While the OP does bring up things like a castle needing certain things to be completed that a player can help with, I'd like to talk about motivation.
I believe that a player wanting to do something can change over time, and a system that groups players into a guild or profession, chosen during character creation, would be a hinderance to enjoyment more than anything.
EVE provides a good example of player driven content. There isn't an orc in space that will reward you with 100 XP if you go into nullsec and take over a hostile alliance's territory. Players do it anyways, because they want to. It benifits them.
For a player to enjoy what he does in a game, he generally has to want to do it.
So perhaps the fewer NPC future lies not with player created quests, XP, or profession/guilds. It probably lies with freeform advancement in many directions, and a players sense of accomplishment. If I am able to make a map using in game cartography, and use the map to get around, I can. But I can also navigate by sight. Selling maps I make might be profitable, especially if they arae complete or lead to interesting areas. The game shouldn't have a quest to make maps, but should give players the option to do so and do what they will with that ability.
The more options, abilities, and interesting ways to interact with other players that are included in a game, the less likely the exlamation orc is a fun experience.
Do players want to sift through legions of low quality player quests to find a good one without the aid of a powerful search engine such as Google backing it?
They... don't... NEED... to...
Players could for instance rate quests 1-5 stars after playing them... Or they could even rate them by categories... Score X for roleplay value, score Y for XP efficiency etc... Thus players could easily pick the best even if their preferences are different... If they don't want to sift through random crap then just play the well-rated quests...
And that's not even getting into player-created tasks like get 5 widgets for crafting or kill 5 mice harassing a guild city/player's house etc...
Do players want to sift through legions of low quality player quests to find a good one without the aid of a powerful search engine such as Google backing it?
They... don't... NEED... to...
Players could for instance rate quests 1-5 stars after playing them... Or they could even rate them by categories... Score X for roleplay value, score Y for XP efficiency etc... Thus players could easily pick the best even if their preferences are different... If they don't want to sift through random crap then just play the well-rated quests...
And that's not even getting into player-created tasks like get 5 widgets for crafting or kill 5 mice harassing a guild city/player's house etc...
In which MMO with player created quests does that currently work without both the ratings and the quest system being gamed?
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
Do players want to sift through legions of low quality player quests to find a good one without the aid of a powerful search engine such as Google backing it?
They... don't... NEED... to...
Players could for instance rate quests 1-5 stars after playing them... Or they could even rate them by categories... Score X for roleplay value, score Y for XP efficiency etc... Thus players could easily pick the best even if their preferences are different... If they don't want to sift through random crap then just play the well-rated quests...
And that's not even getting into player-created tasks like get 5 widgets for crafting or kill 5 mice harassing a guild city/player's house etc...
Right, they don't need to, because the first time a quest a player made has been created, it is automatically given appropriate ratings, right?
Or, do players have to play and rate a quest a player made in order for it to have a player rating?
If quests are repeatable, players would find the "best" one, and run it forever, ignoring the rest that might be worse.
If quests aren't repeatable, then there'd eventually be a need for a player to rate a quest that might be crap that nobody had tried before. And what if he rates it perfectly, knowing it was the worst quest he'd ever done?
But yes, They... don't.... NEED... to.......right?
Right, they don't need to, because the first time a quest a player made has been created, it is automatically given appropriate ratings, right?
Or, do players have to play and rate a quest a player made in order for it to have a player rating?
If quests are repeatable, players would find the "best" one, and run it forever, ignoring the rest that might be worse.
If quests aren't repeatable, then there'd eventually be a need for a player to rate a quest that might be crap that nobody had tried before. And what if he rates it perfectly, knowing it was the worst quest he'd ever done?
But yes, They... don't.... NEED... to.......right?
Just wow... I see this is a waste of time... But I'll try one last time to make you see the light that everyone else can see...
Every player does not have to play and rate every quest. Just like on youtube you don't have to watch and rate every video. If you don't want crap you can just go by other people's ratings/advice and most of the time you'll get what you want.
If players repeat quests so what? No skin off your nose... People are repeating what passes for quests in most every game as it is. Or one could even limit their ability to play a quest until they have completed x other quests. That's a decision the devs can make according to taste and has no bearing on the discussion.
Ratings can come into effect after X players have played them, and thus quests would soon get the appropriate ranking...
Seriously, this sort of thing is fairly trivial, and you don't need a sophisticated search engine...
Quests just like youtube will not be rated until *here it comes* the players have actually played them. Months down the line, and several thousand players playing quests later there will be enough material that a new person coming in will be able to see accurate ratings.
However this does not work at the start, nor does it work for new qeusts because they are not yet rated.
At the begining and few new quests people will still be going through potentially thousands of quests that "might" be interesting. Most however will be crap.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There is absolutley no reason why it can't work on day 1 or 2. You don't need thousands of play-throughs and several months to start getting reasonably accurate results. Results can easily be within a tolerable limit the 1st day.
Results can only be accurate within a day or two if you have enough people playing the quests in question. Which still means hundreds to thousands of people playing looking for/scrolling through tje new quests to play them tjen rate them. That is exactly what happened with coh
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Right, they don't need to, because the first time a quest a player made has been created, it is automatically given appropriate ratings, right?
Or, do players have to play and rate a quest a player made in order for it to have a player rating?
If quests are repeatable, players would find the "best" one, and run it forever, ignoring the rest that might be worse.
If quests aren't repeatable, then there'd eventually be a need for a player to rate a quest that might be crap that nobody had tried before. And what if he rates it perfectly, knowing it was the worst quest he'd ever done?
But yes, They... don't.... NEED... to.......right?
Just wow... I see this is a waste of time... But I'll try one last time to make you see the light that everyone else can see...
Every player does not have to play and rate every quest. Just like on youtube you don't have to watch and rate every video. If you don't want crap you can just go by other people's ratings/advice and most of the time you'll get what you want.
If players repeat quests so what? No skin off your nose... People are repeating what passes for quests in most every game as it is. Or one could even limit their ability to play a quest until they have completed x other quests. That's a decision the devs can make according to taste and has no bearing on the discussion.
Ratings can come into effect after X players have played them, and thus quests would soon get the appropriate ranking...
Seriously, this sort of thing is fairly trivial, and you don't need a sophisticated search engine...
Why are you not seeing the rather large step of that process where people have to play through a lot of crap before your system even begins to kick in?
Such a system works for YouTube because
- it has hundreds of millions of people creating content
- most of that content is either
a) created because it benefits the creator significantly (ad revenue and marketing) or
b) shared content that someone else created (TV, movie, performance)
- the viewer is not paying for the content
- the content requires nothing more than a browser on their phone, laptop or PC to access
- exiting in the middle of a video one is not enjoying and going to the next one is a single-click process
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
Right, they don't need to, because the first time a quest a player made has been created, it is automatically given appropriate ratings, right?
Or, do players have to play and rate a quest a player made in order for it to have a player rating?
If quests are repeatable, players would find the "best" one, and run it forever, ignoring the rest that might be worse.
If quests aren't repeatable, then there'd eventually be a need for a player to rate a quest that might be crap that nobody had tried before. And what if he rates it perfectly, knowing it was the worst quest he'd ever done?
But yes, They... don't.... NEED... to.......right?
Just wow... I see this is a waste of time... But I'll try one last time to make you see the light that everyone else can see...
Every player does not have to play and rate every quest. Just like on youtube you don't have to watch and rate every video. If you don't want crap you can just go by other people's ratings/advice and most of the time you'll get what you want.
If players repeat quests so what? No skin off your nose... People are repeating what passes for quests in most every game as it is. Or one could even limit their ability to play a quest until they have completed x other quests. That's a decision the devs can make according to taste and has no bearing on the discussion.
Ratings can come into effect after X players have played them, and thus quests would soon get the appropriate ranking...
Seriously, this sort of thing is fairly trivial, and you don't need a sophisticated search engine...
Why are you not seeing the rather large step of that process where people have to play through a lot of crap before your system even begins to kick in?
It is pretty funny. Even the part he highlighted shows the very flaw in his own suggestion. If you can go by other people's ratings, that means other people had to play and rate the quest.
Really though, if more people add quests through player creation, then there are more quests which need players to play them and rate them. Which means more 'crap' quests to slog through.
I'd much rather see an MMORPG that has players interact and affect the world and others in it through their own desires. I'd much prefer this to sitting in a superhero building which teleports me to a "Find the Crate!" mission some dude made in less time than it took me to type this reply.
Wouldn't it be preferable to hear and read of players enjoying something that happened in a game, that players caused, was not scripted, and had them awestruck by the events that unfolded?
Edit: as an aside, I've noticed it isn't often that when a forum goer here makes a suggestion, and has serious flaws in it pointed out, that the idea suggestor agrees that there are flaws and says perhaps a different solution would be ideal then. It seems usually they either defend their idea to the death refusing to see any flaws, or alter it repeatedly trying to shave off enough of the square peg to fit it in the round hole.
Other people playing and rating is not a downside to you any more than it is on youtube... Jesus... You don't have to watch a lot of crap on youtube before seeing the good stuff, because someone else always will... Some people actually like seeing what is out there and reporting back... Some people will play quests on random, some will play quests by their friends if they are allowed to choose them, some will play quests adviced by people on blogs etc... You are either just trolling or are...
Second there is guaranteed to be more players than makers so content will be played and rated faster than it is created.
If we assume 1000 players and 100 of those are also quest-makers (certainly too high a figure) on day 1 for instance. Further let's assume a quest needs 5 votes before having it's rating count.... Reasonable numbers for ranking would be available pretty much immediately and would only get better with time. This is not a 'rather large step' by any definition.
Other people playing and rating is not a downside to you any more than it is on youtube... Jesus... You don't have to watch a lot of crap on youtube before seeing the good stuff, because someone else always will... Some people actually like seeing what is out there and reporting back... Some people will play quests on random, some will play quests by their friends if they are allowed to choose them, some will play quests adviced by people on blogs etc... You are either just trolling or are...
Second there is guaranteed to be more players than makers so content will be played and rated faster than it is created.
If we assume 1000 players and 100 of those are also quest-makers (certainly too high a figure) on day 1 for instance. Further let's assume a quest needs 5 votes before having it's rating count.... Reasonable numbers for ranking would be available pretty much immediately and would only get better with time. This is not a 'rather large step' by any definition.
[mod edit]
I underlined the part that was actually related to the topic and not a personal attack so others can skip to the part where you weren't insulting others who were discussing the matter.
Now to address the points you bring up without insulting:
If there are as you say "guaranteed" to be more players than content creators, does that mean a player is only allowed to create one quest?
In other words, if those 100 players of the 1000 create quests in 30 minutes, but that take 3 hours to complete, and do so repeatedly, I could reasonably expect there to be more quests made by players than players are able to complete. In other words, it would be likely that a person would encounter a situation where there was a large amount of unrated quests created by players.
As for the first bit I underlined, I'd like to point out that the "someone else" is in fact a person, who did exactly what I said would be required - they rated something that wasn't rated yet.
I'm sorry if you are done talking to me, but I will continue to debate ideas and discuss them in a civil manner with those who wish to share their thoughts and ideas on the subject of the thread.
Players cannot search got a particular rated quest if it has not yet been rated. Which is all the new quests. I have personally played hundreds if coh architect missions that were either unrated or had very few ratings just to see if they were. Most weren't.
It is very simple. The quests need to be played and rated by a significant number of peoole before the ratings have any accuracy. In order to rate them people need to find them and play them which means wading throuhj tonnes of crap.
[mod edit]
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Players cannot search got a particular rated quest if it has not yet been rated. Which is all the new quests. I have personally played hundreds if coh architect missions that were either unrated or had very few ratings just to see if they were. Most weren't.
It is very simple. The quests need to be played and rated by a significant number of peoole before the ratings have any accuracy. In order to rate them people need to find them and play them which means wading throuhj tonnes of crap. [mod edit]
Yeah I remember that from CoH as well.
I think perhaps a mission architect type system isn't ideal for this. While I do think players can and should have meaningful interactions with other players, I feel that the entire game should be encouraging that, rather than a subsection.
For example, a fantasy MMO with players able to band together to create towns, walls, farms. There is no in game quest to do so, nor is there any gamey benifit. The game would provide simply the ability for a player to farm, and the ability to move stones or shape wood into huts. But the players could find they prefer protection of walls, and the help in gathering food to last a long time. Likewise the same game would allow a person not interested in town life to make his own hut off in the wilderness. He could hunt, fish, or have a small farm for his food. In either situation it'd be up to the players to decide, and of course the hermit could come to town and live there, and a wandering player could take up in his hut, or knock it down.
I think I would prefer such a thing to a system where you get to pick the enemies clothing, difficulty, and let others see if they like the experience points they get from killing your clothed enemy.
Edit: Just want to add that mission architecting, and create-a-quest, and experience points can work in the games that are designed to accomidate such things. I don't think they are a detriment overall. I just believe the best player experiences happen from players interacting through emergent gameplay.
- it has hundreds of millions of people creating content
- most of that content is either
a) created because it benefits the creator significantly (ad revenue and marketing) or
b) shared content that someone else created (TV, movie, performance)
- the viewer is not paying for the content
- the content requires nothing more than a browser on their phone, laptop or PC to access
- exiting in the middle of a video one is not enjoying and going to the next one is a single-click process
The number of people creating content is irrelevant. What counts is the number of raters compared to creators.
Created content can benefit the creator if the devs choose to let it. But even if it doesn't people will still make it. See any number of fan-made game mods and adventures for various games.
The player need not pay either, games can be F2P. But even so rating systems work when people are paying too. See ebay, the Google Play store etc...
Browser MMOs are nothing new. But again has no relevance to whether the system would work.
Exiting a quest for the next one can be a single click process if the devs so choose (I'll spell out the obvious here and suggest the devs make that an automatic low rating for that quest ofc, since I expect you are incapable of making that leap yourself)
In short your little list is completely irrelevant and are completely invalid as arguments.
- it has hundreds of millions of people creating content
- most of that content is either
a) created because it benefits the creator significantly (ad revenue and marketing) or
b) shared content that someone else created (TV, movie, performance)
- the viewer is not paying for the content
- the content requires nothing more than a browser on their phone, laptop or PC to access
- exiting in the middle of a video one is not enjoying and going to the next one is a single-click process
The number of people creating content is irrelevant. What counts is the number of raters compared to creators.
Exiting a quest for the next one can be a single click process if the devs so choose (I'll spell out the obvious here and suggest the devs make that an automatic low rating for that quest ofc, since I expect you are incapable of making that leap yourself)
In short your little list is completely irrelevant and are completely invalid as arguments.
So if there are 10% more raters than creators, but the creators create 10x as much content as there are creators... what then?
If I'm on a mission, and it is awesome, and I'm really enjoying it, and it is well written, but a friend wants to team up I would feel very torn because under your system I would either have to abandon my friend, or have to give the awesome quest I'm on an automatic low rating even though I think it deserves far higher. Not a huge leap from what you wrote, but it does present a problem with it.
Edit: Also lowendahl, can you please stop insulting people who are discussing your idea?
- it has hundreds of millions of people creating content
- most of that content is either
a) created because it benefits the creator significantly (ad revenue and marketing) or
b) shared content that someone else created (TV, movie, performance)
- the viewer is not paying for the content
- the content requires nothing more than a browser on their phone, laptop or PC to access
- exiting in the middle of a video one is not enjoying and going to the next one is a single-click process
The number of people creating content is irrelevant. What counts is the number of raters compared to creators.
Created content can benefit the creator if the devs choose to let it. But even if it doesn't people will still make it. See any number of fan-made game mods and adventures for various games.
The player need not pay either, games can be F2P. But even so rating systems work when people are paying too. See ebay, the Google Play store etc...
Browser MMOs are nothing new. But again has no relevance to whether the system would work.
Exiting a quest for the next one can be a single click process if the devs so choose (I'll spell out the obvious here and suggest the devs make that an automatic low rating for that quest ofc, since I expect you are incapable of making that leap yourself)
In short your little list is completely irrelevant and are completely invalid as arguments.
The snide remarks aside, each one of those is relevant for a variety of reasons.
You are trying to draw a parallel between two different forms of entertainment, YouTube being primarily a passive diversion and an MMO being a game where the expectation on part of both the developer and the player is for active engagement.
The number of people creating content is definitely relevant because we are talking about both a business and an entertainment medium.
That money is involved is a significant concern, the type of business model matters not. For people to spend money they must feel they are being entertained or that the game is engaging. Players won't know a good quest from a bad one, and everyone's measure of good is different. Dungeon Empires was a perfect example of that, where the dungeons with the highest ratings were the ones that returned the most loot with the lowest difficulty. Now, you could add filters and comment sections and all sorts of manners of getting the best rating possible if you want, but then you are creating just that much more garbage for the user to wade for in order to get to the content that he came to play.
On exiting a quest, it is not a single click process unless you plan to have the other quests in a list somewhere inside the existing one, basically building a framework that supports and encourages just bailing the minute things go south.
I had asked you a question earlier in the thread when you said that with a rating system players don't need to sift through a lot of garbage to get to the good stuff. You seemed rather adamant in your stance so I am interested in your answer:
In which MMO with player created quests does that currently work without both the ratings and the quest system being gamed?
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
Why is it rocket science to allow players to give out quests?
Why can't questing serve more of a purpose than getting a chunk of exp and loot?
Here's what I want:
When you log in the first time you either pick a guild(or start a guild) with friends or you choose a guild that suits what you want to do ingame.
PVP guilds, PVE guilds, crafting guilds, convenience guilds...all guilds would have a focus and provide activities geared to what players are looking for instead of static NPCs doling out quests, gear and travel/home services.
I'd rather do quests that help my guild and suit my interests than do static quests have no affect on anything but my exp and income.
If my guild wants to have a castle and needs X, Y and Z to get it built, that's what I want to spend my time doing. Helping build up something that actually sticks instead of doing meaningless fetch runs.
If my guild wants to have the best transport service in the game, I'm gonna help build ships and docks. Whether its gathering materials or being involved in a crafting raid, what I'm doing is going to have some real weight and validity in the game world. It'll be competitive and it'll help other players as well.
sounds like a pure sandbox... : )
EVE has contracts but i never succeed to do something for the tiny time i played : /
This sounds a lot like Topia Online, which also has more player interactions and absolutely no (non-player controlled) npcs. It's also how I envision the future.
Not a terrible idea... if it is players being actual questgivers for crafting, objectives based on dynamic gameplay and not needing to actually be online. Logging off put placing a request for materials where you automativcally reward someone for goods and they get gold and (experience? 0 you cant reneg or ggank them back for could really work.
Why is it rocket science to allow players to give out quests?
Why can't questing serve more of a purpose than getting a chunk of exp and loot?
Here's what I want:
When you log in the first time you either pick a guild(or start a guild) with friends or you choose a guild that suits what you want to do ingame.
PVP guilds, PVE guilds, crafting guilds, convenience guilds...all guilds would have a focus and provide activities geared to what players are looking for instead of static NPCs doling out quests, gear and travel/home services.
I'd rather do quests that help my guild and suit my interests than do static quests have no affect on anything but my exp and income.
If my guild wants to have a castle and needs X, Y and Z to get it built, that's what I want to spend my time doing. Helping build up something that actually sticks instead of doing meaningless fetch runs.
If my guild wants to have the best transport service in the game, I'm gonna help build ships and docks. Whether its gathering materials or being involved in a crafting raid, what I'm doing is going to have some real weight and validity in the game world. It'll be competitive and it'll help other players as well.
You need NPC's, if a MMO is less popular at a certain time, the supply chain gets interrupted & players that DO play will suffer because of it and start to quit, therefore starting a snowball effect leading to empty worlds.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Comments
No, I'm not the topic.
On topic:
While the OP does bring up things like a castle needing certain things to be completed that a player can help with, I'd like to talk about motivation.
I believe that a player wanting to do something can change over time, and a system that groups players into a guild or profession, chosen during character creation, would be a hinderance to enjoyment more than anything.
EVE provides a good example of player driven content. There isn't an orc in space that will reward you with 100 XP if you go into nullsec and take over a hostile alliance's territory. Players do it anyways, because they want to. It benifits them.
For a player to enjoy what he does in a game, he generally has to want to do it.
So perhaps the fewer NPC future lies not with player created quests, XP, or profession/guilds. It probably lies with freeform advancement in many directions, and a players sense of accomplishment. If I am able to make a map using in game cartography, and use the map to get around, I can. But I can also navigate by sight. Selling maps I make might be profitable, especially if they arae complete or lead to interesting areas. The game shouldn't have a quest to make maps, but should give players the option to do so and do what they will with that ability.
The more options, abilities, and interesting ways to interact with other players that are included in a game, the less likely the exlamation orc is a fun experience.
They... don't... NEED... to...
Players could for instance rate quests 1-5 stars after playing them... Or they could even rate them by categories... Score X for roleplay value, score Y for XP efficiency etc... Thus players could easily pick the best even if their preferences are different... If they don't want to sift through random crap then just play the well-rated quests...
And that's not even getting into player-created tasks like get 5 widgets for crafting or kill 5 mice harassing a guild city/player's house etc...
In which MMO with player created quests does that currently work without both the ratings and the quest system being gamed?
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
Right, they don't need to, because the first time a quest a player made has been created, it is automatically given appropriate ratings, right?
Or, do players have to play and rate a quest a player made in order for it to have a player rating?
If quests are repeatable, players would find the "best" one, and run it forever, ignoring the rest that might be worse.
If quests aren't repeatable, then there'd eventually be a need for a player to rate a quest that might be crap that nobody had tried before. And what if he rates it perfectly, knowing it was the worst quest he'd ever done?
But yes, They... don't.... NEED... to.......right?
Just wow... I see this is a waste of time... But I'll try one last time to make you see the light that everyone else can see...
Every player does not have to play and rate every quest. Just like on youtube you don't have to watch and rate every video. If you don't want crap you can just go by other people's ratings/advice and most of the time you'll get what you want.
If players repeat quests so what? No skin off your nose... People are repeating what passes for quests in most every game as it is. Or one could even limit their ability to play a quest until they have completed x other quests. That's a decision the devs can make according to taste and has no bearing on the discussion.
Ratings can come into effect after X players have played them, and thus quests would soon get the appropriate ranking...
Seriously, this sort of thing is fairly trivial, and you don't need a sophisticated search engine...
Quests just like youtube will not be rated until *here it comes* the players have actually played them. Months down the line, and several thousand players playing quests later there will be enough material that a new person coming in will be able to see accurate ratings.
However this does not work at the start, nor does it work for new qeusts because they are not yet rated.
At the begining and few new quests people will still be going through potentially thousands of quests that "might" be interesting. Most however will be crap.
How wonderfully unsubstantiated...
There is absolutley no reason why it can't work on day 1 or 2. You don't need thousands of play-throughs and several months to start getting reasonably accurate results. Results can easily be within a tolerable limit the 1st day.
Why are you not seeing the rather large step of that process where people have to play through a lot of crap before your system even begins to kick in?
Such a system works for YouTube because
- it has hundreds of millions of people creating content
- most of that content is either
a) created because it benefits the creator significantly (ad revenue and marketing) or
b) shared content that someone else created (TV, movie, performance)
- the viewer is not paying for the content
- the content requires nothing more than a browser on their phone, laptop or PC to access
- exiting in the middle of a video one is not enjoying and going to the next one is a single-click process
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
It is pretty funny. Even the part he highlighted shows the very flaw in his own suggestion. If you can go by other people's ratings, that means other people had to play and rate the quest.
Really though, if more people add quests through player creation, then there are more quests which need players to play them and rate them. Which means more 'crap' quests to slog through.
I'd much rather see an MMORPG that has players interact and affect the world and others in it through their own desires. I'd much prefer this to sitting in a superhero building which teleports me to a "Find the Crate!" mission some dude made in less time than it took me to type this reply.
Wouldn't it be preferable to hear and read of players enjoying something that happened in a game, that players caused, was not scripted, and had them awestruck by the events that unfolded?
Edit: as an aside, I've noticed it isn't often that when a forum goer here makes a suggestion, and has serious flaws in it pointed out, that the idea suggestor agrees that there are flaws and says perhaps a different solution would be ideal then. It seems usually they either defend their idea to the death refusing to see any flaws, or alter it repeatedly trying to shave off enough of the square peg to fit it in the round hole.
[mod edit]
Other people playing and rating is not a downside to you any more than it is on youtube... Jesus... You don't have to watch a lot of crap on youtube before seeing the good stuff, because someone else always will... Some people actually like seeing what is out there and reporting back... Some people will play quests on random, some will play quests by their friends if they are allowed to choose them, some will play quests adviced by people on blogs etc... You are either just trolling or are...
Second there is guaranteed to be more players than makers so content will be played and rated faster than it is created.
If we assume 1000 players and 100 of those are also quest-makers (certainly too high a figure) on day 1 for instance. Further let's assume a quest needs 5 votes before having it's rating count.... Reasonable numbers for ranking would be available pretty much immediately and would only get better with time. This is not a 'rather large step' by any definition.
[mod edit]
I underlined the part that was actually related to the topic and not a personal attack so others can skip to the part where you weren't insulting others who were discussing the matter.
Now to address the points you bring up without insulting:
If there are as you say "guaranteed" to be more players than content creators, does that mean a player is only allowed to create one quest?
In other words, if those 100 players of the 1000 create quests in 30 minutes, but that take 3 hours to complete, and do so repeatedly, I could reasonably expect there to be more quests made by players than players are able to complete. In other words, it would be likely that a person would encounter a situation where there was a large amount of unrated quests created by players.
As for the first bit I underlined, I'd like to point out that the "someone else" is in fact a person, who did exactly what I said would be required - they rated something that wasn't rated yet.
I'm sorry if you are done talking to me, but I will continue to debate ideas and discuss them in a civil manner with those who wish to share their thoughts and ideas on the subject of the thread.
It is very simple. The quests need to be played and rated by a significant number of peoole before the ratings have any accuracy. In order to rate them people need to find them and play them which means wading throuhj tonnes of crap.
[mod edit]
Yeah I remember that from CoH as well.
I think perhaps a mission architect type system isn't ideal for this. While I do think players can and should have meaningful interactions with other players, I feel that the entire game should be encouraging that, rather than a subsection.
For example, a fantasy MMO with players able to band together to create towns, walls, farms. There is no in game quest to do so, nor is there any gamey benifit. The game would provide simply the ability for a player to farm, and the ability to move stones or shape wood into huts. But the players could find they prefer protection of walls, and the help in gathering food to last a long time. Likewise the same game would allow a person not interested in town life to make his own hut off in the wilderness. He could hunt, fish, or have a small farm for his food. In either situation it'd be up to the players to decide, and of course the hermit could come to town and live there, and a wandering player could take up in his hut, or knock it down.
I think I would prefer such a thing to a system where you get to pick the enemies clothing, difficulty, and let others see if they like the experience points they get from killing your clothed enemy.
Edit: Just want to add that mission architecting, and create-a-quest, and experience points can work in the games that are designed to accomidate such things. I don't think they are a detriment overall. I just believe the best player experiences happen from players interacting through emergent gameplay.
The number of people creating content is irrelevant. What counts is the number of raters compared to creators.
Created content can benefit the creator if the devs choose to let it. But even if it doesn't people will still make it. See any number of fan-made game mods and adventures for various games.
The player need not pay either, games can be F2P. But even so rating systems work when people are paying too. See ebay, the Google Play store etc...
Browser MMOs are nothing new. But again has no relevance to whether the system would work.
Exiting a quest for the next one can be a single click process if the devs so choose (I'll spell out the obvious here and suggest the devs make that an automatic low rating for that quest ofc, since I expect you are incapable of making that leap yourself)
In short your little list is completely irrelevant and are completely invalid as arguments.
So if there are 10% more raters than creators, but the creators create 10x as much content as there are creators... what then?
If I'm on a mission, and it is awesome, and I'm really enjoying it, and it is well written, but a friend wants to team up I would feel very torn because under your system I would either have to abandon my friend, or have to give the awesome quest I'm on an automatic low rating even though I think it deserves far higher. Not a huge leap from what you wrote, but it does present a problem with it.
Edit: Also lowendahl, can you please stop insulting people who are discussing your idea?
The snide remarks aside, each one of those is relevant for a variety of reasons.
You are trying to draw a parallel between two different forms of entertainment, YouTube being primarily a passive diversion and an MMO being a game where the expectation on part of both the developer and the player is for active engagement.
The number of people creating content is definitely relevant because we are talking about both a business and an entertainment medium.
That money is involved is a significant concern, the type of business model matters not. For people to spend money they must feel they are being entertained or that the game is engaging. Players won't know a good quest from a bad one, and everyone's measure of good is different. Dungeon Empires was a perfect example of that, where the dungeons with the highest ratings were the ones that returned the most loot with the lowest difficulty. Now, you could add filters and comment sections and all sorts of manners of getting the best rating possible if you want, but then you are creating just that much more garbage for the user to wade for in order to get to the content that he came to play.
On exiting a quest, it is not a single click process unless you plan to have the other quests in a list somewhere inside the existing one, basically building a framework that supports and encourages just bailing the minute things go south.
I had asked you a question earlier in the thread when you said that with a rating system players don't need to sift through a lot of garbage to get to the good stuff. You seemed rather adamant in your stance so I am interested in your answer:
In which MMO with player created quests does that currently work without both the ratings and the quest system being gamed?
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
sounds like a pure sandbox... : )
EVE has contracts but i never succeed to do something for the tiny time i played : /
You need NPC's, if a MMO is less popular at a certain time, the supply chain gets interrupted & players that DO play will suffer because of it and start to quit, therefore starting a snowball effect leading to empty worlds.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
I wouldn't say the future of MMO's has to have anything to do with Age of Wushu. It's seems like a small niche game at best.
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.