Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
How important is inter-dependency to MMOs?
robert4818
Member UncommonPosts: 661
Simple question, with probably much more complex answers.
How important is it in an MMO for players to NEED to rely upon other players?
IMO I think its going to vary depending on whether the game is Themepark or Sandbox. For theme park games, you are really playing through a game on a path, so there isn't much need to rely on other players as much.
For a sandbox, I believe the answer is "the more the better". It is my opinion that a sandbox game should have in the neighborhood of 100+ IMPORTANT roles. (A role being anythring from armorsmith, to bodyguard, to merchant, to farmer) I also believe that a player should be able to become Great at 1, Good at 2, or Decent at 3 roles, with some wiggle room for much more closely related roles. In order to have a good world, you need to have to rely on other people. If everyone can do everything, the world becomes much less interesting.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Comments
I think it is very important in any MMO I wish to play. I much prefer heavily group oriented games. I like roles to fill and feel that the "do it all" characters kind of trivialize the experience for me. It should be impossible for characters to do everything.
While I do prefer group oriented games, I do think there should be solo activities as well. I like variety and doing different things. Things like tradeskills, treasure maps, harvesting, housing, certain quests, etc. can all be solo activities. These activites can also have some interdependence built in as well. Variety is good.
The whole sandbox vs themepark debate really is difficult to get into, because the definitions of both are so fluid and vary so widely from one peson to the next. Any type of MMO can benefit from interdependancy, regardless of type. I firmly believe the market is big enough for many types of MMOs. Different games appeal to different players and I would like to see a little more variety in the AAA titles.
Yeah I am for NEED for inter-dependancy in mmorpg.
There should be things in game that you can do solo, so you can log in and play solo, but there should be things that you NEED to rely on others. I mean in OPEN WORLD and things like crafting, etc
Current concept of most mmorpg's when you don't need other players in open world but you absolutely need them in instances is NOT good.
Mmorpg should force some things. Game should offer many possibilites and freedom, but there ought to be restictions.
To me its the difference of feeling like I'm just another customer playing a game, versus feeling like I'm part of the game's community. In SWG, my crafting character was recognized by other players and they knew my crafting trade. I had quite a few repeat customers, crafting requests and bartering offers. When I'd have a repeat sale to a regular customer or a high end sale was made, I would recognize them in turn and send a mail message to say 'Thank you.' In WoW, out of probably 500+ Auction House sales I made, there was only 1 buyer I that I exchanged conversation because they were seeking to buy more of a certain gathered item in the future. Every other purchase and sale seemed like the system was designed to be anonymous and impersonal. It seems like themepark MMOs are designed to place the main interdependencies within guilds, and sandbox MMOs create interdependencies across large portions of the playerbase. WoW can boast 8 million or how ever many subscribers, but in reality I think the game only really places any focus of an active player's interdependency within a circle of about 50-100 people.
You could have the game designed where every combat oriented character can effectively fight solo. However, they'll still need armorsmiths, weaponsmiths, etc. If they decided to make themselves "The Best" at combat, that would be where they are fully dedicated to a combat tree, and as such are even MORE heavily dependent on others, just not in fights.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
That really depends on the guild. If the guild is composed of a tight knit group of people then it really does not matter what type of game they are playing. The interdependency will always be there. When I played SWG, the crafters I bought from tended to be just as anymonous and interchangeable as those I bought from in WoW. In both games I would buy what I needed from the craftesr that were available at the time and there really was no reason to become socially acquinted with them. Frankly I felt more 'part of a community' in WoW than in SWG since WoW offered me more chances to interact outside my guild.
I think what it comes down to is that MMO's should be designed with important roles that need filled and they are forced (yes, I said forced) to chose a path and bear the benefits and consequences of that decision.
There should not be omni-crafter or harvesters, chose a specialty and stick with it. You make armor, great, dominate the market, but when its time to get a sword you're buying it from someone else.
You join a group, and you're playing the role you were made for, no more omni-classing there, split the skills and abilities like early DAOC did, and expand group sizes accordingly. (at one time they considered upping group size to 10)
Now the tricky part of this is while creating this interdependent and very specialized world you have to be careful to make sure that a players choice doesn't come back to haunt him (extremely) especially in the areas of character advancement and participation.
No one wants to see people standing around waiting for a healer, and I'm hoping there's alternative solutions to what most developers chose to do, which is consolidate abilities into a few arch types. (SWTOR only has 4 man groups because that's all its designed around, pity)
Perhaps what I suggest is unworkable, but it seems to me that Dev's chose the path of least resistance when trying to resolve the original problems, and I think there are other (better?) ways it can be handled.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
One of the things I think that make mmo's great is the diversity of roles so that what may not be accomplished alone, can be accomplished through teamwork.
I like that each class has its 'role' in combat which makes it essential for victory. It reminds me of baseball, where each role is very different, the catcher plays nothing like the pitcher who plays nothing like an outfielder who is himself different from the shortstop, etc. But it is the combination of these individual skills which win the game.
I believe the modern problem involves being able to gather everyone you need at a moments notice to play. The problem EQ always had, was that most nights were spent trying to put and/or keep the group together, instead of actually playing.
Those with close friends, well-managed, active guilds, or playing a select class such as enchanter, healer or tank get to play a lot more regularly.
Most people play dps. Most dps in most games can be interchanged with any other dps class; let's face it, they are the real losers in the modern day gaming enviroment. Even dps in good,active guilds get left to the wayside more often than not.
I think the real challenge of any mmo these days is to make every class feel essential while at the same time, assuring that groups are easy to put together at a moments notice. Because these two things are difficult, we see more and more soloability, less diversity between classes, less reason to group together. It's a lot easier to dumb it down than to step it up, at least people have something to do other than spam for group.
If you want an online world to have any real depth. To have a complex economy, territory control mechanics and a dynamic and strong community. Then it is perhaps the single most important factor any mmorpg can have. So for sandbox style mmos it is vital.
In themepark mmos though it is nowhere near as important. People want to be self sufficient to a large extent. Group with a small circle of friends and vlitz through content as and when they choose. Which is fine of course, not knocking that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
even if i think that interdependency is important for every MMO, i would not say, that it is more important in a sandbox. the sandbox gives me all freedom. if i like to play the lonesome wolf, i can just do it. there is no need to talk to anybody. is this a hard virtual life? yes it is! can i enjoy all content this way? hell no, but thats perhaps not neccessary to play my role. its my choice.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
Ah but it may not be vital to the lone wolf, or to any individual player, but it is vital to the whole collective within the sandbox as that is how the core components are driven.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
In a game with classes, there is no reason why a lot of characters can't fill multiple roles.
I find it kind of silly that a tank character always does no damage. Warriors should be able to either tank or dps based solely on equipment and stance.
Clerics could be the same way -- either healer or magic dps depending upon equipment and blessing.
Druids could say run from a healer type in a group to a dps pet class when solo or when dps is needed.
An Enchanter type could actually be either control or say a berzerker if they cast a specific spell drawing said spirit onto them.
----
It wouldnt be too hard to design a game such that all characters are viable in two main roles instead of just one.
Personally I think this is somewhere that rift really failed. They could have let you choose souls from different archetypes but instead restricted them to a single one. And then they restricted how they synergized.
-------------------
As for requiring groups as opposed to solo -- I think the focus should be on 2 to 3 person groups instead of full groups.
I like the public quest model for large group things.
I would love to see a quality game where the players created the entire foundation for the economy. Players built the items, repaired the items, sold the items, gathered the mats etc. The economy would balance needs vs costs, creating value for less desirable tasks. I would also like to see games use crafting/tradeskills mid dungeon/raid. For example: Weapons/armor deteriorate from fighting so the cause/protect less damage. A weaponsmith/armorsmith can repair the damage, bringing items back to full potential. a Miner can carry ingots to provide to the smiths for repair mats. A gatherer could carry herbs for alchemy, while an alchemist could brew high quality potions that don't have a long "shelf life"
A game could be created that used multiple talents from multiple players to make a successful party while not forcing the party to have each specific role filled.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
It depends on the game's emphasis on the social aspect. Create reasons for players to need to depend on others and you get gearscore. Create reasons for players to want to interact and you get community. An MMO can have both but will often focus heavily moreso on one than the other, either throughout the game or within the various tiers of it.
Games like ATITD, Puzzle Pirates, UO and EVE Online have rather extensive social networks both in game and out of game. They have ingame tools and game mechanics that allow and encourage players to segment into smaller communities. In most other MMOs, congregating or teaming up based on external reasons or personal preference (outside of language, which again is often a need not a want) works against the game mechanics because it locks you out of certain content unless that group that has social ties all operate at the same speed, level and tier in order to be able to do the game's content together.
That being said, players banding together out of need rather than desire are often more disciplined and organized in their approach to things, have tighter teamwork and execute their objectives more successfully.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Replace the weapons with ships and replace picking flowers with shooting lasers at rocks and you have EVE Online.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
For me a key attraction to games, in any genre, is a sense of freedom. Mastery of one's own destiny, that sense of unfettered agency that "real life" works so hard to trample. That means that I should be free to act and do as they please in a game, to the maximum extent permissable by the limits of game balance and the enjoyment of other players. In this specific case, I think that players should be encouraged to team up at times, but not forced to do so. Some people enjoy the teamwork element of long, tactical battles where everyone has a niche to fill, and they hate crafting and trading. Other people want to craft and trade and RP and interact casually with other players, but find teaming up for instance runs with unpredictable strangers stressful in the extreme. I have days where I align with one of these extremes, sometimes the other, usually somewhere in the middle. What I'm getting at is, the fundamental game design should make it easy and fun to interact with others, but not absolutely oblige me to when I'm tired or stressed and just wanna solo for a while. I think games like DDO and LOTRO did a good thing with variable difficulty on quests, meaning that if you can't find a group/don't want to deal with the hassle, you can solo a good portion of the game. Makes sense from a developer standpoint too because variable difficulties allow the same content to be reused for both group and solo purposes, unlocks the possibility of achievements for players who complete the highest difficulty setting, etc. The key here is freedom. I often find other people limit my freedom by, you know, being alive and within a 300 meter radius of me. I'm probably an atypical player of these sort of games.
The one concession I will make is this: economies, in the real world and in MMOs, are built on interdependency. If every player can build anything they want without restriction, what incentive do they have to ever trade with anyone else? A system of crafting where certain materials can only be created by other professions creates a positive stimulus toward a vibrant in-game economy. So I'm all for that.
Ever Onward,
J
This thread is unfortunately leaning towards Group/Solo play. (Which is what your post is directed at, I believe). Unfortunately, thats not the discussion I'm wanting to have from the OP.
This is more about the OTHER roles that people can fill in games beyond simply "fighting".
The over-all idea is how interdependent is the COMMUNITY, not just the combat group. As I said, take combat out of the equation. (Imagine how you will, combat as interconnected/soloable as you want).
What about the rest of the game? How reliant on other people should a person be?
For example.
Take our intrepid group of combat monkeys (your pick of combat roles) outside of combat, how self sufficient should they be? Should they be able to craft? What about marketing their spoils? Should they be able to sail a ship? Should etc?
What about Crafters? Should they be able to fight, or do they need to hire guards? Are they average crafters who put some effort in getting market abilities, or are they master craftsmen who need to rely on a third party because they are simply bad at business?
Should a master Armorsmith be able to make swords? What about deisgn buildings or ships?
How far down the rabbit hole (Outside of Combat) do we want interdependency to be?
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Too far in the NEED direction, and we're back to EQ...one part of the game very heavily complained about, for years.
Forced interaction is bad. No reason to interact, also bad.
The hard part is motivating people with a distinct advantage to interacting vs. not. Make it in their own best interest.
(As an interesting side discussion, the fewer characters you allow players to own on a server, the more interdependent they become (can't just mail the mats to an alt to craft for you). Is the reverse also true?)
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
He has mentioned ATITD, EVE and UO and the fact that they have extensive social tools and the need for player interaction. Not sure why you think that is purely combat orientated and does not factor in "crafters" and otherwise non combat players because it most certainly does.
EVE and UO are the classic examples of games which involve player inter dendepency beyond the pure scope of group combat and I believe that is what he was getting at (although I may be wrong).
As for how far do you take interdendency.. well as far as possible. People should be allowed the option to try everything, but communities are built around specialization and the need to rely on others for one thing or another. If you want to build an online world you need to replicate that. If you just want to build a small team pvp game or a raiding themepark then you don't have to bother.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Is all "forced interaction" bad and what exactly does it constitute? I would contest that if, for example, making people need to employ player haulers for transporting goods across dangerous environments improved the games economy and made for a greater diversity in player driven roles. Than any negative that meant that someone (god forbid) had to speak to another player and set out a plan would be vastly outweighed by the positive gains.
The player could try it without said haulers ofc, but would struggle.
I see the word "forced" come up a great deal on these forums these days, which is somewhat odd when we are talking about games which people are willingly playing in the first place.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Spot on, Bunny!
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Sure, everyone enslaved to tote logs through a swamp would make a terrific game. That's the real old-time religion of player masochism right there. Now we're having fun!
Wait..no, that doesn't sound fun at all. Not much that's heroic about mud-filled boots and stank.
^ The above is an exaggerated response, of course, but perhaps its illustrative of why some kinds of forced interaction can actually drive players away from a game, and discourage new players from joining. Some of the "diverse" roles are not particularly attractive or entertaining.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I think it's needed.
No one player should be able to do everything on their own, but every player should be able to produce something worth value to themselves and other players on their own as well.
SWG is a good example of this.
Crafters could collect mineral and craft on their own, but they still had to sell their goods to other players for the credits needed to run their harvestors or purchase raw materials from other players.
Combat characters had to purchase equipment from crafters now and then, but they paid in credits received from combat related missions.
Entertainers provided fatigue healing, which combat characters needed. Entertainers typically bought clothing from crafters.
Doctors/medics healed wounds and buffed combat characters, and received credits in return which could be used to purchase the consumables to heal/buff, or to power harvestors to get the raw materials or just by the raw materials to produce them.
And then there's jedi that were there to contribute nothing but grief to other players in PvP...
Okay so it wasn't a perfect system, but it had it's merits.
A few things spring to mind..
You say some kinds of forced interaction can drive players away, which is why I posited that not all forced interaction was bad. Moreover it seems that it needed a highly exaggerated version to provide and example. Hauling if it meant simply taking logs backwards and fowards without adding anything else would indeed be shit. But then it wouldn't be that at all would it, unless the dev team happened to be inept.. which would kill the game off, forced interaction or not.
You also mention the word "heroic". Why does everything have to be heroic? Crafting isn't exactly heroic so I guess that should be removed as well? That's an exaggerated response but illustrative of the point. XD
If the roles offer not enterainment or allure to people then they will not work ofc. But you would be surprised what people derive enjoyment from. Personally I feel 99.99% of all pve and 100% of all crafting is boring as bollocks, but then others seem to like it.
Let's look at the hauling this way:
A rich crafter has created a powerful amulet and after having looked at numerous bodyguards, has decided that you and your intrepid group of companions should take it through the bandit infested forest of darkness, through the troll mountains of doom and deliver to the city of eternal spires. Meanwhile pirate players will be lying in wait, spy players giving intel to them about your movements etc etc.
Doesn't seem quite so boring to me but I guess it could get in the way of people queuing for the next battleground lol.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
But I didn't...oh, nevermind. ::flail hands:: Carry on.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.