Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by maplestone Decision trees are not the only option for tracking the state of a world and assembling stories (if stories are your thing). Chapter 2 of your story is about a man, a woman and a wombat.Chapter 1 of your story has a variety of plots involving finding, helping and/or rescuing men, women and wombats. You can fail any number of chapter 1 quests, lose any number of NPCs in unfortunate accidents as long as somehow at least one of each survives. Then the story engine picks one of the surviving men, one of the surviving women and one of the surviving wombats and slots them into place. Presto, chapter 2 ready to go no matter the outcomes of the 100 quests in chapter 1..
I wish. I'd be happy with decision trees like the the "Pick Your Own Adventure" books though. I can see why developers don't do this, the number of branches and leaves gets ridiculous very quickly. But I'd still be happy with it. ** ** ** One thing you can do to alleviate the size of the branches is what you've setup there. Have the branches merge periodically, so that you don't have branches with branches with branches with branches. Back on topic, I think one of that problem with that methodology though to solve the problem with decision tree is that it is not true "Butterfly Effect" though - ie. at the end of that day what you do is not truly affecting the outcome of future quests / character's story - it is more like a pseudo branching.
It is kinda like throwing a stone into a river, it may create a ripple but the ripple will quickly subsidies.
So in a sense in that methodology what you do is utimately futile, and will seem futile if the player figures out that is how the game character's story ultimately works. Also the problem as well is the OP seems to be looking for true cause-and-effect questing mechanic, which this isn't really the case, while it is a reasonable solution.
It would certainly be better to have variant paths to follow, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have several ways to get to one of four "endings". There's also other things you can include to give each play through a feel. Morality is a common thing used, and it can have an impact on how the player is treated within the game. A combination of these three things could lead to a very interesting game.
1 - "Choose Your Own Adventure" style quest paths. Ideally with more than one ending state for each quest.
2 - maplestone's description of having an open ended or non-specific solution to a quest. This allows for open ended game play, with many possible solutions to get to the next quest stage.
3 - A morality or popularity aspect to character development. The level of fear, respect or overall morality changes the tone of NPC interactions, regardless of the quest solutions or quest branches chosen. The player may choose to kill or spare the evil bad guy, possibly having the option to redeem them. Etc. This has been done enough that you probably get the idea.
So it's not any one thing that adds the choices or perceived complexity, it's a combination of things.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by jalexbrown I would personally prefer it if developers stopped trying to put stories into all their MMOs. I was happier with lore, imagination, and the ability to decide and tell my own stories.
and i have yet to see any interesting player created "stories" in any mmo. Guild drama does not count.
I am much happier with professionally produced stories, and MMO should learn how to do that better from SP games.
Originally posted by Fendel84M I think TESO is actually trying this kind of thing. Problem I have, is ultimately it means heavy heavy instancing and phasing. Like to a ridiculous degree. At what point, when the whole world is so vastly different to each individual, does it stop being an MMO?
that would be perfect. To me that's the only way it can be an MMO. YOu all have your quest and story, and it doesnt bar you from helping someone out on their quest, just has true results fory ours.
Originally posted by jalexbrown I would personally prefer it if developers stopped trying to put stories into all their MMOs. I was happier with lore, imagination, and the ability to decide and tell my own stories.
and i have yet to see any interesting player created "stories" in any mmo. Guild drama does not count.
I am much happier with professionally produced stories, and MMO should learn how to do that better from SP games.
What? you don't think me following you around with my guild and killing you for taking my phat loot drop is story?
This is what I hate. RPGs are mainstream. I loved when it was our own little niche and we would think it was ludicrous that someone would suggest that an RPG not have a story. Single or multiplayer, those are adjectives for RPG. The compromised game that WOW has introduced and has been cloned is not satisfying enough. Star WArs and Guild Wars have both compel close, but I'd love permanent lose conditions. IE, Fallout 3, I blow up the town, that town is no longer visual for me . The current state of MMOs reminds me of everyone gets a reward in the PeeWee league.
Originally posted by maplestone Decision trees are not the only option for tracking the state of a world and assembling stories (if stories are your thing). Chapter 2 of your story is about a man, a woman and a wombat.Chapter 1 of your story has a variety of plots involving finding, helping and/or rescuing men, women and wombats. You can fail any number of chapter 1 quests, lose any number of NPCs in unfortunate accidents as long as somehow at least one of each survives. Then the story engine picks one of the surviving men, one of the surviving women and one of the surviving wombats and slots them into place. Presto, chapter 2 ready to go no matter the outcomes of the 100 quests in chapter 1..
I wish. I'd be happy with decision trees like the the "Pick Your Own Adventure" books though. I can see why developers don't do this, the number of branches and leaves gets ridiculous very quickly. But I'd still be happy with it. ** ** ** One thing you can do to alleviate the size of the branches is what you've setup there. Have the branches merge periodically, so that you don't have branches with branches with branches with branches.
Back on topic, I think one of that problem with that methodology though to solve the problem with decision tree is that it is not true "Butterfly Effect" though - ie. at the end of that day what you do is not truly affecting the outcome of future quests / character's story - it is more like a pseudo branching.
It is kinda like throwing a stone into a river, it may create a ripple but the ripple will quickly subsidies.
So in a sense in that methodology what you do is utimately futile, and will seem futile if the player figures out that is how the game character's story ultimately works. Also the problem as well is the OP seems to be looking for true cause-and-effect questing mechanic, which this isn't really the case, while it is a reasonable solution.
It would certainly be better to have variant paths to follow, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have several ways to get to one of four "endings". There's also other things you can include to give each play through a feel. Morality is a common thing used, and it can have an impact on how the player is treated within the game. A combination of these three things could lead to a very interesting game.
1 - "Choose Your Own Adventure" style quest paths. Ideally with more than one ending state for each quest.
2 - maplestone's description of having an open ended or non-specific solution to a quest. This allows for open ended game play, with many possible solutions to get to the next quest stage.
3 - A morality or popularity aspect to character development. The level of fear, respect or overall morality changes the tone of NPC interactions, regardless of the quest solutions or quest branches chosen. The player may choose to kill or spare the evil bad guy, possibly having the option to redeem them. Etc. This has been done enough that you probably get the idea.
So it's not any one thing that adds the choices or perceived complexity, it's a combination of things.
That's why I think Elder Scroll is the game that will do it. It doesn't seem like it would take that much more programming to introduce a value for 3 types of reputation score for each npc, and how you are treated an what quests are available are effected by that score. If in a party, great the npc can be programmed to read the highest rating in the party or the average.
Guild Wars (the original) had a great question system in which you had to start the whole quest over again if you failed it. I"m all for another system like that, perhaps only allowying you to repeat a quest (to keep player "friendliness) but effecting the score greatly with each fail.
Originally posted by Gravarg You can fail at closing Rifts in Rift, but that just means less loot and no bonus stage. It would be cool if you failed a Rift and it turned from a minor one into a major
I like this idea, but i fear people would abuse it, failing minor rifts on purpose to create major and epic ones.
The reard for minor rifts would have to be greater and the penalty for having major rifts greater. In other words the danger level needs to be increased.
Originally posted by Fendel84M I think TESO is actually trying this kind of thing. Problem I have, is ultimately it means heavy heavy instancing and phasing. Like to a ridiculous degree. At what point, when the whole world is so vastly different to each individual, does it stop being an MMO?
Originally posted by Fendel84M I think TESO is actually trying this kind of thing. Problem I have, is ultimately it means heavy heavy instancing and phasing. Like to a ridiculous degree. At what point, when the whole world is so vastly different to each individual, does it stop being an MMO?
Very quickly, if you ask me.
so what if it is not a MMO. The question is, is it a good game?
Vendetta Online already does this. It's been somewhat of a hobby, somewhat of an obsession for me the past five or six years (I've been playing for 10). The decision-tree branch thing works, as does conditional failure leading to new paths. Looping back also works. The PCC editor is powerful enough that any design structure is limited only really by the mathematical field of combinatorics.
I agree that missions (VO's version of quests) should not overshadow regular "open world" methods of advancement, and I've taken pains to insure this my design endeavors, and when leaving feedback on others. I'm also aware of logical paradoxes that can arise out of "shared realities". I don't think physical instancing is really necessary; the trick is not to get egoistic with the circumstances (think everyday life, everyday heroes/enemies) and just kind of sidestep the rest or leave it up to the player to resolve. It's not perfect, but it's better than instancing.
The following are a few examples of interrelated structures I've come up with (the first image has missions intentionally left blank to avoid spoilers) that have now been implemented to the actual game:
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Originally posted by Fendel84M I think TESO is actually trying this kind of thing. Problem I have, is ultimately it means heavy heavy instancing and phasing. Like to a ridiculous degree. At what point, when the whole world is so vastly different to each individual, does it stop being an MMO?
Very quickly, if you ask me.
so what if it is not a MMO. The question is, is it a good game?
How would be group if one is down a different path? Must be something im missing because this seems an obvious problem to me.
I don't have a good answer for this except that it isn't... really. Missions are kind of like an appendix to the VO world; some players enjoy them, but they aren't game makers or breakers except in a few unique circumstances where a mission might lead to a special item or ship. The primary motivation for me in authoring missions is to tell stories and to express the VO universe in a new and unique way. This is one of humankind's oldest needs, if you buy into the cave-painting theory.
There are also certain relationships between arcs that are not directly connected; a player may get a clearer picture of what is actually going on by playing more than one path; in this sense a group would actually be stronger having individual members each choose separate courses.
I suppose it's one of those things that should never work in theory, but only works in practice.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
How would be group if one is down a different path? Must be something im missing because this seems an obvious problem to me.
It's not really any different than the problem of players agreeing on a common reality in a linear plot - a simple solution is that while grouped, everyone exists within the party leader's reality. If you take a slotted quest like the one I suggested above, the plot lines can be assembled using whatever NPCs are alive in every player's view of the world.
Comments
Back on topic, I think one of that problem with that methodology though to solve the problem with decision tree is that it is not true "Butterfly Effect" though - ie. at the end of that day what you do is not truly affecting the outcome of future quests / character's story - it is more like a pseudo branching.
It is kinda like throwing a stone into a river, it may create a ripple but the ripple will quickly subsidies.
So in a sense in that methodology what you do is utimately futile, and will seem futile if the player figures out that is how the game character's story ultimately works. Also the problem as well is the OP seems to be looking for true cause-and-effect questing mechanic, which this isn't really the case, while it is a reasonable solution.
It would certainly be better to have variant paths to follow, but that doesn't mean you couldn't have several ways to get to one of four "endings". There's also other things you can include to give each play through a feel. Morality is a common thing used, and it can have an impact on how the player is treated within the game. A combination of these three things could lead to a very interesting game.
1 - "Choose Your Own Adventure" style quest paths. Ideally with more than one ending state for each quest.
2 - maplestone's description of having an open ended or non-specific solution to a quest. This allows for open ended game play, with many possible solutions to get to the next quest stage.
3 - A morality or popularity aspect to character development. The level of fear, respect or overall morality changes the tone of NPC interactions, regardless of the quest solutions or quest branches chosen. The player may choose to kill or spare the evil bad guy, possibly having the option to redeem them. Etc. This has been done enough that you probably get the idea.
So it's not any one thing that adds the choices or perceived complexity, it's a combination of things.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
and i have yet to see any interesting player created "stories" in any mmo. Guild drama does not count.
I am much happier with professionally produced stories, and MMO should learn how to do that better from SP games.
that would be perfect. To me that's the only way it can be an MMO. YOu all have your quest and story, and it doesnt bar you from helping someone out on their quest, just has true results fory ours.
What? you don't think me following you around with my guild and killing you for taking my phat loot drop is story?
This is what I hate. RPGs are mainstream. I loved when it was our own little niche and we would think it was ludicrous that someone would suggest that an RPG not have a story. Single or multiplayer, those are adjectives for RPG. The compromised game that WOW has introduced and has been cloned is not satisfying enough. Star WArs and Guild Wars have both compel close, but I'd love permanent lose conditions. IE, Fallout 3, I blow up the town, that town is no longer visual for me . The current state of MMOs reminds me of everyone gets a reward in the PeeWee league.
That's why I think Elder Scroll is the game that will do it. It doesn't seem like it would take that much more programming to introduce a value for 3 types of reputation score for each npc, and how you are treated an what quests are available are effected by that score. If in a party, great the npc can be programmed to read the highest rating in the party or the average.
Guild Wars (the original) had a great question system in which you had to start the whole quest over again if you failed it. I"m all for another system like that, perhaps only allowying you to repeat a quest (to keep player "friendliness) but effecting the score greatly with each fail.
I like this idea, but i fear people would abuse it, failing minor rifts on purpose to create major and epic ones.
The reard for minor rifts would have to be greater and the penalty for having major rifts greater. In other words the danger level needs to be increased.
Very quickly, if you ask me.
so what if it is not a MMO. The question is, is it a good game?
Vendetta Online already does this. It's been somewhat of a hobby, somewhat of an obsession for me the past five or six years (I've been playing for 10). The decision-tree branch thing works, as does conditional failure leading to new paths. Looping back also works. The PCC editor is powerful enough that any design structure is limited only really by the mathematical field of combinatorics.
I agree that missions (VO's version of quests) should not overshadow regular "open world" methods of advancement, and I've taken pains to insure this my design endeavors, and when leaving feedback on others. I'm also aware of logical paradoxes that can arise out of "shared realities". I don't think physical instancing is really necessary; the trick is not to get egoistic with the circumstances (think everyday life, everyday heroes/enemies) and just kind of sidestep the rest or leave it up to the player to resolve. It's not perfect, but it's better than instancing.
The following are a few examples of interrelated structures I've come up with (the first image has missions intentionally left blank to avoid spoilers) that have now been implemented to the actual game:
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Not to me, most likely. To some? Maybe.
Sounds to me that guilds would be screwed.
How would be group if one is down a different path? Must be something im missing because this seems an obvious problem to me.
I don't have a good answer for this except that it isn't... really. Missions are kind of like an appendix to the VO world; some players enjoy them, but they aren't game makers or breakers except in a few unique circumstances where a mission might lead to a special item or ship. The primary motivation for me in authoring missions is to tell stories and to express the VO universe in a new and unique way. This is one of humankind's oldest needs, if you buy into the cave-painting theory.
There are also certain relationships between arcs that are not directly connected; a player may get a clearer picture of what is actually going on by playing more than one path; in this sense a group would actually be stronger having individual members each choose separate courses.
I suppose it's one of those things that should never work in theory, but only works in practice.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
It's not really any different than the problem of players agreeing on a common reality in a linear plot - a simple solution is that while grouped, everyone exists within the party leader's reality. If you take a slotted quest like the one I suggested above, the plot lines can be assembled using whatever NPCs are alive in every player's view of the world.