Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
If a purely player-driven MMO were to come out, would you play it?
Neverdyne
Member Posts: 167
The world would be completely player-driven. Think of a world where "nature" elements are there, but anything "man-made" is done by players. Players can kill whoever they want, they can loot whatever they want from others, etc. Character progression would be in the form of skill trees similar to SWG; you choose to be whatever you want. There would be no pre-made cities, or factions, etc. Instead players can build whatever they want similar to Minecraft or Rift Dimensions (but nothing would be instanced). Buildings can be destroyed by player attacks. Crafters would need to compete to get the best resources (again, similar to SWG). Would you play such a game? A box full of sand and a few shovels, but nothing else? I've always been curious about how such a game would be received.
Comments
Part of my design course requires to fully document and design a game. I have chosen to do an MMO. Except for the 'starting area' everything else in the game is player content except the natural environment. This includes systems for quests (Players can create quests or rather 'work' for other people to do such as gathering resources etc...), resources in the world and how players can interact with them (from vegitation and animals through to doing things like build and place buildings, roads, mines etc...). Even things like the banking and trade system are player created and driven (such as creating trade routes, local markets, trasportation of goods to a local pick-up point).
I personally think it is the way MMO's should have gone a long time ago. I also don't ahve a problem with combining generic themepark idea's with sandpark idea's and don't see PvP as a neccessity, dependes on the theme and target audience (I personally have a design that allows PvP but in tiers so people can be fully PvE oriented, a mix of PvE and PvP and full blown PvP anywhere and who you can PvP is detnermined by what tier they choose to be in. And changing tier is a very slow process).
I have no problem with the idea you of a player driven MMO and hope to eventually get mine out there.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
L
T
of fucking course I would. I been suggesting it for a while now. Mind sets change. Player driven and player made MMO world design is the future. It's the only way to keep attachment flowing.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Play Wurm Online on a pvp (Epic server). No skill tree but everything is skill based.
http://www.wurmonline.com/
Nope. I don't think you really realize how much dev intervention and management is needed for what you suggest.
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
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
Edit: Did not mean to post in this thread..
My bad..
PM before you report at least or you could just block.
I don't understand the obsession with a complete 100% player driven world.
What makes you think the world would look good? Honestly, I don't trust my fellow gamers' expertise, no offense :-)
My thoughts exactly, and I don't think it's a negative frame of mind to think that way either. It's just true. The best games take our freedom and direct it towards something smart and rewarding so dumb people don't screw it up. Whether it's a linear theme park or a non-linear sandbox, the tools that you give people make a big difference. Complete freedom or player-driven anything will be a train wreck. If you take this concept and push it's direction towards coop only or only allowing the freedom to do beneficial things for the community, then I'll play it. I doubt a PVP community can do that, but I'm open to the possibility it just hasn't been done right yet.
edit: I don't mean to say PVP is bad. All my MMOs have PVP. I just think it's the wrong mindset to mix with player driven economies, trade, banking, etc. It attracts the crowd that wants to mess with people in any way possible.
All right let's assume there are guys out there who can do the job.
Tell me, for each of these guys, how many other guys will make total rubbish content and screw it all up for you?
Hmm, think SWG pre-cu but without NPC cities or pre-made quests; rather players can build cities wherever and however they want. Players can also destroy cities if they choose to. Quests could be contracts between players. Say you want a guy that's been bothering you dead, you go to a board and put up a "If you kill player X I will give you 100g" bounty, or if you need to craft a new armor that requires leather you could place a "Kill and skin 10 stags and I'll pay you 100g" contract. The system does the transaction automatically upon completition. An MMO where there are systems in place, but everything else is up to the players.
The two problems with that are
there is a very low chance that the guy will make something that isn't crap
there is a very low change what he creates will be what anyone else wants
People get all dreamy eyed over these player-driven worlds because they only consider them from the viewpoint of being able to do all sorts of things they consider wonderful. I really don't think they ever stop to look at it from the perspective of being subjected to all sorts of things others consider wonderful. They do single-player dreaming and never apply the whole "MMO" aspect to it.
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
WTF bro...sounds to me like an empty land with nothing to do in it....so basically you want a mmo developer to create a big world like wow and just have nothing in it but trees??? Sounds kinda lazy to me IMO
Another note a game like that couldnt exist unless it was like server based where people host servers and with a cap of like 200 or so....
Final note...Minecraft classic servers..anyone can join them...and some people join just to destroy other people work...so in this mmorpg u mention nothing would ever get build...cause someone would destroy it mid way
Might be interesting to add player-driven security and leadership in the form of buffs to those voted in to office in a particular town or region. My main problem is really just about a lack of anti-griefing measures. People will make it their mission to take what you give them and screw it up for others. Maybe the game could work to empower bands of good people to try and stop that, but if done wrong you just give more power to the griefers.
Yeah griefing would be the main detractor, but the problem is what constitutes griefing? Look at more recent, non-MMO games, like DayZ. You can kill anyone there, people will be looking to kill you, you loose everything if you die, yet people love the unexpected things that happen because of this freedom. For example:
A guy takes him hostage, and his friend finds them right in time to save him. Little random unexpected events like this would never happen on a game that limits your freedom to kill and be killed. But I can see how being spawn camped by a bunch of players would not be fun. It's a tough balancing act I suppose.
UO was exactly that. The problem however is the fact that that kind of game draws those who have no fear of death and setbacks.
Kinda like people in real life, that's why all we get now are lame make everyone happy games, and scince only a small portion of the populace has any balls as it were, that's what your gonna get.
Don't even try to deny it, 90% of you would run from a fight in real life.
Pacifistic games for pacifistic populations.
over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting...
I prefer sandbox mmorpg. The more content is player driven the better. Currently have my hopes on this game to deliver a good mix of fun gameplay (M&B style) with alot of sandbox:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1688404825/gloria-victis-dark-medieval-mmorpg/posts/359857
https://www.facebook.com/FUtilez ||| https://twitter.com/FUtilez ||| https://www.youtube.com/futilezguild
Strange, I remember (40 years ago now) my unarmed combat instructor (a serving Special Forces soldier, what you would call a master sergeant) telling us: "the best way of winning any fight is by two blocks" and then sending us on our morning run each day. Hardly a pacifist.
What you describe seems to me to be the sentiment of a street thug.
No I dislike builder games, never could get the whole fascination with games like Minecraft, Xyson or Wurm. I need combat to play the central role of a game.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!