MMORPG Design Challenge - End Game

SirAgravaine

I haven't posted one of these in awhile, and I'm not really sure they are all too popular, but I enjoy them (that's all that is important, right?)

So...without further ado and in the spirit of a true "armchair" game designer we continue the series of discussions about MMORPG design, focusing in on broad conceptual design topics & systems mechanics.

Previous Design Challenge discussions: 
Death System
Combat System
Skill System


Topic: End Game

With Destiny 2's recent release, it seems appropriate for the next topic to focus on End Game, the 'golden years' of every grizzled MMORPG character.

Before we dive into our own ideas, philosophies, and crazy shenanigans on what we'd like to see or what we think is best for 'End Game', let's take care of the housekeeping before it gets messy and set up a solid definition of what we mean when we say 'End Game'.

End Game - the time period after the primary system of character progression has reached its final milestone and has taken on a distinctive from, often opening up different content systems, in-game activities, and secondary progression systems.

Some of you might jump on right away and say, there is no such thing as 'End Game' or there should be no such thing as 'End Game'. My response: well sir, I must ask you to please refrain from such nonsense.

Finally, as with previous threads, when the inspiration has struck, I may or may not post my own ideas on what 'End Game' would be in my perfect MMORPG.

As always, 

Have Fun & Discuss

Quizzical

Your definition of "End Game" would in some cases fit having finished a brief tutorial and having 95% of your progression left in front of you.

SirAgravaine

Quizzical said:

Your definition of "End Game" would in some cases fit having finished a brief tutorial and having 95% of your progression left in front of you.

Fixed for logic.

SirAgravaine

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

MMORPG design challenge: NO end game. Make the game the WHOLE game.

I address this comment in the original text. Because you still responded with this comment... I want you to do some critical thinking on how an MMORPG developer could implement this design philosophy into their game?

Quizzical

SirAgravaine said:

Quizzical said:

Your definition of "End Game" would in some cases fit having finished a brief tutorial and having 95% of your progression left in front of you.

Fixed for logic.

If the milestone only "may" open up new content but doesn't have to, then the traditional console game ending of "Game over.  Thank you for playing." was an endgame.  And if that counts, then we could argue that that's the best way to do an endgame.

If you want to require that the endgame has to open up new content, then sometimes the end of the tutorial can be the last big shift in the game.  In that case, almost the entire game is endgame by your new definition.

I don't mean to pick on you personally, but creating good definitions sure is hard, isn't it?

SirAgravaine

Quizzical said:

SirAgravaine said:

Quizzical said:

Your definition of "End Game" would in some cases fit having finished a brief tutorial and having 95% of your progression left in front of you.

Fixed for logic.

If the milestone only "may" open up new content but doesn't have to, then the traditional console game ending of "Game over.  Thank you for playing." was an endgame.  And if that counts, then we could argue that that's the best way to do an endgame.

If you want to require that the endgame has to open up new content, then sometimes the end of the tutorial can be the last big shift in the game.  In that case, almost the entire game is endgame by your new definition.

I don't mean to pick on you personally, but creating good definitions sure is hard, isn't it?

Tell you what Quizzical...since I managed to pull you out of Hardware for a minute, why dont you whip me up a solid definition for 'end game' and I'll throw it on the first post of the thread. The idea behind getting a definition out there, was for it to cover as many scenarios as possible, while still holding true to the main 'idea' behind End Game.

Edit - nevermind, I think the new definiton is fitting enough. I hereby ban you from making further corrections without actually submitting a reasonably well-thought out response to the actual thread.

Quizzical

SirAgravaine said:

Quizzical said:

SirAgravaine said:

Quizzical said:

Your definition of "End Game" would in some cases fit having finished a brief tutorial and having 95% of your progression left in front of you.

Fixed for logic.

If the milestone only "may" open up new content but doesn't have to, then the traditional console game ending of "Game over.  Thank you for playing." was an endgame.  And if that counts, then we could argue that that's the best way to do an endgame.

If you want to require that the endgame has to open up new content, then sometimes the end of the tutorial can be the last big shift in the game.  In that case, almost the entire game is endgame by your new definition.

I don't mean to pick on you personally, but creating good definitions sure is hard, isn't it?

Tell you what Quizzical...since I managed to pull you out of hardware for a minute. Whip me up a solid definition of End Game, for posterity, and I'll throw it on the first post of the thread. The idea behind getting a definition out there, was for it to cover as many scenarios as possible, while still holding true to the main 'idea' behind End Game.

I was entirely serious when I said that creating good definitions is hard.

My personal definition of endgame is probably too cynical for your tastes:  the endgame is what a company creates to try to get people to keep playing a game rather than quitting after they've already played through all of the interesting content.  With that definition, it should be pretty obvious why there can't be a particularly good endgame, and the best endgame is the one that doesn't ruin non-endgame content.  But it sure fits what passes for endgame in most MMORPGs that have one.

I liked the endgame of Guild Wars 1:  flip to hard mode and try everything again at a higher difficulty level, but without getting super powerful gear that ruins everything on the easier difficulty level.  Basically, you're done with progression, so stop worrying about it and go have fun for however long you find the content interesting.

Eldurian

I'm not going to hop on and say "There is no such thing as endgame" but I will say that endgame is the product of a single factor:

A system of progression that serves as a gatekeeper to other content. This can be done either very literally (You can't do X until you have completed Y) or due to steep vertical progression "The boss regenerates 5000 health a second, the combined DPS of your party at your current level is 50... and he dodges all your attacks."

So that being said in designing my own MMO much of "endgame" would be incorporated into the general gameplay as the vertical progression would be somewhere between very limited and non-existant, and the only content gated behind other content would be things logically done that way. For instance some content specific certain organizations may be based on your rank in that organization. 

Pretty much all forms of PvP would be something you could enjoyably participate in from day one as well as most forms of economic and social interaction. This would include the heart and soul of the game. Territorial control, building and managing businesses, villages, cities and kingdoms. Taking part in the political processes that help determine who rises into the highest offices (Be they more democratic or more violent) etc.

The one type of content that would really serve as endgame content is certain PvE things. For instance while the progression of player power would be more realistic if it even existed, certain dungeons would be designed to be very easy to complete, and others about on par with the capabilities of a fairly average party. However there would be some designed to push the skill level of experienced players to their limits. This would essentially be like going into a Halo game and setting the difficulty to legendary. Potentially anyone can do it and succeed but realistically only very experienced players are going to be able to complete the game at that difficulty level.

So "legendary" style dungeons would be the closest thing my MMO would have to an "endgame."

Azaron_Nightblade

I would go for something similar to CoH tbh. Heavy on the level scaling through a Sidekick/Mentor system. Certain group content still unlocks at set levels, but it stays relevant due to the rewards for it being level neutral. Some sort of stat enhancement, vanity items and achievements. I thought the "Accolades" on that game, AKA a series of achievements that lead to getting some unique ability, was a brilliant move.

Obviously there's room for expansion and improvement, but it's a start.

sunandshadow

I'm in the "game should go on rather than devolving into endgame" camp.  Most MMO have a terrible leveling curve, IMO - the first 10 levels go way too fast, the next 20 are ok, and after that they get slower and content gets sparser until they are intolerable and I usually quit about 75% of the way to the end.  Players instead should be able to reach the end of the game, at which point they are encouraged to start a new character because finishing the game once unlocks some bonuses or additional races or something.

Edit: Alternately, I could support a game that limited level progress per week, encouraging players to do minigame, sim, crafting, and similar activities during each week rather than hurrying to level up.

Kevan_f

uo taught how a game can be a living universe and not something that has a beginning and a endgame..especially on full rpg shards.
atm, mmorpg are "-rpg" just because there are some artificial walls to force you to grow some parameters.

DrDread74

If you want no End Game, you have to make your "Maxed Out Character" only be something relative to everyone else.

For example, take a typical fantasy MMO with all the normal play. For one there shouldn't really be a "MAX LEVEL" but instead either levels mean less and less points to spend the higher you go or what not so you pretty much level off in power but still progress very slowly at higher levels. 

But, your character IS NOT the only thing you can progress in. You can perhaps own land (like a house) but you can also own an entire village where other players put up houses, and then own/rule an entire city where real players are. The point is there is only so much "land" in the game and ther might be one top King who rules everything and you are constantly gaming to rule more land OR switch rulership to a bigger city. your characters skills are used in some POLITICAL way to accomplish this against other player. Which could mean defeating there armies, out maneuvering them politically, assasinating their NPC advisors/children, sabotaging whatever ever it is they do to keep thier rulership, cause riots ect. 

What I'm saying is that the "End Game" is always there but its easier to do with a higher level character but can be engaged in at any time. Because its competitive over a limited number of a resource "land" its never really ending. Even if you achive the One True King, you have to hold onto it. 

The end game is something you ease into as you level up, because its easier with a stronger character,  and the end game is more and more PvP then the PvE you engaged in going up. Also, you don't have to engage in this PvP end game, conversely, if your character has political skills you can engage in it at early levels. You level 5 characters political skills might be higher than a level 50 fighters. And the thing is, if you do the skill system corectly, you CANT DO BOTH effectively so there is no #1 player really. Perfect MMO IMO

Lerxst

UO already did this just fine.

anemo

Probably making and improving a town similar to how the game Reus does.    With raids being focused on earning "aspects" to improve the area around your town.

Then tie a quest generator that sets the player up for visiting other people's towns.   And maybe a story that sets the players up as some type of teleporter.

SirAgravaine

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

SirAgravaine said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

MMORPG design challenge: NO end game. Make the game the WHOLE game.

I address this comment in the original text. Because you still responded with this comment... I want you to do some critical thinking on how an MMORPG developer could implement this design philosophy into their game?

Some already did, like UO and AC1.

There is no "get to max level to grind dungeons/raids" in those games.

How did they do it?

In UO there's no levels and all the content is accessible from day one (not meaning you won't die if you try to kill a dragon with a noob, of course), and in AC1, levels are not only almost limitless but they mean way less than in traditional games, a level 80+ character with a skilled player behind the keyboard can tackle the hardest content.

"End Game" as known in EQ/WoW clones is due to the game being designed around levels that have a very heavy impact on the character's abilities. It results in an empty world where players only focus on the latest added areas. Games like GW2 and ESO quite skillfully avoided that problem using level scaling, which is also another way to avoid the "end game or nothing" syndrome.

I guess I made the mistake of omitting the words "financially successful" from my question. UO and AC1 were successful for their time period because they  were inventive. I have a special place in my heart for AC1, but one of its biggest issues was what to do when you hit max level, which many people did before it was increased from 126 to 275. Most people stopped playing or jumped ships for another game.

Let's be perfectly honest and realistic: more people have continued playing games that were designed around a long-lasting end game (or post level-max progression system), such as World of Warcraft and EverQuest than ever played or continued to play games without it.

This design challenge is meant to focus your minds on what it takes to build a successful MMORPG (in your eyes), where success is measured by its active player-base and player-retention, as well as how fun it is. 


As I said, I would eventually give my ideas on what a successful End Game is:


To me, End Game is about bringing all of the pieces together, and I tend to be in the "make End Game as seamless with the rest of the game as possible" camp. For those of you that said there shouldn't be an End Game, then I assume what you mean to say is that it shouldn't be obvious or different from the rest of the game. I can't completely disagree with that, but I will say that End Game offers the unique opportunity to tie together all of the game's elements into a cohesive and immersive experience (Raids, Dungeons, Harder Difficulties etc.). In fact, End Game can be analogous to that final level or that last boss in a game, and that is the spot where I think it shines best.

Where I think End Game fails is when a game world keeps expanding and they keep pushing that End Game further and further out, making previous content irrelevant or disregarded. However, my design philosophy on the MMORPG is different than the current model. Personally I feel that the next generation of MMORPGs needs to focus on level-less progression and put more emphasis on real-life tangible skill inside the game world. For that reason, I feel that End Game should be a culmination of the various skills that players have developed, and it should be dynamic and horizontal in its design, rather than built using vertical progression models.

For example, in an MMORPG world using this design approach, the End Game content could focus on an existent conflict, such as warring factions. The content could focus on different dynamic events that push the control of the map or different points of conflict from one point to another (PVE or PVP). This gives players a virtual hook to the 'Why' they continue to play, especially if this conflict encroaches on in-game property or resources they may own or control.

Kyleran

I dunno,  being a long time EVE player I can honestly say I never found an end game to it as the OP describes.

I guess the answer is, make the progression limitless, EVE has probably 30+ real life years of skill training,  and as of yet no one alliance has ever managed to rule all of 0.0.

I do think those who say end game in EVE begins on day 1 aren't too far off the mark.

So yeah, I'm not interested in ever playing another MMORPG which has an end game, virtual worlds don't  need one.

Bestinna

you mean like reaching level cap and then what comes next?

sunandshadow

Would you consider Wizard 101 financially successful?  Because that's a game that basically ends after you run the highest level dungeon, unless you start over with a new character.

SirAgravaine

Kyleran said:

I dunno,  being a long time EVE player I can honestly say I never found an end game to it as the OP describes.

I guess the answer is, make the progression limitless, EVE has probably 30+ real life years of skill training,  and as of yet no one alliance has ever managed to rule all of 0.0.

I do think those who say end game in EVE begins on day 1 aren't too far off the mark.

So yeah, I'm not interested in ever playing another MMORPG which has an end game, virtual worlds don't  need one.

EVE has an 'End Game', that keeps shifting as they increase skill caps and add new skills. Also, you can hardly compare EVE's 'maxed skills' to a maxed character in a standard leveling MMORPG. Those skill increases in EVE are super small incremental gains. EVE is a Sandbox, so the end game is primarily up to the player, but there are various PvE and PvP goals that can only be achieved after reaching a certain point in training.

Bestinna said:

you mean like reaching level cap and then what comes next?

Basically, but not all MMORPGs have or should have levels. Basically, how does the game developer (in this case, us) manage the game after players have progressed through the bulk of the story/world/progression system. End Game is a way of managing this, call it what you will, it is a necessary element to game that has a definitive end. If it isn't there, then the game simply ends, not a very successful design.

sunandshadow said:

Would you consider Wizard 101 financially successful?  Because that's a game that basically ends after you run the highest level dungeon, unless you start over with a new character.

Financially maybe, but design-wise no. If the game literally ends, with no activity beyond that dungeon, then that is a catastrophic failure of design.

Mendel

SirAgravaine said:

<snip>

sunandshadow said:

Would you consider Wizard 101 financially successful?  Because that's a game that basically ends after you run the highest level dungeon, unless you start over with a new character.

Financially maybe, but design-wise no. If the game literally ends, with no activity beyond that dungeon, then that is a catastrophic failure of design.

Speaking of Wizard 101, if the game literally ends, it may not be the catastrophic failure of design.  It *may* be a different type of game with a finite journey, just mislabeled as an MMORPG.

sunandshadow

Mendel said:

SirAgravaine said:

<snip>

sunandshadow said:

Would you consider Wizard 101 financially successful?  Because that's a game that basically ends after you run the highest level dungeon, unless you start over with a new character.

Financially maybe, but design-wise no. If the game literally ends, with no activity beyond that dungeon, then that is a catastrophic failure of design.

Speaking of Wizard 101, if the game literally ends, it may not be the catastrophic failure of design.  It *may* be a different type of game with a finite journey, just mislabeled as an MMORPG.

Given that many single player RPGs have a finite journey, I fail to see why an MMORPG couldn't have that too.  If their players consider themselves done playing Wizard 101 they can always go play Pirate 101 and still remain the company's customers, the same way you'd finish a single-player RPG and then buy the sequel.  But, if you want to define MMORPG that way then ok; I don't really care because I'm mainly interested in MMOs, not specifically MMORPGs.

Eldurian

SirAgravaine said:

EVE has an 'End Game', that keeps shifting as they increase skill caps and add new skills. 

"Exodus: Red Moon Rising

Release date: December 16, 2005

Red Moon Rising was split off from the "Kali" expansion in order to maintain a more regular patch schedule. It included many performance optimizations and updates to combat, research, and manufacturing gameplay. The expansion continued the focus on attracting new international players as four new "bloodlines" were introduced with Asian features and a boost in starting skills. Unicode support was also expanded from the chat system to game-wide. A major focus of the expansion was revamping existing ships and adding many additional ship classes. Twenty-three new Tech 2 ships were added including Exhumers, Force Recon cruisers, Command ships, Interdictors, and most notably the capital ships Carrier, Mothership, and Titan."

____________________________________

Titans and Motherships are still the most powerful ships in the game to date. So the last time EVE's "endgame" can be said to have expanded is 12 years ago. I don't really think broadening to abilities available to lower tier players counts as expansion of "endgame".

SirAgravaine

Eldurian said:

SirAgravaine said:

EVE has an 'End Game', that keeps shifting as they increase skill caps and add new skills. 

"Exodus: Red Moon Rising

Release date: December 16, 2005

Red Moon Rising was split off from the "Kali" expansion in order to maintain a more regular patch schedule. It included many performance optimizations and updates to combat, research, and manufacturing gameplay. The expansion continued the focus on attracting new international players as four new "bloodlines" were introduced with Asian features and a boost in starting skills. Unicode support was also expanded from the chat system to game-wide. A major focus of the expansion was revamping existing ships and adding many additional ship classes. Twenty-three new Tech 2 ships were added including Exhumers, Force Recon cruisers, Command ships, Interdictors, and most notably the capital ships Carrier, Mothership, and Titan."

____________________________________

Titans and Motherships are still the most powerful ships in the game to date. So the last time EVE's "endgame" can be said to have expanded is 12 years ago. I don't really think broadening to abilities available to lower tier players counts as expansion of "endgame".

Regardless of when the last big "jump" in progression scaling occurred, EVE still has what would qualify as an "endgame". Honestly, EVE is a great example of a well-blended and managed lifecycle system for an MMORPG. The transition from early progression into 'endgame' progression is very gradually and seamless. The tiered mission system is one of the more obvious elements that measure a player's progress in the game systems. 

Steelhelm

The end game is kind of like the unfinished thought in the "dream" mmo that swirls in my thoughts occasionally. In the mechanics that have find form in my thoughts end game would begin when a player has distributed 20 points among the characters six basic attributes(strength, dexterity etc). In a d&d style those attributes would start at 10 and the natural maximum would be somewhere around 18. The player could distribute these points however she would want to develop her character. Gaining these points would just mean doing stuff in the game. IMO in this way the end game wouldn't be so separate from the "leveling" if the power curve is mild.

So the end game. Basically...
Gear grind by 99% as crafting; An example: Kill a dragon and craft an armor from the scales.
PVE reputation grind for basic(cosmetic) items through living world events(free mini expansions), items can be enhanced through crafting
Housing
Playing a merchant, teamster, farmer etc
Roleplaying events with other players and guilds
(Separate pvp servers for somekind of open world pvp and territory control)

Eronakis

Let's define a few things...

End Game Content = The portion of the game that max leveled players/skills are granted access to more challenging content to progress their character beyond the limits of 'max level'. 

I think there needs to be a Need for End Game Content, but the current approach is not the best approach towards this particular gameplay. What we see now in the genre, not pointing any fingers (WoW); that the game "doesn't truly begin until end game", which is somewhat true. It almost makes the journey to end game pointless. 

The compliant that raiding or other aspects of gameplay is not accessible until endgame is a valid one. I don't believe that every aspect of the game should be accessible to the player at once in a level progression based game. Why? What is the point of grinding through levels and journey to reach max level (end game) if there is no reason to unlock various character/gameplay elements on the way?

To me, End Game simply equates to content that issues more challenges for the player to put to use their wisdom of the game world, their character, combat mechanics, ect at once to reap higher rewards. 

Eldurian

Eronakis said:

I don't believe that every aspect of the game should be accessible to the player at once in a level progression based game. Why? What is the point of grinding through levels and journey to reach max level (end game) if there is no reason to unlock various character/gameplay elements on the way?

For me, that's why I want leveling gone too.

If I invite my friend to play SMITE we will will hop into the same match together and be able to enjoyably play the game together. If I invite my friend to play StarCraft 2 we will hop into the same match together and be able to enjoyably play the game together. If I invite my friend to play ArcheAge I will tell him to level to max so I can take time out doing the things I enjoy doing to help them run dungeons to build gear so that he can get out and enjoyably PvP with us sometimes when he isn't grinding for gold (I've brought 3 friends into that game. All 3 quit before they ever got to do anything together with me. Actually no... 6 friends. 3 who started with us on a new server but then fell behind my progress and quit.)

I want more MMOs that function like the former. 95% of the game content is accessible and enjoyable to everyone at every level of progression. You don't have to reach an "endgame" before you get to have fun with other people who have done the same.