What are the elements you absolutely need to have in order to succeed as an MMO? What are the things, as technology inevitably ushers us into VR and even more immersion down the road, that are still going to be crucial for success?
Before I start, I realize I don't have all the answers. I think I have some of them, but this isn't just about what I want here. It's trying to look past just my own preferences to get down to the most important elements that--if you don't have them--your MMO is going to fail. This also means I'm looking forward to what other gamers feel are important, and I hope we can get some good discussion on this. So let's see if we can do this and who knows maybe some future developer might read these things and take them to heart and benefit...
1. Unique classes.
2. Levels.
3. Races and Diversity of Appearance.
4) Strong Guild Finger/Social Panel
5) Rich Storied World
6) Loot & Crafting
Alright. So, I looked at this, and then started to go through a list of the commonly recognized Successful MMO's, removing UO and EQ, as they were groundbreaking 1st Gen MMO's, and pretty much everything that followed built off what they set down, is what it is.
The most common headliners for Popular/Successful MMO's are WoW, ESO, GW2, BDO, FF14, LotrO and EVE.
If you looked at the OP's list, the only outliner is EvE, and they have a very unique game set up and system, all the other games use what the OP put out, as a core to the game.
But,. numbers 1 - 6 do seem to be a uniform trait package. 7 & 8 not so much.
So the question here was not "What do you think will make a successful MMO"
But what systems do Successful MMO's use, in that vein, I think the OP really hit things spot on. This was not so much a wish list, but merely an observation.
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.
What are the elements you absolutely need to have in order to succeed as an MMO? What are the things, as technology inevitably ushers us into VR and even more immersion down the road, that are still going to be crucial for success?
Before I start, I realize I don't have all the answers. I think I have some of them, but this isn't just about what I want here. It's trying to look past just my own preferences to get down to the most important elements that--if you don't have them--your MMO is going to fail. This also means I'm looking forward to what other gamers feel are important, and I hope we can get some good discussion on this. So let's see if we can do this and who knows maybe some future developer might read these things and take them to heart and benefit...
1. Unique classes.
2. Levels.
3. Races and Diversity of Appearance.
4) Strong Guild Finger/Social Panel
5) Rich Storied World
6) Loot & Crafting
Alright. So, I looked at this, and then started to go through a list of the commonly recognized Successful MMO's, removing UO and EQ, as they were groundbreaking 1st Gen MMO's, and pretty much everything that followed built off what they set down, is what it is.
The most common headliners for Popular/Successful MMO's are WoW, ESO, GW2, BDO, FF14, LotrO and EVE.
If you looked at the OP's list, the only outliner is EvE, and they have a very unique game set up and system, all the other games use what the OP put out, as a core to the game.
But,. numbers 1 - 6 do seem to be a uniform trait package. 7 & 8 not so much.
So the question here was not "What do you think will make a successful MMO"
But what systems do Successful MMO's use, in that vein, I think the OP really hit things spot on. This was not so much a wish list, but merely an observation.
I think the term "successful MMO" doesn't really apply to the users of this website as a whole. Most of us play games that exist but wouldn't be considered successful by any business standpoint. I still play EQ and it's missing half of the things listed.
Also interesting to see not listed is "consistent content".
(Note: Bold Emphasis added to Ungood's original post.)
"To do higher damage you need to be more fragile, to be able to Heal you need to do less DPS, etc, etc." - Ungood
No, no, no. That is ungood, Ungood.
Or rather, back to the...
"Forget everything you know, or think you know. All that you require is your intuition!"
"You must unlearn what you have learned."
Everquest, World of Warcraft, and various other MMORPGs have taught many gamers that Warriors usually do less damage than Rogues and Wizards. Warriors are generally known as Tanks because they wear heavier armor. Rogues and Wizards are known as DPS (Damage Per Second) classes because they do more damage but wear lighter armor. Or no armor at all. Priests (or Healers), on the other hand, can heal, often wear heavier armor than Rogues and Wizards, but maybe only do around as much damage as Tanks. Maybe more, maybe less.
Okay, guess what? That's all stupid and lame. Say it with me, STUPID & LAME!
EQ & WoW did this because they eschewed the use of NON-COMBAT ABILITIES!
But NON-COMBAT ABILITIES & SPELLS/POWERS are what actually set the different classes apart.
Wizards & Priests have many excellent NON-COMBAT spells/prayers that can be quite useful in many different situations.
Rogues have a few NON-COMBAT abilities that can prove essential to any serious adventuring party.
Warriors actually do pretty decent damage. You know why? Because they are stronger, use heavier weapons, and they are BETTER AT FIGHTING (GASP!). So they actually hit their targets more often than the other classes. Who, incidentally, focused more of their training on NON-COMBAT ABILITIES!
Oh yeah. Depending on their specific type, Priests (such as Clerics) can do fairly decent damage as well. Though not as good as Warriors.
I like the concept of out-of-combat abilities that affect the adventure. I do think that there should be "peak damage" based on circumstances. The Fighter is best in hand-to-hand. The Mage is best at ranged AoE damage. Archers are best at ranged focused target hits. The Thief is best as surprise attacks in hand-to-hand and short range (thrown daggers). The Cleric is best vs. Undead.
And yet, all of the classes should be able to perform some version of all of the attacks, just at a weaker level that still has some meaning for it's use. Of course, weight limits and supplies should also affect what a character has at his disposal.
I think these advantages for higher damage should be reliant die rolls, in a range of "better hits for better damage" sort of way.
I think any player should be able to solo common content because if a player logs on and none of their friends/associates are online, they should still have options to play. The advantages of numbers, of course, should still be in play.
What are the elements you absolutely need to have in order to succeed as an MMO? What are the things, as technology inevitably ushers us into VR and even more immersion down the road, that are still going to be crucial for success?
Before I start, I realize I don't have all the answers. I think I have some of them, but this isn't just about what I want here. It's trying to look past just my own preferences to get down to the most important elements that--if you don't have them--your MMO is going to fail. This also means I'm looking forward to what other gamers feel are important, and I hope we can get some good discussion on this. So let's see if we can do this and who knows maybe some future developer might read these things and take them to heart and benefit...
1. Unique classes.
2. Levels.
3. Races and Diversity of Appearance.
4) Strong Guild Finger/Social Panel
5) Rich Storied World
6) Loot & Crafting
Alright. So, I looked at this, and then started to go through a list of the commonly recognized Successful MMO's, removing UO and EQ, as they were groundbreaking 1st Gen MMO's, and pretty much everything that followed built off what they set down, is what it is.
The most common headliners for Popular/Successful MMO's are WoW, ESO, GW2, BDO, FF14, LotrO and EVE.
If you looked at the OP's list, the only outliner is EvE, and they have a very unique game set up and system, all the other games use what the OP put out, as a core to the game.
But,. numbers 1 - 6 do seem to be a uniform trait package. 7 & 8 not so much.
So the question here was not "What do you think will make a successful MMO"
But what systems do Successful MMO's use, in that vein, I think the OP really hit things spot on. This was not so much a wish list, but merely an observation.
I think the term "successful MMO" doesn't really apply to the users of this website as a whole. Most of us play games that exist but wouldn't be considered successful by any business standpoint. I still play EQ and it's missing half of the things listed.
Also interesting to see not listed is "consistent content".
As a fellow EQ player (back in the day, not currently) I am going to disagree with you because, when I played EQ, it pretty much set the stage for all of the things listed.
For example: EQ had as paramount features.
Unique Classes, and also had restricted race/class combos.
Unique Races
EQ was not in any way lacking in the Factions that players could earn&lose favor with.
Was a very Guild/Group focused game, where even what would be considered "trash mobs" when you got to mid to high levels required groups to take down and boss mobs took efforts by larger guilds.
Norrath had a lot of lore and history to it.
Fast Travel via Teleports by Druids and Wizards, Bard Speed Songs and SoW.
Loot and Crafted items were HUGE, and some crafting was very class directed.
While I didn't want to add EQ to the mix, because as a Gen 1, it was very open to be "Successful" simply by virtue of lack of other options, but if you look at EQ, it pretty much was THE checklist of everything the OP said a Successful MMO had, and it could very well be theorized that it was EQ that set up the foundation for these features to be a core part of every successful MMO following it.
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.
1)
I don't see much reason for PCs (Player Characters) to be able to fast
travel unless they're in a party or raid group. PCs could be able to
acquire an item that allowed them to summon party members (if they are
the leader of a party or group). Of course, mages and priests could
also learn a spell/prayer/ability that would enable them to summon party
members/teleport/open gateways.
2)
Guilds/Mini-Factions could be able to earn the ability to build a
structure (Portal/Gateway) that allowed their members to fast travel to
certain locations.
3) There could be some
sort of structures that exist at certain locations (ancient
pillars/monuments/sites where magic power has concentrated by
chance/randomly or through some sort of intelligent design, gateways of
some sort). These could require someone in the party who had a
particular item, the ability to read magic script, or the ability to
read/decipher ancient languages (or a specific ancient language) in
order to be used. Besides mages and priests, some rogues
(thieves/treasure hunters and bards) might have a more limited ability
to decipher ancient tongues if they chose and practiced/upgraded this
skill.
4) PCs might also be able to place
Markers at certain locations in order to enable to them to fast travel
to somewhere they've already visited. But I don't think that a party or
raid group should be able to teleport to the entrance of a dungeon/raid
or inside of it the first time. Getting there/fighting their way there
is half the fun. Some dungeons might also have guards outside the
entrance which need to be dealt with/killed/disabled or sneaked past
first.
5) Some temples/shrines/otherwise
holy/unholy sites might also have portals to certain locations which
priests or faithful followers of a deity could be permitted to use.
6) A benefit of getting married could be a magic ring that can instantly summon the bride or groom to the other's side. It could also grant them telepathic powers as well, so that they can use Private Messages. (Note: I'm against having the ability for all players to be able to use PMs.)
I like your ideas here. I just wanted to add some comments and ideas.
I always liked UO's "Rune Stones." Once you got to a spot, a Mage or a player with a Scroll could cast a Mark Spell on the runestone and then use it to cast a Recall Spell to teleport there. A Mage of higher levels could also cast a Gate Spell that allowed groups to go through. No doubt this idea has been used in other games in some form.
The reason I like it is that it allowed players to gather for adventure, and avoid long journeys and time spent on that. I think this is important.
However! In this sort of system, it becomes the predominant form of travel because it's reusable and cheap.
What if! Suppose that these runestones are one use. New ones need to be made. But even that's not really enough to change their usage. So here's an idea.
-> To my idea:
The background: In RL, the mineral composition of any stone, ore, gem, anything of the sort, is unique to it's location. They can tell where the copper from an ancient sword came from. What specific mine.
The idea is to have an element that's required for such spells. That element is "tuned" to the other elements and the type of rock it's found in. So in other words, a runestone it attuned to the specific source of it's "mother rock." And using them as a teleport device is limited to within a range of that "mother rock."
Usage-charges:
The number of times a runestone can be used is based on it's size. - A small runestone (the size of a bar of soap) can be used once and then it's forever ruined. This can easily be carried in small quantities. - A medium sized stone, about the size of a patio paver, can be used 5-10 times before it's ruined. It can be carried around, but it's heavy enough to require a decision on the benefits of that. It's best used from a home base where it can stay. - A large runestone can have 50-100 charges. It's too heavy to carry around on adventure, but a strong character can haul one from here to there, as in placing it. It could be hauled by a pack animal, but that means less weight available for other supplies. This would be best suited for a permanent placement in a Temple, Guild Headquarters, etc.
Teleportation devices:
By forming Large runestones into a puzzle like layout, and adding magical runes that connect their power, a larger platform can be created. This would have the combined charges of each large runestone. The numbers are based on the player creation, which is based off of the game's design options. Small, medium, and large platforms. each runestone has it's own number of charges when it was created, so each Platform will have it's own total number of charges. When the Platform runs out of total charges, all the runestones are ruined together. So, in other words, replacing a single Runestone in a Platform can extend it's life by that number of uses. And repeating as needed this can make a Platform last forever.
Marking the Runestones.
Each runestone has to be marked at the arrival spot by a Mage of sufficient power (low end), or any Character with a Scroll. Including all the stones that make up a Platform, all in the same spot. The stone itself, that's used to create a Runestone, also has to have come from that location near it's "mother rock." This is easy to code. Just have a hidden indication of where the stone came from, and that's the center of the radius where it can be used. For Dungeons, that would mean that anywhere inside (unless the designers decide not to allow it for any excuse they want), or near it's entrance. Same for Ruins and Caves. In the wildernesses, there would need to be some rock supply. An outcrop, a river bed, etc.
Expense!
Since each Runestone has to be collected at the spot, then fashioned by a mason into form, marked with runic symbols and ensorcelled by a Mage to prepare it, then taken back to it's source to cast the Mark Spell, and then carried away for use or sale, the expense can be low or high. Remember that Large Runestones for Platforms would require pack animals, wagons, or however they are carried, both away from for manufacture, back again to the source, and then away again.
So a common, one-use Runestone set for "home" would be inexpensive. But a Large Runestone for use in a Platform set for a distant Dungeon could be very expensive. And anywhere in between.
In a Factional World, an opposing Faction may want to have a say in their enemy's success chances.
(Note: Bold Emphasis added to Ungood's original post.)
"To do higher damage you need to be more fragile, to be able to Heal you need to do less DPS, etc, etc." - Ungood
No, no, no. That is ungood, Ungood.
Or rather, back to the...
"Forget everything you know, or think you know. All that you require is your intuition!"
"You must unlearn what you have learned."
Everquest, World of Warcraft, and various other MMORPGs have taught many gamers that Warriors usually do less damage than Rogues and Wizards. Warriors are generally known as Tanks because they wear heavier armor. Rogues and Wizards are known as DPS (Damage Per Second) classes because they do more damage but wear lighter armor. Or no armor at all. Priests (or Healers), on the other hand, can heal, often wear heavier armor than Rogues and Wizards, but maybe only do around as much damage as Tanks. Maybe more, maybe less.
Okay, guess what? That's all stupid and lame. Say it with me, STUPID & LAME!
EQ & WoW did this because they eschewed the use of NON-COMBAT ABILITIES!
But NON-COMBAT ABILITIES & SPELLS/POWERS are what actually set the different classes apart.
Wizards & Priests have many excellent NON-COMBAT spells/prayers that can be quite useful in many different situations.
Rogues have a few NON-COMBAT abilities that can prove essential to any serious adventuring party.
Warriors actually do pretty decent damage. You know why? Because they are stronger, use heavier weapons, and they are BETTER AT FIGHTING (GASP!). So they actually hit their targets more often than the other classes. Who, incidentally, focused more of their training on NON-COMBAT ABILITIES!
Oh yeah. Depending on their specific type, Priests (such as Clerics) can do fairly decent damage as well. Though not as good as Warriors.
I like the concept of out-of-combat abilities that affect the adventure. I do think that there should be "peak damage" based on circumstances. The Fighter is best in hand-to-hand. The Mage is best at ranged AoE damage. Archers are best at ranged focused target hits. The Thief is best as surprise attacks in hand-to-hand and short range (thrown daggers). The Cleric is best vs. Undead.
And yet, all of the classes should be able to perform some version of all of the attacks, just at a weaker level that still has some meaning for it's use. Of course, weight limits and supplies should also affect what a character has at his disposal.
I think these advantages for higher damage should be reliant die rolls, in a range of "better hits for better damage" sort of way.
I think any player should be able to solo common content because if a player logs on and none of their friends/associates are online, they should still have options to play. The advantages of numbers, of course, should still be in play.
Just my thinking, but not he only way to go.
Yes, I was not trying to say that Warriors would always be the best in every different sort of combat situation. Only that they are the overall best Warriors/Combatants (as their description implies). It requires a fair amount of time, dedication, training, and/or skill to become a Warrior in the first place. And, for this reason, they often have less useful Non-Combat Skills/Abilities as other classes. Though the amount of Secondary/Non-Weapon Proficiencies also depends on the amount of Intelligence a character has. If I'm not mistaken. Many Warriors may also want to be skilled at horse (or land mount)-riding, hunting, swimming, fire-building, and things of that nature. Though the ability to read/write, play an instrument, or things of a more academic or urban nature may not be so important to them.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
1) 100% agree unique classes are an important thing. too many classes/jobs are being over simplified and over homogenized for "Balance" reasons (Trash game design). I will say though I prefer the all classes on 1 character model though. I do not like being forced to make a million alts to experience the whole game, I absolutely HATE alts. If I want to be a mage on Tuesday and healer on Wednesday I should be able to do it on my character that represents me not be forced to make a new one with a new name and identity.
2) Leveling up and progression is a key element of the rpg genre as a whole and must be part of a mmorpg. Leave the level less games to MOBAs and the like.
3) Agreed.
4) I disagree that it is a problem honestly. Guild finders ingame are sorta pointless. What games lack in the guild department lately is a reason to be in 1 in the first place. Guild of old easily formed with 100-200+ ppl in them with no finders or honestly not much more then a chat channel the guild members shared. With that said I would not mind one. But a guild finder with no guild content = pointless addition, need to fix the core problem. Guild Buffs/guild bank/guild house are not enough to warrant being in a guild if there is no tie to endgame.
5) I disagree to a point. Story and Lore are important for the setting, but I will use FFXIV for example. The story in Shadowbringers is arguably the best mmo story in any mmo period. But after you play it once... well it is done. Story is best saved for offline games, lore and a living world shaped by the player is a better option in my opinion for mmos at least for the long term. Making elaborate stories with huge animated voiced cutscenes is nice, but I would rather the budget be spent on more actual playable content to occupy my time. I for one do not buy MMORPGs for the story.
6) I 100% disagree to the highest level. If all drops > crafted gear/weapons then crafting is negated, which negates the economy, which negated gathering which is tied to the economy. Most older games such as EQ/FFXI/ect and some newer ones such as Archeage pre-hiram patches had strong crafting economies. This kept the content in the game relevant even expansion to expansion.
There should be gear that is equivalent to BIS for crafters to make and gathers to gather. Everything must be tied into top tier endgame or in my honest opinion it should not be added to the game period as it is a waste of development resources.
If everything you do is character progression (aka $$$ = endgame progression) then it is not just the raid content once you are at cap level content that matters but the whole game, every piece of content.
7) Travel is important. Things like instant teleports everywhere and flying mounts should NOT be part of a mmorpg in my opinion as they trivialize the world. Regional/capital city/ and specific node portals or player portals for certain classes are ok, things like ingame travel are ok(example Wow boats/flight paths/zeppelins/world gates) , but it should fit the world and theme. You should not be able to instantly traverse a whole "WORLD" in 10secs. Again to hell with convenience if it means belittling the world as a whole.
8) Depends on the game. PVP mmo yes, PVE focused mmo no. I am not a person who says PVP is a must in a mmo. In a pvp game it should 100% be faction v faction, free for all pvp only leads to mass griefing
1) 100% agree unique classes are an important thing. too many classes/jobs are being over simplified and over homogenized for "Balance" reasons (Trash game design). I will say though I prefer the all classes on 1 character model though. I do not like being forced to make a million alts to experience the whole game, I absolutely HATE alts. If I want to be a mage on Tuesday and healer on Wednesday I should be able to do it on my character that represents me not be forced to make a new one with a new name and identity.
2) Leveling up and progression is a key element of the rpg genre as a whole and must be part of a mmorpg. Leave the level less games to MOBAs and the like.
3) Agreed.
4) I disagree that it is a problem honestly. Guild finders ingame are sorta pointless. What games lack in the guild department lately is a reason to be in 1 in the first place. Guild of old easily formed with 100-200+ ppl in them with no finders or honestly not much more then a chat channel the guild members shared. With that said I would not mind one. But a guild finder with no guild content = pointless addition, need to fix the core problem. Guild Buffs/guild bank/guild house are not enough to warrant being in a guild if there is no tie to endgame.
5) I disagree to a point. Story and Lore are important for the setting, but I will use FFXIV for example. The story in Shadowbringers is arguably the best mmo story in any mmo period. But after you play it once... well it is done. Story is best saved for offline games, lore and a living world shaped by the player is a better option in my opinion for mmos at least for the long term. Making elaborate stories with huge animated voiced cutscenes is nice, but I would rather the budget be spent on more actual playable content to occupy my time. I for one do not buy MMORPGs for the story.
6) I 100% disagree to the highest level. If all drops > crafted gear/weapons then crafting is negated, which negates the economy, which negated gathering which is tied to the economy. Most older games such as EQ/FFXI/ect and some newer ones such as Archeage pre-hiram patches had strong crafting economies. This kept the content in the game relevant even expansion to expansion.
There should be gear that is equivalent to BIS for crafters to make and gathers to gather. Everything must be tied into top tier endgame or in my honest opinion it should not be added to the game period as it is a waste of development resources.
If everything you do is character progression (aka $$$ = endgame progression) then it is not just the raid content once you are at cap level content that matters but the whole game, every piece of content.
7) Travel is important. Things like instant teleports everywhere and flying mounts should NOT be part of a mmorpg in my opinion as they trivialize the world. Regional/capital city/ and specific node portals or player portals for certain classes are ok, things like ingame travel are ok(example Wow boats/flight paths/zeppelins/world gates) , but it should fit the world and theme. You should not be able to instantly traverse a whole "WORLD" in 10secs. Again to hell with convenience if it means belittling the world as a whole.
8) Depends on the game. PVP mmo yes, PVE focused mmo no. I am not a person who says PVP is a must in a mmo. In a pvp game it should 100% be faction v faction, free for all pvp only leads to mass griefing
1) I like Classes. But they aren't totally necessary. However, if a game has classes (and I do pretty much prefer this), then I want to be able to choose whether or not my character learns different skills, abilities, proficiencies, and talents. In this way, one fighter or mage could be unique as opposed to another fighter or mage.
But, no, I do not want every character to be able to learn more than one class. Humans (and/or other short-lived races similar to humans) should be able to dual-class. If they have high enough Ability/Attribute Scores to do so. A character with low or below average intelligence will not be able to master magic. Nor will a character with low or below average dexterity make for a decent thief. Can these basic abilities or attributes be increased over time? Perhaps, but this should be more difficult than simply learning a new skill. And some characters should have caps on how high they can increase a basic ability/attribute. Just like some people have trouble building/improving strength, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma, some characters should have trouble with this as well. For example, an ugly character will most likely never have very high charisma no matter how wonderful his/her personality is.
Demi-humans who are longer-lived than humans should be able to Multi-class. But only up to three different classes. Multi-classed characters level (gain or train) new skills/skill points slower than Single-class characters. Dual-classed characters can only train one class at a time.
One of the important aspects of any good MMORPG is choices that matter. These choices begin during character creation.
2) As @cameltosis basically stated in an earlier post, levels are just one way of tracking progression in an MMORPG. But they are not essential. There are other ways. Also, combat power progression/gear power progression are just one type of progression possible in an MMORPG. As there are many different kinds of power in the real world, so are there many different kinds of power possible for characters to attain in an MMORPG. And thus are there different kinds of progression that might be implemented.
I also think that MMORPGs should allow for the possibility of Regression as well. If my character doesn't use or practice a skill enough, then he can become less proficient at using that skill, even losing it altogether eventually.
3) Basically agreed. Different races should have both positive and negative qualities. For example, Elves in 2E AD&D had +1 Dex, - 1 Con.
(...to be continued...)
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
4) I don't think MMORPGs require Guild Finders or any sort of automation which is basically just a convenience.
5)
Rich/Detailed Lore & History are good for a game world. But I
would much rather play a non-linear MMORPG where players have a much
greater influence over the destiny their own characters and of the world
at large.
6) Agreed. If players are going to
be allowed the chance to become heroes (and hopefully villains as well)
of Legend, then why shouldn't another player be allowed to become a
Legendary Swordsmith, Cook, or Alchemist? But one character should not
be able to become both a Legendary Swordsman and a Legendary Smith.
Unless, perhaps, the character is an Elf, Dark Elf, or a member of
another such long-lived race. However, that character would need to
basically retire from sword-fighting and focus on forging swords in
order to one day became such a great master. Therefore, his or her
skill at fighting would decrease.
7) Fast
Travel should not be a universal convenience. I already posted some
thoughts on Fast Travel in a Medieval Fantasy MMORPG earlier in this
thread.
8) Yes, Factions are not so important in a PVE-only MMORPG. However, I do agree they are a must for PVP or PVP/PVE MMORPGS.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
More Thoughts on Fast Travel - Possible Consequences,, Side Effects, Drawbacks, Negative Implications, Potential Problems
Mounts - Why can't they sometimes run away from apparent danger or be disabled, stolen, killed, or eaten if left unguarded? Or how is that mounts in some games are magical and fold up into your character's pocket (or whatever) when dismounted/dismissed. I should think that an item (such as a figurine) that can summon a magical beast like Guenhwyvar would be very valuable and very rare.
People can also break bones (get paralyzed or even break their necks) by falling off or getting tossed from a horse. A rearing horse can potentially fall on top of a rider and crush him or her.
Flying Mounts - Why can't they be shot down? Why can't dragons or harpies or other flying creatures attack your character, snatch him/her into the air, and drop/hurl him/her to the ground? Or a bored dragon might use its breath weapon on a griffon or wyvern rider just to amuse itself.
Teleportation - Through what exactly does the character travel when he or she teleports? I figure it must be by traveling through some sort of Nether Realm. Or any sort of magical, mystical, supernatural, extra-dimensional plane. But because time passes differently there, it seems to the character as if he/she has instantly traveled across whatever distance in his/her world. But who or what inhabits this plane through which the character travels? Gods, demons, and/or some other sort of supernatural entities? Why is there no chance that one of these supernatural entities might choose to interfere with the teleporting character(s)?
Also, teleportation can be a risky business even if other planar/ otherworldly beings don't trouble your character. How is that a character always avoids teleporting into a solid object of some kind or even another PC, NPC, or Mob?
Permanent Teleportation Gateways - If these are not carefully guarded by powerful individuals/beings, how does one prevent enemies from using them? Or somehow magically 'hacking' into a gateway and invading through it or causing the gateway to transport users somewhere they did not intend to go? Like into a volcano or the middle of the ocean.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Players could try to make maps if they learn cartography or at least some kind of rudimentary skill at drawing.
And what if, after fighting or participating in some other activity that requires a lot of focus and attention, a character needs to reorient him or herself as to which direction is which? Up, down, left, and right may not necessarily be north, south, west, and east. Though if such a skill as Direction Sense has been learned, then a character would have a harder time getting lost and a better chance of finding his/her way.
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I disagree with the notion that there even are universal requirements to succeed as a MMO. Thinking of things as some kind of formula for success leads to by the numbers game development. Even something as basic as combat can be replaced by building, if that building is robust enough.
I don't think leveling is required or even necessarily beneficial. I'd argue it can actually be detrimental.
I don't think open worlds are required. In fact, I think that there are valid merits to a fully instanced approach that simply aren't a thing in an open world.
I don't think alternative races are required. If they were, we wouldn't see Runescape still succeed. Other customization can make up for that, but even that may well be optional.
PvP isn't required, as we see with plenty of MMOs.
PvE isn't required, as we saw with Planetside.
No idea is inherently outdated and everything can be beneficially modernized.
So much this.
All you need to be a MMO is a massive amount of players in the same world.
They could do anything from space ships to everyone playing as dinosaurs or sharks. Any historical time period or even a MMO that had time travel managed by different corps players could join.
I would love to try something unique and innovative and design by formula is doomed to lead to stagnation and saturation like what happened when everyone tried to make WoW clones to get in on the money. In short the best way to make a successful MMO is to make a good game that doesn't try to copy a formula.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I disagree with the notion that there even are universal requirements to succeed as a MMO. Thinking of things as some kind of formula for success leads to by the numbers game development. Even something as basic as combat can be replaced by building, if that building is robust enough.
I don't think leveling is required or even necessarily beneficial. I'd argue it can actually be detrimental.
I don't think open worlds are required. In fact, I think that there are valid merits to a fully instanced approach that simply aren't a thing in an open world.
I don't think alternative races are required. If they were, we wouldn't see Runescape still succeed. Other customization can make up for that, but even that may well be optional.
PvP isn't required, as we see with plenty of MMOs.
PvE isn't required, as we saw with Planetside.
No idea is inherently outdated and everything can be beneficially modernized.
So much this.
All you need to be a MMO is a massive amount of players in the same world.
They could do anything from space ships to everyone playing as dinosaurs or sharks. Any historical time period or even a MMO that had time travel managed by different corps players could join.
I would love to try something unique and innovative and design by formula is doomed to lead to stagnation and saturation like what happened when everyone tried to make WoW clones to get in on the money. In short the best way to make a successful MMO is to make a good game that doesn't try to copy a formula.
Even if none of the players in an MMO EVER NEED TO COOPERATE OR COMPETE WITH EACH OTHERFOR ANY SIGNIFICANT PURPOSE?
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Well I would like to think if you are going to make a game you design to it's strengths and use the fact that a MMO has a massive amount of players to facilitate cooperation and/or competition.
Then again we have MMORPGs that are basically single player MMORPGs where you literally never need to talk to another player... so...yeah there are tons of MMOs where people don't need to cooperate or compete and just do their own thing and solo. While being what I would consider counter intuitive to the entire point of having massively multiplayer.
If I do a dungeon run and technically cooperate with other people to complete it but it's so easy mode we plow through it without ever saying a word and I never see those players again, heck they might as well have been NPCs for all it mattered. Actually they could program more interesting and interactive NPCs. How is that in any way significant purpose?
Anyway my main point was just to agree that there is no cookie cutter formula and if you want something new and innovative the only universal formula is to make a good game not follow a formula.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I disagree with the notion that there even are universal requirements to succeed as a MMO. Thinking of things as some kind of formula for success leads to by the numbers game development. Even something as basic as combat can be replaced by building, if that building is robust enough.
I don't think leveling is required or even necessarily beneficial. I'd argue it can actually be detrimental.
I don't think open worlds are required. In fact, I think that there are valid merits to a fully instanced approach that simply aren't a thing in an open world.
I don't think alternative races are required. If they were, we wouldn't see Runescape still succeed. Other customization can make up for that, but even that may well be optional.
PvP isn't required, as we see with plenty of MMOs.
PvE isn't required, as we saw with Planetside.
No idea is inherently outdated and everything can be beneficially modernized.
So much this.
All you need to be a MMO is a massive amount of players in the same world.
They could do anything from space ships to everyone playing as dinosaurs or sharks. Any historical time period or even a MMO that had time travel managed by different corps players could join.
I would love to try something unique and innovative and design by formula is doomed to lead to stagnation and saturation like what happened when everyone tried to make WoW clones to get in on the money. In short the best way to make a successful MMO is to make a good game that doesn't try to copy a formula.
Be that as it may, this topic is not "What pie in the sky idea you can think up that may or may not crash and burn"
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.
I disagree with the notion that there even are universal requirements to succeed as a MMO. Thinking of things as some kind of formula for success leads to by the numbers game development. Even something as basic as combat can be replaced by building, if that building is robust enough.
I don't think leveling is required or even necessarily beneficial. I'd argue it can actually be detrimental.
I don't think open worlds are required. In fact, I think that there are valid merits to a fully instanced approach that simply aren't a thing in an open world.
I don't think alternative races are required. If they were, we wouldn't see Runescape still succeed. Other customization can make up for that, but even that may well be optional.
PvP isn't required, as we see with plenty of MMOs.
PvE isn't required, as we saw with Planetside.
No idea is inherently outdated and everything can be beneficially modernized.
So much this.
All you need to be a MMO is a massive amount of players in the same world.
They could do anything from space ships to everyone playing as dinosaurs or sharks. Any historical time period or even a MMO that had time travel managed by different corps players could join.
I would love to try something unique and innovative and design by formula is doomed to lead to stagnation and saturation like what happened when everyone tried to make WoW clones to get in on the money. In short the best way to make a successful MMO is to make a good game that doesn't try to copy a formula.
Even if none of the players in an MMO EVER NEED TO COOPERATE OR COMPETE WITH EACH OTHERFOR ANY SIGNIFICANT PURPOSE?
I disagree with the notion that there even are universal requirements to succeed as a MMO. Thinking of things as some kind of formula for success leads to by the numbers game development. Even something as basic as combat can be replaced by building, if that building is robust enough.
I don't think leveling is required or even necessarily beneficial. I'd argue it can actually be detrimental.
I don't think open worlds are required. In fact, I think that there are valid merits to a fully instanced approach that simply aren't a thing in an open world.
I don't think alternative races are required. If they were, we wouldn't see Runescape still succeed. Other customization can make up for that, but even that may well be optional.
PvP isn't required, as we see with plenty of MMOs.
PvE isn't required, as we saw with Planetside.
No idea is inherently outdated and everything can be beneficially modernized.
So much this.
All you need to be a MMO is a massive amount of players in the same world.
They could do anything from space ships to everyone playing as dinosaurs or sharks. Any historical time period or even a MMO that had time travel managed by different corps players could join.
I would love to try something unique and innovative and design by formula is doomed to lead to stagnation and saturation like what happened when everyone tried to make WoW clones to get in on the money. In short the best way to make a successful MMO is to make a good game that doesn't try to copy a formula.
Even if none of the players in an MMO EVER NEED TO COOPERATE OR COMPETE WITH EACH OTHERFOR ANY SIGNIFICANT PURPOSE?
It's not a requirement to be an mmo, no.
Is it a requirement to be a good MMO?
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Players could try to make maps if they learn cartography or at least some kind of rudimentary skill at drawing.
And what if, after fighting or participating in some other activity that requires a lot of focus and attention, a character needs to reorient him or herself as to which direction is which? Up, down, left, and right may not necessarily be north, south, west, and east. Though if such a skill as Direction Sense has been learned, then a character would have a harder time getting lost and a better chance of finding his/her way.
I think it would be cool if players could draw their own maps, and then port a picture of it into the game as an in-game map. They could show them to others, sell them, or display them in a "map room." They could make copies, compare them to other maps for greater accuracy, etc.
Players that do an excellent job at this would be recognized. Maybe even hired by others to go out and document portions of the game world in map form.
I actually feel that is doable.It seems at least simple to me ..lol,you could simply rename the file,make sure the file size and format is proper and replace an in game map with yours.This way no added coding needed and even better if the developer gave you the opportunity to do it easily without hacking into the game files.
However you know and i know,this would not be a measure of success for a game.Having watched MANY videos,listening to complaints and how people react to game designs,it really seems like an easy formula,make the game real easy to understand and give them some carrots to chase after.
The first part is what i call hand holding designs,seems tons of noob gamer's out there need their hand held.The second part is again EASY for devs,just make any old LAZY system/content and as long as players get to allocate a point somewhere and see a number rising somewhere in the stats their shallow minds are HAPPY.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I actually feel that is doable.It seems at least simple to me ..lol,you could simply rename the file,make sure the file size and format is proper and replace an in game map with yours.This way no added coding needed and even better if the developer gave you the opportunity to do it easily without hacking into the game files.
However you know and i know,this would not be a measure of success for a game.Having watched MANY videos,listening to complaints and how people react to game designs,it really seems like an easy formula,make the game real easy to understand and give them some carrots to chase after.
The first part is what i call hand holding designs,seems tons of noob gamer's out there need their hand held.The second part is again EASY for devs,just make any old LAZY system/content and as long as players get to allocate a point somewhere and see a number rising somewhere in the stats their shallow minds are HAPPY.
Messing with game files is a good point. Ouch!
Let me go back to an old idea then. An in-game map making system. With icons that you can adjust sizes, freeform lines and dotted lines, text. Then "seal it". But more can be added to a map later for notations and adjustments.
Players could try to make maps if they learn cartography or at least some kind of rudimentary skill at drawing.
And what if, after fighting or participating in some other activity that requires a lot of focus and attention, a character needs to reorient him or herself as to which direction is which? Up, down, left, and right may not necessarily be north, south, west, and east. Though if such a skill as Direction Sense has been learned, then a character would have a harder time getting lost and a better chance of finding his/her way.
I think it would be cool if players could draw their own maps, and then port a picture of it into the game as an in-game map. They could show them to others, sell them, or display them in a "map room." They could make copies, compare them to other maps for greater accuracy, etc.
Players that do an excellent job at this would be recognized. Maybe even hired by others to go out and document portions of the game world in map form.
That could work. Though I was thinking of Cartography as being a skill that their character could learn. So he or she would have a percentage chance of drawing a more or less accurate map of places he or she had been. Some maps might be bought from NPCs as well. However, fake or inaccurate maps could be purposely sold by less scrupulous PCs or NPCs.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Players could try to make maps if they learn cartography or at least some kind of rudimentary skill at drawing.
And what if, after fighting or participating in some other activity that requires a lot of focus and attention, a character needs to reorient him or herself as to which direction is which? Up, down, left, and right may not necessarily be north, south, west, and east. Though if such a skill as Direction Sense has been learned, then a character would have a harder time getting lost and a better chance of finding his/her way.
I think it would be cool if players could draw their own maps, and then port a picture of it into the game as an in-game map. They could show them to others, sell them, or display them in a "map room." They could make copies, compare them to other maps for greater accuracy, etc.
Players that do an excellent job at this would be recognized. Maybe even hired by others to go out and document portions of the game world in map form.
That could work. Though I was thinking of Cartography as being a skill that their character could learn. So he or she would have a percentage chance of drawing a more or less accurate map of places he or she had been. Some maps might be bought from NPCs as well. However, fake or inaccurate maps could be purposely sold by less scrupulous PCs or NPCs.
I think my preferred map system would be:
* Start with total fog of war
* When you explore in game, map is automatically filled in with the natural features
* Players themselves then have to add marks / notations / names themselves
I don't think you want to mess about with drawing things in game, mice just aren't convenient enough to be good at it. Plus, I think the majority of us would be shit at it and find some way to cheat.
But, if the game fills in the natural features, like lakes, mountains, forests etc, that would be a good foundation. Then we, the players, can add additional notations, helping to personalise it and give it more meaning to us.
E.g. playing LotRO.
We'd all have Bree, The Old Forest, Archet, Coombe marked on our maps, but I (as an adventurer) might have also marked an enemy fortress, whilst someone else (a crafter) might mark an area of low mob-density thats good for mining ore.
By the end of the game, the map not only reflects where you have been (by how much fog-of-war has been removed) but also what you found interesting or important along the way.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I disagree with the notion that there even are universal requirements to succeed as a MMO. Thinking of things as some kind of formula for success leads to by the numbers game development. Even something as basic as combat can be replaced by building, if that building is robust enough.
I don't think leveling is required or even necessarily beneficial. I'd argue it can actually be detrimental.
I don't think open worlds are required. In fact, I think that there are valid merits to a fully instanced approach that simply aren't a thing in an open world.
I don't think alternative races are required. If they were, we wouldn't see Runescape still succeed. Other customization can make up for that, but even that may well be optional.
PvP isn't required, as we see with plenty of MMOs.
PvE isn't required, as we saw with Planetside.
No idea is inherently outdated and everything can be beneficially modernized.
So much this.
All you need to be a MMO is a massive amount of players in the same world.
They could do anything from space ships to everyone playing as dinosaurs or sharks. Any historical time period or even a MMO that had time travel managed by different corps players could join.
I would love to try something unique and innovative and design by formula is doomed to lead to stagnation and saturation like what happened when everyone tried to make WoW clones to get in on the money. In short the best way to make a successful MMO is to make a good game that doesn't try to copy a formula.
Even if none of the players in an MMO EVER NEED TO COOPERATE OR COMPETE WITH EACH OTHERFOR ANY SIGNIFICANT PURPOSE?
It's not a requirement to be an mmo, no.
Is it a requirement to be a good MMO?
nope
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.
I disagree with the notion that there even are universal requirements to succeed as a MMO. Thinking of things as some kind of formula for success leads to by the numbers game development. Even something as basic as combat can be replaced by building, if that building is robust enough.
I don't think leveling is required or even necessarily beneficial. I'd argue it can actually be detrimental.
I don't think open worlds are required. In fact, I think that there are valid merits to a fully instanced approach that simply aren't a thing in an open world.
I don't think alternative races are required. If they were, we wouldn't see Runescape still succeed. Other customization can make up for that, but even that may well be optional.
PvP isn't required, as we see with plenty of MMOs.
PvE isn't required, as we saw with Planetside.
No idea is inherently outdated and everything can be beneficially modernized.
So much this.
All you need to be a MMO is a massive amount of players in the same world.
They could do anything from space ships to everyone playing as dinosaurs or sharks. Any historical time period or even a MMO that had time travel managed by different corps players could join.
I would love to try something unique and innovative and design by formula is doomed to lead to stagnation and saturation like what happened when everyone tried to make WoW clones to get in on the money. In short the best way to make a successful MMO is to make a good game that doesn't try to copy a formula.
Even if none of the players in an MMO EVER NEED TO COOPERATE OR COMPETE WITH EACH OTHERFOR ANY SIGNIFICANT PURPOSE?
It's not a requirement to be an mmo, no.
Is it a requirement to be a good MMO?
That's entirely subjective. I want more interdependence on other players, but so many others don't.
Players could try to make maps if they learn cartography or at least some kind of rudimentary skill at drawing.
And what if, after fighting or participating in some other activity that requires a lot of focus and attention, a character needs to reorient him or herself as to which direction is which? Up, down, left, and right may not necessarily be north, south, west, and east. Though if such a skill as Direction Sense has been learned, then a character would have a harder time getting lost and a better chance of finding his/her way.
I think it would be cool if players could draw their own maps, and then port a picture of it into the game as an in-game map. They could show them to others, sell them, or display them in a "map room." They could make copies, compare them to other maps for greater accuracy, etc.
Players that do an excellent job at this would be recognized. Maybe even hired by others to go out and document portions of the game world in map form.
That could work. Though I was thinking of Cartography as being a skill that their character could learn. So he or she would have a percentage chance of drawing a more or less accurate map of places he or she had been. Some maps might be bought from NPCs as well. However, fake or inaccurate maps could be purposely sold by less scrupulous PCs or NPCs.
I think my preferred map system would be:
* Start with total fog of war
* When you explore in game, map is automatically filled in with the natural features
* Players themselves then have to add marks / notations / names themselves
I don't think you want to mess about with drawing things in game, mice just aren't convenient enough to be good at it. Plus, I think the majority of us would be shit at it and find some way to cheat.
But, if the game fills in the natural features, like lakes, mountains, forests etc, that would be a good foundation. Then we, the players, can add additional notations, helping to personalise it and give it more meaning to us.
E.g. playing LotRO.
We'd all have Bree, The Old Forest, Archet, Coombe marked on our maps, but I (as an adventurer) might have also marked an enemy fortress, whilst someone else (a crafter) might mark an area of low mob-density thats good for mining ore.
By the end of the game, the map not only reflects where you have been (by how much fog-of-war has been removed) but also what you found interesting or important along the way.
That would be a pretty good way to go. I like my suggestion better, but not so much that I'd fight for it over yours. Yours does offer a Skill to be involved, and that's something worthwhile.
Comments
The most common headliners for Popular/Successful MMO's are WoW, ESO, GW2, BDO, FF14, LotrO and EVE.
If you looked at the OP's list, the only outliner is EvE, and they have a very unique game set up and system, all the other games use what the OP put out, as a core to the game.
But,. numbers 1 - 6 do seem to be a uniform trait package. 7 & 8 not so much.
So the question here was not "What do you think will make a successful MMO"
But what systems do Successful MMO's use, in that vein, I think the OP really hit things spot on. This was not so much a wish list, but merely an observation.
I do think that there should be "peak damage" based on circumstances.
The Fighter is best in hand-to-hand.
The Mage is best at ranged AoE damage.
Archers are best at ranged focused target hits.
The Thief is best as surprise attacks in hand-to-hand and short range (thrown daggers).
The Cleric is best vs. Undead.
And yet, all of the classes should be able to perform some version of all of the attacks, just at a weaker level that still has some meaning for it's use.
Of course, weight limits and supplies should also affect what a character has at his disposal.
I think these advantages for higher damage should be reliant die rolls, in a range of "better hits for better damage" sort of way.
I think any player should be able to solo common content because if a player logs on and none of their friends/associates are online, they should still have options to play. The advantages of numbers, of course, should still be in play.
Just my thinking, but not he only way to go.
Once upon a time....
For example: EQ had as paramount features.
- Unique Classes, and also had restricted race/class combos.
- Unique Races
- EQ was not in any way lacking in the Factions that players could earn&lose favor with.
- Was a very Guild/Group focused game, where even what would be considered "trash mobs" when you got to mid to high levels required groups to take down and boss mobs took efforts by larger guilds.
- Norrath had a lot of lore and history to it.
- Fast Travel via Teleports by Druids and Wizards, Bard Speed Songs and SoW.
- Loot and Crafted items were HUGE, and some crafting was very class directed.
While I didn't want to add EQ to the mix, because as a Gen 1, it was very open to be "Successful" simply by virtue of lack of other options, but if you look at EQ, it pretty much was THE checklist of everything the OP said a Successful MMO had, and it could very well be theorized that it was EQ that set up the foundation for these features to be a core part of every successful MMO following it.I always liked UO's "Rune Stones." Once you got to a spot, a Mage or a player with a Scroll could cast a Mark Spell on the runestone and then use it to cast a Recall Spell to teleport there. A Mage of higher levels could also cast a Gate Spell that allowed groups to go through.
No doubt this idea has been used in other games in some form.
The reason I like it is that it allowed players to gather for adventure, and avoid long journeys and time spent on that. I think this is important.
However! In this sort of system, it becomes the predominant form of travel because it's reusable and cheap.
What if!
Suppose that these runestones are one use. New ones need to be made.
But even that's not really enough to change their usage.
So here's an idea.
-> To my idea:
The background:
In RL, the mineral composition of any stone, ore, gem, anything of the sort, is unique to it's location. They can tell where the copper from an ancient sword came from. What specific mine.
The idea is to have an element that's required for such spells. That element is "tuned" to the other elements and the type of rock it's found in. So in other words, a runestone it attuned to the specific source of it's "mother rock."
And using them as a teleport device is limited to within a range of that "mother rock."
Usage-charges:
The number of times a runestone can be used is based on it's size.
- A small runestone (the size of a bar of soap) can be used once and then it's forever ruined. This can easily be carried in small quantities.
- A medium sized stone, about the size of a patio paver, can be used 5-10 times before it's ruined. It can be carried around, but it's heavy enough to require a decision on the benefits of that. It's best used from a home base where it can stay.
- A large runestone can have 50-100 charges. It's too heavy to carry around on adventure, but a strong character can haul one from here to there, as in placing it.
It could be hauled by a pack animal, but that means less weight available for other supplies. This would be best suited for a permanent placement in a Temple, Guild Headquarters, etc.
Teleportation devices:
By forming Large runestones into a puzzle like layout, and adding magical runes that connect their power, a larger platform can be created. This would have the combined charges of each large runestone. The numbers are based on the player creation, which is based off of the game's design options. Small, medium, and large platforms. each runestone has it's own number of charges when it was created, so each Platform will have it's own total number of charges.
When the Platform runs out of total charges, all the runestones are ruined together.
So, in other words, replacing a single Runestone in a Platform can extend it's life by that number of uses. And repeating as needed this can make a Platform last forever.
Marking the Runestones.
Each runestone has to be marked at the arrival spot by a Mage of sufficient power (low end), or any Character with a Scroll.
Including all the stones that make up a Platform, all in the same spot.
The stone itself, that's used to create a Runestone, also has to have come from that location near it's "mother rock."
This is easy to code. Just have a hidden indication of where the stone came from, and that's the center of the radius where it can be used.
For Dungeons, that would mean that anywhere inside (unless the designers decide not to allow it for any excuse they want), or near it's entrance. Same for Ruins and Caves.
In the wildernesses, there would need to be some rock supply. An outcrop, a river bed, etc.
Expense!
Since each Runestone has to be collected at the spot, then fashioned by a mason into form, marked with runic symbols and ensorcelled by a Mage to prepare it, then taken back to it's source to cast the Mark Spell, and then carried away for use or sale, the expense can be low or high.
Remember that Large Runestones for Platforms would require pack animals, wagons, or however they are carried, both away from for manufacture, back again to the source, and then away again.
So a common, one-use Runestone set for "home" would be inexpensive.
But a Large Runestone for use in a Platform set for a distant Dungeon could be very expensive.
And anywhere in between.
In a Factional World, an opposing Faction may want to have a say in their enemy's success chances.
Once upon a time....
Yes, I was not trying to say that Warriors would always be the best in every different sort of combat situation. Only that they are the overall best Warriors/Combatants (as their description implies). It requires a fair amount of time, dedication, training, and/or skill to become a Warrior in the first place. And, for this reason, they often have less useful Non-Combat Skills/Abilities as other classes. Though the amount of Secondary/Non-Weapon Proficiencies also depends on the amount of Intelligence a character has. If I'm not mistaken. Many Warriors may also want to be skilled at horse (or land mount)-riding, hunting, swimming, fire-building, and things of that nature. Though the ability to read/write, play an instrument, or things of a more academic or urban nature may not be so important to them.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/56243/does-moss-really-only-grow-north-side-trees
https://www.wikihow.com/Determine-Direction-Using-the-Sun
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Even if none of the players in an MMO EVER NEED TO COOPERATE OR COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER FOR ANY SIGNIFICANT PURPOSE?
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Is it a requirement to be a good MMO?
They could show them to others, sell them, or display them in a "map room."
They could make copies, compare them to other maps for greater accuracy, etc.
Players that do an excellent job at this would be recognized. Maybe even hired by others to go out and document portions of the game world in map form.
Once upon a time....
I actually feel that is doable.It seems at least simple to me ..lol,you could simply rename the file,make sure the file size and format is proper and replace an in game map with yours.This way no added coding needed and even better if the developer gave you the opportunity to do it easily without hacking into the game files.
However you know and i know,this would not be a measure of success for a game.Having watched MANY videos,listening to complaints and how people react to game designs,it really seems like an easy formula,make the game real easy to understand and give them some carrots to chase after.
The first part is what i call hand holding designs,seems tons of noob gamer's out there need their hand held.The second part is again EASY for devs,just make any old LAZY system/content and as long as players get to allocate a point somewhere and see a number rising somewhere in the stats their shallow minds are HAPPY.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Let me go back to an old idea then.
An in-game map making system.
With icons that you can adjust sizes, freeform lines and dotted lines, text.
Then "seal it". But more can be added to a map later for notations and adjustments.
Once upon a time....
That could work. Though I was thinking of Cartography as being a skill that their character could learn. So he or she would have a percentage chance of drawing a more or less accurate map of places he or she had been. Some maps might be bought from NPCs as well. However, fake or inaccurate maps could be purposely sold by less scrupulous PCs or NPCs.
Yours does offer a Skill to be involved, and that's something worthwhile.
Once upon a time....