Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The trouble with MMORPG's
Mobious
Member Posts: 2
Ok let me give you a little history about myself before I get flamed. I am a game designer who has worked in the industry for around 8 years. I love MMORPG's. I have played Everquest, SW Galaxies, Planetside, Eve Online, The Sims, Earth & Beyond, and Camalot, so I think that gives me some credence in what I am about to say. From my point of view I think that new MMORPG's all suffer from the same syndrome. They never appear to corretly estimate how long people will play these type of game for, so often after a couple of weeks of hardcore playing, they story runs out, and you are left to become a stat monkey and try and get to be the highest rank out there. However I think this becomes boring after a while and you soon begin to loose interest. SO what is the solution? Well can a MMORPG work without an over reliance on stats, or is that what drives you on as a gamer? Does the developer need to make sure there is a large enough story before hand to cater for players?
Now I know that not everyone plays the game to the same extent, and a lot of the time, the games content is sufficent for the average gamer which fine. The reason I am asking these sort of questions is, that it is an area I would like to possible move into, so I am always interested to here peoples views both positive and negative. 
Comments
MMORPG is to gaming what philosophy is to rhetoric.
I think you can ask 10 differents players, and you would get 11 answers!
MMORPGs are not the simple game touching only 1 aspect, it is games that are trying to be as complex as they can.
Some players like me need tons of stuff to farm, endlessly by killing more mobs(hey, there can be challenge there, althought like everything you do, you need to have moments to relax while doing it, so cant be always the most challenging thing, a little like a video game where you clean a full floor(easily) to get to the boss and now we are challenge talking). Some others need tons of stories, and althought each type will gladly do a little of the other, you will get both aggravated after a point if you expect them to do to much of the other. Personnally I feel lost and confused and not any thrilled after a point where I am entangled in 15 stories and have no clue what to do and will just go on a killing streak at that point!
See, you can ask if players prefer the Forgotten Realms gold box or the DragonLance goldbox...DragonLance have stories, but the players where strongly kept on the main stream and never feel that free, have a few alternatives missions, but it was clear, you where never feeling lost, those that love the DragonLance goldbox(like me) actually play to kill mobs, they love challenge in the fights(hell 24 collossal dragons against my party was a funny fight) and a nice story that fall into place almost alone. Those that love the Forgotten Realms goldbox prefer more freedom and less control, harder to figure stuff, they love more challenge in the quests and missions, less challenge in the fights(I dont say no challenge, I say less challenge in the fight, no offense meant, I play both, DragonLance was easy quest, easy everything, but much harder fights then the Pool of Darkness and the others...)
And this is only a start, reality is a lot more complex then that.
Some players will play to fight others players. Some will play to compete with others players. Some will play to cooperates with others players. Some want to solo, other to group, some to raid. Some love tradeskills, some quests, some both, some none.
Make sure your MMORPG give the best rewards to the activity you like, otherwise you will come to dislike it no matter how nice it is. If you want soloers to love a MMORPG, the only way is to make sure the strongest soloers earn their stuff soloing, they can do other stuff as well, but solo uberness must come soloing. Same with every activity you can think off. If you give all rewards to a group of players, you will please them, they will even go as far as to justify your choices, but you will alienate all the others that dont like this particuliar activity.
Basically, each activity must lead to be Uber in it alone, and always be the best at it(if you put a limit, when folks reach that limit, if they can get better doing other stuff and not that activity, you just alienate them all). If an activity need to give rewards in others activities, it just mean you where unable to design it fine, because if it is fun, folks will do it to be good at it alone! And by giving other activities edge in it, you are plaguing your own system.
My only recommendation would be to design the basic of every activity to be sovereign in it and then, with time, adjust and developp as you see the needs are(both in demands and in what players dont like, if players dont raid, it mean your raiding system lack and need to be reviewed, it is impossible that nobody like this). Groups need class, solo need skills, this is a direct clash and it is very hard to figure it out. In solo you should be able to do everything, while in group you should need to specialised in 1 field alone and be unable to do others jobs, thereby the need of others.
The easiest way would be differents games systems in 1 world, where each game have trivial help(mostly in XP bonus, see if someone did the soloing game, maybe he can have a 20% bonus in the others, if he did the grouping as well, maybe he can have an additionnal 20% bonus on the others as well, so if someone play 3 games he still pay 100% + 80% + 60% of the original XP cost, which is a lot considering his interest must be declining fast after every type of game) on the others games. I can think of a Solo, grouping, raiding, PvP and tradeskill system, so this is 5 systems that could all be very differents and have their own zones and logics.
If you need *arguments*, here would be the basic argumentation of each system:
Solo: If someone is unable to achieve stuff alone, he is unreliable and unworthy, he is a laughing joke as he always need his friends!
Grouping: We see the heroes from the villains, who can work inside a small tight group and make it work. We are not talking of huge armies where originality and skill mean nothing, we are talking of the true challenge and the true victories and the worth of the individuals in a group!
Raiding: Best mobs, Gods and Dragons, are the hardest challenge and deserve to bring true enlightment, fighting lesser creatures should dwell lesser rewards.
PvP: True challenge come from fighting others fellow humans, no mobs controlled by the computer can come close to that, thereby, the true rewards belong here!
Tradeskilling: Advancements come with creation, not destruction. Only by refining someone skills and arts should we find salvation.
Basically, those will be the arguments you hear over and over again. They all are wrong, as the reward need to be tied with the activity you do. The time solo and group earned edge are valued in a raid is well pass, and the pass raiding gear is valued in a group or solo setting is well pass as well. Solo uberness belong to soloers, group uberness to groupers, raid uberness to raiders, PvP uberness to PvPers and tradeskill uberness(castles, housing, shiny sweet looking toon, man-at-arms, etc...) belong to tradeskillers. If you give any uberness to another group, you just say they are not welcome in your game and you admit that the system receiving that edge lack in your game and need that extra reward....
- "Coercing? No no, I assure you, they are willing to bring my bags and pay public transportation just to help me, it is true!''
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
It is the Holy Grail of MMOGs to make a game that is everything to powergamers and casual gamers alike. Personally, I believe that is almost an impossibility in a single game. Thus, I believe you must make that decision first: is this game for powergamers or for casual gamers.
Once you have your target audience identified it is a matter of providing a game with good mechanics and good content. What matters most of all is what your content is. It's not necessarily a good story (EQ has practically none) nor is it a matter of tons and tons of zones (UO had so very little surface space). It's a matter of providing compelling content that interests your target audience. The more involved your audience, the more content you will have to provide.
This is where every MMOG release struggles, and it's not really the fault of the developers. Content takes a lot of time, especially in consideration of the exponential number of variants to the game mechanics that must be considered whenever new content is provided. Every new nuance means a possible exploit to imbalance the progression path of players (either along the story or along character development).
It's all about the content. The game is defined by what someone can do in it, and what someone can do in it is determined almost entirely by developers...either by exposing character development paths, new NPCs (mobs, etc..>), new zones/landscapes, or new storylines/quests. Without the content you might as well simply have a graphical chatroom, which is what any stagnant MMOG devolves into.
If you need to pick only 1 aspect here is a little help.
Grouping is the most popular aspect in the MMORPG world.
PvP have the most developped setting after grouping althought only a minority crave for it.
Tradeskilling is the new popular wave for devs in general.
Raiding althought having majors assets is the main battlefield between WoW and EQ2, I would stay clear of it until the other aspects are design.
Thereby, I would make sure my grouping system(PvE) AND/OR my soloing system(PvE) are sovereign, work well and rule before doing anything else!
- "Coercing? No no, I assure you, they are willing to bring my bags and pay public transportation just to help me, it is true!''
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Well thank you guys for some informed and intelligent responses
. I also think that MMORPGs also appeal to more mature and intelligenet gamer. When I say mature, not in terms of age, but more in their appreciation of game mechanics. Personally I have been a gamer since the C16 days, and have seen games become more and more similar and showey. GTA in many ways the pinacle of current gaming convention as it offered freedom to the console generation. However as a designer, the most frustrating element is that publishers wont take on an original title if it is deemed to be too much of a risk.
GTA has shown the success a game can have but it has also set the expectation. Publishers want risk free gaming and so games are being dumbed down. Personally I feel that MMORPG are a big two fingers up to current gaming mantra and at least Sony have become wise to the fact that gamers are intelligent people and like to have to work for things.
Since these games are based around combat. The most important thing is a good combat system that involves the player. You do not have to focus on Solo or Group, you should focus combat. Make it fun and interactive in some way. If combat gets broing, and the game is about combat, then the game is going to get boring.
And, as for grouping, don't require it like most of the game out there.
Most game have it so a group can barely kill monsters a few levels above them because they make it very hard to hit them. I think the way it should be is that if you are lower level you can hit, you just don't do as much damage. That way a gang of lower level characters can outnumber a higher levl MOB and kill it.
A player at equal level to a MOB should be able to solo it, although it should be a tough fight.
I think what is missing from a lot of MMORPG's (ie Horizons, Planetside, etc) is meaning, rewards and a feeling of accomplishment. There are many powerlevelers and casual rpg fanatics. People play MMO games for different reasons, but for ever reason, there should be a meaning and rreward for doing what your doing. Example would be crafting. Why are you crafting? To make better armor for you, to sell for money to help your guild. There's a reason to do it. What are the rewards? Money, higher crafting skill, a chance to create an uber item that's unique, etc..
The same thing should go for quests, PvP, PvE, RvR, sieges, missions, advancing story, etc, etc.. There also needs to be a balance where the goals achieved are FUN and not tedious. Right now ALL MMORPG have tedious treadmilling. AC1 & AO my be the easiest, but their levels are over 100. FFXI is very tedious. So far, the only thing that keeps it fun is playing with friends, exploring and seeing new mobs to kill. Loot and money are the rewards, but there should be other rewards as well. MMORPG games need to change and evolve. Right now, that's not really happening. World of Craft will be a bit different, but it will be mostly the same as the other games. What Blizzard will probably do it make everything work exceptionally well and the rewards will be greater. Doing things will actually be FUN and not tedious. That's what we're hoping anyway. City of Heroes will be different as well, but won't we still be doing the same thing? PvE. Treadmill leveling. Completing goals. The future is bright for MMO games, but it needs to start evolving now.
Xander
Xander
In the US, it's just one finger up. I'm not sure how many people got your UK reference.
(hmm, i think he has the wrong finger up). 
I think we got more than 11 answers from just one person, you.Sorry, I couldn't resist.
I think PvP lacks in almost all games, especially those that dont have PvP servers. Almost everyone loves to compete, be it one on one, or trying to be better then the other.
As well, killing monsters, isnt challenging, addicting, and fun. Hit attack, wait until its dead, maybe drink a potion, hit 1 to do some special move.
Make it actually fun, and challenging, give players more control, make it where personal player skill will as well come into play. Some people may think, ooo, its FPS, thats anti-rpg. When In fact I think it's more RPG. RPG=Role-playing game. As in takeing a role that isnt actually you, giving you more control over that role gives you more RPish, it also makes it more fun.
Immersive world, fun quests, all of them fun, and original.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
One thing will define a "good MMORPG"....
It's implementation of the "core elements".
The trick is to work out what are the "core elements"... and this is different for every game, which is why it is hard to compare MMORPG's.
The "core element" of DAoC was RvR (their particular implementation of PvP) and I think they did it reasonably well. The "core element" of SWG is the GCW (their particular implementation of PvP) and IMO it is not currently working out well (although I am still hopeful).
Planetside - a good implementation of team based, king of the hill. Although it is FPS, the core motivation of this game was large scale battles for defendable establishments.
EQ - ultimate PvE? I never played it but it seems to be the benchmark for PvE MMORPG.
This is as simple as doing some basic planning. Work out what your "vision" or "purpose" for the game is. Make sure you know exactly what you are trying to achieve. If you just set out to make "an MMORPG" then that is all you will get.
I have done lots of thinking about MMORPG's in the last 6 months. I would like to develop one as well. So I've been thinking about exactly what it is I want to achieve. Here are my basic guiding principles:
What I have done is pick out a 'style of game' that I like. The game must be developed according to the original goals otherwise you will lose sight of the vision and end up wasting time and resources on bits of the game that are actually secondary to the core elements.
You need to implement the core elements of the game well. Compromise on secondary elements, never compromise the core elements.
I am of the opinion that the basic structure of MMOPRG's need to be changed.
Basically at the moment XP is earned from grinding, either killing loads of creatures, or making loads of swords etc.
I think it should be earned from actual roleplaying. i beleive that when you begin a game you should have to pick a career (or class) and depending on this class you should have to do certain things to get xp.
if you love going out to kill stuff then become a fighter, and you will be rewarded for killing stuff, but also for leading groups, or staying watch over a camp of doing something which hard people should do. Similarly if you are a thief you should xp for keeping to the shadows and stealing things, or from picking locks, or from assasinating people etc.
This open the way up for soloing or grouping, for example a fighter may have a big sword and be able to hack most things open, but certain things are immune to being hacked open and he may need the backup of a group to defeat these creatures. This does not penalise him for wanting to solo, but it give him the option to fight other creatures and explore the unknown if he groups.
I play MMORPG's because i want to be in character, i like to play a role which means doing everything my alter ego should do, eat, sleep, talk, socialise, and do whatever my career entails. It would be nice to be rewarded for actually doing this. on most games if you go and socialise in the pub then that is a way of healing wounds or something, so its forced rather than choice. if you could develop a way to make people actually become their alter ego then i think this would be a success. Rather than a game where everyone has to do the same thing over and over again.
Muahahahahahahaha
MUAHAHAHAHAHA
Don't try to teach a pig to sing,
It rarely works and only serves to annoy the pig.
-Sig-
Don't try to teach a pig to sing,
It rarely works and only serves to annoy the pig.
This is why you need intelligent level cap on each zone, so anyone above a precise level is of that level instead. You can give him TRIVIAL edge for each level he have above the limit, but not more, in this zone, nobody can be abobe level X, so be it.
Not only such level cap make it nice for new player, but the uber experienced player, when he is limited in level, might need to work stuff out with new players...add some level range AAs and you have a perfect setting.
- "Coercing? No no, I assure you, they are willing to bring my bags and pay public transportation just to help me, it is true!''
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I think you are talking about creating area zones in game that would work like the D&D scenarios. This will just cause mini-games within a game. I don't think this is a god solution. I think the best solution is what I call YOH (You're Only Human; of course in a race based system, you might call it something else). The premise is that there's no reason for a new player to start out with 10 HP and an experienced player has 100 HP. An experienced player should have higher skill levels, but why 10 times as much health? In real life, someone could be an experienced martial artist. I'm not, so, he is going to kick my butt. Does it mean he has more health than me? If he got shot in the leg, wouldn't he lose just as much blood as me if I got shot in the leg? So, my premise is that set everybody's base health level the same. The skill levels will still allow experienced players to be able to do things more effictively and faster than a new player, but the experienced players will no longer be a god.
bah i have been trying to think of a logical arguement to disagree with you on the above point, but i cant. it is actually a very good idea.
however i love D&D rule games and hope that they stay the way they are (call me old fashioned, nostalgic or stubborn) but there is just something about being 50 times as hard as a N00b that makes you feel good about yourself.
equally if you are a N00b it is good to have a target to reach, if i see somebody with twice my health i can assume he is twice as hard etc etc.
Muahahahahahahaha
MUAHAHAHAHAHA
If a person or companies wants to develop a game they need to understand their market and consumers. They need to understand who their subscribers are and what they want. I think some games try to cater to many different types of gamers (Casual, Hardcore, PvP, non- PvP, PvE, etc.) and end up with a game which is sub par on many aspects. I would expect that a company would never (I am sure some brain-child will try) try to create a game that mixes genres of games (i.e. Fantasy and Sci-Fi).
Game companies need to determine who their consumer is and stick to them. If they want to cater to hardcore, then do so, but dont try to market to a casual gamer and vice versa. If they actual think they have a formula that caters to both, good luck!
I would speculate that catering to a casual gaming market would be larger market then hard core gamers, but this is pure speculation. A company or person needs to know the buying habits of the consumer base first so the company can maximize their returns. A company must also make sure they solicit information from a diverse group of consumers before they make decisions and make sure their sample set is not too small.
Determine your market, the size of your market, what the market wants, and then stick to it. These are basic business and economic principles.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Don't try to teach a pig to sing,
It rarely works and only serves to annoy the pig.
-Sig-
Don't try to teach a pig to sing,
It rarely works and only serves to annoy the pig.
Instead of having your skills and health increased together, which basically give you a power growth of something like a n^2 algorithm, you just have more of a linear progression just with the skills and there wouldn't be that scaring off of new players.
What a good thread!!
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Quote 1:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since these games are based around combat. The most important thing is a good combat system that involves the player. You do not have to focus on Solo or Group, you should focus combat. Make it fun and interactive in some way. If combat gets broing, and the game is about combat, then the game is going to get boring.
And, as for grouping, don't require it like most of the game out there.
Most game have it so a group can barely kill monsters a few levels above them because they make it very hard to hit them. I think the way it should be is that if you are lower level you can hit, you just don't do as much damage. That way a gang of lower level characters can outnumber a higher levl MOB and kill it.
A player at equal level to a MOB should be able to solo it, although it should be a tough fight."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally, totally agree. I still can not believe that a genre of games that focus mainly around combat still has such a basic and dull combat system, especially after years of development. Is it me or has graphics and a little crafting been the only real innovation so far in these games. The old click and yawn combat is good enough for your first MMORPG, while your still get off on the 'look at all these other players' aspect, but in the end its this grind aspect of combat that drives us to leave in search for the next generation of game.
I've been searching for a few years now. I'll start a game, bore of the same old combat with a different graphic front end quickly and leave again to join the ever swelling tides of MMORPG drifters.
This leaves me to quote 2:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The premise is that there's no reason for a new player to start out with 10 HP and an experienced player has 100 HP. An experienced player should have higher skill levels, but why 10 times as much health?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
.
People are people. It is true you can condition your body to take more damage but when it comes to sword and axe wounds this conditioning makes little difference. The biggest improvement you can make is to your fitness aka stamina.
A newbie should be able to kill a high level, just not very often. The certainty in todays games combat is a big contributor to the yawn factor. "I know if I attack monster/player x, shut my eyes, put my fingers in my ears and do the achy brakey, when I've finished monster x will be dead'. Wheres the fun in that? It seems that game designers are too scared of making these games too hard for the average Joe Bloggs that they have dumbed it all down and removed all the danger.
Please, please somebody inject some life back into this stagnate genre. It could be explosive fun rather that the faint whimper it is today.
Sorry got a little carried away there.
Magpie.
There are only 10 types of programmers. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Muahahahahahahaha
MUAHAHAHAHAHA
I like the way this threa dis going as well.
I have thought a lot about this and here is how I kinda see it.
Everybody should have a smilar amount of HP's, a warrior should have more than a Wizard, etc, but a 10th level Warrior should have very close to the same as a 2nd level Warrior. The difference should be that when a 10th level arrior gets hit, he is more likely to take very little damage. This in effect shows his skill at parrying the blows, doging, getting out of the way, and only letting the blade scratch him. A higher level warrior should get more attacks in against his opponent to signify that he is more skilled.
Also, a higher level warrior should be harder to hit. He is more skilled at deflecting blows, etc. But, put 3 or 4 lower level warriors against him, and then all of those skills only count against one or two of those foes. The rest get bonuses when attacking him. Hell, put a skilled (Champion) combatant (Ultimate Fighting type guy) in the ring with 4 guys that are just coming up in the ranks. The Champ won't be a guaranteed victor, in fact he would probably lose. No one guy can fight off 4 in the real world. That only happans in Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris movies.
Imagain a boxer like Mike Tyson in the ring with just 2 other good boxers. How do you defend when one guy is in front the other in back??
The problem with that last post is that most PvE encounters in games tend to be with multiple opponents. Which means that you are going to take lots of damage if such bonus' are given to the opponents.
I like the hit point idea (as much as i shouldnt), but not too sure about the bonus' unless they make the PvE more one on one. Although this would probably be a better thing because the enemies would then be harder rather than just more numerous.
Muahahahahahahaha
MUAHAHAHAHAHA
Well, if you are trying to solo, you should be doing your best to find one on one fights. I think it is realistic that way. If you want to solo, stay out in the wilderness, pick your fights, find some wandering animals, scouts, etc to pray on. I don't think one guy should be considering invading a dungeon, cave, castle, stronghold, etc, it just isn't realistic. Unless of course, you were to implement a good stealth, hide in shadows, sneak, sort of experience for the would be thief/assassin. Then someone good at the trade could get past the hordes of guards at the gate, and sneak in searching for pray alone in their bedroom... but that person should also expect to get gang banged if they get caught sneaking around somewhere they don't belong.
I think you are talking about creating area zones in game that would work like the D&D scenarios. This will just cause mini-games within a game. I don't think this is a god solution. I think the best solution is what I call YOH (You're Only Human; of course in a race based system, you might call it something else). The premise is that there's no reason for a new player to start out with 10 HP and an experienced player has 100 HP. An experienced player should have higher skill levels, but why 10 times as much health? In real life, someone could be an experienced martial artist. I'm not, so, he is going to kick my butt. Does it mean he has more health than me? If he got shot in the leg, wouldn't he lose just as much blood as me if I got shot in the leg? So, my premise is that set everybody's base health level the same. The skill levels will still allow experienced players to be able to do things more effictively and faster than a new player, but the experienced players will no longer be a god.
As much as YOH make sense, I saddly have to disagree.
Yes, logic is on your side, I will not argue about that. But peoples love to see CHANGES that matter. On this aspect, if someone have 100 HPS and another have 10 HPS, it dont really mean he can take 10 times the same wounds, it actually reflect his skill to avoid damage in a very simplified, easy to check, way.
This is about making fun, and folks like to see changes. Even if YOH would be meaning the same change, it is not visible, and players does care for visible changes.
Level caps that dont prevent you to do it, but put you of the level limit are a need in such a system for obvious reasons of fun, challenge and not breaking a zone others are hunting.
YOH > Levels where folks get 2000 times more HPS, but even me, will stick to pure raw amount of HPS that change a lot rather then a YOH.
See, when I play EQ, I find nothing more boring then earning stuff that I dont see easily how it help me(most tanking AAs where you mitigated damage and avoid some blows where really ZZZzzz to earn), I need to see, to taste, to know, to feel that it help me and change my life, HPS does that where YOH dont.
Call me superficial, I will nod. But I need to see HUGE changes and understand easily what is a nice upgrade and what is not, and pure raw HPS provide me that! This subject is not new. D&D take the HPS road, Warhammer and Whitewolf took the YOH road. I love all those 3 games, but Whitewolf and Warhammer never come close to how much motivated I was to gain my level in D&D, not even a few miles close. Yet, in a purely soloing game, I think I would support a YOH and skill game more then a level with tons of HPS, but in a group, forget it, I will just fall alseep over those skills. See, even if whitewolf system > D&D system, what make me remain a fan of Whitewolf was the roleplaying, the system side completely play on D&D side despite it lackness, because you see the changes, you understand it, easily, and you know exactly where you are going. Knowledge is good, later, MUCH later, I come to like whitewolf a lot more as I understand what everything mean, stamina, fortitude and whatever else, but as a noob, I was faaking on whitewolf system(despite the fact it is simple to understand, while D&D is everything but simple, all type of weird rules, yet, you feel the change right away).
- "Coercing? No no, I assure you, they are willing to bring my bags and pay public transportation just to help me, it is true!''
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren