Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
We need character creation and development to evolve...
g0m0rrah
Member UncommonPosts: 325
It seems that character creation and your ability to evolve your character(s) has stagnated. We have seen questing evolve to include public quests, rifts, and fates. Where is the dynamic evolution of characters? After playing EQ2 a bit in my spare time, an inquisitor, I was pleasantly surprised to see the option of making your inquisitor melee based. In the inquisitor AA tree you have the option of converting several spells into melee abilities, which intrigued me. A plate armor based cleric class that could choose to melee, hmmm. My knowledge of EQ2 is limited I admit, but it seems that playing an inquisitor as a melee based champ is more far beneficial than it is simply an option or choice. This also made me look at other classes like Fury. Is it possible to create a melee Fury and is this option beneficial or a wasted effort?
I began pondering class evolution through talent trees and such. Why has a game such as WoW wandered away from talent trees? Then it kind of hit me, we dont need class based talent trees. What we need are ability based talent trees. When I choose an ability, lets use a generic ability, firebolt for example. Why doesnt this firebolt ability have its own talent options? Why cant I modify this firebolt ability in ways that suit my play style. Maybe I would like to make a melee class and I decide that this firebolt will sacrifice range and turn it into an instant cast melee ability.
Why can we not break spells and abilities down at the component level. Range, damage, cast time, damage type, travel time, cool down, and cost are important aspects of an ability or spell that effect how we use these abilities or spells in combat. So far our ability to modify these aspects of a spell or ability are limited to talent trees and small modifications and usually only one or two aspects per spell. What I want to see is all aspects of all abilities having their own talents. You click a spell in your spell book which opens up that spells tree of modifications.
You can limit the players ability to modify spells in a number of ways. You could limit the number of times a single spell can be modified. You could limit the number of spells a player may learn. Maybe 3 modifications can equal 1 spell. So you have the choice to learn a new spell entirely or spend 3 points in modifying an existing spell. I prefer having the capability to choose which abilities I take as well as choosing which abilities I modify.
A system like this could work in a class or skill based game. WoW for example, imagine being a Priest and the type of priest you are depends on the spells and abilities that you choose. For example you choose mostly shadow damage based abilities with a few balance abilities. Sounds like a shadow priest to me. This sets limits for your character based on your own choices and not simply "oh you are a priest so you have every single ability a priest has".
Oh well, these are just some ideas that I had and I figured I would post them to get some feedback.
Comments
Balance.
If you can break spells down you have to do it in a way that is balanced. That means all of the spells have to adhere to the same set of guidelines.
By limiting the usefulness of spells the Devs are able to create balance and have spells pluses and minuses.
If there were sliders they would have to all operate on the same scale or some spells would never get used. That could cause some people to find the system cookie cutter.
The system would most likely have to be very elaborate to work and be balanced. Elaborate systems are expensive and more prone to being thrown out of balance.
--John Ruskin
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
WoW moved away from the talent trees because they didn't work. You were more or less forced into one of 3 or 4 builds anyway. I definitely agree more customization is important and I also feel that creation should be important. Make racials that actually matter! Allow me to really build a character like you did in say Shadowbane. Yeah it is hard to balance but so what, it adds way more than you lose.
I also like some sort of end game character progression that isn't just gear. Something like EQ's AA.
I do agree that it would be more complicated to balance, but I tend to believe that people prefer complicated character development. I do not see under used spells being a problem. You design the character to do what you choose, so visuals become more of a choice and less of an extension of power. You just have to create effective options. If Fire spells come with attached DoTs and Ice spells come with attached slows, there will be effective ways to use both.
Cookie cutter builds suffer when combat is dynamic. Yes fire might do more total dps but it might lack the utility of ice. Maybe that ice utility isnt as easily measured but its usually hard to measure most CC and how that CC limits the damage you or your party suffers in combat. People get so stuck on the abilities that can be measured like dps and healing and tend to overlook utility.
I want to add one more thing.
I was looking at an idea once and I was running the math on spells/attacks/weapons. What I found was that if players had the ability to modify attacks based on time then damage had to be scale with time strictly or balance would be very hard to control. A player could make a max cast time spell that does max damage and if they have a free cast ability it breaks the game. Devs have to be very careful when they start dealing with the math of combat. Those systems can be very delicate and easily thrown out of balance.
The place where modification can work is with added affects. If a player can choose from a list of added affects. Debuffs, CC, Buffs, DOT, Heals, ect. That can allow some difference in spells.
It would be hard to balance and probably costly to add.
--John Ruskin
This just shows me that companies have no problems spending money on pretty and voice acting but dislike spending on combat. Isnt combat not the most important aspect that an MMORPG is built on these days. I do realize that it is easier to balance classes based on a single end game item set than to take the time to balance each individual ability.
Sadly for me, each individual ability is what a character makes and not "oh I completed XX raid to get XX item set". I prefer choosing my advantages and drawbacks and not choosing them in a lump sum when I choose my class.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I disagree with that. I think there is a small section of gamers who want depth in character builds. I am one of them. Games have been going away from that though. That leads me to believe that gamers don't want it.
I am not sure you should confuse your desires or your friends desires with the wants of gamers in general. The market tends to move towards the wants of the consumers as a group, often times at the expense of niches.
--John Ruskin
It actually isnt that hard. If I have a 4 second cast time spell that deals extra damage due to the extended cast time thats fine. If I have an instant cast spell that deals less damage due to it being cast instantly, that is find as well. There are many factors that can change dps. Interrupts will have a much harsher impact on the dps of a 4 second cast spell than an instant one.
Personally I am not concerned about topping damage charts. I attempt to create effective builds. In a game like Guild Wars, it was a mistake to focus on damage output and ignore other variables. Each build should be effective at what they do but being highly effective at a specific task usually comes at a price.
Good memories, maybe I'll play through Arx Fatalis again
the spell system is exactly like what you wrote, with small spell "cores" which you can combine different ways and you get different spells as the result. Like fire+range=flame bolt, fire+sphere+range=fireball, etc. Not to mention, you have to cast the spell yourself, with drawing the correct runes with the mouse 
Nifty little game, too bad it's very short and with only one route, some small detours and sidequests and nothing more. Actually it could be a huge success nowadays by the look of the present games... short, fairly easy, action-based, mouse-target game with some mild crafting
Edit: lit the old campfire with magic and then roasting some raw meat for a better food - http://youtu.be/W2MM8bn1Tew?t=5m2s
This is very interesting to suggest, and I thank you for your thoughts.
Fortunately, character creation and development is evolving! Thanks to me :P
I jest, but only in part. I have been spending years developing a game, and although it is by myself, I have invested a lot of money into it. I say that, to point out not only how serious I am about its completion, but also that money = hiring others = progress. I may not have a team larger than my lonewolf self, but I have payed others for things which studios who don't outsource have staff for. I pay for graphics, audio, and software- so I can focus on programming and design. Making it more likely to complete, a better quality game when completed, and finished sooner.
While the Magic System is up for grabs, this is what I have so far:
1) Spells are rare. Like in D&D, I wanted spells to matter. When I played DDO, I loved the fact that as a Bard or Sorcerer, I had to choose my spells VERY carefully. I don't remember the details, but I believe as a Bard, I picked only 1-2 spells at first, and then only 1-2 spells again later. It was hard to choose, and defined the character I played. I want this in my game, for all magic users. Thus introduced character creation and spell points.
2) The few spells you have, can all be altered. The magical being is able to cast spells because they control the magical force that allows these spells to exist. At any time, a player can take one of their spells, and adjust different components. Right now, I've thought of 3 components, but the system is brand new in design.
These components include: Potency (Power of Spell; Stamina (Cost), Magnitude (Area of Effect, Multi-Projectile; Decreased Effectiveness), Strength (Spell Strength; Cast Time).
Later, I will probably add a Range component which deals with cast distance.
Take a Magic Missile spell. A high magnitude version means a single cast that shoots out 10 tiny missiles. This is does a ton of damage to low armor opponents, but high armor would ignore all damage by resisting each individually weak missile. A low magnitude version means a single cast that shoots one large missile. This is much more effective against armored targets, but only affects a single target. Armor reduces the weak missiles to nothing, but cannot reduce a single powerful missile as much.
A high Strength of Spell, would mean a very long cast time- but very powerful missiles. A low Strength of Spell, would mean being able to spam missiles quickly.
So if you wanted to decimate a large horde of armorless skeletons, you could cast a low strength, high magnitude, low range fire spell. It would shoot a score of fireballs, so quickly, it might end up being a flamethrower. You could change the Potency to have it sustain the flamethrower for a long time, or high potency for short bursts of skeleton-melting fire.
Suddenly, a group of armored skeletons comes in, so you right click the ability and adjust the Magnitude slider. Now your flamethrower acts like a short range fire sword, slashing at the skeletons quickly in a concentrated line. When they begin to run away, extend the range and shoot fireballs at their behinds!
I want spells to adjust dynamically, based on what the player feels they need. Is your group needing a single target heal? No problem. Oh, now they're roasting us with AoE spells? Don't worry, I'll turn it into a group heal!
The second aspect of spells, I was thinking of having certain casting skills, such as the ability to mix spells. Fireball + Heal, and you get a spammable AoE spell that can roast your team and undead, doing double damage to undead (undead hurt when healed) and doing no damage to allies. As opposed to an AoE fire spell without the heal, which would do less damage to the undead AND damage your allies. That is to say, that you can actually damage your allies. If there is no friendly fire, then your character would probably say something like "I can't hurt my ally!" and you're unable to cast bc it would hurt them.
I agree that games have drifted away from complicated character development and I tend to think that the gamers have drifted further away from mmorpgs. I dont think this is a coincidence.
If the market actually moved with the wants of the consumer, there would be more ground breaking mmorpgs out right now. The fact is the market moves with its idea of what the consumer wants which isnt any different than me having an idea of what consumers want.
Have you run any of the math on this, or are you assuming it is not hard?
I think you are making some fundamental assumptions and not putting much effort into trying to understand what is being typed.
--John Ruskin
What do you base that on? MMOs have grown by multiples of a 100 since they have added less depth. I cannot even think of an instance where what you are saying is true outside of eve. Even eve is a niche game, from what I understand the amount of paying unique players is under 150k. I could be wrong on that though.
--John Ruskin
It would be like any other system. Balance and playtesting is required regardless if the system is a clone of WoW, or a complex "Make your own spell!" component system. Either way, you have to test and balance the system.
I wouldn't let the fear of balance get in the way of innovation and deep gameplay. Especially if you have to balance the combat anyway.
You cant assume all methodologies. Math is as hard as you make it. If you create grand differences in values, then there will be grand differences in effect and things become harder to balance. If you create tighter values, things become less moldable to the player but there will be far less difference in effect.
When it comes to an mmo, the math is what you make it. Do you give the players the ability to change a spells modifiers by 5%, then its easily doable. Do you give them the ability to change a spells modifiers by 500%, maybe thats not doable.
What I do know is if someone can ponder then create an F/A 18 hornet, then a balanced mmo is probably doable.
You are going off on crazy tangents...
Tangent 1: Math, yes it can be hard. So lets stop developing on all fronts because math is hard.
Math is doable it just takes time and money.
Tangent 2: Developers know what is best for us so lets never evolve.
I could argue that if developers knew exactly what the consumer wanted we wouldnt have as many failed mmorpgs as we do. I could also argue that there are many more wants than has. If there wasnt more wants than has, WoW would have never exploded the way it did. Because a developer had an idea of those wants and delivered.
I could also argue that Bioware had an idea that catered to smaller portion of the consumers wants. We didnt have good voice acting in mmorpgs. Biowares idea of the consumers wasnt quite up to par with their expectations, but it did get its niche of the consumer base.
So to sum up your reasons of why my idea is pointless, the consumer doesnt want complicated character development and math is to hard.
To sum up my rebuttal, developers guess what the consumer wants and it either pans out or it does not, math is doable. On to new topics...
I always liked the idea of a tank mage. Why not have a mage that can soak damage like a tank. I do see your point tho and it comes down to effectiveness. If everything has its weaknesses than no one build becomes predominate. The problem with most mmorpgs in my opinion is not quality of spells its quantity. When every mage has every spell and then you itemize and build the mage to be tanky, you usually end up being a bit absurd due to have every other spell a mage has, leading to exceptional damage output as well. Developers usually never put hard choices on the player, do I take this at the cost of that, there is usually never a cost.
Some of your ideas remind me of DAoC. I loved playing a smite cleric due to being able to drop a damage spell on an enemy that also worked as a spread heal. I love the idea of intermixing spells and abilities like that. I also love the idea of melee clerics like in Warhammer. I like the idea of creating a melee cast ability that has multiple effects be it debuffs, heals, damage, etc.
I also what a system to where armor is a hard choice. You can choose to be in plate but it will come at a cost. This way you could have ranged clerics in robes and melee clerics in plate or some hybrid. In the end I just want hard choices to make which determine the play style of my character.
Sorry, for some reason you just don't get it. I am not going off on tangents. You are not looking at the issue in its totality.
Back to the idea I was working on. I was looking at a system where users could create their own weapons. There would be 3 classes of melee weapons.
curved/straight blade and blunt.
Each weapon had its own damage/speed scale. Length, weight, curve, and counterbalance determined weapons speed and that determined damage. Crafters would be able to design these weapons and the metals or stone used to make them would determine the quality and that would affect the speed/damage scale.
That sounds like a good idea. It has depth and customization. The balance on that was very difficult. I was just using math, not even play testing anything. I was also using a very small skill size to test with.
I looked at spells the same way.
If you take a very high overarching view of this it will seem simple and make sense. When you look at the cost of development and testing and pair that with the likelihood that few players would want such a feature you see exactly why it does not exist much.
As a business model is it better to have a system that is cheaper to implement, easier to maintain, and reaches a larger audience or is it better to have a more costly, harder to maintain, system that reaches a smaller audience?
When you answer that question you will know why games lack it. I would not hold my breath either while I waited for it.
--John Ruskin
How do you reach larger audiences by simply decreasing the cost of development by reducing the complexity of the design?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
For one he is assume that there are inherent traits to gaming that everyone wants. He assumes that since there isnt a my little pony mmo that there must not be a market for it. I have no idea why he assumes that if it doesnt already exist, that there cant possibly be a market for it.
He also assumes complexity is inversely proportional to entertainment. Simply to many assumptions going on. As I said earlier, math is only as complex as you make. I have no idea why he assumes the math behind a game must be the complex set of equations.
Complex equations is why mmorpg's like WoW do not hold my attention. PvP should be b alance from level 1 to cap and with blizzards complex equations it becomes impossible.
For example: if health increased based upon a statistic the player controls then the play controls his max health. Now if level 1-60 your health increased by 10 per level and you start at level 1 with 110 health then by 60 you will have 700 health. Now you add in your bonus from stamina and now you have basic health scaling.
When you look at the average level 1 characters health and compare it to the average cap level there is going to be some absurd range. The scaling is so damn out of control due equipment being a focus and due to damage scaling being so damn whacked. I see no reason for an mmo to have you start with a few hundred health then end up with 300000 health.
This math becomes way to complicated simply because Blizzard chose to make it that way.
I see where he is coming from, as well as when others are.
You disagree, because he has taken the stance of, "The Game needs to Sell, above all else."
While you take the opposite stance of, "The game should be good, and fun."
Games that are good and fun do indeed sell, and profit more over time, but games that are made ASAP and rushed to a huge audience see quick profits in the short term.
It's the age old argument. The former is overly practical, to the point of giving up hope and sacrificing innovation for watered down crap that sells well= under the guise of "If we don't sell, we don't exist." The latter still retains hope, and wants game quality over greed.
I support the latter. No offense, but although I see where he's coming from- I do not agree. Game Developers should not sell out their souls and submit lazy designs simply because it's easier for them. That is what holds back good games, and it is the very thing that separates a crappy company, from one of quality releases like Blizzard or Valve.
Most companies agree with him. The best companies, agree with you two.
Just to note: You do not see very many game companies with amazing products with deep, complex gameplay, who say at the end "We ran out of money before we could playtest and balance the system, so although it is amazing and fully released... it is unbalanced!"
I'm sure publishers see a finished game and make them crunch balance playtesting because they don't understand the need for extensive balance testing (why so many MMO's release with such awful balance in PvP). However, I don't believe this is a real problem. WoW pre-cap has horrid PvP, and they have enough money to perfect balanced combat math to the finest of decimals. I don't know if WoW at cap is balanced, but before cap it is not even close. This is inexcusable, but Blizzard doesn't care about anything except cap.
I wish someone would come up with something like Path of Exile's skill tree in a proper MMO. The discussion about balance illustrates why I wish games would concentrate on either PvE or PvP but not both. In PvP you need everything perfectly balanced. In PvE you just have to make sure that no class or build is totally gimped and everyone has a role.
All current PvE MMOs don't feature the kind of meaningful PvP that would interest me in any case and yet concern about balancing PvP makes their PvE parts less interesting and enjoyable.
In a skill based system where skills have tress balance is NOT and WAS NEVER an issue. The balance excuse is just BS by non-developers to make themselves sound important on the forums.
AoC, EQ2 and TSW all did it to differing extent,, ESO will be doing it.
That simple fact is that devlopers want safe and easy.. they do not want to break the mold of classes, because classes are easy to manage when it comes to leveling, time and money spent by players in the game world, Classes are familiar and most players hate the unfamiliar, plain and simple.