Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
CHALLENGE: How do you implement a virtual world that is fun to play?
Creslin321
Member Posts: 5,359
A lot of us here (including me) like to lament that MMORPG developers are going in the wrong direction by emphasizing gameplay and "single-player esque," such as tons of combat abilities and solo questing, while ignoring features that help to establish the game as a virtual world, like player housing, world interactivity etc... One of the main arguments against this is that single player features are just more desired than virtual world features, further, that single player type features help drive the game by giving players something to do. After all, if not for questing and leveling, what would players do?
That is the challenge I pose here. For people who want to see the resurgence of the virtual world, I would like to see your ideas on how to implement a game that heavily emphasizes virtual world features, but still remains fun to play and can draw a large audience. Please explain your idea in "game terms," i.e. something that can actually be implemented in a game. Bear in mind that the "traditional" sandbox kind of games typically attract only niche audiences, so you will have to bring something new to the table.
Okay...so have at it, I'm curious to see what kind of ideas people have 
.
Edit: By Virtual world, I simply mean a world that feels dynamic and alive, while still being very much an RPG game (i.e. not Second Life). This is a pretty open definition, and a game with a strong virtual world could be theme-parkish or sandboxy. Though I will say that I feel the quest-based paradigm seen thus far in theme park games is damaging to the virtual world concept because it makes the world feel very static.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Comments
Well I think virtual world features such as sieging, housing, ect are already the funnest things in any mmo... I'll take a siege or player house over a raid boss anyday. So I don't really know what I'm suppose to do...
Make it more mainstream? Polish it I guess.
or just Archage would be my suggestion. High budget, tries to be a hybrid of sorts to give a little bit of both bases what they want.
Edit: And I don't really know what you mean by virutal world.... like second life stuff? I don't like that, but I do like sandbox features, or features that make a world seem vibrant and lively.
So what do you mean by virtual world? I like guild wars2 dynamic events and the lively world, does that count? idk
Thanks for the response jadelevir. I edited my OP to answer your question.
I'm going to challenge your post, not because I don't agree with it, but just to start a discourse.
You say that sieging, housing, etc. are fun features. But what makes them fun? They sound great on paper, but most sieges I've been in are incredibly boring an repetitive affairs that involve lots of walking and hitting buildings with hammers. Housing can be interesting, but in and of itself, buying a house is fairly dull. How would you take housing and make it a real reason for players to play a game?
As for ArcheAge, I hope it's good too, but so little info has been released on it thus far that we can't really discuss how it's going to accomplish its goals.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It's already being made. ArcheAge. Now if they mess it up, it still doesn't change the fact that what it plans to offer is what most people are pining for. It all comes down to execution now. Basically, in a nutshell, a themepark/sandbox hybrid is the way to keep the virtual world while still making it fun and accessible.
What I'm asking for is the execution
. How would you execute a game that has the virtual world features we all love, but is still fun and engrossing to play? In other words, describe the game system that implements the virtual world dream. I realize ArcheAge is in development, but until we get a chance to play it, it may as well not exist. For all we know, it could be a huge flop.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You ad a meta game on top of the "solo to the level cap" game.
1. make it RvR, like DAoC.
2. Ad things that control over the forts in the frontier give players as bonuses. In DAoC it was access to a cool dungeon, with good xp, and good loot drops.
3. Inside the frontier, add many dynamic things the players can change in the game world. For example, a bridge that can cross a gorge to provide a short cut. give players the ability to destroy it, or build it. Ad LOTS of these, the bridge being just one example. Make building the bridge complicated, requiring many steps, the completion of many group related quests, and a lot of items, and crafted goods.
4. Add things inside the safe "realms" that players can build to give themselves bonuses. Like a Pyramid that gives you bonuses to respawn times, or allows you to create bind spots.
5. Create a way other players can build things inside the safe "realm" that will destroy another factions bonuses, or cancel them out. Like a giant statue of Anubis that will block the other factions bind points.
Some plaeyrs could be playing the meta game. They are collecting resources, and crafting items to build a bridge, so that they can assualt a specific fort, which will give them control over a certain dungeon, which will drop the needed resources to build a Great Pyramid.
Other players could be unaware the meta game exists. They're just doing their WoW style solo quests to get to the level cap.
They never have to leave the safe "realm", participate in RvR, or play the meta game to change the game world, if they don't want to.
If what you say is so true, then why has SWG pretty much died since they implemeted the NGE which in all terms, is a hybryd of sandbox/thempark. I mean, you can do pretty much everything that AA is boasting they will have in the game. In my opinion, virtual world does not automatically equal success. If that was the case MO and Darkfall would have millions of players and alot more clamoring to play.
There is no challenge. Game makers no how to do it. They just choose not to, instead focusing on instant gratification gameplay that precludes the necessity of an immersive world because that is where the money is.
Is ArcheAge just another cash shop game, where you just play with your credit card buying XP potions?
I have no idea if thats true but I know I'm not pining for that, lol
And I said that. the point isn't whether it's a flop, it's about what it plans to do. All you have to do is look at it's list of features and realize the list itself is the answer to your question, whether it is executed correctly or not.
When I think of a virtual world, I imagine it covers all normal features of everyday life as modified by the sci-fi, fantasy, etc. setting.
The problem is that many things is a real world are just not that fun. So I think the best thing to do is take the tedious things in life, where for most developers sacrifice immersion for the sake of paltry “fun,” and make them more interesting. Some possible examples:
Eating – though often done for short term buffs, it would be more fun if you could got long term, like month long debuffs (including starvation) and buffs depending on what you ate. You also should make it so that only be being anorexic, bulimic, or eating magical versions of steroids, could you wear the coolest looking armor.
Drinking – drinking alcohol should actually make the characters around you more attractive and make you think you can fight or ride your mount better.
Taxes – although many guild systems have taxes, I think to make them more fun and immersive, you should have no freakin idea where the money goes.
In game MMO politics make no sense – the political parties, factions if you will, often have clear ideologies and differences. I find this very unrealistic and immersion breaking. They should really say exactly the same thing while talking as if they are very different.
Children – where are the children in MMOs? I hardly ever see any kids and we don’t have to feed them or discipline them. I think many MMORPG pet systems should be replaced with children except that you should make the AI a lot less predictable and they should attack you as often as your enemies.
Work/jobs/classes – MMOs need to stop being so commie pinko. Every class gets basically rewarded the same for some jilted philosophy of ‘balance.’ I find this immersion-breaking. Like unskilled laborers, the classes that have to work harder, like healers, and tanks, should be rewarded (paid) less. The classes that don’t have to work hard, like bank execs, here, DPSers, should get ridiculously paid more.
Defecating, bathing, grooming - rarely in MMOs, but in fact some people really do enjoy this in RL. I think this is easier in a heavy fantasy or sci-fi game. Make it when you have to take a crap, it shoots sparkle ponies out your trunk. And for bathing, just get an M rating, make it realistic, and there you go.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Well for me I don't like the direction game developers are moving.. but the way you worded the start of your post is a bit different.
I've never had an issue with game play or single player gaming being possible or even highly supported. My issue is how they actually design the game and that comes down to mechanics. Which means use a skill system instead of a rigid class design... making crafting something you can sustain long term instead of the having pve/pvp gear grind.
This is what I was thinking the other day... while thinking about how certain things could be dealt with.
Electronic Arts owns two paticular MMO IP's. Dark Age of Camelot and Ultima Online.
I think a melding of those two games would be pretty much my perfect game. You take the early skill system and crafting design of UO. Then you combine the realm setup from DAoC. The setting its self doesn't have to be "fantasy" like UO/DAoC.. its about combining the mechanics.
That to me is the basic idea and if you played both games.. epsecially the early years of UO (and liked both) then you should "get it".
Ok more to answer your question here, lets take Daoc and seiges...
To me what made them fun was the large groups of players it would take working together to take down a enemy castle. It was not a easy task it took lots of work to pull it off sucessfuly.
Games need alot of stuff to cover players needs thats why i have always felt the sandpark was the true answer to a great game.
It needs housing that is actualy functionable.
It needs RVR that actualy has meaning.
It needs Boss mobs so players can raid.
It needs a indepth crafting system where loot dropped is not as good as crafted items.
It needs a good mount system.
And for a bonus it could have rares like UO had even if they were by accident it was still a large group of players that enjoyed collecting them.
It basicly needs to cater to all the different players likes.
I think what we really need it something along the lines of a cross of say Rift and Wurm online.
I personaly think games today are just way to easy and it leaves people bored inside the first month. People need a challenge.They need a game where if you played everyday for a solid year you still might not make a grandmaster blacksmith.
played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek
and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.
It needs to give players tools to create content. I don't need things like Cryptic's silly "mission designer", but things like Sabbath's point about crafting being key to quality items, and useful things players can own that add to the world like housing or such.
For me the answer is "purpose." Give me a reason to care about going to the front lines of the war, or helping out someone else or building that wall for the town. Give me a purpose and make it matter.
This is what originally drew me to HZ. There was a reason we were building the towns, the walls, practicing our skills, leveling building the houses, shops, crafting utilities. There was a war and at any time npc's could and would attack. There was a huget story/setting/lore to the game and we were all fighting for our lives.. too bad it didn't work out.
So if the game wants me to group, build... give me a reason to do it. And not gear, because that doesn't make me want to group with you, that just makes me want the gear. The purpose have to meaning to the overall story of the game.
Venge
edit - have to be carefull with the destruction thing though as too much destruction makes buildng meaningless. I'll rebuild the wall once, maybe twice, after that forget it, it's a waste of my entertainment time.
Freedom & choice:
A virtual world MMO should offer several different legitimate gameplay options. Whether a player wants combat, crafting, or other gameplay elements that are more social or tactical, the game should offer several fully fleshed out options of gameplay. Furthermore, flexibility between mixing and matching different aspects of gameplay is always a bonus. Allowing a player to choose to make a pure combat character that specializes in dealing damage, or one that wants more utlity such as the ability to heal or take a lot of damage, should be flexible.
Impact & meaning:
Tying into the first, the choices of gameplay should all have their place and contribute something of value. Obviously combat has it's meaning. Crafting needs to produce items that are actually saught after by other players. Social professions need purpose too, a good example is the entertainer professions in SWG being used to heal battle fatigue and giving combat characters buffs.
Players should also be able to impact the game world. From creating their own structure, to creating a city with other players. Not only that, but there should be meaning to this, such as providing amenities otherwise unavailable in the area. Also by being able to influence spawns of monsters, possibly fighting against them for territorial control of areas in order to safely harvest resources for crafters.
Umm, no. You can't compare a sandbox game that decided to turn into a themepark game to a game being developed taking into account themepark and sandbox elements from the ground up. SWG lost it's sandbox qualites when the NGE hit and wasn't built around it in the first place, hence the massive amount of people who left the game.
Doesn't matter how SWG eneded up, it still is a sandbox/thempark game. Can you still place a house on a planet and build a city with vendors/banks. Can you still craft. Can you still go and just explore. Can you still pick a proffession that doesn't involve combat. You know as well as i do the answer is a big fat yes. So the question remains. If SWG is a prime example of what a sanbox/thempark game is, then why is that game dead and it hardly has any people playing it, especially the sandbox crowd that is so in love with AA.
The only way a world can truly feel alive is if you simply leave out NPC factions and settlements. You need to give players a sense of ownership and the best way to achieve that is via property. The best way to maintain a player's interest in property is if that property can be taken away by another player.
So in this sense I think what really needs to be stressed is something along the lines of Xsyon or A Tale In The Desert but with decent production values. In a world where every single structure is created and destroyed by players how it could possibly not feel alive?
It's always been the NPC and questing components which make a world feel dead and stagnant so... well, get rid of them. MMO quests are boring as hell anyways. It's been well over five years since I've actually enjoyed one. In fact, I haven't enjoyed a MMO quest since "Call of the Sirens" in PreCU SWG.
To keep the game accessible to everyone:
Nothing important should be dependent on grouping or joining a guild. That means housing, gearing, and leveling. There should be a place in pvp for solo play as well, this means random groups separated from team groups in battleground-style pvp zones and meaningful but not pivotal pvp roles that solo players can fill as well. If nothing else, a stealthy or cc class should be able to do something in a giant free for all even without a healer trailing around after her.
That said, everything should be faster and easier with a group, whether organized through your guild or a pug group. It should never be more profitable or time efficient to grind solo for loot and xp. It should just be doable and not so inefficient that soloers give up and quit.
This encourages community without excluding anyone.
Other things I like to see in MMOs are housing, nightclubs, marriage, social clothing, professions not centered solely around committing various forms of mayhem and murder, npcs (or at least animals) that act in realistic ways (the way the Forsaken World pet horse rubs its nose along its foreleg is well done, it's something horses do).
The ability to choose whether to grind, quest, or mix it up between the two helps because it keeps people from feeling like they're on rails or standing in the midst of an unending sea of mobs.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
The world is the platform, not the game.
I don't consider the current SWG a "prime" example of anything but bad decisions/design. Can you tell me, why ArcheAge is getting as much attention and "hopeful" gamers as myself excited even though, as you state, we already have a themepark/sandbox hybrid in SWG? I would think it's fairly obvious. Have you looked at the information available and the videos on AAportal.net ?
Hard to comprehend what kind of answers you are looking for here, should we draw on games for examples, should we list the broad features that would be misinterpretated, or do you want details ?
First as someone said, the developers knows how to do it right, they just don't do it because of commerical reasons. Maybe the bubble just needs to burst, and we will see good games again, or maybe the I generation wants the crap they get at the moment.. ask again in 10 years.
That out my system, and assuming we are talking about rpg game worlds.
I will start with some keywords beleivability, reasons, goals, freedom, randomness.
A online world has to be beleivable, with npc interacting with eachother as they would had no player ever logged in. The world has to exist on its own terms with minimum reference to real life, so you don't get distracted from your roleplaying (roleplaying is not only about player interactions but much about acting in character, as you defined your char). References to real life are names of places (Camelot) or people (King Arthur), mythology unless you stay true to it and the game is build around it, and smart features that integrates new technology as a rule of thumb.. with exceptions offcourse.
A world should feel like it exist with or without your character.
I need reasons why my character would do things in a world. I don't think I can give a description, some reasons work with some setups and worlds, while others don't - Main thing is, for that particular world and story, that it makes sense.
Your character should have goals in sight to persue, that beeing long term aswell as short term, and (this is a hard thing to design) it should be vague or hidden what reward your character might gain, but always a surprice once inawhile. There should be goals to complete before you can begin the next, such as getting the mark of warrior to sign up for arena fights and so on. This is something devs will be reluctant to do because it makes xx percentage of their game not available to everyone but only some, and it is true for the casual player to some degree, but a game like this would not aim at those anyways. Players compare with other players, and looking aside from the e-peens who just want to be uber for no other reason, this comparing will create dynamics in a game.. hmm I hope this should be clear, as it is hard to explain.
Freedom .... to go where you want within limits of the game, to play the game as you like .. adventurer, crafter, shopowner, captain on your own ferry, private dancer, many different combat possibilites (everquest as example here) - And the hard part, make these activities have some kind of reason so it is not only a game in your mind.
Randomness in gear quality (see diablo2 for example), random mobs but not excluding placeholders, random maps/instances, random quest goals, and so on ... not all the time, but enough so you will be surpriced. Here also goes GM and/or player made events or quests.
So anyways, these are vague things, and all ready to be misunderstood. It is kindda hard to pinpoint alot of things unless you want a 100 pages report. A final thought, a game should not try to be everything, it should define its vision and stay true.. such as pvp or pve, action or dept, etc. The reason is obvious in every thread on these forums, everyone has their taste and it is the old miller and his son - You just can't please everyone, so choose who will be the player base.
Hehe just look at this discussion, I can already say my taste is completely opposite of someone here, and right on track with others.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
The answer is intelligent, AI driven NPC's and factions.
Where say faction A has its own goals and desires, and would both pursue these goals on their own (in direct competition/cooperation with other, seperate AI's) and by hiring players (quests/missions) to help reach their goals.
A space-based game is the easiest to conceptualize.
Faction A, the Reds, their AI overmind is very dominant, seeking to expand their territory across space for political, military, and economic gains.
Reds AI overmind is smart enough to make decisions, and decides that a poorly defended system near their space is a prime target for acquisition.
Reds AI will launch it's own scouting NPCs to gather intelligence, they'll move their own NPC combat ships in defensive positions to secure transport/supply lines to the new warfront, and they'll send their own NPC attack squads to harrass and disrupt operations in the target system.
These resources that are available to the Reds are finite, meaning their supply of materials and ships is limited by real-world factors - the number of planets/systems they control, the availability of resources on said planets, how efficiently they manage the production and distribution of these resources and assets, etc.
When the Reds lose a ship in a strike against the target system, it doesn't just respawn back at their home system. The AI has to decide to spend the resources to build new ships, resupply, retrofit, etc. The availability of trained NPC crews and their level of skill is also determined by real world factors - population, resources spent on education, military academies etc.
When their ships are engaged in combat, they "level up" their skills just like a player would. If their ships survive an engagement the crew becomes more skilled and thus more powerful and that has an effect on the next engagement. If a ship and it's crew are lost, that crew is lost and a new crew for a new ship must be trained/supplied and brought to the front lines, again considering the real-world factors listed above.
The Reds target is a system controlled by the Blues, another seperate, yet distinctive AI overmind controlled faction.
The Blues are more diplomatic, more economy focused. When the Reds begin attacking their system, they call on their allies to supply ships and crews, scouts and patrols, and use their economic might to hire mercenaries etc.
The system would be designed so that without player interaction, these two factions would be in a near constant stalemate.
Either side gains, loses, but the gains and losses would be marginal. Very "back and forth."
The true dynamic nature of the conflict evolves when players get involved. If the player chooses to side with the Reds in order to gain prestige, money, fame, etc. then their involvement in the battles can turn the tide and help create more substantial gains in the war against the Blues.
As more and more players become involved, the Reds obtain more victories, the players gain more influence and reputation with the Reds and are given access to more supplies and intelligence etc. from the Reds. Eventually, with the players help, the Reds drive the Blues out of the system and gain control.
Now, imagine this... on a galactic scale with dozens, if not hundreds of intelligent NPC AI factions vying for control of hundreds if not thousands of systems.
Then... add in player controlled and operated factions (guilds) in direct competition and cooperation with both NPC AI factions and other player groups.
PvE and PvP would be irrelevant - like with players, the skill/difficulty/challenge of a NPC opponent is not about stat points and obscure paper/rock/scissor mechanics, but instead on the strength of their AI - their ability to make decisions and react to changing circumstances.
NPC ships could be programmed with a wide range of response times, "personality" types (more likely to make a run for it, stay and fight to the death, better coordinated in groups or sloppy etc.)
Why create static, linear, repeatable "go kill x" quest/missions when EACH AND EVERY mission/quest could be tied into the decisions of both player and NPC AI factions.
Where "going and killing x in system y" would actually have economic, political, and military effect on the factions involved.
I'm talking about the NPC AI factions creating missions/quest dynamically and players being able to pick them up at their discretion. If it's a task that the AI deems rather important, and no players pick it up, the AI would commit it's own forces.
Players could request missions of specific types based on their preferences/skill sets. Solo, group, large group, scouting, combat, crafting, gathering, transport, etc.
Pretty much, the galaxy should be able to run itself without any player involvement, but do so at a sustainable pace - i.e. pretty much galactic stalemate.
But then get thousands of players invovled.... and everything changes.
You could have the mission/quest system logically organize a series of missions into groups to present to a specific player. These "story arc" missions would then be at the player's discretion to complete at their own pace - but of course with ever-changing environments the objectives of the current or next task would easily shift, again assigned by the AI.
You could create an acheivement system that rewarded players for participating in a series of story arc's with the final culmination being the completion of the NPC AI's obective.
"The Battle of System Y" would pop up in your mission log, journal, achievement list showing the variety of missions and story arcs you completed and their outcomes that led up to the final conflict for control of the system.
There you go-
Dynamic, sand-box, impactful, virtual world gaming with the ease of access and replayability of a quest-based progression system.
Problem - is such AI possible? and in such variety and volume?
I think that's the problem.
many people want a game that's not accessible to EVERYONE, including me.
Accessible to EVERYONE means sinking down to the lowest common denominator.
Some people should be excluded from some games.