if you want a game centralized around pvp that has a good story and history behind it try Guild Wars. The problem is though you simply cannot take out grinding in an mmo, becuase well grinding in this sense of the word is basically repeating the same thing over and over. Even PvP is that way you become much more concerned with getting the kill and finding ways to get kills cheaply then you care about enjoying the game, becuase in order for games, to keep pulling in your 10-15$ dollars a month they have to keep you busy doing something and it's simply not possible for game designers to give us enough content to match the amount needed in pvp or pve with the way games have addicted people into playing ten hours a day. The only way for their business to work out is to make us do something over and over for a period of time. Yes they might give us many different facets of the game we could rework for the next year, but it is still the same thing. The best case scenario imo is for the grinding to be colored so very pretty that it doesnt seem like work.
I disagree.
In a raid in WoW the experience will basically unfold the same way every time. The only real difference is in what loot drops. If you could get all your drops in a single visit to a raid you would probably not bother to go back. This is a work + reward type of model.
On the other hand. Take a game like Tribes or Battlefield. You may play on the same map but the experience will unfold differently each time. In these games there is no loot. The gameplay is its own reward.
The PvE vs PvP debate is much like going to the movies vs playing a team sport. The movie can have a great story and great effects; it might even be satisfying to watch a second or third time. However, it will get old fairly quickly; that is where sequels come in to keep people interested. On the other hand, one can take up a sport and play for years. Obviously these are fairly different types of experiences and not everyone will enjoy both. It is time for the industry to realize that a persistent world MMO need not be so strict in its classification and that not all MMO players want the same thing.
I do have one question- I'm thinking it might suck if you build a huge empire and log on the next day and its all torn to bits cause you got sucker punched while you were sleeping. I'm thinking you gotta have some NPC guards or somehing to protect your assets while you're asleep. im thinking it should be more of a war of attrition whereas you have a lengthy war before you lose all your assets.
Well there's that and also the nefarious "5 AM raid" scenario that factors in. It's important to realize that these raids happen for two reasons: first, that some folks live internationally and are on a completely different schedule than the server, and second, that some pvpers are high-end max-min'er types. Some raids just aren't possible due to huge player involvement in defense, and when NPCs are brought into the equation they add an additional layer of challenge that the majority find impossible.
Therefore, I'd actually say the problem is with NPCs themselves. While not entirely on topic, here's something of a proto-answer: don't make conversion of assets NPC based a la DAOC, where you kill the keep lord to gain control of the keep. Instead, make asset conversion player based.
Let's take an example of a game I make (hehehe, I wish) in which I declare the emphasis of the game guilds and guild warring. Keep in mind as you read this that what I'm describing below is an incomplete mechanic. It's a very rough, but plausible draft.
Hypothetically speaking, guilds in my game have two modes: neutral and aggressive (pacifists would only create precedent for spies). Aggressive guilds try to kill everything and are always attackable, whereas neutral guilds have to declare war to attack -- and be attacked by -- other neutral guilds. Unlike other games, war declaration is one sided, but alerts the opposing guild and takes a day to go into effect. The objective of said system is to attack and conquer other players home bases, their Guild Halls.
Let's talk about the positives of Guild Halls first. In addition to allowing guild creation, Guild Halls offer solid benefits like stat and gathering bonuses, as well as enable advanced crafting structures. Guild Halls can be upgraded to allow for some number of upgrades, depending on how well the guild does in war(s). More "wins" means more everything for a guild: territorial gains, more advanced crafting, more defenses, and so on.
However, it is not without cost. Guild Halls require maintenance in three forms, which increases rather exponentially the more advanced the guild is: monetary upkeep, resources collected from disputed areas in the game world, and the presence of their Guild Master. The role of the GM is to keep the other two in balance. The more active a GM is within the game, the less the money and resource upkeeps will be until they reach a minimum amount. This minimum amount is raised during "wartime," as the performance of the guild in war(s) directly affects the GM's contribution to the pool.
So, guilds that perform badly face the prospect of weakening their own position without directly being assaulted by the enemy. The cool thing is that it's actually advantageous to hold off on direct assault. Storming a well supplied, well armed keep should be nigh-suicidal, and this offers a way to weaken it through attrition.
When the guild hall is weakened significantly it becomes "vulnerable" to take-over or destruction whenever the GM is logged on. If the GM doesn't log on, the attrition effect continues unchecked and ultimately the Guild goes to waste.
All of this is focused at making Guilds into Serious Business™, and forces players to deal with one another rather than with NPCs.
Yeah I see what you are getting at. I like the idea that when a guild does a hostile action- it allows someone else to attack. Also, like how an inactive guild can be cleared out
Funny, I just finished reading something really cool on TerraNova (a MMO blog with a lot of academics, but also developers like Koster), and then came over here and happened to see this topic. Over on TerraNova they've been talking about whether MMOs need better AI. The whole thread is pretty interesting, but check out this post: http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2007/05/artificial_inte.html#c69221522
Thanks for the link I've been searching for MMO developer sites. if you have any others please share.
I think we will be able to see something like that in the future... There is too many problems still about PvP centered games One of the main things is performance we saw what happened in Shadowbane...
Well Shadowbane was made on a super low budget from what I can tell by a really small developer. Imagine if those guys would've had the time and budget Blizzard put into WoW. but yeah shadowbane emcompasses some of the OP's ideas so yeah its worth bringing up
You could try the Multiverse forum boards as well, it's full of upcoming developers (both single man and teams) ours being one of the larger ones. There are some really nice things coming out of the boards, from the firefly mmorpg to the other new sci-fi like ours. Even the fantasy games have new indie dev ideas on ways to do things.
Here's a short list of some of the games on there that are all currently in alpha.
Funny, I just finished reading something really cool on TerraNova (a MMO blog with a lot of academics, but also developers like Koster), and then came over here and happened to see this topic. Over on TerraNova they've been talking about whether MMOs need better AI. The whole thread is pretty interesting, but check out this post: http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2007/05/artificial_inte.html#c69221522
Yeah, that's actually quite similar to the ALife AI system built into STALKER (a decent non-MMO shooter game -- worth a pickup when it falls in price to $25ish).
The main problem with AI is that it's hideously expensive in all aspects and never quite works the way it sounds like it should. There's a lot of cool things that can be done with AIs, for sure. But due to the insane resource-expense involved in heavy duty AI function, it's unlikely they'll ever be seen in MMOGs. AIs are the realm of the single player game because they don't have to worry about accommodating anything more than one person at a time. MMOs have to worry about seamless performance while dealing with hundreds or thousands of people at a time.
That's part of the reason why I'd make a game player focused - eliminating the server side load (or reducing it significantly) would probably make the game run a lot smoother. That's not to say AI can't be in the game, but rather an affirmation that MMOs featuring superior AIs are more likely intended for single player grind/quest systems.
BTW, @Ohaan, that movie theatre vs sports game analogy is really good, thanks for that.
-- xpaladin
[MMOz] AC1/2, AO, DAoC, EQ1/2, SoR, SWG, UO, WAR, WoW
For AI to work in a mmorpg it have to be built within a world where they can have goals, otherwise it will be the same scripted (God, I hope that word will never be utterd in the world of games again) do X to get Y gameplay.
Are the people working code today stupid? Sorry for being blunt but it's a sad fact that the AI in S.T.A.L.K.E.R is top notch but still it lack the basics, last patch made NPC's not pop in your face.. wth is that? The developers need to get there focus back...
And I have to disagree about AI being mainly for single player games. It's all in the code. If you make a mmorpg with the intention of having AI that is not static there is nothing more complicated then doing it for a single player game.
Games need to evolve or else the gamers will find something else to do (hehe sports, socialasing, that kind of silly stuff).
I have not since Zelda, something, found a game worth the money I pay for it.
Kick some of the animators, motion captureres, graphics makers and replace them with people that knows about making games and not about implementing librarys with crap piling up.
Sorry if I'm off topic now.. hangover and slept to little..
For AI to work in a mmorpg it have to be built within a world where they can have goals, otherwise it will be the same scripted (God, I hope that word will never be utterd in the world of games again) do X to get Y gameplay.
I totally agree with you, which is why this part got me really excited:
None of this is scripted by the designer. All of the NPCs involved have long-term memory, so they each remember what started the dispute, and AP allows them choose their own goals, based on their needs and desires.
I did a bit of digging, and it looks like the chick I quoted and the guy who started the thread both work for a company that's making this sort of AI, and making MMOs. If they can actually do it, I think it would be way cool. I've got my fingers crossed that it isn't just vaporware. :P
Comments
In a raid in WoW the experience will basically unfold the same way every time. The only real difference is in what loot drops. If you could get all your drops in a single visit to a raid you would probably not bother to go back. This is a work + reward type of model.
On the other hand. Take a game like Tribes or Battlefield. You may play on the same map but the experience will unfold differently each time. In these games there is no loot. The gameplay is its own reward.
The PvE vs PvP debate is much like going to the movies vs playing a team sport. The movie can have a great story and great effects; it might even be satisfying to watch a second or third time. However, it will get old fairly quickly; that is where sequels come in to keep people interested. On the other hand, one can take up a sport and play for years. Obviously these are fairly different types of experiences and not everyone will enjoy both. It is time for the industry to realize that a persistent world MMO need not be so strict in its classification and that not all MMO players want the same thing.
Therefore, I'd actually say the problem is with NPCs themselves. While not entirely on topic, here's something of a proto-answer: don't make conversion of assets NPC based a la DAOC, where you kill the keep lord to gain control of the keep. Instead, make asset conversion player based.
Let's take an example of a game I make (hehehe, I wish) in which I declare the emphasis of the game guilds and guild warring. Keep in mind as you read this that what I'm describing below is an incomplete mechanic. It's a very rough, but plausible draft.
Hypothetically speaking, guilds in my game have two modes: neutral and aggressive (pacifists would only create precedent for spies). Aggressive guilds try to kill everything and are always attackable, whereas neutral guilds have to declare war to attack -- and be attacked by -- other neutral guilds. Unlike other games, war declaration is one sided, but alerts the opposing guild and takes a day to go into effect. The objective of said system is to attack and conquer other players home bases, their Guild Halls.
Let's talk about the positives of Guild Halls first. In addition to allowing guild creation, Guild Halls offer solid benefits like stat and gathering bonuses, as well as enable advanced crafting structures. Guild Halls can be upgraded to allow for some number of upgrades, depending on how well the guild does in war(s). More "wins" means more everything for a guild: territorial gains, more advanced crafting, more defenses, and so on.
However, it is not without cost. Guild Halls require maintenance in three forms, which increases rather exponentially the more advanced the guild is: monetary upkeep, resources collected from disputed areas in the game world, and the presence of their Guild Master. The role of the GM is to keep the other two in balance. The more active a GM is within the game, the less the money and resource upkeeps will be until they reach a minimum amount. This minimum amount is raised during "wartime," as the performance of the guild in war(s) directly affects the GM's contribution to the pool.
So, guilds that perform badly face the prospect of weakening their own position without directly being assaulted by the enemy. The cool thing is that it's actually advantageous to hold off on direct assault. Storming a well supplied, well armed keep should be nigh-suicidal, and this offers a way to weaken it through attrition.
When the guild hall is weakened significantly it becomes "vulnerable" to take-over or destruction whenever the GM is logged on. If the GM doesn't log on, the attrition effect continues unchecked and ultimately the Guild goes to waste.
All of this is focused at making Guilds into Serious Business™, and forces players to deal with one another rather than with NPCs.
Yeah I see what you are getting at. I like the idea that when a guild does a hostile action- it allows someone else to attack. Also, like how an inactive guild can be cleared out
Well Shadowbane was made on a super low budget from what I can tell by a really small developer. Imagine if those guys would've had the time and budget Blizzard put into WoW. but yeah shadowbane emcompasses some of the OP's ideas so yeah its worth bringing up
You could try the Multiverse forum boards as well, it's full of upcoming developers (both single man and teams) ours being one of the larger ones. There are some really nice things coming out of the boards, from the firefly mmorpg to the other new sci-fi like ours. Even the fantasy games have new indie dev ideas on ways to do things.
Here's a short list of some of the games on there that are all currently in alpha.
http://www.multiverse.net/games/built.jsp?cid=2&scid=1
http://www.forceofarms.com/index.php
The main problem with AI is that it's hideously expensive in all aspects and never quite works the way it sounds like it should. There's a lot of cool things that can be done with AIs, for sure. But due to the insane resource-expense involved in heavy duty AI function, it's unlikely they'll ever be seen in MMOGs. AIs are the realm of the single player game because they don't have to worry about accommodating anything more than one person at a time. MMOs have to worry about seamless performance while dealing with hundreds or thousands of people at a time.
That's part of the reason why I'd make a game player focused - eliminating the server side load (or reducing it significantly) would probably make the game run a lot smoother. That's not to say AI can't be in the game, but rather an affirmation that MMOs featuring superior AIs are more likely intended for single player grind/quest systems.
BTW, @Ohaan, that movie theatre vs sports game analogy is really good, thanks for that.
-- xpaladin
[MMOz]
AC1/2, AO, DAoC, EQ1/2, SoR, SWG, UO, WAR, WoW
df.warcry.com/scripts/news/view_news.phtml
For AI to work in a mmorpg it have to be built within a world where they can have goals, otherwise it will be the same scripted (God, I hope that word will never be utterd in the world of games again) do X to get Y gameplay.
Are the people working code today stupid? Sorry for being blunt but it's a sad fact that the AI in S.T.A.L.K.E.R is top notch but still it lack the basics, last patch made NPC's not pop in your face.. wth is that? The developers need to get there focus back...
And I have to disagree about AI being mainly for single player games. It's all in the code. If you make a mmorpg with the intention of having AI that is not static there is nothing more complicated then doing it for a single player game.
Games need to evolve or else the gamers will find something else to do (hehe sports, socialasing, that kind of silly stuff).
I have not since Zelda, something, found a game worth the money I pay for it.
Kick some of the animators, motion captureres, graphics makers and replace them with people that knows about making games and not about implementing librarys with crap piling up.
Sorry if I'm off topic now.. hangover and slept to little..
replies that appear to have read and understood the wall of text hit you for 876 points of damage
you die