If a purely player-driven MMO were to come out, would you play it?

Neverdyne

The world would be completely player-driven. Think of a world where "nature" elements are there, but anything "man-made" is done by players. Players can kill whoever they want, they can loot whatever they want from others, etc. Character progression would be in the form of skill trees similar to SWG; you choose to be whatever you want. There would be no pre-made cities, or factions, etc. Instead players can build whatever they want similar to Minecraft or Rift Dimensions (but nothing would be instanced). Buildings can be destroyed by player attacks. Crafters would need to compete to get the best resources (again, similar to SWG). Would you play such a game?  A box full of sand and a few shovels, but nothing else? I've always been curious about how such a game would be received.

Bosian

Just give me back pre-cu SWG and I would be happy

ZenIrishChai

Sounds like griefer-heaven. I think there are already plenty of variations of this.

Maelwydd

Part of my design course requires to fully document and design a game. I have chosen to do an MMO. Except for the 'starting area' everything else in the game is player content except the natural environment. This includes systems for quests (Players can create quests or rather 'work' for other people to do such as gathering resources etc...), resources in the world and how players can interact with them (from vegitation and animals through to doing things like build and place buildings, roads, mines etc...). Even things like the banking and trade system are player created and driven (such as creating trade routes, local markets, trasportation of goods to a local pick-up point).

I personally think it is the way MMO's should have gone a long time ago. I also don't ahve a problem with combining generic themepark idea's with sandpark idea's and don't see PvP as a neccessity, dependes on the theme and target audience (I personally have a design that allows PvP but in tiers so people can be fully PvE oriented, a mix of PvE and PvP and full blown PvP anywhere and who you can PvP is detnermined by what tier they choose to be in. And changing tier is a very slow process).

I have no problem with the idea you of a player driven MMO and hope to eventually get mine out there.

Cephus404

No way in hell, I won't play any PvP games for any reason.

rojoArcueid

player driven mmo.... mmmh, i would play it for free. If we (the players) are going to drive the game i dont see a reason to pay other than perhaps the box, but if its pvp focused then not a chance.

MMOExposed

L

 

T

 

 

 

of fucking course I would. I been suggesting it for a while now. Mind sets change. Player driven and player made MMO world design is the future. It's the only way to keep attachment flowing.

fuzzylogic11

Play Wurm Online on a pvp (Epic server). No skill tree but everything is skill based.

 

http://www.wurmonline.com/

Loktofeit

Originally posted by Neverdyne

The world would be completely player-driven. Think of a world where "nature" elements are there, but anything "man-made" is done by players. Players can kill whoever they want, they can loot whatever they want from others, etc. Character progression would be in the form of skill trees similar to SWG; you choose to be whatever you want. There would be no pre-made cities, or factions, etc. Instead players can build whatever they want similar to Minecraft or Rift Dimensions (but nothing would be instanced). Buildings can be destroyed by player attacks. Crafters would need to compete to get the best resources (again, similar to SWG). Would you play such a game?  A box full of sand and a few shovels, but nothing else? I've always been curious about how such a game would be received.

Nope. I don't think you really realize how much dev intervention and management is needed for what you suggest.

BitterClinger

The problem with "completely player-driven" worlds is that most players are either idiots, asshats, lazy, or some combination of the three. I already live in a world run by idiots.  I don't want my game world to be so life like.

Loktofeit

Originally posted by BitterClinger
The problem with "completely player-driven" worlds is that most players are either idiots, asshats, lazy, or some combination of the three. I already live in a world run by idiots.  I don't want my game world to be so life like.

Opapanax

Edit: Did not mean to post in this thread..

My bad..

jazz.be

I don't understand the obsession with a complete 100% player driven world.

What makes you think the world would look good? Honestly, I don't trust my fellow gamers' expertise, no offense :-)

ZenIrishChai

Originally posted by BitterClinger
The problem with "completely player-driven" worlds is that most players are either idiots, asshats, lazy, or some combination of the three. I already live in a world run by idiots.  I don't want my game world to be so life like.

 

My thoughts exactly, and I don't think it's a negative frame of mind to think that way either. It's just true. The best games take our freedom and direct it towards something smart and rewarding so dumb people don't screw it up. Whether it's a linear theme park or a non-linear sandbox, the tools that you give people make a big difference. Complete freedom or player-driven anything will be a train wreck. If you take this concept and push it's direction towards coop only or only allowing the freedom to do beneficial things for the community, then I'll play it. I doubt a PVP community can do that, but I'm open to the possibility it just hasn't been done right yet.

 

edit: I don't mean to say PVP is bad. All my MMOs have PVP. I just think it's the wrong mindset to mix with player driven economies, trade, banking, etc. It attracts the crowd that wants to mess with people in any way possible.

jazz.be

Originally posted by Robokapp

Originally posted by jazz.be

I don't understand the obsession with a complete 100% player driven world.

What makes you think the world would look good? Honestly, I don't trust my fellow gamers' expertise, no offense :-)

 

it'd look good if someone makes it look good.

 

this is where the guy with no life comes in. He will make your world amazing. he has the skills, the time, and the passion.

 

end result for you: world looks good.

end result for him: he's the God of a New World.

 

Win-Win.

 

That's the obsession. because effort would be recognised.

All right let's assume there are guys out there who can do the job.

Tell me, for each of these guys, how many other guys will make total rubbish content and screw it all up for you?

picommander

These dreams are based on the same errant ideas that build so-called neoliberal economy systems, or in other words: As long as you refrain from any kind of control everything would find to a wonderous balance in the very end. Only works in theory and in your heads but never in reality. Even doesn't work in evolution in a Darvinian sense: Human race is completely out of balance with other life forms on this planet. And keep in mind this "model" had hundreds of thousends years to develop. You really think this would work out with a bunch of bloodthirsty raging kids in a few month (or give it a few years, doesn't really matter)?

Neverdyne

Originally posted by Robokapp

how does OP's vague suggestion differ from EVE nullsec ?

 

I'm no sure i understand. does he mean Second Life or Xsyon perhaps ?

 

through some shape, such games do exist, more or less. Perhaps Darkfall and Shadowbane also ?

 

Hmm, think SWG pre-cu but without NPC cities or pre-made quests; rather players can build cities wherever and however they want. Players can also destroy cities if they choose to. Quests could be contracts between players. Say you want a guy that's been bothering you dead, you go to a board and put up a "If you kill player X I will give you 100g" bounty, or if you need to craft a new armor that requires leather you could place a "Kill and skin 10 stags and I'll pay you 100g" contract. The system does the transaction automatically upon completition. An MMO where there are systems in place, but everything else is up to the players.

Loktofeit

Originally posted by Robokapp

Originally posted by jazz.be

I don't understand the obsession with a complete 100% player driven world.

What makes you think the world would look good? Honestly, I don't trust my fellow gamers' expertise, no offense :-)

it'd look good if someone makes it look good.

this is where the guy with no life comes in. He will make your world amazing. he has the skills, the time, and the passion.

end result for you: world looks good.

end result for him: he's the God of a New World.

Win-Win.

That's the obsession. because effort would be recognised.

The two problems with that are

there is a very low chance that the guy will make something that isn't crap

there is a very low change what he creates will be what anyone else wants

 

People get all dreamy eyed over these player-driven worlds because they only consider them from the viewpoint of being able to do all sorts of things they consider wonderful. I really don't think they ever stop to look at it from the perspective of being subjected to all sorts of things others consider wonderful. They do single-player dreaming and never apply the whole "MMO" aspect to it.

shingoukieh

Originally posted by Neverdyne

The world would be completely player-driven. Think of a world where "nature" elements are there, but anything "man-made" is done by players. Players can kill whoever they want, they can loot whatever they want from others, etc. Character progression would be in the form of skill trees similar to SWG; you choose to be whatever you want. There would be no pre-made cities, or factions, etc. Instead players can build whatever they want similar to Minecraft or Rift Dimensions (but nothing would be instanced). Buildings can be destroyed by player attacks. Crafters would need to compete to get the best resources (again, similar to SWG). Would you play such a game?  A box full of sand and a few shovels, but nothing else? I've always been curious about how such a game would be received.

WTF bro...sounds to me like an empty land with nothing to do in it....so basically you want a mmo developer to create a big world like wow and just have nothing in it but trees??? Sounds kinda lazy to me IMO

Another note a game like that couldnt exist unless it was like server based where people host servers and with a cap of like 200 or so....

Final note...Minecraft classic servers..anyone can join them...and some people join just to destroy other people work...so in this mmorpg u mention nothing would ever get build...cause someone would destroy it mid way

ZenIrishChai

Originally posted by Neverdyne

Originally posted by Robokapp

how does OP's vague suggestion differ from EVE nullsec ?

 

I'm no sure i understand. does he mean Second Life or Xsyon perhaps ?

 

through some shape, such games do exist, more or less. Perhaps Darkfall and Shadowbane also ?

 

Hmm, think SWG pre-cu but without NPC cities or pre-made quests; rather players can build cities wherever and however they want. Players can also destroy cities if they choose to. Quests could be contracts between players. Say you want a guy that's been bothering you dead, you go to a board and put up a "If you kill player X I will give you 100g" bounty, or if you need to craft a new armor that requires leather you could place a "Kill and skin 10 stags and I'll pay you 100g" contract. The system does the transaction automatically upon completition. An MMO where there are systems in place, but everything else is up to the players.

 

Might be interesting to add player-driven security and leadership in the form of buffs to those voted in to office in a particular town or region. My main problem is really just about a lack of anti-griefing measures. People will make it their mission to take what you give them and screw it up for others. Maybe the game could work to empower bands of good people to try and stop that, but if done wrong you just give more power to the griefers.

Neverdyne

Yeah griefing would be the main detractor, but the problem is what constitutes griefing? Look at more recent, non-MMO games, like DayZ. You can kill anyone there, people will be looking to kill you, you loose everything if you die, yet people love the unexpected things that happen because of this freedom. For example: 

 

 

A guy takes him hostage, and his friend finds them right in time to save him. Little random unexpected events like this would never happen on a game that limits your freedom to kill and be killed. But I can see how being spawn camped by a bunch of players would not be fun. It's a tough balancing act I suppose.

killahh

Whaa whaa whaa

UO was exactly that. The problem however is the fact that that kind of game draws those who have no fear of death and setbacks.
Kinda like people in real life, that's why all we get now are lame make everyone happy games, and scince only a small portion of the populace has any balls as it were, that's what your gonna get.

Don't even try to deny it, 90% of you would run from a fight in real life.
Pacifistic games for pacifistic populations.

benseine

I prefer sandbox mmorpg. The more content is player driven the better. Currently have my hopes on this game to deliver a good mix of fun gameplay (M&B style) with alot of sandbox: 

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1688404825/gloria-victis-dark-medieval-mmorpg/posts/359857

craftseeker

Originally posted by killahh
Whaa whaa whaa

UO was exactly that. The problem however is the fact that that kind of game draws those who have no fear of death and setbacks.
Kinda like people in real life, that's why all we get now are lame make everyone happy games, and scince only a small portion of the populace has any balls as it were, that's what your gonna get.

Don't even try to deny it, 90% of you would run from a fight in real life.
Pacifistic games for pacifistic populations.
 

Strange, I remember (40 years ago now) my unarmed combat instructor (a serving Special Forces soldier, what you would call a master sergeant) telling us:  "the best way of winning any fight is by two blocks" and then sending us on our morning run each day.  Hardly a pacifist.

What you describe seems to me to be the sentiment of a street thug.

JimmyYO

People underestimate how much sandbagging goes on with player driven games. One guild of elite players end up ruling the entire server on games like those and that's no fun either.

azzamasin

Originally posted by Neverdyne

The world would be completely player-driven. Think of a world where "nature" elements are there, but anything "man-made" is done by players. Players can kill whoever they want, they can loot whatever they want from others, etc. Character progression would be in the form of skill trees similar to SWG; you choose to be whatever you want. There would be no pre-made cities, or factions, etc. Instead players can build whatever they want similar to Minecraft or Rift Dimensions (but nothing would be instanced). Buildings can be destroyed by player attacks. Crafters would need to compete to get the best resources (again, similar to SWG). Would you play such a game?  A box full of sand and a few shovels, but nothing else? I've always been curious about how such a game would be received.

No I dislike builder games, never could get the whole fascination with games like Minecraft, Xyson or Wurm.  I need combat to play the central role of a game.