EQ2: PvP on the horizon....

[Myth]

http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=pround&message.id=2161#M2161


http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=spellart&message.id=41509#M41509


Sounds very cool hopefully more information will be released soon. The good versus evil aspect of EQ2 makes it a natural for some kind of PvP.

[GuildBoss]

Yup, the good vs evil thing is a definite natural for PvP but it doesn't sound like they're going to take full advantage of its potential. Quite the contrary, actually, as it sounds rather lame based on this quote:



I'll say this now so that it can be copied and pasted into the myriad of PvP threads that will be showing up on the forums in the wake of Smed's letter.

I can't reveal more details on the expansion at this time. That will be coming soon enough.

What I will say is that the kind of PvP competition we're introducing will be a new type of combat added on top of the existing game. It won't be the open PvP where you run out and attack others as they travel across the landscape. We don't have that type of full-on PvP in development right now.

This will be completely optional and consensual. It won't affect any existing gameplay. This isn't PvP servers or disputed zones, but rather something new.

Sounds like they may be going the route of WoW's "Battlefields" or maybe just an arena. *yawn*

[Myth]

Hopefully, it won't be too anaemic. Since it is coming in an expansion, I think it will be well thought out. I think Sony has been watching WoW pretty closely these days and at least with EQ2 they have shown competance and flexiblity with the wealth of features, fixes and content released since the game was released.

I think they are limiting PvP to consensual because EQ has never been about PvP. To some extent they have to cater to the their strong PvE fanbase while introducing features that will be appealing to all kinds of players.

[Malathor]

I think they are limiting PvP to consensual because EQ has never been about PvP. To some extent they have to cater to the their strong PvE fanbase while introducing features that will be appealing to all kinds of players.

You are stating this in a very kind fashion. The not-so-kind way of stating it is that EQ, in every iteration, has always treated PvP and the PvP community with a mixture of indifference and contempt. Now that the numbers from WoW, particularly the numbers choosing PvP servers when they add virtually nothing to that game except random ganking, have them doubting their long-held misconception that PvP in MMORPGs was nothing but a small niche market. This realization comes far too late. The people that care have long since made their choice, and "patching in PvP" in any meaningful sense is a recipe for disaster.

[John Reynolds]

The people that care have long since made their choice, and "patching in PvP" in any meaningful sense is a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, they're playing DAoC.

[Myth]

This realization comes far too late. The people that care have long since made their choice, and "patching in PvP" in any meaningful sense is a recipe for disaster.

Far to late for what? Yes, WoW is a great game, and is a runaway success. We all know this. Are you suggesting that other games just roll over and die? Are you suggesting that the people who have "since made their choice" will play WoW indefinately and won't give other games a second look, or try new games?

People like to hang to to the idea that Sony gives bad customer service, does not listen to its customers, is not flexible, and that their patches, expansions etc cause more problems that they fix. While at some point in time this may have been true to some extent, everything that has happened with the development of live EQ2 since November has put these objectons to rest. Any comments perpetrating this myth are pure fallacy.

The actions of the EQ2 live team since launch and Sony's obvious desire to improve and refine as well as to capture some of the growing MMORG market brought on by the "unexpected" mass market appeal of WoW really underscore my beleif that the upcoming expansion for EQ2 will be a killer app. I am excited to see what they have in mind for the PvP aspect of it and hopeful that it will be as engaging as the "Battlegrounds are purported to be. Open and pointless PvP is just that...ultimately becomes a gankfest as you stated. Will it take people from WoW remains to be seen. But this is hardly the point. The point is that competition is great for the industry, will keep live teams constantly busy and on their game.

The ultimate winner will be the consumer.

[John Reynolds]

The actions of the EQ2 live team since launch and Sony's obvious desire to improve and refine as well as to capture some of the growing MMORG market brought on by the "unexpected" mass market appeal of WoW really underscore my beleif that the upcoming expansion for EQ2 will be a killer app. I am excited to see what they have in mind for the PvP aspect of it and hopeful that it will be as engaging as the "Battlegrounds are purported to be. Open and pointless PvP is just that...ultimately becomes a gankfest as you stated. Will it take people from WoW remains to be seen. But this is hardly the point. The point is that competition is great for the industry, will keep live teams constantly busy and on their game.

The ultimate winner will be the consumer.

Couldn't agree more. And the gaming press is really starting to annoy me with their WoW fanboy attitude. The recent CGW has a ode to the game from Jeff Green, followed several pages later by a piece subtitled "SOE Sorry" that does nothing but rip on the company.

[Matthew Gallant]

Don't blame the gaming press, blame SOE. They should have made a better game.

[SpoofyChop]

Don't blame the gaming press, blame SOE. They should have made a better game.

Whatever dude. EQ2 is a lot of fun.

:roll:

[Myth]

"SOE Sorry" that does nothing but rip on the company.

:roll:

Jeff Green gushing over WoW, I have no problem with, he writes an editorial piece afterall. But that is pretty lame.

I'll have to drop by the local newstand to read that at some point. This type of "journalism" is the main reason I stopped buying print mags. Although I would imagine there is some financial motivation to appeal to the pimply faced tween massess.

Care to share some of the bullets of the article. I am reluctant to risk ejection from my local newstand for violating the "no reading rule".

[Mark Asher]

PvP in EQ2 sounds good. Once this expanion comes out that may be when I jump in and try the game finally.

[Malathor]

This realization comes far too late. The people that care have long since made their choice, and "patching in PvP" in any meaningful sense is a recipe for disaster.

Far to late for what? Yes, WoW is a great game, and is a runaway success. We all know this. Are you suggesting that other games just roll over and die? Are you suggesting that the people who have "since made their choice" will play WoW indefinately and won't give other games a second look, or try new games?

I'm saying that for PvP to work in a MMORPG it simply has to be part of the design from the start. Even then balancing combat mechanics for both PvP and PvE is an agonizingly difficult task. It's not something you can just patch in and expect it to be competitive with established MMORPGs like DAoC and WoW that have incorporated PvP from the start. For that reason it is far too late for EQ2 to cater to PvPers. They would be better off allocating their dev resources towards making the best PvE game that they can, instead of hoping that they can lure people that want a PvP MMORPG away from WoW.

And yes, EQ 1/2 burned its bridges with the PvP community long ago and for a host of reasons. MMORPG players have long memories, and are not known for giving games second chances.

[Myth]

I'm saying that for PvP to work in a MMORPG it simply has to be part of the design from the start. Even then balancing combat mechanics for both PvP and PvE is an agonizingly difficult task.

Oh okay, I see your point. I do think though, WoW will encounter the same difficulties incorporating the "Battlegrounds" and perhaps its delay is indicative of that challenge, as PvP in WoW is not exactly what you call balanced (Horde vs Alliance numbers discrepancies, high levels ganking low levels, etc).

I am still hopeful that the PvP in EQ2 will be much more than an afterthought.

[Gary Whitta]

And yes, EQ 1/2 burned its bridges with the PvP community long ago and for a host of reasons. MMORPG players have long memories, and are not known for giving games second chances.
I think that's true. The guild I'm in on WoW was formerly a hard-core, long-established EverQuest guild which made a group decision to give Sony the boot and switch over to WoW rather than evolve into EverQuest 2, which to an outsider who knew nothing about MMOs would seem like the natural, obvious choice.

But when I ask my guildies why they chose WoW over EQ2, they all said they were sick of the many flaws in the game and particularly what they felt was a "fuck the consumer" attitude from SOE.

[Rywill]

Oh okay, I see your point. I do think though, WoW will encounter the same difficulties incorporating the "Battlegrounds" and perhaps its delay is indicative of that challenge, as PvP in WoW is not exactly what you call balanced (Horde vs Alliance numbers discrepancies, high levels ganking low levels, etc).
I'm not sure they will. WoW's PvP is already well-balanced for small groups, IMO. EQ2 has no experience with balancing PvP at all. For example, the two problems you cite with WoW's PvP are both things that will be automatically resolved in the battlegrounds (as I understand it, the BG will have even teams, and will be only for high-level players--lower level BGs, similar to the lower-level PvP battlegrounds in DAOC, will come later).

[John Reynolds]

:roll:

Jeff Green gushing over WoW, I have no problem with, he writes an editorial piece afterall. But that is pretty lame.

Jeff's piece is simply the adventures of his gnome toon. Nothing wrong with that. It just struck me how this piece is followed 4 pages later by such a negative page.


I'll have to drop by the local newstand to read that at some point. This type of "journalism" is the main reason I stopped buying print mags. Although I would imagine there is some financial motivation to appeal to the pimply faced tween massess.

Care to share some of the bullets of the article. I am reluctant to risk ejection from my local newstand for violating the "no reading rule".

I'm at work right now, but I'll post again later tonight.

[Euri]

But when I ask my guildies why they chose WoW over EQ2, they all said they were sick of the many flaws in the game and particularly what they felt was a "fuck the consumer" attitude from SOE.

Ironic, because it is Blizzard that now has this attitude, and not SOE.

[Gary Whitta]

But when I ask my guildies why they chose WoW over EQ2, they all said they were sick of the many flaws in the game and particularly what they felt was a "fuck the consumer" attitude from SOE.

Ironic, because it is Blizzard that now has this attitude, and not SOE.
Perhaps, but the attitude among my guild is that Blizzard would still have to do a LOT more to piss them off as much as SOE managed to.

[GuildBoss]

And yes, EQ 1/2 burned its bridges with the PvP community long ago and for a host of reasons. MMORPG players have long memories, and are not known for giving games second chances.

I actually had a blast on EQ's "alignment wars" server. I would give EQ2 PvP a chance *if* they did something like that (full PvP server) but it doesn't sound like that's what the devs/SOE has in mind. They seem to be targetting the new breed of "softcore" PvP'ers; PvE'ers that want to have some control over their PvP encounters, ie the variables "who, what, when, where, and how".

[VegasRobb]

And yes, EQ 1/2 burned its bridges with the PvP community long ago and for a host of reasons. MMORPG players have long memories, and are not known for giving games second chances.

I actually had a blast on EQ's "alignment wars" server. I would give EQ2 PvP a chance *if* they did something like that (full PvP server) but it doesn't sound like that's what the devs/SOE has in mind. They seem to be targetting the new breed of "softcore" PvP'ers; PvE'ers that want to have some control over their PvP encounters, ie the variables "who, what, when, where, and how".

Sullon Zek was quite a bit of fun. It brought together some of the crustiest and most bitter players in the MMO world and just set them loose. Just ruthless unforgiving people. Lots of people came in, thinking they could make their mark ... but so many were broken off. Big time roleplaying guilds would show up, piss off the wrong people and end up PvPed to non-existance. Imagine WoW with no safe zones and level 60 Alliance just hanging out in the Barrens and Mulgore blowing up newbies until they stopped logging on or changed sides.

I remember leveling up in Oasis almost exclusively in the water. It was too risky to try and fight on land.

[Backov]

I was on Tallon (Vallon?) Zek during the time it was the Race Wars server.. I was on the side of the Shorties..

There was quite a stretch of time where I leveled my Gnome Enchanter in Oasis.. I did it with the Illusion: Dark Elf spell on constantly.

I was duoed with a friend of mine, he was a Gnome Mage.. We would constantly hunt newb elves in the Gaydark.. Lots of fun. I would be disguised as a high elf and we would hide in the bushes and whack passers-by. Awesome to listen to the (half-understood) global chat in Elven complaining that Grungy and Grimy are ganking.

Ah, my most fun PVP ever.

[Rywill]

Yeah, I played EQ1 on Rallos Zek, which was a FFA PvP server. It was crazy. But really a lot of fun, always having to look over your shoulder when fighting, etc. It definitely prepares you for something like WoW.

[Igor Muravyev]

I never could understand why more MMOs didn't go the route of Lineage's II pvp-all-the-time-anywhere. This only serves to reinforce my belief that MMORPGs should be called MMOG(rinding)G(ame) -- what's the point if you can't role play a griefer? That's exactly why there needs to be in-game laws to discourage that, just like in real life you go to jail if you did that to someone and got caught.

[mouselock]

I never could understand why more MMOs didn't go the route of Lineage's II pvp-all-the-time-anywhere. This only serves to reinforce my belief that MMORPGs should be called MMOG(rinding)G(ame) -- what's the point if you can't role play a griefer? That's exactly why there needs to be in-game laws to discourage that, just like in real life you go to jail if you did that to someone and got caught.

Yeah.. then we just need to levy a 15% income tax against all MMO players so we can support the online upkeep and enforcement branch of the law without resorting to player self-enforcement which, when it happens in real life, leads to corruption and graft (moreso than happens with publically supported officials, at any rate).

While I like the idea of player policed societies, there's not a whole lot of indication that literal (plebian) self-policing can work whatsoever. And I can't see any way without upping the monthly rate of having any chance of non plebian enforcement.

[Igor Muravyev]

It used to be $10 monthly, but now they charge $12.95? Plus $50 for the initial game itself.

It is possible to get more subscribers than before (as WoW has proven), and with their economies of scale, their profits are higher than before. I do not see why non-plebeian enforcement is not viable, after all, there is certainly enough money to go around.

They could of course have thought of programming a full player-run government such as a constitutional monarchy (the players could be the law-makers and the enforcers, and the royalty the NPCs), then the potential corruption would be no worse than in real life.

Yes, the people elected may be prone to abusing their power, but then they will be replaced with someone who won't. It will be much easier to spot this abuse, where everything is tracked, than in the real world.

So I think it is possible, I just wait for the devs to implement it to make a better MMO experience for all.

[RedTide]

I actually like that idea, though there has to be some NPC's to keep control. Mass voting maybe? Gotta love democracy.

[mouselock]

It used to be $10 monthly, but now they charge $12.95? Plus $50 for the initial game itself.

It is possible to get more subscribers than before (as WoW has proven), and with their economies of scale, their profits are higher than before. I do not see why non-plebeian enforcement is not viable, after all, there is certainly enough money to go around.


But enforcement costs are extensive. If it costs x% to get 1 enforcer per Y people, there's no way to grow population so that you don't have to levy that x%, because the number of enforcers you need scales linearly (at best!) with the number of subscribers. So what you're arguing is that they already make enough money that they ought to be willing to hire enough people to enforce player run laws (assuming they can arbitrarily make the program structure support it as efficiently as possible). Since there's currently 0% support for it and rates are as they are, I don't think that's really a viable idea. (If nothing else, they want to continue making the exact same profit they are now, and there's literally no way that adding player run laws would increase their percentage profits. So the best they can hope for is to increase absolute profits, which comes down to "Do more people care about player run societies or cool new shit")



They could of course have thought of programming a full player-run government such as a constitutional monarchy (the players could be the law-makers and the enforcers, and the royalty the NPCs), then the potential corruption would be no worse than in real life.


Pretty untrue. In real life you at least have to marginally worry about, having really, really, really fucked things over, some guy in the back row gunning you down because his life is worthless now. In a game, there isn't that much emotional investment or attached jeopardy, and all message-board drama aside, I think the fear of real, material, important loss drives a huge swathe of social institutions at a base level. (i.e. you either cement power by absolute fear or relative good will; the cases we're talking about are the former, but there's simply no real "fear" involved in an online game, and there's a huge related chunk of power you can therefore no longer exert, for good or ill)



Yes, the people elected may be prone to abusing their power, but then they will be replaced with someone who won't. It will be much easier to spot this abuse, where everything is tracked, than in the real world.


Or, alternatively, there will just be enough indifference, apathy, and exploitation that the people who actually want a fun game can never get into power in the first place. Because, you know, if 30% of the playerbase is corrupt, 40% just can't be bothered, and the other 30% is screwed, it's not exactly like that other 30% can stage a violent coup after years of oppression. There are just mechanisms missing from virtual worlds for self-correction that are present in the real one. Now maybe this keeps things on an even keel for a while, I don't know*, but ultimately when they start to tip out of balance there's the potential for them to fall out completely and wholly irrevocably.

(*But I suspect things are less balanced online, because I've seen plenty of people who have a far easier time being an asshole with the relative anonymity of the internet, and it's far easier to abuse power than it is to wield it completely responsibly.)



So I think it is possible, I just wait for the devs to implement it to make a better MMO experience for all.

I used to think it was possible. Now I don't. You need some higher arbiter of power, and either a system so labyrinthine (a la real world representational governments) or incorruptible (a la fantasy land) that you always have a recourse. I don't think MMOs are big enough (or people are invested enough) for the former.

[Igor Muravyev]

But enforcement costs are extensive. If it costs x% to get 1 enforcer per Y people, there's no way to grow population so that you don't have to levy that x%, because the number of enforcers you need scales linearly (at best!) with the number of subscribers. So what you're arguing is that they already make enough money that they ought to be willing to hire enough people to enforce player run laws (assuming they can arbitrarily make the program structure support it as efficiently as possible).
They already have GMs, do they not? They can hire more, and while this won't fix all problems, it'll be one step in the right direction. Of course a plebeian enforcement system may be cheaper (if it can be implemented correctly) and be preferred by the people.



So the best they can hope for is to increase absolute profits, which comes down to "Do more people care about player run societies or cool new shit")
Well they are already doing that. In fact, their "profit per player" is undoubtedly growing too, as the more players per server they can pack in, the less their marginal costs.


I think the fear of real, material, important loss drives a huge swathe of social institutions at a base level. (i.e. you either cement power by absolute fear or relative good will; the cases we're talking about are the former, but there's simply no real "fear" involved in an online game, and there's a huge related chunk of power you can therefore no longer exert, for good or ill) That seems to me highly debatable, MMOs are getting more and more real. Have you heard of the guy who stabbed someone else because his in-game sword was sold? Yeah, people definitely care more and more about their in-game :).



Because, you know, if 30% of the playerbase is corrupt, 40% just can't be bothered, and the other 30% is screwed, it's not exactly like that other 30% can stage a violent coup after years of oppression.
Happened in Soviet Russia, :). Worked for almost a century ;). Even if you think at the virtual side, it's usually the whiny minority that spam the forums that ends up convincing the devs to nerf X or Y, or to change feature Z. As long as that 30% is vocal, changes will happen.


There are just mechanisms missing from virtual worlds for self-correction that are present in the real one. Now maybe this keeps things on an even keel for a while, I don't know*, but ultimately when they start to tip out of balance there's the potential for them to fall out completely and wholly irrevocably.

You're right. It's up to the devs to figure out what they need to add ;).



I used to think it was possible. Now I don't. You need some higher arbiter of power, and either a system so labyrinthine (a la real world representational governments) or incorruptible (a la fantasy land) that you always have a recourse. I don't think MMOs are big enough (or people are invested enough) for the former.

I don't know about that. I firmly believe in power of the people. We, the people, overthrew the British, so why do we need a higher power to govern us? If everyone wants to have fun, it's in their best interest to grief less :). Only time will tell if this is possible or not.

[mouselock]

They already have GMs, do they not? They can hire more, and while this won't fix all problems, it'll be one step in the right direction. Of course a plebeian enforcement system may be cheaper (if it can be implemented correctly) and be preferred by the people.

They have enough in most games to "guarantee" maybe an 8 hour turnaround time on simple technical issues. Compare "Yep, our database says we deleted these items for you" to "Well, while I understand that he attacked your spawn, he says he has mitigating circumstances.. we have to listen to them and then I'll cogitate upon whether or not one of you was in the wrong and come up with an arbitration system that's consistent." Most legal systems work slowly and take tons of resources; I'm not getting why this would be any different (especially if we're trying to avoid dictatorial power traps).





Well they are already doing that. In fact, their "profit per player" is undoubtedly growing too, as the more players per server they can pack in, the less their marginal costs.

I'm not all that sure the majority of the marginal costs are intensive, really. Yeah, if you fit 5000 people on a server instead of 3000, you decrease your marginal costs. However, if WoW is any indication, it's not just as simple as that. Your hardware requirements grow extensively with players. The ongoing costs certainly do. The only marginal costs that are really minimized are the content creation costs, but then the question becomes "Do we err towards content creation or upkeep being more expensive", which leads us full circle. (Obviously, they want content creation to be the primary capital cost, because it's the most exploitable for increasing returns, since it's the only one-to-many model in the game.)




Happened in Soviet Russia, :). Worked for almost a century ;). Even if you think at the virtual side, it's usually the whiny minority that spam the forums that ends up convincing the devs to nerf X or Y, or to change feature Z. As long as that 30% is vocal, changes will happen.

Okay, maybe I should stipulate that I'm not paying $15/month to recreate a general feeling like Soviet Russia. ;) I think I could just pay some lady to kick me in the balls for $15/month and enjoy it more. :)



You're right. It's up to the devs to figure out what they need to add ;).


Well, part of it is perma-death (and all the crap that goes with that) along with perma-banning. You actually have to be able to remove people from your society. And the rest of it is the emotional linkage to have people not abuse that power en-masse because they really feel like they'd be losing something if they got perma-banned. The latter is the really, really tough part. (And where we pass from game into virtual reality in many senses of the word, IMO)



I don't know about that. I firmly believe in power of the people. We, the people, overthrew the British, so why do we need a higher power to govern us? If everyone wants to have fun, it's in their best interest to grief less :). Only time will tell if this is possible or not.

We have a "higher" power to govern us; it's ourselves. And it works because, in aggregate, despite all the bickering and whatnot, we all have core common beliefs that have evolved culturally over hundreds of years. It's why most stable countries remain stable. The problem is:

a) How do you get (and what is) a critical mass for such things in an artificial reality?

b) How do you get enough investment into the artificial reality to make people undergo the hard parts of making it work. If I want to keep living, I have to remain plugged into real life. I have to be a productive member of society (or risk the consequences) to continue to eat. In an online game, if stuff got as hard as it has in real life, the first thing I'd do is say "fuck it, I'm not paying for this any longer" and withdraw my $15/month. I really, really think you're underestimating how fundamental of a difference this is. The threshold to commit suicide (or even just become a social hermit) is far, far higher than turning off one's computer. I am, effectively, forced to be part of society to a far greater extent than I am forced to play an MMO, and this means I care a lot more about how society works and whether I'm doing my part in it. Other people care more or less relative to me, but I see very, very few people for whom that transfers over innately into MMOs, and many of those folks to date (myself included) have been "broken" in a variety of ways to affect that transferance in the first place.

[Brian Koontz]

I don't think player run government and laws is problematic at all. For starters, it works *with* the coding... the game should be malleable in its physicality. So a player-run town could have the gates closed and newcomers have to pass the guards to get in or have open gates and no gate guards. NPCs should be "realistic" and able to be hired or hired AWAY from one city to go to another. NPCs are sad nothing shells in WoW right now... they are an embarrassment to AI.

The idea of arbitrary laws made up and enforced by the players with no necessary relation to the game mechanics IS silly.

The laws would have logical effect, such that the laws create a kind of reality. An "open gate" policy would promote fast city access, easier trade, etc. at a cost of a higher crime rate and more spying.

The greater the range of law possibilities, the more deviation there would be in the player-run environments. The issue would not so much be "assholes in power" as "poor lawmakers are weeded out of power", due to their declining environments. If an idiot lawmaker was ruining YOUR town, you'd either vote him out or kill him out. If you couldn't do either, you can always leave.

WoW is a game created by developers. There is no sense of player creation in the game. When will we see a VSOG created by players?

[Enidigm]

WoW is a game created by developers. There is no sense of player creation in the game. When will we see a VSOG created by players?

I don't think this is possible in a mmorpg, it is far easier in a single player game. Basically the more control you give players the more they will try to fuck things up; not in just passing bad laws, but stupid things like piling heavy furniture up near entrances, trapping the inhabitants, or burning eachothers houses down, or something else equally self destructive. Even if only 2% of players engage in 'self destructive' behavior it would wreck the game; imagine walking around town in real life and 1 out of 50 people are running around shooting and knifing people at random. Society wouldn't last very long. And in a game, even if you killed the offenders they could just 'respawn' and not be dead for good, and so unless you created a "karma" system, you couldn't really punish them meaningfully and just hope they get bored and go away. Players driven content, really and truly driven by player activities, in a combat oriented MMORPG, is going to be akin to barbarism and anarchy. You can get away with it in some non-competitive game however.

The only way is to give players alot of *limited* control but disguise or hide the really meaningful abilities to the preserve of either the AI, GM, or some higher power.

edit: and what is a VSOG again?

[Brian Koontz]

I don't think this is possible in a mmorpg, it is far easier in a single player game. Basically the more control you give players the more they will try to fuck things up; not in just passing bad laws, but stupid things like piling heavy furniture up near entrances, trapping the inhabitants, or burning eachothers houses down, or something else equally self destructive. Even if only 2% of players engage in 'self destructive' behavior it would wreck the game; imagine walking around town in real life and 1 out of 50 people are running around shooting and knifing people at random. Society wouldn't last very long. And in a game, even if you killed the offenders they could just 'respawn' and not be dead for good, and so unless you created a "karma" system, you couldn't really punish them meaningfully and just hope they get bored and go away. Players driven content, really and truly driven by player activities, in a combat oriented MMORPG, is going to be akin to barbarism and anarchy. You can get away with it in some non-competitive game however.

Certainly if the main form of expression in a game is killing, that's ALWAYS going to be used regardless of the meaning involved or the effect. A Banker banks, and the Marauding Berserker found in today's VSOGs maraudingly berserks. Not because he *necessarily* wants to, but because that's what the game allows and encourages through its design.


edit: and what is a VSOG again?

Village-Sized Online Game: Its part of a game categorical structure based on the number of players per gameworld. It avoids the situation 15 years down the road when there are 30,000 to 60,000 players per gameworld and they laugh at the stupid humans who called their 2,000 player game "Massively Multiplayer". It also avoids those same humans struggling with the limitations of the English language in trying to *compare* their game with a 2,000 player one that is "Massive".

I'm tired of saying the same old stuff on this subject, so I'll say something new.

D&D is all about the combat. Some exploration, sure, some loot, some XP, some levelling (and then the player side of it). But combat lies at its heart.

You could say that D&D is mythologized medieval times with all the boring and painful stuff taken out.

Some MUDs broke the mold, but by and large MUDs are D&D put into computer form (with the DM removed/abstracted).

Not many were complaining back then because it was new and exciting. I don't even recall the term "grind" used, even though MUDs are as much a grind as the current graphical ones.

The problem, the big problem, the mammoth problem, certainly the *massive* problem is that even MUDs, even D&D, and certainly the VSOGs of today, are *alternate realities*. That is what the future holds for VSOGs, and digital reality in general. They are not escapes, not diversions, finally not even entertainment (or at least what most of you think by the term). They are the infinite new frontiers, the places of exploration, of relearning, of renewal and finally of integration with and mutual improvement between themselves and traditional reality.

ANYTHING can be done with alternate reality. Its whatever humans want to explore, whatever they want to learn.

Exciting things could be happening right now in digital reality. Culture OUTSIDE Digital Reality seems to be getting the picture. Check out the splintering of culture, the organic growth of language.

For some reason digital reality is lagging behind. In culture the entertainment value lies IN the process of cultural splintering and newness. Some zany new grammar by South Park, an encompassing suffix by Snoop Dogg. Most of that stuff isn't impressive, but it shows they're on the right track. They are playing in the right ballpark.

The problem as I am coming to understand it is that Game Developers and Players alike see Fun as some kind of abstraction seperated from any reality. So Games can be "Fun" for any particular reason or no reason, while Culture is "Fun" only if it proceeds along a logical line. Therefore culture DOES proceed along a logical line and Games go nowhere because Fun is not put under any constraints.

Gamers and Game Developers alike continue to think of games as mindless entertainment, as a DIVERSION from reality, as an ESCAPE from reality. They keep defining games as something APART from reality instead of something that *creates* reality. Until *that* is changed... until games are appreciated as a form of culture, and in fact a MORE powerful form of culture than anything South Park or Snoop Dogg has access to, VSOGs will not take their rightful place, will not gain their cock and balls.

[Kalle]

edit: and what is a VSOG again?

An arbitrary term Koontz has made up all on his own, which no one else cares about.

[mouselock]

I don't think player run government and laws is problematic at all. For starters, it works *with* the coding... the game should be malleable in its physicality. So a player-run town could have the gates closed and newcomers have to pass the guards to get in or have open gates and no gate guards. NPCs should be "realistic" and able to be hired or hired AWAY from one city to go to another. NPCs are sad nothing shells in WoW right now... they are an embarrassment to AI.


But this is "player run" in the SWG sense, where they're arbitrary things that really don't affect the game. What I'm talking about (and what I thought Igor was as well) was player moderated societies, which is vastly different and pretty impractical. And also, I would argue, the model you need for self-moderation of something like PvP.

I've seen actual player moderation principles work in MU*s, but there it's always about small numbers of highly motivated players who self-select to remain a small number of highly motivated players. MMOs don't seem to have a whole lot in common with that, socially, to me.



The laws would have logical effect, such that the laws create a kind of reality. An "open gate" policy would promote fast city access, easier trade, etc. at a cost of a higher crime rate and more spying.

Again, you're positing games that are radically and wholly different from what MMOs are. ATitD seems to be more in line, and interesting, from this perspective. But note even there, where it's in line with your viewpoint, the laws tend to not be large, blanketing things but rather small, punitive retributive things. Building a community of any type is hard, and no amount of game coding is going to remove the fundamental difficulty of needing many likeminded people to come together and work at it, including one of the hardest skills for humans to master in any situation: Competent conflict resolution.

There's just so much offloading onto the player's shoulders to do this type of stuff, and generally only the most motivated, most dedicated player who really, really wants to see what his limits are will invest the time and energy necessary in order to pursue these paths. If you thought catassing was bad when all you had to do was mechanistically push buttons, wait until you have to manage a quorum of 100 votes to get the societal change you really want passed.



The greater the range of law possibilities, the more deviation there would be in the player-run environments. The issue would not so much be "assholes in power" as "poor lawmakers are weeded out of power", due to their declining environments. If an idiot lawmaker was ruining YOUR town, you'd either vote him out or kill him out. If you couldn't do either, you can always leave.

The problem is you can't "kill them" in a meaningful way, and "leaving" isn't a viable option for actually building a society. All it does is push from organization to chaos if the barriers to leave are too low. I know the model you have in mind is "leave and find some place that suits you better" but the problem is everyone has some level of beef with everything out there, but unlike real life, when you're paying $x/month there's far more expectation that you should have zero problems with anything, because you're paying for a product, and if it's consistently and persistently problematic, why the hell do you keep paying for it?

Although an interesting idea would be a society oriented MMO where the longer you've been part of a stable society, the less you pay. That would at least provide some type of impetus to "work things out". Might push towards apathy instead ("Yeah, it sucks, but I'm not going to do anything about it because I don't want to go back to paying $15/month.")

[Brian Koontz]

The greater the range of law possibilities, the more deviation there would be in the player-run environments. The issue would not so much be "assholes in power" as "poor lawmakers are weeded out of power", due to their declining environments. If an idiot lawmaker was ruining YOUR town, you'd either vote him out or kill him out. If you couldn't do either, you can always leave.

The problem is you can't "kill them" in a meaningful way, and "leaving" isn't a viable option for actually building a society.

How is it not? Bear in mind this VSOG will not be a single society, but many small societies that interact with each other through war, exploration, and commerce. If you're in a bad city you can just move to the next one (which may or may not be any better). And one way or another, there would be an avenue of ousting the governing body.


All it does is push from organization to chaos if the barriers to leave are too low. I know the model you have in mind is "leave and find some place that suits you better" but the problem is everyone has some level of beef with everything out there, but unlike real life, when you're paying $x/month there's far more expectation that you should have zero problems with anything, because you're paying for a product, and if it's consistently and persistently problematic, why the hell do you keep paying for it?

I don't understand your point. Everyone has some beef with every game they ever play... it doesn't mean we don't play any game. I guess what you are saying is that the developers are a single unified body and thus if THEY are the law the law will be easy to understand, and at least the problems will be consistent and "across the board". Throw players into the governing mix and its relatively chaotic.

I agree, but I don't see that as a problem. It adds a lot of value to the game for players to have control over the game they're playing. Right now players have to petition Blizzard for a change and obviously that's not very effective. In the kind of game I'm talking about the players could simply gain control of a city or fort or something and try out the laws that Blizzard would spend .1 seconds in ignoring.

The whole process would be a lot more effective, more vibrant, more organic, more varied. Decentralization of power.

Blizzard may not state it directly, but its still a matter of "You're in OUR world now", the EverQuest slogan. "You're in YOUR world now" has not yet been executed (Second Life comes closest).