I think what i would go for is to have quests similar to Face of Mankind's. Quests made by higher ups, that could either strengthen control in your armies territory or weaken it in another's. this would also land in a more PVP - Sandbox environment. however it would give the quests meaning, it would make them player made, and it would make them feel less repetitious.
Because i can. I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out. Logic every gamers worst enemy.
We've been stuck with quest mechanics for a while and likely will be stuck with them forever. Kill, Fedex, Collect items from dead, Escort, Locate items in area, defend area against waves, click something to activate something. I am sure they're more but it's largely the gist of it.
OK, to the question how would you modify current MMORPG quest to bring freshness to SOME has become a stale aspect of MMORPG gaming?
Quests are just excuses to go to point A to B, or defeat enemies. Why are they so much better in SP games like Dishonored? Because they are dressed up better with scripted events, voice over, and stuff like that.
So the answer is easy. Use more instances. Use more scripting. Use more VO. Dress it up like SP games.
like narius here says. how you fix multiplayer games is by making them more and more like single player and less and less like multiplayer.
Wasn't The Old Republic a "failure" because it was essentially a single player story game only?
Nope. TOR is a failure because it is not SP enough. Look at KOTOR games. Bioware obviously know how to make SP RPGs. TOR is much better off as a SP Game.
The failure is the MMO part.
hear that MMO devs?
the secret to making good MMOs is not to make them
Quests need to be organic, and they need to be less dumbed down. But the biggest change is that we need to quit calling every damn chore in the game a quest.
Collecting 10 rat tails for your to make an herbal remedy is not a quest. Culling an overgrown wolf population is not a quest. Killing the leader of Dungeon X is not a quest.
The Dungeon 1.5 gear line in Vanilla WoW is a quest.
Gaining access to Moria in LotRO is a quest.
Taking out the Praetorians one by one until finally coming face to face with Tyrant in City of Heroes is a quest.
But that's not all. Let' s take it one step further. Embrace some of the sandbox. There are no quest journals. There is no collecting of !s. When you complete a quest (a real quest, not a chore), you receive a memento linked to the quest (sort of like City of Heroes souvenirs for story arcs). But there is not journal that details everything and tells you exactly what to do. We need to have players start thinking for themselves instead of railroading them through every single piece of content.
Think Really's commentary is more handling the concept of 'lead, don't follow' more than anything else.
If you consider that both linear and branching quests both lead in towards an understood ultimate goal or set of goals, then while you've been given a bit of variety in getting there, you're still at the same place.
So even as a baker, all your accomplishments still get summarized with one for or another of 'X saved the day by valiantly Xing the Dark Lord to death!' or some such. Maybe the system gives you multiple endings that vary in the results, but it's a controlled set still and not a narrative you're really building for yourself.
Which, if the game is designed with the intent to tell a story through the player, then that's not really a problem. And that's how most MMOs are still.
Things happen to the world as it's described to the players.
I poked at it before in my first outlining, but expanding on the logic it's somewhat like the quests are being changed so that rather than being the carrot on a stick, telling you that if you do X and Y you'll get Z, you are instead presented with Z as being something that can be obtained, and the quests are elements tossed at you as you try to achieve this on your own accord.
This sounds a bit like not having quests, but really it's more the idea of making the quests chase the players. They are given prompts by the game for the kinds of things they can do, and rewarded for doing any combination of them by just doing them, rather than waiting for a farmhand to them to.
In doing it this way the concept is more to build personal chronicles of the player's progress through the world.
The less rambly version is, make quests into a reactive element. Rather than populating the world with quests that begin and end and chain about to lead you places, make the quest build a story of the player's journey through the world, and reward them for the things they fulfill in that manner.
I'll work on outlining a concept of what I mean a little better for another post.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Opinion is what you're doing: ignoring the core definition of something and pretending some tangent side-comment of the wikipedia article not only matters, but matters more than the core definition.
Sure it's semantic. I'm stating words mean what they mean.
"Up is up" is semantic.
It's also undeniably true, no matter how much you want to focus on the part of the "up" wikipedia article that mentions, "sometimes while in space, up is down".
I never ignored the core definition, I merely understand that it's not the only factor.
When the core definition does not preclude something, and the continued explanation includes it, then it's an accountable part of the concept.
Denying that those aspects exist means you are denying parts of fact, and that makes it an opinion.
And again, if you want to continue, PM me.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
This problem has been talked to death for years. One of the main issues with overhauling quests, is it requires the players to be okay with letting go of questing. If you've ever heard of the 6 Ds, you probably already know that anything that can possibly be done w/ a quest system, has already been done. The best a developer can hope to do is disguise it in an attempt to make us forget we're doing the same crap over and over.
The only real way to 'overhaul' quests, tbh, is to reduce a games dependence on them. Most games use them as the primary method of leading a character through the game. That works great in more linear, single player games. However MMOs have unique issues that make this less beneficial. It worked for a time, but it's long since become a race to the finish line.
The whole point of an MMO is to have massive amounts of people sharing a collective story / world / experience. Traditional quests are meant to lead only a small number of people through a plotline. Having quests take less of a frontline role, be more optional, and less handheld would do quite a lot to overhaul them. However, this also puts a LOT more responsibility on the players to take the initiative. Most won't do this, or don't want to. And that's a major part of why we aren't seeing as big of a push in that direction. One example of this being GW2, in which traditional quests (hearts) were added to the game upon player complaints.
Oki, so continuing my ramble, lets try outlining a concept.
The questing mechanics of the game would largely get pushed off into the background of the game.
The first general level of things might be something like my previously commented achievement system. The whole concept is just that the game is tracking everything the player does and as they hit a milestone in those activities, they are automatically rewarded for it. This more or less is streamlining the basic stuff.
The next level of the system might be random quest elements. We can't really get rid of the way you handle some activities such as fetching and delivery. Even killing creatures is something you need to end up talking to somebody for a reward unless your actions exist entirely without context.
The only thing to do it to just try packaging it in a more human manner than a symbol over someone's head.
The other aspect is a 'chronicle' mechanic. What's happening with this is that the character can have prompts seeded to them. This comes in the form of a random encounter, special item, or some other means. I referenced this concept somewhat in my first post, but the gist of it is that the quest the player obtains has a kind of goal that's generated for their character, and the quest outline is seeded randomly into the world so that the player has to fulfill a set of tasks.
Now that doesn't really change how a lot of stuff works, but it does change the player experience. By generating events that are given contextually to a character, it means they are doing and experiencing something that is unique to them at that moment.
It might be built using the same blocks as much of the rest of the game, but it establishes itself as a one-off activity and reward for the one receiving it. Add to that the ability for the game to encapsulate that experience in a form of journal for the character, and you have a traceable, largely unique narrative built around each person.
These chronicle events can perhaps happen as a result of the total amount of milestones a player achieves and maybe influenced by the types as well.
If the chronicle system is extended to account for building a narrative of the server, this opens up additional potential. What I mean here is the idea that the server does the same thing it would on tracking player milestones, but on an aggregate level, with prompts being caused by some milestones being met, a total level of milestones, a dev designed prompt, or maybe even at random.
This adds to the ability for players to feel like they're not just obtaining rewards for their character in a direct manner, but can also obtain renown by seeking out events generated by prompts to the server. They become a chronicled part of the entire server's narrative, earning a special form of reward as well as a place in the game's history.
This concept isn't really aimed at changing the fundamentals of the game system, but the presentation and ambient elements of how the narrative is built can affect how players perceive their contributions to the game.
In doing this it creates the notion that players are unique in their achievements in the game. Them killing the raid boss means them killing the raid boss, and that head strung up on the pole over the town isn't going to show up every five minutes as some other group comes along.
Heads might show up again, but it's a 'different boss' and a 'different head' in a 'different place'. The mechanics are all there and the redundancy/finite total of mechanics in the game technically remains, but it is shuffled about and handed an extra system to try and keep those options from repeating themselves so frequently, by making them exist in a less 'canned' manner.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I never ignored the core definition, I merely understand that it's not the only factor.
When the core definition does not preclude something, and the continued explanation includes it, then it's an accountable part of the concept.
Denying that those aspects exist means you are denying parts of fact, and that makes it an opinion.
Your mistake is thinking it matters to prove rewarded achievements aren't achievements. I'm not talking about that, so I'm not trying to avoid "precluding" anything.
Instead we're talking about how rewarded achievements are quests.
They precisely match the definition of quests. Whether or not you choose to also believe they're achievements I don't really care about, and frankly that's more opinion than anything.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am not not noting achievements aren't achievements, I don't even know how you got that confused, perhaps read my post again.
And I know you're not trying to avoid precluding something, I'm saying you are precluding things.
You're talking about how rewarded achievements are quests.
I call it an achievement, as it's called an achievement. It fulfills the stipulations to be called an achievement and the way in which it's presented to the players is understood as an achievement mechanic.
You call it a quest, because you want to call it a quest. It fulfills the stipulations to be a quest, but it is not presented in the manner of a quest, so players would not treat it the same.
Never once have I said it's not also a quest mechanic, but I also understand that presentation and use governs it's perception. First and foremost it's necessary for me to have the distinction of achievements not being a quest not because it's different mechanically, but it's different for the player's interaction.
I've said it before multiple times that there can be and is obvious overlap in mechanics, that doesn't make one word or the other suddenly right or wrong. That's your mistake. Your sense of exclusivity.
That's why you are wrong, and that's why it's your opinion.
This has been part of my commentary twice previously and you have overlooked and failed to address that fact twice now. It's even been part of my greater explanations and suggestions of questing mechanics to which you have entirely failed to address as well.
As always if you are gonna keep trying to use these incorrect semantics, PM me.
EDIT: As example by what you respond to me with, you use the definition of one and disregard the facts of the definition of the other. You note the definition says verbatim what you claim, but you conveniently forget it also says what I note as well, meaning you are omitting details that changes the conclusion. Making your argument a half truth at best, and consequently wrong. So your opinion is I'm wrong, because your opinion is only half the facts.
So you respond to me saying ' oh but the definition includes this' and I say 'yes, but it also includes this', and you again only repeat the half that verifies your own stance. As you do now and as you'll do again.
I understand that the definition includes more than what you are trying to claim, and that consequently means you're only taking a part of the truth.
I certainly do concede to the truth, but I accept all of it instead of only that which conveniences me.
That is why you're wrong. Get over it and move on.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You call it a quest, because you want to call it a quest.
No I call it a quest because it matches, verbatim, the definition of quest.
Your problem is you're unwilling to admit that "Gosh, yes the dictionary definition does match verbatim what I'm describing and that's irrefutable evidence that what I'm describing is a quest." If you'd just concede rock-solid evidence-proven truths instead of dancing around them all the time, this discussion would've ended pages ago.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Age of Conan tortage was a great new player experience as a whole and while it had it''s "kill 10 rats" quests along the way the meat of the quest was actually done quite well.
Why do people keep saying this? Tortage was "follow the linear path through the dense forest to the glowing marker and insta win" followed by "Hey, hero, we need some bricks, where could we possibly find bricks!" and you're pointed to a giant glowing waypoint that has you picking up glowing sparkling bricks. I uninstalled after that.
Had to stop reading there. Killing 10 bunnies instead of 10 rats IS doing the same thing over again. It gets old fast. Since questing is the only real way to level, there HAS to be a sea of garbage filler quests, as well as the once in a mile good ones.
Are you joking? Which of these is more repetitive?
Killing mobs endlessly, which involves:
Killing mobs
Questing, which involves:
Killing mobs
Collecting things
Delivering things
Bombing things
Playing Plants vs. Zombies
Playing Farmville
Sneaking past enemies to bomb an entrance
Rescuing people
Putting out fires
...etc.
All of that breaks down into "Run to the glowing point on your map, click one button". There's no thought behind it, no actually different mechanics. They're just chores. And they're all the same and always will be the same.
When killing mobs in DAoC, I could choose where to go, make my own difficulty, explore where I wanted, fight different mobs with different tactics. Different players would make each experience unique. The grind lasted too long, that's for sure, but the game didn't try to insult your intelligence by pretending you were doing some noble quest for an NPC (that in reality is just a boring chore). It was an honest grind. I'd rather have the freedom to group with other players and go where I want (with the option of taking a break by finding a quest, doing bounty missions, or kill tasks) than by being forced to solo grind chores for a layabout NPC with no change for 70 levels.
Then go play DAoC or EQ. I don't see why people feel the need to complain when the games they are asking for already exist. Whether you want to believe it or not a quest grind is a fucking quest grind. You can do all the things you listed above in any game.
Had to stop reading there. Killing 10 bunnies instead of 10 rats IS doing the same thing over again. It gets old fast. Since questing is the only real way to level, there HAS to be a sea of garbage filler quests, as well as the once in a mile good ones.
Are you joking? Which of these is more repetitive?
Killing mobs endlessly, which involves:
Killing mobs
Questing, which involves:
Killing mobs
Collecting things
Delivering things
Bombing things
Playing Plants vs. Zombies
Playing Farmville
Sneaking past enemies to bomb an entrance
Rescuing people
Putting out fires
...etc.
All of that breaks down into "Run to the glowing point on your map, click one button". There's no thought behind it, no actually different mechanics. They're just chores. And they're all the same and always will be the same.
When killing mobs in DAoC, I could choose where to go, make my own difficulty, explore where I wanted, fight different mobs with different tactics. Different players would make each experience unique. The grind lasted too long, that's for sure, but the game didn't try to insult your intelligence by pretending you were doing some noble quest for an NPC (that in reality is just a boring chore). It was an honest grind. I'd rather have the freedom to group with other players and go where I want (with the option of taking a break by finding a quest, doing bounty missions, or kill tasks) than by being forced to solo grind chores for a layabout NPC with no change for 70 levels.
Then go play DAoC or EQ. I don't see why people feel the need to complain when the games they are asking for already exist.
Because they don't exist anymore. I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding that the classic games in the forms we love DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE. Or we'd be playing them, wouldn't we?
And no, I can't PvE like I did in DAoC in modern WoW clones, the mechanics are not designed for it.
Well...if we can put the arguments going off course aside for a moment...
I don't see why there cannot be branching quests systems put in place. With multiple choices and/or routes to go with different outcomes and/or rewards. As well as outcomes that may or may not effect other villages, players, etc.
Quests on different timer cycles before they can be selected again..or even some that are one time deals and never surface again at all with unique items given for completion.
And epic quests (Long chain quests) that span the world and give the best items for the effort put forth to complete them. After all...isn't that what quests are? Long journeys/adventures.
Branching quests don't work in MMOs due to players wanted to be the most efficient and the best. So what happens is the first few people through document the different branches. From then on everyone chooses the 1 path that either has the best rewards or if rewards are equal/don't matter, the path that takes the least amount of time.
Then the original people through who chose a path that got a lesser reward will complain until the end of time that they want to go back with that character and choose the other path now because it is better.
AC1 had a quest for the player to kill or not kill a main story character. At first people took different paths to see what would happen. Then everyone switched to the one path to get the best reward. Even today, many years later, players who chose the lesser reward path still ask to be able to go back and switch to get the other reward.
Now if you work with that and try to create a branching system where all choices give the same reward and take exactly the same time, people begin to complain that the choice doesn't matter so why is it even in there. That is why branching and actual cause/effect choice paths work so well in single player rpgs but not MMOrpgs.
Originally posted by mmoguy43 Or you could, you know, balance those quests and tell players the reward ahead of time.
I'm guessing this is a response to my post.
If they're perfectly balanced with equal rewards, most players don't see the choice as mattering so they don't care that there's a choice.
If there isn't a perfect balance (one is faster/easier) or the rewards aren't even, then a lot of players see the easier path/better reward as the only choice so they don't see it as having a choice at all.
That's the problem with MMO vs single player. In single player you're not as worried about getting a lesser reward or doing something harder because you are by yourself, not competing or comparing with others. A lot of MMO players don't care about the "flavor" or the role-playing aspects of their characters simply the progress and the power.
Having played MMOs since The Realm all the way up to now, I've noticed that the majority of MMO players are focused on getting the best stuff and getting it the fastest. For that reason I don't think branching (choice) quest lines is the improvement that is needed. As per my earlier post in the thread I think it is that the current mechanics need more depth/better dressing. Or change the mentality of players so that the journey is the fun and it isn't about how quick you can get to the end, but that is far less likely to happen.
Still think there needs to be dynamic questing. "There's a bunch of zombies attacking the town" quests are fine but they need to have a limit to them on how many people can help and how long they are open to the general public.
For instance, you do a quest for NPC The Dude to go chop down some wood and bring it back to him so he can sit next to a cozy fire in the winter. During the time while you are out trying to complete this quest, he gives a different player on the same level of questing you are a quest to go out and kill some wolves for their pelts to make some coats. Then a third player comes along and gets a quest to go to the tavern to grab him some booze so he can keep warm. All 3 players are on quests for 3 different purposes and may turn them in at different times but all players have different quests available. When all 3 quests are turned in, NPC The Dude now has a couple of Wolf Cloaks, some Firewood, and some Booze to have a nice comfy evening with his lady NPC. If they all get turned in before NPC The Dude makes it back from a romantic dinner with his lady friend, each player receives part of the rewards of other players in addition to their original reward. Heck, throw the players in a group so they can help each other if they want to.
This would encourage players to work together for a common goal, share the rewards, and have a mini-story to share in. Social gaming at its finest.
PS: All those NPCs that want you to kill rats are secretly eating them after you bring them back.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift. I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough. I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Originally posted by mmoguy43 Or you could, you know, balance those quests and tell players the reward ahead of time.
I'm guessing this is a response to my post.
If they're perfectly balanced with equal rewards, most players don't see the choice as mattering so they don't care that there's a choice.
If there isn't a perfect balance (one is faster/easier) or the rewards aren't even, then a lot of players see the easier path/better reward as the only choice so they don't see it as having a choice at all.
That's the problem with MMO vs single player. In single player you're not as worried about getting a lesser reward or doing something harder because you are by yourself, not competing or comparing with others. A lot of MMO players don't care about the "flavor" or the role-playing aspects of their characters simply the progress and the power.
Having played MMOs since The Realm all the way up to now, I've noticed that the majority of MMO players are focused on getting the best stuff and getting it the fastest. For that reason I don't think branching (choice) quest lines is the improvement that is needed. As per my earlier post in the thread I think it is that the current mechanics need more depth/better dressing. Or change the mentality of players so that the journey is the fun and it isn't about how quick you can get to the end, but that is far less likely to happen.
Actually...yeah just make the longer and harder path have the better reward. Even if both rewards are the same or equal in value the outcome can still be meaningful to the player (player kills the hero or lets the villan escape OR +5 Bombastic Bystander rep, -5 Daisy Defenders rep).
It is a shame that your perception of players is preventing you from seeing that this could add some depth to quests.
Originally posted by mmoguy43 Or you could, you know, balance those quests and tell players the reward ahead of time.
I'm guessing this is a response to my post.If they're perfectly balanced with equal rewards, most players don't see the choice as mattering so they don't care that there's a choice.If there isn't a perfect balance (one is faster/easier) or the rewards aren't even, then a lot of players see the easier path/better reward as the only choice so they don't see it as having a choice at all.That's the problem with MMO vs single player. In single player you're not as worried about getting a lesser reward or doing something harder because you are by yourself, not competing or comparing with others. A lot of MMO players don't care about the "flavor" or the role-playing aspects of their characters simply the progress and the power. I guess their playstyle does affect me...Having played MMOs since The Realm all the way up to now, I've noticed that the majority of MMO players are focused on getting the best stuff and getting it the fastest. For that reason I don't think branching (choice) quest lines is the improvement that is needed. As per my earlier post in the thread I think it is that the current mechanics need more depth/better dressing. Or change the mentality of players so that the journey is the fun and it isn't about how quick you can get to the end, but that is far less likely to happen.
Actually...yeah just make the longer and harder path have the better reward. Even if both rewards are the same or equal in value the outcome can still be meaningful to the player (player kills the hero or lets the villan escape OR +5 Bombastic Bystander rep, -5 Daisy Defenders rep).It is a shame that your perception of players is preventing you from seeing that this could add some depth to quests.
Personally, I don't compare or compete with other players. I like the ideas presented and if some players (probably more like most players) go efficiency, I really do not care. I will still role play my character and make choices based on the concept I have for him.
Unfortunately, when the MMO data mines, they will see a greater number of players doing the more efficient branch. Another victim of the "Kill! Kill! Get Reward! MAX LEVEL!" crowd that has invaded MMOs. I guess their playstyle does affect me...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I would replace general quest with vendor randomized missions. Skinner wants skins, smith wants armor, a few people have a child lost in a dungeon and a few more random events.
Quest would also work by being tied into the player economy like SWG
world events like gw2 would be scatter around to give the world life.
Easiest way is: Nothing but long chains with involved stories and cut scenes.
TOR would have been a lot better if they completely removed the filler quests, and only had 1 major arc per planet and 1 major class arc 1-50, IMO.
Beyond that, lots more effort should go into non-quest (story) content like more dungeons, more dynamic content, more straight up grinding mobs in a party to ding levels and build skills.
Comments
Because i can.
I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
Logic every gamers worst enemy.
like narius here says. how you fix multiplayer games is by making them more and more like single player and less and less like multiplayer.
/sarcasm
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
hear that MMO devs?
the secret to making good MMOs is not to make them
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
sounds like all the major MMO studios have hired Narius as consultant for some years now.
the future of MMOs is to get rid of every trace that they were ever MMOs!
oh, wait, thats not the future, that is the present
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
Quests need to be organic, and they need to be less dumbed down. But the biggest change is that we need to quit calling every damn chore in the game a quest.
Collecting 10 rat tails for your to make an herbal remedy is not a quest. Culling an overgrown wolf population is not a quest. Killing the leader of Dungeon X is not a quest.
The Dungeon 1.5 gear line in Vanilla WoW is a quest.
Gaining access to Moria in LotRO is a quest.
Taking out the Praetorians one by one until finally coming face to face with Tyrant in City of Heroes is a quest.
But that's not all. Let' s take it one step further. Embrace some of the sandbox. There are no quest journals. There is no collecting of !s. When you complete a quest (a real quest, not a chore), you receive a memento linked to the quest (sort of like City of Heroes souvenirs for story arcs). But there is not journal that details everything and tells you exactly what to do. We need to have players start thinking for themselves instead of railroading them through every single piece of content.
Think Really's commentary is more handling the concept of 'lead, don't follow' more than anything else.
If you consider that both linear and branching quests both lead in towards an understood ultimate goal or set of goals, then while you've been given a bit of variety in getting there, you're still at the same place.
So even as a baker, all your accomplishments still get summarized with one for or another of 'X saved the day by valiantly Xing the Dark Lord to death!' or some such. Maybe the system gives you multiple endings that vary in the results, but it's a controlled set still and not a narrative you're really building for yourself.
Which, if the game is designed with the intent to tell a story through the player, then that's not really a problem. And that's how most MMOs are still.
Things happen to the world as it's described to the players.
I poked at it before in my first outlining, but expanding on the logic it's somewhat like the quests are being changed so that rather than being the carrot on a stick, telling you that if you do X and Y you'll get Z, you are instead presented with Z as being something that can be obtained, and the quests are elements tossed at you as you try to achieve this on your own accord.
This sounds a bit like not having quests, but really it's more the idea of making the quests chase the players. They are given prompts by the game for the kinds of things they can do, and rewarded for doing any combination of them by just doing them, rather than waiting for a farmhand to them to.
In doing it this way the concept is more to build personal chronicles of the player's progress through the world.
The less rambly version is, make quests into a reactive element. Rather than populating the world with quests that begin and end and chain about to lead you places, make the quest build a story of the player's journey through the world, and reward them for the things they fulfill in that manner.
I'll work on outlining a concept of what I mean a little better for another post.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I never ignored the core definition, I merely understand that it's not the only factor.
When the core definition does not preclude something, and the continued explanation includes it, then it's an accountable part of the concept.
Denying that those aspects exist means you are denying parts of fact, and that makes it an opinion.
And again, if you want to continue, PM me.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
This problem has been talked to death for years. One of the main issues with overhauling quests, is it requires the players to be okay with letting go of questing. If you've ever heard of the 6 Ds, you probably already know that anything that can possibly be done w/ a quest system, has already been done. The best a developer can hope to do is disguise it in an attempt to make us forget we're doing the same crap over and over.
The only real way to 'overhaul' quests, tbh, is to reduce a games dependence on them. Most games use them as the primary method of leading a character through the game. That works great in more linear, single player games. However MMOs have unique issues that make this less beneficial. It worked for a time, but it's long since become a race to the finish line.
The whole point of an MMO is to have massive amounts of people sharing a collective story / world / experience. Traditional quests are meant to lead only a small number of people through a plotline. Having quests take less of a frontline role, be more optional, and less handheld would do quite a lot to overhaul them. However, this also puts a LOT more responsibility on the players to take the initiative. Most won't do this, or don't want to. And that's a major part of why we aren't seeing as big of a push in that direction. One example of this being GW2, in which traditional quests (hearts) were added to the game upon player complaints.
Oki, so continuing my ramble, lets try outlining a concept.
The questing mechanics of the game would largely get pushed off into the background of the game.
The first general level of things might be something like my previously commented achievement system. The whole concept is just that the game is tracking everything the player does and as they hit a milestone in those activities, they are automatically rewarded for it. This more or less is streamlining the basic stuff.
The next level of the system might be random quest elements. We can't really get rid of the way you handle some activities such as fetching and delivery. Even killing creatures is something you need to end up talking to somebody for a reward unless your actions exist entirely without context.
The only thing to do it to just try packaging it in a more human manner than a symbol over someone's head.
The other aspect is a 'chronicle' mechanic. What's happening with this is that the character can have prompts seeded to them. This comes in the form of a random encounter, special item, or some other means. I referenced this concept somewhat in my first post, but the gist of it is that the quest the player obtains has a kind of goal that's generated for their character, and the quest outline is seeded randomly into the world so that the player has to fulfill a set of tasks.
Now that doesn't really change how a lot of stuff works, but it does change the player experience. By generating events that are given contextually to a character, it means they are doing and experiencing something that is unique to them at that moment.
It might be built using the same blocks as much of the rest of the game, but it establishes itself as a one-off activity and reward for the one receiving it. Add to that the ability for the game to encapsulate that experience in a form of journal for the character, and you have a traceable, largely unique narrative built around each person.
These chronicle events can perhaps happen as a result of the total amount of milestones a player achieves and maybe influenced by the types as well.
If the chronicle system is extended to account for building a narrative of the server, this opens up additional potential. What I mean here is the idea that the server does the same thing it would on tracking player milestones, but on an aggregate level, with prompts being caused by some milestones being met, a total level of milestones, a dev designed prompt, or maybe even at random.
This adds to the ability for players to feel like they're not just obtaining rewards for their character in a direct manner, but can also obtain renown by seeking out events generated by prompts to the server. They become a chronicled part of the entire server's narrative, earning a special form of reward as well as a place in the game's history.
This concept isn't really aimed at changing the fundamentals of the game system, but the presentation and ambient elements of how the narrative is built can affect how players perceive their contributions to the game.
In doing this it creates the notion that players are unique in their achievements in the game. Them killing the raid boss means them killing the raid boss, and that head strung up on the pole over the town isn't going to show up every five minutes as some other group comes along.
Heads might show up again, but it's a 'different boss' and a 'different head' in a 'different place'. The mechanics are all there and the redundancy/finite total of mechanics in the game technically remains, but it is shuffled about and handed an extra system to try and keep those options from repeating themselves so frequently, by making them exist in a less 'canned' manner.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Your mistake is thinking it matters to prove rewarded achievements aren't achievements. I'm not talking about that, so I'm not trying to avoid "precluding" anything.
Instead we're talking about how rewarded achievements are quests.
They precisely match the definition of quests. Whether or not you choose to also believe they're achievements I don't really care about, and frankly that's more opinion than anything.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And that's your opinion.
I am not not noting achievements aren't achievements, I don't even know how you got that confused, perhaps read my post again.
And I know you're not trying to avoid precluding something, I'm saying you are precluding things.
You're talking about how rewarded achievements are quests.
I call it an achievement, as it's called an achievement. It fulfills the stipulations to be called an achievement and the way in which it's presented to the players is understood as an achievement mechanic.
You call it a quest, because you want to call it a quest. It fulfills the stipulations to be a quest, but it is not presented in the manner of a quest, so players would not treat it the same.
Never once have I said it's not also a quest mechanic, but I also understand that presentation and use governs it's perception. First and foremost it's necessary for me to have the distinction of achievements not being a quest not because it's different mechanically, but it's different for the player's interaction.
I've said it before multiple times that there can be and is obvious overlap in mechanics, that doesn't make one word or the other suddenly right or wrong. That's your mistake. Your sense of exclusivity.
That's why you are wrong, and that's why it's your opinion.
This has been part of my commentary twice previously and you have overlooked and failed to address that fact twice now. It's even been part of my greater explanations and suggestions of questing mechanics to which you have entirely failed to address as well.
As always if you are gonna keep trying to use these incorrect semantics, PM me.
EDIT: As example by what you respond to me with, you use the definition of one and disregard the facts of the definition of the other. You note the definition says verbatim what you claim, but you conveniently forget it also says what I note as well, meaning you are omitting details that changes the conclusion. Making your argument a half truth at best, and consequently wrong. So your opinion is I'm wrong, because your opinion is only half the facts.
So you respond to me saying ' oh but the definition includes this' and I say 'yes, but it also includes this', and you again only repeat the half that verifies your own stance. As you do now and as you'll do again.
I understand that the definition includes more than what you are trying to claim, and that consequently means you're only taking a part of the truth.
I certainly do concede to the truth, but I accept all of it instead of only that which conveniences me.
That is why you're wrong. Get over it and move on.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
No I call it a quest because it matches, verbatim, the definition of quest.
Your problem is you're unwilling to admit that "Gosh, yes the dictionary definition does match verbatim what I'm describing and that's irrefutable evidence that what I'm describing is a quest." If you'd just concede rock-solid evidence-proven truths instead of dancing around them all the time, this discussion would've ended pages ago.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To give feedback on moderation, contact mikeb@mmorpg.com
Why do people keep saying this? Tortage was "follow the linear path through the dense forest to the glowing marker and insta win" followed by "Hey, hero, we need some bricks, where could we possibly find bricks!" and you're pointed to a giant glowing waypoint that has you picking up glowing sparkling bricks. I uninstalled after that.
Then go play DAoC or EQ. I don't see why people feel the need to complain when the games they are asking for already exist. Whether you want to believe it or not a quest grind is a fucking quest grind. You can do all the things you listed above in any game.
Because they don't exist anymore. I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding that the classic games in the forms we love DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE. Or we'd be playing them, wouldn't we?
And no, I can't PvE like I did in DAoC in modern WoW clones, the mechanics are not designed for it.
Branching quests don't work in MMOs due to players wanted to be the most efficient and the best. So what happens is the first few people through document the different branches. From then on everyone chooses the 1 path that either has the best rewards or if rewards are equal/don't matter, the path that takes the least amount of time.
Then the original people through who chose a path that got a lesser reward will complain until the end of time that they want to go back with that character and choose the other path now because it is better.
AC1 had a quest for the player to kill or not kill a main story character. At first people took different paths to see what would happen. Then everyone switched to the one path to get the best reward. Even today, many years later, players who chose the lesser reward path still ask to be able to go back and switch to get the other reward.
Now if you work with that and try to create a branching system where all choices give the same reward and take exactly the same time, people begin to complain that the choice doesn't matter so why is it even in there. That is why branching and actual cause/effect choice paths work so well in single player rpgs but not MMOrpgs.
I'm guessing this is a response to my post.
If they're perfectly balanced with equal rewards, most players don't see the choice as mattering so they don't care that there's a choice.
If there isn't a perfect balance (one is faster/easier) or the rewards aren't even, then a lot of players see the easier path/better reward as the only choice so they don't see it as having a choice at all.
That's the problem with MMO vs single player. In single player you're not as worried about getting a lesser reward or doing something harder because you are by yourself, not competing or comparing with others. A lot of MMO players don't care about the "flavor" or the role-playing aspects of their characters simply the progress and the power.
Having played MMOs since The Realm all the way up to now, I've noticed that the majority of MMO players are focused on getting the best stuff and getting it the fastest. For that reason I don't think branching (choice) quest lines is the improvement that is needed. As per my earlier post in the thread I think it is that the current mechanics need more depth/better dressing. Or change the mentality of players so that the journey is the fun and it isn't about how quick you can get to the end, but that is far less likely to happen.
Still think there needs to be dynamic questing. "There's a bunch of zombies attacking the town" quests are fine but they need to have a limit to them on how many people can help and how long they are open to the general public.
For instance, you do a quest for NPC The Dude to go chop down some wood and bring it back to him so he can sit next to a cozy fire in the winter. During the time while you are out trying to complete this quest, he gives a different player on the same level of questing you are a quest to go out and kill some wolves for their pelts to make some coats. Then a third player comes along and gets a quest to go to the tavern to grab him some booze so he can keep warm. All 3 players are on quests for 3 different purposes and may turn them in at different times but all players have different quests available. When all 3 quests are turned in, NPC The Dude now has a couple of Wolf Cloaks, some Firewood, and some Booze to have a nice comfy evening with his lady NPC. If they all get turned in before NPC The Dude makes it back from a romantic dinner with his lady friend, each player receives part of the rewards of other players in addition to their original reward. Heck, throw the players in a group so they can help each other if they want to.
This would encourage players to work together for a common goal, share the rewards, and have a mini-story to share in. Social gaming at its finest.
PS: All those NPCs that want you to kill rats are secretly eating them after you bring them back.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Actually...yeah just make the longer and harder path have the better reward. Even if both rewards are the same or equal in value the outcome can still be meaningful to the player (player kills the hero or lets the villan escape OR +5 Bombastic Bystander rep, -5 Daisy Defenders rep).
It is a shame that your perception of players is preventing you from seeing that this could add some depth to quests.
Unfortunately, when the MMO data mines, they will see a greater number of players doing the more efficient branch. Another victim of the "Kill! Kill! Get Reward! MAX LEVEL!" crowd that has invaded MMOs. I guess their playstyle does affect me...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I would replace general quest with vendor randomized missions. Skinner wants skins, smith wants armor, a few people have a child lost in a dungeon and a few more random events.
Quest would also work by being tied into the player economy like SWG
world events like gw2 would be scatter around to give the world life.
Easiest way is: Nothing but long chains with involved stories and cut scenes.
TOR would have been a lot better if they completely removed the filler quests, and only had 1 major arc per planet and 1 major class arc 1-50, IMO.
Beyond that, lots more effort should go into non-quest (story) content like more dungeons, more dynamic content, more straight up grinding mobs in a party to ding levels and build skills.