmospheric gas properties and conditions, quantum physics). These sciences are interesting fields in their own, however it could easily be seen why they are not a high priority, similar as to how you suggest that a realistic (note: not super-realistic) ecology is not needed. That being said, I don't think the implementation of fire should be used for the purpose of burning trees and spreading as it would in the real world; save this practice for other aspects of the game (burning logs, for example, to cook a raw steak on a fire). I recognize that fire is an incredibly important tenet of the real world's ecology, however it is not required for a mere emulation of plant dispersal and animal procreation.
As for the programming of different animal breeding habits and patterns, this is not all that impossible to achieve. When do they seek each other out to mate (breeding season)? Are they solitary creatures (do they avoid each other)? Or are they social (actively seek each other out, possibly into large herds). Gestation period? how much offspring? Although a daunting task to apply these traits, with clever programming code, it can be implemented.
Such features could easily highten the experience of the game for thousands of players. Hunting deer evolves from camping a designated area and waiting for a respawn, to tracking a herd through a forest, sneaking close, and firing a volley of arrows before they can dart away into the trees. More realistic, yes. But also, more fun. It doesn't have to be "deer hunter 4", or anything close, but with a nicely simulated ecology, such an activity becomes much more immersive.
Comments
Were I a griefer, I would burn all the trees down and slaughter all the animals. You cannot make a world large enough to stop a small team of griefers from doing this...and they will absolutely do this. Go look at the history of A Tale in the Desert...it is littered with precisely these kinds of activities.
The kind of ecosystems you are talking about only work in a world that either has strict laws for abusers or a player population that is civilized and cooperative. I implore you to look at the history of A Tale in the Desert if you want to keep insisting that this can be done, because this experiment has already been tried and has proven my perspective more right than yours.
Anyone can find griefers in any MMORPG, exploiting whatever holes in the system they can find. Such players are inevitable. However, I do not believe that the answer is reducing content. Other options can and will be used, in time.But if the industry's only solution is to reduce the MMORPG into a linear, heavily regulated and heavily restricted game experience, then the griefers have won.
I hear what you're saying, its most certainly a concern. But with a system THIS complex, they could easily control how much a creature/plant will spawn.
Just because it simulates an ecosystem, doesn't mean it has to BE one. I was more thinking in terms of how much an animal is getting killed, breeding, eating, being eaten, etc. affects how much it will spawn. If done correctly, you could make it take a year to wipe one species out of a game, in which case, you may have seen 4 more new species come into the ecosystem in the same amount of time.
It would really be up to the developers to decided, not the griefers, IF this type of system were to be executed correctly.
You could also allow natural selection to play a part, the more an animal begins to get wiped out, the stronger the few of them that are left will be. In time you could find that the little bunny rabbits that you used to step on as a newb might go "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" on you as a high level player. And making it so that certain areas have level or toughness caps on the mobs in their respective areas, would prevent the griefers from making uber MOBS over-run newbie areas.
Like I said, this system can be made to work, as long as enough thought and planning go into it.
I really hope that *insert game name here* will be the first game to ever live up to all of its pre-release promises, maintain a manageable hype level and have a clean release. Just don't expect me to hold my breath.
For any system like that to work there would have to be too many checks and balances to prevent griefing. That is unless only a handfull of people played the game. I mean seriously you guys have played plenty of mmorpgs where gamers can keep respawns cleared from farming in seconds. Whats to say thousands of hardcore gamers cant whipe your server clean making it resemble a nuclear holocaust. And the sole reason would be or could be to do so.
Even if griefing were not the case, you may have to have max population per server to control the system. That may work but then you would have problems that other friends wanted to join your server but it was maxed out. In all, it is futile. Not a bad idea but futile none the less.
Perhaps the players could take such problem players into their own hands. Round up a posse and put an end to their mischief!
Perhaps they could, but the damage done by a small crew of rampant griefers would already be done. Your forest reduced to ash, your ecosystems decimated, and entire species annihilated. It takes far less time to destroy such things than it does for the ecosystem to regenerate.
And for what? Realism? If you want realism, go outside your house and enjoy the fully-immersive ecology that is directly outside your door. We don't play games for realism, we play them for escapism.
i know its not exactly what is being discussed, but eve-online has a pretty dynamic ecology - mainly based around asteroids (which yield minerals). These asteroids only hold a finite amount of ore, and disappear when mined out. They do respawn but the amount in the new asteroids is less than if you leave the asteroids to regain minerals without destroying them. This has led to many of the alliances controlling valuble roid fields to begin 'farming' them, setting quotas of how much can be mined from x asteroid etc. and limits being placed on those not in the controlling alliance.
it doesnt affect the market as much now as it used to due to a couple of reasons (and it is a dynamic player-driven market) but is still an issue for alliances in sparser regions.
At one stage entire systems had been completely mined out, resulting in some dev changes to mining.
---sig---
PvE in general is pretty lame, if you think long and hard about it. You are spending your time beating a severely gimped AI that would lose to a well trained monkey. Best not to think too long and hard why you are wasting time playing games in general actually...
Not true. EVE Online had the same system of depletable resources: asteroids. Players could mine the asteroids until there was nothing left. Once gone, it would take anywhere from a couple days to a few weeks for the rocks to respawn in a given system. There were large teams that would go out and strip mine entire solar systems -- i know because i was CEO of one of the largest corps in EVE and we ran regular mining ops with 10-15 players on a typical operation.
It could take a couple days to strip an entire system with a large team, and there were thousands of systems. Sometimes you have to travel further in order to find the ore types you wanted, but there was always some available. The mistake you are making is that you are not thinking on a big enough scale. If the world has so few trees that a small team could go burn them all, then there aren't enough trees. You are thinking too small. Just as EVE has shown it's certainly possible to create a virtual world with a dynamic eco system that doesn't fall to griefers.
www.TheChippedDagger.com My 90-day 2D Java MMORPG project
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin
If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
The rocks respawn.
That is 100% antithetical to a "realistic" ecological system, where once those rocks are gone they are gone forever.
EVE is not a good example of the "realistic" ecological system that is being suggested here.
The rocks respawn.
That is 100% antithetical to a "realistic" ecological system, where once those rocks are gone they are gone forever.
EVE is not a good example of the "realistic" ecological system that is being suggested here.
Think a little harder. Instead of rocks think of trees and animals. Trees will indeed respawn, so will animals as long as their populations don't go to zero. You are being overly antagonistic here. If there are wolves, it would make sense that more wolves will be born. As long as there are trees, more will germinate. My point was that EVE HAS an ecosystem and none of the doomsday scenarios that you assert ever occur.
That's great that you would much rather have a static game where nothing ever changes and nothing you do ever impacts the world/players/economies. You have nearly every MMO waiting for you to play in such a carnival ride. I, for one, want a dynamic, breathing, changing world. Both in terms of economy, ecology, technology, and politics. Simplay saying it's can't be done and it will never work is the mindset of "the glass is half empty" person. I do not subscribe to such a negative outlook on what can be accomplished in a game.
www.TheChippedDagger.com My 90-day 2D Java MMORPG project
They that can give up essential liberty for temporary safetey deserve neither. -- Ben Franklin
If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. -- Milton Berle
It takes many months for a species to rear an offspring. It takes years, even decades, for trees to grow from saplings. Ecosystems which can be destroyed in a single action in a single day takes generations to redevelop.
Before you sit in judgement of my "antagonistic" and "doomsday" point of view, remember that the original thrust of this post was a realistic ecological cycle. We are not talking about some hybrid, pseudo-ecology where replenishment could be defacto by the presence of even a single gender pairing of the species.
"Thinking Big" does not resolve the problem of malicious players who WILL destroy these systems for pleasure, profit, and punishment. It is naive and absurd to consider a MMOG where such players will not assert their will in such a manner, and if you develop a concrete ecosystem with permanent consequences and realistic replenishment you will soon find yourself in a world where forests are razed, baby wolves are carcasses, and any livable thing will either be a hotly contested asset or a doormat.
This is not a "glass is half empty" view. Griefers are real, ubiquitous, and determined. The more dramatic the impact and consequence of their action, the greater the desirability to a griefer to do their dirty work. Simply willing it to be otherwise is not an optimistic outlook, it is downright fantasy.
Then it's not a "real" ecosystem, is it? Then you are back to where we all started, with trees growing in a matter of hours or maybe days...and the "immersive" quality being sought by Waffleton is lost.
Then it's not a "real" ecosystem, is it? Then you are back to where we all started, with trees growing in a matter of hours or maybe days...and the "immersive" quality being sought by Waffleton is lost.
Or a week, or 3 weeks? It's just more fast paced, it still has "immersive" qualities.
A real ecology would be a waste of time. One that "looks" real is enough. Why should a dev waste time programming animals having sex, or the complex behavioral AI for each individual animal?
I don't even think devs today spend enough time on innovative game design... and even if such an ecology became possible to implement in a MMO, ianubisi and others are correct in that griefers will raze it all to the ground.
Also, a real life ecology has a real population of humans that impact it; the players of MMO's are not the same in their intentions and morality. There is not the same desire to "save the trees" or protect the planet for posterity. Even if there are in game laws and repercussions, it won't stop them. Gamers do things in games they would never, ever dream about doing in the real world. And a disproportionate number of them are annoying sadistic griefers, as compared to a real world population.
Suppose its all sped up so that a forest regenerates in a week? Then to maintain this realistic immersion, your character, if human, should be dead of old age that same week.
the trees and wildlife could be from another planet most games arnt on earth so they could simply grow and reproduce fast
"It's the darkness that brings us power"
yeah hehe, eco system + sci-fi theme would be a nice match.
Recently in Daoc, theres an area in SI around Necht where certain mobs are in a group setting around rocks, near a beach.
It is a realitively safe spot to pull hunt from and sit till your hearts content except for the mobs, continualy attack each other. The ravagers, attack the soring mantras, the beach shrouders and if you are lucky and fast you can pull "the ravagers" left overs . We have seen areas being camped in other games by players, as a common place thing. But when the mobs them selves are doing the camping it can be frustrating, espcialy if it is a specific kill task or quest item one is going for.
So even with mob interaction there has to be a way to make it more realistic, instead of standing around waiting for the players to come to kill, but also such not an over kill where the mobs extinguish themselves with an "in game movie"............
One of the reasons that UO's simulated ecology was a failure was because its world was so damn small (another being that the ecology was poorly implemented). If you give players a small island to play on, and make chopping down trees take all of 5 seconds, then yes, it wouldn't be very hard to destroy entire forests.
On the other hand, if you offer the players a gigantic world (roughly proportionate to the real world's population/size ration, perhaps?) and make chopping trees a time consuming task (perhaps proportionate to one's skill in lumberjacking), it may prove to discourage a number of griefers, while still rewarding those who choose to cut down trees for more practical reasons.
If you would rather enjoy playing a game where the closest you have to an ecology is random monsters spawning on a regular basis under pre-determined circumstances, then I don't blaming you for finding a more realistic ecology implementation futile, seeing as such matters disinterest you. And, how lucky you are! Almost every MMORPG online today caters to your needs.
In a realistic ecology, fire plays a major part; especially in certain forests, where the fires clear out underbrush, and some seeds actually do not begin growing until it feels sufficiently high heat. Even if it takes a long time to cut down a tree, it can't take long to burn it. Or if its fantasy, launch fireball spells at trees, or in a sci-fi game frag it with a laser cannon. I'm sure the immature griefer would likewise enjoy the sight of the woodland creatures scurring away while they ride on their horse/motorcycle launching magical/technological doom.
I'm a D&D type gamer... so i do enjoy immersion and atmosphere. Unlike you however, i am not looking for a replacement world, or a virtual real life. Despite what you think, there is a middle ground between the ultra-realism you advocate and the obviously fake popping that we currently have. They can make animals forage and behave naturally. They can even make overhunting lead to creature rarity.
However, it goes too far (for me), when you think that a developer should spend time coding in sexual behavior patterns for every species. Or devote bandwidth to tracking the migration and pack behavior of each and every one of 4939 wolves, as well as their interaction with the thousands of bears, moose, deer and other species in the world. Once again, if they're going to be spending all this time, money and research on such an ecology i doubt they'll ever get to actually making a game. And in the event that it does become feasible, it'll easily be ruined.
I have no problem with "more" realistic. Its "exactly" realistic that i'm skeptical about.
Hello Waffleton,
Welcome to MMORPG.com!
Every single thing you posted about has already been done in one MMORPG.... it has been done in
Star Wars Galaxies. You can sit back and watch preditory animals and monsters hunt down prey. Watch as the prey attempts to run away. And depending on the animal, its size, and your size, animals will indeed run away from you as you approch. If you disturb a group of bushes, small flying creatures will burst out, flying into the sky. Animals hunt each other.
It is fun studying which animals hunt which animals. Then if you are in a jam, you can run by the den, or herd, or group of whatever other animals, and they will intercept whatever creature is about to kill you. (Like a pack of Razorcats hunting down a Humbaba.)
It is not possible to hunt animals to extinction though. I don't think any MMORPG could successfully have this... within 1 month hardcore players will kill every single thing in the game - just because they can. SWG does have something close to this. Many types of metals and minerals, once they are completly mined from a fresh vein, are forever gone from the game - f-o-r-e-v-e-r! If a player has a stock of "uber metal with all uber stats of 900" they can sit on it and sell it later when few new mining veins are discovered by players with good metals. The same applies to other minerals and resources (radioactive resources, etc...) So yes, an enterprising (hardcore) player could mine all the best metals on a planet, or on the entire server, and for a while have an impact on all players! Until another player discovers a new mining vein with stats as good or better.... but with 8+ planets, it is possible no other player will make a new discovery - possible.
Animals and monsters do re-spawn in SWG, but not as badly planned as in other MMORPGs. If you are doing a mission, then the NPC will not respawn ever again (during that mission.) Also the majority of NPCs do not respawn over and over in the exact same spot.
SWG is unofficially UO2.
-Personal Website (A Work still in progress):
http://www.geocities.com/xplororor/index.html
-AC, AC2, AO, EQ, Freelancer, SWG:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor
-More SWG:
http://community.webshots.com/user/captain_sica_xol
-More EQ, Dungeon Siege, *UXO*, Diablo II:Lords of Destruction:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor_archives01
-EverQuest II, Horizons:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor_eq2archives01
-EVE Online !!!
http://community.webshots.com/user/sica_xol_archives01
-DAoC
http://community.webshots.com/user/sica_xol_archives02
-Coming sooner or later... CoH, WoW, MXO, UO, GW, As3, RS
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest realistic fire dynamics into an MMORPG. Like you say, an MMORPG is a sort of middle-ground. I agree that there are many things that are not required in a simulated MMORPG ecology (geothermal dynamics, atmospheric gas properties and conditions, quantum physics). These sciences are interesting fields in their own, however it could easily be seen why they are not a high priority, similar as to how you suggest that a realistic (note: not super-realistic) ecology is not needed. That being said, I don't think the implementation of fire should be used for the purpose of burning trees and spreading as it would in the real world; save this practice for other aspects of the game (burning logs, for example, to cook a raw steak on a fire). I recognize that fire is an incredibly important tenet of the real world's ecology, however it is not required for a mere emulation of plant dispersal and animal procreation.
As for the programming of different animal breeding habits and patterns, this is not all that impossible to achieve. When do they seek each other out to mate (breeding season)? Are they solitary creatures (do they avoid each other)? Or are they social (actively seek each other out, possibly into large herds). Gestation period? how much offspring? Although a daunting task to apply these traits, with clever programming code, it can be implemented.
Such features could easily highten the experience of the game for thousands of players. Hunting deer evolves from camping a designated area and waiting for a respawn, to tracking a herd through a forest, sneaking close, and firing a volley of arrows before they can dart away into the trees. More realistic, yes. But also, more fun. It doesn't have to be "deer hunter 4", or anything close, but with a nicely simulated ecology, such an activity becomes much more immersive.
Yeah, as far as that goes, UO is a terrible offender. Bothered me too.
Tried Saga of Ryzom?
-Golden
-Golden