I don't feel like playing MMORPG nowadays because i feel it pointless . I hate have to chase after other's just to enjoy the game .
Play with my own pace and in all case left behind by the community. Then i hate when all my work gone waste , spend times to get the item i want just to being trash item in few months
And there aren't many things to play with friends nor i enjoy playing random raid just because items or quests because it taste blank .
Maybe i just type that enjoy the community of MMORPG instead of the game , even though sometime it toxic as ****
Nor i just enjoy social site like FB or other . They never offer me feeling when a group raid drop worth thousands IRL cash to a man because he did good or a teen sell of the item worth just to help his friend . Or a friend that you often play with gone forever without able to say good bye
I think WOW in it early day also like that , haha ni hao gold farmers .
Early MMORPG suck as game ( hela grindy ) but good at a social gather place , and nowadays MMORPG good at the game but there are no social in it .
Come on , MOBA or BR even done the goddam social part better than MMORPG nowadays .
A game that forces you to play together because that the entire purpose of an MMORPG. Must be sandbox, must be party based PvP, must be group based PvE content, and must have player driven economy with no "quick selling" option. Knight Online has the best economy concept I've ever seen in an MMO so that would be my example.
Must have to rely on others because this is not a single player RPG.
That's all I ask for. Simple.
The only solo aspect of the game should be working the economy and having a few farmable spots for solo players when your friends aren't online or if you just want to make some IGC yourself.
Oh and I am a firm believer that an MMORPG should have the trinity system to make people and their characters unique.
I'd be interested to see a MMO that forced grouping, yet had more modern systems in place for finding groups.
Things like level scaling, LFG options, social "hub" locations for group/party posting/recruitment, a mega server with "sharding" to ensure population density, etc.
Would be a different game than the old days, where it was "find a guild" or "spam chat channels."
In my head I picture a "guild hall" or something in every town/city. A place where Adventurers gathered to find fellowship and undertake quests.
I believe FFXIV originally had that concept with their Guild Leve system, but like all things in the first iteration of FFXIV it was badly implemented.
Do that, but do a mega server (region based) as well as reduce the overall importance of level and/or allow good scaling systems so that it was much easier to find fellow adventurers.
You do that kind of thing, forced grouping could work in a modern game IMO.
I would remove all automated grouping tools. I would bring back Trinity systems like that of Vanilla/TBC WOW. I would make classes have synergy together again. I would bring back SWG like crafting.
To help people forum groups I would have guilds up on my website that integrates in the game to help players find like minded guilds. I would also have tools like FFXIV has on their website with the online calendar that can integrate in game. This is another way to help people find groups. I would also get rid of instant gratification. Just look at WOW right now and how few people play that compared to when the game was far from instant gratification.
I would also have a looking for guild tool in the game that players can look for specific guilds. But guilds cannot select things like they are a raiding guild if they as a guild 80% or more guild members have not killed a raid boss. You dont want a guild of 2 people saying they are a raiding guild when they dont raid.
I would also put guild systems in for guilds that help new players learn their class. Kind of what I am thinking I will do with my Classic WOW guild.
First let me answer those questions that wont be answered more comprehensively below:
1. WoW failed for me
in the design phase, when they decided to go with butt ugly graphics. I
like realistic style and I like elegant Manga, but I dont like absurd
western comic style, with idiotic elements such as hilariously oversized shoulders on armor, thank you very much; that look doesnt raise any feeling
in me I'd be playing a fantasy game. Next failure of WoW was when they
made the game easier and easier. Third failure of WoW was when they made
a TON of money from it but didnt improved the game anymore for ages.
2.
If I had 100 Mio to develop a game I would split the budget, have two
independent teams do two independent games. Thats because I dont trust
games that are too expensive. At a certain point you are required to
attract insane amounts of players and demand insane amounts of money
from them, in order to be profitable.
I
would want to keep 100% control over the game. I want a good, sufficient
profit and have fun doing the game. I dont want maximizing profit at
all cost. I also would do a Zeiss thing and have a foundation running
the company, so nobody can ever buy that company.
In
case you dont know, nobody can buy Zeiss. The people who effectively
own Zeiss are the people currently working at that company; their motive
to keep the company running is simply that they want to keep their
jobs. Thats why this company is over a 100 years old and will probably
get much, much older still.
The rest of the questions in the first posting of this thread can be combined into: how would I make a MMORPG myself ?
In one sentence, I would want to recreate Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; of
course a newer, improved upon Vanguard, based on the good concepts of
that game, not merely a carbon copy, I wouldnt even copy the class or
race list or recreate the game world, all of which I found suboptimal,
and I might even make a science fiction or steamworks or whatever game
instead; but I would keep those concepts from that game that worked.
And dont worry, you dont need to know anything about Vanguard to understand the rest of this posting.
These are the core thoughts here:
The
game needs to offer challenge, and complexity/variety, though there
should also never be complexity just for complexities sake.
There
needs to be a large difference in efficiency between a player who plays
optimally and a player who just smashes random buttons.
All
kinds of player interaction, cooperative as well as competitive, should
be supported [Friendlists etc, Crafting and Trade, Grouping/Raids,
Guilds/Alliances, Global PvP, Arenas/Battlegrounds, Sieges]
There
should be a decent amount of sandboxing. No full sandbox games that
dont have story content anymore, but player build housing/cities/castles
should be possible.
Core priorities. There are four areas to any game: Rulesystem, User Interface, Game World, and Graphic Representation.
The most important thing to me is a great rulesystem. Nothing else is as important in a game that wants to offer longterm motivation than the core of the game. Chess for example is basically just rules, but these rules are very well thought out.
As a core mechanism of the rule system, there needs to be cooldowns on all abilities, such that a player with 0.1 sec ping doesnt have any advantage over a player with 0.5 sec ping. I am very well aware thats not a "cool" demand, but its a very necessary one to allow players with worse connection to be fully competitive. I would set the minimum ping to 0.5 sec though, anything above would be challenged. The challenge of the game should be what ability to use next, not quicker reflexes, since the later always means the guy with better ping wins. Also that kind of gameplay is very boring to me.
Combat should always be dynamic, the problem of what ability to best use next should always be there, with no final predictability for the player, and the system should maybe be easy to start, but most importantly hard to master. Ideally I would like to see a factor of 1:100 or even more in efficiency between a player who just randomly smashes buttons and one who very carefully choses the right ability to use next.
While there should be a lot of choices there should never be choices that arent any, either because they are irrelevant or because there is only one correct answer. So for example if you have a warrior class and the warrior needs strength for all their abilities, obviously the strenght ability needs to be maximized for that class. So thats an example for a choice that isnt any. Instead you have to design the system in such a way that the player can choose multiple valid builds. Say theres a Strength and a Dexterity attribute, an all out Strength warrior needs to be just as valid as an all out Dexerity or anything between these extremes, with different advantages for each choice. Obviously there will always still be an optimal solution for such choices, which is why you need to allow respec; however the other choices shouldnt be drastically worse or you shouldnt offer them in the first place. This is btw one thing Guild Wars did really well, you got three attributes per class to choose from, with different names per class, and they indeed have been real choices. Another example is Diablo 3 which removed the attribute choices in Diablo 2 because there was always an optimal skilling per class anyway so choosing attributess wasnt really actually a choice, but a question to the player if he knew the correct answer.
There also needs to be a lot of different classes and each class should play in a very unique way. Again yes I'm aware thats not a "cool" demand, but I find this to be the superior concept over classless systems in respect to longterm motivation. The "unique way" here of course means everyone has their own set of abilities, but it also means every class should only "see" a subset of the many layers of the combat system. Say many classes do have criticals which can unlock at random, a very common and popular mechanism, then some classes might not have such criticals, so if you play them the game feels substantly different. Its not a good example of course, since if you have criticals probably all classes should have them, since they spice everyones combat with unforseeable dynamics. I was just looking for an especially general example. A better example might be that if everyone has mana and hitpoints, so some classes have very limited use for mana. This is super common, of course. Or many classes have a third counter, next to mana and hitpoints, and this counter works very different on different classes, some raise the counter with some abilities which then unlock other abilities, others raise the counter by using abilities on the current opponent for the same effect, others have just a slowly regenerating pool and a single ability that works on that, etc. Theres a lot of things one can do in this regard, and this allows to make classes play very different.
There are also subclasses, races, and subraces, to add further layers of choice. Subclasses can be changed at a later point. They dont change the core nature of a class; a Death Cleric for example will still be a healer. A Death Cleric however might on the other hand now only wear robes, have poor melee damage, and gain strong spells and more mana. Races and subraces act like lesser classes which do not only change a bit how the character plays, but also change how the gameworld interacts with you. A Darkelf for example might have trouble visiting a Human city.
The second priority after the quality of the gameplay would be the quality of the game content. The game should offer a sufficiently large gameworld with a sufficient amount of long and complex quest chains. Group content should be king; solo play should not be impossible but very challenging and slow progress, requiring a lot of skill.
Third priority is interface. A poor interface definitely breaks a gaming experience, so thats no option. Ideally I would want a simple interface that works for everybody.
Finally graphical representation should be the least priority. Of course the graphic quality needs to be sufficient, the optics shouldnt be ugly. But not more than sufficient. A MMO is supposed to be played longterm and the longterm value of good graphics is frankly zip.
The more effort is put into graphics, the harder it is to extend the MMO gaming world. It should be as easy as possible to extend the gaming world in order to make it possible to add a lot of new content continously.
What needs to be done about graphics though is asserting very high future security. Meaning the programmers need to be able to slowly improve the graphics of the game over time, without changing anything else.
About graphics conceptionally, the primary view supported by the game should be third person. I dont want the game to have aiming etc. This is a full RPG, the ability to aim wont depend upon your own ability to aim, but on the stats of your player character. Thus first person wont be necessary, though it might be supported as well.
I would like to see a seamless world and realistic viewing distances, though that would be a lower priority.
Thats the general direction I would want to go into. Vanguard was unique in being enormously fun to play longterm, despite all the many shortcomings (for example the many bugs, especially in the beginning).
No guarantee for being complete, I've probably forgotten important aspects, but thats what I can think of right now.
I love the idea of lost reward for bailing on your team. You do that in real life and it's desertion =/ We have a great canvas made up already. My main concern was that My ideas aren't always what others think is great and while I am building a game for me to play, I also would like others to play. I've been in gaming for about 30 years now and I can say that there are very few games that appeal to me in today's market. I feel like I have already done this before.... I'll share more soon. The main thing that I find ruins games now is bad community and pandering devs. Also selling a game prior to it being ready. LOA did this just a few weeks back. I waited for that game for years, Then logged in a played 24/7 for 5 days and then boom, Half my time was wasted and economy ruined i less than a week. FTP - When every annoying kid from the world can download a game and start trolling in chat the quality of the community goes down. Then you have the people who think you shouldn't have to pay to play a game. Who's going to pay for development? Good Will? I personally prefer the subscription model with no P2W options. The problem it, P2W is now the only way Games can Survive and cover development. well that or stupid crates. This was easier when development coast a few 100k, Those days are over. We are trying to stay away from that. We have a few years to figure this out but some thoughts would be great on this as well.
Any thoughts on pricing models? I'm all about creative, If anyone has a idea that will cover the initial cost of development.
Come up with a meta-MMORPG that let's you find out about what you want from MMORPG's in general, so you can know quickly which ones would appeal.
This would be gamified - you'd play a game that would show you different kinds of gameplay, different visual styles (gear, world, etc.), back to back, and then survey you on which variation of a game element you like more.
For example, equip you with a realistic looking mace, a 4 foot long fantasy hammer that looks like it weighs 80 pounds, a slim rapier made only of particle effects, with similar animations, and ask which you like using the most.
After doing this for different kinds of gear, visual styles, worldspace types (e.g. lots of valleys or wide open expanses; lots of vertical changes in space with multiple levels or less vertical maps, etc), kinds of combat, kinds of crafting, etc. etc.
And the makers of this meta-MMORPG would also tag existing MMORPG's so you could look up which MMORPG's are good for you based on your preferences from the meta-MMORPG game.
TL;DR make an MMO that teaches you to find the right MMO for you. Downside is that if successful, r/MMORPG would die off when people find their MMO happy place :P
Any Idea on how this concept would be payed for? Maybe a referral system for the games that you send clients to?I guess you could add advertising but who wants to see that in their GamePlay. This would be a great thing for like MMORPG to pay for..
MMOs are out of favor in west. People are now into Battle royales bacauce they can just have a free for all full loot experience without having to grind and build a character, everybody has the same skill: pop in a map -> wander the area -> kill others -> get all their loot -> be killed and have your loot taken -> leave -> repeat.
MMOs still shine and make big bucks in oriental markets, mainly on mobile.
So if you have 100 figures and want to invest in MMO, forget the west and put the money in an east asian gaming company.
Come up with a meta-MMORPG that let's you find out about what you want from MMORPG's in general, so you can know quickly which ones would appeal.
This would be gamified - you'd play a game that would show you different kinds of gameplay, different visual styles (gear, world, etc.), back to back, and then survey you on which variation of a game element you like more.
For example, equip you with a realistic looking mace, a 4 foot long fantasy hammer that looks like it weighs 80 pounds, a slim rapier made only of particle effects, with similar animations, and ask which you like using the most.
After doing this for different kinds of gear, visual styles, worldspace types (e.g. lots of valleys or wide open expanses; lots of vertical changes in space with multiple levels or less vertical maps, etc), kinds of combat, kinds of crafting, etc. etc.
And the makers of this meta-MMORPG would also tag existing MMORPG's so you could look up which MMORPG's are good for you based on your preferences from the meta-MMORPG game.
TL;DR make an MMO that teaches you to find the right MMO for you. Downside is that if successful, r/MMORPG would die off when people find their MMO happy place :P
Problem here is most mmorpgs from the last 10-15 years have pretty much been mostly the exact same game just with a diffrent skin over it. Ever since WoW was such a success, every dev and their mother just tries to copy it. Sure the combat might be a bit diffrent but its still the same boring solo quest hub to quest hub stuff.
I miss mmorpgs like old school ff11, before abbysea, stuff took time, you needed people, solo wasn't really an option past lv 10 or so for most jobs. It had a sense of accomplishment that mmorpgs today just lack, you could login to FF11 complete a quest or 2, maybe gain a level and feel satisfied with your progress. In todays mmorpgs the journey to lv cap is such a joke that there is no real excitement to it or anything, its just a boring grind. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a grind when its done right: you need a party, so you have people to chat with and such.
Raids also need to be made harder, no more of this junk we have now where you can get UI mods in say wow that bascally have the bosses entire attack pattern set in stone, it takes away most of the challenge, I'd rather the boss use random abilities, to keep players on their toes. When I watch groups fail the raids in wow I often just facepalm as some of them seem overly simple, same with FF14, alot of the endgame bosses aren't that hard, the problem is the playerbase are morons and don't pay enough attention, lack of situational awareness. Its especally sad in FF14 when any aoe has a big huge circle bascally screaming "Hey imma use this attack here!" yet people still somehow get caught by them, usually your given more than enough time to dodge.
We won't see any true mmorpgs anymore, as mmorpgs went from the hardcore to casual themeparks. A few devs have tried for the more hardcore side but it just doesn't get the players they need as they are used to how easy Wow and its ilk are.
Mmorpg's used to be more about the journey then rushing to endgame, even wow 1.0 was like that, it wasn't till after the first expansion when it started going downhill.
Ok so this is what I'm looking for for sure, some good ideas and a dead on view Of what I saw happen. Wonder if making a MMo with different modes for different players would solve some of this? Like maybe Normal, Soft , and Harcore. There will be many quest in the game, but, I'm not a quester so the game base will be built around action based progress.(Use a Sword, Gain Skill) The quest will probably be item/Currency oriented versus exp oriented. Maybe even just give shop currency to expand bags or buy skins with in game currency. This is where we get stuck in the design meetings, How can we build a game that will sustain our development team. Id personally like to keep the large staff past launch to continue monthly content updates. Right now it's demo and then buy the game, or cap skills until you get a licensed version. I would like for people to buy because they like it after seeing what it is. The free to play models always require a SHOP. Without the shop who pays the 40-50 mil in development cost? That's why P2W is the new model, Phone and game like Candy Crush and Clash of clans showed that you make way more money with small micro transactions. So of course the Corporations trying to increase profit. The mentality of player that it should all be free now is what got us to every game being free to play and then extracting profits one transaction at the time. It starts off with clothes/ mounts and when that fails they start selling items that actually sell.. P2W items... Faster Mounts, Skill ups, Better Gear. This is a hard one.
Right now we are at about 10 million for initial funding. That starts the game out but imagine how many game copies you have to sell just to break even, and that just the initial prototype being designed and built.
We need a win win solution out there to deal with this.
Come up with a meta-MMORPG that let's you find out about what you want from MMORPG's in general, so you can know quickly which ones would appeal.
This would be gamified - you'd play a game that would show you different kinds of gameplay, different visual styles (gear, world, etc.), back to back, and then survey you on which variation of a game element you like more.
For example, equip you with a realistic looking mace, a 4 foot long fantasy hammer that looks like it weighs 80 pounds, a slim rapier made only of particle effects, with similar animations, and ask which you like using the most.
After doing this for different kinds of gear, visual styles, worldspace types (e.g. lots of valleys or wide open expanses; lots of vertical changes in space with multiple levels or less vertical maps, etc), kinds of combat, kinds of crafting, etc. etc.
And the makers of this meta-MMORPG would also tag existing MMORPG's so you could look up which MMORPG's are good for you based on your preferences from the meta-MMORPG game.
TL;DR make an MMO that teaches you to find the right MMO for you. Downside is that if successful, r/MMORPG would die off when people find their MMO happy place :P
Problem here is most mmorpgs from the last 10-15 years have pretty much been mostly the exact same game just with a diffrent skin over it. Ever since WoW was such a success, every dev and their mother just tries to copy it. Sure the combat might be a bit diffrent but its still the same boring solo quest hub to quest hub stuff.
I miss mmorpgs like old school ff11, before abbysea, stuff took time, you needed people, solo wasn't really an option past lv 10 or so for most jobs. It had a sense of accomplishment that mmorpgs today just lack, you could login to FF11 complete a quest or 2, maybe gain a level and feel satisfied with your progress. In todays mmorpgs the journey to lv cap is such a joke that there is no real excitement to it or anything, its just a boring grind. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a grind when its done right: you need a party, so you have people to chat with and such.
Raids also need to be made harder, no more of this junk we have now where you can get UI mods in say wow that bascally have the bosses entire attack pattern set in stone, it takes away most of the challenge, I'd rather the boss use random abilities, to keep players on their toes. When I watch groups fail the raids in wow I often just facepalm as some of them seem overly simple, same with FF14, alot of the endgame bosses aren't that hard, the problem is the playerbase are morons and don't pay enough attention, lack of situational awareness. Its especally sad in FF14 when any aoe has a big huge circle bascally screaming "Hey imma use this attack here!" yet people still somehow get caught by them, usually your given more than enough time to dodge.
We won't see any true mmorpgs anymore, as mmorpgs went from the hardcore to casual themeparks. A few devs have tried for the more hardcore side but it just doesn't get the players they need as they are used to how easy Wow and its ilk are.
Mmorpg's used to be more about the journey then rushing to endgame, even wow 1.0 was like that, it wasn't till after the first expansion when it started going downhill.
Ok so this is what I'm looking for for sure, some good ideas and a dead on view Of what I saw happen. Wonder if making a MMo with different modes for different players would solve some of this? Like maybe Normal, Soft , and Harcore. There will be many quest in the game, but, I'm not a quester so the game base will be built around action based progress.(Use a Sword, Gain Skill) The quest will probably be item/Currency oriented versus exp oriented. Maybe even just give shop currency to expand bags or buy skins with in game currency. This is where we get stuck in the design meetings, How can we build a game that will sustain our development team. Id personally like to keep the large staff past launch to continue monthly content updates. Right now it's demo and then buy the game, or cap skills until you get a licensed version. I would like for people to buy because they like it after seeing what it is. The free to play models always require a SHOP. Without the shop who pays the 40-50 mil in development cost? That's why P2W is the new model, Phone and game like Candy Crush and Clash of clans showed that you make way more money with small micro transactions. So of course the Corporations trying to increase profit. The mentality of player that it should all be free now is what got us to every game being free to play and then extracting profits one transaction at the time. It starts off with clothes/ mounts and when that fails they start selling items that actually sell.. P2W items... Faster Mounts, Skill ups, Better Gear. This is a hard one.
Right now we are at about 10 million for initial funding. That starts the game out but imagine how many game copies you have to sell just to break even, and that just the initial prototype being designed and built.
We need a win win solution out there to deal with this.
Check out how DDO does dungeons and instance based content, they have it so that when you enter a "Dungeon" you can select difficulty (Easy/Normal/Hard/Elite) and then the dungeon also scales based on party size.
This allows people to group, solo, or do whatever. Personally, I hate forced grouping, because when I go into a dungeon I like the idea of exploring, seeing what is there, and too often when I join a group or a pug, it's all about racing to the end to get reward and done.
I never get the chance to experience the dungeon, so with DDO's system, I can enter a dungeon solo, walk though it, over level it even, and look around, check it out.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
When you make an MMO, if you put in Forced grouping, or Trinity, understand this is a market demographic, the gamer population is in fact very divided on this and putting that in will cost you the entire demographic that enjoys being able to solo.
Now, I am going to say this, and it is going to sound rude, but if you think you can put in some forced grouping content and some solo content and everyone will be happy, this will never happen.
The players that do the forced grouping content will demand better rewards because their content is more challenging, this is an absolute fact, and if you do not provide it, they will cry and leave. If you do provide it, no matter how justified you think it might be, the players that want to solo, will feel like second class citizens and leave the game as well.
This is one of those things that @Sovrath and I were discussing about knowing your market, and in this case, you need to know who you want this for.
It's funny how this.. and this alone.. will be a division point for your games demographic.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
So your problem is if you not go P2W , you don't get profit . But if you go P2W , it pretty much ruined the game . haha
I don't see the problem with why not go P2W , rather , why not go full P2W . What matter in P2W is balance between in game value and cash value , well , it will require lot tests but i don't think P2W is ready that bad .
Heck , some game even make Auction for mounts and rare items bind with real cash .
Main problem is keep in game value to the point accept for most people while find good among of food to make the whales happy
Maybe use gold farmer to create contents also an idea . it make me feel little more interest as OP try to get solution .
I think your solution is create in game value so it can become a kind of digital money that people willing to trade it with real cash
But i can't say much about world build without know the lore behind the world . But why do it sound like ... single player game instead of MMO ? selling copy kind of ... i don't like this idea as nowadays people use hit and run tactic , like Bless ...i mean mess .
Right now my interest is place in dungeon adventure type
World build is a large city that build around a dungeon , and player , with a reason , come to that city to search for what he want . so when he go out of the city , it mean he return to his home aka log out
It will be open world zone base game so more dungeon level can be add freely without get hit by land restriction .
In the base city , NPC will give out quests and player will travel to the dungeon to finish the quest . There are solo quests and party quest , party quest is a solo quest but will add extra reward for all member of party .
Player get stronger by grind mobs while become rich for doing request quests .
Gears is normal but there is thing called union core (aka set items) it's an orb that will unlock extra effect when you collect the item required . It's a system that make sure nothing gone waste .
For example
Core A will require you wear boot B (level 10) and sword C (level 20) while use Gloves D (level 15)
While Core X will require Sword B (level 10) Gloves C (level 20) and Boot C (level 20)
Guild will have level and unique buffs
Player use gold to level up guild and each time the guild level up it will give out stats that guild leaders can a local
Player in that guild will get extra stats base on the stats of the guild .
And buffs is base on the chose of leaders but it will reset each week and have to pay gold to get new one .
Stats of the guild can be reset with gold .
I take a liking in AA skill systems . I mean , with just 10 skill tresses you can have 120 classes . But i believe you can put out at lease 21 unique skill tree
the TOS also have large among of classes 80+ i think , but the developer make it bad and don't have full use of it .
other stuff is farming , taming , housing , gambling and of course dancing ..
I think add 3 side pvp also fun .
the PVP is kind of zoned . There are no PVP in city and dungeon but player can teleport in battle field that's place to farm unique materials and destroy other nation is tower to get nation buff and rank .
This is where we get stuck in the design meetings, How can we build a game that will sustain our development team. Id personally like to keep the large staff past launch to continue monthly content updates. Right now it's demo and then buy the game, or cap skills until you get a licensed version. I would like for people to buy because they like it after seeing what it is. The free to play models always require a SHOP. Without the shop who pays the 40-50 mil in development cost? That's why P2W is the new model, Phone and game like Candy Crush and Clash of clans showed that you make way more money with small micro transactions. So of course the Corporations trying to increase profit. The mentality of player that it should all be free now is what got us to every game being free to play and then extracting profits one transaction at the time. It starts off with clothes/ mounts and when that fails they start selling items that actually sell.. P2W items... Faster Mounts, Skill ups, Better Gear. This is a hard one.
Right now we are at about 10 million for initial funding. That starts the game out but imagine how many game copies you have to sell just to break even, and that just the initial prototype being designed and built.
We need a win win solution out there to deal with this.
Just some ideas.
Check out the Turbine Model.
What this is, is that their is a base Game, has several hubs, quests, open zones, etc.
Then you can buy additional quests, additional areas, zones, etc. Thus, you have a F2P area, but you also have all these Paid Only areas. This is often called DLC, and it is a great way to keep the game progress going, and keep the staff you have working, as more content needs to be made, with proper rewards attached to them.
You can also offer a Sub system like Crowfall, where there is a flat fee, and it provides several boons as well as access to all DLC, but, you can't get MORE sub, it's a flat advantage.
Also maybe opens up Sub Based servers.
Case in point, LOTR did a re-launch, a "Fresh Start" server that was only open to their Sub clients, I hear it was quite popular.
Also, Never underestimate the power of selling cosmetics. Put in a good cosmetic system, and that can really go a way to gather just a ton of extra funding.
But again, you need to know your target market.. know who you want to build this game for, and market to them.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Not trying to be mean to the OP but you can't say how to make a great game in a chat box in a forum,great game designs takes months and many pages of work to do it right. Sadly i think most devs have been designing their games in a chat box or on a napkin or at Blizzcon.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Not trying to be mean to the OP but you can't say how to make a great game in a chat box in a forum,great game designs takes months and many pages of work to do it right. Sadly i think most devs have been designing their games in a chat box or on a napkin or at Blizzcon.
I feel like a great gaming concept is pretty easy. I feel like everyone pretty much wants the same thing.
The problem is (IMHO) is coming up with a way to encourage behavior in these games that is good for the overall community. I can be sold on pirates, post-apocalyptic wastelands, high fantasy - I don't really care what the setting is because it can all be win; however, there has to be a way to make players behave.
It isn't fun to think about how to make players behave - it isn't sexy.
What I'm getting at is how many games start with, or even seriously consider, how to encourage player behavior. I can see writing all the fun parts of the game as taking months (The quests in Secret World were fantastic), but how much time is put into designing the game to encourage (without controlling) player behavior?
Going back to the old UO saw - I didn't have a problem with open world PvP in that game as there is a small part of me that found that entertaining (even as ever the victim). The problem was the relentless ganking and the inability to do anything fun without having it constantly shoved into my face - it was the fact that poor behavior had next to no downsides with tons of profit built in - in short, when it comes to design I don't think the story, graphics, etc are the biggest problem.
If a developer could handle that problem FIRST, such that a group of PKs might ride past a lone miner as it benefits them to do so, you get that mechanic working and you can slap any graphics engine or lore on it you want and I'd be in that game.
Not trying to be mean to the OP but you can't say how to make a great game in a chat box in a forum,great game designs takes months and many pages of work to do it right. Sadly i think most devs have been designing their games in a chat box or on a napkin or at Blizzcon.
I feel like a great gaming concept is pretty easy. I feel like everyone pretty much wants the same thing.
The problem is (IMHO) is coming up with a way to encourage behavior in these games that is good for the overall community. I can be sold on pirates, post-apocalyptic wastelands, high fantasy - I don't really care what the setting is because it can all be win; however, there has to be a way to make players behave.
It isn't fun to think about how to make players behave - it isn't sexy.
What I'm getting at is how many games start with, or even seriously consider, how to encourage player behavior. I can see writing all the fun parts of the game as taking months (The quests in Secret World were fantastic), but how much time is put into designing the game to encourage (without controlling) player behavior?
Going back to the old UO saw - I didn't have a problem with open world PvP in that game as there is a small part of me that found that entertaining (even as ever the victim). The problem was the relentless ganking and the inability to do anything fun without having it constantly shoved into my face - it was the fact that poor behavior had next to no downsides with tons of profit built in - in short, when it comes to design I don't think the story, graphics, etc are the biggest problem.
If a developer could handle that problem FIRST, such that a group of PKs might ride past a lone miner as it benefits them to do so, you get that mechanic working and you can slap any graphics engine or lore on it you want and I'd be in that game.
That's easy, but unpopular:
Simply - the Gods favor the righteous. Murderers and miscreants don't earn the Gods favor, and thus Resurrection by the Divine is not assured.
The Dark Gods may have a purpose for these corrupted souls, however the price for their favor is severe.
Or in simple gameplay terms - characters who PK/gank outside of established Faction vs. Faction or Guild vs. Guild combat have SEVERE death penalties. Up to and including perma-death.
Rogues and thieves who steal and plunder have progressively worse death penalties, with an "atonement" counter and/or timer to offset these penalties.
So you can give players the freedom to play as they want, to be the character they want to be, but not a freedom from the consequences of their actions.
Disrupt the "natural" order, the rule of law - pay the price... if you are caught or defeated!
Also, I don't understand the hate for auto-grouping features.
Do people want to go back to "join a guild or you might as well not play" or "spam chat channels for hours" really? So archaic.
It would not only work, but would fundamentally change MMO structure and gameplay for the better to force grouping for the vast majority of PvE & PvP content, but then also enforce player dependency via Trinity.
Those two coupled together is pretty much how MOBA and team-based shooters like Overwatch / Team Fortress work.
Sure you have problems with toxicity to deal with, but those problems can be addressed by a variety of methods in-game as well. Good reporting and reputation systems, leagues, rankings, etc. etc.
Players who wanted pre-formed teams or play with friends join/manage guilds etc. would be encouraged to do so, but solo players and other quick-fix types would still be able to participate and enjoy - and you'd be able to "force" solid team-dynamic based content.
Simply - the Gods favor the righteous. Murderers and miscreants don't earn the Gods favor, and thus Resurrection by the Divine is not assured.
Ultimately, I'd like to see a system that is popular with the PK crowd.
The things that irritated me about PKs in UO was the following: 1: It was insanely profitable 2: It was to have help from neutral (blue) players 3: It was easy to rebound from death.
It wouldn't have bothered me to occasionally get ganked if I could know that the PK, upon death, would be taken out of the equation for a bit. Even at that, I want the sociopaths who participate in that behavior to have some fun so I'm not a big fan of harsh death penalties.
This is important: It wasn't the getting ganked that bothered me as much as it was so easy to do, so persistent, and there was little downside. Maybe for most people that is more the problem than the actual deaths.
So I think any anti-gank system should take the following design goals into consideration: 1: Ganking should be no more profitable than crafting. Less so, actually. 2: It should be impossible for those players to get help with or coordinate with neutral players. 3: Death should be very, very inconvenient and provide victims with relief.
I'd like to see the following ruleset: 1: If a character is a murderer that is the only character you can play on that server. (helps to avoid collaboration)
2: Upon death a murderer is sent to Hades. The more murders, the further down the murderer is sent. Hades is a dungeon - the only way out is to collect the souls of other murderers (in Hades) to bribe the guards to let you out. (This takes the murderer out of the world for a bit, this process can take several hours to complete BUT features continuous PvP to get out - that's what you wanted, right? PvP?)
3: Notify players who have been murdered: "Your murderer is now spending time in Hades". I'd like to get ganked just to see that every here and again. Also, warn when the murderer gets out.
4: Allow murder victims to hire angry spirits (NPCS) to torment murderers in Hades. Kill a rich PVE guy and maybe your time in Hades will be Hell.
Also, I don't understand the hate for auto-grouping features.
Do people want to go back to "join a guild or you might as well not play" or "spam chat channels for hours" really? So archaic.
It would not only work, but would fundamentally change MMO structure and gameplay for the better to force grouping for the vast majority of PvE & PvP content, but then also enforce player dependency via Trinity.
Those two coupled together is pretty much how MOBA and team-based shooters like Overwatch / Team Fortress work.
Sure you have problems with toxicity to deal with, but those problems can be addressed by a variety of methods in-game as well. Good reporting and reputation systems, leagues, rankings, etc. etc.
Players who wanted pre-formed teams or play with friends join/manage guilds etc. would be encouraged to do so, but solo players and other quick-fix types would still be able to participate and enjoy - and you'd be able to "force" solid team-dynamic based content.
Because Auto-Grouping features do not belong in MMORPGS period. Players should be responsible for their own action and enjoyment. Not a computer randomly throwing people together. Add to that you have MMORPGS today that are nothing but Treadmills that you run on for a few weeks get bored then put the game down. Why? Because you can auto group so fast that content is burned through in a matter of a few days. Before we had to make our own groups there were days you didnt get to go run a dungeon. Thats OK you dont need to run dungeons every day. Also Auto-Grouping features make Socialization non-existent and we know for a fact that MMORPGS need to have a social community or they fail. Why would you stay playing to a game when you dont have friends to play with. This is talked about by many many youtubers too that say the lack of community is why they dont want to play games anymore. Because Auto Grouping is not meant for MMORPGS. MOBA, BR yes that is fine. Not for MMORPGS.
Designed one a long time ago. MMOSIM, WOW meets Sims in a sense. No levels, no gear grind, no classes. Characters gain experience which allow them to put points into skills. Persistent world, so if bandits raid the village, you have to go rescue said villagers so you can then talk to them. No real questing system, just talk to NPC and they will give you tasks. You actually learn things like horseback riding. You spend some time learning to ride the horse, now you can ride and have a mount. End Game progression leads to city/town building, sieges of cities/towns, large scale pvp combat. Also, characters get old and die. Characters can marry and have kids. Once character dies, you take over child as new character with added traits.
I could go on and on about it, but that's the basics. That's the kind of MMO I'd play.
Comments
Things like level scaling, LFG options, social "hub" locations for group/party posting/recruitment, a mega server with "sharding" to ensure population density, etc.
Would be a different game than the old days, where it was "find a guild" or "spam chat channels."
In my head I picture a "guild hall" or something in every town/city. A place where Adventurers gathered to find fellowship and undertake quests.
I believe FFXIV originally had that concept with their Guild Leve system, but like all things in the first iteration of FFXIV it was badly implemented.
Do that, but do a mega server (region based) as well as reduce the overall importance of level and/or allow good scaling systems so that it was much easier to find fellow adventurers.
You do that kind of thing, forced grouping could work in a modern game IMO.
To help people forum groups I would have guilds up on my website that integrates in the game to help players find like minded guilds. I would also have tools like FFXIV has on their website with the online calendar that can integrate in game. This is another way to help people find groups. I would also get rid of instant gratification. Just look at WOW right now and how few people play that compared to when the game was far from instant gratification.
I would also put guild systems in for guilds that help new players learn their class. Kind of what I am thinking I will do with my Classic WOW guild.
P.s.: Part 2 then.
Core priorities. There are four areas to any game: Rulesystem, User Interface, Game World, and Graphic Representation.
The most important thing to me is a great rulesystem. Nothing else is as important in a game that wants to offer longterm motivation than the core of the game. Chess for example is basically just rules, but these rules are very well thought out.
As a core mechanism of the rule system, there needs to be cooldowns on all abilities, such that a player with 0.1 sec ping doesnt have any advantage over a player with 0.5 sec ping. I am very well aware thats not a "cool" demand, but its a very necessary one to allow players with worse connection to be fully competitive. I would set the minimum ping to 0.5 sec though, anything above would be challenged. The challenge of the game should be what ability to use next, not quicker reflexes, since the later always means the guy with better ping wins. Also that kind of gameplay is very boring to me.
Combat should always be dynamic, the problem of what ability to best use next should always be there, with no final predictability for the player, and the system should maybe be easy to start, but most importantly hard to master. Ideally I would like to see a factor of 1:100 or even more in efficiency between a player who just randomly smashes buttons and one who very carefully choses the right ability to use next.
While there should be a lot of choices there should never be choices that arent any, either because they are irrelevant or because there is only one correct answer. So for example if you have a warrior class and the warrior needs strength for all their abilities, obviously the strenght ability needs to be maximized for that class. So thats an example for a choice that isnt any. Instead you have to design the system in such a way that the player can choose multiple valid builds. Say theres a Strength and a Dexterity attribute, an all out Strength warrior needs to be just as valid as an all out Dexerity or anything between these extremes, with different advantages for each choice. Obviously there will always still be an optimal solution for such choices, which is why you need to allow respec; however the other choices shouldnt be drastically worse or you shouldnt offer them in the first place. This is btw one thing Guild Wars did really well, you got three attributes per class to choose from, with different names per class, and they indeed have been real choices. Another example is Diablo 3 which removed the attribute choices in Diablo 2 because there was always an optimal skilling per class anyway so choosing attributess wasnt really actually a choice, but a question to the player if he knew the correct answer.
There also needs to be a lot of different classes and each class should play in a very unique way. Again yes I'm aware thats not a "cool" demand, but I find this to be the superior concept over classless systems in respect to longterm motivation. The "unique way" here of course means everyone has their own set of abilities, but it also means every class should only "see" a subset of the many layers of the combat system. Say many classes do have criticals which can unlock at random, a very common and popular mechanism, then some classes might not have such criticals, so if you play them the game feels substantly different. Its not a good example of course, since if you have criticals probably all classes should have them, since they spice everyones combat with unforseeable dynamics. I was just looking for an especially general example. A better example might be that if everyone has mana and hitpoints, so some classes have very limited use for mana. This is super common, of course. Or many classes have a third counter, next to mana and hitpoints, and this counter works very different on different classes, some raise the counter with some abilities which then unlock other abilities, others raise the counter by using abilities on the current opponent for the same effect, others have just a slowly regenerating pool and a single ability that works on that, etc. Theres a lot of things one can do in this regard, and this allows to make classes play very different.
There are also subclasses, races, and subraces, to add further layers of choice. Subclasses can be changed at a later point. They dont change the core nature of a class; a Death Cleric for example will still be a healer. A Death Cleric however might on the other hand now only wear robes, have poor melee damage, and gain strong spells and more mana. Races and subraces act like lesser classes which do not only change a bit how the character plays, but also change how the gameworld interacts with you. A Darkelf for example might have trouble visiting a Human city.
The second priority after the quality of the gameplay would be the quality of the game content. The game should offer a sufficiently large gameworld with a sufficient amount of long and complex quest chains. Group content should be king; solo play should not be impossible but very challenging and slow progress, requiring a lot of skill.
Third priority is interface. A poor interface definitely breaks a gaming experience, so thats no option. Ideally I would want a simple interface that works for everybody.
Finally graphical representation should be the least priority. Of course the graphic quality needs to be sufficient, the optics shouldnt be ugly. But not more than sufficient. A MMO is supposed to be played longterm and the longterm value of good graphics is frankly zip.
The more effort is put into graphics, the harder it is to extend the MMO gaming world. It should be as easy as possible to extend the gaming world in order to make it possible to add a lot of new content continously.
What needs to be done about graphics though is asserting very high future security. Meaning the programmers need to be able to slowly improve the graphics of the game over time, without changing anything else.
About graphics conceptionally, the primary view supported by the game should be third person. I dont want the game to have aiming etc. This is a full RPG, the ability to aim wont depend upon your own ability to aim, but on the stats of your player character. Thus first person wont be necessary, though it might be supported as well.
I would like to see a seamless world and realistic viewing distances, though that would be a lower priority.
No guarantee for being complete, I've probably forgotten important aspects, but thats what I can think of right now.
FTP - When every annoying kid from the world can download a game and start trolling in chat the quality of the community goes down. Then you have the people who think you shouldn't have to pay to play a game. Who's going to pay for development? Good Will? I personally prefer the subscription model with no P2W options. The problem it, P2W is now the only way Games can Survive and cover development. well that or stupid crates. This was easier when development coast a few 100k, Those days are over. We are trying to stay away from that. We have a few years to figure this out but some thoughts would be great on this as well.
Any thoughts on pricing models? I'm all about creative, If anyone has a idea that will cover the initial cost of development.
MMOs still shine and make big bucks in oriental markets, mainly on mobile.
So if you have 100 figures and want to invest in MMO, forget the west and put the money in an east asian gaming company.
This is where we get stuck in the design meetings, How can we build a game that will sustain our development team. Id personally like to keep the large staff past launch to continue monthly content updates. Right now it's demo and then buy the game, or cap skills until you get a licensed version. I would like for people to buy because they like it after seeing what it is. The free to play models always require a SHOP. Without the shop who pays the 40-50 mil in development cost? That's why P2W is the new model, Phone and game like Candy Crush and Clash of clans showed that you make way more money with small micro transactions. So of course the Corporations trying to increase profit. The mentality of player that it should all be free now is what got us to every game being free to play and then extracting profits one transaction at the time. It starts off with clothes/ mounts and when that fails they start selling items that actually sell.. P2W items... Faster Mounts, Skill ups, Better Gear. This is a hard one.
Right now we are at about 10 million for initial funding. That starts the game out but imagine how many game copies you have to sell just to break even, and that just the initial prototype being designed and built.
We need a win win solution out there to deal with this.
This allows people to group, solo, or do whatever. Personally, I hate forced grouping, because when I go into a dungeon I like the idea of exploring, seeing what is there, and too often when I join a group or a pug, it's all about racing to the end to get reward and done.
I never get the chance to experience the dungeon, so with DDO's system, I can enter a dungeon solo, walk though it, over level it even, and look around, check it out.
When you make an MMO, if you put in Forced grouping, or Trinity, understand this is a market demographic, the gamer population is in fact very divided on this and putting that in will cost you the entire demographic that enjoys being able to solo.
Now, I am going to say this, and it is going to sound rude, but if you think you can put in some forced grouping content and some solo content and everyone will be happy, this will never happen.
The players that do the forced grouping content will demand better rewards because their content is more challenging, this is an absolute fact, and if you do not provide it, they will cry and leave. If you do provide it, no matter how justified you think it might be, the players that want to solo, will feel like second class citizens and leave the game as well.
This is one of those things that @Sovrath and I were discussing about knowing your market, and in this case, you need to know who you want this for.
It's funny how this.. and this alone.. will be a division point for your games demographic.
Check out the Turbine Model.
What this is, is that their is a base Game, has several hubs, quests, open zones, etc.
Then you can buy additional quests, additional areas, zones, etc. Thus, you have a F2P area, but you also have all these Paid Only areas. This is often called DLC, and it is a great way to keep the game progress going, and keep the staff you have working, as more content needs to be made, with proper rewards attached to them.
You can also offer a Sub system like Crowfall, where there is a flat fee, and it provides several boons as well as access to all DLC, but, you can't get MORE sub, it's a flat advantage.
Also maybe opens up Sub Based servers.
Case in point, LOTR did a re-launch, a "Fresh Start" server that was only open to their Sub clients, I hear it was quite popular.
Also, Never underestimate the power of selling cosmetics. Put in a good cosmetic system, and that can really go a way to gather just a ton of extra funding.
But again, you need to know your target market.. know who you want to build this game for, and market to them.
Sadly i think most devs have been designing their games in a chat box or on a napkin or at Blizzcon.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I feel like everyone pretty much wants the same thing.
The problem is (IMHO) is coming up with a way to encourage behavior in these games that is good for the overall community. I can be sold on pirates, post-apocalyptic wastelands, high fantasy - I don't really care what the setting is because it can all be win; however, there has to be a way to make players behave.
It isn't fun to think about how to make players behave - it isn't sexy.
What I'm getting at is how many games start with, or even seriously consider, how to encourage player behavior. I can see writing all the fun parts of the game as taking months (The quests in Secret World were fantastic), but how much time is put into designing the game to encourage (without controlling) player behavior?
Going back to the old UO saw - I didn't have a problem with open world PvP in that game as there is a small part of me that found that entertaining (even as ever the victim). The problem was the relentless ganking and the inability to do anything fun without having it constantly shoved into my face - it was the fact that poor behavior had next to no downsides with tons of profit built in - in short, when it comes to design I don't think the story, graphics, etc are the biggest problem.
If a developer could handle that problem FIRST, such that a group of PKs might ride past a lone miner as it benefits them to do so, you get that mechanic working and you can slap any graphics engine or lore on it you want and I'd be in that game.
Simply - the Gods favor the righteous. Murderers and miscreants don't earn the Gods favor, and thus Resurrection by the Divine is not assured.
The Dark Gods may have a purpose for these corrupted souls, however the price for their favor is severe.
Or in simple gameplay terms - characters who PK/gank outside of established Faction vs. Faction or Guild vs. Guild combat have SEVERE death penalties. Up to and including perma-death.
Rogues and thieves who steal and plunder have progressively worse death penalties, with an "atonement" counter and/or timer to offset these penalties.
So you can give players the freedom to play as they want, to be the character they want to be, but not a freedom from the consequences of their actions.
Disrupt the "natural" order, the rule of law - pay the price... if you are caught or defeated!
Do people want to go back to "join a guild or you might as well not play" or "spam chat channels for hours" really? So archaic.
It would not only work, but would fundamentally change MMO structure and gameplay for the better to force grouping for the vast majority of PvE & PvP content, but then also enforce player dependency via Trinity.
Those two coupled together is pretty much how MOBA and team-based shooters like Overwatch / Team Fortress work.
Sure you have problems with toxicity to deal with, but those problems can be addressed by a variety of methods in-game as well. Good reporting and reputation systems, leagues, rankings, etc. etc.
Players who wanted pre-formed teams or play with friends join/manage guilds etc. would be encouraged to do so, but solo players and other quick-fix types would still be able to participate and enjoy - and you'd be able to "force" solid team-dynamic based content.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The things that irritated me about PKs in UO was the following:
1: It was insanely profitable
2: It was to have help from neutral (blue) players
3: It was easy to rebound from death.
It wouldn't have bothered me to occasionally get ganked if I could know that the PK, upon death, would be taken out of the equation for a bit. Even at that, I want the sociopaths who participate in that behavior to have some fun so I'm not a big fan of harsh death penalties.
This is important: It wasn't the getting ganked that bothered me as much as it was so easy to do, so persistent, and there was little downside. Maybe for most people that is more the problem than the actual deaths.
So I think any anti-gank system should take the following design goals into consideration:
1: Ganking should be no more profitable than crafting. Less so, actually.
2: It should be impossible for those players to get help with or coordinate with neutral players.
3: Death should be very, very inconvenient and provide victims with relief.
I'd like to see the following ruleset:
1: If a character is a murderer that is the only character you can play on that server. (helps to avoid collaboration)
2: Upon death a murderer is sent to Hades. The more murders, the further down the murderer is sent. Hades is a dungeon - the only way out is to collect the souls of other murderers (in Hades) to bribe the guards to let you out. (This takes the murderer out of the world for a bit, this process can take several hours to complete BUT features continuous PvP to get out - that's what you wanted, right? PvP?)
3: Notify players who have been murdered: "Your murderer is now spending time in Hades". I'd like to get ganked just to see that every here and again. Also, warn when the murderer gets out.
4: Allow murder victims to hire angry spirits (NPCS) to torment murderers in Hades. Kill a rich PVE guy and maybe your time in Hades will be Hell.
Just throwing out ideas.